5/31100 Tribal Consultation Meeting Regarding the NPDES Statewide Seafood GP 

Present in Anchorage 

Tom Evans Nanwalek, SK 

Violet Yeaton PO Box 5568 Port Graham AK 99603 

Christine Celetano Chugachmiut Anchorage AK 99508 

Louie Jones Ekuk Village Council 

Kate Williams Native Village ofEyak Cordova 

Judy Kitigawa ADEC 

Jean Gamache EPA 0- Alaska 

Martha Barber EPA - Alaska 

Burney Hill EPA -Seattle 

Florence Carroll EPA -Seattle 

Via Phone: 

Emily Briggs Clark's Point 

Sue Rensburg BBNA 

Wayne Wilson Kenaitze 

Doug Cole EPA 100 

Scott Sufficool RIO EPA 

Jean Gamache welcomed all present and thanked them for taking the time participate in the days 

consideration and help EPA and tribes come closer to determining how tribes can best formally 

submit the full weight of their influence in the government process in this case as it pertains to 

the proposed NPDES general permit for seafood processors in Alaska. 

The EPA Region 10 Tribal Office has developed some consultation principles. 

Each office within EPA has a very different set of circumstances and each office also has the 

responsibility for developing a consultation process pertaining to the accomplishment of its 

particular mission. This is something that is just starting to happen at the regional level. 

Burney Hill mentioned that he had some experience working with the Nez Perz tribe in Idaho 

regarding fisheries issues. He had observed that even with a large department the tribe had a 

difficult time being heard. But tribal resolutions, letters from the chairman's office, resolutions 

from the full executive committee had weight of law and carried greater impact that voice of 

single individuals. 

It was acknowledged that EPA is new at this tribal consultation process and in a learning mode. 

However it was encouraged that the tribal concerns come· in the form of a letter or resolution 

that is undeniably the opinion of the tribe. 

It was noted that in Dillingham there are three major fish canneries. A question was raised 

whether the concerned tribes were notified when these facilities are applying for a permit. 
, 

The process is basically evolving with the tribal consultation being one part of larger process. 

There is a need to determine what EPA needs for a formal evidence of opinion of the tribe. 

There are times when comments have been taken verbally. 

It was noted that there is a downside of informality especially if the comment is critical of or " 

rubs shoulders with" what is being proposed. If that is the case comment would be more 

effective if it were more formal. 

It was reiterated that each EPA office needs to determine its consultation parameters and develop 

mechanism for form of consultation that meets its needs, e.g., degree of formality. The EPA 

Tribal office comes up with the general principles. 

Sue Fiensberg in Dillingham referred to the EPA Tribal Office Draft Guiding Principles and 

asked whether these principles apply to all parts and offices within EPA. 

Jean Gamache replied that the EPA Tribal Office in consultation with tribes came up with 

overarching principles for entire region. Each office then has the responsibility to develop 

consultation procedures that works for it. This may be part of larger consultation procedure for 

that office. 

Sue asked if this would occur prior to the public participation process? 

Jean responded that it is appropriate for tribes to be involved at decision-making points along the 

way. 

Florence Carroll acknowledged that in the current case with the NPDES Statewide General 

Permit for Seafood Processors reissuance they had been pulled into tribal consultation a little bit 

down the road. This will be the fourth issuance of this permit. EPA has been used to a 

particular formal process. Some decisions have already been made, not all of them. Some 

things are already set. She expressed a need to know concerns from the tribal groups so they 

can be taken into account along with endangered species, etc. The question is how can EPA 

respond within the constraints of guidelines it has in place. 

Jean noted that each office of EPA is at a different stage in the process and sai.d that she was glad 

that those present were making this effort at consultation and expressed the hope that from this 

day forward the Office of Water makes sure tribes have opportunity for input before decisions 

are made. 

Louie Jones of Ekuk expressed his concern that each cannery is allowed 8 million pounds of 

waste under the permit and asked how this is regulated. 

Florence explained that this limit had been upped to 10 million. Compliance with this 

requirement is tracked via the annual reports submitted by the companies. The cannery keeps 

track in terms of pounds of raw product in and pounds of processed product out. 

Louis asked if there was a history of pollution of the waters because of fish waste? 

. . ." 
Burney Hill of EPA replied that the Clean Water Act relies on the honesty of the pennittees in 

much the same way that traffic control relies on the -honesty of the drivers. There is a certain 

amount of trust that drivers will obey the rules and there are policemen who punish those who 

don't. EPA doesn't have many "policemen" or inspectors to put in the field to check up on 

what processors are doing out there. One of the requirements is that the processors self-monitor 

and report back to EPA yearly. It would be very difficult to measure what comes out the pipe 

but they do know how much they buy and how much they sell. The difference is waste. In 

addition the Alaska Sea Grant program puts out pamphlet of amount of waste created for 

different species for different processes. Also, there are requirements for certain facilities to 

perform dive surveys. 

Scott SufficOQI mentioned he heard the limit had been raised. How did we base the 

contaminant risk on the watershed? Has the tribal community been consulted. 

Burney replied that NPDES permits that EPA writes are very similar in their components 

and tied back to the CW A. There are certain things we can do--limit what goes out the pipe; 

find out whether limits complies with terms for the pennit; testing, measuring, reporting. 

Pennittees always report to EPA and frequently to DEC. In addition pennittees must develop 

management practices that try to control, reduce amount of waste, keep sloppy mistakes from 

happening, use the right chemical in the right concentration at the right time. Management 

relationships are established between the site and government. The pennittee must allow 

inspection, tell if malfunction has occurred, in case of accident over which there is no control 

there is an allowance for fixing the problem quickly. The pennit also spells out consequences 

of breaking the law and fines that go along with it. If a company does something very wrong 

and EPA fine them in some cases some of the money may be applied towards fixing the problem. 

There are also requirements to comply with other laws. The State has the ability to review the 

pennit and concur and/or stipulate other requirements. 

There is currently only I person at the state level working on this. 

How can you cover the whole state with just one person? 

What about the increase of the limit from 8 million to 10 million. 

This has to do with modeling various waste discharge volumes and water currents. 

Wastes decompose, other things eat it, or it goes away at a certain rate. 

The lesser the current velocity the more waste is deposited. 

Questions were asked how much waste can you have under various conditions and cover certain 

areas. 

The State water quality standards have stated that there will be no residues (globs of fat, livers, 

foamy stuff, etc) in water surface, onshore, or on bottom. State can also can grant a variance. 

Question was asked where do you want to put what's left over? 

The State decided for seafood waste that 1 acre "Zone of Deposit" is acceptable impact. 

Models were run with measures for none, I, 2, acres. 

The results said you can discharge 12 million pounds for an acre. We wanted to be conservative 
and so subtracted some: started with 113, went to 1I6th which would be a more defensible 

position if we had to argue in court. Standard had been IIlOth. At the end of a decision much 

more talk happens. It was thought better go out to public notice with just ai/6th. 

What was the limit prior to this proposed permit? 

None, EPA many years ago developed industry specific technology based guidelines. The 

ones for seafood processing included screening waste with 1I4"mesh. EPA didn't look at the 

situation in Alaska when developing the guidelines. Seafood industry challenged guidelines 

said didn't apply to Alaska which had no roads costs it would cost a whole lot of money to ship 

the waste. Industry won with the result being that in Alaska most of the processors are required 

to only grind to 112" in any dimension prior to discharge because the waste starts going away 

more quickly if its in smaller parts. 

What do they do in the rest of the country? 

There are requirements outlining certain levels of pollution allowed. The waste discharge is 

monitored for things like dissolved oxygen content. Limits are set for biochemical oxygen 

demand and total suspended solids. EPA does apply pollution based limits in Kodiak, Alaska. 

There the processors screen the waste discharge to 114 inch and the rest goes to meal plant. 

A question was a.ked as to how many seafood processing facilities would not be covered under 

. the proposed statewide general permit? The response was: 12 Kodiak 9-10 Dutch Harbor 

Sand Point & King Cove Pribilofs. 

The situation around Naknek was discussed, especially around Clark's Point. What 

consideration is given in areas like that where processors are discharging in river basins rather 

than the ocean. There are 3 different river channels outside of Clarke's point. Several 

processors are located in the same river. 

When the accumulation of wastes gets to be where there is a problem in the local areas, there is a 

listing process State goes thru to acknowledge a certain waterbody is impaired and this initiates a 

different set of requirements. 

Judy Kitagawa explained that there is no sate sanctioned zone of deposit in fresh water rivers. 

Jean said that the part of the Naknek under discussion is tidally .influenced. She fishes there and 

has come up with a lot of dead carcasses in nets. 

Burney replied that this poses a challenge to Jean's use of the water and observed that a state 

water quality standard applies that says there is not supposed to be accumulation. 

Burney talked a little more about the history of the evolution of the general permit: The 

modeling effort had enabled establishment of limits on the bulk of seafood processors. Model 

runs for various situations; imagine worst case situations low current and low medium current 

different depths; different scenarios; and for boats. Most facilities small and medium sized. A 

• 
few facilities process pollock which yields 80% waste---not covered under the general permit. 

In the past addressed largest problems. We see a few problem areas in Ketchikan, Cordova, 

Seward now discharging year round sometimes with problems sometimes not--this permit trying 

to get at those problems limit discharge to I acre go to individual or reduce waste via a fish meal 

plant or some other means. Fish meal plants create odor problems and concentrated waste 

discharge with high biochemical oxygen demand. 

Sue: monitoring plan? How does processor determine that there is an amount of deposit> 1 

acre? What are the thresholds for frequency of monitoring, areal extent and depth? 

Monitoring required with greater frequency the closer to the acre the company gets. If water 

quality problems are being caused when piles burp then step in and try to get them to do 

something different with their waste. There is other technology coming down the road that 

may take care of some of the problem. 

Extent of problems vary for example when there is a good salmon year in Ketchikan there is a lot 

of waste and more likely to be a problem. There are other options and alternatives than just 

putting them on an individual permit. 

Sue asked in terms of visual representation of the piles who gets reports? Florence as part of the 

annual report. 

It was asked whether cumulative impacts were being looked at. Each may be technically in 

compliance but a concentration of technically compliant facilities could still have an adverse 

impact. 

Judy Kitagawa explained that permit does exclude areas that are listed for residues or dissolved 

gas. There is a major overhaul of the State's program going on. There will be no new list this 

year, rather in another in 2 years. Drew Grant at ADEC is the contact person. 

She referred to the list for residues and dissolved gas and noted Naknek not on impaired 

waterbodies list. It was observed that the area experiences 20 ft tides. 

Florence had said historically processors requested waivers from dive surveys due to hazardous 

diving conditions. Ray Dronenburg asked if it would be possible for them to used side scan 

sonar technology. 

Earlier permits had a bottom sampling requirement. Burney said he didn't it was reasonable to 

limit monitoring to the use of side scan when fishermen are coming up with waste in nets. 

Christine Celentano asked how it was possible to use a standard model for the whole of Alaska. 

It was observed that through this consultation process more likely to come up with things like 

this and EPA should invite tribes to come on board well before permit goes out. 
What happens once its on the list? 

Facilities located in waterbody on this list can't be covered under this permit. 

Listing can be used to apply for grants to express the problem. 

If not currently on list no way of getting on the list til 2002? 

Financial constraints no way for state to get out to the waterbody to assess the quality of the 

water. Kate Williams suggested another resource for EPA may be tribal unified watershed 

assessments in which the local tribe assesses the waterbodies. She displayed the tribal unified 

watershed assessment prepared for Orca Inlet. 

Judy Kitigawa explained a bit about the overall framework of the State's impaired waterbodies 

list which contains 4 tiers. 

How did EPA determine that the 25-35 facilities had to go after individual permits? Many were 

operating back in the 60's and 70's. EPA found football sized piles in the early 80s in parts of 

the Aleutians for example. It almost always starts with a citizens complaint, prompts some type 

of inspection, dive surveys. 

Doug Cole joined via phone and asked for clarification regarding the current proposed action. It 

was explained that the current action deals with the reissuance of a statewide general permit for 

seafood processors in Alaska which was first issued in 84' and subsequently reissued with 

modifications in '89 and '95. 

There is also a Kodiak General Permit which has different requirements than the statewide GP. 

Kodiak had burping waste piles in the '60s. 

Who determines that a waterbody is water quality impaired? How is this reported and recorded? 

Over the 5 year life of the permit various impaired waterbodies may be identified, assessed or 

recorded as a result of locals bringing the problem to the State's attention and the state 

investigating the situation and if it warranted listing it. EPA reviews the State's list and can 

modify before approving. 

Burney said this could result from a tribal initiative--for example the tribal water quality 

assessment bringing in data and showing there's a problem here. The information will be most 

useful if there is a systematic recording of data, number of instances, photos and/or videos with 

date & time imprinted. 

If a problem is reported will EPA try to go in and do an assessment? If a facility is impacting 

water quality there are means by which the company may end up funding the assessment. EPA 

tries to work with the company to solve the problem--win a lot more with honey than with stick. 

In cases where company "thumb's nose" EPA may then get punitive. 

It was asked whether the permit authorizes moving processors. Yes, definitely out to 3 miles, 
and pushing for 12. 

If get a waterbody listed on the 303(d), when is it officially listed can it be changed between 

official cycles? If waterbody gets listed where processors are currently covered under the GP 

will these processors then be excluded from coverage under the permit. 

It is hard to throw a facility out of the permit once they have been covered. The value of having 

the processor in the area must be considered and first EPA attempt to work with the processor to 

remedy the problem. 

Burney asked whether set net fisheries are of a limited season or occurring throughout the 

fishery. That depends on each fishery and when the state opens and closes it. He explained that 

he just wanted to know how big the conflict is. 

It was observed that there are an amazing number of facilities that are not grinding at all. 

Then there is the situation where waste discharge is impacting areas that used to be used for 

subsistence such Cordova. Kate Williams read from the permit some of the parameters of 

waterbodies excluded from coverage under the permit and noted that Orca Inlet meets many of 

the criteria for exclusion yet 4 seafood processors are located there and discharging under the 

general permit (average depth of 30 feet and an enclosed bay). 

Burney replied that the bay has some flushing and these provisions had not been in the permit 10 

years ago. The excluded waterbody parameter were included as a means to push waste 

discharges from new facilities outfalls further out where there would be adequate flushing. 

A waiver process was included for existing operations with a history of prior operation on site 

due to the prohibitive cost of relocation and have to retool an entire operation. 

Kate expressed her frustration at having 3 pages of comments and woefully inadequate time 

frame in which to attempt to express them. 

Burney told of an instance he remembers in which a tribe had a potlatch and came in with 

comments after public comment period closed and EPA accepted them. 

Florence explained that deadlines were stated as 6112 for public comment to EPA and 5/31 for 

Coastal Zone Management. Many of the things in the permit are set with little opportunity for 

maj or changes this far down the line. 

Jean asked whether EPA was telling the tribal representati\·es that it was a waste of time for the 

tribe to submit their comments. 

Florence said no, but she wanted them to know that there might not be opportunity for a 

complete overhaul at this point in time. 
Jean had observed the delay of permit issuance in other cases to ensure that adequate opportunity 

had been given for tribal consultation. 

Doug Cole asked whether there was a mechanism to allow specific tribes to take up specific 

issues with specific facilities and come up with individual arrangements as part of the tribal 

consultation process. Burney said that was a legal question he should take up with Rich 

McAllister. Doug observed this is new ground. 

Burney encouraged tribal representatives to write letters if they observe impacts to a beneficial · 

use of water and not be shy about bringing issues forward. 

Christine described an attitude she had experienced from EPA previously regarding the Cook 

Inlet Platform: the permit must go through--something is better than nothing. Tribal 

representatives wanted zero discharge comments did not affect the outcome. She also expressed 

a concern regarding the EPA Region 10 tribal consultation guiding principles which contain 

language such as if applicable and where practicable. The tribes understand EPA is operating 

under certain constraints but at the same time they want to be treated way they have been told 

they would be. Have invested time and travel dollars to participate. 

Present awkwardness is a reflection of the early stage of development of the EPA Office of 

Water tribal consultation process. 

Kate spoke of a case where years ago the natives had processed herring in Orca Inlet and herring 

oil had coated the beaches resulting in the loss of cockles and clams 

It was decided that there be a continuance meeting on Friday, June 2nd at 9:00 am with Florence. 

One present couldn't help but feel that this is just lip s'ervice to tribes--just doing cause somebody 

said it had to be done. 

Emily said she was reluctant to stop the processors-- if they don't qualify or lose permit --tribe 

loses main source of income. We should be able to complement each other. If start pulling 

permits away start pulling away people's livelihoods. 

Florence expressed her appreciation for that sentiment and assured Emily that EPA is not in the 

business of closing down companies. She said that there may be some new ways of looking at 

dealing with wastes which are not cost-prohibitive. 

Kate further discussed the situation in Orca Inlet and asked under what circumstances would 

EPA require individual permit? 

EPA said a couple of questions needed to be answered first such as would they get a permit 

within our lifetime; and, what would be different if they had one? 

The plan is to cover them initially and initiate an enforcement action. They would be covered 
under the permit and immediately noncompliant. There are provisions in the law to establish 

compliance schedules whereby the company must -initiate action over time to move toward 

compliance. 

The last time facilities were kicked out of the general permit, it was 2 years before EPA issued a 

new permit. 

6/2/00 Continuation of 

5131100 Tribal Consultation Meeting Regarding the NPDES Statewide Seafood GP 

Violet Yeaton PO Box 5568 Port Graham AK 99603 

Christine Celetano Chugachmiut Anchorage AK 99508 

Louie Jones Ekuk Village Council 

Kate Williams Native Village ofEyak Cordova 

Jean Gamache EPA - Alaska 

Martha Barber EPA - Alaska 

Florence Carroll EPA -Seattle 

Via Phone: 

Emily Briggs Clark's Point 

John Savo Naknek 

. Dan Abalama Egegik 

Judy Kitagawa ADEC 

Tribal representatives asked about access to records such as sea floor monitoring reports and 

annual reports, and if it would be possible to require that federally recognized tribes be notified 

of any violations. 

It was noted that the Tesoro refinery permit requires notification of tribes in certain instances. 

In yesterday's meeting industry asking if would get to see the comments made by the tribes. If 

this occurred it would tend to censure what tribes would say. 

There are regulations that require that public comment has to be responded to and the response 

made available with the permit. 

The question regarding tribal comments is new ground and requires researching what the case is. 

Historically all comments become part of the administrative record which must be made 

available to parties if the permit is challenged in court. 

A question was raised as to whether there was anything spelled out in tribal agreement regarding 

confidentiality in the government to government relationship. 

EPA responded that there would need to be research to see how similar situations have been 
handled in the lower 48. 

Also in enforcement actions when EPA receives a complaint about a facility someone from EPA 

or the State will go out check out a situation. If the EPA then makes a formal complaint against 

the facility, then the facility has the right to see all evidence. 

It was observed that in the tribal meeting there was no recording of the proceeding and no 

minutes in contrast to the very formal public hearing which was recorded and will be transcribed. 

This formality lends more value 'and weight to the proceedings. Any chance tribal consultation 

be made more like this? 

EPA responded that the public comment process has been shaped by litigation. The tribal 

consultation more informal now in this beginning. Whatever comments you submit will be 

responded to in writing. 

The Tesoro permit people sat around the table and talked and tribes never heard anything back . 

. EPA reiterated that written comment is the way to go. EPA will respond to written comment 

although every comment or suggestion may not be followed. 

It has seemed that during these discussions with tribal representatives more concerns were 

expressed regarding compliance than with how permit is written. 

There may also be concern with something specific to the permit. 

The whole process is squeezed down and extra time needs to be factored in. 

During workshop and hearing everyone heard strong testimony for more poundage, more 

acreage 

of waste deposit from industry. The ones affected try to change permit requirements. 

Tribes need the same opportunity. 

Someone asked if EPA had considered using AITC as a forum? Someone else expressed 

disagreement with things being handled on a statewide level or even a regional level. There is 

supposed to be a govemment to government relationship with tribes themselves. 

Consortia and corporations did not receive notices cause not federally recognized tribes. It 

might be appropriate to add them to the public notice mailing list. 

Tribes feel like own part of the industry cause they live here and should be able to say what 

want and don't want in reference to pollution. It has been a company owned economy. If the 

tribal council made a decision on the permit have some type of ownership on the industry. 

EPA reminded those present that there are many parts of the industry's impact that EPA is not 
regulating. The permit we are talking about regulates only waste solids and water. Quite often 

the impacts of the industry are more impactful than the waste discharge. 

The part of the permit that talks about Best Management Practices is a place that the set net issue 

may be able to be addressed. 

Regarding industry's comments., when EPA receive these comments it looks at what type of 

information is provided to support the request the industry is niaking. If the information is not 

sufficient then EPA is not necessarily going to change that permit. 

It was mentioned that the modeling was based on 2.5 to 3 foot high pile. 

Judy Kitagawa explained that necessity to cover whole range takes away some of the flexibility 

that can be applied with assessing conditions in a single location. 

Is it possible to build our awareness as to how this model works? Judy Kitagawa faxed several 

pages concerning the model to Anchorage, copies were made for those present and faxed to 

those on the phone. 

There was a comment that there had been complaints from 4 set netters on either side of the 

Woodbine Egegik plant. There is an eddy in river which spins the waste around. All they need 

to do to correct is to stick outfall pipe 50 to 100 feet further out into the channel. Some of the 

waste is not even chopped up. Concern was also expressed over making the problem known to 

the company due to confilict of interest, e.g. fishermen sell their catch to the plant. Herring is 

cuurently being processed without a problem showing up. 

There was a report of a beach cabin near Egegik with sewer pipe discharging right out on the 

beach and people having to walk through untreated sewage. 

EPA again encourage tribal representatives to submit comments in writing. 

Some discussion occurred around the subject of AMSAs (areas meriting special attention) 

designated as part of the Coastal Zone Management Program and subject to specific criteria. 

Port OrahamlNanwalek has an AMSA plan. When EPA is working with industry it should 

make industry aware it in an AMSA and needs to meet criteria of the plan. 

Currently 6 facilities covered by the OP are over 10 million pounds of solid seafood waste 

discharge; another 6 facilities are discharging between 8 and 10 million pounds. 

It was stressed that the situation with the sea otters in Cordova feeding off the waste pile merely 

feeding on an unnatural source is a violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

It was observed that a floating pollack processor, Northern Hawk, processes wastes into fish 

meal and fish oil. The question was raised as to why shorebased processors could not do the 

same. 
EPA answered that the making of fishmeal creates a whole different form of pollutant and 

animals are still attracted to the illscharge. There is-an additional problem in the case of small 

processors there is not enough fish waste to warrant building 10 million dollar plant. 

Just because its expensive is sufficient justification to rule out the possibility. Long-term 

sustainablility must be looked at. 

Some companies drag chains thru piles to attempt to disperse and aerate the wastes. 

Tribes are also looking at how to dispose of septage. 

Christine Celetano asked if is EPA working on a method of having an 800 calling capability so 

tribes don't have to sit here for 2.5 hours and pay for the call. EPA said they would continue to 

investigate this. 

Violet Yeaton spoke of the necessity to. summarize the main concerns so that there might be 

adequate follow-up on the part of EPA. 

She summarized concerns brought up that day as follows: 

I. Testimony 

There should be formal note taking and a response of some kind letter back to 

tribe in response to concerns. 

There should be some documentation showing that tribes did comment and were 

participating in decision making process but not giving specific as to what the 

concerns were. Many times see it printed in the Federal Register that tribes were 

contacted and there was no response. 

Tribes need to be assured as to the confidentiality of comments. 

2. Summary of reports back to tribes regarding permittees: 

Notices of Intent; Notices of Violation; annual reports; dive surveys; Best 

Management Practices Plans 

It was noted by EPA that the BMPs themselves are not submitted to EPA, rather the company 

certifies that they have developed the plan and it is maintained on site. In the case of large 

companies with multiple plants these may be company-wide plans and not specific to the 

individual facility. 

3. EPA should make an honest effort to engage in the government to government 

relationship 

The Executive Order specifies this in 3 different paragraphs. Tribes have a right 
to be involved early in decision maldng process in order to be able to provide 

meaningful and timely input and have that input considered by the agency. It is 

slap in the face to have a tribal consultation process I day prior to the public 

process. This is an insult to many tribes. In the future make an asserted effort to 

meet with tribes in a timely fashion so we can possibly impact the nature of the 

action being proposed. 

In EP As defense staff was not make aware had to do this until late in the game. EPA can't go 

out and meet with 227 tribes. Teleconferences are not effective. 

Someone on the phone said that this participating via phone in the current meeting had been 

effective. 

EPA noted that where Tribal representatives had comment on specific processors was fine but 

was not a comment on the proposed general permit. This one is a very difficult one to comment 

on. 

The observation was made that this process is a step in learing how to do effective consultation. 

Everyone's participation is critical to shaping how process may work in the future. The hope 

was expressed that the experience Florence and Burney have had during this time in Alaska will 

make an impact on how their office conducts the consultation process in the future. 

Discussion yielded other concerns: 

4. Lack of Continuity 

Tribal representatives commented that they had been working with Laurie Mann 

of EPA Seattle 3 years ago on how to develop a consultation process with tribes 

for Cook Inlet. Now she is gone and Florence is leaving. Doesn't do any good 

to go throught this unless process is documented in a way that survives staff 

changes. 

5. Lack of Tribal Consultation in Development of Tribal Consultation Process 

Laurie and tribal representatives tried to develop a protocol 3 years ago and it 

didn't fly. Now we have a framework developed by the EPA Tribal Office and 

each EPA program developing a consultation process for their program area. 

Tribes have been left out of the process of developing the process. A group of 

tribal folks could help EPA develop this process. 

The EPA Tribal Office has done series of workshops working with tribal governments; 

developed overarching consultation draft principles to be used as guidance by offices in 

developing their consultation procedures. There are things that can make a difference such as 

the kinds of comments that tribes have made here focused at the right levels within the agency. 

A multi-level effort is needed to encompass the range from Senior Management to staff people. 
It may be effective to send a letter to Chuck Clarke and Randy Smith with a copy to the 

American Indian Environmental Office. It has been -very frustrating for tribes to have a lack of 

continuity within the agency and for the tribes treated like children when they're the ones who 

know what's happening where they live. 

If a system for tribal consultation is in place within the agency it may survive staff change. One 

of the biggest goals is to get this institutionalized within the agency. " 

It would it be useful when you EPA does cross-cultural training process to have tribes from 

Alaska present or have people come and work in Alaska for 2 weeks or 2 months. Educate them 

regarding how complicated situation is here. It is difficult for someone to understand until he or 

she sees for self. 

The same is true for tribes. It has been useful through these sessIOns to understand the 

mechanisms of the agency and constraints staff are working under. 

EPA will continue involving tribal representatives in training. Last year at tribal leaders summit 

Father Oleksa did presentation and those attending came away with greater understanding of 

what some of the barriers to effective cross-cultural communication may be. 

Richard Porter from Yakutat on loan to EPA and working in the IGAP program. 

6. Basic environmental inspection training would be useful for tribes 

When USDA NRCS involved in selecting priority waterbodies said didn't have the resources for 

tribal consultation. This is not an adequate excuse for not doing it. 

.. . .