5/31100 Tribal ConsultationMeeting Regardingthe NPDES StatewideSeafood GP Present in Anchorage TomEvans Nanwalek, SK Violet Yeaton PO Box 5568 Port Graham AK 99603 Christine Celetano Chugachmiut Anchorage AK 99508 LouieJones Ekuk Village Council Kate Williams Native Village ofEyak Cordova Judy Kitigawa ADEC Jean Gamache EPA0- Alaska MarthaBarber EPA

- Alaska Burney Hill EPA -Seattle Florence Carroll EPA -Seattle Via Phone: EmilyBriggs Clark's Point SueRensburg BBNA WayneWilson 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 oftheir influence in the government process in this case as it pertains to the proposed NPDES general permitfor seafoodprocessors in Alaska. TheEPARegion 10Tribal 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 particularmission. This is something that isjust 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 alearning mode. However it was encouraged that the tribal concerns come·in the form of a letter or resolution that is undeniably the opinion ofthe 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 apermit.,

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 ofinformality 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 ifit were more formal. Itwas reiterated that eachEPA office needs to determineits consultationparameters and develop mechanism for form of consultation that meets its needs, e.g., degree offormality

. 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 whetherthese 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 oflargerconsultation procedure for that office. Sue asked ifthis would occurprior 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 ofthem. 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 ofguidelines it has in place. Jean noted that each office ofEPA 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 underthe 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 ofpounds ofraw product in and pounds ofprocessed product out. Louis asked ifthere was a history ofpollution ofthe waters because offish waste? 

## . 

# . ."Burney Hill ofEPA replied that the Clean Water Act relies on the honesty ofthe pennittees in much the same way that traffic control relies on the

- honesty ofthe 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 ofthe requirements is that the processors self-monitor and reportback 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 similarin their components and tied backto the CWA. There are certain things we can do--limit what goes out the pipe; find out whether limits complies withterms 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 ofwaste, 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 ofbreaking the law and fines that go along with it. Ifa company does something very wrong and EPAfine themin somecases some ofthe money may be applied towards fixing theproblem

. There are also requirements to comply with other laws. The State has the ability to review the pennit and concur and/or stipulate otherrequirements. There is currently only I person at the state level working on this. How can you coverthe whole state withjust oneperson? What about the increase ofthe limit from 8 million to 10 million. This has to do with modeling various waste discharge volumes and water currents

. Wastes decompose, otherthings eatit, orit 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 offat, livers, foamy stuff, etc) in water surface, onshore, oron 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 1acre "Zone ofDeposit" 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 conservativeand so subtracted some: started with 113, went to 1I6th which would be a more defensible position ifwe had to arguein court. Standard had been IIlOth. At the end ofa decision much more talk happens. Itwas thoughtbettergo out to public notice withjust ai/6th. Whatwas the limitpriorto this proposedpermit? 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 ofmoney to ship the waste

. Industry won with the resultbeing that in Alaska most ofthe processors are required to only grind to 112" in any dimension prior to discharge because the waste starts going away more quickly ifitsin smallerparts. What dothey do in the rest ofthe 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 andtotal suspended solids. EPA does apply pollution based limits in Kodiak, Alaska. There theprocessors screenthe 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

SandPoint & 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 locatedin the sameriver. When the accumulation ofwastes gets to be where there is a problem inthe local areas, there is a listingprocess State goes thru to acknowledge a certain waterbody is impaired and this initiates a different setofrequirements. Judy Kitagawaexplainedthat there is no sate sanctioned zone ofdeposit in fresh waterrivers. Jean said that the part ofthe Naknekunder discussion is tidally .influenced. She fishes there and has comeup with a lotofdead carcasses innets. 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 oflimits on the bulk ofseafood processors. Model runs for various situations; imagine worst case situations low current and low medium current differentdepths; different scenarios; and for boats. Mostfacilities small and medium sized. A 

# •few facilities process pollockwhichyields 80% waste---not covered underthe generalpermit. 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 limitdischarge 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 ofdeposit> 1 acre? What are the thresholds for frequency ofmonitoring, areal extent and depth? Monitoring required with greater frequency the closer to the acre the company gets. Ifwater 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 careofsome ofthe problem. Extent ofproblems vary for example when there is a good salmon yearin Ketchikan thereis alot 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 ofvisual representation ofthe piles who gets reports? Florence as part ofthe annualreport. 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 thatpermit does exclude areas that are listed for residues or dissolved gas. There is a major overhaul ofthe 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 contactperson. 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 sonartechnology. Earlier permits had a bottom sampling requirement. Burney said he didn't it was reasonable to limit monitoring to the use ofside 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 ofAlaska. 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.Whathappens once its on the list? Facilities located in waterbody on this listcan't be covered under this permit. Listing canbeusedto apply for grants to express the problem. Ifnot currently on list no way ofgetting on the listtil 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 assessmentpreparedfor OrcaInlet. Judy Kitigawa explained a bit about the overall framework ofthe State's impaired waterbodies list which contains 4 tiers. How did EPAdetermine 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 acitizens complaint, prompts some type ofinspection, dive surveys. Doug Colejoinedviaphone and asked for clarificationregarding 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 hadburping waste piles in the '60s. Whodetermines that a waterbody is water quality impaired? How is this reported and recorded? Over the 5 year life ofthe permit various impaired waterbodies may be identified, assessed or recorded as a result oflocals bringing the problemto 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 ifthere is a systematic recording ofdata, number ofinstances, photos and/or videos with date & timeimprinted. Ifa problem is reported will EPA try to go in and do an assessment? Ifa 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" EPAmay then getpunitive. Itwas 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 ofthe permit once they have been covered. The value ofhaving 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. Thatdepends on each fishery and when the state opens and closes it. He explained that hejust wanted to know how big the conflictis. Itwas observed that there are an amazing number offacilities 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 (averagedepth of30 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 newfacilities 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 theprohibitive cost ofrelocation 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 ofthe things in the permit are set with little opportunity for major changes this far down the line

. Jean asked whether EPA was telling the tribal representati\·es that it was a waste oftime for the tribe to submittheir 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 ofpermit issuance in othercases 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 ifthey observe impacts to a beneficial · use ofwater and notbe 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 wouldbe. Haveinvested 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 ofa case whereyears ago the natives had processed herring in Orca Inlet and herring oil had coated the beaches resulting in the loss ofcockles and clams It was decided that therebe acontinuancemeeting on Friday, June 2nd at 9:00 am with Florence. One present couldn't help but feel that this isjustlip s' ervice to tribes--just doing cause somebody said it had to be done. Emily said she was reluctant to stop the processors-- ifthey 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 startpulling away people's livelihoods. Florence expressed her appreciation for that sentiment and assured Emily that EPA is not in the business ofclosing down companies. She said that there may be some new ways oflooking 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 ourlifetime; and, what would be different ifthey had one? The plan is to cover them initially and initiate an enforcement action. They would be coveredunder 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 ofthe general permit, it was 2 years before EPA issued a new permit.

6/2/00 Continuation of 5131100 Tribal ConsultationMeetingRegardingtheNPDES StatewideSeafood 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 GamacheEPA

- Alaska Martha BarberEPA

- 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 ifit would be possible to require that federally recognized tribes be notified ofany violations. It was noted that the Tesororefinery permitrequires notification oftribes in certain instances. In yesterday's meeting industry asking ifwould 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 ifthe permit is challenged in court. A question was raised as to whether there was anything spelled out in tribal agreementregarding confidentiality in the government to government relationship. EPA responded that there would need to be research to see how similar situations have beenhandled in the lower48. 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. Ifthe EPA then makes a formal complaint against the facility, then the facility has therightto 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 mademore likethis? 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 inwriting. TheTesoropermitpeople sataround the table and talked and tribes neverheard anything back

.

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

although every commentor 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 alsobeconcernwith something specific to the permit. Thewholeprocess is squeezed down andextratime needs to befactored in

. During workshop and hearing everyone heard strong testimony for more poundage, more acreage ofwaste depositfrom industry. The ones affected try to changepermitrequirements. Tribes needthe 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 govemmentto governmentrelationship with tribes themselves. Consortia and corporations did not receive notices cause not federally recognized tribes. It might be appropriate to add them to the publicnotice mailing list. Tribes feel like own part ofthe 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. Ifthe tribal council made a decision on the permithave some type ofownership on the industry. EPA reminded those present that there are many parts ofthe industry's impact that EPA is notregulating. The permit we are talking about regulates only waste solids and water. Quite often the impacts ofthe industry are more impactful than the waste discharge. The part ofthe 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. Ifthe information is not sufficientthen EPA is not necessarily going to change that permit. It was mentionedthat the modeling was based on 2.5 to 3 foot high pile. Judy Kitagawa explained that necessity to cover whole range takes away some ofthe 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 ofthe waste is not even chopped up. Concern was also expressed over making the problem known to the company due to confilict ofinterest, e.g. fishermen sell their catch to the plant. Herring is cuurentlybeing 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 peoplehaving to walk through untreated sewage. EPAagain encourage tribal representatives to submitcomments 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 meetcriteria ofthe 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. Itwas stressed that the situation with the sea otters in Cordova feeding offthe waste pile merely feeding on an unnatural source is a violation ofthe 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 ofsmall processors there is notenough fish waste to warrantbuilding 10 million dollar plant. Just becauseits expensive is sufficient justification to rule out the possibility. Long-term sustainablility mustbe looked at. Somecompanies drag chains thru piles to attemptto disperse and aerate the wastes. Tribes are also looking at how to dispose ofseptage

. Christine Celetano asked ifis EPA working on a method ofhaving an 800 calling capability so tribes don'thaveto sithere for 2

.5 hours and pay for the call. EPAsaid they would continue to investigatethis. Violet Yeaton spoke of the necessity to. summarize the main concerns so that there might be adequate follow-up on the partofEPA. She summarizedconcerns broughtup that day as follows: I.Testimony There shouldbe formal note taking and a response ofsomekind letterbackto tribe inresponse to concerns. There shouldbe somedocumentation 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 itprinted in the Federal Register that tribes were contactedandthere was no response. Tribes need to be assured as to the confidentiality ofcomments

. 2. Summary ofreportsbackto tribes regarding permittees: Notices of Intent; Notices of Violation; annual reports; dive surveys; Best ManagementPracticesPlans 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 oflarge 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 rightto 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 actionbeing proposed. In EPAs defense staffwas not make aware had to do this until late in the game. EPA can't go out and meetwith 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 commentonthe proposed general permit. This one is avery 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 otherconcerns: 4. LackofContinuity Tribal representatives commented that they had been working with Laurie Mann ofEPA 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 ofTribal 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 ofdeveloping 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 ofcomments 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 staffpeople.It may be effective to send a letter to Chuck Clarke and Randy Smith with a copy to the American Indian Environmental Office

. Ithas 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. Ifa system for tribal consultation is in place within the agency it may survive staffchange. One ofthe 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 Alaskapresent orhave people come and workin Alaska for 2 weeks or 2 months. Educatethem regarding how complicated situation is here. Itis 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 mechanismsofthe agency and constraints staffare 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 ofthe barriers to effectivecross-cultural communication may be. Richard Porterfrom Yakutat onloan to EPA and working in the IGAPprogram. 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 notdoing it. 

# ..

. 

# .