### COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION 729 NE Oregon, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon 97232

September 14, 2012

De1mis McLerran Regional Administrator 

### RECEIVED


## SEP l72012 OfficeOfThe Exs;;cutive

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Mail Code: RA-140 Seattle, WA 98101

Dear Mr. McLetTan: Telephone 503 238 0667 Fax 503 235 4228

On behalfofthe ColumbiaRiver Inter-Tribal Fish Commission's (CRITFC) member tribes- the Confederated Tribes ofthe UmatillaIndian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes oftheWarm Springs Reservation ofOregon, the Confederated Tribes and Bands ofthe YakamaNation, and the NezPerce Tribe, I am expressing our concerns withrecent challenges to the use oftribally-based fish consumptionrates in setting humanhealth criteria based standards in the Pacific Northwest. Tribal members are subjectedto far greater hazards from contaminants in fish than the general public due to the larger amount offishthey consume because oftheirtraditional ways oflife. The EPA has a trust responsibility to ensure that the environmental standards established by states are sufficiently protective ofourregional waters so that contamination is belowlevels that pose a risk to tribal members.

When CRITFC hosted the meeting between EPA AdministratorJackson and the Columbia Basin tribes at our offices in June 2012, tribal leaders from the Columbia River Basin spoke eloquently about the positive waterquality rulemaking changes in Oregon that were largely based on tribally-based fish consumptionrates. The tribes believed these consumptionrates would be applied to future water quality rulemaking processes in Washington and Idaho. The tribes thanked Administrator Jackson for her role in fulfilling federal trust responsibilities and her commitmentto Environmental Justice. However, events that havetranspired since June lead us to believe that the rulemaking process is in danger ofoverlooking tribal concerns.
In a letter dated July 16, 2012, Washington Department ofEcology's Director, Ted Sturdevant, in apparent acquiescence to challenges from the industrial sector, chose to alter the rulemaking process rather than accept a statewide default fish consumptionrate for sediment clean-up levels. In addition, Ecology removed the sections on "Preliminary Recommendations" and on "Washington Indian Tribes and Treaty Reserved Rights" from their Fish Consumption Rate Technical Support Documentbecause the document wasDennis McLerran September l4, 2012 Page 2
"not designed to resolve the policy issues associated with using that information to make regulatory decisions." While CRITFC appreciates the complexity involved in determining an appropriate fish consumptionrate for cleanup standards for sediment and surface water, the removal ofthese sections gives the impressionthat the choice ofa fish consumption rate is a debatable value and not legally required to be protective oftribal communities.

In a letter dated August 6, 2012, Idaho Department ofEnviro1m1ental Quality's Director, Barry Burnell, proposedto meet EPA's Human Health Criteriarequirements by conducting "anIdaho specific fish consumption survey
...to ensure that the Idaho criteria
are protective." I would like to pointoutthat CRITFC's 1994 fish consumption survey has already proven that native people and others in Idaho and downstream from Idaho rivers eat significantly more fish than average citizens and that Idaho's proposed rate of 17.5 grams/day was not protective. Ifanother survey were to be completedtoday, it would capture the impact oftribal effmts thathave significantly improved fish returns and fish availability to Idaho residents since 2002. There is a strong expectation that tribal fish consumption rates will be higher than they were in the early 1990s. In the meantime, the adoption ofmore protective water quality standards in Idaho should not be delayed by the time required to conduct and analyze data from another survey.
Because ofrecent Washington and Idaho events, CRITFC recommends the initiation ofa multiple state approach in establishing regional water quality standards. Multiple state agreements are not withoutprecedent. Recently (August, 2012) Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana formed a multi-state pminership that offers economically viable options in meeting Clean Water Act agreements through a waterquality trading plan. As you may know, the Willamette Partnership coalitionreceived a 2012 award from the Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop regional best managementpractices quality standards and a PacificNorthwest nutrient trading plan for Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Ecology's Director Sturdevant is also attemptingto convene an alternative process to achieve better and faster reductions in toxic pollution by finding innovative new strategiesthat address the problem.

A regional agreement is envisionedthat establishes commonhuman health criteria for all state level rulemaking processes. The agreement should specifically recognize the vast
areas within this region that are part ofour tribal usual and accustomed fishing sites. A regional fish consumptionrate would serve to eliminate the redundancy and workload from over-committedenvironmental technical and legal staffs, and would allow all ofour governments to focus limited resources onmore pressing issues such as toxics cleanup, restoration and developing itmovative green alternatives. The tribes do not want this requestto further delay the adoption oflong overdue, more protective standards. CRITFC thereforerequests that EPAtake a leadership role in fostering a regional acceptance ofa default fish consumption rate ofat least 175 grams perday.

We all sharethe same waters and desire for a toxic free environment. We also need to work together to address the issue oftoxic contaminants in the Columbia Basin in a timely manner. Appropriate environmental standards are a first step in moving forward, ., 

# . ·-Dennis McLerran September 14,2012 Page 3


### toward the development ofa sustainable relationship betweenthe industrial, forestry, and agricultural sectors and the waterways that are the lifeblood ofthe Pacific Northwest fisheries.

Irealize that this is a complex request. In that regard, the tribes would like to discuss this with you at the Affiliated Tribes ofNorthwest Indians meeting the week ofSeptember 24 and develop a realistic timeframe for this strategy.
Thank you for considerationofthis important issue. Ifyou have any further questions please contact me orDianne Barton, PhD at 503-238-0667. Sincerely,

# ~2~-~ Executive Director
Attachment

Cc: Mary Lou Soscia, U.S. Envirom11ental Protection Agency James Woods, Tribal Liaison, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ted Sturdevant, Washington Depmiment ofEcology Barry Burnell, Idaho Department ofEnvironmental Quality