COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION 

729 NE Oregon, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon 97232 

September 14, 2012 

De1mis McLerran 

Regional Administrator 

RECEIVED 

SEP l 7 2012 

Office Of The Exs;;cutive 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

1200 Sixth A venue 

Mail Code: RA-140 

Seattle, W A 981 01 

Dear Mr. McLetTan: 

Telephone 503 238 0667 

Fax 503 235 4228 

On behalf of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission's (CRITFC) member 

tribes- the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated 

Tribes ofthe Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes and Bands 

of the Yakama Nation, and the Nez Perce Tribe, I am expressing our concerns with recent 

challenges to the use of tribally-based fish consumption rates in setting human health 

criteria based standards in the Pacific Northwest. Tribal members are subjected to far 

greater hazards from contaminants in fish than the general public due to the larger 

amount offish they consume because of their traditional ways oflife. The EPA has a 

trust responsibility to ensure that the environmental standards established by states are 

sufficiently protective of our regional waters so that contamination is below levels that 

pose a risk to tribal members. 

When CRITFC hosted the meeting between EPA Administrator Jackson and the 

Columbia Basin tribes at our offices in June 2012, tribal leaders from the Columbia River 

Basin spoke eloquently about the positive water quality rulemaking changes in Oregon 

that were largely based on tribally-based fish consumption rates. The tribes believed 

these consumption rates 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 commitment to Environmental Justice. However, 

events that have transpired since June lead us to believe that the rulemaking process is in 

danger of overlooking 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 consumption rate 

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 Document because the document was 
Dennis 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 consumption rate for cleanup standards for sediment and 

surface water, the removal of these sections gives the impression that the choice of a fish 

consumption rate is a debatable value and not legally required to be protective of tribal 

communities. 

In a letter dated August 6, 2012, Idaho Department ofEnviro1m1ental Quality's Director, 

Barry Burnell, proposed to meet EPA's Human Health Criteria requirements by 

conducting "an Idaho specific fish consumption survey ... to ensure that the Idaho criteria 

are protective." I would like to point out that 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. If another survey were to be completed today, it 

would capture the impact of tribal effmts that have 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 of more protective water quality standards in Idaho should not be 

delayed by the time required to conduct and analyze data from another survey. 

Because of recent Washington and Idaho events, CRITFC recommends the initiation of a 

multiple state approach in establishing regional water quality standards. Multiple state 

agreements are not without precedent. 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 water quality trading plan. As you may 

know, the Willamette Partnership coalition received a 2012 award from the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service to develop regional best management practices quality 

standards and a Pacific Northwest nutrient trading plan for Oregon, Washington, and 

Idaho. Ecology's Director Sturdevant is also attempting to convene an alternative process 

to achieve better and faster reductions in toxic pollution by finding innovative new 

strategies that address the problem. 

A regional agreement is envisioned that establishes common human health criteria for all 

state level rulemaking processes. The agreement should specifically recognize the vast 

areas within this region that are part of our tribal usual and accustomed fishing sites. A 

regional fish consumption rate would serve to eliminate the redundancy and workload 

from over-committed environmental technical and legal staffs, and would allow all of our 

governments to focus limited resources on more pressing issues such as toxics cleanup, 

restoration and developing itmovative green alternatives. The tribes do not want this 

request to further delay the adoption of long overdue, more protective standards. CRITFC 

therefore requests that EPA take a leadership role in fostering a regional acceptance of a 

default fish consumption rate of at least 175 grams per day. 

We all share the same waters and desire for a toxic free environment. We also need to 

work together to address the issue of toxic 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 of a sustainable relationship between the industrial, forestry, and 

agricultural sectors and the waterways that are the lifeblood of the Pacific Northwest 

fisheries. 

I realize that this is a complex request. In that regard, the tribes would like to discuss this 

with you at the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians meeting the week of September 24 

and develop a realistic timeframe for this strategy. 

Thank you for consideration of this important issue. If you have any further questions 

please contact me or Dianne 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 of Ecology 

Barry Burnell, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality