Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0174-0469
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2019-08-06T04:00Z

April 25, 2019  -  WA HHC Reconsideration
Tribal Informational Call #2

Tribal Attendees:
Hoh 
Lower Elwha 
RTOC 
Chehalis 
Sauk-Suiattle 
Nooksack 
Stillaguamish 
Suquamish 
Nez Perce 
Puyallup 
Skokomish 
Nisqually 
Swinomish
Muckleshoot 
NWIFC 
Affiliated tribes of the NW Indians 
Port Gamble S'Klallam 
Umatilla 
Yakama
Nooksack

EPA attendees: Chris Hladick, Angela Chung, Wenona Wilson, Hanh Shaw, Stacy Murphy, Lucy Edmondson, Andrew Baca, Matt Szelag

Questions and Comments from Tribal Attendees

    Register opposition to reversing EPA's final rule; object to withdrawing standards; current rule is science based and defensible; not doing tribal consultation is inconsistent; RA's letter Feb 8 indicates that EPA will consult with tribes on a government-to-government basis  -  share rationale and detailed justification
    Yesterday we got cut off at the end of the call, can EPA please repeat what was said? 
    Oppose repeal of the final rule applicable to WA; long process that led to the current WQS; it doesn't make sense that the petition from industry would result in rescinding a rule that was developed based on input from the public and tribes; FCR of 175 g/day  -  consideration of rate below that would be unjustifiable; this call does not constitute consultation with the tribes; informational and answering questions; EPA is just informing tribes; the first step should be requesting input from tribes before rescinding the decision; there needs to be true consultation with the tribes. Does EPA support the Toxics Reduction rule in place or is EPA interfering with the state's process? 
    Given the extensive record supporting the HHC, how is this reconsideration consistent with EPA's trust responsibilities with the tribes? The tribe opposes EPA moving forward.
    Oppose EPA's repeal of the rule; Puget Sound Partnership  -  fisheries restoration and recovery; this is going backwards; don't know where this is going to go with lawsuits  -  you are in an awkward position with leadership; will go to our legal department; we completely oppose this.
    Regarding the rule process  -  we expect the science and rationale as part of consultation; so far I haven't heard the new science info and basis  -  what is R10's role in this decision?
    We're supposed to be working together, EPA is the trustee. Why is this taking place?
    You are not providing a basis at this time, but when a decision is made, then there will be a basis; would there be an opportunity to consult? Consultation after a decision is made is not consultation.
    I support the concerns about this not being consultation.
    What is the point of these calls? You are not listening  -  where do we go from here?
    What are the options for the tribes? Are we supposed to sue? Executive Order said federal agencies have to consult with tribes and you are not doing that.
    EPA made the standards stricter; aren't standards expected to contribute to maintenance and attainment; what is your thinking on that?
    I know you guys must feel awkward, but this is going to force us into a lawsuit; this is a terrible situation; the DC folks have put you in a bad position; this is putting us against the wall/unfortunate situation. Isn't EPA be obligated to establish more stringent standards? I don't put a lot of faith in the agency establishing more stringent standards if you just then turn around and reverse them.
    175 g/day FCR has always been too low; to my knowledge, it's based on consumption of fish flesh; we don't consume the flesh, we eat the eyes, the head; standards have to protect the most sensitive populations; different consumption patterns need to be considered; arbitrary and capricious to go backwards.
    EPA is not going to authorize consultation because you did it in 2016? New decision based on old information or new information from tribes?
    Is anyone from OW in DC on the call?
    Join my colleagues opposing repeal of the rule; agree that consultation is required prior to making the final decision.
    EPA laid out a 2 step process; 1-reconsideration 2-rulemaking to withdraw; yesterday there was a question on whether the record for step 1 would consist of petition from industry; somehow consultation from the prior process would be considered for decision making for step 1. Please clarify the scope of the record for step 1.
    The tribes will have to come together on this and decide what's suitable for tribes; go back to DC as a group, this is not fair.
    Oppose this new rule; you heard from 11 tribes that voiced the opinion yesterday; R10 is not the bad guy  -  you are the messenger; we have to wait for EPA to take action, then its too late; consultation after the fact is not consultation.
    What's the administrative record on the decision to grant reconsideration? WA's 2016 submittal is stale at this point; any new information for the reconsideration?
    Regarding the ID standards  -  you talked about the rationale, which is different from EPA's previous positions. We were not notified of the ID decision or about this call; you will not have new data  -  nothing has changed, this is simply a policy decision  -  is that accurate? 
    As you are deliberating, 20 member tribes provided comments on July 10, 2017 in response to the petitions; Sept. 11, 2018 letter as well to AA Ross on this topic; Jan 25, 2019 to Wheeler again on this issue; please add the letters to the record; we will forward the letters again.
    You mentioned the state has made its position pretty clear; what does that mean? Has there been communication since between EPA and the state?
    Was not able to talk to council, I ask Chris to take back to DC; they should reconsider the intention to go back on the WQS; not a good idea to open pandora's box  -  not good for the environment, politics, or tribes.