EPA Update: EPA Update: Columbia River Toxics Reduction Strategy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

EPA Update: EPA Update:

Columbia River Toxics Reduction Strategy Columbia River Toxics Reduction Strategy Idaho Tribal Fish Consumption Surveys Idaho Tribal Fish Consumption Surveys

Spokane Toxics Task Force Spokane Toxics Task Force Spokane Toxics Task Force Spokane Toxics Task Force August 28, 2013 August 28, 2013

Mary Lou Soscia US EPA Columbia River Coordinator Soscia.marylou@epa.gov (503) 326-5873

Today’s Conversation Today’s Conversation

• Columbia River Toxics Reduction Strategy

Columbia River Toxics Reduction Strategy

– State of River Report State of River Report – Action Plan Action Plan – Action Plan Action Plan – Where we are now Where we are now

• ID Tribal Government Fish Consumption

ID Tribal Government Fish Consumption Survey Work Efforts Survey Work Efforts

Toxics Are A Contemporary Issue Toxics Are A Contemporary Issue

Mother Goose and Grimm – Feb. 14, 2006

Toxics Are a Legacy Issue

Women’s Day June 1, 1947 June 1, 1947

Toxics Reduction Depends on Toxics Reduction Depends on Pollution Prevention Pollution Prevention

US EPA Committed to US EPA Committed to Tribal Trust Responsibility Tribal Trust Responsibility

Columbia River Basin - 10,000 Years of Tribal History Celilo Falls

Columbia River Basin Columbia River Basin

• ~ 260,000 sq miles
• 2 countries, 7 seven

states, 22 Tribes

• Largest flow to
• Largest flow to

Pacific in N. & S. America

• 8 million people – 1/3

in I-5 corridor

• > 370 major dams
• 13 endangered fish

species

Oregon WQS Oregon WQS Fish Consumption Rate Fish Consumption Rate

• OR EQC submitted 17.5 FCR (2 8 oz fish

meals/month) to EPA 7/2004

• Umatilla Tribe raised concerns in EPA govt

to govt conversations – EPA, State & Tribe committed to work together committed to work together

• 2006 EPA/OR/Umatilla Tribe agreement
• OR EQC agreed to move forward on 175 g/d –

(23 fish meals/month) – EPA approval October 17, 2011

• OR DEQ said to EPA “Toxics Reduction is a

Regional Issue”…….

• Collaborative Watershed Effort to Reduce Toxics
• Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working

Group - 2005

• 2009 State of River Report–“tell toxics story”
• 2009 State of River Report–“tell toxics story”
• 2010 Columbia River Basin Action Plan –61 actions
• Executive Leadership and Commitment to Focused

Areas – 2011 and 2012

• Columbia River Basin legislation introduced 2010 in

Congress – toxics focus –

Key Partners Key Partners

• Federal, State and Local Govts
• Columbia River Tribal Governments
• Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership
• NW Power and Conservation Council
• Tribal Consortiums, CRITFC, UCUT, USRT

Agriculture – farmers, SWCDs, NRCS

• Agriculture – farmers, SWCDs, NRCS
• Industry - Pulp and Paper, Nike, Toyota, Blount,

Longview Fiber

• Port of Vancouver
• Municipal Dischargers
• NGOs - Columbia Riverkeeper, OEC, Salmon

Safe, Spokane Riverkeeper

• Watershed Councils

Contaminants & Indicators

Focused on 4 contaminants, but recognize other contaminants of concern

• Mercury, PCBs, DDTs, and PBDEs

Identified indicator species to track over time Juvenile salmon Resident fish Sturgeon Predatory birds – osprey and bald eagle Aquatic mammals – mink and river otter Sediment-dwelling shellfish – Asian clam

State of River Report State of River Report Toxics Effects Information Toxics Effects Information

• PBDEs increasing in juvenile fish – LCREP 2007
• PCB concentrations in some sites are above levels

that can cause harm in juvenile salmon

• PCB levels in juvenile salmon increase as fish travel

down the estuary

• High mercury in liver and other organs from Lower

Columbia River white sturgeon

• DDT – higher levels in white sturgeon above

Bonneville Dam

Promising Framework: Columbia River Promising Framework: Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction Action Plan Basin Toxics Reduction Action Plan

61 Actions 5 Initiatives

• Increase public understanding & political commitment
• Increase toxic reduction actions

Increase monitoring to identify

• Increase monitoring to identify

sources

• Develop research program
• Develop data management

system 2 Tiers

• Existing re$ource$
• New re$ource$

Columbia River Basin Action Plan Columbia River Basin Action Plan Nov 1, 2012, Executive Commitment to Nov 1, 2012, Executive Commitment to Six Focus Areas Six Focus Areas

61 Actions & 5 Initiatives Nov 1 Executive Meeting

• 5 Focus Areas
• Sustainable Purchasing/

Green Chemistry Green Chemistry

• Chemicals of Emerging Concern
• Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships
• Stormwater
• Resource Needs and Policy Reform

We Must Build on Toxics Reduction Success Stories

• Oregon Revised Human Health Criteria
• Yakima River DDT Reductions
• Bunker Hill Superfund Remediation,

Couer d’Alene Basin, Idaho

• Port of Vancouver Clean Water

Challenge

Yakima River DDT Yakima River DDT

• Lower Yakima - agriculturally

diverse farming, intense irrigation, and disease and pest controls

• 1972 DDT banned. Had been widely

used in basin.

• DDT attached to soil particles

carried to river through irrigation carried to river through irrigation runoff.

• 1985 fish had T-DDT concentrations
• f up to 3,000 ppb (Johnson et.al.,

1988)

• 1993 Fish consumption advisory
• 1997 Water cleanup plan specifies

actions

What Happened? What Happened?

• Erosion control needed (300 tons of sediment

runoff during irrigation season)

• TMDL established reduction targets using

inexpensive surrogate measure (turbidity) for TSS and DDT (Implementation began in 1998) TSS and DDT (Implementation began in 1998)

• Irrigation districts took ownership of

implementation

– Set specific on-farm turbidity targets – Converted irrigation practices from rill and furrow to sprinkler and drip irrigation

Before and After Before and After

1995: 280 tons / average day during late irrigation season 2003: 65 tons / average day during late irrigation season

Idaho Bunker Hill Idaho Bunker Hill Superfund Site Superfund Site

• Lead, zinc, silver,

cadmium, arsenic contamination from air emissions, tailings, slag

• Cleanup

proceeding in three operable units, beginning with most populated area

Basin Property Remediation Basin Property Remediation

• Removed

contaminated soil from yards, parks, public properties, commercial sites, right of ways right of ways

• Soil repositories

set up to isolate, stabilize and control contamination

Basin Property Remediation Basin Property Remediation

• Door to door interviews
• High-risk populations

(children six years of age

• r younger and/or

pregnant women living in the home) took top priority the home) took top priority

• Many children had high

blood lead levels.

• Now, after priority cleanup

steps, lower blood lead levels in children (down to the national average of 3%)

Port of Vancouver Port of Vancouver

• Port’s goal is to prevent contaminated stormwater

runoff from reaching Columbia.

• Port leases property to numerous companies so

is working with tenants to also reduce pollution.

• Port treats 99% of stormwater before it reaches

the Columbia River, using best management the Columbia River, using best management practices such as:

Challenges Challenges

• Legacy of hundreds of contaminated sites

across the basin

• Polluted runoff
• Emerging contaminants – old
• Emerging contaminants – old

technologies do not work

• Old wastewater facilities
• Unintentional industrial discharges
• Spills
• No silver bullets – learning as we go
• Change takes time and money

Promises Promises

• State bans of riskiest chemicals
• Products being redesigned to use least

toxic chemicals – “green chemistry”

• Incentive programs to reduce chemical use
• Recognition and certification programs for

those who go the extra prevention mile

• Less toxic air emissions from diesel

engines

• Take back programs
• Reform of Toxic Substances Control Act

Opportunities for Increased Connection Opportunities for Increased Connection with Spokane Toxics Task Force with Spokane Toxics Task Force

• Stormwater Work Group – Ecology is lead
• Advocacy/Resource – TSCA reform – led

by CRITFC/Lower Columbia Estuary by CRITFC/Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership

Regional Fish Consumption Regional Fish Consumption CRITFC Survey CRITFC Survey

• 1992 agreement - EPA/Yakama, Nez Perce,

Umatilla and Warm Springs Tribes to better understand relationship of tribal fishing and exposure to contaminants

– First phase was a Fish Consumption Survey - CDC input in design CDC input in design

• 1994 Survey showed Tribal people consume

9–12 higher amounts of fish than average US

• EPA used results of survey to revise water

quality criteria methodology – increased EPA default from 6.5 to 17.5 grams/day

2002 EPA/CRITFC Fish 2002 EPA/CRITFC Fish Contaminant Study Contaminant Study

• 92 pollutants detected in fish
• Fish taken from 24 Tribal fishing sites in

Columbia River Basin - 1996 - 1997

– Anadromous: Fall/spring chinook, steelhead – Anadromous: Fall/spring chinook, steelhead trout, smelt and Pacific lamprey Resident: rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, white sturgeon, walleye, large scale sucker, bridgelip sucker

• PCBs, dioxins, furans, arsenic, mercury, and

DDE, a breakdown product of DDT

What is a fish consumption rate? What is a fish consumption rate?

– Part of CWA Water Quality Standards – A key variable in calculating human health protection – Represents how much fish and shellfish is consumed – OR is now 175 grams per day; ID proposed 17.5 grams/day - WA’s is currently 6.5 grams/day (one 8 oz fish meal/month)

ID Fish Consumption Rate ID Fish Consumption Rate Revised Human Health Criteria Process Revised Human Health Criteria Process

• 2005 - Idaho initiated rulemaking to update

criteria - 2006 submitted revised criteria to EPA based on 17.5 grams/day

• EPA delayed action - OR HHC ongoing
• EPA delayed action - OR HHC ongoing
• May 10, 2012 – EPA disapproves ID HHC – based on

inadequate review of available data

• August 2012 – EPA commits to ID and ID tribes that

we will provide funding for collaboration and fish consumption survey - commits $$ to EPA collaboration contract

ID Tribal Fish Consumption Surveys ID Tribal Fish Consumption Surveys Background Background

• EPA heard from ID Tribes in consultation on ID HHC

about need for Tribal fish consumption information

• EPA commitment to collaboration with ID DEQ,

Tribal Govts in ID & EPA Tribal Govts in ID & EPA

• EPA R10 Exec decision - commit 2012 end of year

Indian General Assistance Program (IGAP) funds to support collection of tribal fish consumption information

Background (continued) Background (continued)

• 5 Tribal Governments sent letters to EPA

approving use of IGAP funds in an EPA contract to support collection of tribal fish consumption information for tribal environmental capacity building building

• EPA committed to participate in ID Negotiated

Rulemaking – high respect for State’s process

ID Tribal Governments and Consortia ID Tribal Governments and Consortia for ID HHC Work for ID HHC Work

• Nez Perce Tribe
• Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
• Coeur d’Alene Tribe
• Shoshone Bannock Tribes
• Shoshone Bannock Tribes
• Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley

Indian Reservation

• Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
• Upper Columbia United Tribes
• Upper Snake River Tribes Foundation

The Path We’re On The Path We’re On

Track 1 – IGAP funding

• Support to ID Tribes for tribal environmental capacity building , specifically to

support tribal water quality standards and other work efforts Understanding tribal fish consumption in Idaho – collaboration, technical support, implementation support Track 2 – Office of Science and Technology funding Collaboration – EPA, ID DEQ, ID Tribal Governments Support to high fish consumer component of ID general pop survey Shared Goals: Increased tribal capacity through use of IGAP funds – information for tribal Water Quality Standards Accurate FCRs for the 5 tribes and an acceptable state FCR protective of high fish consumers Protective, approvable state WQS

Understanding Tribal Fish Understanding Tribal Fish Consumption Consumption

• Five tribes, each will conduct a survey on types

and amounts of fish consumed by tribal people funded by IGAP funds

• Process will build tribal capacity and results will

inform tribal decisions about WQS

• EPA Information sharing on Tribal work @ ID DEQ

Negotiated Rulemaking Meetings

35 8/27/2013

Tribal Government Collaboration Tribal Government Collaboration

• Monthly Conference Calls with Tribal

Governments and Consortia (Upper Columbia United Tribes, Upper Snake River Foundation, and Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission) to coordinate work efforts to coordinate work efforts

• Technical Design Team has been convened to

develop survey design, bi-monthly phone calls

• EPA and Tribes are limited by travel, most all

meetings must be done by phone

• Tribal / EPA leadership meeting - August 14th

36 8/27/2013

IDEQ Collaboration IDEQ Collaboration

• EPA desired outcome is an approvable set of

WQS for the state

• Comparable survey results between tribal fish
• Comparable survey results between tribal fish

consumption survey results & IDEQ state-wide survey work

• Technical support for state survey design –

reaching the hard to reach

• Coordination and collaboration support

37 8/27/2013

Tribal Fish Consumption Survey Tribal Fish Consumption Survey Implementation Implementation

• Tribal Govts working on RFQ for EPA contract
• Focus on skills in working with Tribal people,

training, survey implementation, accountability, training, survey implementation, accountability,

• Agree on RFQ by end of August
• Contractor on board by September/October
• Survey administered through 2014
• Peer review and final surveys by early 2015

38 8/27/2013

Key Progress to Date Key Progress to Date

• Tribes are convened, working well together, and

making good progress on survey design

• ID DEQ and Tribes are collaborating and have

identified some shared goals for the surveys identified some shared goals for the surveys

• Technical support is on board and is exemplary
• Subcontract for tribal survey implementation

should be in place by Fall – a draft RFQ has been developed and is being circulated by Tribes

Data from Tribal Surveys available to Idaho

Timeline for Idaho Tribal Fish Consumption Work Effort

Tribes Idaho

Negotiated Rulemaking Launched Tribal Survey Design Consultant Hired Tribal Survey Design Individual Tribes Develop Water Quality Standards or Make Other Decisions Following on Survey Results, as Desired Schedule to be determined by Tribes Idaho Survey Design Consultant Hired Idaho Survey Design Idaho Survey Implemented Idaho Survey Data Analysis Proposed Rule Board Presentation Legislative Presentation Technical team to meet monthly on coordination of State of Idaho and Idaho tribal survey designs and comparability of survey data Monthly coordination mtgs between EPA and Tribes Routine coordination between IDEQ and Tribes

40

Idaho EPA

May 2012 Aug 2012 Dec 2012 Feb 2013 May 2013 Aug 2013 Dec 2013

2014 2015 2016

EPA Disapproval

• f Idaho Water

Quality Standards GAP Funding Approved EPA Decision on Water Quality Standards EPA Consultation with Tribes Policy Issues:

• Fish consumed vs. non-consumed
• Whole population or targeted sub-

population

• Market fish/Anadromous Fish/Resident

Fish

• Selection of level of protection
• Distribution or point estimates for FCR

calculation

• Consumption Suppression

2013

May 2015 Oct 2015 May 2014 Oct 2014 May 2016 Developed by Ross Strategic Technical Assistance to Tribes and IDEQ on Survey Issues Monthly coordination mtgs between EPA and IDEQ

8/27/2013

Next Steps Next Steps

• Visits by design team to each tribe

(August/Sept)

• Survey designs complete this fall (Sept/Oct)
• Survey designs complete this fall (Sept/Oct)
• Issue tribal survey implementation

subcontract (Sept)

• Implement surveys! (2014)

41 8/27/2013