A
FISH
CONSUMPTION
SURVEY
OF
THE
UMATILLA,
NEZ
PERCE,
YAKAMA,
AND
WARM
SPRINGS
TRIBES
OF
THE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
BASIN
Technical
Report
94­
3
October,
1994
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commissi
%#
5
I!#
729
N.
E.
Oregon
St.,
Portland,
OR
97232
,
­,.;.
(
503)
238­
0667
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
(
CRITFC)

CRITFC
was
created
in
1977
by
resolutions
of
the
four
Pacific
Northwest
Indian
Tribes
which
participated
in
this
survey:
the
Nez
Perce
Tribe;
the
Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Umatilla
Indian
Reservation
in
Oregon;
the
Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Warm
Springs
Indian
Reservation
in
Oregon
and;
the
Confederated
Tribes
and
Bands
of
the
Yakama
Indian
Nation
in
Washington
(
collectively
referred
to
as
CRITFC's
member
tribes).

CRITFC
was
formed
to
coordinate
the
management
and
protection
of
the
tribes'
treaty
fishery
resource
and
to
implement
the
tribes'
fishery
policies
and
objectives
in
the
Columbia
Basin.
The
governing
body
of
CRITFC,
the
Commission,
consists
of
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Committees
of
each
tribe.
These
Commissioners
establish
CRITFC
policy
and
direct
staff.
CRITFC
staff
consists
primarily
of
biologists,
attorneys
and
other
professionals
who
provide
legal
and
technical
assistance
to
the
tribes
on
issues
relating
to
protection,
enhancement
and
sustainable
use
of
the
fishery
resources
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin.
CRITFC
is
accountable
only
to
its
member
tribes
and
not
to
the
states,
the
Bureau
of
Indian
Affairs
or
any
other
entity.

This
project
was
funded
through
a
Cooperative
Agreement
between
CRITFC
and
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
Office
of­
Policy,
Planning
and
Evaluation
(
USEPA,
OPPE),
Cooperative
Agreement
#
CX818196­
01.

EPA
Project
Officers:
Gerald
Filbin
and
Craig
McCormack
(
formerly
USEPA,
OPPE).

CRITFC
Project
Managers:
Anne
Watanabe
and
Herald
Shepherd
(
formerly
CRITFC).

Proper
citation
for
this
report
is:

CRITFC
(
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission).
1994.
A
fish
consumption
survey
of
the
Umatilla,
Nez
Perce,
Yakama
and
Warm
Springs
Tribes
of
the
Columbia
River
Basin.
CRITFC
Technical
Report
No.
94­
3.
Portland,
Oregon.
ABSTRACT
During
the
fall
and
winter
of
1991­
I
992,
a
survey
was
conducted
among
Columbia
River
Basin
Indian
tribes
to
determine
the
level
and
nature
of
fish
consumption
among
individual
tribal
members.
The
survey
was
initiated
to
test
the
hypotheses
that
Indians
in
that
region
consume
more
fish
than
non­
Indians,
that
the
national
fish
consumption
rate
of
6.5
grams
per
day
(
gpd)
used
by
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
USEPA)
to
develop
human
health
based
water
quality
criteria
might
not
be
applicable
to
tribal
members,
and
that
a
human
health
risk
might
exist
among
tribal
members
from
exposure
to
2,3,7,8­
tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
(
dioxin)
and
other
waterborne
toxic
contaminants.
We
also
wished
to
consider
whether
water
quality
standards
based
on
the
estimated
national
fish
consumption
rate
and
adopted
for
waters
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
were
appropriate
with
regard
to
the
findings
of
the
survey.
The
survey
consisted
of
interviews
made
at
four
Columbia
River
Basin
tribal
reservations
(
Nez
Perce,
Warm
Springs,
Yakama
and
Umatilla)
and
was
based
on
a
stratified
random
sampling
design.
A
total
of
513
tribal
members
at
least
18
years
old
were
directly
surveyed.
These
respondents
also
provided
information
for
204
children
age
5
or
younger.
Information
obtained
included
a
breakdown
of
consumption
by
age
group,
season,
species
consumed,
parts
of
the
fish
consumed,
preparation
methods,
and
changes
in
patterns
of
consumption
over
time
and
during
ceremonies
and
festivals.
Survey
respondents
aged
18
and
older
consumed
an
average
of
58.7
gpd
while
children
aged
5
and
younger
consumed
an
average
of
19.6
gpd.
These
rates
are
respectively,
approximately
nine
times
and
three
times
higher
than
the
estimated
national
fish
consumption
rate
and
seriously
call
into
question
the
applicability
and
adequacy
of
using
a
national
fish
consumption
rate
to
protect
tribal
members'
health.
Both
adults
and
children
consumed
salmon
and
resident
trout
more
than
any
other
fish
species.
The
fish
fillet
and
skin
were,
overall,
the
two
most
consumed
fish
parts
but
respondents
also
consumed
the
head,
eggs,
bones
and
organs
of
almost
all
fish
species
consumed.
Although
this
consumption
data
signals
a
potential
increased
health
risk
to
tribal
members,
consumption
data
alone
does
not
tell
us
the
extent
to
which
tribal
members
are
exposed
to
waterborne
toxics.
Consequently,
as
phase
two
of
this
project,
information
in
this
report
will
be
combined
with
data
on
fish
tissue
contaminant
levels
in
fish
collected
and
consumed
from
Columbia
River
Basin
tribal
fisheries.
i
t
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
.....................................
5
LIST
OFTABLES
..........................................
6
LISTOFAPPENDICES
.......................................
8
LISTOFCHARTS..
.........................................
IO
LISTOFFIGURES
..........................................
11
INTRODUCTION
...........................................
Survey
Objective
......................................
12
12
Background
.........................................
12
The
Fishery
Resource
...................................
12
Degraded
Water
Quality
.................................
13
Statement
of
Significance
of
Data
and
Applications
..............
15
METHODOLOGY
..........................................
Sample
Design
.......................................
Sample
Frame
...................................
Sample
Size
and
Tribal
Representation
...................
Selection
Procedure
...............................
Weighting
Factors
...................................
Unweighted
Data
.................................
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
Survey
Methods
......................................
18
Target
Population
.................................
18
Questionnaire
Development
..........................
18
The
Survey
Questionnaire
................................
18
24­
Hour
Recall
...................................
19
Seasonal
Consumption
.............................
19
Rate
of
Fish
Consumption
Throughout
The
Year
............
19
Fish
Species.
....................................
19
Change
in
Consumption
Over
the
Last
20
Years
............
20
Fish
Parts
Consumed
...............................
20
Fish
Preparation
Methods
............................
21
Breastfeeding
....................................
21
Source
of
Fish
Consumed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
Fishing
Site
Locations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
Ceremonial
Consumption
of
Fish
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
Data
Collection
Procedure
.
.
.
.
.
.
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
Quality
Assurance/
Quality
Control
in
Survey
Implementation
22
`
41
.......
Pretest
........................................
22
Interviewer
Training
...............................
22
Use
of
Food
Models
...............................
23
Internal
Technical
Review
............................
23
Outside
Technical
Review
...........................
23
Independent
Peer
Review
............................
24
Procedures
for
Protecting
Confidentiality
.................
24
Data
Processing
......................................
24
Data
Entry
and
Audit
...............................
24
Data
Analysis
....................................
25
Statistical
Tests
..................................
25
Outliers
........................................
26
Individual
Response
Rate
Calculations
...................
26
SURVEYRESULTS
.........................................
27
Completed
Surveys
....................................
27
Demographic
Information
................................
27
Location
of
Respondents
............................
27
Sex
of
Respondents
...............................
27
Age
of
Respondents
...............................
27
Rates
of
Adult
Fish
Consumption
...........................
28
Fish­
Consumers
Only
..............................
29
Fishers
........................................
30
Rates
of
Consumption
for
Demographic
Categories
..........
30
Seasonal
Rate
of
Fish
Consumption
.....................
30
Dietary
Recall
....................................
32
Women
Who
Have
Nursed
or
Currently
Are
Nursing
Their
Children
...................................
32
Consumption
of
Different
Species
by
Adults
...............
33
Consumption
by
Fish
Trophic
Level
.....................
34
Consumption
of
Specific
Parts
by
Adults
.................
36
Respondents
Whose
Fish
Consumption
Has
Changed
Over
the
Last
20
Years
i
................................
38
Type
of
Change
..................................
38
Quantifiable
Change
................................
39
Children
,...........................................
40
Age
When
Children
Begin
Eating
Fish
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
40
Children's
Consumption
Rates
.
e
.
D
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
41
Consumption
of
Different
Species
by
Children
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
Consumption
of
Specific
Parts
by
Children
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
41
Fish
Preparation
Methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
s
m
.
z
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
Origin
of
Fish
Consumed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
Fish
Harvesting
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
m
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
46
Ceremonial
Consumption
of
Fish
.
.
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
56
Frequency
of
Ceremony
Attendance
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
Frequency
of
Fish
Consumption
at
Ceremonies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
Amount
of
Fish
Consumption
During
Tribal
Ceremonies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
DISCUSSION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
59
Comparisons
With
the
Estimated
National
Fish
Consumption
Rate
for
the
U.
S.
Population
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
59
Comparison
of
Rates
from
Other
Surveys
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
Adult
Rates
of
Fish
Consumption
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
62
Children
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
O.......................
62
Sources
of
Fish
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
62
Ceremonial
Use
of
Fish
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
62
Seasonal
Fish
Consumption
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
Historical
Changes
in
Fish
Consumption
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
Decrease
in
Fish
Consumption
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
Increase
in
Fish
Consumption
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
Loss
of
Columbia
River
Basin
Fish
Runs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
LIMITATIONS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
Uncertainty
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
Sampling
Bias
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
Location
Bias
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
Gender
Bias
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
68
Timing
of
Survey
and
Length
of
Survey
Period
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
68
Response
Rates
on
Individual
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
68
Non­
Fish­
Consumers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
69
Origin
of
Fish
Consumed
t%
............................
69
Children
69
ru?
l
........................................
Fishing
Sites
....................................
70
­
9
Dietary
Recall
....................................
70
Additional
Research
...................................
70
RECOMMENDATIONS
AND
DATA
APPLICATIONS
...................
72
TABLES
.
.
.

APPENDICES
REFERENCES
....................................
..
m...
...
73
.............................................
106
.............................................
170
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CRITFC
would
like
to
acknowledge
all
Technical
Panel
members
for
their
invaluable
assistance
in
producing
this
report.
CRITFC
is
particularly
grateful
to
the
following
people
for
dedicating
their
time
and
talents
to
this
project:
Harold
Shepherd
(
formerly
CRITFC);
John
Platt
(
CRITFC);
Craig
McCormack,
Washington
Department
of
Ecology
(
formerly
U.
S.
EPA);
Steve
Helgerson,
Health
Care
Finance
Administration
(
formerly
Indian
Health
Service);
Gerald
Filbin,
U.
S.
EPA;
Sarah
Bermann,
University
of
Pittsburgh
Medical
School
(
formerly
Bruce
Company);
Danielle
Dixon
and
Roxanne
Bogart
(
formerly
Bruce
Company);
Matthew
Schwartzberg,
CRITFC;
Margaret
McVey,
ICF,
Inc.
and;
Amin
Abari,
ICF,
Inc.

CRITFC
is
especi'ally
grateful
to
the
tribal
governments
and
their
staff
for
this
survey
could
not
have
been
completed
without
their
devotion
and
commitment
to
this
project.
Finally,
CRITFC
wishes
to
thank
all
tribal
members
who
contributed
their
time
to
participate
in
the
survey.

5
LIST
OF
TABLES
TABLE
1
TABLE
2
TABLE
3
TABLE
4
TABLE
5
TABLE
6
TABLE
7
TABLE
8
TABLE
9
TABLE
10
TABLE
11
TABLE
1
la
TABLE
11
b
TABLE
12
TABLE
13
TABLE
14
Summary
of
Reasons
Indicated
by
Interviewers
for
Why
Tribal
Members
Did
Not
Participate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
73
Summary
of
Locations
of
Surveyed
and
Non­
Surveyed
Individuals
with
Respect
to
the
Interview
Site
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
Sex
of
Surveyed
and
Non­
Surveyed
Individuals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
Age
of
Respondents
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
76
Number
of
Fish
Meals
Consumed
by
All
Adult
Respondents
(
Fish
Consumers
and
Non­
Fish
Consumers)
Per
Week
­
Throughout
the
Year
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
77
Average
Serving
Size
(
oz.)
­
Adult
Fish
Meals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
79
Number
of
Grams
Per
Day
of
Fish
Consumed
by
All
Adult
Respondents
(
Fish
Consumers
and
Non­
Fish
Consumers)
Combined
­
Throughout
the
Year
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
80
Number
of
Fish
Meals
per
Week
Consumed
by
Adult
Fish
Consumers
Only
­
Throughout
the
Year
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
82
Average
Serving
Size
(
oz.)
of
Adult
Fish
Meals
­
Fish
Consumers
Only
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
../.........
84
Number
of
Grams
per
Day
Consumed
by
Adult
Fish
Consumers
Only
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
85
Fish
Consumption
Throughout
the
Year
by
Sex
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
87
Fish
Consumption
Throughout
the
Year
by
Age
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
Fish
Consumption
Throughout
the
Year
by
Location
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
Months
of
High
Fish
Consumption
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
s
.
.
.
.
.
88
Comparison
of
Grams
of
F/
sh
Consumed
by
Tribal
Members
on
a
Daily
Basis
During
Months
of
High
Consumption
vs.
Months
of
Low
Consumption
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
89
Months,
of
Low
Fish
Consumption
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
90
6
TABLE
15
TABLE
16
TABLE
17
TABLE
18
TABLE
19
TABLE
20
TABLE
21
TABLE
22
TABLE
23
TABLE
24
TABLE
25
TABLE
26
TKBLE
27
Table
28
Table
29
Number
of
Weekly
Fish
Meals:
Nursing
Mothers
or
Mothers
Who
Have
Nursed
....................................
91
Consumption
by
Women
Who
Have
Breastfed
Compared
to
All
Other
Female
Respondents.
..........................
92
Fish
Species
Consumed
by
All
Adult
Tribal
Members
.........
93
Consumption
of
Fish
Species
by
Adults
Who
Eat
the
Particular
Species
.........................................
94
Grams
of
Fish
Species
Consumed
Each
Day
by
Fish
Consumers
and
Non­
Fish
Consumers
............................
95
Adult
Consumption
of
Fish
Parts
.......................
96
Age
When
Children
Begin
Eating
Fish
...................
97
Number
of
Fish
Meals
Consumed
per
Week
by
Children
.......
98
Serving
Size
(
oz.)
of
Fish
for
Children
Age
Five
or
Under
......
99
Children's
Fish
Consumption
Rates
­
Throughout
Year
........
100
Fish
Species
Consumed
by
Children
....................
101
Consumption
by
Children
Who
Consume
the
Particular
Species
.
.
102
Children's
Consumption
of
Fish
Parts
...................
103
Use
of
Fish
Preparation
Methods
......................
IO4
Frequency
of
Use
of
Fish
Preparation
Methods
.............
105
APPENDIX
1
APPENDIX
2
APPENDIX
3
APPENDIX
4
APPENDIX
5
APPENDIX
6
APPENDIX
7
APPENDIX
8
APPENDIX
9
APPENDIX
IO
APPENDIX
11
APPENDIX
12
APPENDIX
13
APPENDIX
14
APPENDIX
15
APPENDIX
16
LIST
OF
APPENDICES
Formulas
for
Calculating
Weighting
Factors
.
.
.
.`.
,
.
.
.
.
.
106
Weighting
Formulas
for
Calculating
Weighted
Means
.
.
.
.
107
Technical
Panel
and
Peer
Reviewers
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
108
CRlTFC
and
Tribal
Approval
and
Coordination
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
0
Copy
of
Questionnaire
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
1
List
of
Resident
Fish
Species
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
.
128
List
of
Anadromous
Fish
Species
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
I29
List
of
Other
Fish
Species
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
.
.
.
130
Map
of
Fishing
Sites
Along
the
Columbia
River
Basin
.
.
.
.
131
Sample
Letter
from
Tribal
Government
Requesting
Participation
in
the
Survey
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
132
Job
Announcements
for
Survey
Coordinators
and
Interviewers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.133
Locations
of
Tribal
Members
from
Interview
Site
and
Reasons
for
Not
Participating
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
135
Fish
Consumption
of
Persons
Who
Fish
for
Personal
Consumption
or
for
Use
by
Their
Tribe
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
142
Consumption
Data
for
Months
of
Highest
Fish
Consumption
(
May
and
June)
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.`
I43
Consumption
Data
for
Months
of
Lowest
Fish
Consumption
(
January
and
December)
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
145
Comparison
of
Fish
Consumption
(
gpd)
Throughout
the
Year
of
Persons
Who
Ate
Fish
in
the
24
Hours
Preceding
the
Survey
vs.
Persons
Who
Did
Not
Eat
Fish
in
That
Time
Period
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
I47
8
APPENDIX
17
APPENDIX
18
APPENDIX
19
APPENDIX
20
APPENDIX
21
APPENDIX
22
APPENDIX
23
APPENDIX
24
APPENDIX
25
Consumption
Rates
of
Women
Who
Have
Given
Birth
and
Who
Breastfeed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,148
Chi­
Square
Test
Comparisons
of
Fish
Parts
Consumed
.
.
.
149
Increase
and
Decrease
in
Weekly
Fish
Meals
Over
the
Last
20Years
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
I50
Age
of
Infant
When
Breast
Feeding
Ceased
or
Will
Cease
.
153
Chi­
Square
Analysis
of
Food
Preparation
Methods­
Use
and
Frequencies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
154
Percent
of
Fish
Obtained
From
Various
Sources
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
155
Travel
Distance
from
Home
to
Fishing
Sites
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
158
Tribal
Fishing
Sites
for
Resident
and
Anadromous
Fish
Species
­
By
Tribe
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
159
Attendance
and
Fish
Consumption
at
Tribal
Ceremonies
.
.
166
LIST
OF
CHARTS
Chart
1
Fish
Consumption
Estimates
Presented
in
Other
Surveys
......
61
Chart
2
Tribal
Celebrations
................................
63
IO
Figure
1
Figure
2
Figure
3
Figure
4
Figure
5
Figure
6
Figure
7
Figure
8
Figure
9
Figure
IO
Figure
11
Figure
12
Figure
13
Figure
14
Figure
15
Figure
16
Figure
17
Figure
18
Figure
19
Figure
20
Figure
21
Figure
22
Figure
23
Figure
24
Kgure
25
Figure
26
Figure
27
Figure
28
Figure
29
LIST
OF
FIGURES
Age
Groups
of
Adult
Respondents
...........
i
.
:
.......
28
Grams
per
Day
of
Fish
Consumed
by
All
Adult
Respondents
....
29
Months
of
High
Fish
Consumption
.....................
31
Months
of
Low
Fish
Consumption
.......................
32
Anadromous
Fish
Species
Consumed
by
Adults
............
34
Resident
Fish
Species
Consumed
by
Adults
...............
35
Adult
Rate
of
Consumption
of
Anadromous
Fish
Species
......
36
Adult
Rate
of
Consumption
of
Resident
Fish
Species
..........
37
Adult
Consumption
of
Anadromous
Fish
Parts
.............
38
Adult
Consumption
of
Resident
Fish
Parts
................
39
Change
in
Consumption
Over
the
Last
20
Years
............
40
Rate
of
Consumption
of
Anadromous
Fish
Species
by
Children
(
Data
Represents
Fish
Consumers
Only)
...................
42
Rate
of
Consumption
of
Resident
Fish
Species
by
Children
(
Data
Represents
Fish
Consumers
Only)
......................
43
Anadromous
Fish
Species
Consumed
by
Children
...........
44
Resident
Fish
Species
Consumed
by
Children
..............
45
Children's
Consumption
of
Anadromous
Fish
Parts
..........
46
Children's
Consumption
of
Resident
Fish
Parts
.............
47
Fish
Preparation
Methods
............................
48
Nez
Perce
Tribe­
Anadromous
Fish
Fishing
Sites
............
49
Nez
Perce
Tribe­
Resident
Fish
Fishing
Sites
...............
50
Warm
Springs
Tribe­
Anadromous
Fish
Fishing
Sites
..........
51
Warm
Springs
Tribe­
Resident
Fish
Fishing
Sites
............
52
Yakama
Tribe­
Anadromous
Fish
Fishing
Sites
..............
53
Yakama
Tribe­
Resident
Fish
Fishing
Sites
.................
54
Umatilla
Tribe­
Anadromous
Fish
Fishing
Sites
..............
55
Umatilla
Tribe­
Resident
Fish
Fishing
Sites
.................
56
Frequency
of
Fish
Consumption
at
Tribal
Ceremonies
........
57
Amount
of
Fish.
Consumed
at
Tribal
Ceremonies
............
58
Comparisons
of
Consumption
Rates­
CRITFC
Data
vs.
U.
S.
Average
(
6.5
gpd)
................................
60
11
INTRODUCTION
In
1990,
the
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
(
CRITFC)'
entered
into
a
Cooperative
Agreement
with
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
Office
of
Policy,
Planning
and
Evaluation
(
USEPA,
OPPE)
to
formally
conduct
"
A
Fish
Consumption
Survey
of
the
Umatilla,
Nez
Perce,
Yakama
and
Warm
Springs
Tribes
of
the
Columbia
River
Basin,"
hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
Columbia
River
Basin
Fish
Consumption
Survey
(
CRBFCS).
This
survey
is
unique
in
that
it
is
the
only
interview­
based
survey
to
date
that
examines
fish
consumption
rates
and
patterns
of
Native
Americans
who
reside
in,
catch
and
consume
fish
from
the
Columbia
River
Basin.

Survey
Objective
The
objective
of
the
survey
was
to
ascertain
individual
tribal
members'
consumption
rates,
patterns,
habits
and
preparation
methods
of
anadromous
and
resident
fish
species
caught
from
the
Columbia
River
Basin.

Background
Tribal
interest
in
conducting
such
a
survey
of
tribal
members
was
in
response
to
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
USEPA)
investigation
of
the
human
health
risks
from
exposure
to
dioxin
(
tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
or
2,3,7,8­
TCDD)
and
other
waterborne
toxics
through
ingestion
of
contaminated
fish.
Because
the
four
surveyed
tribes
fish
for
both
ceremonial
and
subsistence
purposes
from
the
Columbia
River
Basin,
they
questioned
the
adequacy
of
USEPA's
use
of
an
estimated
national
per
capita
fish
consumption
rate
of
6.5
grams
per
day
(
gpd)
(
USEPA,
1980)
when
developing
human
health
based
water
quality
criteria
for
toxics.

Tfie
Fishery
Resource
The
Umatilla,
Nez
Perce,
Yakama
and
Warm
Springs
tribe
(
collectively
referred
to
as
CRITFC's
member
tribes)
each
possess
fishing
rights
reserved
by
treaties
signed
in
the
1850s
with
the
United
States
government.
Under
the
U.
S.
Constitution,
these
treaties
are
considered
the
"
supreme
Law
of
the
Land."
These
treaties
reserve
to
the
tribes
the
right
to
take
fish
destined
to
pass
their
"
usual
and
accustomed"
fishing
places
(
Treaty
with
the
Umatilla
Tribe,
June
9,
1855,
12
stat.
945;
Treaty
with
the
Yakama
Tribe,
June
9,
1855,
12
Stat.
951;
Treaty
with
the
Nez
Perce
Tribe,
June
11,
1855,
12
Stat.
957;
Treaty
with
the
Tribes
of
Middle
Oregon,
June
25,
1855,
12
Stat.
963).
Among
the
fish
that
tribes
have
treaty
rights
to
harvest
are
the
salmonids
and
resident
species
originating
in
streams
and
lakes
flowing
throughout
the
Columbia
River
Basin
as
well
as
those
anadromous
species
that
return
to
their
spawning
grounds
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin.

The
importance
of
fish,
especially
salmon,
to
the
tribes
cannot
be
overstated
for
the
12
fishery
resource
is
not
only
a
major
food
source
for
tribal
members,
it
is
also
an
integral
part
of
the
tribes'
cultural,
economic
and
spiritual
well­
being.
The
importance
of
the
tribes'
treaty
fishing
rights
has
received
long­
standing
legal
recognition.
In
a
1905
decision,
the
U.
S.
Supreme
court
stated:
"
The
right
to
resort
to
the
fishing
places
in
controversy
was
a
part
of
larger
rights
possessed
by
the
Indians,
upon
the
exercise
of
which
there
was
not
a
shadow
of
impediment,
and
which
were
not
much
less
necessary
to
the
existence
of
the
Indians
than
the
atmosphere
they
breathed."
United
States
v.
Winans,
198
U.
S.
371
(
1905).

Thus,
as
ceremonial
and
subsistence
fishers,
CRITFC's
member
tribes
rely
on
the
protection
and
enhancement
of
water
quality
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
sufficient
to
protect
treaty
resources
from
harmful
exposure
to
waterborne
pollutants.
The
consistent
declitie
of
fish
runs,
the
loss
of
adequate
fish
habitat,
and
the
documented
degradation
of
water
quality
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
have
heightened
the
tribes'
concern
for
the
fishery
resource
and
the
health
and
livelihood
of
tribal
members.

Degraded
Water
Quality
The
Columbia
River
system
is
the
fourth
largest
watershed
in
North
America
and
drains
over
250,000
square
miles,
with
85%
of
the
watershed
located
in
Oregon,
Washington
and
Idaho,
the
three
states
where
the
surveyed
tribes
reside.
Although
the
total
amount
of
tribal
reservation
land
for
these
four
tribes
is
approximately
2.8
million
acres,
the
tribes'
aboriginal
and
ceded
areas
encompass
41
million
acres
and
31
Columbia
River
sub­
basins,
a
majority
of
the
Columbia
River
Basin.

Throughout
the
Columbia
River
Basin,
certain
resource
uses
such
as
hydroelectric
dams,
grazing,
agriculture
and
forestry
have
contributed
to
the
decline
of
the
salmon
runs.
Numerous
industrial
sources
(
including
eight
U.
S.
pulp
and
paper
mills,
one
Canadian
pulp
mill
and
ten
aluminum
plants),
agricultural
drainages
carrying
pesticides
and
insecticides,
sewage
treatment
plants,
combined
sewer
overflows,
abandoned
landfills,
the
Hanford
Nuclear
Reservation,
and
the
Idaho
National
Engineering
Laboratory
continue
to
load
toxic
and
radioactive
wastes
into
the
Columbia
River
system
threatening
both
the
health
of
tribal
members
and
the
fishery
resource.
Many
federal
and
state
sponsored
investigations
have
revealed
the
prevalence
of
toxic
chemicals
in
Columbia
River
fish
and
sediments.

For
human
health
risk
assessment
purposes,
USEPA
has
identified
an
individual's
rate
of
fish
and
shellfish
consumption
as
the
key
exposure
variable
(
USEPA,
1989).
Others
have
further
identified
ingestion
of
contaminated
fish
as
the
most
significant
pathway
of
human
exposure
to
bioaccumulatable,
persistent
and
toxic
chemicals
in
aquatic
environments
(
Rifkin
and
LaKind,
1991).
Moreover,
because
waterborne
toxics
tend
to
bioaccumulate
in
aquatic
organisms,
the
general
human
population
is
exposed
to
significantly
greater
doses
of
certain
chemical
contaminants
from
fish
consumption
than
from
water
and
atmospheric
sources
combined
(
Humphrey,
1983).

13
Consequently,
noncommercial
and
subsistence
fishers
can
be
particularly
susceptible
to
exposure
to
toxic
pollutants
(
Institute
of
Medicine,
1991).
Fish
biomonitoring
studies
conducted
outside
the
Columbia
Basin
have
clearly
demonstrated
the
persistence
and
bioaccumulation
of
certain
chemical
pollutants
in
aquatic
environments
and
the
potential
for
health
problems
due
to
consumption
of
contaminated
fish
(
Fiore
et
al.,
1989;
Cordle
et
al.,
1978;
Cooper
et
al.,
1991;
and
Tollefson
and
Cordle,
1986).

Within
the
Columbia
River
Basin,
state
and
Federal
agencies
have
consistently
documented
water
quality
problems,
including
toxic
pollution.
The
majortoxics
of
concern
identified
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
are
organochlorine
pesticides,
dioxins
and
furans,
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(
PCB),
heavy
metals,
and
radionuclides
(
USEPA,
1992).
Toxics
have
been
identified
at
levels
of
concern
in
various
parts
of
the
basin,
with
the
greatest
concentrations
measured
in
either
sediments
or
fish
tissue
(
USEPA,
1992).
These
pathogens
and
toxics
in
fish
and
sediment
samples
collected
from
the
Columbia
River
Basin
present
the
greatest
threats
to
human
health.

In
1986,
USEPA
initiated
its
National
Study
of
Chemical
Residues
in
Fish
(
NSCRF)
(
USEPA,
1992a)
to
monitor
levels
of
toxic
chemicals
in
fish
tissue
at
numerous
sites
across
the
country,
including
the
Columbia
River
Basin.
The
most
,
toxic
dioxin
congener,
2,3,7,8­
tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
(
2,3,7,8­
TCDD),
was
found
in
samples
from
70
percent
of
all
the
national
sampling
sites,
including
samples
collected
from
the
Columbia
River
Basin
(
USEPA,
1992a).
Total
PCBs
and
DDE
(
dichloro­
diphenyldichloro­
ethylene),
a
breakdown
product
of
the
insecticide
DDT
(
dichloro­
diphenyl­
trichloroethane)
were
also
found
in
Columbia
River
fish
tissue.
The
State
of
Oregon
has
listed
all
of
the
Columbia
River
within
the
state's
borders
(
river
miles
O­
309)
as
violating
the
water
quality
standard
of
.013
parts
per
quadrillion
(
ppq)
adopted
for
2,3,7,8­
TCDD
(
Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
1992).
Washington
State
has
specifically
identified
the
Columbia
River
mainstem
downstream
of
Priest
Rapids
Dam
and
the
entirety
of
the
Snake
River
within
Washington
State
as
violating
Washington`
s
dioxin
water
quality
standard,
which
is
also
.013
ppq
(
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology,
1992).

The
Lower
Columbia
River
Bi­
State
Program,
initiated
in
1990
by
the
Oregon
and
Washington
State
legislatures,
conducted
an
extensive
reconnaissance
survey
of
water,
sediment,
and
fish
tissue
samples
collected
from
the
Lower
Columbia
River
(
downstream
of
Bonneville
Dam
to
the
Pacific
Ocean).
Results
of
the
Bi­
State
survey
indicate
a
widespread
occurrence
of
metals,
pesticides,
PCBs,
and
dioxin
and
furan
compounds
in
fish
tissue
(
Tetra
Tech,
1993).
These
results
are
consistent
with
historical
measurements
of
fish
tissue
concentrations
of
metal
and
organic
compounds
measured
in
national
surveys
conducted
by
USEPA
and
the
United
States
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS)
(
Schmitt,
C.
J.,
et
al.,
1990).

From
1986
to
1991,
the
U.
S.
Geological
Service
(
USGS)
collected
and
analyzed
soil,

14
.
.
­
I
\
3
sediment,
water,
and
fish
tissue
samples
from
the
Yakima
River
basin
as
part
of
the
USGS
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
Program
(
NAWQA).
Sixty­
five
of
the
ninety
pesticides
analyzed
for
were
found
in
samples
from
this
subbasin
­(
USGS,
1993).
Although
the
insecticide
DDT
has
been
banned
for
over
20
years
(
since
1972),
high
concentrations
of
DDT,
DDE,
and
DDD
(
dichloro­
diphenyl­
dichloroethane)
continue
to
occur
in
sediment
and
fish
tissue
samples
(
USGS,
1993).
The
USGS
report
concludes
that
fish
in
the
Yakima
River
basin
have
among
the
highest
concentrations
of
Total­
DDT
(
T­
DDT)
which
includes
DDT,
DDE
and
DDD,
in
the
nation
and
that
the
Yakima
River's
1990
level
of
T­
DDT
was
IO
times
higher
than
the
chronic­
toxicity
criterion
for
the
protection
of
freshwater
aquatic
life
established
by
USEPA.
Yakama
tribal
members
consume
both
resident
and
anadromous
fish
caught
from
the
Yakima
river.

Statement
of
Significance
of
Data
and
Applications
Because
ceremonial
and
subsistence
fish
consumption
patterns
are
not
currently
accounted
for
in
existing
water
quality
criteria
and
standards
for
dioxin
and
other
toxic
pollutants
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin,
CRITFC
and
its
member
tribes
expect
federal,
state
and
tribal
regulatory
agencies
to
incorporate
information
in
this
survey
when
developing
and
re­
evaluating
human
health
based
water
quality
criteria
and
standards
for
toxics
as
well
as
in
other
regulatory
and
policy
decisions
relating
to
risk
management,
pollution
prevention,
remediation
and
environmental
justice.

The
consumption
rates
established
in
this
report
should
be
combined
with
site­
specific
fish
tissue
monitoring
data
to
determine
actual
exposure
and
damage
to
Columbia
River
Basin
Indians
and
their
treaty
protected
resources
resulting
from
toxic,
heavy
metal
and
nuclear
waste
contamination.
CRITFC
and
its
member
tribes
encourage
other
tribes
and
populations
to
utilize
this
survey's
methodology
in
future
fish
consumption
surveys.

15
­.
I
`
1
`"`
9
1
­
4
7
I
METHODOLOGY
Sample
Design
Sample
Frame
Survey
respondents
were
selected
from
patient
registration
files
provided
by
four
Indian
Health
Service
(
IHS)
unit
.
health
centers
located
on
the
reservations
of
the
participating
Tribes.
These
files
are
open­
ended
and
used
for
determining
an
individual's
eligibility
to
receive
health
services
from
the
Indian
Health
Service
Center.

Sample
Size
and
Tribal
Representation
The
population
sizes
of
each
of
the
four
Tribes
at
the
time
of
the
sample
selection
ranged
from
818
to
3872
individuals.
Based
in
part
on
financial
and
logistical
constraints,
a
total
sample
size
of
500
interviews
was
chosen
for
the
survey.
Because
the
population
sizes
of
the
Tribes
varied
to
such
an
extent,
a
self­
weighting
sample
(
i.
e.,
a
sample
selected
in
proportion
to
the
eligible
population
of
each
Tribe)
would
not
have
provided
very
useful
results
for
the
smaller
reservations
because
of
the
small
number
of
interviews
that
would
have
occurred
there.
Instead,
the
sample
was
selected
so
as
to
yield
approximately
equal
numbers
of
interviews
from
each
of
the
four
Tribes.
Thus,
approximately
125
interviews
per
tribe
were
sought.
Based
on
an
expected
overall
response
rate
of
70
percent
of
individuals
selected
from
IHS
lists,
744
total
individuals
were
randomly
selected
from
the
4
lists,
with
roughly
the
same
number
chosen
from
each
tribe:
182
from
Yakama,
180
from
Umatilla,
202
from
Nez
Perce',
and
180
from
Warm
Springs.

Selection
Procedure
Before
the
selection
procedure
occurred,
the
following
individuals
were
eliminated
from
the
IHS
clinic
lists:
persons
who
were
not
at
least
18
years
of
age,
persons
who
were
identified
as
not
being
members
of
the
primary
reservation
Tribe,
and
persons
who
were
identified
as
not
living
either
on
or
near
the
reservation.

Names
on
the
lists
were
selected
by
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
(
CDC)
using
a
systematic
probability
sampling
method,
in
which
a
sampling
interval
was
calculated
by
dividing
the
total
number
of
names
on
each
tribes'
IHS
patient
registration
list
by
the
number
of
names
desired
from
that
Tribe.
The
names
of
persons
to
be
contacted
1
Note
that
the
sample
size
for
the
Nez
Perce
Tribe
was
slightly
larger
than
those
for
the
other
tribes.
This
was
due
to
a
request
by
the
Tribe
to
increase
the
sample
size
by
20
persons
because
some
difficulties
were
expected
in
locating
enough
persons
to
be
interviewed.

16
were
then
identified
by
the
sampling
interval.
The
starting
point
was
chosen
using
a
random
start
method,
which
was
a
random
number
between
1
and
the
calculated
interval
number.
.

The
IHS
clinic
lists
for
each
Tribe
were
then
cross­
referenced
with
tribal
enrollment
lists
to
ensure
their
accuracy.
Individuals
were
excluded
from
the
sample
if
they
were
identified
as
deceased
or
unenrolled,
if
they
had
moved
out
of
the
area,
or
if
they
could
not
otherwise
be
interviewed.
These
individuals
were
replaced
by
eligible
members
using
the
same
selection
method
as
for
the
original
names.

As
tribal
members
wete
contacted
to
participate
in
the
survey,
it
became
evident
that
several
persons
identified
in
the
final
sample
set
had
died,
had
moved
out
of
the
survey
area,
or
could
not
be
contacted.
Several
of
these
persons
were
then
removed
from
the
sample
set
and
replaced
with
the
names
of
other
tribal
members
using
the
same
selection
procedure
described
above.
In
some
cases,
persons
identified
in
the
sample
who
were
eligible
respondents
but
who
,
had
moved
out
of
the
survey
area
(
e.
g.,
to
Seattle)
had
returned
to
the
reservation
to
visit
and
were
surveyed.

Weighting
Fat
tors
Data
were
collected
for
the
survey
using
stratified
systematic
sampling,
with
each
of
the
four
Tribes
considered
an
independent
stratum,
or
subpopulation.
The
final
results
presented
in
this
text
represent
all
four
Tribes
as
a
single
population.

To
obtain
an
unbiased
estimate
of
the
population
mean
of
a
set
of
pooled
data,
it
was
necessary
either
to
utilize
a
self­
weighting
sample
or
to
weight
the
collected
data
according
to
the
proportion
of
each
subpopulation
sampled.
The
Survey
design
did
not
utilize
a
self­
weighting
sample
because
of
the
small
number
of
interviews
that
would
have
occurred
on
the
smaller
reservations.
Instead
the
samples
for
each
of
the
four
Tribes
were
selected
to
be
essentially
the
same
size.
However,
the
population
sizes
of
the
four
Tribes
at
the
time
of
the
sample
selection
ranged
from
818
to
3872
individuals.
Therefore,
the
data
were
weighted
before
they
were
pooled,
using
weighting
factors
based
on
the
population
sizes
of
each
tribe.
Since
the
percentage
of
individuals
represented
in
the
larger
Tribes
is
smaller
than
the
percentage
of
individuals
represented
in
the
smaller
Tribes,
it
was
necessary
to
give
more
weight
to
responses
from
individuals
in
the
larger
Tribes
(
Appendices
l­
2
for
weighting
formulas).

Un
weigh
ted
Data
The
majority
of
the
data
presented
in
this
report
has
been
weighted
to
reflect
the
fish
consumption
habits
and
patterns
for
the
overall
tribal
population.
However,
data
concerning
each
individual
Tribe
(
i.
e.,
in
the
section
concerning
potential
biases
in
the
17
survey
and
the
section
concerning
locations
of
fishing
sites)
were
not
weighted.
In
addition,
data
provided
by
survey
respondents
concerning
the
fish
consumption
habits
and
patterns
of
children
living
in
their
households
were
not
weighted
because
of
the
low
number
of
children
represented
in
the
survey.

Survey
Methods
Target
Population
The
target
population
included
all
tribal
members
ages
18
and
older
who
lived
on
or
near
the
Yakama,
Warm
Springs,
Umatilla
or
Nez
Perce
reservations.
Respondents
provided
consumption
information
for
themselves
and
one
child
five
years
of
age
or
younger
residing
in
the
respondent's
household.
Respondents
who
consume
fish
are
referred
to
as
fish
consumers
and
respondents
who
do
not
consume
fish
are
referred
to
as
non­
fish­
consumers.

Questionnaire
Development
CRITFC
and
the
USEPA
Office
of
Policy,
Planning
and
Evaluation
established
a
technical
panel
to
assist
in
the
design
and
implementation
of
the
survey.
The
panel
consisted
of
representatives
from
CRITFC
and
toxicologists,
epidemiologists,
health
scientists,
and
environmental
scientists
from
the
Indian
Health
Service
(
IHS),
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
(
CDC),
Washington
and
Oregon
State
Health
Departments,
and
the
Region
10
and
headquarters
offices
of
USEPA
(
Appendix
3).

Members
of
the
technical
panel
helped
determine
the
following:
the
focus
of
the
survey;
the
target
population;
questionnaire
design
and
content;
coordination
and
survey
procedure
and;
the
allocation
of
tasks
necessary
to
complete
the
project.
USEPA's
Office
of
Policy,
Planning,
and
Evaluation
(
OPPE)
coordinated
the
development
of
the
questionnaire.
(
Appendix
4
for
CRTIFC
and
tribal
coordination).

The
Survey
Questionnaire
The
17
page
survey
questionnaire
(
Appendix
5)
included
approximately
34
questions
concerning
demographics,
24
hour
dietary
recall,
seasonal,
annual
and
daily
fish
consumption
rates,
changes
in
fish
consumption
over
the
last
20
years,
consumption
of
fish
parts,
fish
preparation
methods,
breast
feeding,
location
of
Columbia
River
Basin
fishing
sites,
sources
of
fish
consumed
and
fish
consumption
as
a
result
of
cultural
and
other
special
events.
Survey
respondents
were
asked
questions
about
their
consumption
of
different
species
of
fish
as
well
as
consumption
of
specific
fish
18
parts.
Respondents
were
also
asked
to
provide
information
about
consumption
of
fish
species
and
fish
parts
for
one
child
five
years
of
age
or
less
residing
in
the
respondent's
household.
A
brief
description
of
key
questions
and
corresponding
questionnaire
numbers
follows.
Similar
information
is
provided
for
those
questions
also
pertaining
to
children's
consumption.

24­
Hour
Recall
(
Ill­
I)

The
24­
hour
dietary
recall
was
asked
of
adult
respondents
for
comparative
analysis
with
overall
individual
fish
consumption
rates.

Seasonal
Consutip
tion
(
Ill­
2,3,4,5)

To
better
understand
seasonal
variations
and
correlationsin
consumption,
respondents
were
asked
to
estimate
the
two
months
of
the
year
during
which
they
consume
the
most
fish
(
i.
e.,
when
their
fish
consumption
rate
is
the
highest)
and
the
two
months
of
the
year
during
which
they
consume
the
"
least"
fish
(
i.
e.,
when
their
fish
consumption
rate
is
the
lowest).
Note
that
although
the
terms
"
most"
and
"
least"
do
not
represent
quantified
amounts
of
fish,
respondents
were
also
asked
to
estimate
the
average
number
of
fish
meals
per
week
they
consumed
during
the
two
months
identified
as
least
and
highest
months
of
consumption.

Rate
of
Fish
Consumption
Throughout
The
Year
(
Ill­
6,7;
W­
5,7
for
children)

Respondents
were
asked
about
the
number
of
fish
meals
they
consume
over
the
year
in
general
and
during
the
seasons
when
they
eat
the
most
fish
and
the
least
fish.
Fish
meals
included
breakfast,
lunch,
dinner
and
snacks.

Since
the
term
"
fish
meals"
did
not
indicate
a
quantified
amount
of
fish
and
may
reflect
different
amounts
in
ounces
depending
on
the
respondent
and
on
the
meal,
respondents
were
asked
to
estimate
the
average
serving
size
in
ounces
of
fish
eaten
during
fish
meals.
To
aid
respondents
in
estimating
amounts
of
fish
consumed,
foam
sponge
food
models
approximating
four,
eight,
and
twelve
ounce
fish
fillets
were
provided.

Fish
Species
Consumed
(
Ill­
9,
IV­
6
for
children)

Ten
Columbia
River
Basin
fish
species
were
specifically
listed
in
the
questionnaire
for
respondents
to
provide
consumption
information
about.
Because
different
fish
species
may
be
exposed
to
varying
levels
of
toxic
pollution
depending
on
their
life
history,
the
ten
species
listed
on
the
survey
were
separated
into
anadromous
fish
(
those
that
are
born
and
reside
in
a
river
system
for
one
to
three
years,
migrate
to
the
ocean
and
19
remain
there
for
up
to
several
years,
then
return
from
the
ocean
to
the
river
to
spawn)
and
resident
fish
(
those
that
remain
in
the
river
their
entire
lives).'

The
anadromous
fish
specified
on
the
questionnaire
were
salmon/
steelhead
trout*,
lamprey,
smelt,
and
shad.
The
resident
fish
specified
on
the
questionnaire
were
trout,
whitefish,
sturgeon3,
walleye,
squawfish,
and
sucker
(
Appendices
6­
8
for
species
names).
Respondents
were
also
asked
to
provide
information
concerning
,
their
consumption
of
other
fish
species
not
identified
in
the
questionnaire
that
may
or
may
not
originate
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin.

Fish
species
were
also
separated
into
their
appropriate
trophic
levels.
Second
trophic
level
fish,
those
that
are
mostly
herbivorous,
include
shad,
smelt,
sturgeon,
sucker,
whitefish,
and
small
trout.
The
carnivorous
third
trophic
level
fish
include
salmon,
walleye,
lamprey,
squawfish,
and
large
trout.
Since
trout
are
considered
both
second
and
third
level
fish,
these
species
have
been
placed
in
a
separate
category:
second/
third
level
fish
(
CRITFC,
1993).

Change
in
Consumption
Over
the
Last
20
Years
(
Ill­
8)

To
help
characterize
the
historical
pattern
of
tribal
fish
consumption
and
aid
in
determining
the
cultural
and/
or
environmental
causes
for
changes
in
tribal
fish
consumption
over
time,
respondents
30
years
old
and
older
were
asked
if
their
or
their
family's
current
pattern
of
fish
consumption
differs
from
the
pattern
of
consumption
they
experienced
20
years
ago.
These
questions
may
also
aid
in
predicting
future
increases
or
decreases
in
tribal
fish
consumption.

Fish
Parts
Consumed
(
111­
9,
IV­
6
for
children)

Respondents
were
asked
to
identify
the
fish
parts
they
usually
consume
for
each
species.
Fish
parts
listed
on
the
survey
were:
fillet,
skin,
head,
eggs,
bones
and
other
organs.
Respondents
were
also
asked
to
provide
the
same
information
for
one
child
five
years
of
age
or
younger
residing
in
the
respondent's
household.

2
Salmon
and
steelhead
trout
were
listed
together
on
the
survey
questionnaire
rather
than
as
separate
fish
species.
For
the
remainder
of
the
report,
references
to
salmon
also
include
steelhead
trout
and
references
to
trout
will
be
for
resident
trout
only.

3
Although
sturgeon
below
Bonneville
Dam
are
considered
anadromous,
we
have
delineated
this
species
as
resident
because
the
majority
are
located
above
Bonneville
Dam
and
are
now
considered
resident
fish.
Also,
because
the
tribal
commercial
fishery
begins
above
Bonneville
dam,
tribal
members
do
not
catch
sturgeon
below
Bonneville
dam.

20
Fish
Preparation
Methods
(
IV­
1)

Because
toxic
chemicals
may
attenuate
out
of
fish
flesh
when
prepared
by
certain
methods,
respondents
were
asked
about
the
different
methods
used
to
prepare
fish
in
their
homes
and
how
often
a
particular
method
is
used.
The
questionnaire
specifically
inquired
about
the
use
and
frequency
of
the
following
preparation
methods:
pan
frying,
deep
frying,
poaching,
boiling,
baking,
broiling,
smoking,
drying,
eating
raw,
roasting,
and
canning.
Respondents
also
were
asked
to
provide
information
concerning
how
often
they
use
each
method,
given
the
following
three
choices:
at
least
once
per
week,
at
least
once
per
month
but
less
than
once
per
week,
or
less
than
once
per
month.

Breastfeeding
(
Ii/­
g,
IO,
I
I,
12,731
Because
certain
toxic
contaminants
can
be
passed
to
newborn
infants
from
mother's
breast
milk,
female
respondents
were
asked
whether
they
have
given
birth,
and
if
so,
whether
the
child
or
children
had
been
or
are
being
breast
fed.
These
respondents
were
also
asked
at
what
age
their
child
ceased
or
will
cease
breastfeeding.

Source
of
Fish
Consumed
[
V­
I,
41
To
verify
where
respondents
were
obtaining
the
fish
they
consume,
respondents
were
asked
to
estimate
what
percent
of
the
fish
they
consume
is
from
the
following
sources:
self­
harvest
or
harvest
by
a
family
member;
friends
who
fish;
tribal
ceremonies;
tribal
distributions;
grocery
stores
or;
"
other."
Respondents
were
asked
to
identify
these
"
other"
sources.
Information
on
sources
of
fish
are
presented
as
the
sum
of
individual
responses
as
well
as
the
weighted
means
for
each
source.

F,%
hing
Site
Locations
(
V­
2)

In
order
to
provide
a
more
detailed
account
of
the
origin
of
fish
obtained
by
tribal
fishers,
participants
were
asked
to
identify
the
specific
locations
within
the
Columbia
River
Basin
where
they
fish
for
particular
species.
Those
participants
who
indicated
that
they
fish
for
themselves
or
the
Tribe
identified
fishing
sites
on
a
map
of
the
Columbia
River
Basin
provided
by
the
interviewer
displaying
numbered
sites
along
the
river's
mainstem
and
tributaries
(
Appendix
9).
Sites
selected
by
survey
respondents
do
not
however,
include
all
of
the
tribes'
usual
and
accustomed
fishing
areas
utilized
by
tribal
members
and
do
not
reflect
any
one
tribe's
exclusive
use
of
a
fishing
site.

Ceremonial
Consumption
of
Fish
{
VI­
1,2,3)

To
substantiate
the
cultural
importance
and
prevalence
of
fish
to
the
four
surveyed
tribes,
respondents
were
asked
questions
about
their
attendance
at
tribal
ceremonies
and
their
consumption
of
fish
at
these
events.

21
Data
Collection
Procedure
An
incentive
method
was
used
to
limit
the
cost
and
duration
of
the
project.
Due
to
the
large
distances
between
residences
and
the
frequent
movement
of
individuals
on
reservations,
interviewing
door­
to­
door
was
considered
unduly
time
consuming
and
expensive.
Monetary
incentives
($
40/
person)
were
used
to
encourage
individuals
to
come
to
a
central
location
on
the
reservation
to
be
surveyed.
Survey
participants
were
notifie`
d
of
the
time
and
location
for
interviews
by
letters
signed
by
tribal
government
officials
(
Appendix
10).

After
the
initial
invitation
letter
was
sent
to
tribal
members,
interviewers
were
instructed
to
make
at
least
four
attempts
to
contact
an
individual
by
phone
and
finally,
to
make
an
attempt
to
conduct
a
door­
to­
door
interview.
The
survey
instrument
was
designed
to
allow
interviewers
up
to
four
recorded
attempts
to
interview
an
individual.
Reasons
were
provided
by
the
interviewer
for
why
an
individual
could
not
be
interviewed
for
each
attempt
made.
In
most
cases,
more
than
four
attempts
were
made
to
contact
an
individual
by
phone.
If
these
attempts
were
unsuccessful,
the
interviewer
would
then
attempt
a
door­
to­
door
interview.
Of
all
the
door­
to­
door
attempts
made
by
interviewers,
only
one
individual
was
contacted
and
interviewed
by
this
method.
A
total
of
513
interviews
were
completed
in
a
three
week
period.

Quality
Assurance/
Quality
Control
in
Survey
implementation
Pretest
A
survey
pretest
was
conducted
during
October
1991.
One
Warm
Springs
tribal
member
and
one
Umatilla
tribal
member
were
hired
to
interview
approximately
10
tribal
members
each
from
their
respective
reservations.
The
interviewers
were
informed
as
to
the
purpose
of
the
survey
and
were
instructed
by
phone
on
basic
surveying
procedure
and
techniques.
The
pretest
lasted
approximately
one
week
and
respondents
were
paid
from
5
to
10
dollars
for
participating.
The
results
of
the
pre­
test
were
used
to
determine
the
time
required
to
administer
the
survey
and
to
identify
potential
problems
with
interpretation
or
delivery
of
survey
questions.
As
a
result
of
the
pretest,
some
of
the
questions
in
the
survey
questionnaire
were
modified.

Interviewer
Training
Nine
tribal
members
(
three
from
the
Nez
Perce,
two
from
the
Yakama,
two
from
the
Warm
Springs,
and
two
from
the
Umatilla
Tribe)
were
hired
to
conduct
interviews
at
locations
on
each
of
the
tribal
reservations.
Interviewers
surveyed
only
members
of
the
Tribe
to
which
the
interviewer
belonged.

22
A
three­
day
training
session
for
interviewers
was
conducted
by
a
representative
from
CDC
at
CRITFC's
office
in
Portland,
Oregon
in
October
1991
i
During
the
training
session,
interviewers
were
instructed
in
surveying
procedure
and
techniques,
including
locating
interviewees,
obtaining
accurate
data,
prevention
of
bias
in
responses
to
questions,
use
of
food
models
to
assist
respondents
in
determining
amounts
of
food
consumed,
and
quality
control.
In
addition,
the
questionnaire
was
reviewed
question­
by­
question
to
eliminate
potential
misunderstanding
on
the
part
of
the
interviewers
and
interviewees.
The
training
included
practice
interviews
in
the
presence
of
an
instructor.

Lastly,
interviewers
were
directed
to
make
the
following
statement
of
purpose
to
each
survey
respondent
before
beginning
the
questionnaire:

We
are
conducting
a
survey
to
understand
fish
eating
patterns
as
well
as
other
dietary
patterns
and
health­
related
behaviors4
of
Native
Americans
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
The
information
given
in
this
survey
will
assist
the
[
name
of
Tribe]
in
documenting
actual
rates
of
dietary
fish
consumption,
ways
in
which
fish
meals
are
cooked
and
prepared,
the
types
of
fish
species
regularly
consumed,
and
locations
where
fish
are
caught
or
obtained.

Use
of
Food
Models
Foam
sponge
food
models
approximating
four,
eight,
and
twelve
ounce
fish
fillets
were
provided
to
aid
respondents
in
estimating
amounts
of
fish
consumed.

In
ternal
Technical
Review
Final
drafts
of
the
report
were
submitted
to
several
CRITFC
and
tribal
staff
for
review
and
comment.
Each
tribes'
governing
body
and
the
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
were
formally
briefed
on
the
report
data
for
final
approval.
All
submitted
comments
were
addressed
in
subsequent
edits.

Outside
Technical
Review
4
In
a
separate
effort
to
simultaneously
obtain
other
non­
dietary
information
from
tribal
respondents
during
the
fish
consumption
survey
interview,
a
separate
behavioral
risk
questionnaire
was
developed.
A
policy
decision
was
made
by
the
Nez
Perce
tribe
to
ask
these
behavioral
risk
questions
to
Nez
Perce
tribal
members
participating
in
the
fish
consumption
survey.
Members
of
the
other
three
participating
tribes
did
not
participate
in
the
behavioral
risk
survey
but
were
presented
with
the
same
introductory
statement.

23
Several
drafts
of
the
report
were
submitted
to
members
of
the
technical
panel
and
to
several
USEPA
staff
for
comment
and
review.
All
panel
members
and
all
USEPA
staff
submitted
comments
either
in
writing
or
verbally
to
CRITFC.
­

Independent
Peer
Review
A
final
draft
of
the
report
incorporated
all
prior
solicited
comments
and
was
submitted
to
an
independent
peer
review
panel
(
Appendix
3).
The
peer
review
panel,
selected
by
CRITFC,
consisted
of
nine
individuals
from
across
the
country
esteemed
in
the
fields
of
epidemiology,
toxicology,
survey
methodology
and
statistics.

Procedures
for
Pro
tee
ting
Confidentiality
Information
revealing
participant
identity
was
removed
from
survey
questionnaires
immediately
after
respondent
names
were
verified
with
the
master
sample
list.
Thus,
respondents
cannot
be
identified
from
the
individual
questionnaires.
Confidentiality
agreements
were
signed
between
any
contractors
and
CRITFC
stating
that
none
of
the
information
provided
in
the
database
or
the
survey
would
be
revealed
before
release
of
the
final
report.
In
addition,
following
completion
of
the
report,
all
relevant
information
was
returned
to
CRITFC.
Lastly,
general
information
and
conclusions
reached
as
a
result
of
the
survey
were
reviewed
for
confidentiality
by
the
Commission
and
CRITFC's
member
Tribes
before
release
to
USEPA
or
the
public.

Data
Processing
Data
Entry
and
Audit
Survey
data
were
entered
by
computer
into
EPI
Info
Version
5.1,
a
Center
for
Disease
Control
statistical
database
package
used
for
analysis
of
epidemiological
data.
Entered
data
were
subsequently
reviewed
for
missing
answers
or
mistakes
in
data
entry
and
corrections
were
made
from
the
original
questionnaires.

A
second
complete
audit
of
the
database
was
conducted
by
a
private
consulting
firm
with
CRITFC's
approval
to
ensure
that
the
final
survey
results
would
reflect
the
high
and
low
estimate
ranges
for
the
responses
provided
on
the
questionnaires.
For
example,
respondents
often
would
provide
a
range
of
responses
regarding
their
estimated
fish
consumption.
In
these
cases,
the
lowest
number
in
the
range
was
recorded
in
the
database,
even
if
that
number
were
0.00.
In
addition,
data
were
consistently
rounded
down
before
being
entered
into
the
database.
This
second
audit
involved
a
question­
by­
question
review
of
each
survey
with
necessary
changes
made
to
the
original
database.

24
Data
Analysis
To
obtain
the
most
accurate
estimated
mean
rate
of
consumption
for
the
entire
set
of
respondents,
the
consumption
rate
for
each
respondent
in
grams
per
day
was
determined
from
the
data
on
serving
size
and
weekly
fish
consumption
collected
in
the
survey.
For
example,
the
fish
consumption
rate
of
an
individual
who
consumes
2
fish
meals
per
week
and
8
ounces
per
fish
meal
is
64.8
gpd.
The
calculation
is
as
follows:

0
8
ounces
x
2
meals
per
week5
=
16
ounces
per
week
0
16
ounces
per
week/
7
days
per
week
=
2.28
ounces
per
day
0
2.28
ounces
per
day
x
28.35
grams
per
ounce
=
64.8
gpd
Once
the
consumption
rate
for
each
respondent
was
calculated
in
grams
per
day
(
gpd),
the
average
and
distribution
of
these
individual
rates
were
calculated.
Thus,
the
mean
rate
of
consumption
for
adults
throughout
the
year
was
calculated
using
this
method,
with
the
mean
reported
in
gpd.
The
reported
mean
consumption
rate
estimate
also
includes
those
respondents
that
were
not
fish
consumers
and
thus
represents
the
estimated
consumption
rate
of
the
entire
tribal
population
sampled.

Responses
to
questions
concerning
the
number
of
fish
meals
consumed
by
adults
each
month
and
the
number
of
ounces
consumed
by
adults
at
each
meal
were
analyzed
to
determine
if
a
correlation
existed
between
these
parameters,
but
no
significant
correlation
was
found.
The
remainder
of
this
document
will
present
the
appropriate
results
in
terms
of
the
number
of
grams
consumed
per
day
(
gpd).
The
mathematical
conversion
from
ounces
to
grams
resulted,
in
some
cases,
precision
in
the
data
to
the
100th
decimal
point.
In
those
cases,
all
data
were
rounded
to
the
nearest
tenth.

EPI­
was
used
to
calculate
weighted
frequencies
and
proportions.
Programs
for
calculating
weighted
means
also
were
developed
using
EPI
and
results
were
verified
using
the
automatic
weighted
mean
option
in
SAS
Version
6,
produced
by
the
SAS
Institute.
Some
Chi­
square
analyses
were
performed
using
Lotus
l­
2­
3.

Statistical
Tests
Analysis
of
the
fish
consumption
rates
indicated
that
the
data
were
not
normally
or
log­
normally
distributed,
nor
were
any
other
standard
data
transforms
likely
to
yield
a
normal
distribution.
The
untransformed
data
and
log­
transformed
data
were
tested
5
In
cases
where
the
response
was
given
as
meals/
month,
the
calculation
was
as
follows:
ounces
x
meals/
month
=
ounces
per
month
ounces
per
montW30.4
days
per
month
=
ounces
per
day
ounces
per
day
x
28.35
grams/
ounce
=
grams
per
day
25
for
normality
using
SAS'
PROC
UNIVARIATE
option,
which
produces
a
test
statistic
for
the
null
hypothesis
that
the
input
data
values
are
a
random
sample
from
a
normal
distribution.
If
the
sample
size
is
less
than
2000,
the
Shapiro­
Wilkastatistic,
W,
is
computed.
The
W
statistic
is
the
ratio
of
the
best
estimator
of
the
variance
(
based
on
the
square
of
a
linear
combination
of
the
order
statistics)
to
the
usual
corrected
sum
of
squares
estimator
of
the
variance.
W
must
be
greater
than
zero
and
less
than
or
equal
to
one,
with
small
values
of
W
leading
to
rejection
of
the
null
hypothesis.
The
Shapiro­
Wilk
statistic
is
very
sensitive
to
any
deviations
from
normality,
and
the
test
showed
that
the
data
was
not
normally
distributed.

Ou
tliers
Outliers,
those
data
points
that
seemed
unreasonably
high
due
to
discontinuity
in
distribution,
were
identified
in
responses
to
some
survey
questions.
A
total
of
five
outliers
were
identified
and
these
data
points
were
ignored
in
all
calculations.
Of
the
five
data
outliers,
one
was
for
a
child's
estimated
number
of
meals
per
week,
two
were
adult
mens'
estimated
meals
per
week
and
two
were
adult
womens'
estimated
meals
per
week,
including
one
woman
who
breastfed
her
child.

Individual
Response
Rate
Calcufa
tions
Since
some
survey
respondents
opted
to
not
answer
certain
questions,
a
response
rate
is
provided
in
most
tables
representing
summary
results
for
each
question.
The
response
rate
was
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
responses
by
the
total
number
of
persons
who
should
have
answered
the
question.
For
example,
the
response
rate
for
the
question
concerning
women
who
have
given
birth
is
98.9
percent
because
285
females
were
surveyed
and
only
282
of
these
women
answered
this
question.
The
response
rate
for
questions
is
referred
to
in
the
report
as
RR.
In
those
instances
when
outliers
were
identified
and
ignored
in
the
final
data
calculations,
the
response
rate
was
also
modified
to
exclude
those
responses.
Thus,
the
response
rates
provided
in
the
report
that
omit
outliers
are
referred
in
the
report
as
RR'.

26
SURVEY
RESULTS
Completed
Surveys
An
overall
response
rate
(
RR)
of
69.0
percent
of
the
sample
was
obtained
and
included
126
completed
interviews
from
the
Warm
Springs
Tribe
(
RR
=
70.0%),
123
completed
interviews
from
the
Yakama
Tribe
(
RR
=
67.6%),
133
completed
interviews
from
the
Nez
Perce
Tribe
(
RR
=
65.8%),
and
131
completed
interviews
from
the
Umatilla
Tribe
(
RR
=
72.8%).

Approximately
43
percent
of
non­
responses
in
the
sample
represent
those
individuals
who
could
not
be
contacted
by
phone
or
other
means
or
who
had
moved
out
of
the
survey
area.
For
25.2
percent
of
the
non­
surveyed
group,
interviewers
provided
no
reason
for
lack
of
a
tribal
member's
participation
(
Table
1).

Demographid
Information
Location
of
Respondents
The
Yakama,
Nez
Perce,
Umatilla
and
Warm
Springs
reservations
cover
approximately
4445
square
miles.
Four
hundred
fifty­
two
respondents
(
88.1%)
lived
on
one
of
these
four
reservations
and
61
(
11.9%)
respondents
lived
off
reservation
(
RR
=
100%).
Individuals
close
to
the
interview
site
were
more
likely
to
be
surveyed
than
those
further
away
(
P
~
0.001).
Of
the
individuals
living
within
IO
miles
of
the
interview
site,
74%
were
surveyed
and
26%
were
not
surveyed.
The
percent
surveyed
dropped
off
with
increasing
distance
such
that
67%
of
individuals
between
31
and
70
miles
of
the
survey
site
were
surveyed
(
Table
2)(
Appendix
12
for
information
on
each
tribe).
Nine
of­
the
14
individuals
living
beyond
70
miles
from
the
interview
site
were
surveyed.

Sex
of
Respondents
More
females
(
57.9%)
participated
in
the
survey
than
males
(
42.1%)
(
RR
=
100%).
A
significant
difference
exists
between
the
number
of
males
and
females
who
were
surveyed
and
those
who
were
identified
in
the
original
sample
but
were
not
surveyed
(
p
<
0.05)
(
Table
3).

Age
of
Respondents
The
majority
of
survey
respondents
(
58.7%)
were
between
the
ages
of
18­
39
years;
31.4
percent
were
between
the
ages
of
40­
59
years;
and
9.9
percent
were
at
least
27
0
I
I
18­
29
50­
39
40­
49
50.
ti9
60­
69
70­
79
80­
89
90­
99
Age
OfJars)

Figure
1
Age
Groups
of
Adult
Respondents
60
years
old.
The
mean
age
of
respondents
was
38.9
(
0.64.
SE')
years
(
Table
4,
FQure
1).

Rates
of
Adult
Fish
Consumption
Adult
tribal
members
consumed
an
average
of
1.71
(
0.11
SE)
fish
meals
per
week
throughout
the
entire
year
(
RR
=
97.5%)
(
Table
5).
Approximately
75
percent
of
respondents
indicated
that
they
eat
up
to
8
ounces
of
fish
per
fish
meal
(
Table
`
6).
Approximately
17
percent
of
respondents
eat
12
ounces
at
each
serving,
and
1.1
percent
of
respondents
eat
as
much
as
20
to
24
ounces.
The
mean
of
individual
estimates
of
an
average
serving
of
fish
is
7.83
(
0.16
SE)
ounces.

6
.
SE
=
the
standard
error
of
the
mean
28
The
average
rate
of
consumption
by
all
surveyed
adults
throughout
the
year
for
all
species
from
all
sources
was
determined
to
be
58.7
(
3.64
SE)
gpd.
The
90th
percentile
of
consumption
was
between
97.2
and
130
gpd,
the
95th*
percentile
was
at
approximately
170
gpd;
and
the
99th
percentile
was
389
gpd
(
Figure
2,
Table
7)
(
RR
=
97.5%).
These
data
include
both
fish
consumers
and
non­
fish­
consumers.

120
­.*.­.*.
.­.­.­.*.
­:.:.:.:
.­;.
­......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
::
.­.*.­.­.­.­.
*...­.
­:.:.:.
z.:.:
::
.
.
..­.
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
e.....
j:
Legend
I
Figure
2
Grams
per
Day
or
twn
oy
AM
Adult
Respondents
Fish­
Consumers
Only
Seven
percent
of
respondents
indicated
that
they
were
not
fish
consumers.
Excluding
these
individuals,
surveyed
individuals
composed
solely
of
fish
consumers
consumed
an
average
of
1.85
(
0.11
SE)
fish
meals/
week
(
Table
8)
and
8.42
(
0.13
SE)
ounces/
meal
(
Table
9).
The
mean
rate
of
fish
consumption
for
fish
consumers
only
was
63.2
(
3.84
SE)
gpd
(
Table
10)
(
RR
=
97.3).

29
Fishers
Almost
half
(
48.7%)
of
the
tribal
members
surveyed
caught
fish
for
personal
consumption
or
for
use
by
their
Tribe
(
RR
=
99.4%).
Fish
consumption
rates
for
non­
fishers
and
individuals
who
fish
for
themselves
or
for
their
Tribe
are
similar.
However,
the
distributions,
which
are
not
normal,
are
significantly
different
(
p
=
.
OOOl)
(
Appendix
13).
The
variances
of
the
means
differ
in
three
ways:
14
percent
of
non­
fishers
are
also
non­
fish
eaters
while
only
3
percent
of
fishers
are
non­
fish
eaters;
fishers
representing
the
high
end
of
the
consumption
range
tend
to
eat
more
gpd
than
non­
fishers;
and
fishers
representing
the
low
end
of
the
consumption
range
(
above
0.0
gpd)
tend
to
eat
less
gpd
than
non­
fishers.

Rates
of
Consumption
for
Demographic
Categories
Male
tribal
members
consumed
significantly
more
fish
than
female
tribal
members
with
males
averaging
approximately
63
gpd
and
females
averaging
approximately
56
gpd
(
P
=
0.0005)
(
Table
11).
Although
the
differences
are
not
significant
(
p
>
0.05),
it
is
interesting
to
note
that
respondents
ages
60
years
and
older
consumed
an
average
of
74.4
gpd
of
fish
which
is
more
than
the
average
rate
for
persons
age
18­
39
years
or
persons
age
40­
59
years
(
Table
1
la)
and
individuals
living
on­
reservation
consumed,
on
average,
more
grams
of
fish
per
day
than
those
living
off­
reservation
(
Table
11
b).

Seasonal
Rate
of
Fish
Consumption
Almost
42
percent
of
respondents
indicated
that
most
fish
was
consumed
during
the
months
of
April
through
July
(
Figure
3,
Table
12)
(
RR
=
100%).
Approximately
18
percent
of
the
total
number
of
respondents
stated
that
they
eat
the
same
amount
of
fish
each
month
of
the
year;
7.0
percent
said
they
do
not
eat
fish
at
all
and;
about
0.6
percent
do
not
know
in
which
months
they
consumed
the
most
fish.

For
all
months
identified
as
high
fish
consumption
months
by
the
entire
population
sampled
(
i.
e.,
fish
consumers
and
non­
fish
consumers
combined)
respondents
consumed
an
average
of
87.9
(
4.80
SE)
gpd
of
fish
(
Table
13)
(
RR=
99%).
For
approximately
26
percent
of
respondents,
the
two
months
of
highest
fish
consumption
were
either
May
and
June,
June
and
July,
or
July
and
August.
For
the
months
of
May
and
June,
the
two
most
frequently
chosen
high
fish
consumption
months,
survey
respondents
consumed
an
average
of
2.93
(
0.18
SE)
meals/
week
or
108
(
7.63
SE)
gpd
(
Appendix
14)
(
RR
=
99.6%).

When
asked
about
the
months
of
lowest
fish
consumption,
56.7
percent
of
respondents
indicated
that
they
eat
the
least
fish
during
the
months
of
November
through
February
(
Figure
4,
Table
14)
(
RR
=
96.9%).
Approximately
28
percent
of
30
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jui
Aug
Sep
Ocl
Nov
Dee
X
Y
Z
Month
Figure
3
Monfhs
of
High
Fish
Consumpfion
respondents
estimated
either
January
and
February,
January
and
November,
or
November
and
December
as
their
two
months
of
least
fish
consumption.
Overall,
the
two
most
frequently
estimated
months
of
low
consumption
were
December
and
January.
In
addition,
3.38
percent
of
the
respondents
indicated
that
fish
consumption
is
equally
low
for
all
months
except
those
during
which
they
eat
the
most
fish.

For
all
months
identified
as
low
fish
consumption
months
by
the
entire
population
sampled,
respondents
consumed
an
average
of
26.4
(
1.39
SE)
gpd
(
Table
13)
(
RR
=
94.3%).
In
January
and
December,
the
two
most
frequently
chosen
months
of
low
fish
consumption,
survey
respondents
consumed
0.86
(
0.06
SE)
meals/
week
or
30.7
(
2.19
SE)
gpd
(
Appendix
15)
(
RR
=
97.6%).

Overall,
the
mean
rate
of
consumption
in
high
months
(
April­
July)
is
over
three
times
higher
than
the
mean
rate
of
consumption
in
low
months
(
November­
February)
and
the
mean
rate
of
consumption
in
May
and
June
is
over
three
times
higher
than
the
mean
rate
of
consumption
in
December
and
January.

31
LEGE'ND
X
­
All
Months
the
Sam
Y
­
Nevwdevwiy
Z
­
Unknown
Q'EY2
Exoept
Two
Highest
Months
JtmkbMarApcMayJunJdA~
SapoctNwI)
bcX
Y
Z
Q
MO&
l
Figure
4
MOnMS
Ot
Low
Hsn
GonsumptIon
DTe
tary
Recall
Approximately
19
percent
or
1
out
of
every
5
respondents,
indicated
that
they
had
eaten
fish
within
the
24
hours
preceding
the
survey
interview;
81.3
percent
of
respondents
had
not
consumed
fish
during
this
period
(
RR
=
100%).
The
overall
rate
of
consumption
reported
by
respondents
who
had
consumed
fish
in
the
24
hours
preceding
the
survey
was
compared
to
the
overall
rate
of
consumption
reported
by
respondents
who
had
not
consumed
fish
during
that
period
(
Appendix
16)
(
RR'
=
97.5%).
Individuals
who
ate
fish
during
that
time
period
estimated
significantly
higher
overall
consumption
rates
(
61.8
gpd)(
6.03
SE)
than
those
who
did
not
eat
fish
during
that
period
(
57.9
gpd)
(
4.28
SE)
(
p
=
.0013).

Women
Who
Have
Nursed
or
Currently
Are
Nursing
Their
Children
Of
the
88
percent
of
women
respondents
who
had
given
birth
(
RR
=
98.9%),
approximately
42
percent
indicated
that
they
currently
are
breast
feeding
or
have
32
breast
fed
their
children
(
Appendix
17)
(
RR
=
98.8%).
These
women
consumed
an
average
of
1.75
(
SE
0.17)
fish
meals
per
week
(
Table
15)
(
RR*
=
98.1%).
Nursing
mothers
or
mothers
who
have
nursed
ate
an
average
of
59.1
(
6.42
SE)
grams
of
fish
per
day
(
Table
16).
Therefore,
on
average,
women
who
breast
feed
or
had
breast­
fed
consumed
nearly
the
same
amount
of
fish
as
the
tribal
population
in
general.

The
average
rate
of
fish
consumption
for
all
women
except
those
who
are
or
have
breastfed
is
54.0
(
6.60
SE)
gpd
and
the
average
rate
of
fish
consumption
for
women
who
have
given
birth
but
never
breastfed
is
57.1
(
7.90
SE)
gpd
(
Appendix
17).
There
is
no
significant
difference
between
either
of
these
rates
and
the
average
rate
of
fish
consumption
for
women
who
are
or
have
breastfed
(
for
the
first
comparison,
p
sO.
05;
for
the
second
comparison,
p
>
0.05).

Consumption
of
Different
Species
by
Adults
Salmon
was
consumed
by
the
largest
number
of
respondents
(
92%)
(
RR
=
lOO%),
followed
by
trout
(
70%)
(
RR
=
1
OO%),
lamprey
(
54%)
(
RR
=
100%)
and
smelt
(
52%)
(
RR
=
99.2%)
(
Figures
5­
6,
Table
17).
Some
respondents
also
provided
information
concerning
other
fish
species
they
consume,
including
bass,
black
cod,
catfish,
chiselmouth,
crappie,
halibut,
Alaskan
cod,
blue
gill,
and
red
snapper.

The
average
rate
of
consumption
of
anadromous
species
for
only
those
respondents
who
consume
fish
was
28.8
(
1.45
SE)
gpd
and
the
average
consumption
rate
of
resident
species
was
10
(
0.77
SE)
gpd
(
Figures
7­
8,
Table
18).
Table
19
illustrates
overall
consumption
of
individual
fish
species
by
both
fish
consumers
and
non­
fish­
consumers.
These
rates
were
determined
by
combining
the
average
consumption
rate
for
each
individual
who
consumes
a
particular
species
with
the
average
serving
size
in
ounces
for
that
individual
and
then
calculating
the
mean
of
the
individual
consumption
rates.
Overall,
ail
four
Tribes
consumed
significantly
more
gpd
of
anadromous
fish
than
resident
fish
(
p
<
0.05).

Data
concerning
frequency
of
overall
(
fish
consumers
and
non­
fish
consumers)
consumption
are
generally
consistent
with
data
concerning
the
rates
of
consumption
of
each
species:
92.4
percent
of
tribal
members
consumed
salmon,
and
these
individuals
ate
on
average
23.7
(
1.16
SE)
gpd.
Approximately
70
percent
of
the
tribal
population
consumed
trout,
and
these
individuals
ate
on
average
6.62
(
0.57
SE)
gpd.
Although
only
22.8
percent
of
the
tribal
population
consumed
whitefish,
these
individuals
ate
on
average
1.93
(
0.36
SE)
gpd
(
Tables
17,
19,
Figures
7­
8).
Overall,
in
order
of
the
species
listed
in
Table
19,
more
salmon
is
consumed
than
trout
or
any
other
species
(
p
<
0.0001);
more
trout
is
consumed
than
lamprey
or
any
other
species
listed
after
it
(
p
<
0.0001);
more
whitefish
is
consumed
than
sturgeon
or
any
other
species
listed
after
it
(
p
<
0.05);
and
more
sturgeon
is
consumed
than
walleye
or
any
other
species
listed
after
it
(
p
<
0.0001).

33
(
Data
Represents
Ail
Adult
Respondents)

Salmon
LamPreY
Smelt
Shad
Species
Figure
5
Anadromous
Fish
Species
Consumed
by
Adults
Consumption
by
Fish
Trophic
Level
in
terms
of
consumption
of
fish
by
trophic
level,
tribal
members
consumed
an
average
of
5.31
(
0.54
SE)
gpd
of
second
level
fish
(
shad,
smelt,
sturgeon,
sucker,
whitefish
and
small
trout),
6.62
(
0.57
SE)
gpd
of
trout,
and
26.6
(
1.32
SE)
gpd
of
third
level
fish
(
salmon,
walleye,
lamprey,
squawfish
and
large
trout).
Overall,
tribal
members
consumed
significantly
more
third­
level
fish
than
either
trout
(
p
<
0.05)
or
second­
level
fish
(
p
<
0.05),
but
there
is
no
significant
difference
in
the
rates
of
consumption
of
trout
and
second
level
fish
(
p
>
0.20).

34
(
Data
Represents
All
Adult
Respondents)

Bo/
I
Whitefish
Sturgeon
Walleye
Sqpwfis
h
Sucker
SpedeS
Figure
6
Resident
Fish
Species
Consumed
by
Adults
35
(
Data
Represents
Both
Fish
Consumers
and
Non­
Fish
Conwmers)
26
I
I
24
Salmon
WPmY
Smelt
Shad
Species
gure
7
Adult
Rate
of
Consumption
of
Anad,
romous
Fish1
Species
Consumption
of
Specific
Parts
by
Adults
Respondents
indicated
that
the
following
fish
parts
were
consumed:
fillet,
skin,
head,
eggs,
bones,
and
other
organs.

Overall,
fillet
and
skin
were
the
two
most
consumed
fish
parts
for
ail
ten
species
listed
on
the
questionnaire
with
the
fillet
being
the
number
one
consumed
fish
part
for
ail
species
except
lamprey
and
smelt
(
Table
20).
For
lamprey
and1
smelt,
the
skin
was
the
most
consumed
fish
part.
in
addition,
more
than
40
percent
of
respondents
indicated
that
they
consumed
salmon
head
and/
or
eggs;
37.4
percent
of
respondents
consumed
smelt
heads;
46.4
percent
of
respondents
consumed
smelt
eggs;
27.9
percent
of
respondents
consumed
smelt
organs
and;
approximately
12%
consumed
sturgeon
eggs
(
Appendix
18
for
Chi­
square
test
comparisons).

36
(
Data
Represents
Both
Fish
Consumers
and
Non­
Fish
Consumers)

8/
1
c32
$
1
0
Whitefish
Sturgeon
Walleye
Squwfish
Sudw
spi3cies
Figure
8
Adult
Rate
of
Consumption
of
Resident
Fish
Species
37
0
Salmon
LamPBY
Smelt
Shad
specks
.

Figure
9
Adult
Consumption
of
Anadromous
Fish
Parts
Respondents
Whose
Fish
Consumption
Has
Changed
Over
the
Last
20
Years
Approximately
70
percent
of
respondents
who
were
older
than
30
years
believed
they
and/
or
their
families
currently
consume
a
different
amount
of
fish
than
they
did
20
years
ago
(
RR
=
99.4%).

Type
of
Change
Of
the
70
percent
who
indicated
a
change,
26.2
percent
indicated
an
increase
in
fish
consumption;
68.5
percent
indicated
a
decrease
in
fish
consumption;
and
5.4
percent
said
they
eat
different
species
of
fish
now,
but
have
not
changed
their
overall
fish
consumption
level.
Some
respondents
indicated
both
a
change
in
the
level
of
their
personal
fish
consumption
and
a
change
in
the
types
of
fish
they
eat.
Data
for
these
individuals
were
included
in
the
above
percentages
reflecting
increases
or
decreases
in
consumption
(
Figure
11).
Overall,
4.2
percent
of
respondents
said
they
now
38
Trout
Whbfmh
Sturgeon
Walleye
Squawfiih
Sudw
species
Figure
10
Adult
Consumption
of
Resident
Fish
Parts
consume
more
and
different
types
of
fish,
and
0.6
percent.
indicated
they
now
consume
less
and
different
types
of
fish.

Quantifiable
Change
For
the
26.2
percent
who
indicated
that
they
or
their
families
eat
more
fish
now
than
20
years
ago,
the
average
increase
in
the
number
of
fish
meals
consumed
is
2.41
(
0.37
SE)
meals
per
week
(
Appendix
19)
(
RR
=
100%).
For
the
68.5
percent
who
eat
less
fish
per
week
now
than
20
years
ago,
the
average
decrease
in
the
number
of
fish
meals
consumed
is
2.83
(
0.28
SE)
meals
per
week
(
Appendix
19)
(
RR
=
100%).
The
change
in
the
number
of
grams
consumed
per
day
over
the
last
20
years
could
not
be
calculated
because
the
respondents
only
provided
data
concerning
the
current
number
of
ounces
consumed
per
fish
meal
by
themselves,
nol:
their
families.

39
­
­.

EalLetx
EatDllbmtsped~
Change
In
Consumption
Lbgmd
q
Cwsume
Diftkent
Amount
and
Difkent
Speck
gure
11
Change
in
Consumption
Over
the
Last
20
Years
Children
Information
on
fish
consumption
was
obtained
for
204
children;
45.8
percent
of
these
children
were
male.(
RR
=
98.5%).

Age
When
Children
Begin
Eating
Fish
The
average
age
when
children
began
eating
meals
that
include
fish
was
13.1
(
0.71
SE)
months
(
Table
21).
In
addition,
approximately
71
percent
of
these
children
started
eating
fish
by
the
end
of
their
first
year.
Approximately
216
percent
of
children
started
eating
fish
by
the
age
of
6
months.
However,
the
average
age
of
infants
when
mothers
ceased
breast
feeding
was
7.64
(
0.62
SE)
mont:
hs
(
Appendix
20).

40
Children's
Consumption
Rates
Approximately
83
percent
of
the
204
tribal
children
five
years
of
age
or
younger
about
whom
information
was
given
ate
fish.
Children
who
consumed
fish
ate
an
average
of
1
.
I
7
(
0.11
SE)
fish
meals
per
week
(
Table
22),
and
3.36
(
0.18
SE)
ounces
per
meal
(
Table
23).
The
average
rate
of
fish
consumption
for
these
children
is
19.6
(
1.94
SE)
gpd
(
Table
24)
(
RR
=
95.1%).

Consumption
of
Different
Species
by
Children
Respondents
indicated
that
children,
like
adults,
consumed
more
salmon
and
trout
than
any
other
species
(
Figures
14­
15,
Table
25).
Frequency
alf
consumption
of
the
other
eight
species
also
closely
follows
the
pattern
of
consumption
among
adults.

Children
described
by
survey
respondents
tended
to
have
higher
rates
of
consumption
of
salmon
(
19.0
(
1.47
SE)
gpd)
than
any
other
fish
species
(
Table
26,
Figures
12­
I
3).
The
large
standard
error
of
the
mean
consumption
rate
for
whitefish
reflects
the
fact
that
one
respondent
indicated
that
his/
her
child
consumes
60
meals
of
whitefish
per
month;
all
other
respondents
who
answered
this
question
estimated
2
meals
per
month
or
less.
Although
60
meals
per
month
could
be
considered
an
unreasonable
response
when
compared
to
other
responses
to
this
question,
it
is
equivalent
to
15
meals
per
week,
which
was
not
determined
to
be
an
unreasonable
response
when
calculating
the
rate
of
children's
fish
consumption
throughout
the
year.
Some
respondents
also
indicated
that
their
children
consumed
other
fish
species,
including
bass,
black
cod,
catfish,
crappie,
and
blue
gill.

Consumption
of
Specific
Parts
by
Children
As
in
the
case
of
adults,
fillet
and
skin
are
consumed
the
most
frequently
by
children.
Respondents
indicated
that
their
children
consumed
fillet
more
frequently
than
any
other
fish
part
for
all
ten
species
(
Figures
16­
l
7,
Table
27).
Skin
was
the
second
most
frequently
consumed
fish
part
for
all
ten
species,
with
the
skin
of
lamprey
and
smelt
consumed
the
most.

41
0
Salmon
Lamprey
Smelt
Shad
sfJecles
igure
12
Rate
of
Consumption
of
Anadromous
Fish
Species
by
Children
(
Data
Represents
Fish
Consumers
Only)

42
I
I
I
I
Whitefish
Sturgeon
Walleye
Squawfish
sucker
SpiCBS
igure
13
Rate
of
Consumption
of
Resident
Fish
Species
by
Children
(
Dal
Represents
Fish
Consumers
Only)

Fish
Preparation
Methods
Of
all
surveyed
respondents,
70.3
percent
indicated
that
they
regularly
prepare
the
meals
in
their
households
(
RR
=
100%).
The
largest
number
of
respondents
(
98.3%)
indicated
that
they
bake
their
fish,
and
the
second
largest
number
of
respondents
(
79.5%)
pan
fry
their
fish
(
Figure
18,
Table
28).
These
two
methods
were
compared,
and
the
frequencies
of
use
were
found
to
be
significantly
different
(
p
<
0.005):

Baking,
the
method
used
by
the
largest
percent
of
respondents,
was
used
the
most
often,
with
34.6
percent
of
respondents
using
this
method
at
least
once
per
week
and
81.1
percent
of
respondents
baking
their
fish
at
least
once
per
month
(
Table
29).
Approximately
75
percent
of
respondents
indicated
that
they
can
their
fish,
and
64.9
percent
of
these
persons
do
so
at
least
once
a
month.
Although
only
39.3
percent
of
respondents
broil
their
fish,
68.2
percent
of
these
persons
use
this
method
at
least
once
per
month.
In
addition,
the
methods
of
smoking
or
roasting
fish
are
used
by
43
­
loo
­
1
90
80
70
al
50
40
30
20
10
0
L
I
ShlOtl
LamPreY
Smelt
Shad
species
Figure
14
Anadromous
Fish
Species
Consumed
by
Children
66.2
percent
and
71.3
percent
of
respondents
respectively,
but
only
41
.
O
percent
of
pe?
sons
who
roast
their
fish
do
so
at
least
once
per
month
and
(
only
46.4
percent
of
individuals
who
smoke
their
fish
do
so
at
least
once
per
month.
Only
3.2
percent
of
respondents
eat
their
fish
raw,
but
34.4
percent
of
these
individuals
do
so
at
least
once
a
month.

The
Chi­
square
statistical
test
was
used
to
compare
the
weighted
frequencies
of
positive
and
negative
responses
to
questions
concerning
the
use
of
each
preparation
method.
Each
method
was
compared
to
the
next
most
frequently
used
method
(
Appendix
2
1).

Origin
of
Fish
Consumed
Overall,
respondents
obtained
87.6
(
1
.
I
SE)
percent
of
fish
from
the
following
sources
combined:
self­
harvesting,
harvesting
by
family
members,
friends,
ceremonies,
and
tribal
distributions.
Survey
respondents
obtained
the
most
fish
on
44
VW&
fish
Sturgeon
Walleye
SquawFish
Sucker
Species
Figure
15
Resident
Fish
Species
Consumed
by
Children
average
through
harvesting
by
themselves
or
their
families
(
Appendix
22),
and
aFproximately
55
percent
of
surveyed
individuals
stated
that
at
least
50
percent
of
the
fish
they
eat
is
obtained
from
these
sources
(
Figure
30).
Thus,
approximately
88
percent
of
the
fish
that
tribal
members
consume
originates
from
the
Columbia
River
system.

In
addition,
17.4
percent
of
tribal
members
obtain
50
percenl:
or
more
of
their
fish
from
tribal
distribution,
8.3
percent
obtain
a
major
portion
of
fish
from
ceremonies,
and
11.2
percent
from
friends
who
fish.
Approximately
7
percent
of
respondents
obtain
50
percent
or
more
of
their
fish
from
grocery
stores
and
2.9
percent
from
other
sources,
including
restaurants,
warehouses,
or
purchases
from
tribal
fishers
(
Appendix
22).
These
fish
may
or
may
not
have
been
harvested
from
the
Columbia
River
basin.
Appendix
22
provides
information
concerning
other
sources
of
fish
indicated
by
survey
respondents.

45
0
Salmon
LamPreY
Smelt
Shad
Species
Figure
16
Children's
Consumption
of
Anadromous
Fish
Paw
Fish
Harvesting
Approximately
49
percent
of
respondents
indicated
that
they
harvest
fish
for
personal
or
tribal
consumption
(
RR
=
99.4%).
More
than
57
percent
of
these
persons
travel
more
than
75
miles
to
harvest
fish
(
Appendix
23).

Fishing
sites
used
by
the
Tribes
are
located
throughout
the
basiin
(
Appendix
24).
All
sites
displayed
on
the
map
of
the
river
system
(
Appendix
9)
Iwere
chosen
at
least
once.
In
most
cases,
however,
two
or
three
sites
were
used
by
a
majority
of
tribal
members
for
obtaining
either
anadromous
or
resident
fish.

For
example,
for
catching
resident
species,
55.7
percent
of
Nez
Perce
respondents
fish
at
the
South,
Middle
and
North
forks
of
the
Clearwater
River
(
Figure
20);
98.4
percent
of
Warm
Springs
respondents
fish
the
Deschutes
River
(
Figure
22);
44.2
percent
of
Yakama
respondents
fish
along
the
Columbia
River
mainstem
between
McNary
Dam
and
the
confluence
with
the
Sandy
River,
while
25.2
percent
fish
the
Klickitat
River,
and
22.8
percent
fish
the
Yakima
River
(
Figure
24);
and
finally,
66.1
46
Tlwt
Whitelish
Sturgaon
Walleye
Squawfirh
Suckm
Species
Figure
17
Children's
Consumption
of
Resident
Fish
Parts
percent
of
the
Umatilla
respondents
fish
the
Umatilla
River
(
Fiigure
26).

For
catching
anadromous
fish,
46
percent
of
Nez
Perce
respondents
fish
the
Clearwater
River
and
24
percent
fish
the
Salmon
River
Mainstem,
Middle
and
South
forks
(
Figure
19);
75.2
percent
of
Warm
Springs
respondents
fish
the
Deschutes
River
(
Figure
21);.
and
53.3
percent
of
Yakama
respondents
fish
along
the
Columbia
River
mainstem
from
Chief
Joseph's
Dam
to
the
Sandy
River
confluence
(
Figure
23);
and
43.6
percent
of
Umatilla
respondents
fish
the
Umatilla
River
and
21.8
percent
fish
along
the
Columbia
River
mainstem
between
Priest
Rapids
Dam
and
the
Sandy
River
confluence
(
Figure
25).

47
0
BA
PF
CA
BO
RO
DR
SM
BR
DF
PC
RA
Preparation
Method
BA­
BakiA
Bo=
Ehibd
BR=
Bmiled
CA­
cbamcd
DF­
DetpPdal
DR­
D&
i
PF­
PanFlial
PO­
pbachad
l&
i­
Raw
RO=
Raseted
SM­
smoked
Figure
18
Fish
Preparation
Methods
48
ll.
OW­
.4%
Legend
q
Clezuwater
R.

cl
Snak:
e
R.
q
SalmaR.
Grande
Ronde
R.

°
lll
Columbia
R.,
malnstem
q
Other
igure
19
Nez
Perce
Tribe­
Anadromous
Fish
Fishing
Sites;

49
Legend
!
BBi
Cl
earwa&
w
R.
17
Sna!
keR.
@
Salmon
R.

q
Grande
Ronde
R.

m
Columbia
R.,
mainstem
H
Other
igure
20
Nez
Perce
Tribe­
Resident
Fish
Fishing
Sites
.50
­
7.2%
Legend
EiBi
Desohutes
R.

cl
Colulmbia
R.,
mainstem
Other
Figure
21
Warm
Springs
Tribe­
Anadromous
Fish
Fishing
!
Ytes
5­
l
90.4%

­
1.8%
I@
Deschutes
R.

L­
l
Hood
R.

igure
22
Warm
Springs
Tribe­
Resident
Fish
Fishing
Sites
52
63.3%
Legend
q
Columbia
R.,
m&
stem
0
Gem1arlyCk
q
Fif&
enmilg
Ck
°
j
Lewis
R.

°
NII
Willamette
R.
Yakima
R.
CowMtz
R.
Klickitat
R.

El
Other
Hood
R.
Waslhougal
R.
Umatilla
R.

igure
23
Yakama
Tribe­
Anadromous
Fish
Fishing
Sites
53
­,

1
Legend
­
7.8%

262%'

Figure
24
Yakama
Tribe­
Resident
Fish
Fishing
Sites
q
Cohmbia
R.,
mainstem
cl
Klic.+
dtat
R.
Yakima
R.
other
54
1.8%.

21.8%'
Legend
q
Umatilla
R.

cl
Twtnnon
R.
q
Columbia
R.,
mainstem
liEI
Deschutes
R.

q
Grande
Ronde
R.
Walla
Walla
R.
Johln
Day
R.
Snake
R.
Othlef
Figure
25
Umatilla
Tribe­
Anadromous
Fish
Fishing
Sites
55
Legend
q
Umatilla
R.
c]
Coiulmbia
R.,
mainstem
Grande
Ronde
R.
John
Day
R.
Walk
Walla
R.
q
Other
Figure
ZB
Umatilla
Tribe­
Resident
Fish
Fishing
Sites
Ceremonial
Consumption
of
Fish
Frequent
y
of
Ceremony
Attendance
The
survey
data
indicates
that
93.3
percent
of
tribal
members
from
the
four
Tribes
have
attended
ceremonies
or
traditional
events
(
Appendix
25).
in
addition,
52.4
percent
of
tribal
members
attend
ceremonies
at
least
one
to
three
times
per
month,
and
approximately
15.3
percent
of
individuals
attend
ceremonties
or
events
at
least
four
to
six
times
per
month.

Frequent
y
of
Fish
Consumption
at
Ceremonies
Of
the
93.3
percent
who
do
attend
ceremonies,
72.6
percent
of
respondents
eat
fish
at
nearly
every
ceremony
they
attend
and
83.7
percent
of
respolndents
eat
fish
during
at
least
half
of
the
ceremonies
they
attend
(
Figure
27)
(
RR
=
100%).

56
80
I
Rarely/
never
At
<
II2
At
appic.
112
Frequency
of
Consumption
Neatly
all
igure
27
Frequency
of
Fish
Consumption
at
Tribal
Ceremonies
Amount
of
Fish
Consumption
During
Tribal
Ceremonies
The
majority
of
respondents
(
59.8%)
indicated
that
they
eat
approximately
one
to
two
6­
ounce
servings
at
each
ceremony
Approximately
40.2
percent
of
respondents
typically
eat
more
than
this
amount
during
tribal
ceremonies
(
Figure
28)
(
RR
=
100%).

Finally,
data
concerning
the
amount
of
fish
consumed
at
ceremonies
based
on'the
frequency
of
attendance
at
ceremonies
indicated
a
relationship
between
frequency
of
ceremony
attendance
and
fish
consumption
at
ceremonies,
such
that
the
more
frequently
an
individual
attended
ceremonies,
the
more
likely
he/
she
was
to
consume
fish
at
those
ceremonies.

57
­\
,

6­
12
18­
24
30­
38
>
36
Amount
(
ounces)

Figure
28
Amount
of
Fish
Consumed
at
Tribal
Ceremonies
58
DISCUSSION
Comparisons
With
the
Estimated
National
Fish
Consumption
Rate
for
the
U.
S.
Population
Numerous
national
and
state
surveys
have
been
conducted
over
the
past
three
decades
to
determine
the
fish
consumption
rates
of
the
U.
S.
population
and
various
subpopulations.
However,
none
of
these
surveys
have
comprehensively
studied
the
ceremonial
and
subsistence
consumption
habits
of
Columbia
River
Basin
Indians.
in
developing
their
Ambient
Water
Quality
Criteria
(
AWQC)
for
various
chemicals,
USEPA
estimates
national
per
capita
fish
consumption
at
6.5
gpd
(
USEPA,
1980).
This
value
was
derived
from
data
obtained
from
the
National
PUrChaSe
Diary
Survey
conducted
in
1973­
1974
(
SRI,
1980)
and
includes
all
commercially­
harvested
and
recreationally­
caught
freshwater
and
estuarine
fish
and
shellfish.
According
to
results
from
CRiTFC's
survey,
the
average
fish
consumption
rate
of
Umatilla,
Yakama,
Nez
Perce,
and
Warm
Springs
tribal
members
is
approximately
nine
tiimes
greater
than
the
average
consumption
rate
estimated
for
the
general
U.
S.
population.

The
rates
of
tribal
members'
consumption
across
gender,
age
groups,
persons
who
live
on­
vs.
off­
reservation,
fish
consumers
only,
seasons,
nurs#
ing
mothers,
fishers,
and
non­
fishers
range
from
6
to
`
I
1
times
higher
than
the
national
estimate
used
by
USEPA.
The
consistency
of
these
results
suggest
that
USEPA's
AWQC
and
state
adopted
water
quality
standards
for
the
Columbia
River
basin
based
on
a
consumption
rate
of
6.5
gpd
may
not
be
sufficient
to
protect
the
health
of
Native
Americans
living
and
consuming
fish
caught
in
the
area
(
Figure
29
for
some
connparisons).

59
,
U.
S.
Nationsl
Avg.
(
6.5
opd)

CRITFC
Data
(
except
U.
S.
data)

igure
29
Comparisons
of
Consumption
Rates­
CRITFC
Data
vs.
U.
S.
Average
(
6.5
gpd)

Comparison
of
Rates
from
Other
Surveys
Although
results
from
other
surveys
vary
considerably,
estimates
of
fish
consumption
rates
provided
by
these
surveys
are
consistently
lower
than
estimates
determined
by
the
Columbia
River
Basin
Fish
Consumption
Survey
(
CRBFCS),
even
those
reporting
estimates
for
tribal
populations.

As
detailed
in
the
results
section,
tribal
members
represented
by
the
CRBFCS
consumed
an
average
of
58.7
(
3.64
SE)
gpd
of
fish,
and
the
top
five
percent
,
conkumers
consumed
more
than
170
gpd.
Because
a
qualitative
comparison
of
other
surveys
reveals
some
interesting
differences,
a
brief
overview
of
fish
consumption
estimates
from
other
selected
national,
state
and
local
consumption
surveys
is
provided
in
the
following
chart:

60
Chart
1:
Fish
Consumption
Estimates
Presented
in
Other
Surveys
Survey
with
Reference
Estimate
of
fish
consumption
rate
.
Description
National
Purchase
Diary
SRI
(
1980)
14.3
gpd
National
estimates
for
consumption
of
all
sources
of
fish.

U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agriculture
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agriculture
(
1986)
12
ad
5
a@
Mean
estimate
for
women
ages
19­
50
years
old
Mean
for
children
ages
i
­
5
years
old.

Northwest
Pulp
and
Paper
Association
Beak
Consultants
(
1989)
7.91
gpd
(
1982)
14.59
gpd
(
1987)
Estimated
consumption
rates
of
Columbia
River
basin
sport
fishers
with
families.
Includes
consumption
of
all
sipeoiee
caught,
based
on
fishery
landings
and
population
census
data.

20.41
gpd
(
1982)
36.48
gpd
(
1987
Estimeted
consumption
rate
for
Columbia
River
basin
sport
fishers
only.
Includes
consumption
of
all
specieci
caught.

.13
gpd
(
1982)
1.05
gpd
(
1988)
Estimeted
consumption
rates
for
general1
population
for
fish
caught
in
lower
Columbia
River
Basin.
Excludes
sport
fishermen
and
Native
Americans.

5.6
gpd
(
1982)
16.37
gpd
(
1988)
Estimated
consumption
rate
of
Native
Americans
(
Warm
Springs,
Yakama,
Nez
Perce,
Umatilla
tribes)
based
ton
retained
landings
and
tribal
population.

Michigan
Sport
Anglers
Survey
(
West,
P,,
et
al.,
1989)

Penobscot
River
Users
Survey
Maine
Dept.
of
Natural
Resources
(
1991)

Survey
of
Maine
Anglers
ChemRisk
(
1991)
24.3
gpd
23.1
gpd
11
ad
48
ad
5.0
gpd
6.4
gpd
Native
American
anglers
in
survey
area.

Native
Americans
age
60
and
older.

50th
percentile
90th
percentile
All
Maine
anglers
Maine
fish
consuming
anglers
61
Adult
Rates
of
Fish
Consumption
CRITFC
and
the
tribes
have
reported
a
mean
consumption
rate
of
58.7
gpd
which
includes
all
respondents
(
fish
consumers
as
well
as
non­
fish­
consumers)
so
that
the
mean
rate
would
be
most
representative
of
the
entire
tribal
polpulation.
However,
it
is
important
to
note
that
for
assessing
human
health
damage
from
ingestion
of
contaminated
fish,
it
may
be
more
accurate
to
use
estimates
based
on
fish
consumers
only
such
that
the
population
most
affected
will
be
adequately
alccounted
for.
The
rate
of
consumption
for
fish
consumers
only
was
63.2
gpd.

Children
Although
further
studies
are
needed
to
determine
actual
fish
consumption
rates
of
children,
the
survey
data
suggest
that
similarities
exist
between
fish
species
and
parts
consumed
by
children
living
in
the
households
of
respondents
and
the
respondents
themselves.
Adults
indicated
that
children
also
consumed
salmon
and
trout
most
frequently.
Also
like
adults,
children
consumed
the
fillet
and
skin
of
all
ten
species
more
frequently
than
other
fish
parts.
These
similarities
make
sense
since
families
who
eat
together
tend
to
consume
the
same
foods
in
general.
In
addition,
the
data
show
that
children
about
whom
information
was
given
consumed
approximately
3
times
more
fish
than
the
average
rate
estimated
for
the
general
U.
S.
population.
Although
young
children
consumed
less
total
amount
of
fish
per
day
than
adults,
the
data
indicates
that
children's
average
consumption
per
body
weight
would
actually
exceed
that
of
adults.

Sources
of
Fish
As
Columbia
River
subsistence
fishers,
tribal
members
obtain
on
average
aFproximately
88
percent
of
their
fish
from
harvesting
by
themselves
or
their
families,
friends,
ceremonies,
or
tribal
distributions.

Almost
half
(
48.7%)
of
survey
respondents
indicated
that
they
fish
for
personal
consumption
or
for
use
by
their
Tribe.
However,
approximately
77
percent
of
respondents
stated
that
on
average
41.3
(
1.59
SE)
percent
of
the
fish
they
consume
is
obtained
through
fish­
harvesting
by
themselves
or
their
family
members.
Thus,
fish­
harvesting
by
both
survey
respondents
and
their
family
members
appear
to
be
major
sources
of
fish.

Ceremonial
Use
of
Fish
Cultural
events,
such
as
tribal
ceremonies,
are
an
integral
part
of
tribal
culture,
and
could
influence
the
rate
of
fish
consumption
by
Native
Americans
in
the
Columbia
River
basin.
As
survey
data
show,
93.3
percent
of
tribal
mebmbers
have
attended
ceremonies
or
traditional
events
and
over
half
of
these
people
attend
ceremonies
at
62
least
`
l­
3
times
per
month.
Tribal
distributions
of
fish
(
e.
g.,
at
feasts
and
celebrations)
and
ceremonies
are
important
sources
of
fish.
Respondents
indic:
ated
that
they
obtain
on
average
23.2
(
1
.
I
5
SE)
percent
of
fish
from
tribal
distributions
and.
1
1.3
(
0.08
SE)
percent
from
ceremonies.
In
general,
there
appears
to
be
a
positive
relationship
between
attendance
at
ceremonies
and
fish
consumption:
the
more
often
a
person
attends
ceremonies,
the
more
likely
he/
she
is
to
consume
fish
at
those
ceremonies.
In
addition,
almost
60
percent
of
persons
who
attend
ceremonies
eat
at
least
6
to
12
ounces
of
fish
at
the
events,.
and
about
9
percent
consumed
more
than
36
ounces
of
fish
at
the
events.

Although
tribal
meetings
and
ceremonies
often
occur
on
a
weekly
basis
for
events
surrounding
funerals,
memorials,
name­
givings
and
medicine
clances,
specific
tribal
feasts
and
celebrations
occur
on
an
annual
basis,
as
detailed
in
the
following
chart
(
I
992
Annual
Report,
CRITFC).

Chart
2:
Dste
Feb.

Mar.

Mar./
Apr.
Apr.

Apr./
May
May
Jun.

Jun./
Jul.
Jul.
Aug.

Sep.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.
Tribal
Celebrations
Celebration/
Feast
*
Lincoln's
Day
Pow­
wow
*
All­
Indian
Men's
&
Women's
Basketball
Tourney
l
Washington
Birthday
Pow­
wow
l
E­
peh­
tes
Pow­
wow
l
Speelyi­
Mi
Annual
Indian
Trade
Fair
eAll
Indian
Invitational
Basketball
Tournament
sRoot
and
Salmon
Feasts
l
Wyam
Pow­
wow
aRock
Creek
Longhouse
Pow­
wow
*
Root
Feast
l
Mat'Alvma
Pow­
wow
&
Root
Feast
l
National
Indian
Day
*
Satus
Longhouse
Pow­
wow
*
Pi­
Ume­
Sha
Treaty
Days
*
Chief
Joseph
Memorial
*
Fathers'
Day
Fish
Derby
*
Treaty
Days­
Tiinowit
International
Pow­
wow
aAnnual
Treaty
Day
All­
Indian
Rodeo
l
Annual
Treaty
Day
All­
Indian
Golf
Tournement
*
Annual
Yakama
Indian
Encampment
aTreaty
Day
Commemoration
Pow­
Wow
aEagle
Spirit
Father's
Day
Celebration
l
Talmaks
Camp
Meeting
aPow­
wow,
Rodeo,
Pioneer
Fair/
Indian
Village
*
Huckleberry
Feast
*
Nez
Perce
War
Memorial
(
Big
Hole)
*
Chief
Looking
Glass
Pow­
wow
*
Pendleton
Round­
Up
&
Rodeo
aNational
Indian
Days
Celebration
*
Nez
Perce
War
Memorial
&
Four
Nations
Pow­
wow
~
Kah­
Hilt­
Pah
POW­
WOW
*
Mid­
Columbia
River
Pow­
wow
aveterans'
Day
Pow­
wow
l
Thanksgiving
POW­
WOW
*
Christmas
Pow­
wow/
Celebration
l
Simnasho
Traditional
Pow­
wow
sAlI­
Indian
Holiday
Basketball
Tournament
@
New
Year's
POW­
WOW
63
Warm
Springs
Nez
Perce
Yakama
Nez
Perce
Yakama
Yakama
Yakama
Yekame
Yakama
Warm
Springs;
Nez
Perce;
Umatilla
Nez
Perce
Nez
Perce
Yakama
Warm
Springs
Nez
Perce
Umatilla
Yakama
Yakama
Yakama
Yakama
Yakame
Warm
Springs
Nez
Perce
Yakama
Warm
Springs;
Yakama
Nez
Perce
Nez
Perce
Umatilla
Yakama
Nez
Perce
Yakame
Yakama
Umatilla;
Warm
Springs;
Yakama
Warm
Springs
Umatilla;
Yakama
Warm
Springs
Warm
Springs
Warm
Springs
As
can
be
seen
in
the
above
chart,
major
annual
tribal
ceremonies
occur
during
1'
1
months
of
the
year,
and
several
ceremonies
occur
each
month.
Approximately
58%
of
the
ceremonies
listed
above
occur
during
the
period
extending
from
April
through
September,
which
are
the
most
frequently
chosen
months
of
hiigh
fish
consumption
by
surveyed
respondents.
Approximately
28
to
33
percent
of
major
celebrations
occur
in
May
and
June,
the
two
months
of
highest
fish
comsumption,
while
11
percent
occur
in
January
and
December,
the
two
months
of
least
fish
consumption.
These
results
combined
with
data
concerning
the
frequency
and
amount
of
fish
eaten
at
ceremonies
reinforce
the
theory
that
ceremonies
play
an
important
role
in
Native
American
fish
consumption.

Seasonal
Fish
Consumption
Pacific
salmon
and
steelhead
migrate
to
and
spawn
in
gravel
beds
in
the
tributaries
of
the
Columbia
River.
The
young
fish
that
are
born
generally
migrate
to
the
ocean
after
spending
a
I­
3
years
in
the
freshwater.
After
1
or
more
years,
depending
on
the
species
and
stock,
the
fish
return
to
the
river
system
to
spawn.
The
following
chart
illustrates
the
months
during
which
Oregon
and
Washington
State
salmon
and
steelhead
migrate
from
the
ocean
to
the
Columbia
River
system
to
spawn
(
Oregon
Dept.
of
Fish
&
Wildlife,
Washington
Dept.
of
Fisheries,
August
1993).

Chart
3:
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Seasonal
Migrations
Species
Return
to
River
Svstem
Spring
chinook
salmon
Summer
chinook
salmon
Fall
chinook
salmon
Sockeye
salmon
Coho
salmon
Chum
salmon
Pink
salmon
Winter
steelhead
Summer
steelhead
Mar­
May
Jun­
Jul
Aug­
Sep
Mar­
Jul
Aug­
Nov
Sep­
Mar
Aug­
Sep
Nov­
Apr
Mar­
Ott
Overall,
salmon
and
steelhead
migrations
mostly
occur
during
the
months
of
March
through
October.
These
migration
months
cbincide
with
months
of
high
fish
consumption
as
reported
by
survey
respondents.
In
addition,
the
majority
of
annual
tribal
ceremonies
occur
during
these
months.

64
Historical
Changes
in
Fish
Consumption
Decrease
in
Fish
Consumption
.

Respondents
who
indicated
that
their
own
and/
or
their
family's
fish
consumption
has
changed
over
the
last
20
years
were
also
asked
about
the
reason
for
this
change.
While
the
answers
to
this
question
varied,
some
consistency
was
apparent.
For
example,
more
than
half
(
61
%
I)
of
the
69
percent
who
eat
less
fish
indicated
that
they
eat
less
fish
now
because
there
are
fewer
fish
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin,
fishing
seasons
are
more
restricted
than
before,
they
are
catching
fewer
fish
than
they
did
in
previous
years,
Tribes
are
distributing
less,
or
fish
are
"
not
available".
Approximately
36
percent
of
individuals
who
eat
less
fish
now
indicated
reasons
related
to
changes
in
taste,
family
size,
or
their
access
to
fish
sources
(
e.
g.,
fishing
sites,
distributions,
family
members
who
fish).
The
remaining
3
percent
did
not
indicate
a
reason
for
their
change
in
consumption.

Increase
in
Fish
Consumption
On
the
other
hand,
approximately
26
percent
of
individuals
indicated
an
increase
in
fish
consumption
over
the
past
20
years.
Approximately
82
percent
of
these
people
indicated
that
they
eat
more
fish
now
for
dietary
reasons,
because
he/
she
or
family
members
have
developed
a
taste
for
fish,
their
family
size
has
increased,
or
he/
she
or
a
family
member
fishes
more
now.
Eleven
percent
of
respondents
indicated
that
they
consume
more
fish
now
because
more
fish
is
available.
However,
in
some
cases,
it
is
unclear
whether
the
increase
in
availability
is
due
to
an
increase
in
the
person's
accessibility
to
the
source
of
fish
(
e.
g.,
change
in
fishing
habits,
or
in
closer
proximity
to
streams
or
tribal
distributions)
or
whether
there
exists
a
quantitative
increase
in
the
amount
of
fish
available
from
the
source.
The
remaining
7
percent
did
not
indicate
a
reason
for
change.

Loss
of
Columbia
River
Basin
Fish
Runs
Fish
count
and
harvest
data
collected
in
the
basin
support
reasons
for
decreased
consumption
that
relate
to
overall
decreases
in
fish
harvests
and
availability
of
fish.
These
data
also
contradict
statements
of
increased
consumption
that
relate
to
an
increase
in
the
amount
of
fish
available
in
the
basin.
However,
it
is
possible
that
certain
sites
currently
have
more
fish
available
due
to
introduction
of
hatchery­
raised
fish.
In­
river
run
size
of
Columbia
basin
salmonid
stocks,
estimated
by
the
Northwest
Power
Planning
Council
(
NWPPC,
1985)
to
have
been
7
0
million
to
7
6
million
adult
fish
before
1850,
has
declined
to
about
1.2
million
adult
fish
in
1992
(
Palmisano
et
al.,
1993).

In
general,
as
fish
populations
have
been
decreasing,
ceremonial
and
subsistence
catches
have
been
sharply
curtailed.
The
number
of
upriver
(
above
Bonneville
Dam)
spring
chinook
entering
the
Columbia
has
dropped
from
over
130,000
in
1960
to
65
approximately
110,000
in
1990
and
Indian
harvest
has
dropped
from
over
60,000
fish
in
1960
to
only
6,900
in
1990.
Summer
chinook
numbers
iin
the
Columbia
River
have
fallen
from
approximately
140,000
fish
in
1960
to
28,000
in
1990
with
Indian
harvest
declining
from
over
55,000
fish
in
1960
to
less
than
100
in
1990.
Finally,
sockeye
salmon
numbers
have
decreased
from
180,000
fish
in
I!
960
to
approximately
50,000
in
1990
and
Indian
harvest
for
sockeye
has
dropped
from
120,000
in
1960
to
only
2400
fish
in
1990
(
Oregon
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
`
Yashington
Dept.
of
Fisheries,
1991).

Since
the
start
of
this
project
in
1990,
four
stocks
of
salmon
have
been
listed
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act.
Consequently,
tribal
harvest
has
lbeen
greatly
reduced
because
of
low
,
returns
of
fish
to
the
Columbia
River
Basin.
In
order
to
meet
escapement
goals
.
for
individual
species
of
salmon,
tribes
have
continued
to
curtail
their
harvest
while
efforts
to
increase
fish
runs
through
mitigation
and
fish
production
continue.
Should
such
efforts
succeed,
it
is
likely
that
consumlption
of
fish
by
tribal
members
will
approach
that
of
historical
times
and
will
thus
be
higher
than
it
is
today.
Indeed,
data
from
CRITFC's
fish
consumption
survey
illustrate
that
a
significant
portion
of
tribal
members
consume
less
fish
today
than
they
d~
id
twenty
years
ago
mainly
because
fewer
fish
exist
in
the
river
system.

66
LIMITATIONS
Uncertainty
Although
problems
with
data
accuracy
and
bias
appear
to
be
minimal,
there
are
some
issues
relating
to
the
methodology
and
responses
received
that
could
potentially
create
a
bias
in
the
overall
consumption
data.
However,
any
potential
bias
could,
in
actuality,
bias
the
data
in
either
direction
such
that
estimated
consumption
rates
of
tribal
members
could
be
increased
or
decreased
if
critical
elements
creating
potential
bias
were
removed.

Sampling
Bias
.

Because
the
sample
population
was
selected
from
patient
registration
lists
provided
by
the
Indian
Health
Service
(
IHS),
it
is
possible
that
the
sample
population
had
some
health
related
biases
affecting
their
diet.
Although
the
IHS
patient
registration
lists
includes
all
tribal
members
who
register
for
IHS
services
and
is
not
necessarily
exclusive
of
tribal
members
needing
or
receiving
health
care,
no
criteria
were
applied
to
the
initial
sample
selection
procedure
to
eliminate
those
tribal
members
with
particular
illnesses
or
health
problems
that
could
influence
their
dietary
habits.
Without
further
investigation
of
each
person's
health
history,
it
is
impossible
to
identify
if
a
significant
proportion
of
respondents
have
certain
health
conditions
that
require
them
to
consume
more
or
less
fish.

Location
Bias
A
majority
of
the
interviews
(
99.8%)
were
carried
out
at
a
central
location
on
each
reservation.
Of
all
attempts
made
to
contact
interviewees
on
a
door­
to­
door
basis,
oily
one
participant
was
reached
and
interviewed
at
their
horne.
During
preliminary
phases
of
the
survey,
concerns
were
raised
that
the
use
of
monetary
incentives
to
encourage
interviewees
to
come
to
a
central
location
may
result
in
a
higher
response
of
those
individuals
living
closer
to
the
survey
area,
thus
re:
sulting
in
a
bias
in
the
sample.

It
is
plausible
that
individuals
living
closer
to
the
interview
site
were
more
willing
or
able
to
travel
the
required
distance.
For
reasons
which
outweighed
the
monetary
or
personal
incentive
to
participate,
those
living
farther
away
may
have
been
unable
or
unwilling
to
travel
and
might
have
preferred
to
have
the
interview
conducted
at
their
home.
Thus,
only
8%
of
those
surveyed
lived
beyond
30
miles
from
the
interview
site
whereas
15%
of
the
non­
surveyed
individuals
lived
beyond
30
miles
from
the
interview
site.
However,
53%
of
surveyed
individuals
lived
within
10
miles
of
the
interview
site
and
41%
of
non­
surveyed
individuals
lived
within
10
miles
of
the
survey
site.
Similarly,
of
the
14
individuals
living
beyond
70
miles
of
the
survey
site,
64%
were
surveyed
and
only
36%
were
not.

67
The
top
four
reasons
identified
by
interviewers
for
why
an
individual
could
not
be
interviewed
were,
respectively:
1)
moved
out
of
survey
area;
2)
no
reason
listed;
3)
a
total
refusal
to
be
interviewed
and;
4)
no
phone
or
a
disconnected
phone.
These
four
reasons
accounted
for
86%
of
the
reasons
listed
by
interviewers
for
unsuccessful
interviews.
Other
reasons
listed
that
may
contribute
in
some
way
to
location
bias
include:
mental
or
physical
disability;
in
prison;
not
at
home
when
contact
was
attempted
and;
simply
missing
the
scheduled
appointment.

Gender
Bias
Statistical
analyses
of
the
gender
of
individuals
surveyed
and
not
surveyed
reveal
that
more
females
were
surveyed
than
males
and
more
males
were
not
surveyed
than
females.
Considering
that
males
eat
significantly
more
fish
on
average
than
females
with
males
consuming
about
13
more
grams
per
day
than
females,
a
bias
in
favor
of
female
individuals
in
the
sample
could
create
a
lower
estimate
of
overall
tribal
fish
consumption.
Also,
males
who
ate
more
fish
may
have
been
more
likely
to
participate
in
the
survey
than
males
who
ate
less
fish
and
those
males
who
ate
less
fish,
may
have
been
non­
respondents.

Timing
of
Survey
and
Length
of
Survey
Period
Conducting
the
survey
during.
a
period
of
high
or
low
fish
consumption
could
bias
individuals'
responses,
It
is
plausible
that
people
would
tend
to
indicate
higher
or
lower
consumption
rates
in
accordance
with
when
they
were
questioned
about
their
consumption
such
that
an
individual
would
estimate
a
lower
rate
if
they
were
questioned
during
a
month
of
low
consumption
and
a
higher
rate
if
questioned
during
a
period
of
high
consumption.
Since
this
survey
was
conducted
during
November,
a
month
of
low
fish
consumption
as
reported
by
survey
respondents,
consumption
rates
pFovided
in
this
report
could
underestimate
actual
tribal
consumption.

Also,
respondents
may
be
likely
to
under­
report
consumption
of
fish
species
not
in
season
at
the
time
the
survey
was
conducted
and
may
have
over­
reported
consumption
of
fish
species
in
season
during
the
interview
period.
However,
any
possible
bias
resulting
from
the
timing
of
the
survey
would
be
addressed
if
the
survey
were
conducted
over
an
annual
cycle
with
re­
surveys
of
initial
respondents.

Response
Rates
on
individual
Clues
tions
The
lack
of
a
100
percent
overall
survey
response
rate
may
present
uncertainties
that
cannot
be
fully
characterized.
Although
some
individual
questions
had
response
rates
as
low
as
75
and
80
percent,
response
rates
for
the
key
findings
on
adult
fish
consumption
had
response
rates
very
close
to
or
at
100
percent.

68
In
general,
when
presented
with
uncertainties
in
individuals'.
responses,
criteria
were
employed
to
produce
a
low­
end
estimate
of
fish
consumption.
For
example,
responses
deemed
unreasonably
high
(
i.
e.,
outliers)
were
not
included
in
calculations
of
consumption
rates.
Outliers
were
removed
from
data
sets
of
weekly
consumption
estimated
by
four
adults
and
for
one
child.
In
addition,
when
respondents
indicated
ranges
of
ounces
or
meals,
the
lower
end
of
the
range
was
used
to
calculate
rates
even
if
the
response
was
reduced
to
zero
ounces
or
fish
meals
consumed.

Non­
Fish­
Consumers
Survey
results
indicate
that
only
7
percent
of
tribal
members
rarely
or
never
ate
fish.
Because
the
percentage
of
non­
fish­
consumers
was
so
low,
the
90th,
95th
and
99th
percentiles
of
consumption
for
the
entire
population
was
the
same
as
for
those
respondents
who
consumed
the
species.
The
uncertainty
surrounding
this
low
estimate
of
the
number
of
Native
American
non­
consumers
could
be
produced
in
part
by
sampling
bias.
For
example,
individuals
in
the
sample
who
were
not
surveyed
were
never
questioned
about
their
like
or
dislike
of
fish
or
their
overall
fish­
consuming
habits.
It
is
possible
that
some
of
those
non­
surveyed
individuals
failed
to
participate
because
they
thought
that
their
contributions
would
be
meaningless
if
they
did
not
eat
fish.
Therefore,
fish
consumers
may
be
slightly
over­
represented
in
the
respondent
pool
thereby
creating
an
overestimation
of
fish
consumption
rates.

Origin
of
Fish
Consumed
Questions
concerning
weekly
fish
consumption,
serving
size,
species
and
fish
parts
were
directed
at
fish
consumed
from
the
Columbia
River
basin
as
well
as
"
other"
sources.
Therefore,
rates
of
consumption
represent
fish
obtained
from
all
sources.
The
question
concerning
sources
of
fish
clarifies
the
percentages
of
fish
consumed
th%
t
originate
from
self/
family
member
harvesting,
ceremonies,
and
tribal
distributions.
Because
the
tribal
commercial
fishery
is
designated
along
the
mainstem
of
the
Columbia
River
from
the
McNary
dam
to
Bonneville
dam
and
throughout
the
many
tributaries
within
the
Columbia
River
basin
it
is
assumed
that
fish
obtained
during
these
activities
and
events
originate
from
the
basin.

Children
Although
a
more
detailed
portrait
than
that
presented
in
this
report
of
children's
fish
consumption
is
required,
it
is
worth
noting
that
some
respondents
provided
the
same
information
for
their
child's
consumption
as
they
did
for
their
own.
Although
it
is
not
unreasonable
for
a
child
to
consume
similar
amounts
of
fish
as
adults,
the
uncertainty
surrounding
responses
to
questions
about
children's
consumption
may
have
resulted
from
misinterpretation
of
the
question
or
the
convenience
of
indicating
similar
information.
Any
resulting
bias
in
information
provided
for
children's
consumption
is
difficult
to
predict
and
analyze.

69
:
i
,
Fishing
Sites
Survey
questions
concerning
fishing
sites
were
specifically
requested­
for
only
the
10
species
listed
in
the
survey.
Only
six
people
from
one
Tribe
identified
"
other
species"
that
they
consumed.
Moreover,
some
individuals,
instead
of
identifying
a
numbered
site
on
the
map
provided,
specified
names
of
sites
that
could
not
be
identified
on
the
map
(
e.
g.,
reservoirs,
lakes,
etc.)
These
sites
were
not
included
in
the
analysis
of
fishing
site
usage.
Therefore,
results
describe
fishing
sites
used
by
Native
Americans
for
obtaining
only
the
ten
species
listed
on
the
questionnaire
and
may
not
describe
the
full
extent
of
fishing
sites
used
throughout
the
basin.

Dietary
Recall
Respondents
who
consumed
fish
during
the
24
hours
preceding
the
survey
interview
estimated
significantly
higher
overall
consumption
rates
than
those
who
did
not
eat
fish
during
that
period.
This
difference
could
be
due
to
several
factors.
First,
persons
who
had
so
recently
consumed
fish
may
have
been
more
likely
to
overestimate
the
number
of
fish
meals
they
eat
each
week
than
those
who
had
not
consumed
fish
for
several
days
or
several
weeks.
On
the
other
hand,
individuals
who
ate
fish
during
this
time
period
may
be
more
accurate
in
the
data
they
provide
concerning
the
number
of
ounces
they
eat
in
each
meal.
It
is
also
possible
that
persons
who
consume
high
amounts
of
fish
throughout
the
year
would
have
been
more
likely
to
have
consumed
fish
during
the
24
hours
preceding
the
interview
than
individuals
who
consume
less
fish
throughout
the
year.
Thus,
these
persons
would
not
necessarily
be
overestimating
their
yearly
intake.

Regardless
of
the
reason(
s)
for
the
difference
in
consumption
rates,
the
overall
rate
of
consumption
for
consumers
and
non­
consumers
is
likely
to
be
a
low
estimate
since
th2
survey
was
conducted
during
the
season
(
October
through
February)
identified
by
the
majority
(
53.0%)
of
respondents
as
months
of
low
fish
consumption.

Additional
Research
Although
this
report
provides
detailed
information
on
the
fish
consumption
rates,
patterns
and
habits
of
tribal
members,
several
issues
require
further
investigation,
especially
if
a
complete
health
damage
assessment
is
to
be
conducted.
For
example,
while
this
report
provides
information
for
only
one
child
in
the
household
of
respondents
with
children
a
more
thorough
investigation
of
fish
consumption
by
Native
American
children
as
a
clearly
defined
subpopulation
may
be
useful
to
confirm
the
accuracy
of
these
findings.
In
addition,
this
report
does
not
provide
estimates
of
consumption
that
take
into
account
varying
body
weights.
Given
the
differences
in
70
body
weight
and
size
between
ethnic
groups,
fish
consumption
estimates
in
g/
kg/
day
should
be
calculated.
.

The
questionnaire
also
did
not
request
information
on
trimming
of
fat,
puncturing,
and
skin
removal
which
in
conjunction
with
certain
cooking
methods
can
greatly
influence
the
contaminant
loading
in
fish
tissue
and
thus
an
individual's
actual
exposure
to
toxic
pollutants
from
ingestion
of
fish
tissue.

Also,
consumption
data
alone
do
not
define
an
individual's
exposure
to
toxic
pollutants.
Indeed,
this
fish
consumption
survey
report
is
not
a
health
risk
assessment
of
tribal
members
who
consume
fish.
To
conduct
a
health
risk
assessment
of
tribal
members
from
consumption
of
fish,
fish
consumption
data
need
to
be
applied
with
information
identifying
actual
levels
of
toxics
in
the
fish
tissue
individuals
are
consuming.
Information
from
this
survey,
particularly
the
data
which
identify
fish
species
most
consumed,
fish
parts
of
each
species
most
consumed
and
fishing
site
locations
can
be
used
to
adequately
design
a
fish
tissue
analysis
sampling
plan.
By
coordinating
data
in
this
way,
a
health
damage
assessment
based
on
actual
population­
specific
data
can
be
conducted
of
tribal
members.

71
RECOMMENDATIONS
AND
DATA
APPLICATIONS
Given
the
cultural,
economic
and
dietary
importance
of
fish
to
CRCTFC's
member
tribes,
results
from
Federal
and
State
agency
sponsored
water
quality
and
fish
tissue
studies
have
intensified
tribal
concern
of
increased
human
health
risks
from
consumption
of
potentially
contaminated
fish.
As
is
evident
from
the
results
obtained
from
this
survey,
the
average
fish
consumption
rate
of
Umatilla,
Yakama,
Nez
Perce,
and
Warm
Springs
tribal
members
is
approximately
nine
times
greater
than
the
national
average
consumption
rate
of
6.5
gpd
used
by
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
USEPA)
and
the
majority
of
states
in
calculating
human
health
based
ambient
water
quality
criteria
and
standards
for
toxics.

As
identified
in
this
survey,
the
rates
of
consumption
across
gender,
age
groups,
nursing
mothers,
fishers
and
non­
fishers
range
from
6
to
11
times
higher
than
the
national
estimate
recommended
by
USEPA.
Should
the
production
and
escapement
numbers
of
salmon
species
increase,
tribal
harvest
will
be
increased
and
tribal
consumption
will
most
likely
increase
from
rates
reported
in
this
survey.
The
consistency
of
these
results
suggest
that
USEPA's
and
state
adopted
ambient
water
quality
criteria
and
standards
for
toxic
pollutants
based
on
the
national
estimated
fish
consumption
rate
of
6.5
gpd
may
not
be
sufficient
to
protect
Native
Americans
residing
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin.

Because
State
and
Federal
monitoring
studies
of
contaminant
levels
in
Columbia
River
Basin
fish
tissue
and
river
sediments
suggest
an
increased
risk
to
Columbia
River
Indians
from
consumption
of
potentially
contaminated
fish,
CRITFC
and
its
member
tribes
expect
the
information
gathered
from
this
survey
to
be
used
by
federal,
state
and
tribal
regulatory
agencies
to
more
accurately
estimate
health
damage
from
ingestion
of
fish
contaminated
by
water
borne
toxic
pollutants.

Such
a
human
health
damage
assessment
should
include
a
re­
evaluation
of
certain
water
quality
criteria
and
standards
currently
deemed
adequate
to
protect
human
health.
The
consumption
rates
established
in
this
report
should
ideally
be
combined
with
site­
specific
fish
tissue
monitoring
data
to
determine
tribal
members'
actual
exposure
to
toxic
pollutants.
CRITFC
and
its
member
tribes
encourage
other
tribes
and
populations
to
utilize
this
survey's
methodology
in
future
fish
consumption
surveys.

72
TABLES
TABLE
1:
Summary
of
Reasons
Indicated
by
Interviewers
for
Why
Tribal
Members
Did
Not
Participate
Reason
(
questionnaire
code
number)

Moved
out
of
survey
area
­
M
(
6)

No
reason
listed
­
NRL
(
12).

Total
refusal
­
TR
(
91'

No
phone
or
phone
disconnected
­
NP
(
I
2).

Not
enrolled
­
NE
(
12)

Not
at
home;
revisit
necessary
­
NH
(
3
and
7).

Deceased
­
D
(
8)

Mental/
physical
disability
­
MP
(
111
l
Missed
appointment
­
MA
(
4)'

Wrong
phone
number
­
WP
(
12)'

Prison
­
P
(
12)

Member
of
another
tribe
­
0
(
12)

Refusal
during
interview
­
R
(
10)

Removed
from
survey;
unreliable
(
2)

Total
­
c
Indicates
that
reason
could
be
associated
with
a
location
bias
Unweighted
Unweighted
Frequency
Percent
60
26.136
58
25.2%

48
20.9%

32
13.9%

a
3.5%

6
2.6%

5
2.2%

4
1.7%

3
1.3%

2
0.9%

1
0.4%

1
0.4%

1
0.4%

1
0.4%

230
100%

73
TABLE
2:
Summary
of
Locations
of
Surveyed
and
Non­
Surveyed
Individuals
with
Respect
to
the
Interview
Site
.

Miles
From
Interview
Site
&
weighted
Frequencies
(
Percentages)

Non­
Surveyed
Surveyed
Au
<
=
10
268
(
74)
94
(
26)
362
(
iO0)

11­
30
203
(
67)
100
(
33)
303
(
100)

31­
70
32
(
52)
30
(
48)
62
(
100)

>
70
9
69
5
(
36)
14
(
100)

Unknown
1
(
33)
2
(
67)
3
ww
71
513
(
69)
231
(
31)
744
(
100)

**
All
of
the
nine
persons
who
lived
greater
than
70
miles
from
the
interview
site
were
surveyed
74
TABLE
3:
Sex
of
Surveyed
and
Non­
Surveyed
Individuals
Tribe
Population
Size
(
percent
male)
Unweighted
Frequency
(
percent
male)
­
Surveyed
Unweighted
Frequency
(
percent
male)
­
Non­
Surveyed
Umatilla
8
18
(
47.7%)
13
1
(
52.0%)
49
(
51
.
O%)
9
I
I
Nez
Perce
1440
(
42.5%)
133
(
40.6%)
68
(
56.0%)

Warm
Springs
1531
(
47.3%)
126
(
46.0%)
54
(
50.0%)

Yakama
3872
(
46.5%)
123
(
39.0%)
59
(
57.6%)

75
i
TABLE
4:
Age
of
Respondents
22­
23
20
3.6Ok
13.3%

24­
25
37
8.1%
21.5%

26­
27
I
26
I
4.6Oh
26.0%

28­
29
27
.
5.6%
31.6%

30­
3
1
34
5.7%
37.3%

32­
33
26
4.9%
42.2%

34­
35
17
5.4%
47.5%

36­
37
26
5.9%
53.4%

38­
39
24
5.2%
58.7%

40­
4
1
18
3.8%
62.5%

42­
43
I
13
I
2.5%
I
65.0%

44­
45
16
3.3%
68.3%

46­
47
24
5.2%
73.5%

48­
49
15
3.5%
76.9%

50­
54
35
7.5%
84.4%

55­
59
36
5.7%
90.1%

a­
64
19
3.3%
93.4%

65­
69
16
2.3%
95.7%

70­
74
15
3.1%
98.8%

75­
79
8
1
.
O%
99.8%

80­
89
1
0.1%
99.9%

90­
l
00
1
0.1%
100%

Total
I
512
I
100%
I
N
=
512
Weighted
Mean
=
38.9
veers
Weighted
SE
=
0.64
RR
=
99.8%

'
The
term
"
weighted"
used
throughout
these
tables
means
that
the
data
were
weighted
by
Tribe
before
they
were
combined.

76
TABLE
5:
Number
of
Fish
Meals
Consumed
by
All
Adult
Respondents
(
Fish
Consumers
and
Non­
Fish
Consumers)
Per
Week
­
Tlhroughout
the
Year
.

77
11
N
=
500
Weighted
Mean
=
1.7
1
meals
Weighted
SE
=
0.11
Outliers
=
4
RR
=
98.2%
total;
97.5%
if
outlier
considered
a
nonresponse
78
TABLE
6:
Average
Serving
Size
(
oz.)
­
Adult
Fish
Meals
24.0
2
Total
513
N
=
513
Weighted
Mean
=
7.83
ounces
Weighted
SE
=
0.16
RR
=
100%
0.3%
100%

100%

79
TABLE
7:
Number
of
Grams
Per
Day
of
Fish
Consumed
by
All
Adult
Respondents
(
Fish
Consumers
and
Non­
Fish
Consumers)
Combined
­
Throughout
the
Year
.

80
N
=
500
Weighted
Mean
=
58.7
gpd
Weighted
SE
=
3.64
90th
percentile:
97.2
gpd
<
(
90th)
<
<
130
gpd
95th
percentile
­
170
gpd
99th
percentile
=
389
gpd
Outliers
=
4
RR
=
98.2%
total;
97.5%
if
outlier
considered
a
nonresponse
81
TABLE
8:
Number
of
Fish
Meals
per
Week
Consumed
by
A.
dult
Fish
Consumers
Only
­
Throughout
the
Year
Number
of
Unweighted
meals
Frequency
Weighted
Percent
Weighted
Cumulative
Percent
24.0
1
0.2%
99.8%

30.0
1
0.2%
100%

Total
464
100%
.

82
11
N
=
464
Weighted
Mean
=
1.85
meals
Weighted
SE
=
0.1
1
Outliers
=
4
RR
=
98.1%
total;

97.3%
if
autlier
considered
a
nonrewonse
83
TABLE
9:
Average
Serving
Size
(
oz.)
of
Adult
Fish
Meals
­
Fish
Consumers
Only
Cumulative
Percent
an
=
8.42
ounces
84
TABLE
10:
Number
of
Grams
per
Day
Consumed
by
Adult
Fish
Consumers
Number
of
grams/
day
Only
Unweighted
Frequency
Weighted
Percent
­

Weighted
Cumulative
Percent
81.0
8
2.1%
82.1%

97.2
27
6.5%
88.6%

130
9
3.1%
91.6%

146
8
1.6%
93.2%

162
4
0.8%
94.0%

170
1
0.5%
94.4%

85
II
Number
of
I
Unweighted
I
Weighted
Weighted
I
Cumulative
/
I
11
arams/
dav
1
Freauencv
I
Percent
I
Percent
II
II
194
10
2.6%
97
.
O%
II
243
1
0.1%
97.1%

259
1
0.2%
97.2%

292
1
0.2%
97.4%

324
3
0.8%
98.2%

340
1
0.5%
98.6%

389
?
0.3%
98.9%

486
4
0.6%
99.5%

648
1
0.2%
99.7%

778
1
0.2%
99.8%

N
=
464
Weighted
Mean
=
63.2
gpd
Weighted
SE
=
3.84
90th
percentile:
97
gpd
<
(
90th)
<
130
gpd
95th
percentile:
170
gpd
<
(
95th)
C
194
gpd
99th
percentile
­
389
gpd
Outtiers
=
4
RR
=
98.1%
total;
97.3%
if
outlier
considered
a
nonresponse
86
TABLE
11:
Fish
Consumption
Throughout
the
Year
by
Sex
Sex
N
Female
278
Male
222
Total
500
Weighted
Percent
58.0
42.0
100
Weighted
Mean
(
gpd)

55.8
62.6
58.7
Weighted
SE
4.78
5.60
3.64
l
4
outliers
were
excluded
TABLE
11
a:
Fish
Consumption
Throughout
the
Year
by
Age
Age
(
years)
N
18­
39
287
40
­
59
155
60
&
older
58
Weighted
Percent
58.8
31.6
9.6
Weighted
Mean
(
gpd)

57.6
55.8
74.4
Weighted
SE
4.87
4.88
15.3
Total
500
100
58.7
3.64
`
4
outliers
were
excluded
TABLE
11
b:
Fish
Consumption
Throughout
the
Year
by
Location
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
SE
Location
N
Percent
Mean
(
gpd)

On
Reservation
440
88.1
60.2
3.98
Off
Reservation
60
11.9
47.9
8.25
Total
500
100
58.7
3.64
`
4
outliers
were
excluded
87
TABLE
12:
Months
of
High
Fish
Consumption
Month
I
Unweighted
I
Weighted
Frequency
Percent
January
15
1.4%

Februarv
17
1.6%

March
April
21
2.2%

103
9.7%

May
128
11.6%
I
I
June
Julv
123
10.8%

110'
9.8%

August
September
85
8.1%

75
7.4%

October
November
53
5.5%

35
3.4%

December
27
All
months
152
the
same
Never/
rarely
72
eat
fish
Unknown
8
2.8%

18.1%

7.0%

0.6%

Total
I
1026'
I
100%

40
persons
answered
both
May
and
June
RR
=
100%

*
Each
respondent
was
asked
to
identify
two
months
of
highest
fish
consumption;
hence,
there
were
1026
total
responses,
and
each
person
who
answered
that
they
rarely/
never
eat
fish,
that
all
the
months
are
the
same,
or
that
the
months'are
unknown
were
counted
twice.

88
TABLE
13:
Comparison
of
Grams
of
Fish
Consumed
by
Tribal
Members
on
a
Daily
Basis
During
Months
of
High
Consumption
vs.
Months
of
LOW
Consumption
Seasonal
Consumption
Months
of
High
Consumption
N
508
=

Weighted
Mean
Weighted
SE
Response
Rata
bpd)

87.9
4.80
99.0%

Months
of
Low
Consumption
484
26.4
1.39
94.3%

=
.

1
1
,..
a
.*
I
4
.
I
89
TABLE
14:
Months
of
Low
Fish
Consumption
Month
January
February
March
Unweighted
Frequency
146
91
32
Weighted
Percent
15.6%

9.1%

3.1%

April
Mav
22
2.2%

23
2.4%

September
October
26
2.6%

37
3.4%

November
December
All
months
the
same
88
8.7%

151
16.2%

102
7.6%

Never/
rarely
72
eat
fish
7.4%

Unknown
All
months
the
same
except
the
2
highest
months
20
2.9%

40
5.9%

Total
I
994.

RR
=
96.9%

*
Each
respondent
was
asked
to
identify
two
months
of
highest
fish
consumption;
since
the
response
rate
for
this
question
was
less
than
100
percent,
there
were
994
total
responses.
As
a
result,
it
was
necessary
to
double
count
the
following
responses:
rarely/
never
eat
fish,
all
months
the
same,
unknown,
and
all
months
are
the
same
except
the
two
highest.

90
TABLE
15:
Number
of
Weekly
Fish
Meals:
Nursing
Mothers
or
Mothers
Who
Have
Nursed
Number
Unweighted
of
Meals
Frequency
0.0
11
Weighted
Percent
11.4%
Weighted
Cumulative
Percent
11.4%

0.1
I1
10.4%
111.8%

0.2
4
2.2%
14.0%

0.3
2
1.2%
15.2%

0.4
8
.
3.5%
18.7%

0.5
4
2.8%
21.4%

1
.
o
31
33.5%
54.9%

2.0
23
25.4%
80.3%

3.0
9
8.9%
89.2%

4.0
4
3.8%
93.0%

5.0
2
2.8%
95.8%

6.0
1
0.8%
96.6%
I
I
I
7.0
1
2.0%
98.6%

8.0
1
0.7%
99.3%

10.0
1
0.7%
100%

Total
103
100%

N
=
103
Weighted
Mean
=
1.75
meals
Weighted
SE
=
0.17
Outliers
=
1
RR
=
99.0%
total;
98.1%
if
outlier
considered
a
nonresponse
91
TABLE
16:
Consumption
by
Women
Who
Have
Breastfed
Compared
to
All
Other
Female
Respondents
Women
N
Weighted
Weighted
Percent
Mean
(
gpd)
Weighted
SE
Women
Who
Have
Breastfed
103
35.7%
59.1
6.42
All
Other
Female
Respondents
175
64.3%
54.0
6.60
Total
278
100
55.8
4.78
l
*
l
outlier
not
included
92
TABLE
17:
Fish
Species
Consumed
by
All
Adult
Tribal
Members
Lamprey
513
54.2%
100%

Trout
513
70.2%
100%

II
Smelt
509
52.1%
99.2%
I
I
I
II
II
Whitefish
1
513
1
22.8%
100%
I
I
I
II
Sturgeon
Walleye
Squawfish
Sucker
Shad
513
24.8%
100%

511
9.3%
99.6%

513
2.7%
100%

513
7.7%
100%

512
2.6%
99.8%

93
.
\
TABLE
18:
Consumption
of
Fish
Species
by
Adults
Who
Eat
the
Particular
Species
Variables
Fish
meals
per
month
Grams
per
day
Response
N
Weighted
mean
Weighted
SE
Weighted
Weighted
SE
Rate
(
meals)
Mean
(
gpd)

94
TABLE
19:
Grams
of
Fish
Species
Consumed
Each
Day
by
Fish
Consumers
and
Non­
Fish
Consumers
II
I
I
Species
N
Weighted
Mean
(
gpd)

II
Salmon
I
509
I
23.7
a8
II
Trout
484
6.6
b
II
Lamprey
500
2.4
c
I
I
II
Smelt
494
2.4
c
I
I
Whitefish
Sturgeon
506
50.4
1.9
c
0.8
d
II
Walleye
1
509
0.3
e
I
I
II
Sucker
I
513
I
0.2
e
Shad
Squawfish
511
0.05
0
511
0.04
e
II
Total
I
­
I
28.8
Anadromous
II
Total
Resident
I
­­
I
10.0
.
0.36
98.6%
I
0.13
I
98.2%

0.09
99.2%

0.07
100%

0.03
99.6%

0.02
1
99.6%

1.45
I
­­

.77
'
Consumption
rates
for
species
designated
by
the
same
letter
are
not
significantly
different
from
one
another.

95
TABLE
20:
Adult
Consumption
of
Fish
Patis
Parts
Speciae
Fillet
Skin
Head
Eggs
Bones
Organs
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
percent
that
Weighted
percent
that
Weighted
Weig
percent
that
percent
that
percent
that
htad
consume
consume
consume
consume
consume
N
N
N
Perce
N
­
N
N
nt
that
oonsu
me
Salmon
Lamprey
Trout
Smelt
Whitsflsh
Sturgeon
Walleye
Squawfish
Sucker
Shad
473
96.1%
473
56.8%
473
42.7%
473
42.8%
473
12.1%
470
3.7%'

249
86.4%
261
89.3%
250
18.1%
250
4.6%
250
6.2%
250
3.2%

365
89.4%
365
68.6%
365
13.7%
364
8.7%
365
7.1%
362
2.3%

209
78.8%
209
88.9%
210
37.4%
209
46.4%
210
28.4%
.206
27.9
%

126
93.8%
124
53.8%
125
15.4%
126
20.6%
125
6.0%
124
0.0%

i21
94.6%
121
18.2%
121
6.2%
121
11.9%
121
2.6%
121
0.3%

46
100%
46
20.7%
46
6.2%
46
9.8%
46
2.4%
46
0.9%

16
89.7%
16
34.1%
16
8.1%
16
11.1%
16
6.9%
16
0.0%

42
89.3%
42
60.0%
42
19.4%
42
30.4%
42
9.8%
42
2.1%

16
93.5%
16
15.7%
16
0.0%
16
0.0%
16
3.3%
16
,
O.
O%
TABLE
21:
Age
When
Children
Begin
Eating
Fish
Age
(
months)
Unweighted
Frequency
Unweighted
Percent
0.6%
Unweighted
Cumulative
Percent
0.6%

2
1.2%
1.8%
I
I
3
I
1
.
a%
I
3.6%

4.8%
2
1.2%

5
3.0%

30
18.0%

10
6.0%

7
4.2%

4
2.4%

10
6.0%

2
1.2%

42
25.1%
7.8%

25.7%
6.0
8.0
5
3.0%
74.9%

3
1
.
a%
76.6%

77.2%
16.0
18.0
24.0
14
8.4%
92.8%

30.0
1
0.6%
93.4%

`
N
=
167
Unweighted
Mean
=
13.1
months
Unweighted
SE
=
0.71
Respondent
Unsure
=
3
Child
has
not
started
yet
=
12
RR
=
89.2%
total:
81.9%
of
data
were
used
97
IHlSLt
LIL:
iuumoer
0T
tlsn
lvleals
Consumed
per
weetc
try
ciniiaren
1
Number
1
Unweighted
1
Unweighted
1
c"
u","
u"
l$
zd
of
Meals
Frequency
Percent
Percent
I
I
I
I
0.0
42
21.5%
21.5%

0.1
3
1.5%
23.1%

0.2
7
3.6%
26.7%

0.3
2
1
.
O%
27.7%

0.4
a
4.1%
31.8%

0.5
6
3.1%
34.9%

0.6
3
1.5%
36.4%

1
.
o
a3
42.6%
79.0%

2.0
24
12.3%
91.3%

3.0
7
3.6%
94.9%

4.0
3
1.5%
96.4%
I
I
I
5.0
6.0
2
2
1
.
O%
97.4%

1
.
O%
98.5%

N
=
195
Unweighted
Mean
=
1.17
meals
&
weighted
SE
=
0.11
Outliers
=
1
RR
=
96.1%
total;
95.6%
if
outlier
considered
a
nonresponse
98
TABLE
23:
Serving
Size
(
oz.)
of
Fish
for
Children
Age
Five
or
Under
.

Number
of
Unweighted
Ounces
Frequency
Unweighted
Percent
Unweighted
Cumulative
Percent
I
I
N
=
201
Unwaighted
Mean
=
3.36
ounces
Unweighted
SE
=
0.18
RR
=
98.5%

99
TABLE
24:
Children's
Fish
Consumption
Rates
­
Throughout
Year
0.0
41
21
.
l%
21.1%

0.4
1
0.5%
21.6%

0.8
1
0.5%
22.2%

1.6
5
2.6%
24.7%

2.4
1
0.5%
25.3%

3.2
6
3.1%
28.4%

4.1
7
3.6%
32.0%

4.9
3
1.5%
33.5%

6.5
a.
1
4
2.1%
35.6%

23
11
.
S%
47.4%

9.7
2
1
.
O%
48.5%
I
I
I
12.2
5
2.6%
51
.
O%

13.0
1
0.5%
51.5%

16.2
41
21.1%
72.7%

19.4
1
0.5%
73.2%

20.3
2
I
1
.
O%
74.2%

24.3
4
2.1%
76.3%

32.4
21
10.8%
87.1%

4x.
6
a
4.1%
91.2%

54.8
6
3.1%
94.3%

72.9
4
2.1%
96.4Ok,

31.0
37.2
162.0
rotal
2
2
3
194
1
.
O%

1
.
O%

1.5%

100%
97.4%

98.5%

100%

v
=
194
Jnweighted
Mean
=
19.6
gpd
Jnweighted
SE
=
1.94
3utliers
=
1
?
R
=
95.6%
total;
95.1%
if
outlier
considered
a
nonresponse
100
TI
4BLE
25:
Fish
Species
Consumed
by
C
Specie6
Salmon
N
202
Unweighted
Percent
of
Children
that
Consume
the
Species
82.7%
Response
Rate
99.0%

Lamprey
201
Trout
202
Smelt
201
Whitefish
201
Sturaeon
201
19.9%

46.5%

22.4%

10.9%

10.9%

Walleye
Squawfish
201
2.5%

201
1
.
O%
98.5%

.99.0%

98.5%

98.5%

98.5%

98.5%

98.5%

Sucker
Shad
201
2.0%
98.5%

197
1.5%
96.6%

101
TABLE
26:
Consumption
by
Children
Who
Consume
the
Particular
Species
Variables
7
.
.

fish
meals
per
month
Grams
per
day
Response
Specie6
N
Unweighted
Unweighted
Unweighted
Unweighted
Rate
mean
(
meals)
SE
Mean
(
gpd)
SE
102
­

TABLE
27:
Children's
Consumption
of
Fish
Parts
Parts
.
Species
Fillet
Skin
Head
Erm
Bones
Organs
Unweighted
Unweighted
Unweighted
Unweighted
percent
that
Unweighted
percent
that
Unweighted
percent
that
percent
that
N
N
percent
that
percent
consume
coneume
N
consume
N
consume
N
consume
N
that
consume
Salmon
167
Lamprey
36
Trout
so
Smelt
42
Whitefish
20
Sturgeon
20
Walleye
4
Squawfieh
2
Sucker
4
Shad
3
97.6%

97.2%

96.6%

al
.
o%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%
167
26.1%
167
13.8%
167
13.2%
167
3.0%
167
0.6%

37
83.8%
.37
6.4%
37
0.0%
37
0.0%
37
0.0%

90
41.1%
.
as
3.4%
as
4.6%
a9
0.0%
88
0.0%

41
73.2%
41
17.10%
41
24.4%
41
12.2%
41
9.8%

18
27.8%
19
6.3%
19
10.6Oh
19
0.0%
6,
19
.
0.0%

20
10.0%
20
0.0%
20
5.0%
20
0.0%
20
0.0%

4
0.0%
4
0.0%
4
0.0%
4
0.0%
4
0.0%

2
60.0%
2
0.0%
2
0.0%
2
0.0%
2
0.0%

4
25.0%
4
25.0%
4
26.0%
4
0.0%
4
0.0%

3
0.0%
3
0.0%
3
0.0%
3
0.0%
3
0.0%
Table
28:
Use
of
Fish
Preparation
Methods
Method
N
Panfried
477
Deepfried
475
Weighted
Percent
Who
Responded
Yes
79.5%

26.1%

Poached
476
Boiled
477
16.9%

73.4%
ReBpOn66
Rate
100%

99.6%

99.8%

100%

Baked
I
476
I
98.3%
I
99.8%

Broiled
Smoked
477
476
39.3%

66.2%

Dried
476
66.9%
100%

99.8%

99.8%

Raw
475
3.2%
99.6%
I
I
I
Roasted
Canned
477
71.3%
100%

477
75.3%
100%

104
Table
29:
Frequency
of
Use
of
Fish
Preparation
Methods
105
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
1:
Formulas
for
Calculating
Weighting
Factors
I.
Calculation
of
Weiphtine
Factors
U&
w
EPI
A.
Formula:
(
Population
Size
of
Tribe/
Sample
Size
of
Tribe);
the
lowest
of
the
four
numbers
Tribe
Po~
ulation/
SamDle
Final
Weighting:
Factor
Umatilla
(
818/
131)
=
6.246.
2416.24
=
1.00
Nez
Perce
(
M­
40/
133)
=
10.8
10.816.24
=
1.73
warm
spring
(
1531/
126)
=
12.2
12.216.24
=
1.96
Yakama
(
3872/
123)
=
31.5
31.5/
6.24
=
5.05
divide
this
number
106
APPENDIX
2:
Weighting
Formulas
for
Calculating
Weighted
Means
.

The
following
weighting
factor
formula,
recommended
by
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control,
was
used
to
calculate
the
weighted
mean
of
a
set
of
clata:

Weighting
Factor:
Wi
=
N,,/
nh
where
observation
i
is
from
tribe
h,
N,
=
the
population
size
of
the
individual
tribe
and
n,,
=
the
sample
size
of
the
individual
tribe.

The
following
formula
was
used
to
calculate
the
weighting
factor
for
each
Tribe:

Weighting
Factor:
wi
=
(
N,
n)/(
Nn,)
where
observation
i
is
from
tribe
h,
N
=
the
population
size
of
all
four
Tribes
combined,
N,
=
the
population
size
of
an
individual
tribe,
n
=
the
sample
size
of
all
flour
Tribes
combined,
and
nh
=
the
sample
size
of
an
individual
tribe.

The
weighting
factors
were
then
used
in
the
weighting
option
in
SAS
for
determining
weighted
means,
frequency
distributions,
and
percentiles.
The
weighted
mean,
variance
and
standard
error
are
computed
by
SAS
as
foiiows:

i=
m
i=
m
Weighted
Mean:
X,
=
~
WiXi/
1
Wi
where
Wi
=
the
weighting
factor
the
i==
l
i=
l
individual
tribe;
Xi
=
the
individual
data
point;
and
m
=
the
number
of
data
points,
and
the
weighted
mean
=
­
X
w.

SW2
=~
Wi(
Xi­
Xw)
2
/(
n­
l)

i=
l
Where
wi
is
the
value
of
the
weight
of
the
ith
observation
and
Xi
is
the
value
of
the
ith
observation
and
m
=
number
of
data
points
=
II
=
sample
size
of
ail
four
tribes
combined.
Weighted
Variance:

Weighted
Standard
error
of
the
mean
=
s,/
n"`
5
This
formula
is
consistent
with
formulas
for
calculating
weighting
factors
that
are
typically
presented
in
Statistical
texWdS
Such
as:

Cochran,
William
C.,
Sampling
techniques
(
second
editionL
New
York:
John
Wiley
and
Sons,
Inc..
1993.;
Dixon
Wxfrid
J.
and
Massey,
Frank
Jr.,
Introduction
to
Statistical
Analvsis
(
fourth
editionL
New
York:
McGraw­
Hil~
i
Publishing
co.

SAS
Institute,
Inc.
1995.
SAS
User's
Guide:
Basics;
Version
5
Edition.
CarY,
NC:
SAS
Institute.

107
APPENDIX
3:
TECHNICAL
PANEL
AND
PEER
REVIEWERS
TECHNICAL
PANEL
MEMBERS
Craig
R.
McCormack
(
formerly
Environmental
Protection
Agency)
Toxics
Clean­
Up
Program
Department
of
Ecology
P.
O.
Box
47600
Olympia,
WA
985047600
(
206)
438­
3012
Steven
D.
Helgerson
Health
Care
Financing
Admin.
2201
Sixth
St.,
MS­
RX­
42
Seattle,
WA
98121
(
206)
615­
2310
John
C.
Plan
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
729
NE
Oregon
Portland,
OR
97202
(
503)
238­
0667
David
Cleverly
USEPA
Office
of
Health
and
Environmental
Assess.
401
M
St.,
SW
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
(
202)
260­
89
15
Gerald
Filbin
USEPA
Office
of
Policy,
Planning
and
Evaluation
401
M
St.,
SW
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
(
202)
260­
8099
Rick­
Albright
EPA
­
Region
10
1200
Sixth
Avenue
Seattle,
WA
98101
(
206)
553­
8514
Steve
Roy
Former
Indian
Coordinator
EPA
­
Region
10
1200
Sixth
Avenue
Seattle,
WA
98101
(
206)
553­
2118
Howard
Goldberg
Center
for
Disease
Control
Division
of
Reproductive
Health
4770
Buford
Hwy.
NE
Atlanta,
GA
30341
(
404)
488­
5257
Dana
Davoli
EPA
­
Region
10
1200
Sixth
Avenue
Seattle,
WA
98101
(
206)
553­
2135
Joel
Mulder
(
formerly
EPA
­
Region
10)

Harriet
M.
Ammann
WA
Department
of
Health
Office
of
Toxic
Substances
P.
O.
Box
47825
Olympia,
WA
98504
(
206)
586­
5405
Floyd
Frost
Epidemiologist
Lovelace
Institute
2425
ridge
Crest
Dr.,
SE
Alberqueque,
NM
87108
(
505)
262­
7748
Roseanne
M.
Philen
Medical
Epidemiologist
Health
Studies
Branch
Division
of
Environmental
Hazards
and
Health
Effects
(
F­
46)
Centers
for
Disease
Control
4770
Buford
Hwy.
NE
Atlanta,
GA
30341
(
404)
488­
4682
Roseanne
M.
Lorenzana
(
formerly
OR
Health
Division)
EPA
­
Region
10
1200
Sixth
Avenue
Seattle,
WA
98101
Jonathan
R.
Sugarman
Indian
Health
Service
2201
Sixth
St,
Rm
#
300
Seattle,
WA
98
121
(
206)
553­
5423
Skip
Houseknecht
(
deceased)
USEPA
Office
of
Water
401
M
St,
SW
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
(
202)
260­
7055
Ernie
Kimball
Indian
Health
Service
2201
Sixth
St.,
Rm.
#
300
Seattle,
WA
98121
108
APPENDIX
3
(
cont'd)

PEER
REVIEW
PANEL
MEMBERS
Dr.
Patrick
West,
Ph.
D
University
of
Michigan
Dept.
of
Natural
Resources
Dana
Bldg.
430
E.
University
Ann
Arbor,
Ml
48109
(
313)
764­
7206
Dr.
Douglas
S.
Robson,
Ph.
D
150
MacLaren
St.,
PH6
Ottawa,
Ontario
K2P
OL2
(
613)
594­
5511
Dr.
Clayton
L.
Stunkard
1511
Leister
Dr.
Silver
Spring,
MD
20904
(
301)
384­
4674
Dr.
H.
Joseph
Sekerke,
Jr.
State
of
Florida
Toxicology
and
Hazard
Assessment
Dept.
of
Health
and
Rehab.
Services
1317
Winewood
Blvd.
Tallahassee,
FL
32399
(
904)
488­
3385
Dr.
Mary
Yoshiko
Hama,
Ph.
D
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agriculture
Food
Consumption
Research
Branch
6505
Belcrest
Rd.,
Rm.
339
Hyattsville,
MD
20782
(
301)
436­
8485
Dr.
Kenneth
Rudo,
Ph.
D
Stateof
North
Carolina
Dept.
of
Env.
Health
&
Natl.
Res.
Division
of
Epidemioiogy
P.
O.
Box
27687
raleigh,
NC
2761
1
(
919)
733­
3410
Dr.
Yasmin
Cypel,
Ph.;
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agriculture
Food
Consumption
Research
Branch
6505
Belorest
Rd.,
Rm.
339
Hyettsville,
MD
20782
(
301)
436­
8478
Dr.
Rolf
Hartung,
Ph.
D.
Dept.
of
Environ.
&
Indust.
Health
2504
School
of
Public
Health
University
of
Michigan
Ann
Arbor,
Ml
48109
(
313)
971­
9690
Dr.
Dale
Hams,
Ph.
D.
CENTED,
Clark
University
Worcester,
MA
01610
(
508)
751­
4622
109
APPENDIX
4:
CRITFC
and
Tribal
Approval
and
Coordination
CRITFC's
participation
in
the
survey
required
approval
from
both
the
Commission
and
the
independent
tribal
governments.
CRITFC
staff
presented
thle
survey
protocol
and
copies
of
the
draft
questionnaire
to
the
tribal
governments
during
the
spring
and
summer
of
1991.
Approval
of
the
survey
was
first
obtained
by
the
Commission
in
April,
followed
by
the
Nez
Perce
Tribal
Executive
Committee
in
June
1991,
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
the
Umatilla
Tribes
and
the
Warm
Springs
Tribal
Council
in
July
1991,
and
the
Yakama
Tribal
Council
in
August
1991.

Following
tribal
approval,
CRITFC
obtained
the
endorsement
of
and
staff
assistance
from
IHS.
A
tet­
ter
was
addressed
to
the
Seattle
IHS
office,
then
circulated
to
the
regional
and
national
IHS
Research
Committees.
The
Portland
area
Research
Committee
approved
the
survey
in
July
1991,
and
approval
from
the
National
Research
Committee
was
obtained
in
October.
In
addition,
aplproval
for
the
survey
was
obtained
from
the
IHS
Yakama
Service
Unit,
the
Warm
Springs
Service
Unit,
the
Northern
Idaho
Service
Unit
(
Nez
Perce),
and
the
Yellow
Hawk
Slervice
Unit
(
Umatilla).

A
project
coordinator
was
retained
by
CRITFC's
Portland
office
to
coordinate
the
federal
and
tribal
agencies
involved
in
the
survey,
supervise
interviewers,
conduct
the
operations
of
the
survey,
and
oversee
data
entry.
The
c'oordinator
was
also
responsible
for
overseeing
technical
edits
and
statistical
anallyses
prepared
by
a
private
environmental
consulting
firm
contracted
by
CRITFC.

USEPA
provided
the
grant
to
fund
the
project,
provided
technical
consultation,
and
coordinated
the
development
of
the
project
protocol
and
questionnaire.
Seattle­
based
IHS
staff
assisted
in
development
of
the
questionnaire
ancl
provided
technical
consultation,
a
compilation
of
the
Tribes'
IHS
clinic
lists
from
which
the
sample
was
drawn,
and
a
database
program
used
to
enter
and
analyze
the
collected
data.
CDC's
Division
of
Reproductive
Health
in
Atlanta,
GA
conducted
the
interviewer
training
sessions,
provided
technical
consultation,
and
conducted
the
survey
sample
selection.
Tribal
officials
from
the
Warm
Springs,
Yakama,
Umatilla,
and
Nez
Perce
Tribes
obtained
office
space
that
was
used
for
conducting
interviews
and
corresponding
with
survey
respondents.

ii0
QUESTlONNAlRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

1991
Columbla'Rlver
InterTribal
Fish
Commission
Survey
of
Fish
Consumptlon
and
Related
Issue,
s
INTERVIEWER
a
VISIT
Mont:
Day
.
Month2
Day
Month3
Day
Month
Day
a
a
DATE
­
J­­

TIME
.
.
­­
a­­
­­`­­
:
­­­­
:
m­
s­

RESULT*

NUMBER
OF
.
INTERVIEWER
­
­.

l
RESULT
CODES:

1
Compleled
InteMew
at
b
2
Completed
Inlsrvlsw
al
fenlral
lo~
4tf011
3
NOI
11
home
al
Urns
ot
Mall;
rrrlatt
need
4
~
u4d
appotntmrnt
at
central
IocAon;
s
Movrd
wtthln
turvay
are&
8
Moved
oul
01
rutvsy
area
10
Rshraal
dudno
thr
Intrtirw
bythr
rerpondent
or
other
farnlty
mpmi>
er
11
Mpondsnt
mentally
or
physIcally
dlwbled
12
othtr
(
speoffyj
i%
yc&:~~

NAME:
.
ADDRESS:
.
.
PHONE:
II­­­­

SOCIAL
SECURlTY
NUMBER:
­
QUESllONNAlRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

1991
Columbia
River
InterTribal
Fish
Commission
Survev
of
F
`
Ish
Consumption
and
Related
Issues
,
.

INTRODCCTION
HII
My
name
Is
~~~)
00000000000[
and
I
represent
the
iname
of
f&
e
of
person
be/
ng
Infervlewed).
We
are
conducting
a
survey
to
understand
fish
eating
patterns
as
well
as
other
dietary
patterns
and
health­
related
behaviors
of
Natlve
Americans
In
the
Northwest.
The
Information
given
in
thls
survey
will
assist
the
[
name.
of
tribej
In
doCumentlng
actual
rates
of
dietary
fish
consumption,
ways
In
which
fish
meals
are
cooked
and
prepared,
the
types
of
fish
species
regularly
consumed,
and
locations
where
fish
are
caught
or
obtalned.

NOTE
T!
ME
!
NTERV!
EW
BEG!
NS:
­
­­*­­
AM;
P;
yl
11­
l
What
was
the
month
and
year
of
your
blrth?
.
.

MONTH
YEAR
(
INTERVIEWER:
CALCULATE
AND
REMEMBER
AGE
FOR
LATER
USE)

It­
2
So
you
are
now
years
old?
,

2
QUESTIONNAIRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

II­
3
Are
you
an
enrolled
member
of
the
[
name
of
tribe]?

Yes
........................................
No
.......................................
:

l
**
IF
NO,
TERMINATE
INTERVIEW
***

II­
4
SEX
OF
RESPONDENT
MALE
............
:.
,
.
.
.
.................
1
FEMALE
..........
..,...
.................
2
II­
5
Do
you
live
on
ihe
[
name
of
trlbe]
reservation
or
off­
reservation?

ONTHERESERVATlON
,
........................
8
OFF­
RESERVATION
...........................
2
2.

Ill­
1
I
am
now
golng
to
ask
you
to
remember
all
of
the
food
and
drlnks
that
you
ate
yesterday,
from
the
time
you
woke
up
In
the
morning
until
the
time
you
went
to
sleep
for
the
nlght.
In
additlon
to
asking
you
about
the
type
of
food,
I'll
show
you
some
examples
of
serving
sizes
In
order
to
determine
the
amount
you
actually
ate.

[
See
24
hour
recall
dietary
Intake
form]

3
COMMENTS
(
Give
he
no.
when
appropriate):

4
I
QUES­
IIONNAIRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

DlETAFiY
INTAKE
­
24
HOUR
RECALL
Jntabs
Day
Sunday
1
Thurrday
.
.
..
I..............
.
.
.
.
.
..*..........
I
Monday
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.2
Friday
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
a
Turdry
.*..
I...*..,,,.,.*.
3
Saturday
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
7
Wednesday
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.4
~
terdewef
0
Odn
Ion
of
Inform
OUOQ
@
take
Was
Rellabl~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..*.......*.....
V....~..
1
1
TypIcal
..,,,....
e......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Unablotoroallonrormonmrah
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
Conddrrably
Iru
than
typIcal
2
Unrehblrforothrrrrawnr
.
.
.
.
.
..,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,....
3
Conddsmbly
mom
than
typic.%!
*
:
:
:
:
:
3
QUESTIONNAIRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

DIETARY
INTAkE,`
CONTINUATION
PAGE
.,

Une
L
No.
Hour
Mln
Food
and
Beverages
Amount
(
o=.
l
Complete
Descrlptlon
15
I
I
I
I
I
,.
16
I
I
I
I
I
,
17
I
I
I
I
I
18
I
I
I
I
QUESTIONNAIRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

Ill­
2
During
which
two
months
of
the
year
would
you
say
you
eat
the
most
ffsh?

January
.......................
February
:
September
.....................
9
.......................
October
......................
10
.
March
........................
3
November
.....................
11
April
...........................
4
December..
...................
12
May
.........................
June
.........................
ii
All
months
the
same
.............
66
77
July
..........................
ii
tfev&/`
dy
eat
fish
[
Skip
to
Q.
IV­
21
..
...
...
....
..
..
......
68
August..
......................

ill­
3
During
the
months
you
indicated
you
eat
the
most
fish,
about
how
many
meals
of
fish
do
you
eat
on
a
weekly
basis?
(
Remember
to
include
fish
consumed
for
breakfast,
lunch,
dinner,
and
snacks).

Avg.
#
of
ffsh
meals
weekly:
­
(
two
hlghest
months)

Ill­
4
During
which
two
months
would
you
say
you
usually
eat
the
least
flsh?

January
.......................
1
­.
.­­.
t=
ebl
UUI
y
.......................
March
.........................
:
April
...........................
May
.........................
i
June
.........................
6
July
..........................
August
........................
i
September
.....................
9
October
......................
70
November
.....................
11
December
.....................
12
All
months
the
same
..............
66
;
rn';
ly
eat
fish
[
Skip
to
Q.
IV­
l]
77
..
...
...
....
..
..
......
88
All
months
except
2
marked
in
questlon
Ill­
2
are
equally
low
...
99
Ill­
5
During
the
months
you
indicated
you
eat
the
least
flsh,
about
how
many
meals
of
fish
do
you
eat
on
a
weekly
basis?

Avg.
#
of
fish
meals
weekly:
­
(
two
lowest
months)

6
QUESTlONNAlRE
Ill­
6
On
average,
throughout
the
year,
about
how
many
fish
meals
weekly
do
you
eat?

average
#
of
fish
meals
weekly:
(
throughout
year)
*
.

Ill­
7
What
1s
the
Bveraae
portion
size
of
fish
you
eat
In
a
meal
that
includes
fish?
[
SHOW
THE
RESPONDENT
FOOD
MODELS,
AND
ENTER
THE
AVERAGE
SERVING
SIZE
IN
OUNCES]

Average
serving
size
(
ounces):
­

III­
3
IF
RESPONDENT
IS
YOUNGER
THAN
39
YEARS
OF
AGE,
SKIP
TO
QUESTION
III­
9
a)
Has
the
number(
amourit)
of
fish
consumed
by
you
or
your
famlly
changed
over
the
last
20
years?
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

Yes
.
.
.
1
No.
,
.
2
***
IF
NO,
GO
TO
QUESTION
III­
9
***

If
yes,
wh6t
has
the
change
been?
eat
more
fish
now
........................
1
eatlessflshnow
........................
2
eat
different
types
of
fish
now
...............
3
b)
Can
you
estimate
how
many
more
fish
meals
weekly,
or
how
many
less
fish
meals
weekly,
you
or
your
family
eat
now
as
compared
to
the
time
before
your
fish
consumption
changed7
now
eat
­
fish
meals
more
per
week
than
before
now
eat
­
fish
meals
less,
per
week
than
before
Ill­
9
I
am
now
going
to
ask
you
.
some
questions
on
specific
tvpes
of
fish
that
can
be
obtained
from
the
Columbia
River
Basin.
For
each
type
of
fish
I
mention,
I
am
going
to
ask
you
several
questions
concerning
how
often
you
eat
it
and
which
parts
of
the
fish
are
usually
eaten.
[
See
TABLE
I]

7
QUESTIONNAIRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

TABLE
1.
Types
of
Fish
and
Parts
Consumed
(
Respondent)

Head
~

&
p;:<,.:.
r.
.
.
"

Other
Organs
Yes..
1
No..
2
(
clrcl?
Yes
Average
number
of
If
commonly
eaten)
meals
per
month
Skln
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Eggs
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Yes...
1
No...
2
(
If
YES,
go
to,
next
columns)

Lamprey
(
Eel)
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
No..
2
Yes..
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No..~'

Yes.
.
I
Yes..
1
No..
2
Yes.
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No
a.
2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes..
1
No..
2
Yes..
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes..
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes...
1
No...
2
Resident
Trout
Yes.
.
1
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes
.
.
.
1
No.
,
.2
Smelt
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
Yes.
.
I
No..
2
Yes..
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
I
No..
2
Yes..
1
No
.:.
2
Yes
.
.
.
­
I
No
.
.
.2
Whitefish
`
No..
2
No
.`,
2
Yes.
.
1
Yes.
.
1
Yes..
1
No..
2
Yes..
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes
,
.
.
1
No'...
2
No.:
2
Yes.
.
I
No..
2
Sturgeon
Yes.
.
1
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes..
1
No..
2
Yes..
1
No..
2
No..
2
Yes...
1
No...
2
No..
2
Yes..
1
Walleye
Yes.
,
1
Yes...
1
No...
2
No..
2
8
QUESTIONNAIRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

OTHERS
(
list)

1.
QUESTIONNAIRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

IV­
1
Please
tell
me
about
how
ffsh
Is
usually
(
throughout
the
year)
prepared
or
cooked
In
your
home
(
more
than
1
selection
from
the
followfng
may
be
given).
Please
also
Indicate
how
often
fish
Is
prepared/
cooked
in
that
particular
manner.

Is
the
fish
ever...

Yes.
.
.
1
­­>
QUESTIONNAIRE
NUMBER
­­­­

IV­
2
Do
you
regularly
prepare
the
meals
In
your
household?
Yes.
.
.
I
No..
.2
*
.

IV­
3
Are
there
any
children
5
years
or
younger
living
In
this
household?
Yes..
.
1
No..
.2
IF
NO,
GO
TO
QUESTION
IV­
Q
IV­
4
Please
provide
the
following
lnformatlon
for
the
youngest
person
in
your
household
who
is
5
years
of
age
or
less:
Flrst
Name
Sex
Male.
.
.
.
.
1
Female.
.
.
.
2
Weight
__
pounds
Height
_
feet,
_
_
inches
IV­
5
Throughout
the
year,
what
is
the
m
portion
size
of
fish
this
chfld
eats
in
a
meal
that
includes
fish?
[
SHOW
THE
RESPONDENT
FOOD
MODELS,
AND
ENTER
THE
AVERAGE
SERVING
SIZE
IN
OUNCES]
c
Average
serving
size
(
ounces):
_
_
ounces
77
=
Eats
no
fish
IV­
6
A
few
minutes
ago
you
described
which
types
of
fish
you
eat
and
which
parts
are
normally
consumed.
This
Information
was
put
into
Table
1
(
SHOW
TABLE).
For
the
child
listed
in
question
4,
please
provide
the
Same
Information
on
the
separate
Table
3
(
DURING
THE
INTERVIEW,
THE
INTERVIEWER
SHOULD
SHOW
THE
PRNIOUSLY
COMPLETED
TABLE
1
AND
ASK
THE
RESPONDENT
TO
CONCENTRATE
ON
THE
DIFFERENCES
BRWEEN
WHAT
THEY
EAT
AND
WHAT
THE
CHILD
EATS.)

11
I
QUESTIONNAIRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

TABLE
3.
FOR
CHILD
UNDER
FIVE:
Types
of
flsh
and
Parts
Consumed
Fillet
w
ij,
j
3ther
Organs
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.
2
c­
i­

No
:
.2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.
2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
­
2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
­
2
Average
number
of
meals
per
month
Type
of
Fish
.
(
circle
Yes
If
commonly
eaten)

Salmon
and
Steelhead
Skin
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
Head
Eggs
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.
2
Yes.
.
1
No..~'

Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
Yes
.
.
.
1
No
,
.
.2
(
if
YES,
go
to
next
columns)

Yes.
..
I
Lamprey
(
Eel)
Yes.
.
1
No.
.
2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
.
1
No.
.
.2
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
Resident
Trout
Yes.
.
.
1
No.
.
.
i
­.
No..
2
Smelt
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
.
1
No.
.
.2
Whitefish
Yes.
.
1
Yes.
.
1
No.
i
2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
Yes.
.
4
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes
.
.
.
1
No.
.
.2
No..
2
Yes.
,
1
Sturgeon
Yes
.
.
..
I
No...
2
No.
.2
Yes..
,
1
Yes.
.
1
No
:
.2
Walleye
Yes.
.
.
1
No
.
.
.2
,

No.
.2
12
QUESTIONNAIRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_.

Skln
Fillet
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
i;
gg?
ptf):

i
I
.
.
.
.
.

Other
Organs
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
a2
(
CONTINUED)

Type
of
Fish
Squawfish
Yes.
.
.
1
No.
.
.2
Sucker
Average
number
of
meals
per
month
Head
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
Yes.
.
1
9es.
.
1
No
.
.2
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
a2
Yes.
.
1
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
.
1
No.
.
.2
No.
02
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
Yes.
.
1
Yes.
.
1
Shad
Yes.
.
.
I
No.
.
.2
OTHERS
(
list)

1.

2.

3.
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No..
2
VP@
I
IY".,
I
No..
2
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
Yes
1
.
.

No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
.2
No.
.2
­­
No.
.2
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
Yes.
.
1
Yes.
.
1
No.
.2
No
.
.2
Yes
1
.
.
No.
.2
No.
.2
Yes.
.
1
No
.
a2
No..
2
`
Yes.
,
1
No.
.2
Yes..
1
No
.
.2
No.
.2
13
I
QUESTIONNAIRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

IV­
7
On
average,
throughout
the
entire
year,
about
how
many
fish
meals
weekly
does
the
child
eat?
Average
number
of
fish
meals
weekly
IV­
6
At
what
age
(
in
months)
did
the
child
begin
eating
meals
that
include
fish?
_
_
months
7
7=
notyet
8
8
=
unknown
IV­
9
IF
RESPONDENT
IS
MALE,
SKIP
TO
NEXT
SECTION
l­
he
next
few
questions
are
being
asked
to
get
better
information
on
the
diet
of
very
young
children.

Have
you
ever
given
birth?
Yes
.
.
,
1
No.
.
.2
IF
NO,
SKIP
TO
NEXT
SECT!
ON
.

IV­
10
In
what
month
and
year
was
your
last
child
born?
_
_
month
19
__
year
IV­
11
Was
this
baby
breast
fed?
Yes
.
.
.
1
No.
.
.2
IF
NO,
SKIP
TO
NEXT
SECTION
IV­
12
At
what
age
(
in
months)
did
you
stop
breast
feeding
this
child?

'
__
months
­>
SKIP
TO
NEXT
SECTION
7
7
=
still
breast
feeding
­­>
CONTINUE
TO
QUESTION
IV­
13
IV­
13
At
what
age
(
in
months)
do
you
plan
to
stop
breast
feeding
your
child?
_
_
months
14
QUESTIONNAIRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

V­
l
Do
you
catch
fish
for
either
personal
consumption
or
for
use
by
your
Tribe
in
some
way?
Yes
.
.
.
1
No.
.
.2
IF
NO,
SKIP
TO
QUESTION
V­
4
V­
2
Please
indicate
on
this
map
(
show
map)
where
you
usually
catch
the
following
fish
species.

REFER
TO
MAP
TO
HIGHLIGHT
(
numbered)
POINTS
ON
THE
RIVER
(
list
numbers
of
sites)
0
=
Doesn't
catch
this
type
of
fish
Sa!
mon
&
Stee!
head
Lamprey
(
eel)
Resident
Trout
­
Smelt
Whitefish
Sturgeon
Walleye
Squawfish
Sucker
Shad
I
QUESTIONNAIRE
NUMBER
_
_
_
_

V­
3
About
how
far
from
home
do
you
usually
travel
to
fish?

O­
5
miles
..............................
1
6­
10
miles
.............................
2
11­
15
miles
............................
3
16­
20miles
............................
4
21­
25
miles
............................
5
26­
50
miles
............................
6
51­
75
miles
............................
7
,76­
lOOmlIes
.....
......................
8
more
than
100
miles
......................
9
V­
4
of
all
the
fish
you
eat,
approximately
what
percent
do
you
get
from:
(
INTERVIEWER:
READ
OPTIONS)

Fish
caught
by
yourself
or
family
members
Grocery
stores
Other
sources:
Friends
who
fish
Ceremonies
Distribution
by
the
tribe
Other
(
llst)

16
.
'

1)
On
average,
throughout
the
year,
how
often
do
you
attend
ceremonies
or
`
other
community
events?
never
(­>
End
of
IntervIew)
.....................
0
lessthani
tlmepermonth
......................
1
1­
S
times
per
month
...........................
2
46tlmespermonth..
..........................
3
more
than
6
times
per
month
.......
#.
...........
4
2)
How
often
do
you
eat
fish
at
these
ceremonies?
rarely/
never
(­>
End
of
Interview)
...............
0
less
than
l/
2
of
the
ceremonies
or
events
...........
1
atabout1/
2oftheceremonlesorevents
............
2
at
nearly
all
ceremonies
or
events
.................
3
6)
How
much
fish
do
YOU
usually
consume
at
each
of
these
events?
none
......................................
0
J­­­
I­
2
6oz
SKVII
~
ys
..............................
i
34
6oz
servings
..............................
2
6660zservings..
............................
3
more
than
6
602
servings
.......................
4
.
.

CONCLUSION
Again,
thank
you
for
your
cooperation
In
participating
In
this
survey.
Your
particlpatlon
will
significantly
contribute
to
information
needed
to
help
protect
your
natural
resources
and
provide
guidance
for
public
health
programs
for
your
tribe.

NOTE
TIME
INTERVIEW
ENDS:
_
­:­
_

17
APPENDIX
6:
List
of
Resident
Fish
Species
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
Squawfish
Northern
Squawfish
­
Ptychocheilus
oregonensis
Sturgeon
White
Sturgeon
­
Acipenser
transmontanus
(
populations
above
Bonneville
Dam)

Suckermouth
Longnose
suck
­
Catostomus
Catostomus
Bridgelip
suckermouth
­
Catostomus
columbianus
White
suck&
mouths
­
Catostomus
commersoni
Largescale
suckers
­
Catostomus
macrocheilus
Mountain
Sucker
­
Catostomus
platyrh
ynchus
Trout
Brown
Trout
­
Salmo
trutta
Bull
Trout
­
Salvelinus
confluentus
Brook
Trout
­
Salvelinus
fontinalis
Lake
Trout
­
Salvelinus
namaycush
Walleye
Stizostedion
vitreum
Whitefish
Lake
Whitefish
­
Coregonus
clupeaformis
Mountain
Whitefish
­
Prosopium
williamsoni
128
APPENDIX
7:
List
of
Anadromous
Fish
Species
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
Salmon
Sea­
run
cutthroat
trout
­
Oncorh
yncus
clarki
Pink
salmon
­
Oncorh
yncus
gorbuscha
Chum
salmon
­
Oncorhyncus
keta
Coho
salmon
­
Oncorhyncus
kisutch
Rainbow­
Steelhead
Trout
­
Oncorh
yncus
mykiss
Sockeye
salmon
­
Oncorh
yncus
nerka
Chinook
salmon
­
Oncorh
yncus
tshawytscha
Lamprey
Pacific
Brook
Lamprey
­
Lampetra
pacifica
Western
Brook
Lamprey
­
Lampetra
richardsoni
Pacific
Lamprey
­
Lampetra
tridentata
Shad
American
Shad
­
Alosasapid
issima
Smelt
Longfin
Smelt
­
Spirinchus
thaleichth
ys
Eulachon
­
Thaleichth
ys
pacificus
Sturgeon
White
Sturgeon
­
Acipenser
transmontanus
(
populations
below
Bonneville
Dam)

129
APPENDIX
8:
List
of
Other
Fish
Species
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
.

Bass
Microp
terus
spp.
Largemouth
Bass
­
Micropterus
salmoides
Bluegill
Lepomis
macrochinus
Cod
Gadus
spp:

Crappie
Black
crappie
­
Pomoxis
nigromaculatus
Catfish
Channel
catfish
­
ictalurus
punctatus
Halibut
Hippoglossus
spp.

Perch
Perca
spp.
Yellow
Perch
Perca
flavescens
Red
Snapper
­
Sebastodes
ruberrimus
130
i
Map
of
Fishing
Sites
[
Along
the
Columbia
:
River
Basin
I
I
1
TETRA
TEC
APPENDIX
10:
Sample
Letter
from
Tribal
Government
Requesting
Participation
in
the
Survey
Dear
­,

I
am
pleased
to
inform
you
that
you
have
been
selected
to
take
part
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
Fish
Consumption
Survey
sponsored
by
the
­
Tribes.
Approximately
125
tribal
members
will
be
surveyed
to
obtain
infolrmation
about
fish
consumption.
The
information
collected
will
be
used
to
ensure
that
state
and
federal
governmlents
are
adequately
protecting
the
water
resources
upon
which
our
fisheries
and
our
tribal
members
depend.

Please
sign
up
for
an
interview
by
calling
(###
I
any
time
of
the
day
or
night
beginning
on
October
Zlst.
Interviews
will
be
held
Monday
through
Friday,
October
31
­
November
20
at
the
Community
Counselling
Center
(
phone:
###
I.
See
the
enclosed
schedule
for
interview
time.

The
information
which
You
provide
during
the
interview
and
your
identity
will
be
kept
completely
confidential.
In
addition,
you
will
receive
a
$
40
after
the
questionnaire
is
completed
and
verified
to
cover
time
and
transportation
expenses
to
the
Counselling
Center
office.

If
you
are
unable
to
attend
an
interview,
please
call
the
above
number
anyway
to
verify
Your
address.

The
information
that
you
provide
is
extremely
important
to
the
welfare
of
the
Tribe.
Your
assistance
is
appreciated.

Sincerely,

Chairman,
Off­
Reservation
Fish
and
Wildlife
Committee
132
APPENDIX
11:
Job
Announcements
for
Survey
Coordinators
and
Interviewers
Job
Announcement
.

POSITION:
Survey
Interviewer
PROGRAM:
Columbia
River
Basin
Fish
Consumption
Survey
DUTIES:
1.
Participates
in
tribe
survey
to
obtain
information
about
fish
consumption
of
tribal
members
in
an
effort
to
better
protect
tribal
fishing
rights.

2.
Participates
in
training
session
from
September
­
­­
in
"
The
Dalles"
Oregon.

3.
Assists
in
scheduling
of
interviews
as
needed.

4.
Conducts
prescheduled
interviews
of
respondents
at
designated
locations
and
house­
to­
house
and
records
responses
on
survey
questionnaire.
Keeps
complete
records
of
respondents
and
surveys
conducted.
Reviews
completed
questionnaires
to
assure
all
required
data
is
present.
Must
assure
strict
confidentiality
of
participants
and
information
obtained.

5.
Provides
survey
participants
with
incentive
payment
checks.

6.
Meets
regularly
with
local
coordinator
to
turn
in
and
review
completed
work.
QUALIFICATIONS:

1.
Knowledge
and/
or
experience
in
conducting
personal
interviews.

2.
Ability
and
skill
in
effectively
communicating
and
interacting
with
individuals
and
groups
of
a
variety
of
age,
economic,
and
educational
ranges.

3.
Must
be
member
of
the
tribe
and
be
able
to
understand
and
speak
the
native
dialect.

4.
Graduation
from
high
school
required.
College
experience
preferred.

5.
Experience
in
conducting
surveys
preferred.

6.
Required
to
provide
own
means
of
transportation
to
conduct
interviews.

7.
Ability
to
maintain
confidentiality
of
participants
and
information.

8.
Dependability
in
areas
of
promptness,
timeliness,
and
accomplishing
assignments.

9.
Ability
to
exercise
self­
initiative
in
performing
the
work
at
an
acceptable
level
with
little
supervision.

SALARY:
(
positions)
S6lhour
These
are
temporary
positions
that
will
be
expected
to
last
approximately
15
days
but
may
last
longer
or
shorter
depending
on
the
length
of
the
project,
Interviewers
will
be
compensated
for
any
travel
which
is
necessary
after
completion
of
the
project.
At
least
one
interviewer
must
be
female
as
female
participants
may
not
be
willing
to
provide
certain
information
of
a
personal
nature
to
members
of
the
opposite
sex.

Please
send
Cover
letter
and
Resume
to:

Harold
Shepherd
Survey
Coordinator
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
975
S.
E.
Sandy
Blvd.,
Suite
202
Portland,
Oregon
97214
is
B
i
133
APPENDIX
11
(
cont'd)

Job
Announcement
.

POSITION:
Local
Coordinator
PROGRAM:
Columbia
River
Basin
Fish
Consumption
Survey
DUTIES:
1.
Participates
in
tribe
survey
to
bbtain
information
about
,
fish
consumption
of
tribal
members
in
an
effort
to
better
protect
tribal
fishing
rights.
2.
Participates
in
training
session
from
September
­
in
"
The
Dalles"
Oregon.
3.
Supervising,
training,
observing,
evaluating,
and
retraining
interviewers
and
assisting
interviewers
with
difficult
cases.
4.
Maintenance
of
production
standards,
reviewing
work
for
completeness
and
accuracy;
reassigning
for
further
work
when
necessary.
Transmitting
completed
rnaterials
to
Survey
Coordinator.
5.
Assists
in
scheduling
of
interviews
as
needed.
6.
Conducts
prescheduled
interviews
of
respondents
at
designated
locations
and
house­
to­
house
and
records
responses
on
survey
questionnaire.
Keeps
complete
records
of
respondents
and
surveys
conducted.
Reviews
completed
questionnaires
to
assure
all
required
data
is
present.
Must
assure
strict
confidentiality
of
participants
and
information
obtained.
7.
Provides
survey
participants
with
incentive
payment
checks.
8.
Meets
regularly
with
Survey
Coordinator
to
review
completed
questionnaires
and
discuss
progress,
problems,
etc.

OUALIFICATIONS:
1.
Experience
and/
or
knowledge
in
conducting
personal
interviews.
2.
Ability
and
skill
in
effectively
communicating
and
interacting
with
individuals
and
groups
in
a
variety
of
age,
economic,
and
educational
ranges.
Ability
to
train
others
to
use
these
techniques.
3.
Must
be
member
of
the
tribe
and
be
able
to
understand
and
speak
the
native
dialect.
4.
Graduation
from
high
school
required.
College
experience
preferred.
5.
Experience
in
conducting
surveys
preferred.
6.
Required
to
provide
own
means
of
transportation
to
conduct
interviews.
7.
Ability
to
maintain
confidentiality
of
participants
and
information.
8.
Dependability
in
areas
of
promptness,
timeliness,
and
accomplishing
assignments.
9.
Ability
to
exercise
self­
initiative
in
performing
work
and
ensuring
that
interviewers
perform
work
at
an
acceptable
level.

SALARY:
$
8/
hour.

This
is
a
temporary
position
that
will
be
expected
to
last
approximately
15
days
but
may
last
longer
or
shorter
depending
on
the
length
of
the
project.
The
Coordinator
will
be
compensated
for
alny
travel
which
is
necessary
after
completion
of
the
project.
Please
send
Cover
letter
and
Resume
to::

Harold
Shepherd
Survey
Coordinator
Columbia
River
Inter­
Tribal
Fish
Commission
975
SE.
Sandy
Blvd.,
Suite
202
Portland,
Oregon
972
14
134
APPENDIX
12:
Locations
of
Tribal
Members
from
Interview
Site
and
Reasons
for
Not
Participating
Locations
of
Yakama
Surveyed
Individuals
Interview
Site:
Toppenish,
WA
Administrative
Building
City/
Town
Wapato,
WA
Unweighted
Unweighted
Frequency
Percent
42
34.2%
Miles
from
Interview
Site
8
Toppenish,
WA
30
24.5%
c5
White
Swan,
WA
'
20
16.3%
21
Brownstown,
WA
6
5.0%
18
Goldendale,
WA
3
2.4%
48
Granger,
WA
3
2.4%
12
Harrah,
WA
3
2.4%
15
Seattle,
WA
3
2.4%
158
Zillah,
WA
Parker,
WA
Yakema,
WA
Dallesport,
WA
Lyle,
WA
2
1.6%

2
1.6%

2
1.6%

2
1.6%

1
0.8%
6
12
23
80
86
Pendleton,
OR
1
0.8%
118
Juliaetta
1
0.8%
206
Klickitat
1
0.8%
70
Unknown
1
0.8%

Total
123
100%

135
APPENDIX
12
(
cont'd)

Locations
of
Yakama
Non­
Surveyed
Individuals
and
Reasons
Given
for
Not
Participating
City/
Town
Toppenish,
WA
Wapato,
WA
White
Swan,
WA
Yakima,
WA
Brownstown,
WA
Unweighted
Unweighted
Frequency
Percent
20
34.0%

11
18.6%

13
22%

6
10.2%

2
3.5%
Miles
from
interview
Site
<
5
8
21
23
18
Reason6
(
unweighted
frequency)

NPfS);
NRL(
l
1)

NP(
G);
NRL(
S)

NP(­/);
NRL(
G)

NP(
3);
NRL(
3)

NPfl)

Unknown
2
3.5%
NRL(
2)

Zillah,
WA
I
1
I
1.7%
16
I
NRL(
1)

The
Dalles,
OR
1
1.7%
79
Goldendale,
WA
1
1.7%
48
Harrah,
WA
1
1.7%
15
Parker,
WA
1
1.7%
12
Total
59
100%

Legend
for
Reasons:
NP
=
No
Phone;
NRL
=
No
Reason
Listed
NRL(
1
1
NP(
l)

,
NRL(
l)

lNP(
1)

136
APPENDIX
12
(
cont'd)

Locations
of
Warm
Springs
Surveyed
Individuals
Interview
Site:
Warm
Springs,
OR
Community
Center
.

City/
Town
Warm
Springs,
OR
Madras,
OR
Total
Unweighted
Unweighted
Frequency
Percent
124
98.4%

2
1.6%

126
100%
Miles
from
interview
Site
<
25
15
Locations
of
Warm
Springs
Non­
Surveyed
individuals
and
Reasons
Given
for
Not
Participating
CitvKown
Unweighted
Unweighted
Mile6
from
Reason
(
unweighted
I
Freauencv
I
Percent
I
Interview
Site
I
freauencv)

Madras,
OR
2
3%
15
M(
2)

Portland,
OR
1
2%
100
M(
l)

Parker,
WA
1
2%
185
MI11
Salem,
OR
Warm
Springs,
OR
1
2%
165
49
90%
<
25
M(
l)

NRLfPl);
Mf12);
TR(
4);
NP(
4);
MA(
3);
WP(
2);
MP(
l);
D(
l);
RI(
l)

kegend
for
Reasons:
M
=
moved
out
of
survey
area;
NRL=
no
reason
listed;
TR=
total
refusal;
NP=
no
phone
or
disconnected;
MA
=
missed
appointment;
WP
=
wrong
phone
number;
MP
=
mental/
phyeical
disability;
D
=
deceased;
RI
­
refusal
during
interview
`
9
T
i
`
3
137
APPENDIX
12
(
cont'd)

Location
of
Umatilla
Surveyed
Individuals
.

Interview
Site:
Mission,
OR
Tribal
Council
Chambers,
Board
of
Trustees,
Tribal
Headquarters
City/
Town
Pendleton,
OR
Adams,
OR
Pilot
Rock,
OR
Weston,
OR
Unweighted
Frequency
102
15
6
3
Cayuse,
OR
2
Irrigon,
OR
1
Athea,
OR
1
La
Grande,
OR
1
II
Total
I
131
100%
I
1
Unweighted
Percent
77.8%

11.4%

4.6%

2.3%

1.5%

0.8%
60
0.8%
25
0.8%

138
Miles
from
Interview
Site
II
5
19
ii
20
27
6
55
­
I
APPENDIX
12
(
cont'd')

Location
of
Umatilla
Non­
Surveyed
Individuals
and
Reasons
Given
for
Not
Participating
City/
Town
Pendleton,
OR
Unweighted
Unweighted
Frequency
Percent
31
63.3%
Miles
from
Interview
Site
5
Reasion
(
unweighted
frequency)

M(
1
E;);
NP(
4);
MP(
3);
TR(
3)
NH(
3);
RIl
);
D(
l)

Adams,
OR
Cawse.
OR
6
12.2%
19
M(
4):;
NH(
l
):
D(
l)

4
8.2%
6
TR(
P);
NH(
l
);
D(
l)

II
Milton
Freewater
3
6.1%
34
NP(
3)
I
I
I
I
11
Pilot
Rock,
OR
1
2
I
4.1%
I
20
I
NP(
l);
M(
l)

II­
Hermiston,
OR
2
4.1%
36
NP(
1
);
M(
l)
I
I
I
I
II
La
Grande,
OR
1
1
2.0%
55
1
M(
l)
I
I
I
I
Total
49
100%
_..
I
Leaend
for
k3esons:
R
=
removed
from
survey,
unreliable;
NH
=
not
at
home;
M
=
moved
out
of
survey
area;
D
=
deceased;
TR
=
total
refusal;
M
=
mental/
physical
disability;
NP
=
no
phone
or
phone
<
disconnected
139
APPENDIX
12
(
cont'd)

Location
of
Nez
Perce
Surveyed
Individuals
Interview
Site:
Lapwai,
ID
at
Northern
Idaho
Public
Health
Service
City/
Town
Lapwai,
ID
Kamiah,
ID
Unweighted
Unweighted
Frequency
Percent
83
62.2%

19
14.3%
Miles
from
Interview
Site
<
IO
60
Clarkston,
WA
5
3.8%
14
Culdesac,
ID
4
3.0%
9
Kooskia,
ID
4
3.0%
68
Lewiston,
ID
Spaulding,
ID
7
5.3%
13
3
2.3%
4
Juliaetta,
ID
1
3
I
2.?%
1
16
Moscow,
ID
2
1.5%
36
Asotin,
ID
1
0.8%
18
Spokane,
WA
Orofino,
ID
Total
1
0.8%
123
1
0.8%
35
133
100%

140
APPENDIX
12
(
cont'd)

Location
of
Nez
Perce
Non­
Surveyed
Individuals
and
Reasons
Given
for
Not
Participating
141
APPENDIX
13:
Fish
Consumption
of
Persons
Who
Fish
for
Personal
Consumption
or
for
Use
by
Their
Tribe
.

Harvest
Fish
N
Weighted
Percent
Weighted
Mean
kmd)
Weighted
SE
No
245
51.7
57.8
5.70
Yes
253
48.3
69.9
4.61
Total
498
100
68.8
3.65
l
*
4
outliers
not
included
142
APPENDIX
14:
Consumption
Data
for
Months
of
Highest
Fish
Consumption
4
(
May
and
June)
"
r
Number
of
Fish
Meals
Consumed
by
Adults
per
Week
­
High
Mlonths
(
May
and
June)

Number
of
meals
0.0
Weighted
Unweighted
Weighted
Cumulative
Frequency
Percent
Percent
1
0.4%
0.4%

0.2
1
0.4%
0.8%

0.4
7
1.7%
2.5%

0.5
3
1.1%
3.6%

1
.
o
62
26.5%
30.2%

2.0
53
25.4%
55.6%

3.0
36
19.2%
74.8%

4.0
25
12.8%
87.5%

5.0
7
3.3%
90.9%

6.0
1
3
1
2.6%
1
93.4%

7.0
5
1.9%
95.3%

10.0
2
0.6%
95.9%

12.0
2
2.2%
98.1%

14.0
1
0.4%
98.5%

15.0
2
1.5%
100%

Total
I
210
I
100%
I
N
=
210
Weighted
Mean
=
2.93
meals
Weighted
SE
=
0.18
RR
=
99.6%

143
APPENDIX
14
(
cont'd)

Fish
Consumption
for
May
and
June
by
Age
Age
(
years)

18
­
39
Unweighted
Weighted
Weighted
Frequency
Percent
Mean
fgpd)

114
55.4%
130
40
­
59
65
31.4%
78.6
60
&
older
31
13.2%
82.9
Total
210
100%
108
Fish
Consumption
for
May
and
June
by
Sex
Sex
Female
Male
Total
Unweighted
Frequency
119
91
210
Weighted
Percent
58.3
16
41.7%

100%
Weighted
Mean
fgpd)

97.3
122.1
107.8
Weighted
SE
9.4
12.6
7.63
1.

Summary
of
Consumption
Rates
During
May
and
June
Rate
of
consumption
grams/
day
meals/
week
N
210
210
I
Weighted
Mean
(
gpd)
Weighted
SE
108
7.63
2.93
0.18
144
APPENDIX
15:
Consumption
Data
for
Months
of
Lowest
Fish
Consumption
(
January
and
December)

Number
of
Fish
Meals
Consumed
by
Adults
per
Week
­
Low
Months
(
January
and
December)

Number
Unweighted
of
meals
Frequency
0.0
64
0.1
1
Weighted
Percent
25.9%

0.3%
Weighted
Cumulative
Percent
25.9%

26.2%

0.2
I
26
'
I
7.1%
I
33.3%

0.4
7
1.7%
35.0%

0.5
5
1.5%
36.5%

0.6
1
0.3%
36.8%

1
.
o
94
50.7%
87.5%

2.0
14
7.9%
95.4%

3.0
5
2.7%
98.1%

N
=
221
Weighted
Mean
=
0.86
meals
Weighted
SE
=
0.06
RR
=
97.6%

145
APPENDIX
15
(
cont'd)

Fish
Consumption
for
January
and
December
by
Age
II
I
Unweighted
Age
(
years)
Frequency
(
z'h;;;
d
(
E~
IB,~;;;~)
1
Eighted
(
1
18­
39
131
58.1
27.1
2.8
40
­
59
72
33.2
31.6
3.1
60
&
older
18
8.62
50.9
11.8
Total
221
ioo
30.7
2.2
Fish
Consumptidn
for
January
and
December
by
Sex
II
I
Unweighted
Sex
Freauencv
1
EE;
d
)
;;~;
i;~)
1
E&
ted
(
I
Female
128
58.3
32.9
3.2
Male
93
41.7
27.5
2.7
Total
221
100
30.7
2.2
,­

Summary
of
Consumption
Rates
for
January
and
December
Rate
of
consumption
Gremsidey
Meals/
week
N
221
221
Weighted
Mean
(
apd)

30.7
0.86
Weighted
SE
2.19
0.06
146
APPENDIX
16:
Comparison
of
Fish
Consumption
(
gpd)
Throughout
the
Year
of
Persons
Who
Ate
Fish
in
the
24
Hours
Preceding
the
Survey
vs.
Persons
Who
Did
Not
Eat
Fish
in
That
Time
Period
l
l
4
outliers
not
included
147
