June 5, 2019  -  WA HHC Proposal to Withdraw 
Tribal Informational Call #2

Tribal Attendees: 
Makah
Snoqualmie
Nez Perce
Swinomish
Umatilla
Puyallup 
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
Stillaguamish
NWIFC

EPA Attendees: Dan Opalski, Wenona Wilson, Hanh Shaw, Matt Szelag, Andy Byrne, Erica Fleisig 

Questions and Comments from Tribal Attendees

    Reiterate the objections voiced yesterday by tribal leaders regarding relaxing of standards and lack of tribal consultations; Reserve rights to make those claims in the future; During the April call, we expressed opposition to the repeal of the WQS, EPA moving forward on May 10 is unacceptable to the tribes; The existing rule is science-based and legally defensible; Lack of tribal consultation is inconsistent with EPA's consultation policy and letter from the RA on February 8; The tribes expect nothing less than EPA consulting on a government-to-government basis prior to any decisions; Q: why did EPA proceeded with May 10 decision without consultation?

    EPA felt that its previous consultation where tribes shared the protectiveness of the criteria to its resources, tribal treaty rights, etc., was adequate for the EPA to reverse the final disapproval on May 10?

    You said the earlier consultations provided adequate insight to EPA's May 10 decision. During all those consultations, do you recall any tribal support for the state's standards or was it all support for the federal rulemaking?

    The point is there was universal opposition to the WQS you have now approved. The EPA decision-makers completely ignored and overruled the tribal input entirely. While relying on the earlier consultations, the perspectives of the tribes were not heeded at all.

    This phone call is not a consultation. None of these calls have been consultations yet decisions have been made. As a tribal leader, I feel the decision has been made and EPA is just going through the process. This is not consultation. When we worked on this earlier, it was a thoughtful slow process of 20+ years; now we are fast-pacing it. Why July 19 as a deadline? Will EPA provide a draft of the proposed rule? What will be in the administrative record? I want to have consultations with the decision maker and I wonder who that is?

    With regard to the administrative record, assume it would include the previous record in its entirety from the 2016 decision? Expectation is the previous record  -  everything related to that is relevant to this administrative record and should remain in place.

    You are hearing lots of frustration; seems like overnight, the previous decision was reversed.

    Regarding the question of who is the decision authority, you indicated it is the Administrator. That is who the tribes want to consult with. The letters from the tribes will make that request clear.

    Specifically to Dan, thank you for your hard work, I know you are not the decision-maker but a messenger; I know how hard it is for you. I can use your help with making sure the government respects our treaties.

    We appreciate the position you and other folks are in, so thank you.

    Reiterate request that documentation of the issues you are transmitting to HQ be shared with the tribes; want to see how tribal perspectives are translated.











