Confederated Umatilla Journal - Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla ...

Fish consumption rate
Continued from Page 1
tler said.
Peggy Browne, who with her husband
farms 500 acres in southern Union
County in far eastern Oregon, said that
the DEQ is “suggesting more, very costly
regulation. We’re asking you to please
not put agriculture out
of business.”
She said that the Oregon
Department of
Agriculture’s process
for implementing water
management plans
for reducing emissions
of toxic pollutants continues
to produce water
quality improvements,
such as restoration of
riparian areas.
“It’s delicate, but it’s
working,” said Browne,
who advised the DEQ
against invading the
ODA’s territory with
the proposed rules.
Those efforts include installing more
efficient irrigation systems to boost water
quantity and riparian fencing to protect
streambanks, said Klamath River basin
farmer Tracey Liskey.
“Agriculture is doing its part to reduce
pollution,” Liskey said.
Aja DeCoteau, a member of the Yakama
Nation and Watershed Department
manager for the Columbia River Inter-
Tribal Fish Commission, said that the
adoption of the fish consumption rate of
175 grams per days “is a critical first step
in improving water quality in the basin,
as well as protecting the health of our fish
and tribal members who eat the fish.”
“We recognize the difficulties that
meeting some of the new standards will
create, and we are willing to support interim
measures and to seek cost-effective
long-term solutions
to eliminate toxic
chemicals from the
Oregon waters that
we all share,” DeCoteau
said.
Brett Vanden-
Heuvel, Columbia
Riverkeeper executive
director, said
his conservation organization
supports
DEQ’s proposal.
“I eat Columbia
River fish on a regular
basis, as do tens
of thousands of Oregonians.
Reducing
toxics is not just imperative for tribal
members, it is imperative for the health of
Oregonians,” VndenHeuvel said. “We are
at a crossroads. Either we seriously reduce
toxic pollution like mercury, arsenic, and
PCBs, or we accept the fact that people
are getting cancer from fish in our rivers.”
In June 2010, EPA disapproved those
2004 standards because, as agreed upon
in 2006, they were not protective enough
of Oregonians based on the amount of
fish they are known to consume.
EPA’s disapproval caused the majority
‘We are at a crossroads.
Either we seriously
reduce toxic pollution
like mercury, arsenic,
and PCBs, or we accept
the fact that people are
getting cancer from fish
in our rivers.’
Brett VandenHeuvel, Columbia
Riverkeeper executive director
of the 2004 water quality criteria to no
longer be effective, leaving in place the
previous criteria of 6.5 grams per day that
was adopted in the late 1980s.
The new proposed rules will serve
as the basis for permit limits and other
regulatory decisions. It also would address
EPA’s disapproval of DEQ’s 2004
criteria and obviate the need for EPA to
promulgate federal rules for Oregon.
In addition to the proposed criteria
revisions, DEQ is proposing a number
of compliance options. For point-source
dischargers, those include intake credits,
background pollutant allowance,
and other variances. Additionally, the
new rules would include revisions to
the Water Quality Standards and Total
Maximum Daily Load regulations for
non-point sources.
As an example, the proposed intake
credits would allow facilities to account
for pollutants already present in the
intake water. Facilities would not be allowed
to increase mass or concentration
of the pollutant at the point of discharge.
Variances would establish and apply
alternative water quality standards for a
specific pollutant to a NPDE-permitted
facility for a specified duration, or when
a facility demonstrates it cannot meet
water quality standards for one or more
reasons, including natural conditions,
human caused pollution, and/or when
treatment technology is infeasible.
Variances could also be allowed with
a pollution reduction plan, which would
provide a mechanism for achieving water
quality standards when underlying water
quality standards cannot be met in the
short term.
Montana won’t
prosecute ranchers
who kill wolves to
protect livestock
By the Columbia Basin Bulletin
Gov. Brian Schweitzer has drawn a
bold line on the land, announcing Feb.16
that he is directing Montana Fish, Wildlife
and Parks not to prosecute ranchers
who kill wolves that threaten livestock,
and directing the department to cull
wolves that have impacted elk populations
in the Bitterroot Valley.
Schweitzer outlined those policies in
a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar,
saying that he is “profoundly frustrated
by the lack of any actual results that
recognize Montana’s rights and responsibilities
to manage its wildlife.”
Wolves in the Northern Rockies were
removed from protection under the Endangered
Species Act by the Department
of Interior under the Bush and Obama
administrations, but both of those decisions
were rolled back by court decisions.
Schweitzer said he is directing Montana
game wardens not to prosecute
livestock producers “who kill or harass
a wolf attacking their livestock” on lands
north of Interstate 90, where wolves are a
fully endangered species under the ESA.
“Further, I am directing FWP to respond
to any livestock depredation by
removing whole packs that kill livestock,
wherever this may occur,” he states in
the letter.
Happy 9th Birthday
Jonathan
Happy 5th Birthday Goo-Goo!
You’re growing so fast...
Congrats on PYBA perfect season,
2nd place in NE Oregon
Elks Hoop Shoot Contest.
So very proud of you!
All our love, Mom, Chenoah,
Jayden & Chaynne
Love you very much,
Mom, Chenoah, Jon & Jayden
36 Confederated Umatilla Journal
March 2011