Paper on Tribal Issues Related to Tribal Traditional Lifeways,
Risk Assessment, and Health & Well Being:
Documenting What We've Heard
DRAFT FINAL
U S EPA Headquarters Library
Mail Code 3404T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington DC 20460
202-566-0556
Developed by the
National EPA-Tribal Science Council
November 29, 2005
EPA
530
2006.1
530 Table of Contents
2006
-------
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT 2
BACKGROUND 3
INTRODUCTION 5
WHAT is RISK AND HOW DOES EPA USE IT? 6
SECTION I: CHANGING THE CURRENT RISK ASSESSMENT POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES
.10
Increase Educational Opportunities for Tribes on EPA's Risk Assessment Process
.10
Educating EPA on Tribal Values and Culture 11
Outreach and Involvement of Tribes 11
Valuation of Natural Resources 12
Data Collection and Use. 13
Unique Tribal Exposures 15
SECTION II: DEVELOPING A NEW PARADIGM 20
Incorporate a Health-based Focus 20
Focus on Risk Prevention .20
Incorporate Cumulative Impacts 20
Create a Holistic Paradigm—One that Incorporates Impacts to Community Health,
Culture, Lifeways, Well-being and the Environment 20
Include Health and Wellness Indicators 21
Use a Cross-Media Approach 23
Reflect the Precautionary Principle 23
Recognize that for Some Tribes, a "Zero Contamination Policy" Exists 23
Work with Tribes on a Government-to-Government Basis 24
SOURCES AND REFERENCES 25
Purpose of This Document
-------
This document is meant to consolidate the many issues and ideas that have emerged from the
various workshops that the National EPA-Tribal Science Council (TSC) has held on the topic of
risk assessment, health and well-being, and tribal traditional lifeways. It is intended to serve as a
starting point for discussion by EPA staff as to potential approaches for addressing some of these
issues from an EPA perspective. Although it was not written by tribes, it is meant to capture tribal
perspectives that emerged from these events.
-------
Background
In September of 2002,1he TSC tribal representatives formally identified tribal traditional lifeways
and subsistence as their highest priority science issue, with a focus on both looking at ways to
integrate tribal traditional lifeways and subsistence lifestyles into EPA's current risk assessment
policies and procedures as well as discussing development of a potential new environmental
decision-making paradigm - one focusing on human health and ecological well-being.
This issue impacts tribal communities throughout Indian Country. Tribes assert that EPA's current
risk assessment policies and procedures are not protective of tribal resources and lifeways, failing
to adequately account for or include a holistic approach for assessing the social, cultural, and
spiritual values, beliefs, and practices that link tribal people to their environment. Because current
risk scenarios and risk factors are geared toward urban settings in the United States, they were not
developed with subsistence lifestyles in mind, and, therefore, tribes that practice tribal traditional
lifeways that focus on subsistence practices or lifestyles outside the "mainstream" are less
protected, because they are subject to increased exposure. In addition, the risk management
solutions identified from the current risk assessment methodologies often force tribal populations
to alter activities that are core to their existence, such as those constraints imposed by the creation
and adoption of fishing and hunting advisories.
Tribes wish to play an integral role in developing improved risk assessment policies and
procedures within the Agency. In addition, they ask that EPA allow for increased consultation and
coordination with tribal governments when risk assessment and management activities are
undertaken that potentially impact their lands, resources, and cultural practices. As sovereign
nations, tribes assert that they posses a legal and moral right to be involved in decision making that
affects their people, lands, and aboriginal and treaty rights due to the federal trust responsibility,
which arises from Indian treaties, statutes, executive orders, and the historical relations between-
the United States and Indian tribes.
This trust responsibility is underscored by EPA's Indian Policy, which supports tribal "self-
government" and "govemment-to-govemment" relations between federal and tribal governments.
Under EPA's 1984 Indian Policy, EPA recognizes tribal governments as sovereign entities with
primary authority and responsibility for the reservation populace. Accordingly, EPA will work
directly with tribal governments as the independent authority for reservation affairs, and not as
political subdivisions of states or other governmental units.
Since its first meeting, the topics of traditional tribal lifeways and subsistence and their
relationship to risk assessment, risk communication, and risk management have always been a
significant focus of the National EPA-Tribal Science Council's discussions. Formed in 2001, the
National EPA-Tribal Science Council's mission is to provide a forum for tribes and EPA to work
collaboratively to identify and address national environmental science issues of importance to
both tribes and EPA. To ensure that the TSC has a national and cross-program perspective, it is
composed of a single tribal representative from each EPA Region with federally recognized
tribes, a tribal representative from Alaska, and an Agency representative from each EPA Program
Page 4
-------
and Regional Office.
As noted previously, the TSC tribal representatives formally raised the issue of tribal traditional
lifeways and subsistence lifestyles and their lack of representation in current risk assessment
policies and procedures as a priority for the Council to address in September 2001; this issue was
reiterated as a tribal science priority by the Council in November 2004. To address the issue, the
TSC decided to focus on both the short-term goal of integrating tribal traditional lifeways and
subsistence lifeways into EPA's risk assessment process and the more long-term goal of
developing a new environmental decision-making paradigm for EPA consideration—focusing on
human health and ecological well-being. Specifically, the TSC has sponsored three workshops
that have brought together tribal representatives and risk experts to help advance its thinking on
these topics over the past two years. They have included the following:
TSC Workshop on Health & Well Being and Risk Assessment held in Albuquerque, NM on
February 19-20,2003. The purpose of this workshop was to convene specific tribal
representatives working on addressing these topics and EPA staff experienced with the risk
assessment process to gain a better understanding of the issue and better insights into the way
EPA and tribes view the current risk assessment process.
TSC Workshop on Health & Well Being and Tribal Traditional Lifeways held in Reno, NV on
May 13-15, 2003. The purpose of this workshop was to share the health and well-being concept
with a broader audience and get feedback that would help build on information collected during
the "National Subsistence Technical Planning Meeting for the Protection of Traditional & Tribal
Lifeways" hosted by the Alaska Native Science Commission in Alaska in April 2003.
TSC Workshop on Addressing Tribal Traditional Lifeways in EPA's Risk Assessment Policies
and Procedures held in Reno, NV on January 24-27, 2005. The purpose of this workshop was to
convene a group of tribal representatives working in the area of risk assessment and a broader
audience of observers to talk about both short-term things that EPA and tribes could do to address
the current risk assessment process and identify approaches for more long-term changes that are
more tribally appropriate.
PageS
-------
Introduction
The three TSC workshops resulted in a great deal of discussion by tribal representatives both on
the short-term goal of integrating tribal traditional lifeways and subsistence lifestyles into EPA's
current risk assessment process and the more long-term goal of developing anew environmental
decision-making paradigm for EPA consideration. The following sections highlight and
categorize some of the issues, ideas, and comments presented by the tribal representatives as
these workshops. Section I presents the information provided during discussions by tribal
participants regarding improving EPA's current risk assessment process through the integration
of tribal traditional lifeways and subsistence lifestyles into EPA's current risk assessment
policies and procedures. Section II presents the information provided by tribal representatives
regarding the potential development of a new environmental decision-making paradigm that
would focus on human health and ecological well-being.
Page 6
-------
What is Risk and How does EPA use it?
Generally, risk refers to the possibility of injury, harm, or other adverse and unwanted effects.
The analysis, management, and communication of risks to human health and safety and
environmental quality is the foundation for the risk assessment paradigm. The National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) published the environmental risk assessment paradigm (Figure 1) in
1983, National Research Council. The NAS concluded that the paradigm consists of two
separate elements - risk assessment and risk management In addition, NAS defines risk
assessment as: "a process in which information is analyzed to determine if an environmental
hazard might cause harm to exposed persons and ecosystems."
Figure 1. Diagram of risk assessment paradigm
EPA uses the paradigm and definitions published by NAS as their basic approach in assessing
and managing environmental risks. The overall process provides a way for EPA's environmental
decision making including legal, regulatory, policy and criteria. Although ecological risk
assessment uses a different framework, the risk assessment process provides the scientific data
and information that feeds into risk management decisions that also considers other legal,
economical, social, other factors.
Whether one is assessing human or ecological risk, EPA uses relevant data and information to
the extent possible; limitations on data use can include lack of appropriate peer review,
unacceptable quality, an inability to'make the information available to the public or ethical
considerations. Where relevant chemical- or exposure-specific data cannot be found or can't be
used, EPA employs default assumptions and extrapolations to fill in the data gaps so that the risk
assessment process can proceed. Use of defaults and assumptions is described in detail in Risk
Assessment Principles and Practices (U.S. EPA, 2004). Occasionally, the results of hazard
identification and dose response are published separately and represent many people in the
United States. For example, the EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) provides this
Page?
-------
type of information to assist risk assessors, who must perform their own exposure assessment and
characterization of risk. Additional details for both the human and ecological risk assessment
processes are described below.
Human Health Risk Assessment
EPA has developed Guidelines for assessing risk to humans that follow the four steps in Figurel-
Hazard Identification, Dose-Response Assessment, Exposure Assessment, and Risk
Characterization.
Identification.
This step poses some fundamental questions. Does this environmental contaminant pose a hazard
to humans? Does it cause cancer, kidney damage, developmental effects or some other health
endpoint? EPA generally uses a weight of the evidence approach in these decisions. All data on
studies in humans, animals or in vitro tests are evaluated for quality and as to whether they
demonstrate an effect. Both positive data and those which do not show an effect are considered
using frameworks established in these EPA publications: Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1986a); Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk Assessment (U.S.
EPA, 1991); Guidelines for Reproductive Toxicity Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1996);
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA 1986b, revised U.S. EPA 2005). These
guidelines provide a framework for evaluating data and choosing the mode of action.
Dose-Response Assessment
This is the step which determines the potency of the contaminant in producing health effects. The
dose response assessment may estimate a level of exposure without appreciable risk or a level of
risk at a particular exposure. Generally, the dose-response assessment consists of two parts: the
evaluation of data in the observable range, and the extrapolation from the observable range to
low doses. In the first part, the risk assessor may apply a biologically based model or fit a
mathematically derived curve to the data for an effect, such as tumors observed in rats. The
choice of extrapolation method below the point of departure depends on consideration of the
mode of action. When the mode of action implies a threshold, EPA generally calculates a
reference dose or reference concentration (RfD or RfC), by dividing the point of departure by a
series of factors to account for variability and uncertainty. The methodology can be found in A
Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes (U.S. EPA 2002).
Exposure Assessment
In this step the risk assessor determines how people are exposed or come in contact with the
contaminant. Is it inhaled, eaten in foods, ingested in water or is there some other route of
exposure? The risk assessor will estimate the amount of contaminant to which different
populations will be exposed. In the best circumstances this estimate will use data specific to the
population in question; most often it will use models or rely on defaults for amount of air
inhaled, amount of soil ingested and so on. If the data and methods are available, exposure
assessment will include estimates of the amount of contaminant which reaches the target organs.
EPA has published Guidelines for Exposure Assessment (U.S. EPA 1992) as well as an Exposure
Factors Handbook, (U.S. EPA 1997) listing defaults for ingestion, body weights and so forth;
the latter document is being updated.
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
Risk Characterization
Tills final steps combines all the information and judgments from hazard identification, dose
response and exposure assessment. The risk characterization should include a description of the
nature and magnitude of the risk, and interpretation of the adversity of the risk, a summary of the
confidence or
reliability of the
information available
to describe the risk,
areas of where
information is
uncertain or lacking
completely, and
documentation of all
of the evidence
supporting the
characterization of
the risk.
The risk
characterization can
take many forms and
be more or less
lengthy; for example,
in the Mercury Study
Report to Congress,
the risk characterization comprised an entire volume, which provides estimates of numbers of
people at risk, who was particularly susceptible, extent of risk to wildlife, and a comparison of
the magnitude of risks between wildlife and humans. In all cases, EPA's Risk Characterization
Policy (U.S. EPA 2000) requires that the risk assessment be transparent, clear, reasonable and
consistent with other assessments of similar scope. Whenever support by data and methods, the
risk characterization will include not only descriptions of uncertainty and variability, but also
quantitative estimates of uncertainty or variability.
Ecological Risk Assessment
Ecological risk assessment "evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or
are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors" (U.S. EPA, 1992a). The process is
process is used to systematically evaluate and organize data, information, assumptions, and
uncertainties in order to help understand and predict the relationships between stressors and
ecological effects. An assessment may involve chemical, f
physical, or biological stressors, and one stressor or many stressors may be considered.
Ecological risk assessment provides valuable information for environmental decision making by
giving risk managers an approach for considering available scientific information along with the
other factors needed to consider (e.g., social, legal, political, or economic) in selecting a course
of action.
Ecological risk assessment includes three primary phases: problem formulation, analysis, and risk
-------
characterization. In problem formulation, risk assessors evaluate goals and select assessment
endpoints, prepare the conceptual model, and develop an analysis plan. During the analysis phase,
assessors evaluate exposure to stressors and the relationship between stressor levels and
ecological effects. In the third phase, risk characterization, assessors estimate risk through
integration of exposure and stressor-response profiles, describe risk by discussing lines of
evidence and determining ecological adversity, and prepare a report.- The interface among risk
assessors, risk managers, and interested parties during planning at the beginning and
communication of risk at the end of the risk assessment is critical to ensure that the results of the
assessment can be used to support a management decision.
Figure 2. Diagram of Ecological Risk Assessment
Page 10
-------
Section I: Changing the Current Risk Assessment Policies and
Procedures
Although tribes have expressed interest in having EPA develop a new, more tribally appropriate
decision-making process that would serve as an alternative to the current risk assessment
paradigm, a significant number of the discussions the'TSC has had with tribes have focused on
changes that could be made to improve the current risk assessment process. The sections that
follow highlight the various issues that were raised by tribal representatives during the three
workshops convened by the TSC regarding how to change the current risk assessment process to
be more reflective of tribes' needs in the near term. The issues are presented in no particular
order.
Increase Educational Opportunities for Tribes on EPA's Risk Assessment Process
In general, tribal representatives have expressed a need for increased educational opportunities
about risk-related topics. As a workshop panel member at the 2005 Reno workshop, stated, a
disconnect exists between data collection efforts and how this data is utilized to understand
human, ecological, and community impacts. Additional education and training is important in
enabling tribal members to better understand the risks associated with exposures and impacts. In
the short-term, EPA should support and develop education and risk assessment tools to allow
tribes to better utilize environmental and risk data to reduce their exposures and impacts. (2005
Reno pg 25-26) The specific educational topics identified by tribal representatives are described
below.
Risk Assessment Paradigm
At the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a tribal participant indicated that tribes frequently do
not grasp their regulatory situation and the implications of ARARs and
NEPA/CERCLA/NRDA processes involving risk assessment^and associated data
collection. (2003 Albuquerque, pg 16) Although EPA presented a half-day risk
assessment training course at the 2005 Reno workshop that provided participants with an
overview of basic risk assessment terminology and processes, tribal participants indicated
that they would have preferred a course that was longer and more tribally focused. A
participant suggested that a full- or 3/4-day training course on risk assessment would have
better educated participants on the basics of risk assessment. There was general agreement
from training participants that those providing risk assessment training to tribes should
have experience working witii tribal communities and possess an understanding of tribal
structure, culture, and lifeways. Participants felt that any risk assessment training provided
to tribes should provide real-life examples and case studies specific to Indian Country.
(Tribal Science Council Risk Assessment/Health & Well-being Workshop: Training
Evaluation Summary, Comments Summary.)
Risk Communication
At the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal participant indicated that there is often a
misconception by tribes that they will be able to use risk assessment data to identify and
prove the source of health impacts within their community. Tribes are often disappointed
by the risk assessment process when clear health impacts cannot be demonstrated. (2005
Page 11
-------
Reno, pg. 18) Additional education and training are needed so that tribes understand how
risk assessment data are used to understand human, ecological, and community impacts
and how this information is then utilized in risk management decision making.
Risk Ethics and Informed Consent
When working with tribes on risk assessment studies and gathering potentially sensitive
tribal data, it is important that tribes are educated on issues of informed~consent and risk
ethics, ensuring that tribes are provided adequate information on both the possible risks
and the potential benefits of their involvement to allow them to make informed decisions
as to whether and how they wish to be involved in risk assessment processes. During the
2005 Reno workshop, a participant representing a tribal organization identified the
specific need for training on risk ethics and informed consent, highlighting the advantages
and possible disadvantages of tribal participation in the risk assessment process. (2005
Reno, pg. 24)
Educate EPA on Tribal Values and Culture
At the 2003 Reno workshop, there was general consensus that tribal communities need to be
involved in educating EPA on tribal values and in changing Agency culture to allow for tribal
issues and concerns to be recognized and incorporated into policy decisions. (2003 Reno, pg. 12)
During the 2003 Reno workshop, a tribal speaker reflected this sentiment more broadly,
indicating that tribes need to educate the outside world as to the needs and values of native
peoples. (2003 Reno, pg. 10)
Outreach and Involvement of Tribes
In a number of discussions, tribal representatives have emphasized the importance of early and
continued involvement by tribes throughout the risk assessment and risk communication process.
Workgroup members at the 2005 Reno workshop, made a number of suggestions for promoting
early and continued communication with tribes, with the goal of improving risk assessment
policies and procedures. These included:
Tribal Consultation
Efforts are needed to ensure that tribes are appropriately consulted with regarding risk
assessment activities, particularly in respect to gaining insights into potential historical
observations regarding environmental impacts and change. (2005 Reno, pg. 10-11) During
the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a tribal representative observed that consultation with'
tribes during the risk assessment process is vital. She observed that the key to defining
risk lies in defining what risk is from a tribal community's perspective and noted that EPA
and tribes often possess differing views on risk, with EPA often most focused on
addressing risk from a media-focused, media-driven perspective and tribes often most
concerned with the direct impacts of various risk factors on the community as a whole. As
a result, govemment-to-government consultation between EPA and individual tribal
governments is extremely important to allow for adequate risk characterization and
definition. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 6) However, additional clarification is needed in
defining how tribal consultation will occur in terms of both site-specific (e.g., Superfund
site cleanup) and national-level processes (e.g., establishment of drinking water standards
and re-registration of pesticides). Clarification is also needed regarding with whom the
Agency will consult (e.g., tribal government, tribal elders, tribal organizations, etc.). A
-------
suggestion was made during the 2005 Reno workshop, that the tribal consultative process
being developed by the EPA American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) be
incorporated into any tribal collaboration and communication efforts involving the
development of new risk assessment policies and procedures. (2005 Reno, pg. 28)
Formal Agreements Regarding Decision Making
EPA and tribes should enter into a formal agreement prior to the planning and problem
formulation phase to generate a two-way conversation regarding the issues involved and
to provide an opportunity for the tribes involved to identify their unique questions and
concerns. At the 2005 Reno workshop, participants indicated that EPA and tribes should
hold upfront discussions to determine how information generated during the risk
assessment will be used and that tribes should be allowed to enter into a co-decision
making process if tribal lands may be impacted. (2005 Reno, pg. 10-11)
Resources for Tribal Involvement
In addition, when providing for appropriate involvement and coordination with tribes,
consideration needs to be given to ensure that tribes possess sufficient resources to be able
to participate. During the 2005 Reno workshop, there was general agreement from
participants that a number of tribes lack sufficient technical and financial resources to
assess and manage risks, while at the same time these tribes often have to contend with
large tracts of land, cross-media contamination, and long- and short-term exposures. (2005
Reno, pg. 29) At the 2003Albuquerque workshop, participants reported that the funding
made available for tribes for risk assessment is "woefully inadequate and inconsistent."
(2003 Albuquerque, pg. 16) For tribes to be effectively involved, they need to possess
sufficient resources for travel, funding for participation, research, etc. (2005 Reno, pg. 11)
Valuation of Natural Resources
During die 2005 Reno workshop, a TSC member observed that one of the major reasons that risk
assessment does not work well in Indian Country is that a disconnect exists in the way that tribal
and non-tribal communities value the environment and their resources. (2005 Reno, pg. 19) While
EPA factors economic considerations into its risk management decisions, thereby necessitating
that an economic (dollar) value be placed on natural resources, many tribal communities do not
accept monetary valuation of their resources. Some tribal representatives have indicated that
valuation metrics that do not involve the concepts of "Western economies" are needed. (2005
Reno, pg 29) At the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a suggestion was made by a tribal member that
traditional economic variables that are used by the Agency be replaced with "economic" variables
of consequence to'tribal communities, such as relating things in terms of valued tribal resources
(e.g., number of moose hunted by a tribe). (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 11)
Data Collection and Use
During the three workshops, tribal representatives identified a number of issues related to data
collection and use within the context of risk assessment processes. These issues, which included
the need to incorporate both tribal traditional knowledge and qualitative data into the risk
assessment process, the need to develop methods for ensuring appropriate collection of data from
tribal sites, the need to ensure data ownership by tribes and to protect confidentiality of tribally
sensitive data, and the need to improve quality assurance of tribal data. Each of these issues is
further explained below.
-------
Incorporate Tribal Traditional Knowledge
Many tribal representatives participating in the TSC workshops emphasized that tribes
possess a great deal of observational and experiential knowledge about their environment
They indicated that this knowledge, often referred to as tribal traditional knowledge and
tribal ecological knowledge, should be incorporated into existing risk models and
scenarios. At the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a tribal representative observed that the
work that EPA is conducting with regard to risk assessment is not new and that tribes have
observational and experiential knowledge with the issue dating back for centuries. She
observed that when developing tribal risk assessments, this direct observational and
experiential knowledge needs to be incorporated. She explained that in tribal
communities, this type of direct observation, experience, and habituation, which is handed
down by the generations, is held to be much more truthful than secondhand knowledge,
represented by the traditional Western science methodology of gathering and
incorporating scientific data into reports. (2003 Albuquerque, pgs. 5-6)
During the 2005 Reno workshop, it was indicated that both "Western" science and tribal
traditional knowledge need to be recognized as forms of science (2005 Reno, pg. 15), that
tribal traditional knowledge should be included as an input into risk assessment on equal
footing with scientific data (2005 Reno, pg. 27), and that guidance is needed as to where
and how to include tribal traditional knowledge into the risk assessment process (e.g., in
identifying appropriate sampling sites and sampling periods.) (2005 Reno pg. 28)
In a related discussion at the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal representative spoke of the
need for generating valid ethnographic data to use in risk assessment processes, noting
that anecdotal tribal information should not be dismissed, but lhat care should be taken to
ensure that the data is valid (i.e., that the data collected are systematic and repeatable and
are considered "good data"). (2005 Reno, pg. 24)
Incorporate Qualitative Data
At the 2005 Reno workshop, there was discussion regarding the need to incorporate
qualitative, rather than strictly quantitative, data into EPA's risk assessment process,
particularly as some tribal members indicated that they did not agree that spiritual and
cultural aspects of a tribe's lifestyle could be quantified. (2005 Reno, pg. 22) Methods are
needed for incorporating this qualitative information into the risk assessment process so
that it is provided to decision makers when making risk management decisions. At the
January 2005 workshop in Reno, NV, there was recognition that both qualitative and
quantitative approaches to risk assessment exist and that debate on these issues is healthy.
(2005 Reno, pg. 28) A tribal representative indicated that qualitative data should be
allowed to be brought into the risk assessment process and given equal weight with
quantitative data. (2005 Reno, pg. 23) Several workshop panel members agreed that more
discussion is needed as how best to incorporate qualitative data inputs into the risk
assessment process in an equitable way, as risk assessments are constrained by current
laws and mandates. (2005 Reno, pg. 25)
Appropriate Data Collection from Tribal Sites
-------
Tribal members noted on various occasions that the samples and data collected for risk
assessment purposes from tribal sites was often done without tribal involvement, and,
therefore, was not representative of the impacted tribe's health and lifeways. At the 2005
Reno workshop, a TSC tribal representative indicated the need for tribes to be involved in
the planning and development of risk assessments, particularly in regard to sampling
protocols to determine where and when to sample and, in the case offish sampling, what
parts of the fish to sample. (2005 Reno, pg. 18) In addition, during the 2003 Albuquerque
workshop, a tribal representative spoke of her experience involving baseline human health
risk assessments conducted on lands on the Akwesasne Reservation in New York. She
highlighted a number of areas instances in which the tribe felt that tribal concerns were
not taken into account during data sampling and collection. These included the lack of
data on consumption rates for women of child bearing age in the assessment, the
collection of data on limited stretches of the river system that was impacted, and limited
data on only two fish species that were not considered to be the most important species by
the tribal community. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 13)
Data Ownership and Confidentiality
The issue of data confidentiality and ownership is very important to tribal communities,
who can be reluctant to provide sensitive tribal data to outside entities. Such a reluctance
to share data can impact risk assessment processes. As noted by an EPA representative at
the 2005 Reno workshop, a major obstacle to complete the Tribal LifeLine Project has
been EPA's ability to access tribal data. (2005 Reno, pg. 20)
Data access and ownership is particularly problematic due to concerns by tribes that
providing tribal data and information driving risk assessment studies will subject the data
to become publicly available under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements. A
tribal representative at the 2005 Reno workshop, indicated that, recognizing the need to
work within the framework of the existing risk assessment framework and within the
parameters of FOIA, tribes should be educated on the various options that exist for
protecting tribal data while working within these structures. A tribal representative
observed that tribal exposure models are each context-specific, and, therefore, there are
ways to include cultural impacts and risks in a general way that would allow tribes to use
these models. (2005 Reno, pg. 23)
Quality Assurance of Tribal Data
Some frustration was voiced that, in the past, EPA has rejected tribally developed data
from risk assessment studies. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 13) During the 2005 Reno
workshop, a tribal representative emphasized that in developing tribal exposure
assessments, it is necessary to gather peer reviewed data that meet the strict rules of
evidence and are well documented. During the workshop, it was also suggested that
collaboration between EPA and tribes is needed to ensure that the data developed by tribes
is considered valid and is accepted under EPA's laboratory standards. (2005 Reno, pg. 29)
and that additional focus on data quality assurance standards is needed to ensure that the
data developed and provided is valid and will be accepted by EPA
Unique Tribal Exposures
-------
Tribal representatives have asserted that current risk assessment policies and procedures do not
take into account or allow for unique characteristics of tribes and tribal communities that create •
unique tribal exposures, and, therefore, are not fully protective of tribal health and lifeways.
Throughout each of the three workshops, tribal members discussed numerous aspects of tribal
communities and tribal lifestyles that result in their unique exposure factors, including:
Tribes Represent Relatively Small Populations: At the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal
member indicated that tribal populations are unique because they possess relatively small
population numbers in comparison to the general U.S. population. As a result, the
individual indicated that tribes are unique in facing the possibility of cultural loss and
even extinction in the face of environmental hazards. The tribal member suggested that
EPA consider different standards and a different definition of "population" where tribal
communities are involved. (2005 Reno, pg. 9) Small population size also makes it
difficult for many tribes to demonstrate significant human health impacts during standard
risk assessments so as to warrant action by regulators. As noted by a tribal representative
at the 2005 Reno workshop, within existing risk assessment models, many tribes are not
large enough to register a population impact or "cancer cluster;" therefore, many tribes are
trying to identify other environmental indicators to demonstrate environmental impact.
(2005 Reno, pg. 25)
Tribes are Tied to Fixed Land and Resource Bases: At the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal
member indicated that tribes are unique in mat tribal communities are tied to their lands
and are not able to simply move away from contamination sources when impacts occur.
(2005 Reno, pg. 29) In addition, at the 2005 Reno workshop, a TSC representative
observed that tribal resources and their value to the tribe are very much tied to their lands
and their geographic proximity. He described an instance in which a biological opinion
paper developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for bald eagles nesting
along the Penobscot River was developed. The risk assessment conducted by USFWS
concluded that the population of eagles in the entire Northern States Recovery Region
(comprising 24 states) would not be jeopardized if the eagles along the river were
removed and, therefore, allowed the "taking" to occur. However, the eagles were part of
the Penobscot Indian Reservation, and the cultural impact to the tribe from the loss of the
eagle community on their Reservation was never considered in either the risk assessment
or risk management decision processes. At issue was the fact that it was the eagle
population within the Reservation to which the tribe has close cultural connections and,
therefore, impacted the tribe and not the eagles elsewhere in the country. (2005 Reno, pg.
18-19)
Tribes Possess Unique Dietary, Religious, and Cultural Practices: As discussed during
the 2005 Reno workshop, each tribe possesses a unique variety of tribal practices,
including tribal diets, religious practices, and cultural practices (e.g., basket making, use
of medicinal plants, and sweat lodge ceremonies) that should be factored into tribal
exposure scenarios. (2005 Reno, pg. 28) Recognition is needed that impacts affecting
tribal culture and diet greatly impact tribal health. (2005 Reno, pg. 29) During the 2003
Reno workshop, a tribal participant indicated that exposure scenarios need to be reflective
of tribal lifestyles and consumption patters. As an example, they observed that a number
-------
of tribes living "subsistence lifestyles" consume large quantities of a variety offish
species, which can complicate the development of accurate exposure scenarios, and that,
for many tribes, fish advisories restricting or eliminating fish consumption are not a viable
risk management solution, as, for many, tribes cannot give up tiieir lifestyle practices in
response to fish advisory warnings. (2003 Reno, pg. 24)
To help address these unique tribal exposures within the current risk assessment process, various
suggestions were provided by the tribal representatives attending the workshops. These
suggestions are outlined below.
Include More Sensitive Populations
At the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal representative indicated that the current risk
assessment processes needs to be improved to better include more sensitive populations,
i expanding current models, which focus mainly on exposures to the general U.S.
population. (2005 Reno,-pg. 17)
Demonstrate Care When Developing "Tribal Default Values"
EPA, in its Exposure Factors Handbook, summarizes data on human behaviors and
characteristics affecting exposures and provides recommended exposure factor values.
These recommended exposure factor values can serve as "default values" to be used by
risk assessors when sufficient site-specific data for a specific geographic population is not
available. These default values are generally based on the typical U.S. suburban
population.
At the 2003 Albuquerque workshop," participants discussed the need to develop default
exposure values that are more applicable for tribal communities than the current default
values developed for the "general population." However, tribal representatives expressed
concerns that the default values developed for a particular tribe under a particular set of
conditions could be construed as being "the tribal default values example," which would
then be factored into all future tribal risk assessments. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 19) During
the workshop, a tribal representative had reported that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have
experienced problems with this, involving'a contractor that wished'to utilize the default
values developed by Barbara Harper for another tribe and extrapolate them for a risk
assessment being developed for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. (2003 Albuquerque, pg.
16) Tribal representatives indicated that, where possible, default values should be replaced
by the best available data for a given tribal community. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 18)
When, during the 2005 Reno workshop, a suggestion was made to develop a separate
"tribal" exposure factors handbook, a tribal representative cautioned against development
of a separate exposure factors handbook for tribes, observing that mainstream exposure
factors should be the goal, focusing on the protection of all vulnerable populations. (2005
Reno, pg. 11-12)
Develop Tribal Exposure Scenarios
At the 2003 Reno workshop, tribal representatives indicated that there could be no "one
size fits all" tribal exposure model. However, it was noted that while no one model will fit
all tribes, tribes should focus on developing a general "tribal" model developed on
-------
Section II: Developing a New Paradigm
Althoiigh the TSC recognizes the need to improve the current risk assessment process to better
incorporate tribal perspectives, there has also been a significant amount of feedback collected
from tribes about more long-term alternatives to the current risk assessment paradigm for
environmental decision making. The sections that follow highlight the feedback that was
received from tribal representatives during the three workshops convened by the TSC regarding
what this new paradigm should entail. The issues are presented in no particular order.
Incorporate a Health-based Focus
During the 2005 Reno workshop, several participants asked that a more health-driven process,
one mat avoids looking at maximum risk and "exposure levels, be pursued, observing that the
current risk assessment paradigm focuses solely on hazard and risk assessment A participant
indicated that a safety/health-driven process is particularly crucial in relation to Reservation lands,
as tribes and tribal lifeways are tied to tribal lands, and, therefore, precaution and protection are
crucial elements. (2005 Reno, pg. 8) .
Focus on Risk Prevention . .
During (he 2005 Reno workshop; several participants indicated that a new paradigm should focus
on risk prevention rather than on cleanup after contamination has occurred. The paradigm should
focus on protecting the next seven generations and beyond, geared toward protection of human
health and the environment in perpetuity. (2005 Reno, pg. 8)
Incorporate Cumulative Impacts
At the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a tribal representative recommended that a future paradigm
incorporate cumulative impacts.' He suggested that the focus of current risk assessment policies
and procedures be broadened to include more than just a single contaminant, noting that health
effects from background levels of multiple chemicals, which exist in the environment in
quantities that are right at the contaminant limit, while lawful, may pose considerable health risk
and need to be addressed. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 14)
Create a Holistic Paradigm — One that Incorporates Impacts to Community Health,
Culture, Lifeways, Well-being and the Environment
At the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a tribal representative indicated that EPA and tribal
communities are often at odds in terms of risk assessment science because of the language used
by EPA in the discussion of risk assessment issues. He indicated that the EPA risk assessment
paradigm discusses human health as the most important factor in the risk assessment process, and
this contrasts with tribal traditions which view humans as the "younger brother" in a holistic
worldview. He observed that this difference in view creates friction in Indian Country. (2003
Albuquerque, pg 4)
During the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, tribal representatives agreed that the current risk model
being utilized by EPA is too narrow in scope and needs to be broadened to incorporate a more
holistic view of tribal community health and well-being, one that incorporated impacts to
community health, culture, lifeways and well-being as well as the environment During the
workshop, one representative described the concept of risk, as perceived by the Shoshone-
-------
Bannock people. She indicated that, when compared to the traditional Western view of risk, which
can-be defined as the "chance of injury, damage or loss," the Shoshone-Bannock concept of risk is
viewed in terms of healthiness and the interdependency of all living things. This concept is
closely tied to the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of all components of the universe and
must, for example, include an evaluation of the role of risk in the social,-linguistic, ecological,
cultural, and traditional values of the tribes. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 15)
During another presentation at the workshop, a tribal representative provided an explanation of
the worldview of Alaska Native communities, observing that this worldview is wholly different '
from other communities because Native Alaskan communities have been raised to see the world
(and, subsequently, the environmental and health issues that they face) "through a different set of
eyes." She described the holistic nature of this worldview as encompassing physical, emotional,
spiritual, and mental components and described the accompanying value system upon which the
worldview was based. She stated that this worldview is a critical part of the native communities'
health and well-being paradigm. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 8)
During another presentation at the workshop, two other representatives indicated that in the tribal
worldview, healthy people and a healthy ecosystem are inseparable. They indicated that if aspects
of traditional Hfeways and risks to the cultural ecosystem are included within the risk assessment
framework, risk assessments will also have a public health appearance, where "health" is
understood to be comprised of an individual's and community's well-being with their lives fully
integrated into a healthy ecosystem. (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 15)
Include Health and Weilness Indicators
Throughout the various workshops, there was discussion over the development and use of health
and wellness indicators and the need to incorporate these into decision-making processes. During
the 2003 Reno workshop, it was noted that any model developed should be able to measure
values common to all indigenous communities., taking into account for things such as self esteem,
pride, cultural knowledge, and tribal heritage. It was noted that tribal communities understand the
linkages between the environment and people and would be able to use a model developed on
tribal understanding as a starting point to communicate ideas and evaluate cultural and social
aspects of an issue and communicate these issues to outside groups. (2003 Reno, pg 13) During
the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal representative indicated that the fields of community- and
public-health provided a good basis for examining the big picture of health impacts, both on the
level of individual human health and community-wide health impacts, and observed that a
number of cultural, social, health, and welfare indicators that are currently used in the public
health arena and in social impact assessments can have direct applicability for tribal risk
assessment. (2005 Reno, pgs. 22 & 25)
During the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a tribal representative indicated that tribal communities
are looking into ways to establish "life indicators" to measure the true health and well-being of
their communities. He described a model being developed by the Assembly of First Nations
called the Community Life Indicators Wheel, which can be used to identify particular life
indicators that are representative of an individual community. (A detailed description of the
Community Life Indicators .Wheel and The Assembly of First Nations Community Health
Indicators project can be found in "Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, Community Health
-------
Indicators, Changes in These Indicators and 1he Analysis of Risk to Social Structures and Cultural
Practices.") (2003 Albuquerque, pg. 11)
During the 2003 Reno workshop, tribal participants identified a number of potential cultural and
community health indicators that could be used to help measure the health and well-being of .
tribal communities. These indicators included:
• Cultural Indicators, including: (1) garnering activities (e.g., funerals, spiritual and
seasonal gatherings, marriages, coming of age ceremonies, pow wows, dances,
pilgrimages, hunting and gathering practices, and leadership activities; (2) ceremonies
(e.g., sweat lodges, births, doctoring/healing, dances, clan ceremonies, blessings, and
purifications; and (3) cultural activities (e.g., language, songs & art, basket making,
growing traditional crops, gathering traditional medicines, attendance at classes teaching
cultural traditions, level of understanding/use of natural resources by tribal people, and
changes in cultural/subsistence practices).
• Health Indicators, including: (1) negative indicators (e.g., suicide, substance abuse,
mortality/birth rates, cancer rates, mental health statistics, addictive behaviors, human lead
and mercury levels, and disease statistics) and (2) positive indicators (e.g., decreases in
disease, family integrity, and nutrition).
• Community Indicators, including: incarceration rates, visits to drug court and tribal
courts, number of individuals involved in foster programs, vandalism, gangs/drug
dealers/methamphetamine labs, domestic violence, family - the perception/definition of
who family is by tribal peoples, how well the community is reflected in the extended
family, where people live, are family members living close to each other and maintaining
a sense of family, is the community family oriented, elder center, education rates,
participation in youth club activities, day care, availability of emergency and disaster
preparedness services, communication.
• Natural Resource Indicators, including: tracking of historical land uses; programs and
projects being implemented by tribal communities to restore, rehabilitate, and enhance
their local environments; measurement of appreciation/media coverage of such activities
by outside entities was recommended as a potential indictor measurement; reintroduction
of native species; presence of a fisheries department; the number and type offish being
caught by community members; quantification of wetland restoration activities;
availability of natural resources to continue traditional practices (i.e., sweet grass, clays,
paints, and berries) and whether these resources are being impacted by contamination;
roadside spraying and its impact on the ability of tribal communities to continue
traditional practices; measurement of the stability of the acreage where traditional
activities are practiced; the number of people utilizing walking trails, tribal cultural sites,
and other natural resources; whether tribal practices are being impacted by outside groups
competing for the same resources or through destruction of habitat through other purposes;
and the availability of water - bolh in respect to water quality and quantity. (2003 Reno,
pg 14-16)
-------
Use a Cross-Media Approach
During the 2005 Reno workshop, several tribal participants indicated that the new paradigm
should not be "Program-specific," i.e., should not be focused on a particular media, such as water,
soil, or air, but rather should involve a cross-media approach. (2005 Reno, pg. 8) At the 2003
Albuquerque workshop, several tribal representatives indicated that the current EPA methodology
for CERCLA and media Acts (CAA, SDWA, CWA) are geared toward single media, single
contaminants, and single pathways, rather than being cumulative. They suggested that if
CERCLA were more like NEPA and comparative risk, and if human health risk assessments were
combined with ecological (or eco-cultural) risk assessments, then a cumulative method that
reflects tribal perspectives and traditional lifeways could be achieved. They observed that the
CERCLA statute does not prevent Ihis; it simply has not been done before. (2003 Albuquerque,
pg. 15)
Reflect the Precautionary Principle
During the 2005 Reno workshop, a number of individuals suggested mat the precautionary
principle be considered as a basis for possible alternative approaches to the current risk
assessment paradigm for protecting human health and the environment. It was noted that a number
of nations, states, and municipalities are already moving to adopt the precautionary principle.
However, a tribal representative, who serves on the Tribal Pesticide Program Council, cautioned
that an approach based on the precautionary principle might not be universally applicable. She
noted that, in the case of pesticide registration, risks posed by pesticides are often not fully
understood until the pesticide has been released into the environment, at which point
environmental contamination has already occurred. (2005 Reno, pg. 8)
Recognize that for Some Tribes, a "Zero Contamination Policy" Exists
During the 2005 Reno workshop, a tribal participant noted that an inherent concern in discussing
risk standards and setting exposure levels, remains that many tribal members are insistent that
there is no allowable contamination level other than "zero" contamination; their philosophy and
beliefs will not allow them to agree to any level of "acceptable" contamination. The participant
noted that this creates problems, particularly given EPA's current risk assessment approach, and,
as a result, can stall cleanup efforts. (2005 Reno, pg. 8)
Work with Tribes on a Govemment-to-Govemment Basis
Tribal participants indicated that it is imperative that EPA work with tribes on a govemment-to-
government basis when considering changes to EPA's risk assessment policies and procedures.
During the 2003 Albuquerque workshop, a TSC tribal representative expressed concerns that
tribes had not been fully consulted during the development of EPA's cumulative risk assessment
framework, noting that the Federal government has a mandate to consult with tribes on a
government-to-government basis on issues that ultimately affect Tribes. (2003 Albuquerque, pg.
4) During the 2005 Reno workshop, a number of tribal participants asked that EPA enter into
government-to-government consultation with their individual tribes to develop recommendations
for improving EPA's risk assessment policies and procedures. A recommendation was made that
EPA send representatives 'out to all tribes in Indian Country to explain the issues... and answer
questions raised by tribes. (2005 Reno, pg. 13)
-------
------- |