<p> Tribal Waste and Response Assistance Program National Tribal Steering Committee Meeting Notes May 8-9, 2012 Coos Bay, Oregon</p><p>Important Upcoming Dates  August 20-23, 2012: Tribal Lands Forum at Mill Casino in Coos Bay, Oregon</p><p>In attendance Steering Committee Members:  Dino Chavarria, chair  Tom McClure  Victoria Flowers  Danny Joe Stensgar  Tim Kent, vice-chair  Elliott Talgo  Katie Kruse  Ron Wassillie  Virginia LeClere  Laura Weber</p><p>ITEP Staff  Mehrdad Khatibi  Todd Barnell  John Mead</p><p>EPA Staff  Andrew Baca (called in)</p><p>Tuesday, May 8</p><p>The meeting was called to order at 8:45 am  Elliott Talgo provided the invocation.  Roll call was taken - all committee members present</p><p>Tar Creek Case Study Update  Mehrdad Khatibi and Andrew Baca spoke on the current status of the Tar Creek case study being conducted under the cooperative agreement between OSWER and ITEP. Comments from the steering committee, provided in December of last year, were addressed by the case study authors. Dr. Karen Jarrett-Snider is currently revising the report to reflect additional comments and requests received. Additional conversations will take place between Quapaw and Dr. Jarrett-Snider. A new draft of the report will be provided to all affected tribes, OSWER, ITEP, the steering committee, and staff from USEPA Region 6 for review in June.  Discussion: The steering committee members expressed their interest in the final report being an easily understandable and effective tool that other tribes can use to gain a better idea of the Superfund process</p><p>National Program Manager Guidance  Discussion: Andrew Baca discussed USEPA's National Program Manager Guidance, explaining how it is linked to the agency's five-year strategic plan and the annual budget process. USEPA is interested in discussing tribal consultation on the NPM Guidance with tribes and hearing from them on how consultation can be improved and tribal priorities be integrated more effectively. USEPA would like the steering committee, as well as other tribal entities, to provide their feedback on the following questions:</p><p>1 o What is the general level of awareness in your region of the National Program Manager Guidance process? o Have you, or other tribes, in your region participated in any calls, whether national in scope or media specific?  Action Item: Andrew Baca would like the steering committee to consider how they would like to be involved in this process and how the Tribal lands Forum might be used to capture tribal priorities.</p><p>Information Exchange  Steering committee members were asked to share issues and information from their regions and/or media areas. o Ron Wassillie reported on two main areas of concerns expressed by Alaskan Natives: solid waste management challenges (which are often connected to other utility issues such as water and sewer) and ongoing concerns with current dump sites. Many of them are experiencing erosion and being affected by climatic changes. It appears that solid waste concerns are too often not given the priority they deserve by funding agencies. o Tim Kent reported on his recent presentation to the RCRA Directors' meeting on behalf of the steering committee. He was joined in this presentation by Gerald Wagner, representing the National Tribal Operations Committee (NTOC). Tim focused his presentation on discussing capacity development for tribal programs, as outlined in the recent report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). EPA staff present stated that the agency intends to request comments from tribes and then respond to the OIG report within the next five months. Other issues discussed at this meeting included sustainability of tribal solid waste programs, compliance concerns, and the effect of shrinking funding on the ability of tribes to address a myriad of OSWER-related issues. o Tom McClure reported on the recent national UST conference, which was held in USEPA Region 7 this year. Virginia LeClere was an invited speaker and Tom thanked her for her contribution and raising tribal issues. Tom also spoke about continued financial constraints on tribal operations, citing as an example how one of his grants was reduced from two to one year in scope, necessitating the elimination of a staff position. He stated that these continuing constraints are placing the continuation of tribal compliance programs at risk. Finally, Tom discussed the issue of changes in UST owner/operator regulations and the importance of having credentialed tribal inspectors on hand to assist with compliance and enforcement issues. o Victoria Flowers: The Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin has secured a cooperative agreement that is allowing them to assist eleven tribes in Wisconsin with UST issues, including training and technical assistance. She also recently attended the National Information Exchange Network conference in Palm Springs, where she was able to talk with tribal colleagues about the tribal Lands Forum. She also shared concerns that have arisen in her tribe, as well as other tribes in her region, about adaptation versus mitigation in regards to climate change and its effect on land issues. This question has come up in other regions, leading to a general discussion among steering committee members. o Danny Joe Stensgar: Danny Joe gave an update on the effect of the Federal Air regulations for Reservations (FARR) on tribes in Region 10. A solid waste management issue that has been raised by some tribes in Region 10 is that while EPA is working on identifying open dumps via GPS and providing this data to Indian Health Services (IHS) there is concern that these dumps are not being adequately addressed by IHS given their emphasis on water and sewer issues, rather than solid waste management. o Dino Chavarria: Dino informed the committee that the Tribal Superfund Working Group recently held a conference call meeting using a new technology that allows interactive web- based meetings. It is the desire of the group that this technology will facilitate better communication between tribes dealing with Superfund issues. He has been publicizing the </p><p>2 Tribal Lands Forum, and the work of the steering committee, through various regional and national meetings he has attended. The new changes to UST regulations have caused concern among tribes in Region 6. He hopes that the steering committee can work on this issue, as well as attempting to raise the issue of funding constraints. o Elliott Talgo: Elliott shared the fact that his tribal chairman recently visited federal agencies in Washington DC to discuss decreased funding for tribal environmental programs in Region 9. Comments from other tribes in Region 9 raise concerns about the elimination of funding from the inter-agency solid waste working group. Tribes in Arizona also recently met with federal funders in Phoenix to discuss the effect of funding concerns on tribal programs. o Katie Kruse: Issues that have been raised at meetings of Midwestern tribes include mining (on and near tribal lands), training needs, and technical assistance for tribes on Brownfields issues. Katie has provided ITEP with suggestions on training she has gathered from tribes at regional meetings. She also shared comments from tribes regarding current Brownfields technical assistance, which is focused more on assisting communities rather than governments. This fact concerns tribal staff as they work for governments, not distinct communities. Katie has also been distributing information on the Tribal Lands Forum at regional tribal meetings. Her comments regarding mining initiated a conversation among the steering committee members where several shared concerns they have heard from tribes in their region regarding mining, hydrological fracking, and oil spill issues. o Virginia LeClere: Virginia reported on the latest Region 7 RTOC meeting, where the issue of assessment training came up, primarily for those working in Brownfields. Tribes in the area will be utilizing the services of Kansas State University later this month in regards to technical assistance and training in this field. </p><p>Location of the 2013 Tribal Lands Forum  Presentation: Todd Barnell provided an overview of several potential sites for the 2013 Tribal Lands Forum.  Discussion: Steering committee members provided their thoughts on the pros and cons of the highlighted facilities, as well as suggesting alternatives. As time was limited, they suggested scheduling a special call in June to discuss the 2013 location as well as receiving a tutorial on the new hazardous substance research website.  Action Item: ITEP will provide steering committee members with a comprehensive list of tribally owned facilities to consider for the 2013 Tribal lands Forum. ITEP will also schedule a special call in June with the steering committee to discuss these facilities and provide a tutorial on the new hazardous substance research website.</p><p>Tour of Mills Casino Facilities  Steering committee members were taken on a tour of the facilities at Mill Casino, which will be used for the 2012 Tribal Lands Forum. Multiple staff from the facility were on hand to answer questions and show committee members how things will be organized for the Tribal Lands Forum.</p><p>The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm</p><p>Wednesday, May 9</p><p>The meeting was called to order at 8:30 am</p><p>2012 Tribal Lands Forum  Presentation: Todd Barnell gave an overview on the breakout session proposals received for the 2012 Tribal Lands Forum.</p><p>3  Discussion: Steering committee members provided feedback on the proposals, especially those covering the Brownfields and UST/LUST tracks. Tim Kent pointed out that he has experience with the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), which is the subject of a proposal submitted by Dr. Mary Jo Ondrechen of Northeastern University. Her proposal is for a 45 minute breakout session and Tim volunteered to develop a companion session (of 45 minutes) given a tribal case study of his experience with ITRC.  Action Item: ITEP will finalize proposal selection and develop an agenda for the Tribal Lands Forum in June, which will be provided to the steering committee.</p><p>Discussion on EPA Tribal Consultation and Coordination Policy  Discussion: Andrew Baca was asked by the chair to give an overview of EPA's consultation policy and how it is currently being implemented with a few examples of pending consultations. To implement the EO and Consultation Policy, EPA is currently sending out letters to tribal leaders throughout the country, as well as providing notice of those letters to EPA tribal partnership groups, such as the TWRAP steering committee. EPA is soliciting feedback from tribal elected officials and tribal partnership groups regarding how EPA can improve their consultation and coordination process with tribes.</p><p>Future Role of the Steering Committee and Developing a Process for Active Engagement  Discussion: Steering committee members discussed a variety of challenges tribes are facing in various OSWER-related media. Many of these challenges are related to rule changes (e.g. USTs) and the effort of many tribes to have their staff certified/credentialed in specific media. There appears to be diverse approaches to these issues across the country and this is causing uncertainty and confusion in tribal programs. Dino Chavarria suggested that now the steering committee has more members well versed in UST issues that the committee should elevate these concerns to federal partners. Katie Kruse suggested that the steering committee use the regular September meeting to develop a bullet point list of issues tribes are facing, as well as potential solutions to these issues, which can be presented and discussed with Mathy Stanislaus at the November/December meeting in Washington DC. She stressed that this list must not be specific to a few tribes, but address national issues of concerns. Steering committee members discussed the issue of how the committee can effectively work with other groups, such as RTOCs.  Action Item: The agenda for the September quarterly meeting will have ample time reserved for steering committee members to develop a bulleted list of national tribal concerns, and potential solutions, which will be presented to Mathy Stanislaus for discussion at the November/December meeting. </p><p>Meeting with Coquille Tribe and Tour of the Community Plankhouse  Officials of the Coquille's Tribal Council, as well as staff from both the Natural Resources and Cultural Resources departments, met with the steering committee and ITEP at their Community Plankhouse. A tour was provided of the facilities, which will be duplicated at this year's Tribal Lands Forum. Steering committee members and ITEP staff then met with the Coquille Tribe's staff and elected officials to discuss logistical issues associated with the upcoming Tribal Lands Forum.</p><p>The steering committee returned to the Mill Casino and the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm. </p><p>4</p>