Toxic fish imperil tribes

Secured to the cliff by a rope, he maneuvers the net -- attached to a 35-foot pole -- through the raging Klickitat River, "dipping" for fish in the Yakama Nation's traditional manner.


	Larry King of the Yakama Nation lands a 15-pound steelhead from the Klickitat River. Columbia River basin fish are laden with pollutants. Grant M. Haller / Seattle Post-Intelligencer Click for larger photo

The method isn't as simple as the name suggests.

The pole is unwieldy, the sage-green water wild. Large salmon can knock a fisherman to his knees and drag him to the end of his tether.

After several attempts, King snags a steelhead about the length of a man's arm. He seems pleased: The fish at least looks normal.

Some of the fish being caught these days in the Columbia River basin are downright unappetizing. Some are marred with tumors, twisted spines and other abnormalities. Most of those don't make it to the dinner table.

But the fish that do may be just as harmful -- loaded with an assortment of toxic pollutants that are threatening the health of some 20,000 Native Americans.

A study being released this week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concludes that members of four tribes in the basin, most of whom eat large amounts of fish, have a high risk for cancer and other diseases compared with the general public. The risk for their children is even greater.

"You don't need to be a rocket scientist to look at this and say, 'Wow, the risk is really high,'" said Anne Watanabe, an attorney for the Yakamas who participated in the study.

In recent years, state and federal agencies have issued warnings about toxic chemicals in fish, suggesting that women of childbearing age and children limit or stop some consumption.

That strategy isn't likely to work with most Native Americans in the Columbia Basin.


	"I was raised on fish," said James Kiona, a technician who helps monitor the Yakamas' fish catch. Grant M. Haller / Seattle Post-Intelligencer Click for larger photo

"I was raised on fish," said James Kiona, who helps monitor the Yakamas' fish catch. "I never knew anything else."

Kiona, 52, has his black and gray hair pulled into a ponytail. He wears a necklace strung with 2-inch eagle talons and shiny elk teeth. He shrugs off the health concerns being raised by the government, as if to say there are no options.

Salmon is a sacred food, and fish are at the foundation of the tribes' culture, spirituality, diet and economy. Dried lamprey serve as teething rings for tribal children. Pulverized salmon is sprinkled over food like salt.

"Fish are our life," Kiona said. "We're not going to give it up."

Scientists call for action

Unprecedented in scope, the EPA's research into tribal health began in 1989 as a partnership with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.

Four tribes with reservations in Washington, Oregon and Idaho -- the Yakamas, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the Confederated Tribes of Warms Springs -- were surveyed about their diet.

EPA and tribal researchers found that adults eat up to 48 fish meals a month, and that the tribes as a whole eat fish at rates six to 11 times that of the national average.

For Native Americans eating the most salmon, steelhead and rainbow trout, the risk of developing cancer ranged from 7 cases in every 10,000 people to 2 in 1,000, based on tests of the fish caught at different locations in the basin. The tribes helped researchers by identifying traditional fishing spots and collecting fish for testing.

People eating large amounts of long-lived resident fish, such as sturgeon, had a 2-in-100 risk of cancer at some locations, the study found. Regulatory agencies generally take steps to protect the public when the risk falls between 1 in a million and 1 in 10,000.

"There needs to be some action," said EPA environmental scientist Patricia Cirone, a leader of the study.

The study measured contamination of both resident fish and migratory fish, such as coho, chinook and steelhead. Risk was estimated for non-cancer diseases, such as effects on the liver, immune system and development.

A hazard level is calculated by comparing how much of a chemical can be safely eaten with how much is actually being eaten. A hazard level of 1 is considered safe.

The tribes' fish-heavy diet elevated the hazard level to 8 for salmon and trout, but it soared to 100 for two resident fish -- sturgeon and mountain whitefish. For children eating the largest amounts of fish, the hazard risk was nearly twice that high.

At the average rate of fish consumption for the general public (one meal per month), the cancer risk was less than 1 in 10,000.

The fish were analyzed for 132 chemicals, including pesticides, metals and organic pollutants. Ninety-two pollutants were found. The most frequently detected contaminants were metals, PCBs, banned pesticides such as DDT and chemicals produced during chlorine bleaching of paper pulp or water chlorination.

EPA scientists emphasize that the amount of fish sampled in the study was small and only two dozen fishing locations were tested, making it impossible to come up with sweeping, rock-solid conclusions. The risks are also based on the assumption that someone eats the same kind of fish over their entire lifetime.

"Risk is a potential," Cirone said. "There's no absolute here."

Tribes want rivers cleansed

For the tribes, the path for addressing the risk is fraught with social, spiritual and economic pitfalls.


	Strips of steelhead hang in Donna Whitefoot's drying shed not far from the Bonneville Lock and Dam. Grant M. Haller / Seattle Post-Intelligencer Click for larger photo

"How will things change at the longhouse?" asked Watanabe, the Yakama lawyer. "Will they start serving hamburgers?"

Switching to other foods may not solve the problem. Some researchers suspect that the reason more contamination is being found in fish is simply because it's being looked for there.

"I don't know that the alternative foods -- the lettuce, the meat or the nuts -- aren't also contaminated," Cirone said.

Fish is a great source of protein, and its benefits must be weighed against potential risk of disease, she said. The problem isn't the fish, but the chemicals that taint it.

Bottom line: The source of the contamination needs to be investigated and dealt with.

"Let's get the rivers cleaned up," said Charles Hudson, spokesman for the Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, which deals with fishing-related issues. "Let's find the sources and address them methodically."

Potential sources include pesticides that run off irrigated farmland, waste from mining operations and pollution from industrial sites. The EPA report took a limited look at radioactive contamination and found comparable levels in fish from the stretch of the Columbia that flows past the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and other rivers. The tribes and the EPA agree that more research on radioactive waste is needed.

There are no current projects investigating contamination sources basinwide, although some smaller projects are underway, including an EPA Superfund cleanup at Portland Harbor in the lower Willamette River, and an investigation of contamination in Lake Roosevelt, a portion of the Columbia in northeastern Washington.

The tribes could petition the EPA to do an investigation of sites elsewhere in the river. Some members are already working for stricter pollution standards.

The Washington state Health Department hasn't issued any health advisories on fish consumption for the Columbia, but it has made recommendations for safer food preparation, such as trimming fatty tissue where toxic material tends to accumulate, and cooking so fat burns off.

Health Department toxicologist David McBride said the agency is currently revamping its fish-advisory process to provide information on how much of a certain fish people can safely eat, rather than looking at risk based on average consumption rates.

The Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, fearful of stirring up more buried pollutants, has spoken out against the proposed dredging of the Columbia. Supported by the Army Corps of Engineers and ports along the river, the dredging would deepen a 103-mile channel from Vancouver to the mouth of the Columbia from its current 40 feet to 43 feet.

The $156 million proposal is still undergoing public comment. The dredging is expected to take two years to complete and would allow more-efficient shipping because vessels would be able to carry more cargo.

Many of the poisons found in the EPA's fish study are chemicals that have been banned for decades, which suggests that sediments polluted over the years could be a continuing source of contamination.

"It raises some questions about how these toxins continue to circulate," Hudson said. "We don't want dredging to proceed until we know more."

A spokesman for the Army Corps said the sediment to be dredged has been tested and is clean.

In response to the study, Columbia Basin tribes are forming task forces and continuing research to determine individual health risks, as well as how to best share the information with their members. A Yakama Nation study is being done to calculate if tribal members have higher cancer rates.

Videos are being made to educate Yakama members. A leader of the Umatilla Tribe anticipates holding public meetings and mailing information to members.

Meantime, tribal fishermen try to protect themselves and others by throwing back deformed fish.

"We do need to know more, but there's enough there to say we need to be deeply concerned," Hudson said.

"The health of our fish tell us what the health of our rivers and the regions are."

P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastiffler@seattlepi.com

Add P-I Local headlines to