NPL Site Listing Process. EPA Memorandum on Considering Traditional Ecological  Knowledge During the Cleanup Process (2017). This variable identifies sites that may be of interest to one or  more Native American entities whose members or land would be  directly affected by the release of hazardous materials. EPA Does Not Have Reliable Data Identifying NPL Sites Located on Tribal Property or That Affect Tribes EPA Data Identifying NPL Sites Located on Tribal Property Are Not Accurate

EPA data identifying NPL sites that are located on tribal property or that  affect tribes are not reliable. Specifically, EPA data identifying sites that  are on tribal property, sites that have NAI, and the tribes that have  interest in NAI sites are not accurate or complete based on our reviews of  agency data and interviews with EPA officials. Second, EPA officials told us that accurately documenting which sites  are on tribal property can be complicated due to difficulties identifying  tribal property boundaries and evolving site boundaries. Without clear  guidance to regional offices on how to determine whether sites have  NAI—including criteria to assist regions in determining when a site should  be designated as having NAI in the SEMS database and how, if at all, to  adjust the NAI data for sites that no longer have tribal interest—EPA does  not have reasonable assurance that its data on tribes that may be  affected by hazardous releases at NPL sites are accurate or complete. EPA Does Not Have Reliable Data on Consultation with Tribes Regarding NPL Sites

EPA does not have reliable data on the NPL sites at which it has  conducted tribal consultation. One possible reason that EPA data on consultation with tribes are  incomplete is that the agency’s guidance regarding what constitutes  consultation, and therefore is to be recorded in TCOTS, is unclear. EPA’s 2011 consultation policy provides a  broad definition of consultation and makes specified program and  regional officials responsible for determining when consultation may be  appropriate, but the policy does not provide specific criteria for regions to  use to determine if consultation with a tribe should be considered. The  policy initially states that it is EPA’s policy to “consult on a government-to- government basis with federally recognized tribal governments when EPA  actions or decisions may affect tribal interests.” According to the policy,  the broad scope of consultation contemplated by the policy creates “a  large number of actions that may be appropriate for consultation.” To  provide “a general framework from which to begin the determination of  whether any particular action or decision is appropriate for consultation,”  the policy provides a list of general EPA activity categories, including  Superfund response actions. However, the policy does not provide any  further guidance on the circumstances under which consultation should  be considered. For example, it does not specify any particular points in  the Superfund process at which consultation should be considered or any  further detail on what tribal interests should be considered when  determining if tribal interests are affected. Without clarifying guidance on tribal consultation to clearly  identify the circumstances under which the agency should consider  consulting with tribes, EPA does not have reasonable assurance that  regions are applying the consultation policy consistently and uniformly. In addition, EPA regional officials do not consistently document invitations  to consult with tribes in TCOTS, which could result in incomplete or  inaccurate data on EPA consultation with tribes. These actions include  efforts to minimize tribal members’ exposure to contaminants and limit  potential damage to tribal archeological sites. EPA officials we interviewed from Region 1  told us that at one site, regional officials rerouted and improved roads  used to remove contaminated materials to minimize the impact of  cleanup activities’ on historically significant cultural resources. Conclusions

EPA has policies and procedures for consulting with tribes when its  actions and decisions at NPL Superfund sites may affect tribal interests. However, based on our  analysis of some of the data in these systems, these data are not reliable. EPA generally agreed with our recommendations,  and their comments are reproduced in appendix IV. Cleanup is ongoing. Cleanup is  ongoing. Investigations and remedy construction are ongoing at  the site. EPA  collects information regarding PCBs in fish and shellfish. Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report (1) examines the extent to which the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) has reliable data identifying National Priorities  List (NPL) sites that are located on tribal property or that affect tribes, (2)  examines the extent to which EPA has reliable data on the agency’s  consultation with tribes and (3) describes what actions, if any, EPA has  taken to address the unique needs of tribes when making decisions about  cleanup actions at NPL sites. To describe what actions EPA has taken to address the unique needs of  tribes when making decisions about cleanup actions at NPL sites, we  interviewed EPA officials from the regional offices associated with our  selected case study sites about consultation regarding our case study  sites, as well as at other NPL sites that affect tribes in their region. Mining operations contaminated surface water with  hazardous substances.
Why GAO Did This Study

Superfund is EPA's principal program to address sites with hazardous substances, and some of the most seriously contaminated of these sites are listed on the NPL. Many of these sites can affect Indian tribes or their land. EPA has a policy to consult with tribes when EPA actions or decisions may affect tribal interests, including on cleanup of NPL sites that are on tribal property or that affect tribes.
GAO was asked to analyze NPL sites that are on tribal property or that affect tribes and EPA's consultation with tribes at these sites. This report: (1) examines the extent to which EPA has reliable data identifying NPL sites that are located on tribal property or that affect tribes, (2) examines the extent to which EPA has reliable data on the agency's consultation with tribes regarding NPL sites, and (3) describes the actions EPA has taken to address the unique needs of tribes when making decisions about cleanup actions at Superfund sites. GAO reviewed laws and policies, assessed EPA data on NPL sites, and interviewed EPA and tribal officials about cleanup actions and consultations at six non-generalizable NPL sites selected in part for their geographic diversity.

What GAO Found

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have reliable data identifying National Priorities List (NPL) sites that are located on tribal property or that affect tribes. Specifically, EPA collects data on whether sites are on tribal property or have Native American Interest (a data variable indicating sites where tribal members or tribal land would be directly affected by the release of hazardous substances), as well as which tribes are associated with NPL sites. However, EPA's data are not always accurate or complete for a number of reasons. For example, EPA can have difficulty identifying some tribal property boundaries, and NPL site boundaries may evolve as the site is investigated and remediated. EPA does not have a regular review process for its data on whether an NPL site is on tribal property. In addition, EPA's guidance for determining whether a site has Native American Interest is unclear, and regions may not interpret it consistently. Without improving its review process and clarifying its guidance, EPA will not have reasonable assurance that its data on tribes that are affected by NPL sites are accurate or complete.
EPA consults with tribes when actions at an NPL site may affect tribal interests, but the agency does not have reliable data on its consultations with tribes. Data from EPA's system for tracking consultation did not include documentation of some consultations that GAO confirmed had occurred. One possible reason that EPA data are incomplete is that the agency's policy is unclear on which interactions are considered consultation and are therefore to be documented in EPA's system of record, which is not consistent with federal standards for internal control. EPA's policy provides a broad definition of consultation and specifies which staff are responsible for determining when consultation may be appropriate. However, the policy does not provide further guidance on the circumstances under which consultation should be considered. For example, it does not specify any specific points in the hazardous substance cleanup process at which consultation should be considered or provide further detail on which tribal interests should be considered when determining if tribal interests on NPL sites are affected. Without clarifying guidance to clearly define circumstances under which consultation with tribes should be considered, EPA cannot have reasonable assurance that it is applying its consultation policy consistently.
EPA has taken various actions to address the unique needs of tribes when making decisions about cleanup actions. These actions include minimizing tribal members' exposure to contaminants because of tribal lifestyle (e.g., greater consumption of local fish and game) and limiting potential damage to culturally important sites. For example, EPA officials said that at one site, they altered the design and route of the roads used to remove contaminated materials to minimize the impact of cleanup activities' on cultural resources. EPA also published a memorandum in 2017 with recommendations on considering tribes' traditional ecological knowledge in the cleanup process if tribes offer it.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations to EPA, including that it take actions to improve the data it collects and to clearly define circumstances under which consultation with tribes should be considered. EPA generally agreed with GAO's recommendations.