§
<
3J
\
^tD S7^
r"
*L P R
T>
2
ui
O
T
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Audit Report
Framework for Developing
Tribal Capacity Needed in the
Indian General Assistance Program
Report No. 08-P-0083
February 19, 2008
-------
Report Contributors: Janet Kasper
Melinda Burks
Darren Schorer
Khadija Walker
Madeline Mullen
Abbreviations
Act Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act of 1992
AIEO American Indian Environmental Office
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY Fiscal Year
GAO Government Accountability Office
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
IGAP Indian General Assistance Program
IGMS Integrated Grants Management System
OGD Office of Grants and Debarment
OIG Office of Inspector General
PO Project Officer
TEA Tribal Environmental Agreement
Cover photo: EPA Tribal Portal logo (courtesy EPA)
-------
$
<
73
\
V PRO^4-0
o
LU
0
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
08-P-0083
February 19, 2008
Why We Did This Review
The objective of our audit was
to determine whether the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Indian
General Assistance Program
(IGAP) has been effective in
developing tribal capacity to
implement environmental
programs. This work was
included in the Office of
Inspector General's (OIG's)
Fiscal Year 2007 annual plan
based on Agency leadership
concerns regarding grant
results.
Background
The Indian Environmental
General Assistance Program
Act of 1992 provides EPA the
authority to award grants to
Indian tribal governments to
build capacity to administer
environmental programs.
Since its inception, IGAP has
become a core program and
the largest single source of
funding for tribal
environmental programs, with
almost $455 million of
funding to about 500 different
tribal entities since 1992.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2008/
20080219-08-P-0083.pdf
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Framework for Developing Tribal Capacity Needed
in the Indian General Assistance Program
What We Found
The purpose of IGAP grants is to help tribes develop environmental programs, and
over 70 percent of tribes have met at least one of EPA's strategic goals for
improving human health and the environment in Indian country. However, only
12 percent of tribes are implementing Federal environmental programs.
Many tribes have not developed long-term plans that describe how they will build
environmental capacity to operate their environmental programs. For tribes that do
have plans and long-term goals, EPA has not tracked progress against the plans
and goals. Six of 27 reviewed tribes that have received funding for more than 5
years had activities limited to outreach, training, and meetings; how the activities
will lead to implementing environmental programs is unclear. This situation has
occurred because EPA has not provided a framework for tribes to follow or adapt
as they develop their capacity to implement environmental programs. As a result,
it is not clear whether IGAP funding will result in tribes being able to operate their
own environmental programs. EPA has awarded $455 million in IGAP funds
since 1992.
EPA often uses the target funding level of $110,000 as the basis for IGAP funding
instead of considering environmental capacity needs and prior progress. EPA and
tribes consider IGAP funding to be essential continuing support for tribal
environmental programs. When the funding is not based on tribal capacity needs
or priorities, EPA cannot demonstrate that the highest human health and
environmental needs are addressed.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
• Require the American Indian Environmental Office to develop and implement
an overall framework for achieving capacity, including valid performance
measures for each type of tribal entity, and provide assistance to the regions
for incorporating the framework into the IGAP work plans.
• Require regions to (a) negotiate with tribes to develop environmental plans
that reflect intermediate and long-term goals, (b) link those plans to annual
IGAP work plans, and (c) measure tribal progress in meeting plans and goals.
• Revise how IGAP funding is distributed to tribes to place more emphasis on
tribes' prior progress, environmental capacity needs, and long-term goals.
EPA concurred with the recommendations and stated that the American Indian
Environmental Office is committed to evaluating the IGAP program and
incorporating new ways to improve the program's effectiveness.
-------
^£Dsr^
? \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
V'v/
PROl^
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
February 19, 2008
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Framework for Developing Tribal Capacity Needed in the
Indian General Assistance Program
Report No. 08-P-0083
FROM:
Melissa M. Heist vu
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
,Yv\
TO:
Benjamin Grumbles
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the
problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. It represents the
opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final
determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with
established audit resolution procedures.
The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $470,169.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective action plan for agreed upon
actions, including specific activities and milestone dates. We have no objections to the further
release of this report to the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Janet Kasper,
Director, Assistance Agreement Audits, at 312-886-3059 or kasper.ianet@epa.gov.
-------
Framework for Developing Tribal Capacity Needed in the
Indian General Assistance Program
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Noteworthy Achievements 3
Scope and Methodology 4
2 Progress Toward Long-Term Goals Is Not Demonstrated 5
GPRA and EPA Require Consideration of Environmental Results 5
Progress Toward Capacity Goals Is Not Demonstrated 6
Some Tribes' Activities Limited Mostly to Training, Meetings,
and Outreach 6
EPA Has Not Provided Tribes a Framework Linked to Work Plans 7
Without Plan for Achieving Capacity, Eligibility of Activities
May Not Be Clear 8
Conclusion 9
Recommendations 9
Agency Response and OIG Comment 10
3 Need Not Always a Determining Factor in IGAP Funding Decisions 11
EPA Goal is to Help Every Tribe Establish an Environmental Presence 11
Many Tribes Are Awarded the Target Level of Funding 11
Some Tribes Are Not Developing Capacity in New Areas 12
Well-Developed Programs Continue to Use IGAP 12
EPA and Tribes Expect IGAP to Provide Essential Continuing Support 13
Funding May Not Be Provided for Highest Priorities 13
Recommendation 14
Agency Response and OIG Comment 14
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 15
Appendices
A IGAP Legislative Authority and EPA Strategic Goals 16
B Details on Scope, Methodology, and Prior Audit Coverage 17
C IGAP Logic Model 20
- continued -
-------
Framework for Developing Tribal Capacity Needed in the
Indian General Assistance Program
D Eligible Activities under IGAP 21
E IGAP Funding Formula 23
F EPA Grant Funds for Tribal Programs 24
G Agency Response 25
H Distribution 27
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The objective of our audit was to determine whether the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Indian General Assistance Program (IGAP) has been
effective in developing tribal capacity to implement environmental programs. In
particular, we focused on the following areas:
• Funding distribution to regions and tribes
• Goals and measures used to evaluate progress under IGAP
• Effectiveness of IGAP in developing tribal environmental capacity
This work was included in Office of Inspector General's (OIG's) Fiscal Year (FY)
2007 annual plan based on Agency leadership concerns regarding grant results.
Background
The Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act of 1992 (the Act)
provides EPA the authority to award grants to Indian tribal governments to build
capacity to administer environmental programs.1 The Act also provides for
technical assistance from EPA in developing multimedia programs to address
environmental issues on Indian lands. Beyond capacity building, the only
allowable implementation activities are for solid and hazardous waste. Since its
inception 15 years ago, IGAP has become the largest single source of funding for
tribal environmental programs. Since 1992, EPA has awarded $455 million in
IGAP funding; during FY 2004 through FY 2006, IGAP provided almost
$115 million of funding to about 400 different tribal entities.
Under the Act, IGAP grants can be awarded to both Indian tribal governments and
intertribal consortia. The Act defines an Indian tribal government as any Indian
tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community (including any Alaska
Native village or regional or village corporation) which is recognized as eligible
for the special services provided by the United States to Indians because of their
status as Indians. Some tribes have jurisdiction over land and some do not. The
Act defines intertribal consortia as a partnership between two or more Indian
tribal governments authorized by the governing bodies of those tribes to apply for
and receive IGAP assistance.
1 Build capacity refers to the tribe developing the ability to implement and manage enviromnental programs.
1
-------
EPA issued IGAP guidelines in 1994 to provide national policy guidance and
criteria for awarding and administering IGAP grants. EPA updated the guidelines
in 2000 and 2006 to address compliance with grant policies, accountability for
environmental results, and consistency with program requirements. The purpose
of IGAP is to establish administrative, legal, technical, and enforcement
capability needed to implement an environmental protection program. Details on
the legislative authority for IGAP and program goals are included in Appendix A.
Sovereignty and the Federal Trust Responsibility to Tribes
According to Federal Indian Law, tribes in the United States are Sovereign
Nations. Sovereignty is the right or power that comes from itself and no other
source that a government draws upon to govern. The courts have reasoned that
because of tribes' existence since time immemorial, prior to the inception of the
other U.S. sovereigns, tribes must derive their authority to govern from their own
sovereignty.
The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to federally recognized tribes
that arises from Indian treaties, statutes, executive orders, and the historical
relations between the United States and tribes. Like other Federal agencies, EPA
must act in accordance with the trust responsibility when taking actions that affect
tribes. The trust responsibility provides that the Federal Government consult with
and consider the interests of the tribes when taking actions that may affect tribes
or their resources. EPA places high importance on its trust responsibility to
tribes. Consequently, EPA desires to give tribes maximum flexibility in IGAP to
determine their own environmental needs, goals, and priorities.
EPA Headquarters and Regions Have Roles in IGAP Management
EPA's American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) under the Office of Water,
the Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD), and the regions all have roles in
managing IGAP:
• AIEO plays a significant role in EPA's overall tribal program, which includes
IGAP. AIEO coordinates the Agency-wide effort to strengthen public health
and environmental protection in Indian country, with a special emphasis on
building capacity to administer tribal environmental programs. AIEO
oversees developing and implementing the Agency's Indian Policy. AIEO
also strives to ensure that all EPA Headquarters and regional offices
implement their parts of the Agency's Indian Program in a manner consistent
with Administration policy. The policy is to work with tribes on a
government-to-government basis according to EPA's trust responsibility to
protect tribal health and environments. AIEO is the National Program
Manager for IGAP, and is responsible for allocating IGAP funding to regions.
2
-------
• OGD oversees implementing EPA's long-term Grants Management Plan to
ensure that these funds are used efficiently and effectively.
• Regions are responsible for administering IGAP grants, approving work
plans, awarding grants, and monitoring progress under IGAP.
Noteworthy Achievements
IGAP has been successful in assisting tribes in addressing environmental issues
on tribal lands. Over 70 percent of tribes have met at least one of EPA's strategic
goals for tribes. EPA staff place high importance on IGAP for developing
environmental capacity in Indian country. Representatives from tribal
organizations emphasize the necessity of IGAP and the lack of other resources to
support environmental work. Tribes are clearly conducting environmental work
and identifying environmental issues on Indian lands. Agency staff believe IGAP
is a necessary component and lays the foundation for EPA's overall tribal
program. We have noted several tribal environmental success stories, such as
recycling and solid waste programs, that we highlighted in a prior joint review
report with the Department of the Interior OIG.2
IGAP is helping tribes to expand their sources of environmental funding. EPA
requested a contractor to conduct an evaluation of IGAP. The evaluation,
completed in May 2007, found that long-term IGAP recipients have received a
greater percentage of their funding from non-IGAP EPA sources than more recent
IGAP recipients. According to the evaluation, this supported the view that IGAP
had expanded the sources of funding for tribes.
Overall, we found that IGAP grants are supported by budgets, work plans, and
progress reports. The program is generally compliant with grant regulations.
Although we did not focus on compliance issues during this audit, we did note
certain accomplishments in IGAP grant oversight. Some regions demonstrated
that they took environmental needs into consideration in funding tribes. Some
regions also showed greater oversight of grant funding. During our review of
grant files, we noticed examples of good grants oversight. Project Officers (POs)
documented site visits, provided telephone guidance regarding IGAP activities,
and compared work plans to accomplishments in order to evaluate progress. For
example:
• In at least one case where a significant purchase occurred under the IGAP
grant, documentation in the file showed correspondence between the PO and
the tribe regarding justifying the purchase.
• In some cases, work plan comments from the PO to the tribe requested that
the tribe change work plan items or provide clarification or justification. For
2 EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00022, Promoting Tribal Success in EPA Programs, May 3, 2007.
3
-------
example, one work plan comment requested that the tribe explain why the
specific training topics were necessary because the same training from the
previous 2 years had been included again.
• The grant files contained end-of-year review reports which summarized the
progress made by the tribe and whether the required deliverables were
completed on time.
Scope and Methodology
We performed our audit in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.
We conducted our audit field work from March to July 2007. We gathered
information and conducted field work at EPA Headquarters and Regions 5, 6, 9,
and 10. We collected and analyzed data for a sample of 30 IGAP grants active
during FY 2006 from the four regions. See Appendix B for further details on the
audit scope and methodology.
4
-------
Chapter 2
Progress Toward Long-Term Goals
Is Not Demonstrated
Many tribes have not developed long-term plans that describe how they will build
environmental capacity to operate their environmental programs. For 8 of 30
tribes that do have plans and long-term goals, EPA has not tracked progress
against the plans and goals. Six of 27 reviewed tribes that have received funding
for more than 5 years had activities limited to outreach, training, and meetings;
how the activities will lead to implementing environmental programs is unclear.
This situation has occurred because EPA has not provided a framework for tribes
to follow or adapt as they develop their capacity to implement environmental
programs. EPA has awarded $455 million in IGAP funds since 1992. It is not
clear whether IGAP funding will result in tribes being able to operate their own
environmental programs.
GPRA and EPA Require Consideration of Environmental Results
The 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires that EPA
develop strategic plans for environmental objectives and measure progress against
those objectives. EPA has developed a strategic plan, orders, and policies that
aim to ensure environmental results are being measured through grant
agreements, work plans, and program office oversight.
EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan and 2003-2008 Grants Management Plan require
program offices to include consideration of environmental outcomes in grant
work plans and to link activities to measurable outcomes. EPA's Environmental
Results Order 5700.7 states that to the maximum extent practicable, Agency staff
should:
• Link proposed assistance agreements to the Agency's Strategic Plan and
GPRA;
• Ensure that outputs and outcomes are appropriately addressed in assistance
agreement competitive funding announcements, work plans, and performance
reports; and
• Consider how the results from completed assistance agreement projects
contribute to the Agency's programmatic goals and objectives.
AIEO's IGAP guidance provides policy guidelines and criteria for IGAP grants.
The 2006 guidance includes templates for work plans and reporting
environmental results. These templates are intended to provide consistency in
5
-------
reporting on milestones, deliverables, environmental outcomes, and outputs.
They also provide a link to EPA's Strategic Plan.
The 2006 guidance also includes a logic model that provides an outline of the
resources, activities, outputs, and intended short-term, intermediate, and long-
term outcomes of IGAP grants. The logic model identifies that the short-term
outcomes from IGAP grants include increased understanding of the process
needed to develop environmental programs. Intermediate outcomes include
increased tribal capabilities in legal, enforcement, technical, communication, and
administrative areas. Long-term outcomes include established capacity to plan,
develop, implement, manage and sustain tribal environmental programs.
According to the logic model, the ultimate result should be improved
environmental and public health conditions in Indian country. See Appendix C
for the complete IGAP logic model.
Progress Toward Capacity Goals Is Not Demonstrated
Many tribes have not developed long-term plans that describe how they will build
environmental capacity to operate their environmental programs. Through IGAP,
EPA's focus has been on short-term activities and outputs in the annual work
plans, such as training and outreach, rather than long-term environmental results
as described in the IGAP logic model. For 8 of 30 tribes in our sample that did
have long-term plans, EPA was not tracking progress against goals. For example:
• A tribe with 1,200 members has been receiving IGAP funding for 10 years.
The tribe has developed a Tribal Environmental Agreement (TEA) that states
environmental objectives and intended environmental results over time.
However, EPA has not been tracking progress against the objectives stated in
the TEA.
• A tribe with 4,000 members has been receiving IGAP funding for 8 years.
The tribe has a TEA that identifies funding needs for FY 2007 to 2009.
However, EPA has not been tracking progress for the TEA objectives.
• A tribe with 150 members has been receiving IGAP funding for 9 years. EPA
required the tribe to complete an environmental plan in 2001, but the plan was
not subsequently tracked.
Some Tribes' Activities Limited Mostly to Training, Meetings, and
Outreach
When tribes do not have long-term goals or plans with milestone dates, EPA is
not assured that the activities will lead to the tribe having the capacity to
implement environmental programs. AIEO contracted an independent evaluation
of IGAP in order to determine how effective IGAP has been in building tribal
environmental capacity. According to the evaluation, long-term IGAP recipients
6
-------
have not achieved a greater number of indicators of environmental capacity than
more recent IGAP recipients. We found that 27 of 30 tribes reviewed have
received IGAP grants for at least 5 years. Of those 27 tribes, 6 were still
performing activities limited mostly to outreach, training, meetings, and
assessments. It was not clear how the tribes would achieve the capacity to
implement environmental programs. For example:
• One tribe, according to its 2006 work plan, was primarily conducting
outreach, training, and meetings after 9 years of IGAP funding. The tribe has
identified areas in which to develop programs. However, it is not clear how
the tribe is going to get the funding and develop the capacity to implement the
environmental programs.
• Another tribe has established little more than an environmental presence after
9 years of IGAP funding. The tribe's work plan primarily consisted of
meetings, data collections, studies, and research. Since the tribe has no land,
eligibility for implementing an EPA-delegable program is unlikely.
• A tribe with 63 acres has received IGAP funds over the last 6 years, but has
shown little progress in establishing long-term goals that would lead toward
achieving capacity. The tribe's work plan indicates that it primarily conducts
environmental outreach and training. The tribe has not identified any long-
range goals or significant environmental issues to address.
EPA Has Not Provided Tribes a Framework Linked to Work Plans
EPA has not provided a framework for tribes to follow or adapt on the path
toward capacity to administer environmental programs. In the past, the Agency
advocated the use of TEAs that point tribes toward long-term goals. However,
the TEAs were not consistently implemented nationally and did not specify
milestones. As an alternative to TEAs, one region worked with tribes to develop
environmental plans, but did not track their progress or link them to annual work
plans.
In 1994, EPA developed TEAs to, among other purposes:
• Provide an understanding of tribal environmental need;
• Identify the areas under which each tribe intends to assume program
responsibility; and
• Build environmental capacity in order for tribes to operate programs in the
long term.
Using TEAs presented two major problems. First, EPA never implemented these
agreements on a national basis, partly because many tribes viewed these
agreements negatively. According to EPA staff, they reminded tribal members of
historical treaties that had negative results. Second, the TEAs did not capture
7
-------
milestones because EPA media-specific program offices were reluctant to make
specific funding or timeframe commitments. As a result, tribes understood that
TEAs do not result in any additional environmental program funding.
According to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, effective
internal control provides assurance that significant weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control that could adversely affect the Agency's ability to
meet its objectives would be prevented or detected in a timely manner. An
effective internal control for IGAP would be establishing a framework that
considers all possible outcomes for the program. The framework would include
measurable goals that can be tracked and for which tribes can be held
accountable. AIEO recently initiated a framework by developing the logic model,
but it does not address which outcomes are appropriate for various recipient types.
For example, consortia and tribes without jurisdiction over land cannot achieve
many of the long-term goals in the logic model.
EPA could incorporate TEAs into an overall framework for achieving capacity.
With beneficial changes to the process and the agreements themselves, these
documents can serve as a useful IGAP management tool. They can also provide
each tribe with its own unique roadmap, or plan, for achieving environmental
capacity.
Without Plan for Achieving Capacity, Eligibility of Activities
May Not Be Clear
Agency guidance identifies what activities are eligible for funding under IGAP.
For some grants, no clear linkage exists showing how the activities will lead to
establishing an environmental program. We found that even the tribes which had
made efforts at environmental planning had not updated their plans as activities
were completed, had not tracked progress toward plan goals, and did not link
annual work plans to tribal environmental plans. Without established plans
linking the work plan activities to long-term goals, it was not clear whether the
activities were eligible or appropriate for funding under IGAP. IGAP guidance
specifies that eligible activities include those conducted for planning, developing,
or establishing an environmental protection program. See Appendix D for a
general list of eligible activities outlined in the guidance.
For some tribes, it was not clear whether the work plan activities conducted fell
within the IGAP guidance list of eligible activities. For example:
• One consortium has received IGAP over the last 9 years, and it was not clear
whether some of its work plan activities were eligible according to the
guidelines. One objective that may not be eligible or appropriate for IGAP
funding is a project for eco-tourism development. The consortium assisted a
tribe by developing a business plan, seeking other grants in the area of
eco-tourism, and developing a tourism Website. The work plan mentions
8
-------
expanding and diversifying the local economy. In our opinion, this activity is
more related to economic development than environmental capacity building.
• One tribe has received IGAP funds for 2 years, and it was not clear whether
some of its activities were eligible, such as testing for global warming. The
tribe's global warming activities included taking and recording the
temperature four times a week. Since this is a global issue and the tribe is a
seasonal fish camp of about 40 members, it is unclear how random
temperature taking for a limited duration each year will lead to a meaningful
environmental program. In our opinion, these activities do not appear to be
contributing to capacity development. The tribe did not have a plan for how
the global warming activities would build capacity to implement an
environmental program.
Conclusion
The link between the $455 million in IGAP funds awarded since 1992 on the
ability of tribes as a whole to administer their own environmental programs is not
clear when evaluating program performance. EPA has not provided a framework
for tribes to follow or adapt on the path toward capacity to administer
environmental programs. None of the 30 tribes we reviewed had environmental
plans with milestones and long-term goals that were tracked, even though almost
half of the tribes had been participating for at least 10 years. If tribes do not have
workable plans with milestones, they may not proceed in a clear direction.
Consequently, for some of the activities pursued with IGAP funds, it was not
clear how the activities will lead to establishing an environmental program.
Further, without plans linking the activities to long-term goals, it was not clear
whether the activities were eligible or appropriate for funding under IGAP.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
2-1 Require AIEO to develop and implement an overall framework for
achieving capacity, including valid performance measures for each type of
tribal entity, and provide assistance to the regions for incorporating the
framework into the IGAP work plans.
2-2 Require regions to:
a. Negotiate with tribes to develop environmental plans that reflect
intermediate and long-term goals.
b. Link those plans to annual IGAP work plans.
c. Measure tribal progress in meeting plans and goals.
9
-------
Agency Response and OIG Comment
In response to the draft report, EPA stated that AIEO is committed to evaluating
the IGAP program and incorporating new ways to improve the program's
effectiveness without compromising the flexibility provided to tribes. EPA stated
that relating IGAP funding to long-term and interim goals against which progress
can be measured is very important and AIEO plans to address the issue. Since the
negotiating goals, measuring and assessing progress against those goals, and
evaluating funding requests are inextricably linked, EPA must address the issues
in an overall programmatic response.
The Agency concurred with our recommendations and plans to implement them
during FY 2008 and FY 2009 through developing a comprehensive IGAP
framework document that includes negotiation of tribal plans with long-term and
interim goals and a method of measuring progress. The IGAP framework will be
implemented in FY 2010.
The planned actions will address the recommendations. In responding to the final
report, the Agency needs to identify specific activities and milestone dates for
implementing the corrective action. The Agency's complete response is in
Appendix G.
10
-------
Chapter 3
Need Not Always a Determining Factor in
IGAP Funding Decisions
EPA often uses the target funding level of $110,000 as the basis for IGAP funding
instead of considering environmental capacity needs and prior progress. EPA and
tribes expect IGAP funding will be available as essential continuing support for
tribal environmental programs. Not all tribes require the target level of funding
each year. Many tribes with highly developed environmental programs still rely
on IGAP to maintain their environmental presence and pursue other Federal
grants. EPA needs to revise how it distributes IGAP funding in order to place
more emphasis on tribes' prior progress, environmental capacity needs, and long-
term goals.
EPA Goal is to Help Every Tribe Establish an Environmental Presence
EPA's objective for tribes, according to the 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan, is to
...protect human health and the environment on tribal lands by
assisting federally recognized tribes to build environmental
management capacity, assess environmental conditions and
measure results, and implement environmental programs in Indian
country.
EPA considers IGAP to be a major component for achieving this objective.
Although the Act does not require that EPA provide funding to all tribes, the
Strategic Plan states that EPA's "goal is to help every federally recognized tribe
establish an environmental presence."
The Act provides grants to Indian tribal governments to build capacity to
administer environmental programs. The Act requires that each grant awarded for
a fiscal year shall be no less than $75,000. The Act does not specify how EPA is
to distribute IGAP funds and does not require funding for all tribes. However,
EPA believes the statutory minimum is not sufficient to run an environmental
program. Therefore, EPA developed a target funding level of $110,000 for IGAP
based on its estimate of what it would take to sustain a basic program.
Many Tribes Are Awarded the Target Level of Funding
In some regions, many tribes are routinely awarded the target amount of $110,000
per year regardless of population, land area, or environmental issues. For two of
four regions we visited, as many as 60 percent of tribes received within $5,000 of
11
-------
the annual target amount. Nine of the 30 reviewed tribes were funded within
$5,000 of the annual target amount, for IGAP grants that were open during 2006.
Thus, small and large tribes both received similar funding amounts. For example:
• A small, landless fish camp of 40 seasonal residents has received $110,000 in
IGAP funding each year since the start of the project period in FY 2005. The
tribe has achieved some success in establishing a solid waste program but has
not identified issues in other areas.
• In contrast, a tribe with 1,200 members and 16,000 acres has also received
about $110,000 per year in GAP funding. The tribe has also been awarded
approximately $2 million in EPA media-specific funding to address
environmental issues such as clean water, clean air, and emergency response.
The tribe has demonstrated the capacity to plan, develop, implement, and
manage environmental programs.
Some Tribes Are Not Developing Capacity in New Areas
We found 9 tribes of the 30 reviewed had made progress in some areas, but work
plans had not documented new environmental issues to address, despite receiving
IGAP funding for several years. These tribes continued to receive IGAP funding
with similar activities from year to year; it was difficult to determine what the
tribe was trying to accomplish or what environmental issues it was addressing.
For example:
• One tribe with approximately 4,000 members and 500,000 acres has received
IGAP funding since 1994. The tribe has also been awarded about $990,000 in
funding from EPA media-specific programs. The tribe provides some
oversight and technical assistance for specific remediation projects using
IGAP. For the current grant, work plan activities do not vary much from year
to year.
• A tribe with 6 acres has received funding for 6 years for its 63 members, and
has not identified environmental issues except for land that has yet to be
acquired. Work plans showed the same expenses and activities from year to
year. The tribe does not appear to be developing or finding new issues to
address.
Weil-Developed Programs Continue to Use IGAP
Tribes that have had success in developing capacity still rely on IGAP to sustain
and maintain their environmental presence because of challenges in obtaining
funding. Even the largest and most developed tribes in the Nation still rely on
IGAP funding. For example:
12
-------
• A tribe with over 3,000 members has been receiving IGAP funding for 14
years and has achieved Treatment in the Same Manner as State for Clean Air
Act Title V and Clean Water Act Section 303. Despite demonstrating
capacity in air and water media, the tribe continues to use IGAP to perform
activities such as programmatic and administrative functions and tribal
outreach.
• A tribe with 5,000 members on 544,000 acres has received IGAP funding for
11 years and has achieved Treatment in the Same Manner as State for Clean
Air Act Title V. Tribal staff is highly capable and the program is well-
developed. The tribe continues to use IGAP to maintain existing programs
and to perform additional assessments, meetings, and training.
EPA and Tribes Expect IGAP to Provide Essential Continuing Support
EPA and tribes expect that IGAP funding will be available as essential continuing
support for tribal environmental programs. The Agency allocates funding to the
regions according to the 1997 funding formula. The regional share of the IGAP
allocation is based on the number of federally recognized tribes, the tribal
population, and the tribal acres in each region. The Agency also calculates a
ceiling amount for each region consisting of the number of tribes per region
multiplied by $110,000. Refer to Appendix E for details on the funding formula.
The regions have discretion as they use the funding allocations to determine
funding for individual tribes. Generally, regions believe that $110,000 is the
minimum funding necessary for establishing an environmental presence. That
amount provides a presence by funding one-and-a-quarter positions as well as
office costs, training, travel, equipment, and indirect costs. EPA believes it is
important for each tribe to have an environmental staff person in an office. That
person is then available to answer the phone and have a "seat at the table" to
address environmental concerns.
According to Agency staff, tribes rely upon IGAP because it is a consistent and
reliable source of funding, and the only tool available to build environmental
capacity. It is the largest single source of funding for tribal environmental
programs EPA awarded, as shown in Appendix F. A 2007 OIG report
recommended that EPA work with tribes to identify economic resources and
funding alternatives.3
Funding May Not Be Provided for Highest Priorities
The Agency uses the $110,000 cap in its allocation to the regions in an effort to
equitably fund all tribes. This is despite the fact that the number of tribes
participating in IGAP has increased significantly since 1997, and tribes have
3 EPA OIG report No. 2007-P-00022, Promoting Tribal Success in EPA Programs, May 3, 2007.
13
-------
differing land bases, populations, and environmental needs. The expectation of a
target level of funding for all tribes has resulted in tribes with well-developed
programs continuing to get funding each year. Meanwhile, tribes with less-
developed programs may need more than $110,000 per year. EPA Headquarters
uses tribal population and land area to estimate need when allocating funding to
the regions. However, regions do not consistently allocate funding based on the
needs of individual tribes. When the funding is not based on tribal capacity needs
or priorities, EPA cannot demonstrate that the highest human health and
environmental needs are addressed.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
3-1 Revise how IGAP funding is distributed to tribes in order to place more
emphasis on tribes' prior progress, environmental capacity needs, and
long-term goals.
Agency Response and OIG Comment
In response to the draft report, EPA stated that adjustments to the funding
formula, allocations, distributions, and award decisions will be developed in
FY 2010 and implemented in FY 2011.
The planned actions will address the recommendation. In responding to the final
report, the Agency needs to identify specific activities and milestone dates for
implementing the corrective action. The Agency's complete response is in
Appendix G.
14
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Agreed To
Amount
3-1
2-1 9 Require AIEO to develop and implement an overall
framework for achieving capacity, including valid
performance measures for each type of tribal
entity, and provide assistance to the regions for
incorporating the framework into the IGAP work
plans.
2-2 9 Require regions to:
a. Negotiate with tribes to develop environmental
plans that reflect intermediate and long-term goals.
b. Link those plans to annual IGAP work plans.
c. Measure tribal progress in meeting plans and
goals.
14 Revise how IGAP funding is distributed to tribes in
order to place more emphasis on tribes' prior
progress, environmental capacity needs, and long-
term goals.
Assistant Administrator
for Water
Assistant Administrator
for Water
FY 2010
FY 2010
Assistant Administrator
for Water
FY 2011
1 O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
15
-------
Appendix A
IGAP Legislative Authority and
EPA Strategic Goals
Legislative Authority
The Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act of 1992 (Act) provides the legal
authority for EPA to award IGAP grants and specifies what can be funded through the grants.
We relied upon the language in the law when evaluating how EPA and tribes were using IGAP
funds. The purpose of the Act, as it relates to grants, is to:
Provide general assistance grants to Indian tribal governments and intertribal
consortia to build capacity to administer environmental regulatory programs that
may be delegated by the Environmental Protection Agency on Indian lands.
The law does not limit grant funds only to developing regulatory programs that may be
delegated. Grant funds may cover:
...the costs ofplanning, developing, and establishing environmental protection
programs consistent with other applicable provisions of law providing for
enforcement of such laws by Indian tribes on Indian lands.
...planning, developing, and establishing the capability to implement programs
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency and specified in the
assistance agreement.
While much of the Act focuses on developing the capacity to implement programs, the Act does
allow IGAP funds to be used for implementing solid and hazardous waste programs on Indian
lands.
EPA Strategic Goals
One of EPA's objectives in the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan is to improve human health and the
environment in Indian country, as shown below.
1. By 2011, increase the percentage of tribes implementing Federal environmental
programs in Indian country to 9 percent (FY 2005 baseline: 5 percent of 572 tribes).
2. By 2011, increase the percentage of tribes conducting EPA approved environmental
monitoring and assessment activities in Indian country to 26 percent (FY 2005
baseline: 20 percent of 572 tribes).
3. By 2011, increase the percentage of tribes with an environmental program to
67 percent (FY 2005 baseline: 54 percent of 572 tribes).
16
-------
Appendix B
Details on Scope, Methodology, and
Prior Audit Coverage
Scope and Methodology
We conducted field work in Headquarters and Regions 5, 6, 9, and 10. We interviewed AIEO
and OGD staff in Headquarters and tribal program staff in the four regions. Interviews of AIEO
staff consisted of questions related to the following areas: background of IGAP grants, IGAP
grant funding, goals and measures, and capacity. Interviews of OGD staff consisted of questions
related to management activities for IGAP grants. Interviews of regional staff consisted of
questions related to the following areas: IGAP grant funding, goals and measures, and capacity.
We also interviewed three tribal umbrella organizations to obtain their perspectives of IGAP and
its effectiveness in achieving tribal capacity. We reviewed various guidance documents and
reports relevant to our objective, and financial records provided by AIEO.
We used data from EPA's Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS) to determine the
universe of tribal IGAP recipients, to gather background information, and to prepare for grant
file reviews. We did not test the controls over IGMS to ensure its validity and reliability, as the
information it contained was not significant to our conclusions. Specifically, we analyzed the
IGMS data to:
• Determine the universe of IGAP grantees,
• Determine how much IGAP funding a tribe has received,
• Determine how long a tribe has received IGAP grants,
• Extract and analyze IGAP grants active in FY 2006, and
• Select a representative sample of 30 IGAP grants active during FY 2006 from the four
regions.
In selecting the sample to review, we considered:
• The dollar amount of the awards for IGAP grants active during FY 2006 and the dollar
amount of awards since the inception of IGAP. Generally, we selected tribes with high
dollar awards, as well as those reflecting a range of dollar values.
• The amount of time the tribe has been receiving IGAP. We wanted to include tribes that
have been receiving IGAP grants for an extended period, as well as tribes that may have only
recently begun receiving IGAP funding.
• The number of grants awarded from EPA programs other than IGAP.
Grants selected included a range of award amounts and project periods. We also tried to include
grantees that had a significant number of EPA grants from other environmental programs. The
17
-------
following shows a breakout of our sample of 30 IGAP grants from the four regions, out of a total
of 476 active grants during FY 2006:
• 4 grants selected from Region 5
• 8 grants selected from Region 6
• 8 grants selected from Region 9
• 10 grants selected from Region 10
We reviewed grant documents for our sample online and requested needed hard copy grant files
from the four regions. We reviewed and analyzed work plans, progress reports, and other
relevant documents. We consulted with the grant POs as necessary regarding any questions that
arose based on our grant file reviews. Because we selected judgmental samples of grants from
the four regions, we are not projecting the results to the universe of IGAP grants. Our findings
and conclusions were based on review and evaluation of grant file documentation and discussion
with EPA staff.
We obtained an understanding of management controls for the 5.3 Reporting System and
analyzed data from the system regarding results. (The 5.3 Reporting System is a tool for
reporting on progress toward meeting commitments under EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan.
Objective 5.3 is to build tribal capacity.) We discussed the 5.3 Reporting System with AIEO to
understand the controls over the system. We tested the reliability of the data as part of our grant
file reviews. We verified data posted to the system with information from the grant files and
discussion with the POs. We assessed the reliability of the system in accordance with
Government Accountability Office (GAO) guidance, GAO 03-273G, Assessing the Reliability of
Computer-Processed Data, dated October 2002. We did not note any material weaknesses in
internal controls related to data in the 5.3 Reporting System, and consider the data to be
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit.
Prior Audit Coverage
We reviewed the prior EPA OIG and GAO reports listed below that were relevant to our audit
for background purposes. For those reports that were significant within the context of our audit
objectives, we performed followup as necessary.
• EPA OIG Report No. 2001-M-000018, Grants Management, Region 10's General
Assistance Program, July 17, 2001. OIG found that improvements are needed in evaluating
costs in applications to ensure: they are allowable, allocable, and reasonable; that work plans
meet eligibility requirements; and that post-award monitoring activities are adequate. The
OIG recommended that the Region 10 Regional Administrator ensure that POs with IGAP
assistance agreement responsibilities approve for award only those work plans that include
outputs and milestones for all work activities.
• Joint EPA-Department of the Interior Report, Tribal Successes: Protecting the
Environment and Natural Resources, May 2007. This report highlighted the diversity of
innovative tribal practices that will serve as models of success to other tribes in implementing
natural resource and environmental programs. The report notes that successful
18
-------
implementation of environmental and natural resource projects directly results from
innovative practices that overcome barriers such as resource limitations, administrative and
managerial requirements, legal and regulatory issues, and communication and relationships.
• EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00022, Promoting Tribal Success in EPA Programs,
May 3, 2007. OIG found tribes have made progress in overcoming barriers to successful
management of environmental programs. Innovation is the key for tribes to maximize the
effectiveness of their programs. The 14 tribes visited provided examples of innovative
practices, including collaboration and partnerships, education and outreach, and expanding
resources. OIG recommended that EPA help tribes in the above three areas to further assist
tribes build on successful practices.
19
-------
IGAP Logic Model
Appendix C
Resources
:tivities
Outputs
jstomers ¦ Short- [tnn
I
JjitoiiDiriiafL
Provufe
Foaiiiglo
Tries
CiAP Gnsb
TjiTxiI
—=~fr
Mrn-Tim,
Csmmia
ExeetfliYes
<££,
Trite deudsp tegai mA
ttriatoeattai Lt.
ti^uliticusi. or&iMsacei, and
itawlanSi dot'can "be n*WI Jo
a^t^aneat laaiiagMaeait jnaliciea
aiai giaifeliE^.
Afgeacy
Tedteik^
EMectiss
k
t
Fwiw&i
TedbzuEial asd
T»»flirtirsii
J^iedia'SpecifLC
A^iatmcekj
TiaoiaiBes
Ti3ms.
Ekplayees
Fussed b%r GAP1
taeisstf
vaiiAaiiii sfflsa
pseeess igfiriiedm
tbe development of a'
Tsibai
frirt'ilrwIntfrflaT
pgoersai
CapabLrtv
TuTut demcaSEutft abQutv Id
perfnrni die sevceIdhiis,
asmsltmas. amI ifispeclcEi needs if
COVlb(QCBD30£si pollCIfS a-"*!
Site Visits
Starfmg, £S
Gm&
MinzgttiieM
T:
Praise
Rwpmb
CtiM
Otaxsigbtto
Tribes
FIE AIEO
RjBBDOCLS. 3EU3
fitsjwjiSKn
Extonal Farters;
TsilsiJ
'WM, WMtfiwiHtV
priority of
^tinsmesdal i3aoe&,
ftdjcialsoQBeii'eli, staff
tiinanvgr.. and
tcssnanas levels.
armi.-*. GAP
alaErt}'"crf*Tiiiffis tn
acqasa adwr EPA.
jSnuffs that also
CEni^tutelD
c;qa«ly4H!i3(snff>
Teddies!
temtttdgtifftrTcnii
mmagpmmt
imzmaches.
Piamiiagjar IHSsI cades
area* &rJfTi37iEES
Emfksnpft tiffii&d
€&des md
Tiite develop teefciacal sWls fct
tiaVilSUtoSlSdl tt'-anupwiwui illth. as
trre'rmtfrt'irtM anA baseline
aise^mectL data inanagcnsail,
qiuifcy aa^iiitee|Meois&toia, and
frnrrgency roapocne systems.
Ctritfieatian q/Tnfei
Agpr&val cf Tribal jjrsref
w&rkplims
Asaizuptsao or cnsa&uaa of mcha-
ipocificpxTjgnnm.
t
Tabes- denxaaatxalt abOily So
ri imummrate about ggvuuimfc'i.iLil
issues with Ac conaraaty. Tr&al
i-irmh'.w^ llw EEEtJated
8EditsB5-
PtMic education emJ
Eiloidhhed
ivilh Gf$h&r
plajerz
Tribes cstal^isk ability and
pocjsckinjs for nonamig sad
accnnatmg for program feak,
mcludiDf jrocctliKs tor staffing
jiQfl i ^ .jinTut^ n>ED[m^^s3E^ESd o sttco
msowc^ aswl poreooMj, s®£
conmnuicatiNL wi«ls cither Tribal
ggit'@nu3Hg$t
^l»!~:£?iZZiZ!~iZSlw+££*lw££+i^&
ErtaHbhsd zlqjfag hr 1
M^sp^c I
^easvrisMm #«pj®wfwif
Qimmm bJs (unfits
...
L'lns-Tcrin
E>UliblLed. capaciTy 10 pi.
Adriwenaitf of EPA' s
Strategic Has Section 5.3
Gsah
CaB^lmDcc vnii icckra]
sfciJiffies ami reculaticBis
Sastamabslrty cfTxiWl
agRiuwii.tMutri pro^ijjii^
InsprorM emrrroeiaxnitat and )
jiubbc Iwalth coudidons izi
C«wisiaii CcarmaTtugjtiaia bmwi Ai£0 Esgiisas *nd aboaf pradl fefoTOPxief
Gcuice: !G.^ P 200b Oiant Admiristration Giidance
-------
Appendix D
Eligible Activities Under IGAP
AIEO's Guidelines on the Award and Management of General Assistance Agreements for Indian
Tribes, dated March 9, 2000, provide a general list of eligible activities. Activities have to be for
planning, developing, or establishing an environmental protection program. See below for a list
of eligible activities.
Develop an administrative system to include:
• Proposals for other environmental grants.
• Procedures for accounting, auditing, evaluating, reviewing, and reporting in compliance with
Federal regulations.
• Computer systems and Internet service for grant management.
• Procurement procedures in compliance with Federal regulations.
Develop technical capability to manage environmental programs, including:
• Identifying and performing a baseline assessment of sources of pollution.
• Developing quality assurance and quality control systems including Quality Assurance
Project Plans. (Implementing a Quality Assurance Project Plan is not fundable under IGAP,
except when a Quality Assurance Project Plan is required to carry out activities approved in
the IGAP grant work plan.)
• Developing adequate sampling and laboratory capabilities, including purchasing equipment.
• Developing computer systems and providing Internet service for comparing and evaluating
environmental data.
• Developing qualifications and training needs for environmental management personnel.
(Training may be for conducting inspections, environmental assessments, and monitoring and
National Environmental Policy Act analyses.)
• Developing integrated approaches to environmental protection and natural resource
management, such as developing Integrated Resource Management Plans
• Developing legal infrastructure (codes, regulations, ordinances, etc).
• Developing enforcement programs.
• Developing a communications plan.
• Developing materials, information, and plans for environmental education/public outreach.
• Identifying multi-jurisdictional opportunities.
Other activities:
• Construction: Generally not allowable but may be approved by the National Program
Manager, AIEO, on a case-by-case basis. For example, the tribe may need office facilities to
work.
• Vehicle purchase: IGAP funds may be used to lease or purchase a vehicle. The grantee must
provide justification in the work plan. After lease or purchase of vehicle, the grantee must
21
-------
keep usage records to ensure it is reasonable and necessary to carry out the IGAP grant
activities.
Geographic Information Systems: Allowable but use for surveying a commercial purchase of
land or in support of current litigation are not activities that are allowable.
Implementing solid waste and hazardous waste programs: These were not previously
allowable, but the Final Rule (codified at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, section
35.545, January 2001) allows implementation activities.
Planning, designing, and constructing a wastewater treatment facility or drinking water
facility: Not Allowable.
Developing programs to manage and oversee wastewater treatment or drinking water
facilities: Allowable.
Planning, developing, or establishing environmental programs not regulated by EPA:
Allowable in accordance with Federal regulations.
Baseline environmental assessments and monitoring: Allowable if necessary to plan,
develop or establish a tribal environmental program. Not allowable if done for the principal
purpose of solving a particular problem at a particular place.
Developing a system of permitting or licensing fees: Allowable.
Preparing program eligibility application packages: Allowable.
Conducting demonstration projects: Allowable if purpose is to plan, develop, or establish a
tribal environmental program.
22
-------
Appendix E
IGAP Funding Formula
GAP FORMULA
Open Dumps Closme
^Diieclor's Priorities
-frNiiilanal tesiifts
ADJUSTMENTS PHASE I; DISTRIBUTION FOR EACH REGION
% of federally recograzsd tribes in
Region (x 4)
it Million
Base Amount
per Region
Proportion of
Total
% of National Trtbal Population In
Region {k 0.5^
BASE
SHARE
% of Acres in Region \x 1)
Proportion of Total
ttumb«r ef Trifaas in
Region
CAP
IF SHARE + BASE >
USE CAP
THEN
ALLOCATION - CAP
IF SHARE + BASE
CAP
THEM GO TO
PHASE 2
GAP ORMULA
REGIONS ABOVE CAP PHASE II: FOR EACH UNCAPPED REGION
Total of Funds:
CAP Amount minus Allocation {$}
REGIONS BELOW CAP
Sum of Total
|%Trilbes + % Population +
% Allocation}
for non-CAP Regions
Proportion of Total
X
Difference
ALLOCATION
Soiree: EPA A J E 0
-------
Appendix F
EPA Grant Funds for Tribal Programs
Even if tribes develop capability to manage well-established environmental programs, the
continuing funding needed to maintain and implement environmental programs is limited and not
guaranteed. EPA provides media-specific funding to tribes through 31 grant programs.
However, tribes face many challenges in accessing these funds. Tribes often are not able to meet
the minimum requirements, such as Treatment in the Same Manner as State delegation, to be
eligible for funds. Tribes may also have difficulty in providing the required matching funds.
IGAP is the largest tribal grant program funded by EPA, and the 2007 allocation provided
$56.7 million to 436 tribes. The next largest programs are Clean Water Act Section 106 and
Clean Air Section 103, as shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4-1: EPA Fiscal Year 2007 Program Funding for Tribes
Program Name
Amount
Number
of Tribes
Percentage
of Funds
IGAP
$56,654,000
436
40
Water Pollution Control (106)
$23,197,906
163
16
Air 103 Grants (Evaluation/ Monitoring)
$14,139,556
83
10
NPS Implementation
$9,822,263
77
7
Superfund Cooperative Agreement
$5,802,899
25
4
Environmental Network Grants
$5,215,383
38
4
Targeted Watershed Initiative (104(b)3)
$5,018,520
6
4
Water Infrastructure
$4,503,477
9
3
Brownfields
$4,060,637
18
3
Air Pollution Control Program Support
$3,811,865
15
3
SDW Management
$2,538,590
34
2
UST Program
$2,459,229
21
2
Pesticide Program Development
$2,114,074
15
1
Wetlands Protection Grants
$1,786,017
19
1
Total
$141,124,416
Source: AIEO
24
-------
Appendix G
Agency Response
JAN 15 2008
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Inspector General Draft Report "Framework for
Developing Tribal Capacity Needed in Indian General Assistance Program"
(Assignment No. 2007-539)
FROM: Benjamin H. Grumbles
Assistant Administrator
TO: Bill A. Roderick
Deputy Inspector General
We appreciate the attention and effort that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has
brought to the Indian General Assistance Program (GAP). As you know, GAP is the cornerstone
program in EPA's efforts to develop environmental protection programs across Indian country.
We continue to be committed to evaluating the GAP program and incorporating new ways to
improve the program's effectiveness without compromising the flexibility provided to tribes
when established by Congress.
We believe the draft report's findings correctly identify several areas that have received
continuing emphasis by EPA's American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) and the EPA
tribal program. The critical importance of relating GAP funding to long-term and interim goals
against which progress can be measured is a shared concern that we plan to address. The
negotiation of goals by tribes and EPA, the measurement and assessment of progress against
those goals, and EPA's evaluation of funding requests are all inextricably linked. As a result, it
is essential that these issues be addressed in an overall programmatic response, rather than as
isolated actions.
Effectively steering a foundational program such as GAP through any significant change
will require a considerable time and resource commitment from both EPA headquarters and
regional offices. And, of course, it will be necessary to uphold all Agency tribal consultation
obligations as we move forward. The attached outline of our plan to move forward in improving
the GAP program will address our mutual goals in an integrated, consultative fashion. I look
forward to reporting progress on these efforts.
Attachment
cc: Carol Jorgensen, Director, AIEO
Janet Kasper, Director, Assistance Agreement Audits, OIG
25
-------
GAP IMPROVEMENT PLAN OUTLINE
• FY 08/09:
Develop comprehensive GAP framework document anticipated to include the following
components:
-Standardized online workplan process and documentation
-Method to ensure negotiation of tribal plans with long-term and interim goals,
-Method to allow measurement of tribal progress toward meeting plan goals,
-Revision of the 2000 GAP Guidelines to comport with the framework,
-Approach to assist tribes in environmental planning.
• FY 10:
Implement revised GAP Guidance program aspects.
Develop adjustments to funding formula, allocations, distributions, and award
decisions as appropriate based on the revised GAP Guidance.
• FY 11 et seq:
Institute provisions of revised GAP Guidance as a basis for program activities
and award decisions.
26
-------
Appendix H
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Water
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
Director, Office of Regional Operations
Director, Grants and Interagency Agreements Management Division
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Water
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Deputy Inspector General
27
------- |