tfED STAf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	16-P-0082
^ SL "s 0ffice of Inspector General	January 13 2016
<
vSB.*
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
Based on congressional
inquiries and hotline
complaints, we conducted this
review regarding the actions of
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and
its decision to conduct an
assessment of the Bristol Bay
watershed in Alaska.
We sought to determine
whether the EPA conducted
the assessment in a biased
manner; predetermined the
outcome; and followed policies
and procedures for ecological
risk assessment, peer review
and information quality.
The Bristol Bay watershed,
home to 25 federally
recognized tribal governments,
contains large amounts of
copper and gold. The EPA
conducted its watershed
assessment from February
2011 through January 2014 to
determine the significance of
Bristol Bay's ecological
resources and evaluate the
potential impacts of large-scale
mining on those resources.
This report addresses the
following EPA goals or
cross-agency strategies:
•	Protecting America's
waters.
•	Launching a new era of
state, tribal, local, and
international partnerships.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oiq.
Listing of OIG reports.
EPA's Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment-
Obtainable Records Show EPA Followed Required
Procedures Without Bias or Predetermination,
but a Possible Misuse of Position Noted
What We Found
Based on available information, we found
no evidence of bias in how the EPA conducted
its assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed, or
that the EPA predetermined the assessment
outcome. We also found that the EPA's
assessment appropriately included sections on
the three primary phases discussed in the
agency's ecological risk assessment
guidelines. Further, the EPA met requirements
for peer review, provided for public involvement
throughout the peer review process, and
followed procedures for reviewing and verifying the
assessment before releasing it to the public.
The EPA addressed
guidelines and followed
policies and procedures
when conducting the Bristol
Bay watershed assessment.
We found no evidence of
bias or a predetermined
outcome. We did find a
possible misuse of position
by a Region 10 employee
who retired in 2013.
quality of information in the
We did find that an EPA Region 10 employee used personal nongovernmental
email to provide comments on a draft Clean Water Act Section 404(c) petition
from tribes before the tribes submitted it to the EPA. We found this action was a
possible misuse of position, and the EPA's Senior Counsel for Ethics agreed.
Agency employees must remain impartial in dealings with outside parties,
particularly those that are considering petitioning or have petitioned the agency to
take action on a matter. This employee retired from the EPA in April 2013.
Scope Limitations
In conducting our review, we obtained email records and documents from the
agency and an external source. The agency was unable to provide all
government emails for the retired employee. In addition, despite issuing a
subpoena, we were unable to obtain additional personal emails for the retired
employee. Our report therefore reflects findings based on available information.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the EPA incorporate, in the agency's ethics training,
examples of misuse of position in interactions with stakeholders, and define and
incorporate in mandatory EPA tribal training the appropriate and ethical
parameters of tribal assistance. We also recommend that the Regional
Administrator, Region 10, issue a memo to staff emphasizing the importance of
adhering to standards of ethical conduct, particularly when dealing with external
parties with an interest in regulatory or administrative action. The agency agreed
with all of our recommendations and proposed adequate corrective actions.

-------