DoD Relative Risk and Indian Lands March 2000 Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future Purpose Provide information on DoD programs using risk based analysis in decision-making Show how we are modifying our programs to consider tribal unique factors in decision-making Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future DoD Programs Active Installations (IRP) Base Realignment and Closure Installations (BRAC) Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP) Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future For IRP, BRAC, & FUDS: DoD uses relative risk methodology— to evaluate the relative risk posed by a site in relationship to others based on: Source of Contaminants Pathways of Contaminants Receptors of Contaminants Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future Site Evaluation Framework is a Method for Placing Sites into Relative Risk Categories It evaluates source, pathway, and receptor relationships in: Groundwater (human endpoint) Surface water (human and ecological endpoints) Sediment (human and ecological endpoints) Surface soils (human endpoint) Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF) How high are contaminant concentrations relative to standards? Migration Pathway Factor (MPF) Is the contamination moving or likely to move? Receptor Factor (RF) Are there humans or sensitive environments affected or potentially affected by the contamination? Based on: Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Concept Summary Sites at each Installation Sites Data Assembly Source Pathways Receptors Evaluation Factors Contaminant Hazard Factor Mitigation Pathway Factor Receptor Factor Medium Relative Risk Categories High Low Stakeholders Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

FUDS on Indian Lands Based on Relative Risk million million Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

Funding Trend on Indian Lands Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

Why are proportionately less funds going to Indian Lands? High priority sites under relative risk have already been addressed Most sites are located in rural areas Lower public participation in decision-making Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

Why are proportionately less funds going to Indian Lands? Scientific approach does not fully consider tribal unique factors Methodology pre-dates DoD policy Does not fully consider indirect impacts to tribes Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future How Can We Change? Signs of change: Nov 1998 DoD policy --Trust Responsibilities --Government-to- Government Relations --Consultation --Natural and Cultural Resources MOU’s with tribes, Training,Tribal liaisons Contracting and procurement initiatives Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

How Can We Change? NALEMP—Congressional Action Provides“… not less than $8,000,000 shall be made available only for the mitigation of environmental impacts … on Indian lands resulting from DoD activities.” Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

Setting Priorities Health, Safety, & Environment Relative Risk UXO Risk Assessment Abandoned Building and Debris 2

Setting Priorities Life-ways Economic Programmatic Impacts and access to traditional and subsistence items Economic Access to natural resources for commercial use Access to land for development Programmatic Impacts to Tribal Programs Leveraging Opportunities 2

Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future Indirect Impacts As part of the DoD’s trust responsibility we are trying take in to account the indirect impact to health, safety, and environment …. Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future Indirect Impacts ... Example 1 Tribe must spend money to secure abandoned DoD buildings adjacent to tribal housing to prevent injuries to children playing around them … as the result of spending this funding the tribe can not upgrade drinking water system Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future Indirect Impacts ... Example 2 Former practice bombing range prevents the tribe from pursuing an economic activity on affected trust lands … loss of revenue prevents tribe from developing additional housing for tribal member Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future Indirect Impacts ... Example 3 Tribal elders belief that local fish are contaminated with PCBs results in their abandoning their traditional diet resulting in an increased rate of heart disease and diabetes Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future

What’s in the future? Implement Congressional direction Implement DoD policy Trust Responsibilities Government to Government Relations Consultation Natural and Cultural Resources Increase Consideration of Tribal-Unique Factors Maintain the Native American Environmental Tracking System 2

Native American Environmental Tracking System Track impacts to Indian lands Track mitigation activities Set funding priorities Track resolution of DoD–tribal issues Environmental Security -- Defending Our Future