Environmental Justice: EPA Needs to Take Additional Actions to Help Ensure Effective Implementation
Published: 2011-10-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for promoting environmental justice--that is, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in developing, implementing, and enforcing environmental laws, regulations, and policies. In January 2010, the EPA Administrator cited environmental justice as a top priority for the agency. GAO was asked to examine (1) how EPA is implementing its environmental justice efforts, and (2) the extent that EPA has followed leading federal strategic planning practices in establishing a framework for these efforts. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed EPA strategy documents and interviewed agency officials and key stakeholders.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In recent years, EPA has renewed its efforts to make environmental justice an important part of its mission by developing a new strategy and approach for integrating environmental justice considerations into the agency's programs, policies, and activities. Under Plan EJ 2014, the agency's 4-year environmental justice implementation plan, EPA's program and regional offices are assuming principal responsibility for integrating the agency's efforts by carrying out nine implementation plans to put Plan EJ 2014 into practice. An important aspect of Plan EJ 2014 is to obtain input on major agency environmental justice initiatives from key stakeholders, including the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, impacted communities, and states. In developing its environmental justice framework, which consists of agency initiatives, including Plan EJ 2014 and the implementation plans, EPA generally followed most of the six leading federal strategic planning practices that we selected for review. For example, EPA has generally defined a mission and goals for its environmental justice efforts, ensured leadership involvement and accountability for these efforts, and coordinated with other federal agencies--all consistent with leading practices in federal strategic planning. However, EPA has not yet fully (1) established a clear strategy for how it will define key environmental justice terms or identified the resources it may need to carry out its environmental justice implementation plans, (2) articulated clearly states' roles in ongoing planning and environmental justice integration efforts, or (3) developed performance measures for eight of its nine implementation plans to track agency progress on its environmental justice goals. Without additional progress on these practices, EPA cannot assure itself, its stakeholders, and the public that it has established a framework to effectively guide and assess its efforts to integrate environmental justice across the agency.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is recommending that EPA develop a clear strategy to define key environmental justice terms; conduct a resource assessment; articulate clearly states' roles in ongoing planning and future implementation efforts; and develop performance measures to track the agency's progress in meeting its environmental justice goals. GAO provided a draft of this report to EPA for comment. EPA disagreed with two of GAO's recommendations, partially agreed with one recommendation, and did not directly address the remaining recommendation. GAO believes that the recommended actions will help EPA ensure clear, consistent, and measurable progress as it moves forward in implementing Plan EJ 2014.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The concept of environmental justice is based on the belief that  communities with large numbers of minority or low-income residents  frequently shoulder a disproportionate share of environmental and  health risks. Many of these communities are located in areas within  close proximity to sources of pollutants that can adversely affect both  the environment and human health. For more than 15 years, the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been responsible for  leading the federal government’s approach to environmental justice— that is, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people  regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the  development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,  regulations, and policies. Specifically, an executive order signed in  1994, calls for all federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice  into their programs, policies, and activities to the greatest extent  practicable and permitted by law. It also calls on EPA to take the lead in  chairing an interagency workgroup created to help federal agencies  make environmental justice part of their missions. However, over the  years, EPA’s efforts in integrating environmental justice have come  under criticism, both from within and outside the agency. For example,  in 2004 and 2006, EPA’s Inspector General (IG) made a number of  recommendations to improve EPA’s environmental justice efforts. In  addition, in 2005, we recommended that EPA take steps to incorporate  environmental justice into its rulemaking processes for clean air  regulations and, in 2007, testified that EPA’s efforts in doing so were  incomplete. EPA subsequently took actions to address many of these  recommendations, but some actions are still needed.
In a January 2010 memo to EPA staff, the EPA Administrator cited  environmental justice as one of the agency’s top priorities. To communicate  this priority within the agency and externally, EPA identified environmental  justice as a cross-cutting strategy in its fiscal year 2011-2015 agencywide  strategic plan. Additionally, in July 2010, EPA issued its draft Plan EJ  2014—the agency’s road map for integrating environmental justice into its  programs. This plan was released in final form in September 2011.  Plan  EJ 2014 identifies three key goals: (1) to protect the environment and  health in communities overburdened by pollution; (2) to empower  communities to take action to improve their health and environment; and  (3) to establish partnerships with local, state, tribal, and federal  governments and organizations to achieve healthy and sustainable  communities. In addition, in December 2010, the Administration hosted the  first White House Forum on Environmental Justice. This event brought  together environmental justice community leaders; state, local, and tribal  government officials; cabinet members; and other senior federal officials for  a discussion on creating a healthy and sustainable environment for all. In  light of this renewed interest in environmental justice, you asked us to  examine EPA’s environmental justice efforts.
This report responds to your request that we review EPA’s environmental  justice efforts. Our objectives were to examine (1) how EPA is implementing  its environmental justice efforts and (2) the extent to which EPA is following  leading strategic planning practices in establishing a framework for  integrating environmental justice in its programs, policies, and activities.
To conduct this work, we reviewed the executive order, relevant EPA  guidance, and interviewed senior officials within individual program offices in  the agency’s headquarters as well as senior officials in EPA regions. We  also interviewed other stakeholders, including selected members of EPA’s  National Environmental Justice Advisory Council and a number of national  associations that represent state environmental agencies, including the  Environmental Council of States and the Association of State and Tribal  Solid Waste Management Officials. To determine how EPA is implementing  its environmental justice efforts, we identified key offices with environmental  justice responsibilities by reviewing and analyzing EPA documents as well as  interviewing officials from EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and Office  of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, among others. To determine  the extent to which EPA is following leading practices in developing a  framework for integrating environmental justice in its programs, policies, and  activities, we compared EPA’s strategic planning efforts for environmental  justice to leading practices in federal strategic planning. These include (1)  practices required at the federal department/agency level under the  Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), which we have  previously reported also can serve as leading practices for planning at lower  levels within federal agencies such as individual programs or initiatives; (2)  practices identified in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance to  federal agencies for implementing GPRA’s requirements; and (3) related  leading practices that GAO’s past work has identified.
Our analysis was based primarily on our review of draft versions of EPA’s  Plan EJ 2014 and its implementation plans because these documents  were not finalized until mid-September 2011, as we were preparing to  issue our report. Nevertheless, we did review the final plans and  confirmed that they were not substantively different from the draft  versions on which we based our conclusions and recommendations. We  did not assess EPA’s draft Plan EJ 2014 Outreach and Communications  plan as part of our analysis because, at the time of our review, this plan  was still in the early stages of development. We also compared EPA’s  environmental justice plans and activities to recommendations made by  its Inspector General (IG) in 2004 regarding the agency’s environmental  justice efforts and interviewed EPA officials on efforts the agency had  taken to implement these recommendations. We conducted this  performance audit from May 2010 through September 2011, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I provides a more  complete description of our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The following section discusses Executive Order 12898, EPA’s  framework for integrating environmental justice into the agency’s  missions, key environmental justice stakeholders, and leading practices in  strategic planning.
subsections: section_title: Executive Order 12898
paragraphs: On February 11, 1994, the President signed Executive Order 12898 to  address environmental justice concerns in minority and low-income  populations. The executive order requires federal agencies to, among  other things:    make achieving environmental justice part of their missions by  identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high  and adverse human health or environmental effects of programs,  policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations;    develop an agencywide environmental justice strategy that should (1)  promote the enforcement of health and environmental laws in low- income and minority population areas; (2) ensure greater public  participation in agency decision making; (3) improve research and  data collection associated with environmental justice issues; and (4)  identify minority and low-income patterns of consumption of natural  resources;  submit their environmental justice strategies to the Federal  Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice convened by  the EPA Administrator, which is then to report governmentwide  progress to the Executive Office of the President; and    undertake certain activities, such as ensuring that documents are  concise, understandable, and readily accessible and translating  documents, where appropriate, to support public participation.
Executive Order 12898 calls on EPA and other federal agencies to  address disproportionately high human health and environmental impacts  on minority populations and low-income populations. The Council on  Environmental Quality (CEQ), in the Executive Office of the President,  oversees the federal government’s compliance with the executive order,  as well as with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In enacting  NEPA in 1970, Congress declared that “it is the continuing responsibility  of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with  other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and  coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources” to, among  other things, “assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and  aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.” Further, Congress  mandated that before federal agencies undertake a major federal action  significantly affecting the environment, they must consider the  environmental impact of such actions on the quality of the human  environment, such as cultural, economic, social, or health effects  including those on populations and areas with environmental justice  concerns. To accomplish this mandate, NEPA regulations require, among  other things, that federal agencies evaluate the likely environmental  effects of proposed projects using an environmental assessment or, if the  projects would likely significantly affect the environment, a more detailed  environmental impact statement evaluating the proposed project and  alternatives. In its 1997 NEPA guidance, CEQ suggested definitions for  key environmental justice terms to help federal agencies identify and  address environmental justice concerns in fulfilling their NEPA  responsibilities. For example, CEQ’s guidance proposed that agencies  identify low-income populations by using the annual statistical poverty  thresholds from the Bureau of the Census Current Population Reports.  Further, the CEQ guidance identified two definitions for minority  population: (1) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50  percent; or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is  meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the  general U. S. population. Moreover, in discussing whether human  health or environmental effects are disproportionately high, CEQ’s  guidance suggests that agencies consider three factors: (1) whether  effects of proposed actions are significant or above generally accepted  norms; (2) whether effects of proposed actions on minority, low-income,  and tribal population are significant and appreciably exceed risk to the  general population; and (3) whether minority, low-income, or tribal  populations are affected by the cumulative impacts of pro posed actions.
section_title: EPA’s Framework for Integrating Environmental Justice
paragraphs: EPA’s framework for integrating environmental justice into the agency’s  missions includes four major plans: (1) EPA’s Fiscal Year 2011-2015  Strategic Plan, (2) Plan EJ 2014, (3) Plan EJ 2014’s Implementation  Plans, and (4) Plan EJ 2014 Outreach and Communications Plan.
EPA’s Fiscal Year 2011-2015 Strategic Plan. EPA’s strategic plan  provides a blueprint for how the agency expects to accomplish its  priorities, including environmental justice. In addition to outlining strategic  goals for advancing EPA’s mission to protect the environment and human  health, it also outlines cross-cutting fundamental strategies that lay out  specifically how EPA is to conduct its work over the next 5 years. These  strategies include (1) expanding the conversation on environmentalism,  which will involve engaging and empowering communities and partners— including those who have been historically under-represented—to support  and advance environmental protection and human health, and (2) working  for environmental justice and children’s health, which will involve reducing  and preventing harmful exposures and health risks to children and  underserved, disproportionately impacted low-income, minority, and tribal  communities. EPA officials said that they expect that both strategies will  influence the work of every program and regional office throughout the  agency, especially with respect to environmental justice.
Plan EJ 2014. Named in recognition of the 20th anniversary of Executive  Order 12898, Plan EJ 2014 is EPA’s overarching strategy for  implementing environmental justice in the agency’s programs, policies,  and activities. Plan EJ 2014 is a 4-year plan designed to help EPA  develop stronger relationships with communities and increase the  agency’s efforts to improve environmental conditions and public health in  overburdened communities. According to EPA officials, the activities  outlined in the plan are aligned with and support EPA’s commitments in  the 2011-2015 strategic plan.
Plan EJ 2014 defines three elements that are to guide EPA’s actions to  advance environmental justice across the agency and the federal  government: (1) cross-agency focus areas, (2) tools development efforts,  and (3) program initiatives. The cross-agency focus areas are meant to  address issues or functions that require work by all programs or agencies  and serve to promote environmental justice across EPA and the federal  government. The five cross-agency focus areas are    Rulemaking—providing guidance and support for all agency rule  writers and decision makers so they can better include environmental  justice concerns in rules being written throughout the agency.    Permitting—initially emphasizing EPA-issued permits that provide  opportunities for helping overburdened populations; in the future,  focusing on permits that would enable EPA to address the cumulative  impacts of pollution on these populations.    Compliance and enforcement—targeting pollution problems that tend  to affect disadvantaged communities, and providing these  communities with opportunities for input into the remedies sought in  enforcement actions.    Community-based action—engaging with overburdened communities  and providing grants and technical assistance designed to help them  address environmental problems.    Administrationwide action on environmental justice—establishing  partnerships and initiatives with other federal agencies to support  holistic approaches to addressing environmental, social, and  economic burdens of affected communities.
EPA’s four tools development efforts focus on developing the scientific,  legal, and resource areas, as well as data and information areas that  support environmental justice analysis, community work, and  communications and stakeholder engagement. For example, in March  2010, EPA held a symposium on the science of disproportionate impact  analysis. In June 2010, the agency followed with an environmental justice  analysis technical workshop. According to EPA officials, the agency is  also working to develop a computer-based screening tool, known as EJ  SCREEN, to assist with identifying the location of communities with  potential environmental justice concerns.
The program initiatives focus on specific EPA programs, mainly the national  programs. Plan EJ 2014 calls on EPA national program managers to  identify relevant programmatic items that could benefit communities with  environmental justice concerns. For example, according to EPA program  documents, the Community Engagement Initiative in EPA’s Office of Solid  Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) could benefit communities with  environmental justice concerns. This initiative focuses on identifying steps  EPA can take to encourage communities and stakeholders to participate in  developing and implementing hazardous materials policy and in evaluating  the effectiveness of the agency’s actions. The initiative also focuses on  identifying ways to institutionalize policy changes that aim to improve  community engagement and environmental justice in the long-term, day-to- day operation of OSWER program activities. In addition, according to EPA  program documents, the U.S. Mexico Border Program, managed in the  Office of International and Tribal Affairs, seeks to address environmental  justice issues along the border shared by the two countries. This program is  a cooperative effort designed to address pollutants that enter shared  waterways, affecting the health of border residents as well as degrading the  environment in both nations.
Plan EJ 2014 Implementation Plans. As guides for program and regional  offices, EPA has developed implementation plans for every cross-agency  focus area and developmental tool in Plan EJ 2014. Each implementation  plan establishes unique goals and lays out strategies designed to meet  those goals, and identifies national program offices and regional offices  accountable for meeting plan goals within specified time frames. For  example, the permitting plan outlines goals for providing disadvantaged  communities with access to the agency’s permitting process, and  ensuring that permits address environmental justice issues to the greatest  extent practicable. Its strategies call for EPA to develop the necessary  tools and recommendations to enhance communities’ abilities to  participate in permitting decisions and to enable agency staff to  incorporate environmental justice into permits. According to the plan, EPA  will decide on how to best transmit and implement the permitting tools  and recommendations by January 2012.
Plan EJ 2014 Outreach and Communications Plan. In June 2011, EPA  provided GAO a draft of its EJ 2014 Outreach and Communications Plan.  The plan reiterates EPA’s commitment to continuing many of its outreach  and communication activities, such as environmental justice listening  sessions, as the agency moves forward. The plan identifies four principal  goals for conducting outreach and communicating both with EPA staff and  external stakeholders, such as states, on Plan EJ 2014. More specifically,  the goals of the plan are to (1) inform and share the purpose, vision,  priorities, and desired or resulting outcomes for Plan EJ 2014; (2) obtain a  broad range of stakeholder views in the development, implementation, and  ongoing enhancement/revision of Plan EJ 2014; (3) communicate Plan EJ  2014’s vision, activities, results, and subsequent revisions to stakeholders,  partners, and audiences in a consistent and dynamic way; and (4) facilitate  the development of partnerships with and among EPA’s stakeholders to  achieve Plan 2014’s goals and translate them into lasting results.
section_title: Key Environmental Justice Stakeholders
paragraphs: A number of external entities have a significant role in helping EPA  integrate environmental justice into its programs, policies, and activities.  Key stakeholders include the National Environmental Justice Advisory  Council (NEJAC), the Federal Interagency Working Group on  Environmental Justice (IWG), state agencies, and community groups.    NEJAC was established by EPA charter pursuant to the Federal  Advisory Committee Act in 1993. NEJAC provides independent advice  and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on a broad array of  strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory and economic issues  related to environmental justice. The council is comprised of a wide  spectrum of stakeholders, including community-based groups,  business and industry, state and local governments, tribal  governments and indigenous organizations, and non-governmental  and environmental groups. The council holds public meetings and  teleconferences, providing a forum focusing on human health and  environmental conditions in all communities, including minority and  low-income populations.
IWG was established under Executive Order 12898 in 1994. Among  other things, the IWG provides guidance to federal agencies on  identifying disproportionately high adverse effects on minority and  low-income populations, assists in coordinating research and data  collection conducted by federal agencies, and holds quarterly public  meetings to share best practices for integrating and addressing  environmental justice as well as identifying opportunities to enhance  coordination and collaboration among federal agencies. The IWG is  comprised of 15 federal agencies and several White House offices.    EPA relies on states to help implement its programs under several  key environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act and the  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under these  laws, generally once a state demonstrates and is approved by EPA as  meeting the relevant criteria, the state accepts key day-to-day  responsibilities, such as permitting and monitoring, and in some  programs primary enforcement. As such, states are key stakeholders  in EPA’s environmental justice efforts, because the states will be  largely responsible for carrying out many of the environmental justice  activities identified by EPA. For example, under the Clean Air Act,  EPA has established national ambient air quality standards for certain  pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment.  States are responsible for developing and implementing plans, known  as State Implementation Plans, to achieve and maintain these  standards. In carrying out this duty, states set emissions limitations for  individual sources of air pollution which they incorporate into  enforceable permits. Similarly, states with hazardous waste programs  determined to be equivalent to the federal program and authorized  under RCRA are responsible for carrying out the program including  such activities as issuing and enforcing permits for the storage,  treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste. Finally, EPA also works  with states to implement various environmental grant and loan  programs, such as the Clean Water and Drinking Water State  Revolving Funds. Thus, states have the opportunity to consider  environmental justice in developing their plans and programs, as well  as in issuing permits and making grants.    EPA has worked to include community groups as important  stakeholders in the agency’s environmental justice decision making.  According to Plan EJ 2014, EPA envisions a continuous dialogue with  communities and other stakeholders regarding efforts to integrate  environmental justice into agency policies and programs. For  example, EPA’s National Enforcement Air Toxics Initiative and Office  of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, among others, reflect a focus  on issues that have been conveyed to EPA from disadvantaged  communities. Further, EPA has developed various programs and  tools, such as funding mechanisms, training, technical assistance,  and information and analytical resources, to help communities  understand and address their environmental problems.
section_title: Selected Leading Practices in Federal Strategic Planning
paragraphs: In 1993, Congress enacted GPRA to improve the efficiency and  accountability of federal programs, among other purposes, and  established a system for agencies to set goals for program performance  and to measure results. GPRA requires, among other things, that federal  agencies develop long-term strategic plans. The Office of Management  and Budget (OMB) provides guidance to federal executive branch  agencies on how to prepare their strategic plans in accordance with  GPRA requirements. Federal departments and agencies must comply  with GPRA requirements and are to follow associated OMB guidance in  developing their department or agencywide strategic plans. We have  reported that these requirements also can serve as leading practices for  strategic planning at lower levels within federal agencies, such as  planning for individual divisions, programs or initiatives. In addition, we  have reported in the past on federal agencies’ strategic planning efforts  and have identified additional useful practices to enhance agencies’  strategic plans. We have reported in the past that, taken together, the  strategic planning elements established under GPRA and associated  OMB guidance, and practices identified by GAO provide a framework of  leading practices in federal strategic planning. See table 1 for selected  leading practices in federal strategic planning.
section_title: EPA Is Using an Agencywide Approach to Integrate Environmental Justice, with Stakeholders Expected to Play a Major Role
paragraphs: EPA is implementing an agencywide approach to integrating  environmental justice efforts, with its national program and regional  offices taking primary roles. Stakeholders are also expected to play a  major role in helping EPA integrate environmental justice into its  programs and policies.
subsections: section_title: EPA Environmental Justice Efforts Primarily Rely on Its Program and Regional Offices
paragraphs: EPA’s national program and regional offices are primarily responsible for  integrating environmental justice considerations into the agency’s  policies, programs, and activities. Under Plan EJ 2014, each national  program office, along with selected regional offices, will have a key  leadership role in helping to integrate environmental justice into the five  cross-agency focus areas: rulemaking, permitting, enforcement,  community-based actions, and administrationwide actions. Among other  things, these offices will be responsible for implementing assigned Plan  EJ 2014 cross-agency elements, engaging appropriate agency offices  and regions, identifying and securing resources to ensure  implementation, and tracking and reporting on progress in these areas.  For example, EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance  (OECA), which serves as the national program manager for  environmental justice and provides general oversight of all agency  environmental justice activities, and its region 5 office––comprising states  in the upper midwest––will share responsibility for ensuring that  environmental justice concerns are incorporated into EPA’s enforcement  and compliance programs. According to Plan EJ 2014, the goal over the  next 3 years is to fully integrate environmental justice considerations into  the planning and implementation of OECA’s program strategies and its  development of remedies in enforcement actions. To achieve these goals,  OECA is engaging in a number of activities, such as considering  environmental justice in the selection of its National Enforcement  Initiatives––high priority national environmental and compliance problems  that are addressed through concentrated, nationwide enforcement  efforts––for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, issuing internal guidance that  calls for analysis and consideration of environmental justice in EPA’s  compliance and enforcement program, and increasing efforts to address  environmental justice concerns by seeking appropriate remedies in  enforcement actions to benefit over-burdened communities.
Similarly, EPA’s Offices of Air and Radiation (OAR) and General Counsel  (OGC), and EPA region 1––comprising the northeastern United States–– are designated as co-leads for carrying out the permitting implementation  plan. Some of the activities OAR and OGC are undertaking in the permits  focus area include: developing a plan to engage stakeholders throughout  the process, soliciting input from both internal and external stakeholders  about the types of tools and recommendations that have been the most  effective in advancing environmental justice, and identifying opportunities  in EPA’s ongoing permit activities to test the most viable tools and  recommendations. Figure 1 shows the EPA offices responsible for  implementing Plan EJ 2014.
In addition to the program and regional offices, several other offices in  EPA will have leadership roles in developing environmental justice tools  in the areas of law, information, science, and resources to help better  advance the agency’s environmental justice efforts. For example, EPA’s  Office of Policy and Office of Environmental Information will be co-leads  in the development of information tools—most notably, EJ SCREEN,  intended to be a nationally-consistent screening tool for environmental  justice. According to the implementation plan for information, EJ SCREEN  will not only help improve environmental justice analysis and decision- making, but will also help communities better understand how EPA  screens for potential environmental justice concerns. Some of the  activities involved in developing EJ SCREEN include creating a working  prototype of the tool, obtaining peer review and public comments on the  prototype, and incorporating the EJ SCREEN into EPA’s common  mapping software. EPA expects to make EJ SCREEN available to its  national program and regional offices within the next 3 years.
Other entities also have important roles in helping to integrate  environmental justice in the daily activities of EPA, including the agency’s  Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) and the Executive Management  Council’s Environmental Justice Committee. OEJ, which resides in  OECA, provides support for the EPA Administrator, OECA, and other  national program and regional offices on all environmental justice  activities. The Executive Management Council’s Environmental Justice  Committee, which comprises deputy assistant administrators and deputy  regional assistant administrators, also plays an important leadership role  in implementing Plan EJ 2014 by, among other things, providing a forum  for discussing critical policy issues and helping to establish workgroups or  subcommittees to address cross-agency efforts.
section_title: Stakeholders Are Expected to Play a Major Role in Integrating Environmental Justice Considerations
paragraphs: EPA expects stakeholders to play a major role in helping to integrate  environmental justice considerations into EPA’s program, policies, and  activities. As a result, EPA is renewing its commitment to work with key  environmental justice stakeholders and exploring new approaches for  obtaining stakeholder input.
EPA has renewed its efforts to work with key environmental justice  stakeholders to advance the agency’s environmental justice  considerations. For example, EPA has renewed its communications with  the IWG. In September 2010, EPA and the White House Council on  Environmental Quality reconvened the IWG for the first time in over a  decade. At this meeting, the IWG members agreed to hold monthly  meetings, assign senior officials from each agency to coordinate  environmental justice activities, organize regional listening sessions in  2011, hold follow-up IWG Principals Meetings in September 2011 and  plan a White House forum on environmental justice for environmental  justice leaders and stakeholders. In addition, each agency was tasked  with developing or updating its environmental justice strategy by  September 2011. Moving forward, EPA documents indicate that the  agency expects that the IWG will help integrate environmental justice by,  among other things, identifying opportunities for federal programs to  improve the environment and public health, create sustainable  economies, and address other environmental justice concerns for  disadvantaged communities.
According to EPA officials, EPA plans to work more closely with NEJAC  in its efforts to integrate environmental justice into the mainstream of  EPA. In her remarks in July 2009 to NEJAC, the EPA Administrator noted  that NEJAC’s advice and recommendations will be especially pertinent to  the agency as it seeks to place greater emphasis on the implementation  and integration of environmental justice considerations. NEJAC recently  issued reports with recommendations to the EPA Administrator on a  variety of matters associated with environmental justice. In 2009,  NEJAC recommended how EPA––in partnership with federal, state, tribal,  local governmental agencies, and other stakeholders––can most  effectively promote strategies to identify, mitigate, or prevent  disadvantaged communities from being disproportionately burdened by  air pollution caused by transporting goods. In 2010, NEJAC  recommended the best methods to use to communicate with communities  on the monitoring of toxic air in schools. Most recently, in May 2011,  NEJAC made recommendations on the appropriateness of the cross- agency focus areas EPA included in its Plan EJ 2014 ways that EPA can  strengthen specific actions within the five cross-agency focus areas, and  how EPA can prioritize the five cross-agency focus areas.
EPA has also renewed its efforts to work with states to help integrate  environmental justice efforts. In Plan EJ 2014, EPA observes that for the  agency to achieve its environmental justice goals, such as incorporating  environmental justice considerations into the permitting process, EPA will  have to work more closely with states and provide them with better  guidance. EPA has subsequently provided several forums to obtain state  input on Plan EJ 2014. In addition, the agency has highlighted the need  for state input in over half of the individual implementation plans  associated with Plan EJ 2014.
In an effort to ensure that stakeholders’ views play a major role in helping  to shape EPA’s environmental justice efforts, EPA has stressed and, in  some cases, begun providing for stakeholder involvement in several key  environmental justice documents, including EPA’s FY 2011-2015  Strategic Plan and Plan EJ 2014. For example, according to its strategic  plan, EPA will address the access barriers faced by historically under- represented groups to help improve the participation of these groups in  the decision making process. The plan also calls for the use of traditional  and new media to help inform and educate the public about EPA’s  activities and to provide opportunities for community feedback. The need  for stakeholder involvement is similarly expressed in EPA’s Plan EJ 2014  draft Outreach and Communications Plan. For instance, the agency’s  outreach and communications plan has a specific goal of obtaining a  broad range of stakeholder views on Plan EJ 2014. Accordingly, EPA has  developed a strategy to reach out to and look for opportunities to engage  various stakeholders, including community members, businesses, states,  local representatives, native Alaskan and Hawaiians, and tribes.  Moreover, according to its draft outreach and communications plan, EPA  expects to schedule meetings and roundtables with stakeholder groups  as well as look for opportunities to participate in national conferences and  meetings held by other organizations to give presentations, seek input,  and engage with others about Plan EJ 2014. The draft outreach and  communications plan also specifies that a community engagement and  stakeholder outreach plan is to be developed for each of the nine Plan EJ  2014 implementation plans.
EPA has recently begun employing several new approaches to enhance  stakeholder input in its environmental justice efforts, including conducting  quarterly environmental justice outreach teleconferences as well as  listening sessions on Plan EJ 2014. According to EPA documents, in July  2010, the agency began hosting quarterly environmental justice outreach  teleconferences. The teleconferences provide an opportunity for those  interested in environmental issues to call in and receive information on  EPA’s environmental justice activities. The teleconferences also allow  stakeholders an opportunity to provide input on environmental justice  efforts. According to EPA officials, as the work on Plan EJ 2014  progresses, the quarterly teleconferences will help to better inform the  public about the agency’s environmental justice activities, as well as  provide an opportunity for members of disadvantaged communities to call  in and get information on federal efforts that could benefit them, such as  grant opportunities.
In addition, in June 2011, EPA began conducting a series of listening  sessions on the draft Plan EJ 2014 Considering Environmental Justice in  Permitting implementation plan. The listening sessions are intended to  provide an opportunity for EPA to listen to stakeholders’ ideas, concerns,  and recommendations regarding EPA’s environmental justice permitting  initiative. According to EPA documents, EPA held six listening sessions in  June 2011. The listening sessions were organized by stakeholder group,  that is, there were separate listening sessions with state and local  governments; business and industry; environmental groups; tribes;  environmental justice communities and community groups; and Spanish- speaking stakeholders.
section_title: EPA Generally Followed Most of the Selected Leading Federal Strategic Planning Practices to Develop Its Environmental Justice Framework
paragraphs: In developing a framework for incorporating environmental justice  considerations into its policies, programs, and activities, EPA generally  followed or partially followed the six leading federal strategic planning  practices that we reviewed (see table 2).
EPA generally followed three leading federal strategic planning practices:  Define mission and goals. In its Plan EJ 2014, EPA established a mission  to integrate environmental justice into the agency’s programs and policies  through its cross-agency focus areas, tools development efforts, and  program initiatives. The three key goals defined in Plan EJ 2014 generally  focus on the outcome-oriented results that EPA aims to achieve in  communities. Moreover, the implementation plans associated with Plan  EJ 2014 contain goals for each of the nine cross-agency focus areas and  tools development efforts. The implementation plans generally align with  its overarching environmental justice goals. For example, in its  implementation plan for the cross-agency focus area on supporting  community-based action programs, EPA defined its goal as strengthening  community-based programs to engage overburdened communities and  building partnerships that promote healthy, sustainable, and green  communities.
Ensure leadership involvement and accountability. As previously  discussed, EPA’s senior leadership has taken a number of steps to  demonstrate its commitment to involving its leaders in advancing  environmental justice in the agency, including giving the senior  administrators of EPA program and regional offices lead responsibility for  implementing Plan EJ 2014’s cross-agency focus areas. EPA has also  developed measures to ensure accountability for achieving its  environmental justice mission. For example, EPA has required its national  program offices to incorporate environmental justice priorities in their  fiscal year 2012 National Program Manager Guidance documents. The  guidance documents are annual plans that set forth each national  program office’s priorities and key actions for the upcoming year that  support EPA’s strategic plan and annual budget. The guidance also  provides annual direction to regional offices on how to work with states on  national priorities and serves as a mechanism to hold the regional offices  accountable for specific levels of performance. For example, we reviewed  the fiscal year 2012 National Program Manager Guidance from OAR and  found that it included plans to consult with communities, develop  programs and policies that reflect environmental justice concerns, and  work with EPA regional offices to help educate and raise states’  awareness of opportunities to address environmental justice issues. In  addition, EPA officials told us that fiscal year 2011 is the first year that the  agency aligned its performance-based pay system to hold all senior  executives accountable for advancing its environmental justice goals and  mission. Specifically, EPA directed its senior executives to make  individual commitments in their fiscal year 2011 annual performance  plans for advancing the agency’s environmental justice agenda.
Coordinate with other federal agencies. As previously discussed, EPA  has made establishing partnerships with federal agencies a part of its  overarching environmental justice goals in Plan EJ 2014 and has made  fostering administrationwide action on environmental justice a cross- agency focus area in the plan. Moreover, in addition to reconvening the  IWG, EPA has a number of other interagency initiatives under way that  support its Plan EJ 2014. For example, in June 2009, EPA jointly  established the Partnership for Sustainable Communities with the  Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Transportation to  support environmental justice and equitable development by coordinating  federal actions on housing, transportation, and environmental protection.  According to information on EPA’s Web site, the three agencies worked  together to distribute nearly $2 billion in grants in 2009 to recipients that  included EPA Environmental Justice Showcase Communities to support  vital transportation infrastructure, equitable comprehensive planning, and  brownfields cleanup and reuse.
subsections: section_title: EPA Partially Followed Three Leading Practices in Federal Strategic Planning
paragraphs: As of June 2011, EPA partially followed three of the leading practices in  federal strategic planning that we reviewed. Without additional progress  on these practices, EPA cannot assure itself, its stakeholders, and the  public that it has established a framework to effectively guide and assess  efforts to accomplish its environmental justice goals. Specifically, EPA  has not yet fully:    established a clear strategy for how it will define key environmental  justice terms or identified the resources it may need to carry out its  environmental justice implementation plans;    articulated clearly states’ roles in ongoing planning and environmental  justice integration efforts; and    developed performance measures for eight of its nine implementation  plans to track agency progress on its environmental justice goals.
EPA has taken actions to address many of the management challenges  regarding the agency’s efforts to integrate environmental justice into its  programs and policies. However, the agency has not yet developed a  strategy for how it will address one principal, long-standing challenge: the  agency’s lack of standard and consistent definitions for key environmental  justice terms. In addition, EPA has yet to identify the budgetary and  human resources that may be needed to implement is agencywide  environmental justice plans. We have reported in the past that a primary  purpose of federal strategic planning is to improve the management of  federal agencies. In doing so, it is particularly important for agencies to  develop strategies that address management challenges threatening their  ability to meet long-term strategic goals. In addition, strategies should  include a description of the resources needed to meet established  goals.
Management challenges. EPA officials told us that they have taken a  number of actions to address the management challenges identified by  the EPA IG. For example, to address the EPA IG’s finding that the  agency lacked a clear mission for its Office of Environmental Justice, EPA  has clarified and communicated the office’s role through agency guidance  and memoranda. Additionally, EPA has addressed what the EPA IG  considered a lack of a clear vision for integrating environmental justice by  outlining the agency’s approach to environmental justice in its  agencywide fiscal year 2011-2015 strategic plan under its cross-cutting  strategy for environmental justice and children’s health. Further, EPA  has addressed the lack of a comprehensive strategic plan to help guide  its agencywide efforts to integrate environmental justice by establishing  its Plan EJ 2014 and associated implementation plans. However, EPA  has yet to establish a strategy for how it will provide standard and  consistent definitions for key environmental justice terms, such as  “minority” and “low-income communities,” as called for by the EPA IG in  2004. In its 2004 report, the EPA IG found that, because the agency  lacked definitions for these key terms from Executive Order 12898, its  regional offices had used different approaches to identify potential areas  of environmental justice concern. The EPA IG concluded that EPA had  inconsistently implemented Executive Order 12898 and recommended  that EPA provide its regions and program offices a standard and  consistent definition for these terms, with instructions, through guidance  or policy, on how the agency will implement and operationalize  environmental justice into its daily activities. More recently, the EPA IG  found that a lack of clear definitions continues to present a challenge to  the agency. Specifically, in April 2011, the EPA IG reported that EPA  could not execute efforts to track how it has distributed funds from the  American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to low-income and minority  communities because the agency did not have definitions for these  particular communities.
EPA officials we interviewed told us that they have not developed  agencywide definitions for key environmental justice terms, such as low- income and minority, because doing so could affect the agency’s ability to  accurately identify communities with potential environmental justice  concerns. For example, the EPA officials stated that strict definitions for  such terms would reduce their flexibility in considering other factors,  which may be necessary to more accurately identify a community with  environmental justice concerns. In addition, the EPA officials informed us  that there are some communities across the country that may not meet a  single definition for low-income or minority, but may nevertheless have  environmental justice concerns. According to the EPA officials, these  communities do not want EPA to establish any strict definitions for  environmental justice terms for fear that as a result they might be  excluded from EPA’s decision-making process.
EPA officials informed us that they are beginning to define some  environmental justice terms with respect to the agency’s EJ SCREEN tool.  However, these definitions will have limited use. More specifically, EPA  officials told us that the EJ SCREEN tool will include definitions for “low- income” and “minority,” but these definitions are not intended to establish a  standard for all of EPA’s programs, policies, and activities. Rather, the  officials told us that the agency intends EJ SCREEN to have a limited role  across the agency and will be used only for baseline environmental justice  screening. Without a clear strategy for how the agency will define key  environmental justice terms, EPA may not be able to overcome the  challenges it has faced in establishing a consistent and transparent  approach for identifying potential communities with environmental justice  concerns. Moreover, without establishing consistent definitions, the agency  may not be able to demonstrate that its environmental justice efforts are  addressing minority and low-income populations that are experiencing  disproportionate environmental health impacts.
Resource Needs. EPA has also yet to identify the budgetary and human  resources that may be needed to implement its agencywide  environmental justice plans. Specifically, none of the nine Plan EJ 2014  implementation plans described the resources that are needed to carry  out the strategies and activities detailed in the plans. According to EPA’s  plans, the agency intends to undertake changes in operations that will  impact the workload as well as roles and responsibilities of staff across  the agency. These changes will include, among other things, additional  processes for engaging communities during rulemaking development and  additional analyses for conducting economic and risk assessments. This  may involve allocating staff and funds differently to address skill gaps and  workload changes. As we have reported in the past, effective strategies  should describe the resources needed to accomplish established goals.
EPA officials told us that their most recent review of environmental  justice-related resources was completed in fiscal year 2009 in preparation  for the proposed fiscal year 2010 President’s budget. The review, which  focused on the staffing resources allocated to the Office of Environmental  Justice and to the regional offices, determined that each regional office  needed additional full-time equivalents (FTE) for staff positions to  promote the integration of environmental justice within regional work. EPA  officials told us that as a result of the review, the agency increased the  total agency staffing allocation of the Office of Environmental Justice from  21 to 33 FTEs. Nonetheless, EPA completed the review before it had  developed its draft Plan EJ 2014 and did not consider the staffing needs  for incorporating environmental justice in decision making across all EPA  program and regional offices.
Senior EPA officials told us that they did not believe that identifying the  resources associated with the activities detailed in the Plan EJ 2014  implementation plans was practical or necessary because they expect all  EPA staff to work on environmental justice. Moreover, they said that they  believe the new environmental justice efforts described in the  implementation plans would only result in a negligible increase in  resource needs because enhancing current program activities with  environmental justice consideration or criteria should result in the same  people doing many of the same things. For example, officials stated that  they anticipate that including environmental justice considerations in  economic and risk analyses conducted in support of regulatory decisions  would involve adding several variables to otherwise resource intensive  studies and thus would not substantially alter the resources required to  complete these analyses. Officials also stated that they believe a  resource assessment would itself be resource-intensive and thus would  only take resources away from more important program needs without a  clear benefit to managers.
Without a clear understanding of the resources needed to integrate  environmental justice considerations throughout the agency under its  current plans, EPA cannot ensure that its current staffing and funding  resources are sufficient to meet its environmental justice goals.  Furthermore, EPA cannot ensure that it has the information needed to  successfully adapt to changes in workload as a result of new  environmental justice initiatives or areas of focus as well as potential  changes in funding levels for the agency. EPA’s IG has recently identified  EPA’s policies and procedures for determining workforce levels as an  area of significant internal control weakness. Specifically, in December  2010, the EPA IG reported that EPA cannot demonstrate that it has the  sufficient resources to accomplish its mission and cannot provide any  assurance that its workforce levels are adequate to meet the workload of  the agency.
As mentioned earlier, EPA has taken a number of steps to involve some  key stakeholders in helping the agency define its environmental justice  mission, goals, and strategies. However, the role that states will have in  ongoing environmental justice planning and implementation efforts is  unclear. EPA relies heavily on many states for activities that generally  include issuing permits and monitoring and enforcing compliance with  federal environmental laws; therefore, states will play a significant role in  implementing potential new approaches for addressing environmental  justice. We have reported in the past that organizations that are  successful in strategic planning understand that stakeholders will play a  key role in determining whether their programs succeed or fail. Thus,  involving stakeholders in strategic planning helps ensure that their  mission, goals, and strategies are targeted at the highest priorities.
EPA has involved some key stakeholders to help define its environmental  justice mission, goals, and strategies. For example, in July 2010, EPA  requested that NEJAC provide the agency with recommendations and  advice to help the agency identify and prioritize the cross-agency focus  areas in its Plan EJ 2014 and to help develop its strategy for the focus  area on considering environmental justice in permitting. EPA also  obtained recommendations from academic researchers and  environmental justice organizations during a symposium held in March  2010, which formed the basis for the goals and strategies identified in its  Plan EJ 2014 Science Tools Development implementation plan.
EPA officials assert that the agency has similarly involved states early on in  the initial stages of Plan EJ 2014 and its associated implementation plans  and that these planning documents reflect states’ input and concerns,  particularly with respect to the cross-agency focus area on permitting.  However, based on our review of these documents and interviews with  EPA and state association officials, it is unclear how states will specifically  be involved in the agency’s ongoing environmental justice planning efforts  as well as its implementation of these plans. Five Plan EJ 2014  implementation plans identify states as key stakeholders, but provide  limited detail on how states will be involved in ongoing planning regarding  these efforts and in the actual implementation of the plans. For example,  while the implementation plan for the cross-agency focus area on  permitting generally indicates that state input will be obtained, the plan  does not specify how states will be integrally involved in the planning for  this focus area or the level of involvement expected from states in helping  to implement the plan. Without articulating clearly in its plans how states  will be involved in ongoing environmental justice planning efforts and what  part states will play in helping EPA implement these plans, EPA cannot  ensure that states are meaningfully involved in the ongoing planning and  implementation of EPA’s environmental justice integration efforts.
EPA officials told us that they recognized that the implementation plans did  not provide much detail on how states will be involved. However, they said  that the agency planned to work more closely with states to obtain their  views in finalizing the implementation plans. Towards this end, EPA took  some additional steps to obtain states views after the release of its draft  implementation plans. For example, EPA held a teleconference listening  session with officials from state and local governments in June 2011 to  solicit states’ feedback on the topic of considering environmental justice in  permitting.
Notwithstanding these efforts, without more directly involving states in  ongoing environmental justice planning and clearly articulating their role  and responsibilities in implementing environmental justice plans, EPA’s  efforts to integrate environmental justice may be hampered, given the  significant role that states have in administering some federal  environmental programs. GAO and EPA’s IG have reported in the past on  the challenges EPA has faced in achieving effective oversight of states  across a range of its delegated programs. Most recently, the IG  identified EPA’s oversight of its delegation to states as a key  management challenge in fiscal year 2010. The IG noted that although  EPA has taken a number of steps in recent years to improve its oversight  of states, there remain a number of factors and practices that reduce the  effectiveness of the agency’s oversight, including differences between  state and federal policies, interpretations, and priorities.
EPA has developed performance measures for one of its nine Plan EJ  2014 implementation plans to track progress on its environmental justice  goals: its Resources Tools Development implementation plan. However,  for the eight remaining implementation plans, EPA has proposed using  deliverables and milestones to track its progress. For example, in its  implementation plan for incorporating environmental justice into  rulemaking, EPA committed to completing final technical guidance on  considering environmental justice during the rulemaking process by fiscal  year 2013. EPA has not, however, developed clearly defined, quantifiable  performance measures for assessing the extent that each of its programs  are incorporating the guidance in their rulemaking activities, the cost of its  implementation, and its impact on EPA decisions. Deliverables and  milestones can be important indicators of progress but are not adequate  substitutes for performance measures. We have reported in the past that  performance measures are a key element of effective strategic  planning. They provide organizations with the ability to track the  e  progress they are making toward their mission and goals, and providmanagers with information on which to base their organizational and management decisions, including how effectively program and regiona offices are integrating environmental justice in their decisions. l  Performance measures also create powerful incentives to influence organizational and individual behavior. Individual performance measures cess),  may address the type or level of program activities conducted (pro the direct products and services delivered by a program (outputs), or the  results of those products and services (outcomes).
We have also reported on the attributes most often associated with  successful performance measures. More specifically, we reported that  successful performance measures typically consist of nine attributes,  which are summarized in table 3. Further, we have reported that  developing performance measures requires coordinated planning.
Agencies that are successful in measuring performance take a systematic  approach to identifying and refining potential measures, such as (1)  developing models that describe how a program’s activities produce  outputs, such as the number of grants awarded, and how these outputs  are connected to intermediate and end outcomes, or results, and (2)  using rigorous criteria to select the most important performance  measures.
The EPA officials we interviewed told us that the agency plans to develop  performance measures linked to its Plan EJ 2014 goals, but it has not  done so primarily because developing these measures is challenging and  resource-intensive. We acknowledge that developing performance  measures requires considerable thought and, in some cases, can be  resource intensive. However, without performance measures that align  with EPA’s Plan EJ 2014 goals, the agency will lack the information it  needs to assess how effectively the agency is performing relative to its  environmental justice goals and the effect of its overall environmental  justice efforts on intended communities.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: EPA’s renewed commitment to environmental justice has led to a number  of actions, including revitalizing stakeholders’ involvement and developing  agencywide implementation plans. In carrying out these efforts, the  agency has generally followed most of the leading practices we reviewed  in federal strategic planning. However, without additional progress on  these practices, EPA cannot assure itself, its stakeholders, and the public  that it has established a framework to effectively guide and assess its  efforts to integrate environmental justice into the fabric of the agency. In  particular, EPA has not yet established a strategy for how it will address  the management challenges of defining key environmental justice terms  or identifying the resources needed to accomplish its environmental  justice integration goals. Without a clear strategy for how the agency will  define key environmental justice terms, EPA may not be able to  overcome the long-standing challenge of establishing a consistent and  transparent approach for identifying potential communities with  environmental justice concerns. In addition, without a clear understanding  of the resources needed to integrate environmental justice considerations  throughout the agency, EPA cannot ensure that its current staffing and  funding resources are sufficient to meet its environmental justice goals.  Moreover, without this information, EPA may find itself unable to  successfully adapt to future changes in workload, which are expected as  a result of a greater emphasis on environmental justice, or potential  changes in future funding levels. EPA has also not articulated in its  implementation plans how states will be meaningfully involved in the  ongoing planning and subsequent implementation of its environmental  justice integration efforts. Without articulating clearly in its plans the roles  and responsibilities of states, EPA cannot ensure that states are  meaningfully involved in the planning and implementation of its  environmental justice integration efforts, including efforts involving permits  and enforcement and compliance. Finally, EPA does not have  performance measures for eight of its Plan EJ 2014 implementation  plans. Without performance measures that align with EPA’s Plan EJ 2014  goals, the agency will lack the information it needs for EPA managers to  effectively assess how the agency is performing relative to its  environmental justice goals and the effect of its overall environmental  justice efforts on intended communities.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that EPA continues to make progress toward the effective  integration of environmental justice considerations into the agency’s  programs, policies, and activities, we recommend that the Administrator  of EPA direct the appropriate offices to take the following four actions:    Develop a clear strategy to define key environmental justice terms in  order to help the agency establish a consistent and transparent  approach for identifying potential communities with environmental  justice concerns.    Conduct an assessment of the resources needed under its current  plans to integrate environmental justice considerations throughout the  agency to help ensure that EPA’s staffing and funding resources are  sufficient to meet current environmental justice goals and future  changes in workload, such as provision of training to support use of  key tools and guidance and potential changes in funding levels.    Articulate clearly in its plans the roles and responsibilities of states  and continue recently initiated outreach efforts to help ensure that  states are meaningfully involved in ongoing environmental justice  planning and the subsequent implementation of Plan EJ 2014.     Develop performance measures for Plan EJ 2014 to provide EPA  managers with the information necessary to assess how effectively  the agency is performing relative to its environmental justice goals  and the effect of its overall environmental justice efforts on intended  communities.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft copy of this report to EPA for review and comment.  We received a written response from the Assistant Administrator for the  Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance on behalf of several  EPA programs that work with EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice. EPA  disagreed with two recommendations, partially agreed with one  recommendation, and did not directly address one other recommendation  in the report. Overall, EPA agreed that additional work is needed to  ensure successful and effective implementation of Plan EJ 2014, the  agency’s environmental justice strategy. EPA noted that our report  provides a good overview of EPA’s progress and challenges in recent  years in the agency’s environmental justice efforts and that our  recommendations are particularly insightful and helpful as the agency  begins to implement Plan EJ 2014.
In its comments, EPA disagreed with our recommendation to develop a  strategy for defining key environmental justice terms in order to provide  greater consistency in how environmental justice communities are  identified. Instead, EPA believes that it can better identify communities  overburdened by pollution, including those that are minority and low- income, by developing a nationally consistent environmental justice  screening tool. EPA noted that the tool will allow the agency to meet its  responsibility for protecting public health and the environment in a  manner consistent with Executive Order 12898 and the agency’s goals  under Plan EJ 2014.
We acknowledge EPA’s efforts to develop a nationally consistent  environmental justice screening tool (EJ SCREEN). However, in the  course of our review, the EPA officials responsible for developing EJ  SCREEN repeatedly cautioned us that this tool would have very limited  capabilities and would need to be supplemented with additional  information in order to adequately identify such communities. While  agency officials informed us that EJ SCREEN will ultimately contain some  definitions for environmental justice terms, these definitions will be limited  to the screening tool’s use and would not have agencywide application.
Absent definitions of key environmental justice terms that have agency- wide application, integration efforts are likely to be inconsistent across  EPA’s program and regional offices. As noted earlier, the EPA Inspector  General identified such inconsistencies in 2004 and noted that such  differences among EPA regional offices in identifying environmental  justice communities were largely due to the lack of standard definitions for  basic environmental justice terms, such as minority and low-income. We  believe that defining key environmental justice terms establishes a  foundation on which EPA could more consistently identify minority or low- income communities disproportionately impacted by environmental or  health hazards. Without this foundation, EPA environmental justice efforts  will heavily rely on the interpretations of individual managers rather than a  consistent agencywide approach.
EPA also disagreed with our recommendation to conduct a resource  assessment for the activities associated with Plan EJ 2014. EPA noted  that environmental justice is the responsibility of every program office and  region. EPA stated that it will proactively monitor the agency’s progress in  meeting the milestones and delivering the products identified in each of  the Plan EJ 2014 implementation plans and will modify the  implementation plans, as necessary, to reflect the need for training and  other implementation support activities.
While monitoring the agency’s progress in meeting Plan EJ 2014 goals is  important, accounting for the resources committed to Plan EJ 2014 is  essential for effective program management. Leading practices suggest  that properly accounting for program resources, including funding and  staffing, enables managers to better manage existing resources and plan  for future programmatic needs. Such an assessment is particularly  important in times when resources are constrained or are in danger of  being either reduced or eliminated. Additionally, as we mentioned in our  report, the EPA IG in December 2010 found that EPA did not have the  internal controls necessary to properly determine that the agency has the  right number of resources to accomplish its mission. Consequently,  without a clear understanding of the resources needed, the agency’s  ability to achieve its environmental justice integration goals might be  compromised.
EPA partially agreed with our recommendation to continue its outreach  efforts to states, but did not address a portion of the recommendation that  called for EPA to more clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities of  states in their Plan EJ 2014 implementation plans. EPA stated that the  agency believes outreach to states and their meaningful involvement is  important and expects these kinds of efforts to increase as the  implementation of Plan EJ 2014 progresses. EPA specifically noted that  outreach to states is established in its draft Plan EJ 2014 Outreach and  Communications plan and is articulated in each implementation plan, as  appropriate. EPA further noted that the involvement of states will vary by  the nature of the work outlined in each implementation plan.
We acknowledge that EPA has made progress in engaging states in Plan  EJ 2014 and its associated implementation plans. Furthermore, we  encourage EPA to continue its outreach efforts to help ensure that states  are meaningfully involved in the agency’s environmental justice  integration efforts. While EPA’s draft Plan EJ 2014 Outreach and  Communications plan does provide for state involvement, the associated  implementation plans do not contain sufficient detail on how states will be  involved in EPA’s environmental justice planning efforts or their  subsequent implementation. Because states play an integral part in the  implementation of environmental justice, particularly as it relates to  permitting, it is also important that states have a clear understanding of  their respective roles and responsibilities. As an acknowledged roadmap  for the agency’s environmental justice efforts, Plan EJ 2014 and its  related documents should clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities  of all key stakeholders.
Finally, EPA did not directly address our recommendation that the agency  develop performance measures; rather, EPA said that it agreed that as  the agency moves forward with implementing Plan EJ 2014, it should use  and strengthen performance measures and develop other ways to ensure  timely and effective implementation of the plan. EPA noted that it is  currently relying on milestones and deliverables to monitor progress in the  implementation of Plan EJ 2014.
While project milestones and deliverables can provide valuable  information on the progress of Plan EJ 2014 implementation, these  measures do not adequately replace performance measures. As we  reported, only 1 of the 9 Plan EJ 2014 implementation plans contained  performance measures. Consequently, while EPA managers may be able  to determine if Plan EJ 2014 is on track for meeting the plan’s milestones  and deliverables, they cannot determine whether the plan is ultimately  achieving meaningful results, which performance measures would help  the agency to discern. For this reason, EPA needs to develop  performance measures for each of the implementation plans and  incorporate these measures, as appropriate.
In its comment letter, EPA notified us that Plan EJ 2014 and its  implementation plans would be finalized in September 2011. As noted,  our analysis for this report was based on draft versions of EPA’s planning  documents because they had not yet been finalized at the time we sent  our draft to EPA for review and comment. EPA released the plans publicly  on September 14, as we were preparing to issue our report.  Nevertheless, we did review the final plans and confirmed that they were  not substantively different from the draft versions on which we based our  conclusions and recommendations.
EPA’s comments are presented in appendix II of this report. EPA also  provided technical comments on the draft report, which we incorporated  as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, Administrator of EPA, and other interested  parties. The report also will be available at no charge on the GAO website  at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or yocomc@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To examine how EPA is implementing its environmental justice efforts, we  analyzed key EPA documents to identify offices with environmental  justice responsibilities. Based on these documents, we interviewed senior  officials from EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and Office of  Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to understand the roles and  responsibilities of key offices, staff positions, and councils for  implementing environmental justice efforts and to understand changes  that EPA has undertaken in the organizational structure of environmental  justice functions under the current Administration.
To evaluate the extent to which EPA is following leading strategic  planning practices in establishing a framework for integrating  environmental justice in its programs, policies, and activities, we identified  seven leading practices in federal strategic planning by reviewing (1)  practices required at the federal department/agency level under the  Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, which we  have previously reported also can serve as leading practices for planning  at lower levels within federal agencies such as individual programs or  initiatives; (2) practices identified in Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) guidance to federal agencies for implementing GPRA’s  requirements; and (3) related leading practices that GAO’s past work  has identified. We selected the six leading practices because EPA’s  environmental justice efforts are in the initial planning stage and we  judged these practices to be the most relevant to evaluating EPA’s  environmental justice strategic planning actions. We determined that  other practices we have reported on in the past overlapped, to some  degree, with the six selected practices. We also did not consider all of  the elements that GPRA and OMB guidance requires an agency include  in its agencywide strategic plan because our focus was on EPA’s  planning process and not on the structure of its planning documents. We  also reviewed recommendations made by EPA’s Office of Inspector  General (IG) in 2004 regarding EPA’s management of its environmental  justice efforts. We compared the planning activities associated with EPA’s  environmental justice framework, i.e., EPA’s Fiscal Year 2011-2015  Strategic Plan, Plan EJ 2014, and the nine Plan EJ 2014 implementation  plans, to the six leading practices, as shown in table 4. We reviewed  EPA’s draft Plan EJ 2014 Outreach and Communications Plan, but did  not assess it as part of the leading practices analysis because this plan  was still in the early stages of development.
Our analysis for this report was based primarily on draft versions of EPA’s  Plan EJ 2014 and its implementation plans because these documents  were not finalized until mid-September 2011, as we were preparing to  issue our report. Nevertheless, we did review the final plans and  confirmed that they were not substantively different from the draft  versions on which we based our conclusions and recommendations.
We also interviewed senior EPA officials from key offices involved with  integrating environmental justice in the agency, including EPA’s Office of  Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Environmental  Justice, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Water, Office of Solid Waste  and Emergency Response, Office of Policy, and Office of Chief Financial  Officer to clarify the nature and intent of the agency’s activities. We also  spoke with EPA officials about the extent they have incorporated past  EPA IG recommendations in their current environmental justice efforts.  Finally, we interviewed external stakeholders about their involvement in  EPA’s environmental justice planning efforts. Specifically, we interviewed  select members of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council  (NEJAC) and representatives from the Environmental Council of States,  National Association of Clean Air Agencies, and the Association of State  and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. We also discussed  EPA’s actions to address the EPA IG’s 2004 recommendations with  officials from the Office of Inspector General to obtain their views on  EPA’s current actions. In addition to agency interviews, we participated in  several EPA outreach teleconferences, as well as attended NEJAC public  meetings held in July and November 2010.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2010 through September  2011, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Vincent P. Price, Assistant  Director; Elizabeth Beardsley; Elizabeth Curda; Pamela Davidson; Brian  M. Friedman; John Johnson; Benjamin T. Licht; Alison O’Neill; Kiki  Theodoropoulos; Jarrod West; and Eugene Wisnoski made key  contributions to this report.