Environmental Justice
EPA Needs to Take Additional Actions to Help Ensure Effective Implementation Gao ID: GAO-12-77 October 6, 2011The 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.
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. 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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Carolyn L. Yocom Team: Government Accountability Office: Natural Resources and Environment Phone: (202) 512-4931GAO-12-77, Environmental Justice: EPA Needs to Take Additional Actions to Help Ensure Effective Implementation
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-27
entitled 'Environmental Justice: EPA Needs to Take Additional Actions
to Help Ensure Effective Implementation' which was released on
November 7, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of
Representatives:
October 2011:
Environmental Justice:
EPA Needs to Take Additional Actions to Help Ensure Effective
Implementation:
GAO-12-77:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-12-77, a report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
Table: Extent to Which EPA‘s Environmental Justice Efforts Followed
Selected Leading Practices in Federal Strategic Planning:
Selected leading practices in strategic planning: Define mission and
goals;
Extent followed: Fully.
Selected leading practices in strategic planning: Define strategies to
address management challenges and resource needs;
Extent followed: Partially.
Selected leading practices in strategic planning: Ensure leadership
involvement and accountability;
Extent followed: Fully.
Selected leading practices in strategic planning: Involve stakeholders;
Extent followed: Partially.
Selected leading practices in strategic planning: Coordinate with
other agencies;
Extent followed: Fully.
Selected leading practices in strategic planning: Develop and use
performance measures;
Extent followed: Partially.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of table]
What GAO Recommends:
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.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-77] or key
components. For more information, contact Carolyn Yocom at (202) 512-
3841, or yocomc@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
EPA Is Using an Agencywide Approach to Integrate Environmental
Justice, with Stakeholders Expected to Play a Major Role:
EPA Generally Followed Most of the Selected Leading Federal Strategic
Planning Practices to Develop Its Environmental Justice Framework:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Selected Leading Practices in Federal Strategic Planning:
Table 2: Extent to Which EPA's Efforts to Integrate Environmental
Justice Followed Selected Leading Practices in Federal Strategic
Planning:
Table 3: Key Attributes of Successful Performance Measures:
Table 4: Selected Leading Practices in Federal Strategic Planning:
Figure:
Figure 1: Leadership Responsibilities for Implementing Plan EJ 2014:
Abbreviations:
CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality:
EJ: environmental justice:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
FTE: full-time equivalent:
GAO: Government Accountability Office:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:
IG: Inspector General:
IWG: Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice:
NEJAC: National Environmental Justice Advisory Council:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act:
OAR: Office of Air and Radiation:
OECA: Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:
OEJ: Office of Environmental Justice:
OGC: Office of General Counsel:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OSWER: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 6, 2011:
The Honorable Donna F. Edwards:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight:
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:
House of Representatives:
Dear Ms. Edwards:
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,[Footnote 1] 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,[Footnote 2] EPA's
Inspector General (IG) made a number of recommendations to improve
EPA's environmental justice efforts. In addition, in 2005,[Footnote 3]
we recommended that EPA take steps to incorporate environmental
justice into its rulemaking processes for clean air regulations and,
in 2007,[Footnote 4] 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.[Footnote 5] 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),[Footnote 6] 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;[Footnote 7] (2) practices identified in Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance to federal agencies for
implementing GPRA's requirements;[Footnote 8] and (3) related leading
practices that GAO's past work has identified.[Footnote 9]
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.
Background:
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.
Executive Order 12898:
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.[Footnote 10] 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 proposed actions.
EPA's Framework for Integrating Environmental Justice:
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.[Footnote 11] 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.[Footnote 12] 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.
Key Environmental Justice Stakeholders:
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.[Footnote 13]
* 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).[Footnote 14],[Footnote 15] 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.
Selected Leading Practices in Federal Strategic Planning:
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.
Table 1: Selected Leading Practices in Federal Strategic Planning:
Selected leading practice: Define the mission and goals;
Characteristics: A mission statement explains why the agency--or a
specific program--exists, what it does, and how it does it. Strategic
goals explain the purpose of agency programs and the results--
including outcomes--that they intend to achieve.
Selected leading practice: Define strategies that address management
challenges and identify resources needed to achieve goals;
Characteristics: Strategies should address management challenges that
threaten an agency's ability to meet its long-term strategic goals.
Strategies should include a description of the resources needed to
meet established goals.
Selected leading practice: Ensure leadership involvement and
accountability;
Characteristics: Only an agency's senior leadership can ensure that
strategic planning becomes the basis for day-to-day operations.
Successful organizations use formal and informal practices to hold
managers accountable and create incentives for working to achieve the
agency's goals.
Selected leading practice: Involve stakeholders;
Characteristics: Successful organizations involve stakeholders in
developing their mission, goals, and strategies to help ensure that
they target the highest priorities. Stakeholders can influence success
or failure of agencies' programs. Stakeholders include: Congress and
the administration; state and local governments; agency staff; agency
customers, interest groups, and the public.
Selected leading practice: Coordinate with other federal agencies;
Characteristics: Agencies can coordinate in defining their mission,
goals, and strategies to ensure that programs contributing to similar
results are mutually reinforcing and efficiently employing federal
funds.
Selected leading practice: Develop and use performance measures;
Characteristics: Performance measures allow an agency to track the
progress it is making toward its mission and goals, provide managers
information on which to base their organizational and management
decisions, and create powerful incentives to influence organizational
and individual behavior.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: We selected the six practices from among GPRA, OMB guidance, and
GAO prior work because EPA's environmental justice efforts are in the
initial planning stage and we judged these practices to be the most
relevant for evaluating EPA's environmental justice strategic planning
actions. We did not consider all practices from among these sources
because our focus was specifically on EPA's initial planning process.
[End of table]
EPA Is Using an Agencywide Approach to Integrate Environmental
Justice, with Stakeholders Expected to Play a Major Role:
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.
EPA Environmental Justice Efforts Primarily Rely on Its Program and
Regional Offices:
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.
Figure 1: Leadership Responsibilities for Implementing Plan EJ 2014:
[Refer to PDF for image: organizational chart]
Top level:
EPA Administrator:
* Office of Policy: Co-lead for information tools development (EJ
SCREEN);
* Deputy Administrator;
* Office of Chief Financial Officer: Strategic plan cross-cutting
strategies.
Second level, reporting to Deputy Administrator:
* Office of International and Tribal Affairs: Support for permitting.
* Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Regions 2, 3, and
4: Co-leads for Community engagement.
* Office of Air and Radiation, Office of General Counsel, and Region
1: Co-leads for permitting.
* Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Office of
Policy, Office of Research and Development, Office of Environmental
Justice, and Region 9: Co-leads for rulemaking.
* Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Region 5: Co-
leads for enforcement:
- Office of Environmental Justice: Co-leads for Plan EJ 2014 support
and coordination.
* Office of Water and Region 6: Co-leads for administration-wide
action.
Third level, reporting to Deputy Administrator:
* Office of General Counsel: Lead for legal tools development.
* Office of Environmental Information: Co-lead for information tools
development (EJ SCREEN).
* Office of Research and Development: Lead for science tools
development.
* Office of Administration and Resources Management: Lead for resource
tools development.
Source: GAO analysis of information from EPA.
[End of figure]
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.
Stakeholders Are Expected to Play a Major Role in Integrating
Environmental Justice Considerations:
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 Is Renewing Its Commitment to Work with Key Stakeholders:
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,[Footnote 16] 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,[Footnote 17] NEJAC recommended the best
methods to use to communicate with communities on the monitoring of
toxic air in schools. Most recently, in May 2011,[Footnote 18] 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 Is Employing New Approaches to Obtain Stakeholder Input:
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.
EPA Generally Followed Most of the Selected Leading Federal Strategic
Planning Practices to Develop Its Environmental Justice Framework:
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).
Table 2: Extent to Which EPA's Efforts to Integrate Environmental
Justice Followed Selected Leading Practices in Federal Strategic
Planning:
Selected leading practices in federal strategic planning: Define the
mission and goals;
Extent followed: Fully.
Selected leading practices in federal strategic planning: Define
strategies that address management challenges and identify resources
needed to achieve goals;
Extent followed: Partially.
Selected leading practices in federal strategic planning: Ensure
leadership involvement and accountability;
Extent followed: Fully.
Selected leading practices in federal strategic planning: Involve
stakeholders;
Extent followed: Partially.
Selected leading practices in federal strategic planning: Coordinate
with other agencies;
Extent followed: Fully.
Selected leading practices in federal strategic planning: Develop and
use performance measures;
Extent followed: Partially.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of table]
EPA Generally Followed Three Leading Federal Strategic Planning
Practices:
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.[Footnote 19] 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.[Footnote 20]
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.
[Footnote 21]
EPA Partially Followed Three Leading Practices in Federal Strategic
Planning:
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.
Defined strategies that address management challenges and identify
resources needed to achieve 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.[Footnote 22] In addition, strategies should include a
description of the resources needed to meet established goals.
[Footnote 23]
Management challenges. EPA officials told us that they have taken a
number of actions to address the management challenges identified by
the EPA IG.[Footnote 24] 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.[Footnote 25] 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.[Footnote 26] 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.[Footnote 27] 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.[Footnote 28]
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.[Footnote 29] 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.[Footnote 30] 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.
Involve Stakeholders:
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.[Footnote 31]
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.[Footnote
32] Most recently, the IG identified EPA's oversight of its delegation
to states as a key management challenge in fiscal year 2010.[Footnote
33] 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.
Develop Performance Measures:
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.[Footnote
34] They provide organizations with the ability to track the progress
they are making toward their mission and goals, and provide managers
with information on which to base their organizational and management
decisions, including how effectively program and regional offices are
integrating environmental justice in their decisions. Performance
measures also create powerful incentives to influence organizational
and individual behavior. Individual performance measures may address
the type or level of program activities conducted (process), 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.[Footnote 35] 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.[Footnote 36]
Table 3: Key Attributes of Successful Performance Measures:
Attributes: Linkage;
Definitions: Measure is aligned with division and agencywide goals and
mission and clearly communicated throughout the organization;
Potentially adverse consequences of not meeting attribute: Behaviors
and incentives created by measures may not support achieving division
or agencywide goals or mission.
Attributes: Clarity;
Definitions: Measure is clearly stated and the name and definition are
consistent with the methodology used to calculate it;
Potentially adverse consequences of not meeting attribute: Data may
confuse or mislead users.
Attributes: Measurable target;
Definitions: Measure has a numerical goal;
Potentially adverse consequences of not meeting attribute: Managers
may not be able to determine whether performance is meeting
expectations.
Attributes: Objectivity;
Definitions: Measure is reasonably free from significant bias or
manipulation;
Potentially adverse consequences of not meeting attribute: Performance
assessments may be systematically over-or understated.
Attributes: Reliability;
Definitions: Measure produces the same result under similar conditions;
Potentially adverse consequences of not meeting attribute: Reported
performance data may be inconsistent and add uncertainty.
Attributes: Core program activities;
Definitions: Measures cover the activities that an entity is expected
to perform to support the intent of the program;
Potentially adverse consequences of not meeting attribute: Information
available to managers and stakeholders in core program areas may be
insufficient.
Attributes: Limited overlap;
Definitions: Measure provides new information beyond that provided by
other measures;
Potentially adverse consequences of not meeting attribute: Manager may
have to sort through redundant, costly information that does not add
value.
Attributes: Balance;
Definitions: Taken together, measures ensure that an organization's
various priorities are covered;
Potentially adverse consequences of not meeting attribute: Measures
may over emphasize some goals and skew incentives.
Attributes: Governmentwide priorities;
Definitions: Each measure should cover a priority such as quality,
timeliness, and cost of service;
Potentially adverse consequences of not meeting attribute: A program's
overall success is at risk if all priorities are not addressed.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
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.
Conclusions:
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
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.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
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 [hyperlink, 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.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Carolyn L. Yocom:
Director:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
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,
[Footnote 37] 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;[Footnote 38] (2) practices
identified in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance to
federal agencies for implementing GPRA's requirements;[Footnote 39]
and (3) related leading practices that GAO's past work has identified.
[Footnote 40] 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.[Footnote 41] We
determined that other practices we have reported on in the past
overlapped, to some degree, with the six selected practices.[Footnote
42] 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.[Footnote 43] 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.
Table 4: Selected Leading Practices in Federal Strategic Planning:
* Define the mission and goals.
* Define strategies that address management challenges and identify
resources needed to achieve goals.
* Ensure leadership involvement and accountability.
* Involve stakeholders.
* Coordinate with other federal agencies.
* Develop and use performance measures.
Source: GAO analysis of Government Performance and Results Act of
1993, guidance from the Office of Management and Budget, and past GAO
products on strategic planning.
[End of table]
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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Office Of Enforcement And Compliance Assurance:
Washington, D.C. 20460:
September 8, 2011:
Ms. Carolyn Yocom:
Director, Natural Resources & Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Yocom:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report prepared by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
entitled: "EPA Needs to Take Additional Actions to Help Ensure
Effective Implementation (GA0-11-798)," dated September 2011. The
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) provides this
response on behalf of several of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) programs that worked with the Office of Environmental
Justice to support GAO's evaluation from July 2010 through August
2011. We appreciate GAO's careful look at the EPA's efforts to
integrate environmental justice considerations into the agency's
the the programs, policies, and activities, as well as positive
assessment of agency's work to address disproportionate impacts of
pollution on overburdened minority and low-income communities.
GAO's evaluation was conducted during a period when the EPA was
developing Plan EJ 2014. Over the course of GAO's evaluation and
following the development of the draft report, the agency has
continued to make great strides. For example, on August 4, 2011, the
Federal Environmental Justice Interagency Workgroup (EJ IWG) released
its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Environmental Justice and
Executive Order 12898 which affirms the commitment of the EPA and
sixteen other federal agencies and offices to integrate environmental
justice into their programs, policies and activities. As part of this
affirmation, the MOU calls for each agency to review and update existing
environmental justice strategies by the end of September 2011 and to
publicly post them by February 2012. The EPA has taken the lead on
this commitment by finalizing our environmental justice strategy,
Plan EJ 2014, which we expect to release publicly in September 2011.
GAO's report provides a good overview of the EPA's progress and
challenges in recent years. We agree that more work is necessary to
ensure the successful and effective implementation of the strategy.
The agency will continue to work on strengthening Plan EJ 2014
performance measures, and will strengthen the states' role in planning
and implementation as appropriate for each of the nine implementation
plans. The agency will manage Plan EJ 2014 resource commitments
through annual implementation plan reviews and progress reporting. The
recommendations suggested were both insightful and helpful
particularly as the agency embarks on implementing its own strategy.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
The GAO report recommends that the EPA Administrator direct the
appropriate offices to take four actions to ensure that the EPA
continues to make progress toward the effective integration of
environmental justice considerations in the Agency's programs,
policies, and activities. Each GAO recommendation is described below
and is followed by an EPA response.
GAO Recommendation 1: 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.
EPA Response: We agree with GAO regarding the need for greater
consistency in how overburdened communities are identified. However,
there is more than one way to achieve this goal. Our approach is to
continue to develop a nationally consistent EJ screening tool that
identifies communities overburdened by pollution, including those that
are minority and low-income, to better meet our responsibility of
protecting public health and the environment in a manner that is
consistent with Executive Order 12898 and our goals under Plan EJ 2014.
GAO Recommendation 2: 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
provisions of training to support use of key tools and guidance an
potential changes in funding levels.
EPA Response: The EPA agrees with the need to actively monitor
progress towards the goals of Plan EJ 2014 but disagrees with the need
to conduct a resource assessment at this time. Environmental justice
is the responsibility of every program and region and this is
reflected in the leadership that the AA-ships and Regions are taking
in implementing Plan EJ 2014. The EPA will proactively monitor
progress in meeting milestones and delivering products identified in
each of the Plan EJ 2014 implementation plans. We will use an annual
review and reporting process to track progress and will modify the
implementation plans to reflect the needs for training and other
implementation support activities, as necessary.
GAO Recommendation 3: Articulate clearly in the final Plan EJ 2014
implementation plans the roles and responsibilities of states and
continue recently initiated outreach efforts to help ensure that
states are meaningfully involved in on-going environmental justice
planning and the subsequent implementation of Plan EJ 2014.
EPA Response: The agency appreciates GAO's recognition of our
preliminary outreach efforts to engage states in Plan EJ 2014 and the
implementation plans. We agree that outreach to states and their
meaningful involvement is important and we expect that to increase as
implementation progresses. As noted, outreach to states is established
in our draft Plan EJ 2014 Outreach and Communications plan and is
articulated in each implementation plan, as appropriate. We expect
that the involvement of states will vary by the nature of the work
outlined in each implementation plan. For example, the EPA has already
engaged states in our EJ in permitting work where we envision a
significant state role. State involvement in other implementation
plans, e.g., science tools development, may not be as significant.
GAO Recommendation 4: 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 effect of its overall environmental justice efforts
on intended communities.
EPA Response: The EPA agrees that as we move forward with Plan EJ 2014
implementation, we should use and strengthen performance measures and
develop other ways to ensure timely and effective implementation of
the plan. We are currently using milestones and deliverables to
monitor progress in the implementation of Plan EJ 2014.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the draft
GA0-11-798 report. If there are any questions or concerns regarding
our response to the recommendations or if additional follow up is
required, please contact me at (202) 564-2440.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Cynthia Giles:
Assistant Administrator:
cc: Diane Thompson, AO:
Lisa Garcia, AO:
Arvin Ganesan, OCIR:
Charles Lee, OECA:
Heather Case, OECA:
Bobbie Trent, OCFO:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Carolyn L. Yocom (202) 512-3841 or yocomc@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
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.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Exec. Order No. 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," 59 Fed.
Reg. 7629 (Feb. 11, 1994).
[2] EPA Office of Inspector General, Evaluation Report: EPA Needs to
Consistently Implement The Intent of The Executive Order on
Environmental Justice, Report No. 2004-P-00007, March 1, 2004. And,
EPA Office of Inspector General, Evaluation Report: EPA Needs to
Conduct Environmental Justice Reviews of Its Programs, Policies, and
Activities, Report No. 2006-P-00034, September 18, 2006.
[3] GAO, Environmental Justice: EPA Should Devote More Attention to
Environmental Justice When Developing Clean Air Rules, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-289] (Washington, D.C.: July 22,
2005).
[4] GAO, Environmental Justice: Measurable Benchmarks Needed to Gauge
EPA Progress in Correcting Past Problems, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1140T] (Washington, D.C.: July 25,
2007).
[5] Because EPA's Plan EJ 2014 and associated implementation plans
were not finalized until September 2011 as we were preparing to issue
our report, our analysis is based on our review of draft versions of
these documents. However, after EPA's plans were publicly released, we
reviewed these final documents and determined that they did not
substantively differ from the draft versions on which our conclusions
and recommendations are based. Therefore, throughout this report,
except where necessary to ensure clarity, we do not distinguish
between draft and final versions of EPA's Plan EJ 2014 and its
implementation plans.
[6] Pub. L., No. 103-62 (Aug. 3, 1993).
[7] For example, see GAO, Foreign Aid Reform: Comprehensive Strategy,
Interagency Coordination, and Operational Improvements Would Bolster
Current Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-192]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17, 2009), p. 31.
[8] OMB, Circular A-11, Section 210: Preparing and Submitting an
Agency Strategic Plan, 2010.
[9] For example, see GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing
the Government Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June 1,
1996); Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing
Season Performance Measures, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-143] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22,
2002); and Managing for Results: Strengthening Regulatory Agencies'
Performance Management Practices, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-GGD-00-10] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28,
1999).
[10] The guidance defines "minority" as individuals who are members of
the following groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or
Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic.
[11] EPA uses the terms "overburdened community," "overburdened
population," "disproportionately burdened," and "disadvantaged
community" interchangeably to refer to communities that may have a
disproportionate share of environmental or health hazards, or may be
economically disadvantaged.
[12] EPA's national program offices consist of the following: Office
of Air and Radiation, Office of Water, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention, and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
[13] The 15 agencies that comprise the IWG are Department of Defense,
Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Department of Labor, Department of Agriculture,
Department of Transportation, Department of Justice, Department of the
Interior, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science
and Technology Policy, Council on Environmental Quality (formerly
Office of the Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental
Policy), Office of the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy,
National Economic Council, Council of Economic Advisers, and such
other government officials as the President may designate.
[14] The Clean Air Act, as amended, is the comprehensive federal law
that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Among
other things, this law authorizes EPA to establish national ambient
air quality standards to protect the public health and welfare and to
regulate the emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
[15] RCRA established federal requirements and EPA regulatory
authority for "cradle-to-grave" management of hazardous wastes,
including a permit program. RCRA also established a framework for
state management of nonhazardous solid waste.
[16] NEJAC Report: Reducing Air Emissions Associated With Goods
Movement: Working Towards Environmental Justice, November 2009.
[17] NEJAC Report: Strategies to Enhance School Air Toxics Monitoring
in Environmental Justice Communities, April 2010.
[18] NEJAC Report: NEJAC Comments to EPA Plan EJ 2014, April 2011.
[19] The three key goals are to (1) protect the environment and health
in low-income and minority communities; (2) empower communities to
take action to improve their health and environment; and (3) establish
partnerships with local, state, tribal, and federal governments and
organizations to achieve healthy and sustainable communities.
[20] The national program offices that issue National Program Manager
Guidance are the Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Water, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention and Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance. In addition, the Office of Environmental Information, and
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations included
environmental justice priorities in their offices' fiscal year 2012
program guidance.
[21] Through its Environmental Justice Showcase Communities Program,
EPA provides its regional offices funding to bring together
governmental and non-governmental organizations to pool their
collective resources and expertise on the best ways to achieve real
results in selected communities with environmental justice issues.
[22] GAO, Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal
Agencies' Strategic Plans, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-97-180] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
16, 1997).
[23] GAO, U.S. Tsunami Preparedness: NOAA Has Expanded Its Tsunami
Programs, but Improved Planning Could Enhance Effectiveness,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-490] (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 28, 2010).
[24] EPA Office of Inspector General, Evaluation Report: EPA Needs to
Consistently Implement The Intent of The Executive Order on
Environmental Justice, Report No. 2004-P-00007, March 1, 2004.
[25] According to EPA officials, the role of the Office of
Environmental Justice is to facilitate the agency's efforts to protect
the environment and public health in minority, low-income, tribal, and
other historically underrepresented communities by integrating
environmental justice in all programs, policies, and activities.
[26] Specifically, according to the strategic plan, advancing
environmental justice must be a driving force in EPA's decisions
across all agency programs and activities. The strategic plan also
identified EPA's approaches for accomplishing this, including
incorporating environmental justice considerations in the agency's
regulation development process and in implementation of environmental
regulations, research, outreach, community-based programs, and
partnerships with stakeholders.
[27] See, EPA Office of Inspector General, Evaluation Report: EPA
Faced Multiple Constraints to Targeting Recovery Act Funds, Report No.
11-R-0208, April 11, 2011. The Inspector General made two
recommendations to EPA's Deputy Administrator: (1) establish a clear
and consistent regime that can address socioeconomic factors within
the bounds of statutory and organizational constraints. Such a regime
should allow the agency to target program funds to achieve agencywide
objectives and priorities for the inclusion of environmental justice
principles in all of EPA's decisions; (2) identify the sources of
information needed by EPA program offices and managers to assess the
socioeconomic conditions in communities. Within the bounds of
statutory and organizational constraints, this information should be
used to identify and target opportunities for which investment and
grants, program funding, or technical assistance would return the most
benefits in terms of jobs needed, infrastructure improvements, or
economic benefit to the community.
[28] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-490].
[29] An FTE consists of one or more employed individuals who
collectively complete 2,080 work hours in a given year. Therefore,
both one full-time employee and two half-time employees equal one FTE.
[30] EPA Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: EPA Needs to
Strengthen Internal Controls for Determining Workforce Levels, Report
No. 11-P-0031, December 20, 2010. The IG found that EPA's policies and
procedures do not include a process for determining employment levels
based on workload because EPA has not developed a workload assessment
methodology. In addition, the IG found that although EPA's work is
guided by human capital goals and objectives, EPA does not require
that workforce planning results link to its agencywide strategic and
performance goals because the agency has not clearly defined the
reporting requirements needed.
[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118].
[32] See GAO, Environmental Protection: More Consistency Needed among
EPA Regions in Approach to Enforcement, GAO/RCED-00-108 (June 2,
2000); and Environmental Protection: EPA-State Enforcement Partnership
Has Improved, but EPA's Oversight Needs Further Enhancement, GAO-07-
883 (July 31, 2007). Also, see: EPA Inspector General, Memorandum to
EPA Administrator, EPA's Key Management Challenges for Fiscal Year
2009, April 28, 2009, EPA Inspector General, Memorandum to EPA
Administrator, EPA's Key Management Challenges for Fiscal Year 2008,
July 2, 2008.
[33] EPA Inspector General, Memorandum to EPA Administrator, EPA's
Fiscal Year 2010 Management Challenges, May 11, 2010.
[34] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118].
[35] GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax
Filing Season Performance Measures, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-143] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22,
2002).
[36] GAO, Managing for Results: Strengthening Regulatory Agencies
Performance Management Practices, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-10] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28,
1999).
[37] Pub. L., No. 103-62 (August 3, 1993).
[38] For example, see GAO, Foreign Aid Reform: Comprehensive Strategy,
Interagency Coordination, and Operational Improvements Would Bolster
Current Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-192]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17, 2009), p. 31.
[39] OMB, Circular A-11, Section 210: Preparing and Submitting an
Agency Strategic Plan, July 2010.
[40] For example, see GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing
the Government Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June 1,
1996); Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing
Season Performance Measures, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-143] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22,
2002); Managing for Results: Strengthening Regulatory Agencies'
Performance Management Practices, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-GGD-00-10] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28,
1999).
[41] For example, we focused on EPA's efforts to coordinate with other
federal agencies because Executive Order 12898 places emphasis on
coordination across federal agencies on environmental justice.
[42] For example, we have previously identified assessing the external
environment as a leading practice. We determined that this practice
overlapped with involving stakeholders because engagement with
stakeholders includes gaining insight into the factors that
stakeholders view could impact an agency's ability to achieve its
goals.
[43] For example, GPRA and OMB guidance require agencywide strategic
plans include a description of the program evaluations used in
establishing or revising general goals and objectives, with a schedule
for future program evaluations.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
