This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-77 
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: