Department of the Interior and Environmental Justice: Overview and Current Policies

January 27, 2022 R47023

Department of the Interior and Environmental January 27, 2022
Justice: Overview and Current Policies
Mark K. DeSantis
The term environmental justice has different meanings in different contexts but generally refers
Analyst in Natural
to the notion of equitable or fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. Although
Resources Policy
there is no single statutory definition of the term, some individual federal departments have

defined it for their purposes. For example, the Department of the Interior (DOI) has described
environmental justice as “meeting the needs of underserved communities ... by reducing disparate

environmental burdens, removing barriers to participation in decisionmaking, and increasing
access to environmental benefits that help make all communities safe, vibrant, and healthy places to live and work.”
DOI is the primary federal executive department responsible for the administration of U.S. lands, minerals, and other
resources. Given DOI’s role as the federal government’s principal land management entity—as well as its responsibilities as
trustee to tribal nations and communities—the department and its various bureaus can play a role in addressing
environmental justice. Whether or to what degree DOI considers environmental justice in fulfilling its responsibilities is of
interest to Congress.
Federal statute does not require the consideration of environmental justice across executive departments. However, various
laws, executive orders, and other executive directives govern federal responsibilities in addressing issues related to
environmental justice. In particular, Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” signed on February 11, 1994, directs executive departments, including
DOI, to integrate environmental justice into their respective missions to “the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law.” In addition to E.O. 12898, DOI has responsibilities related to environmental justice pursuant to more recent executive
orders. One such order is E.O. 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” signed on January 27, 2021; this
E.O. established broad environmental justice goals for the federal government, including a priority of “ensur[ing] that
environmental and economic justice are key considerations in how we govern.”
At the department level, DOI has issued various environmental justice policies for the department and for its bureaus and
offices. These policies address issues related to DOI’s obligations to identify and mitigate disproportionate adverse impacts
on certain communities, ensure these communities’ meaningful involvement in the decisionmaking process, and train DOI
employees and staff regarding such obligations. In addition to these policies, DOI has published strategic plans for
incorporating environmental justice into the department’s mission, programs, and activities. DOI also has issued
implementation reports outlining the progress made in meeting the benchmarks laid out in its environmental justice strategic
plans and requirements under E.O. 12898.
Various offices and other entities within DOI oversee compliance with government-wide and departmental environmental
justice policies. The Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance is the primary office responsible for overseeing the
integration of environmental justice policies and plans across DOI’s bureaus.
Congress has used different tools—including authorizing and appropriations legislation and oversight activities—to consider
and provide guidance to DOI (and other executive agencies) on how to conduct programs or implement policies that address
environmental justice. In addition, recent Congresses, including the 116th and 117th Congresses, held hearings on bills to
statutorily mandate that DOI take certain actions regarding environmental justice.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Interior and Environmental Justice: History and Current Policies

Introduction
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is the primary federal executive department
responsible for the administration of U.S. lands, minerals, and other resources.1 DOI and its
various bureaus administer roughly 420 million acres of federal lands, approximately 55 million
acres of tribal lands, more than 700 million acres of subsurface minerals, and about 2.5 billion
acres of the outer continental shelf.2 Given DOI’s broad land and resource responsibilities—as
well as its role as trustee to tribal nations and communities—the department may help shape how
communities interact with and are impacted by the natural environment. In particular, DOI has a
role in determining the degree to which environmental benefits or adverse impacts are distributed
equitably across communities. This notion of equitable or fair distribution of environmental
benefits and burdens is commonly referred to as environmental justice.
This report provides a general overview of DOI’s policies and programs aimed at addressing and
achieving environmental justice, with the goal of informing Congress’s assessment of whether or
to what extent such programs and policies are appropriate. It provides a broad overview with a
focus on department-level authorities that shape the environmental justice strategies and plans
implemented at the bureau or office level. The report starts with a brief introduction to the
concept of environmental justice, followed by a discussion of how certain executive orders and
statutes direct federal agencies to integrate environmental justice into their respective missions
within existing law.3 The report then traces the evolution of DOI-specific environmental justice
policies, including a brief discussion of the offices and entities responsible for overseeing the
implementation of these polices. It concludes with potential considerations for Congress,
including an overview of recent congressional activities concerning DOI and its role in
addressing environmental justice.
Background on Environmental Justice
To contextualize how DOI and other federal agencies address environmental justice, it may be
helpful to first understand how the term has evolved over the years. This section provides a brief
overview of both the concept and principles of environmental justice, how it has been defined
over time, and the authorities that govern the federal government’s responsibilities in addressing
environmental justice.
Defining Environmental Justice
The term environmental justice has different meanings in different contexts. Among certain
interest groups, it may refer to several broad principles.4 Although no single statutory definition

1 For an overview of the Department of Interior (DOI) and its various bureaus, see CRS Report R45480, U.S.
Department of the Interior: An Overview, by Mark K. DeSantis.
2 For data and other information on federal land management, see CRS Report R42346, Federal Land Ownership:
Overview and Data, by Carol Hardy Vincent and Laura A. Hanson.
3 Throughout this report, the terms department and agency are used interchangeably. The term bureau refers
specifically to the 10 distinct bureaus within DOI. They are the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Education,
Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, and the U.S. Geological Survey.
4 For example, in 1991, delegates to the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit drafted and
Congressional Research Service

1

Department of Interior and Environmental Justice: History and Current Policies

of environmental justice applies across the federal government, regulations implementing specific
federal programs have defined the term.5 Some federal agencies also have defined the term within
the context of implementing federal policies intended to ensure agency compliance with various
federal statutes and executive orders.6 DOI has described environmental justice as “meeting the
needs of... underserved communities... by reducing disparate environmental burdens, removing
barriers to participation in decision making, and increasing access to environmental benefits that
help make all communities safe, vibrant, and healthy places to live, work, learn, and engage in
recreation.”7 Further, DOI environmental justice considerations have involved assessments of the
unequal distribution of adverse impacts (environmental, economic, health, etc.) related to
pollution from activities authorized or undertaken by DOI bureaus, strategies to ensure
meaningful stakeholder engagement, and access to natural resources and recreational
opportunities.
Requirements That Shape Federal Environmental Justice Policy
Statute does not directly mandate the consideration of environmental justice across federal
programs and activities. However, various laws, executive orders, and other executive issuances
provide broad directives to federal agencies regarding their responsibilities in addressing issues
related to environmental justice. In particular, federal environmental justice policy is most
commonly affected by the following:
 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-4), which
prohibited discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or
activities receiving federal financial assistance.
 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et
seq.), which directed federal agencies to integrate environmental considerations
into agency planning and decisionmaking,8 including accounting for any
potentially significant adverse impacts to the “quality of the human
environment.”9

adopted 17 Principles of Environmental Justice. That document is available online at http://www.ejnet.org/ej/.
5 In addition, some federal statutes reference existing regulatory definitions of environmental justice. For example, the
Long Island Sound Stewardship Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-359) directed that environmental justice be one of the factors
taken into consideration when selecting areas as “stewardship sites” for protection within the Long Island Sound
ecosystem. That law cross-referenced the definition of environmental justice established by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers at 33 C.F.R. §385.3: “Environmental justice means identifying and addressing, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of a Federal agency’s programs, policies, and activities on minority and
low-income populations, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders.”
6 For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines the term as follows: “Environmental justice 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.” See
EPA, “Learn About Environmental Justice,” at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-
justice.
7 DOI, “Environmental Justice Strategic Plan: 2016-2020,” p. 6, Nov. 2016, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/
uploads/doi_ej_strategic_plan_final_nov2016.pdf. (Hereinafter referred to as “DOI, 2016 EJ Plan”). DOI refers to
“underserved communities” as “environmental justice communities throughout the remainder of the plan.
8 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.) established
authorities and directives to all federal agencies to implement specific procedural mandates intended to ensure federal
laws and programs are administered in accordance with NEPA’s provisions (42 U.S.C. §4332). In particular, see
provisions in Section 102(2) (§4332(2)).
9 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C).
Congressional Research Service

2

Department of Interior and Environmental Justice: History and Current Policies

 Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,”10 discussed in
detail in the following section.
A comprehensive discussion of the Civil Rights Act and NEPA is beyond the scope of this report.
However, this report broadly discusses the connection between those laws and DOI’s
implementation of its environmental justice policies. Much of the discussion in this report focuses
on DOI policies and plans implemented in response to directives in E.O. 12898.
Executive Order 12898
President Bill Clinton signed E.O. 12898 on February 11, 1994. The E.O. was intended to
supplement—but not supersede—E.O. 12250, “Leadership and Coordination of
Nondiscrimination Laws,” which was issued in 1980 and pertained to the implementation of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other nondiscrimination laws applicable to federal agencies.11
Among other directives, E.O. 12898 required certain federal agencies and offices—including
DOI—to “make achieving environmental justice part of ... [their] mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of ... [their] programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations.”12 Agencies and offices were to do so “to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law.”13 E.O. 12898 is not judicially enforceable and explicitly precludes “any right
to judicial review involving the compliance or noncompliance of the United States, its agencies,
officers, or any other person with this order.”14
E.O. 12898 also established the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice
(EJ) to facilitate collaboration among federal departments and offices to implement E.O. 12898.15
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator chairs the EJ IWG, which includes
representatives from 16 additional executive agencies and offices with responsibilities under E.O
12898. The Secretary of the Interior is a member of the EJ IWG.
In 2011, federal departments and offices subject to E.O. 12898 entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) to renew and update their framework for collaboration under the executive
order and to develop an accompanying Charter for Interagency Working Group on Environmental
Justice.16 The charter provides guidance to address the coordination of individual departments in
implementing the requirements of E.O. 12898.

10 Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
Income Populations,” 59 Federal Register 7629, February 16, 1994. Hereinafter referred to as E.O. 12898.
11 Executive Order (E.O.) 12250, “Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws,” 45 Federal Register
72995, November 2, 1980. See reference to E.O. 12250 in E.O. 12898, General Provisions, Section 6-602. For context,
when E.O. 12898 was issued, federal agencies responsible for actions with adverse environmental impacts already were
required to integrate environmental considerations into agency decision-making. E.O. 12898 further required agencies
subject to the executive order to explicitly determine whether any identified adverse impacts disproportionately
affected minority and low-income populations.
12 E.O. 12898, Section 1-101.
13 Ibid.
14 E.O. 12898, Section 6-609.
15 E.O. 12898, Section 1-102.
16 Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ IWG), “Memorandum of Understanding on
Environmental Justice and Executive Order 12898,” 2011 (hereinafter cited as EJ IWG, 2011 MOU).
Congressional Research Service

3

Department of Interior and Environmental Justice: History and Current Policies

Agency implementation of E.O. 12898 generally has involved articulating an agency’s unique
mission and clarifying how the agency will meet that mission in a way that does not result in
discrimination. For example, DOI’s role in environmental justice is tied to its mission to protect
and manage “many of the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; [provide] scientific
and other information about those resources; and [honor] the Nation’s trust responsibilities or
special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities.”17
That mission is connected to DOI’s “environmental justice vision statement” to “provide
outstanding management of the natural and cultural resources entrusted to us in a manner that is
sustainable, equitable, accessible, and inclusive of all populations.”18
Recent Changes to Environmental Justice Federal Policy
On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden signed E.O. 13990, “Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” Among other provisions, E.O.
13990 directed federal agencies to review and take action, “as appropriate and consistent with
applicable law,” to prioritize environmental justice, among other issues.19
One week later, President Biden signed E.O. 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad,” which set out broad environmental justice goals for the federal government, including a
priority of “ensur[ing] that environmental and economic justice are key considerations in how we
govern.”20 E.O. 14008 also directed that “agencies shall make achieving environmental justice
part of their missions by developing programs, policies, and activities to address the
disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and other
cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as well as the accompanying economic
challenges of such impacts.”21 More specifically, E.O. 14008 amended E.O. 12898 by
establishing two new groups within the White House responsible for addressing environmental
justice: the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council (Interagency Council) and
the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (Advisory Council). E.O. 14008
directed the Interagency Council—of which the Secretary of Interior is a member—to develop a
strategy to address environmental justice with performance metrics and to publish an annual
scorecard to measure progress on the strategy’s implementation, among other tasks.22 The
Advisory Council, which consists of nonfederal stakeholders from across the country who are
appointed by the president and serve in a voluntary capacity, advises the Interagency Council on
ways the federal government can increase efforts to address environmental justice.23

17 DOI, 2016 EJ Plan, p. 1.
18 Ibid.
19 E.O. 13990, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” 86
Federal Register 7037, January 25, 2021. Specifically, E.O. 13990 directed agencies to look at rulemaking and policies
implemented from January 20, 2017, to January 20, 2021, to determine if they are inconsistent with or present obstacles
to, the public health and environmental justice policies and goals outlined in the E.O.
20 E.O. 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” 86 Federal Register 7619, February 1, 2021.
Hereinafter referred to as E.O. 14008.
21 E.O. 14008.
22 Many of the roles and responsibilities previously conducted by the EJ IWG pursuant to E.O. 12898 appear to have
transferred to the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council established under E.O. 14008.
23 Pursuant to E.O. 14008, the EPA provides administrative and financial support to the White House Environmental
Justice Advisory Council “to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.”
Congressional Research Service

4

Department of Interior and Environmental Justice: History and Current Policies

Justice40 Initiative
Among other provisions, Executive Order (E.O.) 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,”
established a new government-wide goal, referred to as the Justice40 Initiative, of delivering 40% of the overall
benefits of relevant federal investments—particularly investments in clean energy, climate, transportation, and
other areas—to “disadvantaged communities.” In July 2021, the Administration announced the launch of a pilot
program of 21 priority projects and programs across the federal government to serve as a “blueprint for other
agencies to help inform their work to implement the Justice40 Initiative.” Included in this list of projects is the
Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization (AMLER) Program administered by the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement within the Department of the Interior. Congress has provided annual
appropriations for the AMLER program since FY2016 (formerly known as the AML pilot program), and the
administration’s proposal would increase funding for this program from previously enacted amounts. In previous
years, the AMLER program has provided grants to six Appalachian states with the greatest amount of unfunded
abandoned mine land needs and three tribes to fund projects that leverage mine land reclamation with economic
and community development. For FY2021, the grantees were Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
West Virginia, as well as the Crow Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, and the Navajo Nation. To learn more about the
AMLER program, see CRS Report R46266, The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund: Reauthorization Issues in the
116th Congress, by Lance N. Larson.
Sources: See Office of Management and Budget, “M-21-28, Interim Implementation Guidance for the
Justice40 Initiative,” July 20, 2021, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/M-21-28.pdf;
White House, “The Path to Achieving Justice40,” July 20, 2021, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-
room/2021/07/20/the-path-to-achieving-justice40/; and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, “Grants Resources,” at https://www.osmre.gov/resources/grants.shtm.
Notes: Interim guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (provides agencies with indicators
as to how best to define disadvantaged communities. Such indicators include measures of low income, high
and/or persistent poverty, high unemployment and underemployment, racial and ethnic residential
segregation, and other factors.
Other Authorities and Requirements
Federal agencies and offices also may rely on authorities provided in laws and executive actions
other than those mentioned above to address issues related to environmental justice, though such
authorities may not have been issued or enacted specifically for such purposes. For example,
various laws and executive actions generally apply to the federal government-to-government
relationship with Indian tribes. Such authorities include E.O. 13175, “Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” which charged all executive agencies with
establishing procedures for engaging in consultation with tribal officials in the development of
federal policies that have tribal implications.24 In addition, statutes such as the National Historic
Preservation Act (54 U.S.C §§300101 et seq.) established requirements related to consultation
with tribal communities on federal projects that may affect certain tribal historic properties.25
Although federal authorities related to government-to-government consultation and federal
management of tribal historic properties are not specifically associated with environmental

24 E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” 65 Federal Register 67249,
November 6, 2000. In addition to E.O. 13175, other executive actions guide federal policy regarding tribal consultation.
For example, a presidential memorandum (P.M.) of November 5, 2009, required agencies to “prepare and periodically
update” a “detailed plan of actions” to implement E.O. 13175. In January 2021, President Biden issued a P.M. on
“Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships” that reaffirmed the policy outlined in the 2009
P.M. For more information on these executive actions, see CRS Insight IN11606, Tribal Consultation: Administration
Guidance and Policy Consideration, by Tana Fitzpatrick.
25 For example, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. §306108) required agencies to consult
with tribal representatives when a federal undertaking may affect historic properties that (1) are located on tribal lands
or (2) have been assigned religious or cultural significance by any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 4 Department of Interior and Environmental Justice: History and Current Policies

justice, some executive agencies nonetheless see compliance with such requirements as a key
component of their respective environmental justice strategies. For example, DOI aims to ensure
meaningful involvement and participation of certain groups, including tribes, in environmental
decisionmaking. (For more information on DOI’s environmental justice strategic goals, see “DOI
Environmental Strategic Plans and Implementation Reports”).26 DOI has indicated that policies
mandating the recognition of tribal self-governance and supporting government-to-government
relationships have been crucial to meeting this goal.
DOI Policies and Plans
Over the years, many of the activities conducted by DOI to address environmental justice
stemmed from government-wide executive orders (such as E.O. 12898) or presidential
memoranda or proclamations. Other activities resulted from DOI-specific secretarial orders and
other departmental or bureau-specific policies. This section provides an overview of DOI-wide
policies, plans, and strategies that specifically address environmental justice. In general, policies
issued or programs conducted by individual DOI bureaus are not discussed at length.27
DOI Environmental Justice Policy
In 1994, in response to directives in E.O. 12898, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt formally
established an environmental justice policy for DOI. Specifically, the policy directed the
department and its bureaus to consider the impacts of DOI’s “actions and inactions on minority
and low-income populations and communities, as well as the equity of the distribution of benefits
and risks of those decisions.”28 In 2017, DOI issued an Environmental Justice Implementation
Policy for the department, published as part of the DOI policy manual (Departmental Manual, or
DM).29 Among other components, the policy outlined DOI’s responsibilities related to
environmental justice activities across the department, established principles and guidance for
how to integrate environmental justice into DOI’s programs and activities, and mandated the
publication of an annual progress report detailing how DOI has met strategic goals related to
environmental justice.30

26 DOI specifically mentions tribal consultation requirements under E.O. 13175 as part of its department-wide goal of
ensuring minority, low-income, and tribal populations are provided with the opportunity to engage meaningfully in
DOI’s decision-making processes. See DOI, 2016 EJ Plan.
27 The various DOI bureaus subject to both federal and DOI-specific environmental justice policy illustrate DOI’s
diverse array of responsibilities and potential environmental impacts associated with those responsibilities. See footnote
3 for an overview of these bureaus. Each bureau has a unique mission and set of responsibilities, as well as an
organizational structure designed to meet its functional duties. For more information on DOI and the responsibilities
and authorities of its various bureaus and offices, see CRS Report R45480, U.S. Department of the Interior: An
Overview, by Mark K. DeSantis.
28 Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, “Memorandum to All Assistant Secretaries, Inspector
General, Heads of All Bureaus and Office,” April 17, 1994, p. 1, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/
doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/ECM-95-3.pdf.
29 DOI, 525 Departmental Manual (DM) 1, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/525-dm-1.pdf.
30 525 DM 1 serves as the primary environmental justice policy for DOI; however, the 1994 memorandum has not been
rescinded and remains in place. Many of the directives outlined in 525 DM 1 reflect the similar requirements and
standards required under the 1994 policy.
Congressional Research Service

6

Department of Interior and Environmental Justice: History and Current Policies

DOI Environmental Strategic Plans and Implementation Reports
Among other provisions, E.O. 12898 directed federal agencies to prepare a strategic plan that
identifies and addresses issues related to environmental justice.31 In response, DOI established a
committee comprising representatives from each of the department’s bureaus to develop the first
DOI strategic plan on environmental justice, published in 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the
1995 EJ Plan).32 The 1995 EJ Plan outlined four specific goals for implementing E.O. 12898 and
addressing environmental justice strategies across DOI:
1. Involve minority and low-income communities in environmental decisionmaking
and ensure access to information
2. Provide environmental justice training and guidance to DOI employees
3. Use and expand research and data collection on new solutions to environmental
justice concerns
4. Partner with grassroots, community, business, labor, trial, and governmental
groups to advance environmental justice
Since 1995, DOI has updated this strategic plan, first in 2012 and again in 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the 2012 EJ Plan and the 2016 EJ Plan, respectively).33 DOI conducted these
updates after signing the 2011 MOU, which, among other provisions, called on each federal
agency to review and update existing environmental justice strategic plans as applicable and as
appropriate.34
The 2012 EJ Plan and the 2016 EJ Plan maintained or updated many of the goals outlined in the
1995 EJ Plan, while adding additional goals for the department and its bureaus. These additions
included goals to use existing grant programs, training, and educational opportunities to “aid and
empower minority, low-income, and tribal populations in their efforts to build and sustain
environmentally and economically sound communities.”35 Pursuant to the 2011 MOU, the 2012
and 2016 EJ Plans also introduced performance metrics and, in the case of the 2016 plan, an
action plan that outlined specific strategies and activities to meet the department’s goals.
Starting in 2011, DOI also began to issue implementation reports outlining progress made in
meeting benchmarks laid out in the environmental justice strategic plans and requirements under
E.O. 12898. DOI issued these reports annually from 2011 to 2016.36 The most recent
implementation report issued by DOI was for FY2020 and was released in August 2021.37

31 E.O. 12898 uses the term environmental justice strategies. For the purposes of this report, CRS uses the term
environmental justice strategic plans because DOI has used environmental justice strategic plans to document the
department’s environmental justice strategies.
32 DOI, 1995 Strategic Plan – Environmental Justice, 1995.
33 See DOI, Environmental Justice Strategic Plan: 2012-2017, March 2012; and DOI, 2016 EJ Plan.
34 EJ IWG, 2011 MOU.
35 DOI, 2016 EJ Plan, p. 8.
36 DOI’s annual implementation reports can be found at DOI, Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance (OEPC),
“Policy & Materials,” at https://www.doi.gov/oepc/resources/environmental-justice/policy.
37 DOI, Environmental Justice Annual Implementation Report: Fiscal Year 2020, August 2021, at https://www.doi.gov/
sites/doi.gov/files/fy2020-ej-annual-report-aug-2021-508c_0.pdf. The report indicated that “reporting was re-started in
the middle of the fiscal year, after a several year hiatus, and as a result activities may only reflect a portion of the
reporting year” (p. 5).
Congressional Research Service

7

Department of Interior and Environmental Justice: History and Current Policies

Secretarial Order 3399
On April 16, 2021, Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland issued Secretarial Order (S.O.) 3399,
“Department-Wide Approach to the Climate Crisis and Restoring Transparency and Integrity to
the Decision-Making Process.”38 Among other provisions, S.O. 3399 established a Climate Task
Force to advise the Secretary and to organize work across DOI on various climate-related issues.
Included in the task force’s mission is coordination with the Interagency Council to identify
“policies and action to address current and historic environmental injustice to address the
disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, and climate-related and other
cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities.”39 S.O. 3399 also provided additional
guidance regarding the consideration of environmental justice in the NEPA process, including
additional policy direction regarding consultation with tribes and “environmental justice
communities.”40
Integration of Environmental Justice with Agency NEPA
Compliance
NEPA sets forth broad environmental policy supplementary to each agency’s existing
authorities.41 To ensure agencies administer their respective programs in accordance with NEPA’s
policies, the act requires all federal agencies to integrate environmental considerations into
agency planning and decisionmaking.42 This includes taking into account any potentially
significant adverse impacts to the “quality of the human environment.”43
Agencies responsible for administering programs or making discrete decisions likely to have
adverse environmental impact have established agency-specific procedures to implement NEPA’s
procedural mandates.44 DOI set forth NEPA procedures applicable to departmental actions in 43
C.F.R. Part 46. Additionally, to reflect their unique statutory authorities, DOI bureaus responsible
for actions subject to NEPA have their own guidance for implementing NEPA, as it applies to
actions relevant to a specific bureau’s authorities and responsibilities.45
One element of Secretary Babbitt’s 1994 Environmental Justice Policy involved specifically
directing DOI bureaus to integrate environmental justice considerations into their NEPA

38 Deb Haaland, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Secretarial Order (S.O.) 3399, “Department-Wide
Approach to the Climate Crisis and Restoring Transparency and Integrity to the Decision-Making Process,” April 16,
2021, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3399-508_0.pdf (hereinafter cited as S.O. 3399).
39 S.O. 3399, Section 4(a)(6).
40 S.O. 3399, Section 5(c). Specifically, the S.O. mandated that DOI bureaus or offices “proactively” begin consultation
with tribes and potentially impacted environmental justice communities “early in the project planning process.” The
S.O. further indicated that “early in the project planning process” includes when a bureau or office has “enough
information on a proposed action to determine that an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement
will be prepared.”
41 Section 101 of NEPA set forth policies and goals for all federal agencies (42 U.S.C. §4331), and Section 105
specified that those policies and goals supplement existing agency authority (42 U.S.C §4335).
42 Section 102 of NEPA established authorities and directives to federal agencies to implement specific procedural
mandates intended to ensure federal laws and programs are administered in accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. §4332).
In particular, see provisions in Section 102(2) (§4332(2)).
43 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C).
44 42 U.S.C. §4332(2).
45 Links to “Department of the Interior Requirements” for implementing NEPA are available at https://www.doi.gov/
nepa/requirements-guidance/DOI-requirements.
Congressional Research Service

8

Department of Interior and Environmental Justice: History and Current Policies

analyses.46 In 1995, to carry out that directive, the Director of DOI’s Office of Environmental
Policy and Compliance (OEPC) issued an environmental compliance memorandum (ECM) to the
heads of all DOI bureaus and offices requiring that environmental justice consideration be
included in NEPA documentation. In part, that ECM directed that “all environmental [NEPA]
documents should specifically analyze and evaluate the impacts of any proposed projects, actions
or decisions on minority and low-income populations and communities, as well as the equality of
the distribution of the benefits and risks of those decisions.”47
With the issuance of the 2017 Environmental Justice Implementation Policy (525 DM 1), the
OEPC provided guidance similar to the 1995 ECM regarding environmental justice
considerations in NEPA analysis. Specifically, the 2017 DM stated that, “in all appropriate NEPA
evaluation processes,” DOI evaluates “disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects impacts [sic] to low-income, minority, and tribal populations.”48 OEPC also
identified specific analysis and procedures relevant to environmental justice considerations that
were required as part of the NEPA compliance process. For example, the 2017 DM required the
NEPA evaluation to analyze proposed actions for disproportionate adverse impacts to low-
income, minority, and tribal populations; identify potential mitigation measures to reduce those
impacts when feasible; and provide opportunities for such communities to provide input early and
throughout the NEPA process.49
DOI bureaus and offices may issue their own guidance for implementing departmental NEPA
policies (often referred to as NEPA handbooks). These bureau-specific NEPA handbooks may be
tailored to reflect the different authorities and types of actions for which a bureau is responsible
or may provide additional guidance or detail regarding environmental justice considerations. For
example, the Bureau of Reclamation’s NEPA Handbook includes a separate section on integrating
environmental justice considerations into the bureau’s NEPA process. This section identifies
specific factors that should be considered in conducting the necessary analysis, including
assessing existing conditions in affected communities (e.g., multiple or cumulative exposure to
human health or environmental hazards, historical exposure to hazards) and determining whether
interrelated cultural, social, occupational, historical, or economic factors would amplify the
physical environmental effects of a proposed action.50 By contrast, the National Park Service
(NPS’s) NEPA Handbook largely reflects the directives included in 525 DM 1 and the 1995
ECM.51

46 Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, “Memorandum to All Assistant Secretaries, Inspector
General, Heads of All Bureaus and Office,” April 17, 1994, p. 1. (“This consideration should be specifically included in
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation on our decision-making.”)
47 See the environmental compliance memorandum (ECM) issued by Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of
Environmental Policy and Compliance, regarding “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Responsibilities Under
the Departmental Environmental Justice Policy,” May 30, 1995. This memorandum is cited as ECM 95-3 in other DOI
and DOI-bureau policies and guidance.
48 525 DM 1_1.6(L).
49 Ibid.
50 Bureau of Reclamation, NEPA Handbook, February 2012, p. 3-32, at https://www.usbr.gov/nepa/docs/
NEPA_Handbook2012.pdf.
51 See directives in NPS, NEPA Handbook, 2015, pp. 95-96, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nepa/upload/
NPS_NEPAHandbook_Final_508.pdf, which repeat directives in 525 DM 1 and ECM 95-3 on evaluating impacts of
environmental decision-making on minority, low-income, and tribal populations and communities.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 link to page 14 Department of Interior and Environmental Justice: History and Current Policies

Selected DOI Environmental Justice Offices and Other Entities
Over the years, DOI has charged various offices and other entities with addressing or
implementing environmental justice policies issued under government-wide or DOI-specific
authorities. For some of these entities, their role in coordinating environmental justice initiatives
and policies across DOI was added to other existing responsibilities. Other entities were created
specifically to address environmental justice. This section provides a brief overview of three
entities: OEPC, the DOI Environmental Justice Working Group, and the DOI Environmental
Justice Steering Committee. This section is not intended to reflect all DOI-wide entities—current
or historical—that have or have had responsibilities related to addressing environmental justice.
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
DOI’s OEPC, located within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management, and
Budget (AS-PMB), is responsible for overseeing the implementation of E.O. 12898 and the
integration of environmental justice across DOI’s bureaus and programs.52 Each of DOI’s bureaus
has a primary environmental justice coordinator who works directly with OEPC in carrying out
DOI’s environmental justice activities. This coordinator helps to integrate environmental justice
throughout the particular bureau or office.53
OEPC also is responsible for developing and publishing DOI’s environmental justice strategic
plans and the accompanying implementation reports. To do this, OEPC has issued guidance to
bureaus and offices on when and how to submit information needed for reporting DOI’s
environmental justice-related activities.54 The Director of OEPC also represents DOI on the EJ
IWG and chairs the DOI Environmental Justice Working Group (see “DOI Environmental Justice
Working Group, below”).
DOI Environmental Justice Steering Committee
The DOI Environmental Justice Steering Committee (Steering Committee) serves in an advisory
capacity to the AS-PMB and the Director of OEPC on DOI’s compliance with E.O. 12898 and the
department’s effectiveness in addressing environmental justice issues. Among its responsibilities,
the Steering Committee provides periodic reviews of the department’s environmental justice
strategic plans and policies, assists and supports DOI bureaus and offices in their implementation
of such policies, and evaluates opportunities for collaboration among DOI bureaus and other
federal agencies in evaluating impacts to minority, low-income, and tribal populations.55 The
Steering Committee consists of the heads (or senior leadership designees) of eight DOI bureaus,
as well as the Office of Insular Affairs, Office of Civil Rights, and the OEPC.56 Additional
bureaus and offices also may participate, as appropriate. According to DOI, the Steering
Committee meets at least once a year.

52 525 DM 1_1.7(D).
53 525 DM 1_1.7(G).
54 OEPC, “Reporting Environmental Justice Activities,” Environmental Compliance Memorandum No. ECM 70-1,
June 18, 2020.
55 525 DM 1_1.7(H)(4).
56 525 DM 1_1.7(H)(2). Two DOI bureaus do not have a designated representative on the DOI Environmental Justice
Steering Committee. These are the Bureau of Indian Education and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement.
Congressional Research Service

10

Department of Interior and Environmental Justice: History and Current Policies

DOI Environmental Justice Working Group
The DOI Environmental Justice Working Group (Working Group) serves in an advisory capacity
to the Director of OEPC and the Steering Committee. Unlike the Steering Committee, which has
a direct role in shaping DOI’s environmental justice strategies and policies, the Working Group is
primarily responsible for assisting DOI bureaus and offices in integrating these directives into
their respective programs, policies, and activities. The Director of OEPC chairs the Working
Group, which comprises the primary environmental justice coordinators for eight of DOI’s
bureaus: BIA, BLM, BOEM, BOR, NPS, OSMRE, FWS, and USGS.57 According to DOI policy,
the Working Group meets at least quarterly throughout the year.
Congressional Activities and Issues
Congress has used various tools—including authorizing legislation, appropriations legislation,
and hearings—to provide guidance to DOI (among other departments) on whether or how to
address environmental justice in conducting agency programs and developing DOI-wide policies.
Some congressional actions have specifically referenced the term environmental justice. For
example, Congress has focused on the degree to which DOI and its bureaus have complied with
E.O. 12898 and other government-wide environmental justice requirements. In 2019, for instance,
the Government Accountability Office released a report pursuant to a request by Congress to
examine the environmental justice strategies of federal agencies, including DOI.58 In addition,
Congress has conducted oversight hearings examining DOI’s commitments to environmental
justice. Hearing topics have included the disproportionate impacts faced by indigenous
communities, OSMRE’s responsibilities to address environmental justice in coal-producing
communities, and the potential impacts of energy infrastructure projects across public lands on
particular communities.59
Congress also has considered legislation related to whether, how, or under what circumstances
DOI bureaus and offices might incorporate environmental justice activities into the fulfillment of
their statutory responsibilities.60 In particular, Congress has held hearings and forums to consider
the Environmental Justice for All Act, versions of which were introduced in the 116th and 117th
Congresses.61 Among other provisions, versions of the bill would amend the Civil Rights Act of

57 525 DM 1_(I)(2). Pursuant to DOI Policy, the Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Insular Affairs also have a
representative on the DOI Environmental Justice Working Group. Additional bureaus or offices also may participate in
the DOI Environmental Justice Working Group.
58 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Environmental Justice: Federal Efforts Need Better Planning,
Coordination, and Methods to Assess Progress, GAO-19-543, September 16, 2019, at https://www.gao.gov/products/
gao-19-543.
59 See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United
States, Environmental Justice in Indigenous Communities, hearings, 117th Cong., May 13, 2021; U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Environmental Justice for Coal
Country: Supporting Communities Through the Energy Transition, hearings, 117th Cong., June 15, 2021; and U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Energy
Infrastructure and Environmental Justice: Lessons for a Sustainable Future, hearings, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 14,
2020, 116-37.
60 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Legislative Hearing: Environmental
Justice for All Act, hearings, 116th Cong., October 1, 2020; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3687
Environmental Justice in Recreation Permitting Act, hearings, 117th Cong., June 8, 2021.
61 See H.R. 5986 and S. 4401 in the 116th Congress and H.R. 2021 and S. 872 in the 117th Congress.
Congressional Research Service

11

Department of Interior and Environmental Justice: History and Current Policies

1964 to include disparate environmental impacts on the basis of race, color, or national origin as a
form of prohibited discrimination. Versions of the bill also would codify certain DOI grant
programs that address issues related to environmental justice and would establish a new economic
and environmental assistance program administered by DOI to help transition “fossil fuel-
dependent communities.”62
At other times, Congress has considered legislation and held hearings on issues that overlap with,
or relate to, environmental justice concepts, but did not directly use the term. For example,
Congress has authorized or appropriated funding for programs and initiatives aimed at increasing
access to natural resources and recreational opportunities for urban or underrepresented
communities. Although not explicitly considered environmental justice under federal policy,
various stakeholders and interest groups have considered providing equitable access to nature a
component of environmental justice.63 In 1978, Congress authorized the NPS Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR), which provided grants to economically distressed urban
communities to rehabilitate recreation facilities and to increase and enhance the provision of
recreation programs and services.64 Although Congress has not funded UPARR since 2005, NPS
has used other appropriated funds for programs aimed at addressing outdoor recreation needs in
urban communities across the country.65 In addition, Congress has provided appropriations in
recent years to FWS for its Urban Wildlife Conservation Program, a program established
administratively in 2015 “to engage urban communities in fish and wildlife conservation and to
encourage Service staff to help address urban wildlife and habitat restoration and conservation
needs.”66 In FY2021, Congress provided $5.5 million for the program.67
Moving forward, Congress may expand, curtail, or otherwise alter the ways in which DOI
policies and programs consider environmental justice. The definition of environmental justice has
evolved, moving beyond traditional environmental conditions related to pollution and exposure
concerns and into other policy and issue areas. Given this evolution, Congress may continue to
consider ways in which DOI and its bureaus have a role in addressing environmental justice as
currently defined or under any changed understanding of the concept.

62 For example, see Sections 11 and 29 of H.R. 2021 and S. 872 in the 117th Congress.
63 For example, see Jenny Rowland-Shea et al., “The Nature Gap: Confronting Racial and Economic Disparities in the
Destruction and Protection of Nature in America,” Center for American Progress, July 21, 2021, at
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2020/07/21/487787/the-nature-gap/.
64 Congress initially authorized the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program in 1978 (P.L. 95-625, Title X,
§1003). Congress amended the authorization in 1994 (P.L. 103-322, Title III, §31502) and recodified the program in
2014 (P.L. 113-287, §3).
65 For example, since 2014, NPS has administered the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program (ORLP). The
ORLP is funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). It is a nationally competitive grant program
that delivers funding to urban areas (jurisdictions of at least 50,000 people) with priority given to projects located in
economically disadvantaged areas and lacking in outdoor recreation opportunities. OLRP is not codified in statute, and
there have been congressional proposals to authorize the program in law (e.g., H.R. 2021 in the 117th Congress). In
addition, the FY2021 Interior appropriations law (Division G of P.L. 116-260) and the accompanying explanatory text
set out an allocation of LWCF funding for the ORLP.
66 FWS, 110 FW 1 – “Urban Wildlife Conservation Program Policy,” at https://www.fws.gov/policy/110fw1.html.
67 See Division G of P.L. 116-260 and the accompanying joint explanatory statement text.
Congressional Research Service

12

Department of Interior and Environmental Justice: History and Current Policies

Author Information

Mark K. DeSantis

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47023 · VERSION 1 · NEW
13

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jan. 27, 2022

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Energy Policy

Environmental Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON