United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of
Federal Activities
(2252A)
EPA 315-B-99-001
July 1999
"
EPA
EPA Guidance For Consideration
Of Environmental Justice In
Clean Air Act
Section 309 Reviews
-------
EPA GUIDANCE
FOR
CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
IN
CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 309 REVIEWS
July 1999
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
DISCLAIMER
The mention of company or product names is not to be considered an endorsement by the
U.S. Government or by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This document was
prepared with the technical assistance of Science Applications International Corporation in
partial fulfillment of EPA Contract 68-WE-0026, Work Assignment 72-IV.
This policy guidance is intended only to improve the internal management of EPA's
environmental justice programs as it relates to EPA reviews made under Section 309 of the Clean
Air Act. It does not create any right, benefit or trust obligation either substantive or procedural,
enforceable by any person, or entity in any court against the agency, its officers, or any other
person. EPA's compliance with this guidance is not judicially reviewable. EPA may elect not to
follow this guidance as circumstances warrant and may revise it in the future.
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Organization of this Guidance 1
1.2 Background 1
1.3 What is Environmental Justice? 2
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSES 2
2.1 EPA Responsibilities Under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act 5
2.2 Pre-Review Activities 5
2.3 Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statements 6
2.3.1 Public Participation 7
2.3.2 Determining the Affected Environment 8
2.3.3 Analysis 9
2.3.4 Alternatives 9
2.3.5 Mitigation 10
2.4 Rating System 11
2.4.1 Rating the Environmental Impact 11
2.4.2 Rating the Adequacy of the Impact Statement 11
2.4.3 Review of and Nature of Comments to the Final EIS 11
2.5 Referral to CEQ 12
3.0 ISSUES AND QUESTIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSES 12
No. 1 Identification of Minority Populations 12
No. 2 Identification of Low-Income Populations 13
No. 3 Identification of Potential Impacts 14
No. 4 Public Involvement 15
No. 5 Disproportionately High and Adverse Impacts 16
No. 6 Mitigation of Disproportionately High and Adverse Impacts 17
No. 7 Nature of Comments on the Draft EIS 17
No. 8 Nature of Comments on the Final EIS 18
11
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Principles for Considering Environmental Justice under NEPA 3
TABLE 2 Authorities, Polices and Guidance Relevant to Environmental Justice .. 22
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A AUTHORITIES, POLICIES AND GUIDANCE 19
APPENDIX B LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONTACTS 24
APPENDIX C REFERENCES / BIBLIOGRAPHY 29
in
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CAA Clean Air Act
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DOC U.S. Department of Commerce
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DOI U.S. Department of Interior
DOJ U.S. Department of Justice
DOL U.S. Department of Labor
DOT U.S: Department of Transportation
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EJ Environmental Justice
EO Executive Order 12898
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EU Environmentally Unsatisfactory
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information System
HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
IWG Interagency Working Group
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NSC National Security Council
OA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of the Administrator
OAR U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Air and Radiation
OCEMR U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Communication, Education
and Media Relations
OCIR Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
OCR U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Civil Rights
OECA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
OEJ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Environmental Justice
OF A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Federal Activities
OGC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of General Counsel
OMB Office of Management and Budget
iv
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
(Continued)
OP U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Policy
OPPTS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
ORD U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Research and Development
OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy
OSWER U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
OW U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Water
ROD Record of Decision
SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
SIA Social Impact Analysis
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
U.S.C. United States Code
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFS U.S. Forest Service
v
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is intended only for use by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
reviewers. It provides guidance on reviewing and commenting on other federal agencies
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents to help ensure that environmental
effects on minority communities and low-income communities have been fully analyzed. It
should be read in conjunction with EPA's Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal
Actions Impacting the Environment and the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ)
Guidance for Considering Environmental Justice under the National Environmental Policy
Act (hereafter, CEQ's EJNEPA Guidance). It is also suggested that the reader be familiar
with Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance
Analyses, April 1998 (hereafter, EPA's EJNEPA Guidance), which highlights ways in which
EPA-prepared NEPA documentation identifies and addresses environmental justice concerns.
1.1 Organization of this Guidance
Chapter 1 provides background information and the rationale for development of this
guidance. Chapter 2 gives an overview of environmental justice considerations to be addressed
at each stage of the EPA Section 309 review process. Chapter 3 presents suggested solutions to
difficult issues that the EPA Section 309 reviewer may face. Lastly, the Appendices contain
respectively: A) a discussion of the authorities, policies and existing guidance pertaining to
environmental justice; B) a list of environmental justice contacts; and C) references and
bibliography.
1.2 Background
Since the early 1970s, there has been increasing concern over disproportionate
environmental and human health impacts on minority populations and low-income populations.
To address this concern, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 on February 11,1994,
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (hereafter, EO). The EO directs each federal agency "to make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." A Presidential
Memorandum accompanying the EO directs federal agencies to analyze "the environmental
effects, including human health, economic and social effects, of Federal actions, including effects
on minority communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)."
The Presidential Memorandum states that the EPA "shall ensure that the involved agency
has fully analyzed environmental effects on minority communities and low-income communities,
including human health, social, and economic effects."
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
1.3 What is Environmental Justice?
The impetus behind environmental justice is to ensure that all communities, including
minority communities and low-income communities, live in a safe and healthful environment.
Since the late 1980s, various definitions of environmental justice have developed. The
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Justice defines this as:
"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. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial,
ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the
negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal,
and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and
tribal programs and policies . "
Under the EO, the Interagency Working Group (IWG), composed of representatives from
17 Federal agencies, developed guidance on key terms that are central to understanding
environmental justice and how disproportionately high and adverse impacts may be identified
[see Appendix to the CEQ EJNEPA Guidance}. Defined are such terms as minority, minority
population, low-income population, disproportionately high and adverse human health effects,
and disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects. Understanding these terms will
help the EPA reviewer in applying this EPA guidance on Section 309 reviews.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSES
The CEQ EJ NEPA Guidance presents a discussion on general principles for
considering environmental justice under NEPA. It states in part:
Environmental justice issues may arise at any step of the NEPA process and
agencies should consider these issues at each and every step of the process, as
appropriate. Environmental justice issues encompass a broad range of impacts
covered by NEPA, including impacts on the natural or physical environment and
interrelated social, cultural and economic effects.1 In preparing an EIS or an EA,
agencies must consider both impacts on the natural or physical environment and
related social, cultural, and economic impacts.2 Environmental justice concerns
may arise from impacts on the natural and physical environment, such as human
1 The CEQ implementing regulations define "effects" or "impacts" to include [those that are]
"ecological...aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health, whether direct, indirect or
cumulative."
2 40C.F.R. 1508.14.
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
health or ecological impacts on minority populations, low-income populations,
and Indian tribes, or from related social or economic impacts.
Table 1 lists six general principles included in CEQ's EJNEPA Guidance for identifying
and addressing environmental justice under NEPA.
Table 1. Principles For Considering Environmental Justice Under NEPA
PRINCIPLES FOR CONSIDERING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE UNDER NEPA
the;
bell
Jsffi
AREA
COMPOSITION
Consider the composition of the affected area to determine whether minority populations,
low-income populations, or Indian tribes are present in the area affected by the proposed
action, and, if so, whether there may be disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes.
DATA
Consider relevant public health data and industry data concerning the potential for multiple
or cumulative exposure to human health or environmental hazards in the affected population
and historical patterns of exposure to environmental hazards, to the extent such information
is reasonably available. For example, data may suggest there are disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on a minority population, low-income
population, or Indian tribe from the agency action. Also consider these multiple, or
cumulative effects, even if certain effects are not within the control or subject to the
discretion of the agency proposing the action.
INTERRELATED
FACTORS
Recognize the interrelated cultural, social, occupational, historical, or economic factors that
may amplify the natural and physical environmental effects of the proposed agency action.
These factors should include the physical sensitivity of the community or population to
particular impacts; the effect of any disruption on the community structure associated with
the proposed action; and the nature and degree of impact on the physical and social structure
of the community.
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
Develop effective public participation strategies. As appropriate, acknowledge and seek to
overcome linguistic, cultural, institutional, geographic, and other barriers to meaningful
participation, and incorporate active outreach to affected groups.
COMMUNITY
REPRESENTATION
Assure meaningful community representation in the process. Be aware of the diverse
constituencies within any particular community when they seek community representation.
Endeavor to have complete representation of the community as a whole and encourage
community participation as early as possible if it is to be meaningful.
TRIBAL
REPRESENTATION
Seek tribal representation in the process in a manner that is consistent with the govemment-
to-government relationship between the United States and tribal governments, the federal
government's trust responsibility to federally-recognized tribes, and any treaty rishts.
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
In addition to these general principles, CEQ's EJNEPA Guidance notes the following:
The Executive Order does not change the prevailing legal thresholds and statutory
interpretations under NEPA and existing case law. For example, for an EIS to be
required, there must be a sufficient impact on the physical or natural environment to be
"significant" within the meaning of NEPA. Agency consideration of impacts on low-
income populations, minority populations, or Indian tribes may lead to the identification
health or environmental effects that are
'significant and that otherwise would be overlooked?
Under NEPA, the identification of a disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effect on a low-income population, minority population, or Indian tribe
does not preclude a proposed agency action from going forward, nor does it necessarily
compel a conclusion that a proposed action is environmentally unsatisfactory. Rather, the
identification of such an effect should heighten agency attention to alternatives (including
alternative sites), mitigation strategies, monitoring needs, and preferences expressed by
the affected community or population.
Neither the Executive Order nor this guidance prescribes any specific format for
examining environmental justice, such as designating a specific chapter or section in an
EIS or EA on environmental justice issues. Agencies should integrate analyses of
environmental justice concerns in an appropriate manner so as to be clear, concise, and
comprehensible within the general format suggested by 40 C.F.R. § 1502.10.
3 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, U.S.C. 2000d et seq., and agency
implementing regulations, prohibit recipients of federal financial assistance from taking actions
that discriminate on the basis of race,... color, or national origin... If an agency is aware that
a recipient of federal funds may be taking action that is causing a racially discriminatory
impact, the agency should consider using Title VI as a means to prevent or eliminate that
discrimination.
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
The following sections identify the Section 309 review process phases where EPA is
involved. They identify specific areas that the EPA reviewer should consider in the assessment
of environmental justice.
2.1 EPA Responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act
The provisions of Clean Air Act Section 309 require the Administrator of EPA to
comment in writing upon the environmental impacts associated with certain proposed actions of
other federal agencies, including actions subject to NEPA's EIS requirement. The comments
must be made available to the public.
In cases where the EPA Administrator determines that the proposed action is
"unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality, he shall
publish his determination and the matter shall be referred to the Council on Environmental
Quality." In accordance with these requirements, EPA is responsible for developing informed
comments and recommendations that notify the public and action agency of potential oversights
in the identification and evaluation of potential impacts. EPA determines whether the action
agency analyzed data on the potential impacts of the proposed action on the environment and
human health and whether a reasonable effort was made to inform and involve the public in the
EIS development process. During the review, the EPA reviewer should consider the following
questions:
Did the agency articulate and document the reasoning that supports its decision?
Did the agency consider alternatives as a test of soundness for the decision?
Did the agency provide avenues for public participation in decision-making?
EPA's Section 309 review process encompasses the requirement for EPA to ensure that
environmental justice concerns are considered by Federal agencies, thus satisfying the spirit and
intent of the Presidential Memorandum as well as demonstrating EPA's continued commitment
to assure its environmental justice goals are met.
2.2 Pre-Review Activities
It is EPA's policy to participate in the NEPA process at the earliest stage of project
development and to the fullest extent practicable (EPA's 1984 Policy and Procedures for the
Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment, hereafter, Policy and Procedures). The
policy notes that for EIS involvement, the following three steps should be taken:
(1) Participate in interagency coordination early in the planning process to identify
significant environmental issues that should be addressed in completed documents;
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
(2) Conduct follow-up coordination on actions where EPA has identified significant
environmental impacts to ensure a full understanding of the issues and to ensure implementation
of appropriate corrective actions; and
(3) Identify environmentally unsatisfactory proposals and consult with other agencies,
including CEQ, to achieve timely resolution of the major issues and problems.
EPA's involvement in the scoping process should ensure that: (1) problems are identified
early and are properly studied, (2) issues of little significance do not consume too much time and
effort, (3) the draft EIS is thorough and balanced, and (4) delays occasioned by inadequate draft
EISs are avoided. At this stage, it would also be useful for the EPA reviewer to be familiar with
or obtain the other federal agency's environmental justice strategy (developed under Executive
Order 12898, §1-103) and any related guidance. EPA's level of involvement during the scoping
process should be determined on a case-by-case basis and should be commensurate with the
degree of the environmental justice concern(s). In this context, the reviewer may supplement
scoping letters or telephone responses with further detailed information. Such information could
include:
Specific information or data related to the area of interest;
Specific assessment techniques and methodologies;
Reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that may avoid potential adverse impacts;
Mitigation measures that should be considered to reduce or to substantially eliminate
adverse environmental impacts.
The identification of environmental justice concerns and the incorporation of these
concerns into the scoping analysis can have implications for the nature and extent of the EIS. For
example, Indian tribe representation in the process should be sought in a manner that is
consistent with the government-to-government relationship between the United States and tribal
governments, the Federal government's trust responsibility to Federally-recognized tribes, and
treaty and other rights. This will help ensure that the NEPA process is fully utilized to address
concerns identified by tribes and enhance the protection of tribal environments, resources and
sovereignty.
2.3 Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statements
All EISs filed with EPA should be reviewed for adequate environmental justice content.
Although some draft EISs may not include environmental justice issues, relevant environmental
justice concerns should be included in EPA's comment letter and factored into the project rating
as appropriate.
6
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
2.3.1 Public Participation
A prime NEPA objective is to engage the public in the EIS development and decision-
making processes at the earliest stage possible. To accomplish this objective, CEQ regulations
require that, in the NEPA process, agencies keep the public well-informed of their proposed
actions and alternatives as well as the findings on associated human health and environmental
effects and risks that may have an impact on communities.
CEQ regulations also require that the agency involve the public in providing information
pertinent to EIS development. The specific steps of the NEPA process where public participation
is encouraged include the scoping phase, review of the draft EIS, and review of the Record of
Decision and/or Finding of No Significant Impact. However, in addressing environmental justice
under NEPA, the agency should involve the public in the initial screening and data collection
effort to identify any potentially affected minority and/or low-income population(s).
In this context, the EPA reviewer should note whether the agency's draft EIS reflects a
concerted effort to elicit participation of minority and/or low-income populations. Also, the
reviewer should note whether the draft EIS considered public input in determining and analyzing
disproportionately high and adverse impacts as well as alternatives that would mitigate the
impacts to the community (ies). The agency may need to initiate innovative approaches to
overcome linguistic, institutional, cultural, economic, historical or other potential barriers that
may limit a community's ability to participate. The CEQ NEPA EJ Guidance suggests the
following strategies that may be useful in overcoming barriers to effective public participation.
While not all strategies need to be used, they should all be considered and included only on an as
needed basis.
Coordination with individuals, institutions, or organizations in the affected community to
educate the public about potential health and environmental impacts and enhance'public
involvement;
Translation of major documents (or summaries thereof), provision of translators at
meetings, and other efforts to ensure that limited-English speakers potentially affected by
a proposed action have an understanding of the proposed action and its potential impacts;
Provision of opportunities for limited-English speaking members of the affected public to
provide comments throughout the NEPA process;
Provision of opportunities for public participation through means other than written
communication, such as personal interviews or use of audio or video recording devices to
capture oral comments;
Use of periodic newsletters or summaries to provide updates on the NEPA process to
keep the public informed;
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
Use of different meeting sizes or formats, or variation on the type and number of media
used, so that communications are tailored to the particular community or population;
Circulation or creation of specialized materials that reflect the concerns and sensitivities
of particular populations such as information about risks specific to subsistence
consumers offish, vegetation, or wildlife;
Use of locations and facilities that are local, convenient, and accessible to the disabled,
low-income and minority communities; and
Assistance to hearing-or sight-impaired individuals.
2.3.2 Determining the Potentially Affected Environment
Early in the review process, the EPA reviewer should identify the study area and its
composition including potentially affected minority and/or low-income communities. In
addition, the EPA reviewer should identify the natural resources that could potentially be
affected by proposed and alternative actions. Through review of the EIS, EPA reviewers should
develop an understanding of demographic, socioeconomic, and environmental conditions as a
reference point for data comparison. This allows a determination to be made as to whether or not
a comprehensive assessment of the types of impacts that may be imposed upon all human and
natural resources (e.g., air, water, soil, wildlife) was conducted. It also allows an understanding
of how these impacts should be translated into human health concerns.
To account for potential environmental justice concerns, reviewers should be sensitive to
identifying whether affected resources, particularly natural resources that support subsistence
living (e.g., hunting, fishing, gathering), are used by minority or low-income communities. The
analyses should be focused toward how potential effects to these resources may translate into
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and/or
low-income communities.
In addition, Indian tribes may have treaty and other rights to resources in or outside of
Indian country and may hold some natural resources sacred due to religious beliefs and/or
social/ceremonial ties. The action agency should solicit alternatives and mitigation measures
from the affected community early in the process, such as during scoping. Throughout the NEPA
process, but especially in this phase, the action agency should provide affected communities with
the tools (e.g., summary reports and background explanations in plain language) to ensure that
the communities understand technically complex issues and have meaningful participation and
input. All resources that could be affected should be thoroughly identified and documented.
These findings should be discussed and shared with potentially affected communities during
public participation phases of the NEPA process. These measures will help to ensure full
disclosure and the solicitation of additional public comment and input.
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
2.3.3 Analysis
If the potential for adverse effects is identified, agencies should analyze how the
environmental and health effects are distributed within the affected community. Demographic
data and information on the ecological characteristics and biophysical impacts of the proposed
action and any alternatives should be analyzed to identify if disproportionately high and adverse
impacts will affect the minority and/or low- income communities. Before commenting on an
agency proposal, the EPA reviewer should see how the agency came to the conclusion that an
impact may or may not be disproportionately high and adverse and the rationale behind the
proposal. For example, there may be situations where a proposed action causes several impacts
(e.g., a low-income population experiencing air pollution from a permitted discharge while
simultaneously experiencing increased traffic in its neighborhood.) In this instance, the agency
may have generated, through Geographic Information System (GIS) technology, a visual image
which shows the relationship between the demographic and ecological characteristics of the
geographic area where the impacts will occur and reviewed this information with the affected
communities.
The analysis findings should be documented by the agency, including whether a
disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effect is likely to result from the
proposed action and any alternatives. Also, the EIS should identify how the action agency
ensured that the findings were communicated to the public.
2.3.4 Alternatives
NEPA and the CEQ regulations require that a reasonable range of alternatives be
identified and developed. In addition, CEQ requires that all reasonable alternatives, including a
"no action" alternative, must be analyzed rigorously and objectively.
In the draft EIS, the EPA reviewer should evaluate the environmental justice issues
identified in the alternatives proposed by the agency as well as whether or not the agency has
considered the affected communities' input. Actions that would adversely impact tribal
resources may conflict with the Federal government's trust responsibility, a tribal treaty or other
rights. In instances where tribal objections have been raised, the lead agency or the tribe(s) may
have requested a dispute resolution process to resolve conflicting issues regarding the appropriate
alternative(s).
EPA reviewers should keep in mind that the goal of identifying and developing
alternatives for mitigating disproportionately high and adverse effects is not to distribute the
impacts proportionally or divert them to a non-minority or higher-income community.
Subsequently, preferred alternatives should be developed that mitigate or avoid effects to both
the population at large and minority or low-income communities that were identified as being
subjected to disproportionately high and adverse effects.
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
2.3.5 Mitigation
CEQ regulations require that mitigation measures be analyzed to address environmental
effects, including cumulative impacts, to natural resources threatened by proposed actions. In
addition, mitigation measures should be developed specifically to address potential
disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority and/or low-income communities.
Similarly, the agency, with tribal concurrence, should select mitigation measures that will not
diminish tribal resources and that will ensure the protection of such resources from
environmental harm. Where tribal objections have been raised, it may be appropriate for the
action agency and the tribe(s) to engage in a dispute resolution process to resolve conflicting
issues regarding the appropriate mitigation measures.
When identifying and developing potential mitigation measures to address environmental
justice concerns, the action agency should consult the affected members of the community.
Public participation efforts should be designed and conducted to ensure that effective mitigation
measures are identified and that the effects of any potential mitigation measures are realistically
analyzed and compared. Mitigation measures may include a variety of approaches for addressing
potential effects and balancing the needs and concerns of the affected community with the
requirements of the action or activity. For example, potential mitigation measures for addressing
disproportionately high and adverse effects could include:
1. Reducing pollutant loadings through changes in processes or technologies.
2. Reducing or eliminating other sources of pollutants or impacts to reduce cumulative
effects.
3. Planning for and addressing indirect impacts prior to project initiation (e.g., planning
for alternative public transportation alternatives if the project may result in increased
population growth).
4. Providing assistance to an affected community to ensure that it receives at least its
fair (i.e., proportional) share of the anticipated benefits of the proposed action (e.g.,
through job training, community infrastructure improvements, etc.).
5. Relocating affected communities, upon request or with concurrence from the
affected individuals.
6. Establish a community oversight committee to monitor progress and identify
potential community concerns.
7. Changing the timing of impact-causing actions (e.g., noise, pollutant loadings) to
reduce effects on affected communities.
8. Conducting medical monitoring on affected communities and providing treatment or
other responses if necessary.
_ .
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
If mitigation measures are determined to be necessary to reduce disproportionately high
and adverse effects on minority and/or low-income communities, and/or tribal resources, then the
measures should be committed to in the ROD. EPA's EJNEPA Guidance suggests other steps
that the EPA reviewer can consider as recommendations to the action agency to ensure that
mitigation measures are effective and are implemented. These include the following:
Establish the mitigation measure as a requirement in the permit or authorizing document;
Require financing at the outset of the project for both implementing the mitigation
measure and monitoring its effectiveness through clearly defined guidelines;
Require monitoring reporting, which should be made available to the public; and
Identify clear consequences and penalties for failure to implement effective mitigation
measures.
2.4 Rating System
EPA's Policy and Procedures sets forth a system for rating the environmental impact of
the proposed action and the adequacy of the impact statement. Although the rating system
predates Executive Order 12898, it nevertheless encompasses the assessment of environmental
justice issues. Environmental justice should be considered by the EPA reviewer when the ratings
are assigned.
2.4.1 Rating the Environmental Impact
The EPA reviewer's rating for the environmental impact of the proposed action should
consider environmental justice when: (a) minority populations, low-income populations, or
Indian tribes are present in the area affected by the proposed action; and (b) there may exist
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations or Indian tribes.
2.4.2 Rating the Adequacy of the Impact Statement
The EPA reviewer's rating for the adequacy of the impact statement should consider
environmental justice when: (a) the EIS fails to provide sufficient information to adequately
address the question of whether or not minority or low-income populations are disproportionately
affected; or (b) the EIS fails to draw a conclusion regarding the significance of a potential
environmental justice impact.
2.4.3 Review of and Nature of Comments on the Final EIS
Environmental justice concerns identified at the draft EIS stage should be examined in
the final EIS to determine whether the problem was adequately resolved. The review of the final
11
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
EIS should focus on the projects' unresolved issues relating to disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and/or low-income populations.
2.5 Referral to CEQ
As part of EPA's Section 309 responsibilities, EPA must refer to CEQ "any such
[proposed] legislation, action, or regulation that the Administrator determines is unsatisfactory
from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality" (42 U.S.C. § 7609(b)).
3.0 ISSUES AND QUESTIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSES
This section is intended to assist the EPA reviewer with questions commonly encountered
in environmental justice analyses.
Issue No. 1: Identification of Minority Populations
Question: Were the minority characteristics of potentially affected communities identified?
Answer: The first step in identifying the minority characteristics of potentially impacted
communities is to understand the geographic scope of the area affected by the proposed action.
The EPA reviewer should ensure that the geographic boundaries surrounding the community(ies)
which may be impacted by the proposed action and/or alternatives were identified in the EIS.
The geographic area of analysis may include a governing body's jurisdiction, a neighborhood,
census tract or other similar unit that is chosen so as not to artificially dilute or inflate the
affected minority population.
Types of geographic distribution considered in the EIS may reflect race, ethnicity, and/or
income or other boundaries such as tribal lands and resources. It is important for the EIS analyst
as well as the EPA reviewer to recognize that the geographic region analyzed for potential
impacts on a minority community(ies) may differ in size from other areas considered in the EIS.
For example, an EIS for a proposed Federal highway construction project that would pass
through tribal lands would require an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts for the
actual area where construction would occur. In addition, the environmental justice analysis for
the proposed action may require that the agency evaluate potential impacts on Native American
communities located beyond the geographic boundaries of the proposed action if the area is used
for spiritual or subsistence purposes. In this case, the geographic boundaries are different (i.e.,
larger) than those of other areas considered in the EIS. Determining the appropriate geographic
area for environmental justice analyses is also particularly important for proposed actions that
may affect air or water quality beyond the boundaries of the facility where emissions or
discharges would originate.
In addition to the study area identified, the EPA reviewer should consider whether the
EIS identified other communities so that a comparative analysis could determine if there were
"meaningfully greater" impacts on certain minority communities. Such a comparison of a
12 " ~
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
potentially impacted minority community to the larger geographic area, political jurisdiction, or
similar community located in a different geographic area may aid in distinguishing potential
impacts on minority communities within the affected area of the proposed action.
The EPA reviewer should be cognizant of the various sources of data used to identify the
study area potentially affected by the proposed action and/or alternatives. Sources of data used
may include:
Maps provided by state, county and local agencies that delineate population and/or
political boundaries;
U.S. Census Bureau geographic data available on CD-ROM from the Bureau,at numerous
local and university libraries, or on the World Wide Web;
Sources such as Chambers of Commerce, civic groups, trade associations and other
commercial organizations; and
Standard demographic surveys that identify ethnic pockets and living patterns within the
community.
Once the study area has been determined, the reviewer should determine how the EIS
analysis identified the potentially affected minority populations. When possible, the analysis
should identify the presence of minority communities residing near the proposed project and
those minority groups which utilize or are dependent upon natural resources that may be affected
by the proposed action. In addition, the IWG recommends consideration of both individuals
living in geographic proximity to one another as well as geographically dispersed/transient sets of
individuals, where both types of groups "experience common conditions" of environmental
exposure or effect.
Issue No. 2: Identification of Low-Income Populations
Question: Were the relevant economic indicators (e.g., average median income) of the
potentially affected populations identified?
Answer: As with the identification of minority populations, the EPA reviewer should
evaluate whether the EIS analysis identified the geographic area that may be potentially impacted
by the proposed action.
Once the geographic area of analysis has been determined, the EPA reviewer should
evaluate whether and to what extent the EIS analysis identified low-income populations that may
be affected by the proposed action and/or alternatives, including "pockets" of low-income
individuals hi specific geographic areas. It is important for both the EIS analyst and EPA
reviewer to recognize that the aggregation of data and lack of current information on income
levels may fail to reveal certain relevant characteristics about the population. For example, the
13
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
aggregation of data in a particular geographic area may mask a "pocket" of low-income
individuals that exists among the larger general population.
The following sources of data may be used to identify low-income populations:
U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. In
addition to using U.S. Census defined parameters for measuring income and poverty, it is
also important to consider state and regional low-income and poverty definitions where
appropriate;
Local resources such as community and public outreach groups, community leaders, and
state universities (e.g., economic departments);
State and local agencies such as departments of taxation and employment. Other agencies
may be able to provide additional data on economic indicators such as the status and level
of public services provided to community members (e.g., health care, education,
infrastructure, etc.) and the dependence of the parts of the community on natural
resources for subsistence;
Commercial database firms that collect and market statistical demographic information;
Location/distributional tools such as maps, aerial photographs and geographical
information systems (GIS); and
Public outreach and other communication efforts that involve community members in
defining their communities. Such efforts are effective in obtaining the most current data
on income and poverty levels available.
Issue No. 3. Identification of Potential Impacts
Question: Were potential environmental impacts to minority populations or low-income
populations identified?
Answer: The EPA reviewer should ensure that the action agency identified potential
impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative) on minority and/or low-income populations
subsequent to addressing Issues 1 and 2. Determining the potential impacts of a proposed action
on minority and/or low-income populations involves collecting data and analyzing the direct,
indirect, and cumulative potential environmental and human health impacts. The agency should
also have identified any impact that the proposed action may have on subsistence-related
consumption offish and wildlife as well as water and vegetation by the minority and/or low-
income community (ies). In addition, the agency and the EPA reviewer should determine whether
government standards address the potential levels, risks and routes of exposure to the potentially
affected minority and/or low-income community(ies).
14
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
The EIS should incorporate data on baseline demographic, socioeconomic, and
environmental conditions so that a comprehensive assessment of the potential impacts that may
affect human health and natural resources can be fully understood and used in the decision-
making process. A socioeconomic analysis of potential impacts should also be conducted and
evaluated within the context of potential disproportionately high and adverse effects. To address
potential impacts on minority and low-income communities, the agency and EPA reviewer
should pay special attention to whether the potentially impacted resources translate to use values
(e.g., subsistence, other economic or social purposes, religious or spiritual practices) or non-use
values (e.g., scenic views) by members of the community(ies).
The public should be kept involved and informed throughout the data collection and
analysis phases of the EIS development and review processes. Full documentation of findings on
potential impacts should be presented. In addition, the findings of potential impacts should be
fully disclosed and discussed with the potentially affected community(ies) and used to solicit
additional input from the public.
Issue No. 4: Public Involvement
Question: What were the levels of participation of the potentially impacted minority
communities and low-income communities in scoping meetings and the comment
process? What effort was made by the Federal agency to secure input and
participation of potentially impacted minority and/or low-income communities?
Answer: Public involvement is an important component of NEPA. The EPA reviewer
should evaluate the extent to which the agency involved the potentially impacted minority and/or
low-income community(ies) in the EIS development, analysis and decision-making processes. A
significant part of the EPA review should focus on who, in the potentially impacted minority
and/or low-income community(ies), the agency communicated with and when the public became
involved in the process. Both the CEQ EJNEPA Guidance and the EPA EJNEPA Guidance
provide suggestions about various community-based organizations useful in developing
communication outreach strategies for members of the community (ies). It may be useful to refer
to these guidance documents when evaluating how the agency developed outreach and public
involvement strategies.
EPA's review should identify and evaluate specific actions taken by the agency to obtain
input from community members. These include the pre-scoping and scoping efforts to help
determine the study area and characteristics of the potentially impacted community(ies). By
reviewing scoping documentation, the EPA reviewer can determine when the agency initiated
outreach to the potentially impacted community and if outreach occurred during the early stages
of the process. Involving the public in the early stages of EIS development represents the first
step in securing an informed and participatory community that should exist throughout the entire
NEPA process.
The EPA review should identify and evaluate actions taken by the agency to keep the
community informed and involved beyond the initial phases of the process. Such actions include
15
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
notifying the potentially impacted minority and/or low-income community (ies) of the proposed
action and alternatives, scoping meetings and other events that occur during the development of
the EIS. The EPA review should also evaluate the adequacy of the information provided to the
public. That is, the review should determine whether the agency provided sufficient information
about the proposed action and alternatives. In other words, did the agency take actions to
overcome potential linguistic, institutional, cultural, economic, historical, or other barriers that
may have impeded the public's ability to understand the information provided and become
involved in the decision-making process? CEQ's EJNEPA Guidance suggests a series of steps
that may be taken by action agencies to develop innovative public participation efforts (e.g.,
coordination with members of the affected community, translation of major documents into the
appropriate language, use of newsletters or other publications, and scheduling of meetings that
are accessible to all interested members of the community).
The overall level of involvement by community members in the scoping and comment
processes will depend, in large part, on how well the agency reaches out to and communicates
with the community. Based on EPA's review of the actions taken by the agency, at least a
preliminary assessment of the public's involvement may be made. In addition, a review of the
documentation provided by the agency should provide an indication of the level of public
involvement.
Issue No. 5: Disproportionately High and Adverse Impacts
Question: Are the impacts to the minority populations and low-income populations
disproportionately high and adverse as compared to the general population or the
comparison group?
Answer: The EPA review should determine if the action agency identified any adverse
impacts on minority populations and/or low-income populations as a result of a proposed action
or identified alternatives to the proposed action. The action agency should identify and
document all environmental and human health impacts that may have a disproportionately high
impact on minority populations or low-income populations. Analysis of such impacts should
determine the nature and severity of the impacts (e.g., singular, cumulative or multiple impacts.)
This includes whether the health and environmental effects impact minority populations or low-
income populations in a disproportionately high and adverse way (e.g., whether the risk and rate
of exposure from environmental hazards is significant and/or appreciably higher to minority
populations and/or low-income populations than for the general population or comparison
group).
If disproportionately high and adverse impacts are identified in the draft EIS, the review
should also evaluate how the agency analyzed and documented the distribution of environmental
and health effects within the community. EPA should determine what methods were used by the
agency to document findings and evaluate whether those methods adequately and accurately
characterized the impacts on the community. Methods useful for identifying whether a minority
population and/or low-income population is disproportionately and adversely affected by a
16 ' "
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
proposed action and its alternatives include: locational/distributional tools (e.g., GIS), ecological
and human health risk assessments, and socioeconomic analyses.
The EPA review should ensure that the agency informed the public by providing
sufficient and comprehensible information on any disproportionately high and adverse impacts
and the rationale for the agency's conclusions about the impacts. Where possible, the public
should be involved in providing input and information to identify the impacts.
Issue No. 6: Mitigation of Disproportionately High and Adverse Impacts
Question: When a disproportionately high and adverse impact to minority populations and
low-income are identified, can those impacts be mitigated?
Answer: The EPA reviewer should determine whether the agency has described mitigation
measures to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or eliminate the proposed action's impact(s) on
potentially affected minority and/or low-income populations. The EPA reviewer should ensure
that any decisions implementing mitigation measures reflect a process of public involvement
wherein affected community members had an opportunity to provide input in the public
participation processes.
In cases where EPA finds that the proposed action would have a more significant
adverse/disproportionate impact on minority populations and/or low-income populations than the
alternatives, it may be appropriate for EPA to discuss with the agency, the various alternatives
that would result in a reduced impact on the community.
Issue No. 7: Nature of Comments on the Draft EIS
Question: How should the EPA reviewer address environmental justice in comments on the
draft EIS?
Answer: Under the NEPA review process, EPA should address several issues in the
comment letter, including a clear statement of the concerns about the agency's proposal and
recommendations, or alternatives, for mitigating the impacts associated with the action(s). The
environmental justice analysis should be addressed within this general context of the NEPA
review process. Specific guidance for preparing comments on the draft EIS is described in
EPA's Policy and Procedures.
Essentially, the objectives of EPA comments on the draft EIS are to rate the impacts and
adequacy of the agency's EIS. In this context, issues associated with environmental justice can
be addressed by EPA and allow for a continuation of the discussion among the affected minority
populations and/or low-income populations, EPA, and the action agency.
17
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
Issue No. 8: Nature of Comments on the Final EIS
Question: How should the EPA reviewer address environmental justice in comments on the
final EIS?
Answer: Comments on the final EIS should address any major outstanding issues that were
not addressed by the action agency in the final EIS and/or any additional issues that were raised
after the publication of EPA's comments on the draft EIS. EPA's review should focus on the
disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and/or low-income populations that
would result from the proposed action and alternatives rather than on the adequacy of the EIS.
18
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
APPENDIX A
AUTHORITIES, POLICIES AND GUIDANCE
19
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
AUTHORITIES, POLICIES AND GUIDANCE
The following information provides background on authorities, policies and guidance
pertinent to environmental justice. Refer to Table 2 for relevant environmental justice language
specific to each source document.
Executive Order No. 12898 and Accompanying Presidential Memorandum (February 11,
1994)
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, and its accompanying Presidential Memorandum
were issued on February 11,1994. The EO is "designed to focus Federal attention on the
environmental and human health conditions in minority communities and low-income
communities with the goal of achieving environmental justice" (Presidential Memorandum
accompanying Executive Order 12898, February 11, 1994). Moreover, the EO is intended to
"promote nondiscrimination in Federal programs substantially affecting human health and the
environment, and to provide minority communities and low-income communities access to
public information on, and an opportunity for public participation in, matters relating to human
health or the environment" (Presidential Memorandum accompanying Executive Order 12898,
February 11,1994).
Ultimately, the EO and accompanying Presidential Memorandum serve to inform EPA's
Section 309 review process to comment on and evaluate environmental justice content within
other agencies' EISs.
National Environmental Policy Act
A general framework for implementing NEPA requirements is presented in regulations
(40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508) promulgated by the CEQ. Federal agencies, in turn, have
developed their own rules for NEPA compliance that are consistent with the CEQ regulations
while addressing the specific missions and program activities of each agency.
EPA has general statutory authority under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat 852), to review and
comment on Federal actions affecting the quality of the environment. NEPA requires that all
Federal agencies proposing major actions which significantly affect the quality of the human
environment consult with other agencies having jurisdiction by law or having special expertise of
relevant environmental factors, and prepare a detailed statement of these environmental effects.
Since NEPA, through the EIS process, mandates taking into account the significant
environmental effects of a proposed project, including its cumulative impact, and requires public
participation as part of its process, it is a useful procedural device for considering environmental
justice when making a decision.
20
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
Clean Air Act, Section 309
Under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA has specific authority and responsibility to
review and comment hi writing on certain actions proposed by other Federal agencies that affect
the quality of the environment. In addition, EPA's written comments must be made public at the
conclusion of any review. NEPA documents that EPA reviewers under §309 should include are
a statement about whether the proposed action will have an impact on minority communities or
low-income communities.
-
^
'Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amendec
Title VI itself prohibits intentional discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.
The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that Title VI authorizes federal agencies, including EPA,
to adopt implementing regulations that prohibit discriminatory effects. Frequently,
discrimination results from policies and practices that are neutral on their face, but have the effect
of discriminating.4
The Presidential memorandum accompanying Executive Order 12898 directs federal
agencies to ensure compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of Title VI for all
federally-funded programs and activities that affect human health or the environment. While
Title VI is inapplicable to federal actions, Section 2-2 of the EO is designed to ensure that federal
actions substantially affecting human health or the environment do not have discriminatory
effects based on race, color, or national origin.
Relevant Guidance
CEQ's guidance, Addressing Environmental Justice under the National Environmental
Policy Act, was developed for use by all federal agencies. It incorporates the Interagency
Working Group (IWG) on Environmental Justice's guidance on key terms hi Executive Order
12898. The EPA reviewer should have a good understanding of the terms discussed hi the IWG
guidance.
EPA's guidance, Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA
Analyses, is a detailed guidance of how EPA NEPA analysts should recognize, identify, and
address environmental justice in any EPA actions subject to NEPA.
4 Department of Justice, Attorney General's Memorandum for Heads of Departments and
Agencies that Provide Federal Financial Assistance, The Use of the Disparate Impact Standard
in Administrative Regulations Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (July 14,1994).
21
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
Table 2. Authorities, Policies and Guidance Relevant to Environmental Justice
Document
Relevant Language Applicable to Environmental Justice
Executive
Order 12898
(February 11,
1994)
The EO contains the following provisions for each Federal agency to:
Make environmental justice part of its mission .by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income
populations (CEQ, § 1-1011.
Develop and implement an agency-wide environmental justice strategy
(EO, § M03).
Address diverse segments of the population when performing human
health and environmental research and analysis. These analyses shall,
whenever practicable and appropriate, identify multiple and cumulative
exposures (EO, § 3-301).
Collect, maintain, and analyze information on the consumption patterns
of populations who principally rely on fish, vegetation, and/or wildlife
for subsistence (EO, § 4-401).
Ensure public participation and access to information (EO, § 5-5).
Presidential
Memorandum
to Executive
Order 12898
(February 11,
1994)
The Presidential Memorandum (which accompanied Executive Order
12898) emphasized the following provisions for each Federal agency to:
Analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic
and social effects, of Federal actions, including effects on minority
communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is
required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, §
2.1.2; 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.X
To address, whenever feasible, significant and adverse environmental
effects of proposed Federal actions on minority communities and low-
income communities in mitigation measures identified as part of a
finding of no significant impact (FONSI), an EIS, or a record of decision
(ROD).
Provide opportunities for effective community participation in the NEPA
process, including consultation with the affected population when
identifying potential effects, considering mitigation measures, or
improving the accessibility of public meetings, crucial documents, and
22
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
Table 2. Authorities, Policies and Guidance Relevant to Environmental Justice
(Continued)
Document
Relevant Language Applicable to Environmental Justice
notices.
Ensure that the involved agency has fully analyzed environmental effects
on minority communities and low-income communities, including human
health, social, and economic effects when reviewing (§ 309 of the Clean
Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7609) environmental effects of other Federal
agencies' proposed actions.
NEPA
(42 U.S.C. §
4331(b))
The following goals make clear that attainment of environmental justice is
wholly consistent with the purposes of NEPA:
To assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically
and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(2)).
To attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without
degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended
consequences (42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(3)).
To preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our natural
heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which
supports diversity and variety of individual choice (42 U.S.C.
§4331(b)(4)).
To achieve a balance between population and resource use which will
permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities (42
U.S.C. §4331 (b)(5)).
Clean Air Act
Section 309
(42 U.S.C. §
7609(a))
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act mandates that the EPA Administrator
"review and comment in writing on the environmental impact of any matter
relating to duties and responsibilities... of the Administrator contained in
any (1) legislation proposed by any Federal department or agency, (2) newly
authorized Federal projects for construction and any major Federal action
[subject to §102(2)(C) of NEPA]...and (3) proposed regulations published
by any department or agency of the Federal Government."
Civil Rights
Act, Title VI
(42 U.S.C. §
2000d et seq.
Title VI states that: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of
race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
While Title VI itself prohibits intentional discrimination, agency
implementing regulations may also prohibit unintentional discriminatory
effects.
23
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
APPENDIX B
LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONTACTS
24
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONTACTS
USEPA Regional Environmental Justice Contacts
Region 1
Ronnie Harrington, EJ Coordinator (617) 918-1703
Betsy Higgins, EPA Environmental Review Coordinator (617)918-1051
James Sappier, Indian Program Coordinator (617) 918-1672
Roger Janson, NEPA Coordinator (617) 918-1621
Region 2
Melva Hayden, EJ Coordinator (212) 637-5027
Robert Hargrove, EPA Environmental Review and NEPA Coordinator (212) 637-3504
Christine Yost, Indian Program Coordinator (212) 637-3564
Region 3
Reginald Harris, EJ Coordinator (215) 814-2988
John Forren, EPA Environmental Review Coordinator (215) 814-2705
Bill Hoffman, NEPA Coordinator (215) 814-2995
Region 4
Connie Raines, EJ Coordinator (404) 562-9671
Heinz Mueller, EPA Environmental Review and NEPA Coordinator (404) 562-9611
Mark Robertson, Indian Program Coordinator (404) 562-9639
Region 5
Karla Johnson, EJ Coordinator (312) 886-5993
Shirley Mitchell, EPA Environmental Review Coordinator and NEPA (312) 886-9750
Michele Fonte, Indian Program Coordinator (312) 886-2943
Region 6
Shirley Augerson, EJ Coordinator (214) 665-7401
Mike Jansky, EPA Environmental Review and NEPA Coordinator (214) 665-7451
Ellen Greeney, Indian Program Coordinator (214) 665-2200
Region 7
Althea Moses, EJ Coordinator (913) 551-7649
Joe Cothern, EPA Environmental Review / NEPA Coordinator (913) 551-7765
Kim Olsen, Indian Program Coordinator (913) 551-7539
Region 8
Elisabeth Evans, EJ Coordinator (303) 312-6053
Cindy Cody, EPA Environmental Review and NEPA Coordinator (303) 312-6228
Sadie Hoskie, Indian Program Coordinator (303) 312-6606
25
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
Region 9
Karen Henry, EJ Coordinator (415) 744-1581
Dave Parrel, EPA Environmental Review and NEPA Coordinator (415) 744-1584
Clarence Tenley, Indian Program Coordinator (415) 744-1607
Region 10
Joyce Crosson-Kelly, EJ Coordinator (206) 553-4029
Rick Parkin, EPA Environmental Review and NEPA Coordinator (206) 553-8574
Scot Sufficool, Indian Program Coordinator (206) 553-6220
USEPA Headquarters Environmental Justice Contacts
Tony Hansen, AIEO (202) 260-8106
Angela Chung, OA (202) 260-4724
Will Wilson, OAR (202) 260-5574
Carolyn Levine, OARM (202) 260-4895
Doretta Reaves, OCEMR (202) 260-3534
Mike Mathesen, OCR (919) 260-4587
Robert Banks, OECA (202) 564-2672
Mustafa Ali, OEJ (202) 564-2606
Arthur Totten, OFA (202) 564-7164
Jeff Keohane, OGC (202) 260-5314
Wendy Graham, OIA (202) 564-6602
Avis Robinson, OP (202) 260-9147
Janice Bryant, OPPE (202) 260-2730
Caren Rothstein, OPPTS (202) 260-0085
Lawrence Martin, ORD (202) 564-6497
Rochelle Kadish, ORO (202) 260-0579
Rose Harvell, OSRE (202) 564-6056
Kent Benjamin, OSWER (202) 260-2822
Alice Walker,OW (202) 260-1919
26
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
U. S. Federal Agency Environmental Justice Contacts
Council on Environmental Quality (CEO)
Altemus, Michelle (202) 395-5750
e-mail: altemus_m@al.eop.gov
Department of Commerce (DOC)
JohnPhelan (202)482-4115
e-mail:iphelan@doc.gov
Department of Energy (DOE)
Georgia Johnson (202) 586-1593
e-mail: georgia.johnson@hq.doe.gov
Department of Defense (DOD)
Len Richeson (703) 604-0518
e-mail: richeslh@acq.osd.mil
Department of Interior (DOI)
Willie Taylor (202) 208-3891
e-mail: willie_taylor@ios.doi.gov
Department of Justice (DOJ)
SylviaLiu (202) 305-0639
e-mail: sylvia.liu@justice.usdoj.gov
Department of Labor (DOL)
PaulRichman (202)219-6181
e-mail: prichman@dol.gov
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Ira Laster (202) 366-4859
e-mail: ira.laster@ost.dot.gov
Marc Brenman (202) 366-1119
e-mail: marc.brenman@ost.dot.gov
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
CalvinByrd (202) 646-2686
e-mail: calvin.byrd@fema.gov
Health and Human Services (HHS)
LaSonyaHall (301) 496-3511
e-mail: hall2@niehs.nih.gov
27
-------
EPA Guidance for EJ in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Richard Broun (202) 708-0614 ex. 4439
e-mail: richard_broun@hud.gov
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
OlgaDominguez (202) 358-0230
e-mail: odomingu@.hq.nasa.gov
KenKumor (202) 358-1112
e-mail: kkumor@.hq.nasa,gov
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Rosetta Virgilio (301) 415-2307
e-mail: rov@nrc.gov
National Security Council (NSC)
Susan Stroud (202) 606-5000 ex. 172
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Carol Dennis (202) 395-4822
e-mail: dennis_c@al.eop.gov
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
Fran Sharpies (202) 456-6079
e-mail: fsharples@ostp.eop.gov
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Bertha Gillam (202) 205-1460
e-mail: berta.gillam@.usda.gov
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Marty Harper (202) 564-2601
e-mail: halper.marty@.epa.gov
Robert Knox (202) 564-2604
e-mail: knox.robert@.epa.gov
Sylvia Lowrance (202) 564-2450
e-mail: lowrance.sylvia@.epa.gov
28
-------
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
29
-------
REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, F.R. 1973. NEPA In the Courts: A Legal Analysis of the National Environmental
Policy Act. Resources for the Future: Washington, D.C. 324pp.
Bryan, Hobson. 1984. A guide to social analysisU.S. Forest Service training manual.
Washington, B.C.: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Office of Environmental Coordination.
Council on Environmental Quality. January 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Council on Environmental Quality. December 10, 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Enk, G.A. 1973. Beyond NEPA: Criteria for Environmental Impact Review. The Institute on
Man and Science: Rensselaerville, New York. 140pp.
Environmental Justice Resource Center. People of Color Environmental Groups: 1994-1995
Directory. Prepared by Robert D. Bullard, Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Executive Order 12898 on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations with accompanying Memorandum for the
Heads of All Departments and Agencies. February 11, 1994.
Executive Order 13007 on Indian Sacred Sites. May 24,1996.
Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment.
1993. Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Belhaven: International
Association for Impact Assessment.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended. 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. January 1,
1970.
Ross, Heather E. 1994. Using NEPA in the Fight for Environmental Justice. William and Mary
Journal of Environmental Law. Volume 18:285.
United Church of Christ, Commission for Racial Justice. 1987. Toxic Wastes and Race in the
United States. New York: Public Data Access, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1998. Final Guidance for Incorporating
EnvironmentalJustice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analysis. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of Federal Activities.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 1995. EnvironmentalJustice, Your Civil
Rights. EPA-150-F-95-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. The Model Plan for Public Participation.
30
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Draft Report On Factors For Environmental
Justice Consideration in Regulation Development. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office
of Environmental Justice.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal
Actions Impacting the Environment. Washington, B.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of Federal
Activities.
U.S. General Accounting Office. June 1, 1983. Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their
Correlation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities.
Note: For additional information, the reader may refer to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 8 list of environmental justice references entitled EnvironmentalJustice
Program, Resource Bibliographies and URL Listings, August 1996.
31
------- |