United States Federal Activitec Apr! 1998
Environmental Protection (2251 A)
Agency
v>EPA Guidance for Incorporating
Environmental Justice
Concerns in EPA's NEPA
Compliance Analyses
-------
SB
\ UMJTID 3TATZ5 S?JVIRO«M5>J7AL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 20 1988
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
Dear Citizen Concerned with Environmental Justice:
Thank you for your comments and input during development of the EPA/NEPA Environmental
Justice Guidance. Your assistance was essential in our efforts to produce this document.
This guidance is designed to assist EPA staff responsible for developing compliance
documentation, including Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments,
with incorporating environmental justice issues into EPA's NEPA compliance process. It defines
common environmental justice terms, illustrates the relevance of environmental justice in
environmental analyses, presents methods for communication with the affected population
throughout the NEPA process, and introduces environmental justice as a primary consideration in
the NEPA process.
We are pleased to provide this final guidance to you and hope that you find it useful and
responsive to your comments. We believe it adheres to the spirit of Executive Order 12898,
"Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations."
Sincerely,
Richard E. Sanderson
Director,
Office of Federal Activities
-.vlth Vasetsbie C3 sassd nia :n 10C% "scyclefl ?tcer (40% Pcstccnsurwr)
-------
GUIDANCE
FOR
INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS
IN
EPA'S NEPA COMPLIANCE ANALYSES
April 1998
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
DISCLAIMER AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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. With the technical assistance of Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC), this document was prepared in partial fulfillment of
EPA Contract 68-WE-0026, Work Assignment 72-IV.
This guidance was prepared under the direction of an
Bill Dickerson of the Office of Federal Activities and
members included the following:
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 6
Region 8
Region 10
Office of Administration and
Resource Management
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Environmental Justice
Office of Water
(American Indian Environmental Office)
Office of Federal Activities
Office of General Counsel
Office of Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances
Office of Regional Operations and
State/Local Relations
Office of Research and Development
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA Workgroup co-chaired by Arthur Totten and
helped by Karen Morris. The Workgroup
James Younger
Joe Bergstein
Roy Denmark
Heinz Mueller; Chris Hoberg
Yvonne Vallette; Jack Ferguson
Gene Kersey
Rick Seaborne
Rob M. Lee
Will Wilson
Alex Varela
Elizabeth Bell
Marshall Cain; Bill Dickerson; Arthur Totten
Jim Havard; David Coursen; Mary O'Lone
Bruce Sidwell
Ann Cole
Candace Castillo
Kent Benjamin
This guidance is intended to improve the internal management of EPA with respect to environmental
justice under NEPA. It will not be deemed to 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. Compliance with this guidance will not be justiciable in any proceeding
for judicial review of agency action.
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Comotiance Analyses
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 PURPOSE 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 2
1.1.1 What is Environmental Justice? 2
1.1.2 Executive Order 12898 2
1.2 PRINCIPLES/PHILOSOPHYOFTHISGUIDANCE 3
1.2.1 EPA Actions Requiring NEPA Compliance 5
1.2.2 EPA Review of Proposed Actions Under Clean Air Act §309 10
1.3 ORGANIZATION OFTHIS GUIDANCE 10
2.0 KEY TERMS AND FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION IN EVALUATING
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS 10
2.1 DEFINING MINORITY AND/OR LOW-INCOME POPULATION 11
2.1.1 Minority and Minority Population 15
2.1.2 Low-Income Population 16
2.2 CONSIDERING EFFECTS 18
2.2.1 Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects 18
2.2.2 Cumulative and Indirect Effects 18
2.2.3 Environmental Exposure 20
2.3 SUMMARY OF FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSES 21
3.0 INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INTO THE NEPA PROCESS 27
3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE NEPA PROCESS 27
3.2 INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS INTO THIS PROCESS 29
3.2.1 Environmental Justice Screening Analysis 29
3.2.2 Environmental Justice and the Determination of Significance 31
3.2.3 Scoping and Planning 32
3.2.3.1 Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns into EA Development .. 32
3.2.3.2 Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EIS Scoping 33
3.2.4 Identification of Affected Resources 34
3.2.5 Identification of Alternatives '. 34
3.2.6 Prediction of Environmental Consequences 35
3.2.7 Mitigation Measures 37
3.2.8 Decisions 38
4.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 38
4.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION UNDERNEPA 39
4.2 MECHANISMS TO ENHANCE PARTICIPATION 40
5.0 METHODS AND TOOLS FOR IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING
DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH AND ADVERSE EFFECTS 44
5.1 LOCATlONAL/DlSTRIBUTIONAL TOOLS 46
5.2 ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS 48
5.3 SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSES 50
11
-------
EnvironmentalJustice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1. Summary of EPA Program NEPA Requirements and Equivalent or Voluntary Activities . 7
Exhibit 2. Summary of Factors to Consider b Environmental Justice Analysis 20
Exhibit 3. Scoping Considerations and Examples of Environmental Justice Issues 34
Exhibit 4. Communications Issues Raised by Low-Income and/or Minority Communities 41
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Regional Contacts 53
Appendix B - References 55
111
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
1.0 PURPOSE
On February 11, 1994, President Climon issued Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." This Executive Order is
designed to focus the attention of federal agencies on the human health and environmental conditions in
minority communities and low-income communities. It requires federal agencies to adopt strategies to
address environmental justice concerns within the context of agency operations. In an accompanying
Presidential memorandum, the President emphasizes existing laws, including the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) should provide opportunities for federal agencies to address environmental hazards in
minority communities and low-income communities. In April of 199S, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) released the document tided "Environmental Justice Strategy: Executive Order 12898." The
document defines the approaches by which EPA will ensure that disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority communities and low-income communities are identified and
addressed. It establishes Agency-wide goals for American Indian, Alaska Native, and other indigenous
peoples (e.g., Native Hawaiian). It also establishes Agency-wide goals for environmental protection, and
lists actions the EPA would take to incorporate environmental justice into its mission.
In August 1997, the EPA Office of Environmental Justice released the "Environmental Justice
Implementation Plan." The Implementation Plan supplements the EPA environmental justice strategy. It
provides estimated time frames for undertaking revisions, identifying the lead agents and determining the
measures of success for each action item. Several EPA offices are developing more specific plans and
guidance to implement Executive Order 12898 and this Agency-wide strategy.
This document serves as a guidance to incorporate environmental justice goals into EPA's preparation
of environmental impact aatgm<>nts (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs) under NEPA. The National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.) serves as the Nation's basic environmental
protection charter. A primary purpose of NEPA is to ensure that federal agencies consider the
environmental consequences of then- actions and decisions as they conduct their respective missions. For
"major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment," the federal agency
must prepare a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) that assesses the proposed action and all
reasonable alternatives. EISs are required to be broad in scope, addressing the full range of potential effects
of the proposed action on human health and the environment. Regulations established by both the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and EPA require that socioeconomic impacts associated with significant
physical environmental impacts be addressed in the EIS.
Environmental assessments have also become very important components of the NEPA process.
Originally intended to serve as a mechanism for determining whether an agency's action was significant,
thereby meriting an EIS, EAs are important analyses on then* own. As a matter of policy, EAs completed
by EPA regularly address socioeconomic effects associated with environmental impacts of Agency actions.
The purpose of this guidance is to assist EPA staff responsible for developing EPA NEPA compliance
documentation, including EISs and EAs, in addressing a specific concern that of environmental justice.
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
Because analyzing and addressing environmental justice may assist in determining the distributional effects
of environmental impacts on certain populations, it is entirely consistent with the NEPA process. This
guidance is intended to:
heighten awareness of EPA staff in addressing environmental justice issues within NEPA
analyses and considering the mil potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations;
present basic procedures for identifying and describing junctures in the NEPA process where
environmental justice issues may be encountered;
present procedures for addressing disproportionately high and adverse effects to evaluate
alternative actions, and;
present methods for communicating with the affected population throughout the NEPA process.
As seen throughout this guidance document, environmental justice issues can be and should be analyzed and
addressed using many of the same tools currently intrinsic to the NEPA process.
l.l BACKGROUND
1.1.1 What is Environmental Justice?
Environmental Justice has been defined by a variety of organizations interested in the topic. EPA's
Office of Environmental Justice offers the following definition:
"The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national
origin, or income vxth respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environ-
mental 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."
The goal of this "fair treatment" is not to shift risks among populations, but to identify potential
disproportionately high and adverse effects and identify alternatives that may mitigate these impacts.
1.12 Executive Order 12898
Executive Order 12898 and its accompanying memorandum have the primary purpose of ensuring that
"each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice pan of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA 's NEPA Compliance Analyses
its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations ..."' The
Executive Order also explicitly called for the application of equal consideration for Native American
programs. To meet these goals, the Order specified that each agency develop an agency-wide environmental
justice strategy.
The Presidential Memorandum that accompanied the Executive Order calls for a variety of actions.
Four specific actions were directed at NEPA-related activities, including:
1. Each federal agency must analyze 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 NEPA.
2. Mitigation measures outlined or analyzed in EAs, EISs, or Records of Decision (RODs), whenever
feasible, should address significant and adverse environmental effects of proposed federal actions
on minority communities and low-income communities.
3. Each federal agency must provide opportunities for community input in the NEPA process.
including identifying potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected
communities and improving accessibility of public meetings, official documents, and notices to
affected communities.
4. In reviewing other agencies' proposed actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA must
ensure that the agencies have fully analyzed environmental effects on minority communities and
low-income communities, including human health, social, and economic effects.
As noted earlier, the purpose of this guidance is to assist EPA personnel in identifying and evaluating
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects in minority communities and
low-income communities within the context of NEPA documents prepared by EPA for actions which EPA
complies with the procedural requirements of NEPA (e.g., research and development activities, facilities
construction, wastewater treatment construction grants, EPA-issued National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits for new sources, and programs under the EPA Voluntary NEPA
Compliance Policy), including instances where EPA satisfies its NEPA compliance obligation as a
cooperating agency. It is also meant to improve the affected communities' access to the NEPA process.
1.2 PRINCIPLES/PHILOSOPHY OF THIS GUIDANCE
This guidance highlights important ways in which EPA-prepared NEPA documentation may help to
identify and address EJ concerns. The rationale and associated implications of the guidance will be
described in the remainder of this document. This section provides a summary listing of the major
implications.
Throughout ibis guidance, the term 'disproportionately high ind advene effectt'ti used interchangeably with the longer
phrmxc 'disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect* on minority populations and low-income
populations.* This it done purely for editorial ease.
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
EPA officials should be vigilant in identifying where EPA actions may have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and/or low-income communities.
Identification should occur as early as possible, preferably during any initial screening exercise.
The screening exercise should identify the presence of minority or low-income communities and
whether such communities are likely to experience adverse environmental or human health effects
as a result of proposed EPA actions.
The sensitivity to environmental justice concerns should sharpen the focus of the analysis. While
the analytical tools to be used are similar, the analysis should focus both on the overall affected
area and population and on smaller areas and/or communities within the affected area.
It is desirable that EPA NEPA analysts tasked with identifying and addressing environmental justice
issues work as a team. This team should be comprised of an interdisciplinary staff that includes
individuals familiar with environmental justice issues, public participation mechanisms and outreach
strategies, Native American concerns and issues and who are experienced in the risk assessment
process. Additionally, the team should consult with EPA's Regional Environmental Justice
coordinators (refer to Appendix A), who are valuable resources in identifying local community
groups among other functions.
Where proposed actions may affect tribal lands or resources (e.g., treaty-protected resources2,
cultural resources and/or sacred sites3) EPA will request that the affected Indian Tribe seek to
participate as a cooperating agency (40 CFR 1508.5). Where differences occur regarding the
preferred alternative or mitigation measures that will affect tribal lands or resources, the affected
Indian Tribe may request that a dispute resolution process be initiated to resolve the conflict
between the tribe and the Agency.
Environmental justice concerns may lead to more focused analyses, identifying significant effects
that may otherwise have been diluted by examination of a larger population or area. Environmental
justice concerns should always trigger the serious evaluation of alternatives as well as mitigation
options.
The term 'treaty-protected retourcet,' u it if used in the guidance, includes those resouiees that are protected by treaty, statute
and/or executive order.
2 On May 24,1996, the President issued Executive Order 13007 on Indian Sacred Sites to 1) accommodate access to and
ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites, and; 2) avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites.
For consistency throughout the document, the guidance will use the term "Indian Tribe" when referring to federally recognized
tribes and "indigenous population" or 'community" when generally referring to Native American, American Indian, Alaska
Native, and/or Native Hawaiian peoples. Under environmental justice, the Agency's policy is to interact with both the tribil
government on a governmeni-to-governmem basis, as well as with any affected or interested indigenous penon(t) as public
stakeholder!.
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
Identifying the "affected community" is particularly important, lie effects of the proposed action
will often vary depending on the distance of the affected community from the action and the type
of effect created by the action (e.g., airborne or waterbome pollution, increased traffic, etc.).
Effects on the community should be discussed in terms of reasonable increments from the site of
the action.
Community involvement is particularly important in cases involving potential environmental justice
issues. Early and sustained communications with the affected community throughout the NEPA
process is an essential component of environmental justice.
For meaningful community involvement to be achieved in circumstances where environmental
justice is an issue, technical assistance supplied by EPA should be available to the community to
assist in their full participation (e.g., interpretation of scientific documents, development of
alternatives or mitigation measures).
EISs and RODs, and EAs and FONSls (Finding of No Significant Impact) should document the
analyses used to identify the presence or absence of disproportionately high and adverse effects and
present the results of those analyses. The ROD and the FONSI should document the conclusion of
these analyses (i.e., whether the action will or will not have a disproportionately high and adverse
effect on minority and/or low-income communities) and describe any mitigation that will be
undertaken to avoid or minimize such effects.
1.2.1 EPA Actions Requiring NEPA Compliance
EPA is required to comply with NEPA for its research and development activities, facilities construction,
wastewater treatment construction grants under Title n of the Clean Water Act and under certain
Appropriations Acts, and EPA-issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
for new sources subject to new source performance standards. The Agency is exempted by statute for
actions taken under the Clean Air Act and for most Clean Water Act programs. The Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), requires EPA to comply only with
the substantive, not the procedural, requirements of other environmental laws for on-site responses. In the
case of other EPA programs, the courts have found EPA procedures to be "functionally equivalent" to the
MEPA process and therefore these EPA programs are exempt from NEPA procedural requirements. Also,
EPA voluntarily prepares EISs for a number of actions pursuant to a long-standing statement of Agency
policy.
Exhibit 1 identifies EPA's major program areas and indicates which actions are subject to NEPA, which
Congress has exempted from NEPA, which have been found to be functionally equivalent to NEPA, and
which receive NEPA-like analyses. This guidance is applicable solely to EPA programs and actions subject
to NEPA and not those identified as "functionally equivalent" in Exhibit 1. However, this should not
preclude its use as reference where "functionally equivalent" programs or actions processes may benefit
from the information contained therein.
-------
Exhibit 1. Summary of EPA Program NEPA Requirements and Equivalent or Voluntary Activities
EPA Program Areas
Air and Radiation Programs
Clean Air Act Standard Setting
Programs
EPA Approvals Under the Clean Air
Act
Atomic Energy Program
NEPA Requirement
Exempt per ESECA $7(cKt)
Exempt per ESECA 57(c)(l)
Exempt on basis of Functional
Equivalency
Funct«on».NEPAEq««vaIent 1 Vol||n!ary EIS Pol|
(re) n
Classification activities are functional
equivalent
SIP/TIP activities are functional
equivalent
Analyses, documentation, and review
procedures
NSPS and NESHAP
Not applicable
Radiation program.
Clean Water Act Programs
Stale/Tribal Water Quality Standards
Approval*
Nonpoinl Source and Clean Lakes
Grants
Water Quality Planning
National Water Quality Criteria
Section 404 Wetland Permit Reviews
Section 404 State/Tribal Program
Approval
Municipal Wastevwter Treatment
Construction Grants (CWA Title II)
[Phased out and superseded by State
Revolving Loan Fund]
NPDES Permit Program
Exempt per CWA $5 1 l(c)( 1 )
Exempt per CWA §51 l(c)(l)
Exempt per CWA §5 1 l(cX 1)
Exempt per CWA {5 1 1 (c)( 1 )
Exempt per CWA 95 1 l(c)( 1 )
Exempt per CWA §51 l(c)(l)
Required per CWA 551 l(c)(l); CEQ
regulations. 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508;
and 40 CFR Part 6. Subparl E
Required per CWA {51 l(c)(l) for new
source NPDES permits.
Attainability analysis are functional
equivalent
Not identifiable
TMDL process is functional equivalent
Modification Procedures and Criteria
Methodologies are functional equivalent
Section 404 process is functional
equivalent
Delegated 404 process u functional
equivalent
N/A
See NEPA requirement
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-------
Exhibit 1. Summary of EPA Program NEPA Requirements and Equivalent or Voluntary Activities (continued)
EPA Program Areas 1 NEPA Requirement
Clean Water Act Programs (continued)
Sine Revolving Loan Fund
National Estuary Program
Ocean Discharge Program
Ocean Dumping Program
Effluent Guidelines Program
NEFA-Uke review by Kates required for ill
CWA §212 projects receiving federal funds.
40 CFR 35.3140.
Exempt per CWA {51 l(cXI)
Generally exempt per CWA §51 l(cXI)
Exempt on basis of functional equivalency
Exempt per CWA §51 l(c)(l)
Functional NEPA I Voluntary EIS
Equivalent H Policy
N/A
Environmental review for
estuary designation and
CCMP development are
functional equivalent
]$30l(h)and403
processes are functional
equivalent
MPRSA activities are
functional equivalent
Effluent Guidelines rule-
making package is
fbnclional equivalent
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ocean dumping sile
designations and revisions
to ocean dumping criteria.
N/A
Safe Drinking Water Act
Drinking Water and Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Regulations
EPA and Authorized Stale Permitting - UIC Permits
SDWA procedures are functional equivalent
Permitting process is functional equivalent
Regulation development
process is functional
equivalent
The UIC permitting
process is functional
equivalent.
N/A
N/A
(continued)
-------
oo
Exhibit 1. Summary of EPA Program NEPA Requirements and Equivalent or Voluntary Activities (continued)
; EPA Program Areas
NEPA Requirement
Safe Drinking Water Act (continued)
Scale and Tribal Program Approvals: Public Water fl SDWA procedures are functional
Supply Systems and UIC Primacy U equivalent
Functional NEPA
Equivalent
Voluntary EIS
Policy
U
UIC permitting process and PWSS II N/A
regulation implementation stage is H
functional equivalent ||
Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Pesticides Regulation
Regulation of Toxic Substances
PCB Permits
New Chemicals Program
Significant portions of pesticide
program are functional equivalent
Regulatory rule-making process is
functional equivalent
PCB permitting program is functional
equivalent
Issuance of J5(c) orders is functional
equivalent
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Programs (RCRA)
Standard Selling under RCRA
EPA Permits for Hazardous Waste Facilities Under
RCRA
Standard Setting process is functional
equivalent
Permitting process is functional
equivalent (see Stale of Alabama v.
EPA)
N/A
N/A
-------
Exhibit 1. Summary of EPA Program NEPA Requirements and Equivalent or Voluntary Activities (continued)
EPA Program Areas
CERCLA/SARA (Superfund)
CERCLA/SARA (Superfund) (CERCLA 1980 u
mended by SARA I9S6)
NEPA Requirement
Functional NEPA
Equivalent
Voluntary EIS
Policy
Exempt per CERCLA requirement that EPA only
comply with the substantive, requirements of other
environmental laws for on-sile responses (see Stale
of Ohio v. EPA).
Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
N/A
EPA Research and Development Activities
EPA Research and Development Activities
EPA Facilities
EPA Facilities Construction
Other EPA Programs
International Activities
Appropriations Acts may also result in NEPA
requirements.
1 Subject per CEQ regulations and 40 CFR 6 Sub- I See NEPA requirement H N/A
pnrtO. 1 I
1 Subject per CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500- 1508) 1 See NEPA requirement 1 N/A
and 40 CFR Part 6. 1 |
Governed by E.O. 121 14, Environmental Effects
at 40 CFR Part 6, Subparl J) and, in some cases,
NEPA.
Sec NEPA requirement
US AID funded
projects.
Source: Adapted from The National Environmental Policy Act and Environmental Protection Agency Program*." prepared by the EPA Workgroup on NEPA,
October 12. 1993.
-------
EnvironmentalJustice in EPA's NEPA ComplianceAnab/ses
1.2.2 EPA Review of Proposed Actions Under Clean Air Act §309
As a result of §309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA has a key role in the overall implementation of NEPA.
Specifically, §309 mandates that EPA "review and comment in writing on the environmental impact of any
matter relating to duties and responsibilities granted pursuant to this chapter or other provisions of the
authority 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 agency action (other
than a project for construction) to which Section 4332(2)(C) of this title applies [subject to Section
102(2)(C) of NEPA], and (3) proposed regulations published by any department or agency of the Federal
government. Such written comment shall be made public at the conclusion of any such review" (42 U.S.C.
§7609(a)).
In conducting §309 reviews, EPA is further directed by the Presidential Memorandum that accompanied
Executive Order 12898 to ensure that agencies fully analyze environmental effects of their proposed actions
on minority and low-income communities, including human health, social, and economic effects. As a
result of both §309 and the Presidential Memorandum, EPA is able to assist other federal agencies in
evaluating proposed actions that are subject to NEPA by identifying possible environmental justice concerns
that may result from such actions and by offering alternative solutions and mitigation measures for
unavoidable impacts.
Although mention is made here of EPA's responsibilities under §309, this document is not intended
to provide guidance for §309 reviews. EPA's §309 guidance should be used for that purpose. This
guidance supplements the Council on Environmental Quality's "Environmental Justice Guidance Under
the National Environmental Policy Act" and is tailored to EPA's conduct in actions for which EPA must
comply with NEPA and where EPA has jurisdiction as a cooperating agency. It does not provide
guidance related to other federal agencies' actions or for EPA's review of other federal agencies' EISs.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS GUIDANCE
The remainder of this guidance is organized as follows: Chapter 2 describes key environmental justice
terms and factors and the application of the key definitions and factors in the context of standard NEPA
analyses; Chapter 3 describes key steps in the NEPA process, including both EISs and EAs, where analyses
of environmental justice concerns should be incorporated; Chapter 4 discusses public participation
approaches of direct relevance to minority and/or low-income communities; and Chapter 5 provides a brief
overview of methodological tools that can be used to identify and assess potential disproportionately high
and adverse effects.
10
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
2.0 KEY TERMS AND FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION IN EVALUATING
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS
The purpose of this section is to introduce key terms and concepts to heighten the EPA analyst's
awareness of how disproportionately high and adverse effects may be identified. The discussion is based
on guidance prepared by a task force of the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG).
The IWG was created by Executive Order 12898 and is comprised of the heads (or representatives) of 17
departments and agencies.
The identification and analysis of disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority communities and low-income communities should occur throughout the NEPA process,
from the initial phases of the screening analysis through the consideration and communication of all
alternatives and associated mitigation techniques.
In conducting an EPA NEPA analysis that is sensitive to environmental justice concerns, the inter-
disciplinary team of EPA NEPA analysts should have an understanding of key terms central to
environmental justice and should understand what factors need to be considered to ensure that all relevant
concerns are identified and evaluated in a direct and explicit manner The team should include experts
familiar with available and appropriate public participation procedures and strategies and, where such
concerns may arise, individuals familiar with the unique concerns of Native American Tribes and
populations. Developing a keen sensitivity to potential environmental justice concerns and modifying the
scope of the analysis can have a dramatic impact on whether environmental justice concerns are identified
and addressed adequately and appropriately. Therefore, the EPA NEPA analyst must be sensitive to what
issues and factors to look for to avoid the possibility that disproportionately high and adverse effects may
be inadvertently missed, incorrectly characterized, or inappropriately minimized. So as to avoid potential
oversights of environmental justice concerns, the EPA NEPA analyst should work closely with the affected
community hi drafting an EIS or EA, and where the community's concerns warrant, EPA should formalize
this interaction (e.g., community advisory boards).
Appendix A includes the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) "Environmental Justice Guidance
Under the National Environmental Policy Act" which incorporates the IWG-developed guidance on key
terms in Executive Order 12898 that are pertinent to environmental justice analyses. That guidance was
developed to assist federal agencies in conducting analyses of disproportionately high and adverse effects
of their programs, policies, and activities. The guidance is not static but provides for informed judgment
in every case; this means that EPA NEPA analysts will need to make careful decisions to ensure that
environmental justice concerns are identified and addressed.
The remainder of this chapter is organized into two sections. The first section addresses terms that
should be considered in identifying the existence of minority communities or low-income communities. The
second section identifies factors that often are associated with disproportionately high and adverse effects,
including cumulative and indirect impacts, on minority or low-income members of the larger community.
Methodological approaches for conducting analyses appear in Chapter 5.
n
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
2.1 DEFINING MINORITY AND/OR LOW-INCOME POPULATION
The purpose of this section is to assist the analyst in determining whether there is a minority community
or low-income community that may be addressed in the scope of EPA's NEPA analysis.
2.1.1 Minority and Minority Population
The first part of the guidance on minority population provided by the IWG provides a numeric measure:
over SO percent of the affected area. The remainder of the guidance calls for the analyst to use his or her
best judgment in evaluating the potential for EJ concerns. It is important that the EPA NEPA analyst
consider both the circumstances of any groups residing within the affected area, as well as the percentage
of the affected community that is composed of minority peoples.
Within its guidance, the IWG explains that a minority population may be present if the minority population
percentage of the affected area is "meaningfully greater" than the minority population percentage in the
general population or other "appropriate unit of geographic analysis." The term "affected area," although
not defined by the guidance, should be interpreted as that area which the proposed project will or may have
an effect on. The IWG guidance also advises agencies not to "artificially dilute or inflate" the affected
minority population when selecting the appropriate unit of geographic analysis. Clearly, a key element here
is the selection of the appropriate level of geographic analysis; that is, selecting a comparison population
to which the population in the affected area will be compared to identify if there are "meaningfully greater"
percentages. The selection of the appropriate unit of geographic analysis may be a governing body's
jurisdiction, a neighborhood census tract, or other similar unit. This is done to prevent artificial dilution
or inflation of the affected minority population. In an EPA NEPA analyses, the analyst should use the
potentially affected population under various alternatives as a benchmark for comparison wherever possible.
In addition, a simple demographic comparison to the next larger geographic area or political jurisdiction
should be presented to place population characteristics in context and allow the analyst to judge whether
alternatives adequately distinguish among populations. For example, all preliminary locations for a project
could fall in minority neighborhoods, therefore, a comparison among them would not reveal any population
differences. Consequently, an additional alternative would be necessary to allow any disproportionately
high and adverse effects to be identified.
The fact that census data can only be disaggregated to certain prescribed levels (e.g., census tracts,
census blocks) suggests that pockets of minority or low-income communities, including those that may be
experiencing disproportionately high and adverse effects, may be missed in a traditional census tract-based
analysis. Additional caution is called for in using census data due to the possibility of distortion of
population breakdowns, particularly in areas of dense Hispanic or Native American populations. In addition
to identifying the proportion of the population of individual census tracts that are composed of minority
individuals, analysts should attempt to identify whether high concentration "pockets" of minority
populations are evidenced in specific geographic areas.
12
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
The IWG guidance also advises agencies to consider both groups of individuals living in geographic
proximity to one another, or a geographically dispersed/transient set of individuals, where either type of
group "experiences common conditions" of environmental exposure or effect within the guidance provided
for minority population. This can result from cultural practices, educational backgrounds, or the median
age of community residents (e.g.. disproportionate numbers of elderly residents, children, or women of
child bearing age may be more susceptible to environmental risks).
A factor that should be considered in assessing the presence of a minority community is that a minority
group comprising a relatively small percentage of the total population surrounding the project may
experience a disproportionately high and adverse effect. This can result due to the group's use of, or
dependence on, potentially affected natural resources, or due to the group's daily or cumulative exposure
to environmental pollutants as a result of their close proximity to the source. The data may show that a
distinct minority population may be below the thresholds defined in the IWG key terms guidance on
minority population. However, as a result of particular cultural practices, that population may experience
disproportionately high and adverse effects. For example, the construction of a new treatment plant that
will discharge to a river or stream used by subsistence anglers may affect that portion of the total
population. Also, potential effects to on- or off-reservation tribal resources (e.g., treaty-protected
resources, cultural resources and/or sacred sites) may disproportionately affect the local Native American
community and implicate the federal trust responsibility to tribes.1 The EPA NEPA analyst should look
at each situation on a case-by-case basis to determine if there may be disproportionately high and adverse
effects on a minority population.
The EPA NEPA analyst should make every effort to identify the presence of distinct minority
communities residing both within, and in close proximity to, the proposed project, and to identify those
minority groups which utilize or are dependent upon natural resources that could be potentially affected by
the proposed action. Non-traditional data gathering techniques, including outreach to community-based
organizations and tribal governments early in the screening process, may be the best approach for
A distinction must be made between Native American communities that live within their own governmental
jurisdictions and those thai do not. The CEQ regulations recognize the govemment-to-govenunent relationship between
the federal government and tribal governments, and encourage federal agencies to involve tribal governments in the
NEPA process when a proposed project may affect a tribe or tribal lands. See sections 1501.2 (Apply NEPA Early In
The Process]; 1501.7(a)(i) [Scoping]; 1502.16 [Environmental Consequences]; 1503.1(a)(2)(ii) [Inviting Comments];
I506.6(b)(3)(ii) [Public Involvement]; and 1SOS.5 (Cooperating Agency]. Native American programs include those
Federal programs which are to be guided, as appropriate, by the govemment-to-government relationship, the Federal
trust responsibility to federally recognized Indian Tribes, and the role of tribes as governments within the Federal
system.
NEPA Compliance Coordinators should consult with die regional Indian Program Coordinator and should
request that the Indian Tribes seek participation as a cooperating agency when a tribal government, land, resources, or
interest may be affected by a project. While such cases may or may not trigger an environmental justice review, EPA
must act consistent with the federal government's trust responsibility to federally recognized Indian Tribes. Bach case
should be decided individually; if questions arise please consult with the American Indian Environmental Office and the
Office of Federal Activities.
13
-------
Envirot
identifying distinct minority communities and/or tribal interests within the study area. See Chapter 4 for
a discussion of public outreach techniques.
2.1.2 Low-Income Population
This guidance recommends that pursuant to the CEQ guidance, low-income populations in an affected
area (that area in which the proposed project will or may have an effect) should be identified with the annual
statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census' Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on
Income and Poverty. In conjunction with census data, the EPA NEPA analyst should also consider state
and regional low-income and poverty definitions as appropriate. In identifying low-income populations,
agencies may consider as a community a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another
or set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) where either type of group experiences
common conditions of environmental exposure.
As with the identification of minority communities, the level of aggregation of available data is an issue
of concern when seeking to determine whether one or more low-income communities may be affected by
a project. Also, as with minority communities, "pockets" of low-income individuals may be masked by
aggregated data. The level of aggregation of data, as well as bow current the available data are, should be
taken into account by the EPA NEPA analyst.
Determining the existence and location of low-income and minority communities within the reaches of
a projects' influence can be a difficult task. Several means of gathering this information are available;
however, it is up to the EPA NEPA analyst to ascertain which techniques will best suit the project at hand.
Further, the EPA NEPA analyst must be flexible and open to consider additional avenues which may be
unique to select projects or geographic areas. The use of national flrccnnial census data in depicting low-
income/poverty and minority statistics is one of the most common methods used. While the census
provides valuable information for the EPA NEPA analyst, there are often many gaps associated with the
information. Therefore, it may be necessary for the EPA NEPA analyst to validate this information with
the use of additional sources. The additional methods available in locating the populations of interest
include contacting local resources, government agencies, commercial database firms, and the use of
locational/distributional tools. (Please see Chapter 5 regarding the use of locational/distributional tools.)
Local resources should be sought for local and up-to-date knowledge of a given area and its inhabitants
as well as a lead to other sources of information. Examples of local resources include: community and
public outreach groups, community leaders, and state universities (i.e., economic departments).
State government agencies such as the Department of Economic Development, Planning and
Development Department, State Minority Business Office, and State Enterprise Zone Offices are also
valuable resources to contact. For example, if an area is designated as an "enterprise zone", unique
economic and demographic data may exist in that particular area, access to which could enhance the EPA
NEPA analyst's ability to assess the economic situation of a given area.
14
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA 'i NEPA Compliance Analyses
Local resources and state governments can both be contacted for information regarding factors that are
characteristic of low-income communities and which may assist in identifying these communities. These
factors may include: limited access to health care, an inadequate, overburdened or aged infrastructure, and
particular dependence of the community, or components of the community, on subsistence living (e.g.,
subsistence fishing, hunting, gathering or fanning). In some cases, these factors can be evaluated directly
from traditional information sources. For example, the age and condition of water treatment facilities and
presence of lead service lines should be available from municipal utilities. Outreach to community groups
may be the most reliable data collection method in other cases, such as those where the degree to which the
cultural and dietary habits of low-income or minority families and their economic condition dictate
subsistence living. Consequently, where the community median household income may exceed that of the
poverty line, conditions generally associated with low-income communities may be present, resulting in
cumulative effects that may meet the threshold far environmental justice concerns.
Commercial database firms are often capable of tailoring census data information of human communities
and income/poverty level to specified areas of geographic detail. For example, by manipulating specified
census bureau tract data with customized buffer areas, statistics can be generated to accommodate current
growth estimates from local government agencies or planning departments. Locational/distributional tools
are also capable of determining the locations of certain human communities. Examples include maps, aerial
photographs, and geographical information systems (GIS). Further explanations of these tools are presented
in Chapter 5.
15
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
2.2 CONSIDERING EFFECTS
This section discusses the term "disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects" and provides an overview of some factors that should be considered in assessing the presence of
such effects. It also addresses how the concept of environmental justice plays in conducting cumulative
and indirect impact analyses in support of NEPA.
2.2.1 Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects
Disproportionately high and adverse effects encompass both human health and environmental effects.
The IWG's guidance suggests the need for the analyst to exercise informed judgments as to what constitutes
"disproportionate" as well as "high and adverse." This, in turn, suggests some level of comparative analysis
with the conditions faced by an appropriate comparison population. As noted in Section 2.1.1, alternatives
need to be drawn so that the potentially affected populations under various alternatives are distinctive and
allow disproportionality to be assessed.
2.2.2 Cumulative and Indirect Effects
EPA NEPA analyses must consider the cumulative effects on a community by addressing the full range
of consequences of a proposed action as well as other environmental stresses which may be affecting the
community. Cumulative impacts are defined in 40 CFR 1508.7, as "the incremental impact(s) of the action
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions...." For example, when
considering a project that will have a permitted discharge to the surrounding surface waters, it may be of
concern to populations who rely on subsistence living patterns (i.e., fishing) and already receive public
water through lead service lines; the cumulative effects associated with both the discharge and the lead
service lines must be taken into account. In such cases, mitigation measures need to be developed and
analyzed to reduce an adverse cumulative effect. In addition, minority populations and low-income
populations are often located in areas or environments that may already suffer from prior degradation.
EPA analysts need to place special emphasis on other sources of environmental stress within the region,
including those that have historically existed, those that currently exist, and those that are projected for the
future. Common variables of concern may include:
Number/concentration of point and nonpoint release sources, including both permitted and non-
permitted.
Presence of listed or highly ranked toxic pollutants with high exposure potential (e.g., presence of
toxic pollutants included within EPA's 33/50 program).
Multiple exposure sources and/or paths for the same pollutant.
Historical exposure sources and/or pathways.
16
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Comoliance Analvits
Potential for aggravated susceptibility due to existing air pollution (in urban areas), lead poisoning,
existence of abandoned toxic sites.
Frequency of impacts.
Source data, including historical, existing, and projected sources, yielding projected effects in concert with
that from the resulting proposed action should be analyzed with respect to minority or low-income
receptors. As noted above, these include cultural, health and occupation-related variables such as:
Health data reflective of the community (e.g., abnormal cancer rates, infant and childhood
mortality, low birth weight rate, blood-lead levels).
Occupational exposures to environmental stresses which may exceed those experienced by the
general population.
Diets, or differential patterns of consumption of natural resources6, which may suggest increased
exposures to environmental pathways presenting potential health risk.
The EPA NEPA analyst may have difficulty in determining the point at which stress levels become too
great, exceeding risk thresholds. This lack of a definitive threshold should encourage the EPA NEPA
analyst to compare the cumulative effects of multiple actions with appropriate community, regional, state,
or national goals, standards, etc. to determine whether the total effect is significant.
With respect to natural resources, analysts should look to the community's dependence on natural
resources for its economic base (e.g., tourism and cash crops) as well as the cultural values that the
community and/or Indian Tribe may place on a natural resource at risk. Further, it is essential for the EPA
NEPA analyst to consider the cumulative impacts from the perspective of these specific resources or
ecosystems which are vital to the communities of interest.
Several methods for determining cumulative effects ate described within CEQ's January 1997 handbook
entitled, "Considering Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act." The EPA NEPA analyst may
wish to consider these methods in assessing cumulative effects on low-income and/or minority communities.
In the process of determining future actions, for example, it is essential for the EPA NEPA analyst to
apply judgment and experience, to go beyond the number of projects that are funded in the area, and
predict which of the actions in the early planning stage have realistic potential to move forward. The EPA
NEPA analyst should use the best available information from similar projects in the region and also consult
with local government planning agencies which may have master development plans in the region. In
addition, private land-owners and organizations may be willing to disclose their future land use plans.
Although cumulative effects analyses commonly involve assumptions and uncertainties, exhausting all
applicable analyses will provide the greatest likelihood of accurately depicting the possibility of
disproportionately high and adverse effects on low-income and/or minority communities. Analysts should
be as resourceful as possible in addition to seeking information from traditional sources. Decisions should
The IWC key tentu guidance describes differential panemi of consumption of nuunl resource* u relating to 'subsistence
tod differential paoeroi of subsistence, tnd means differences in rates and /or patterns offish, wittr, vegetation and/or
wildlife consumption among minority populations or low-income populations, ai compared to the general population."
17
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Comoliance Analyses
be supported by the best data currently available and/or the best data gathering techniques in conjunction
with all appropriate analyses.
EISs and EAs must also address indirect impacts [40 CFR 1502.16(b), 1508.8(b) 1508.9], which are
characterized as those that are caused by the action and are reasonably foreseeable, but that occur later in
time and/or at a distance. Indirect effects include growth effects related to induced changes in the pattern
of land use; population density and/or changes to infrastructure; or growth rates and related effects to the
air, water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.
Increased urbanization may occur around a new facility due to increased employment or due to
transportation system upgrades. This may result in disproportionately high and adverse effects to low-
income communities due to increased air pollution, lower housing values, and reduced access to
fishing/farming locations. In addition, recreational lands and water may be indirectly affected by
government actions. In the case of activities potentially affecting Native Americans, potential impacts, both
direct and indirect, can occur to sacred sites and/or other natural resources used for cultural purposes. For
example, the loss of a sacred site, or other impacts to larger areas of religious and spiritual importance may
be so absolute that religious use of the site abruptly ceases-a direct impact. However, discontinued use may
result in other indirect impacts. Proposed actions may also result in business failures, and associated
unemployment, erosion of tax bases, and reduced public services. These types of effects may be
exacerbated for low-income communities and minority communities due to an inability to relocate, to travel
long distances to find alternative means of employment, or to attract new industry or commerce.
The potential for indirect impacts to affect a community is best understood when the analytical team is
thoroughly familiar with the local community. It is important that the EPA NEPA analyst gain a full
understanding of potential cultural impacts to the community. This is best accomplished through direct
communication using effective public participation and consultation. A discussion of public participation
approaches appears in Chapter 4.
2.2.3 Environmental Exposure
Executive Order 12898 provides that environmental human health research, whenever practicable and
appropriate, shall include diverse segments of the population in epidemiological and clinical studies,
including segments at high risk from environmental hazards, such as minority and low-income populations
and workers who may be exposed to substantial environmental hazards. The Executive Order further states
that environmental human health analyses, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall identify multiple and
cumulative exposures.
In addressing the term "environmental hazard" for the purpose of research, data collection and analysis
provisions in the Executive Order, the IWGKey Terms guidance states that it is "a chemical, biological,
physical or radiological agent, situation, or source that has the potential for deleterious effects to the
environment and/or human health." The IWG points out that the factors that may be important in defining
a substantial7 environmental hazard are the likelihood, seriousness, and the magnitude of the impact. The
IWGKey Terms provides guidance for "multiple environmental exposure" and "cumulative environmental
exposure."
It should be noted that the factors the IWG ii providing for assessing environmental hazard were not neeesaarily developed in
the context of NEPA analyse*. These factors are, however, similar to the factors used in determining 'significant' physical or
natural environmental effects under NEPA.
_
-------
Environmental Justice in
The EPA NEPA analyst should include individuals who are familiar with collecting and analyzing data
that assesses die potential environmental and human health risks potentially borne by minority and low-
income communities as a result of the project or activity. EPA NEPA analysts gain a better understanding
of potential environmental risks to the community by directly using effective public participation and
consultation techniques. An assessment of such potential risks should then be used to determine whether
disproportionately high and adverse effects may be borne by minority communities or low-income
communities.
2 J SUMMARY OF FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSES
This section provides an overview of many of the factors that should be considered when identifying
and evaluating environmental justice concerns. Given the subjective nature of some of the elements that
are important to environmental justice analyses, some consideration of the factors or characteristics that may
lead to disproportionately high and adverse effects to a community may prove to be useful when conducting
such analyses. EPA's Office of Environmental Justice points out that an understanding of the underlying
factors that contribute to environmental justice concerns allows for a more thorough identification of the
concerns and the development of more effective mitigation measures.
In focusing the identification of environmental justice concerns, the EPA NEPA analyst may approach
the analysis of environmental justice from three vantage points: 1) whether there exists a potential for
disproportionate risk; 2) whether communities have been sufficiently involved in the decision-making
process; and 3) whether communities currently suffer, or have historically suffered, from environmental
and health risks or hazards. The factors listed in this section are provided within the context of these three
approaches for identifying potential environmental justice concerns and provide the EPA NEPA analyst with
a starting point in determining what factors to consider in an environmental justice assessment. However,
almost every situation will have its own nuances. As such, the EPA NEPA analyst should be prepared to
apply these factors flexibly to fit a specific situation, just as the IWG guidance provided above may require
judgments to ensure that communities are defined in a fair manner (See Exhibit 3 for Summary of Factors).
19
-------
Exhibit 2. SUMMARY OF FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS 1
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL EXPOSURE WAND RISKS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS |
The general factors (hat should be considered todiwle DEMOGRAPHIC laciors, GEOGRAPHIC factors, ECONOMIC factors, Mil HUMAN HEALTH and RISK factors. For em* of these, specific
variables for COTslderallon are listed, 11
DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS
Demographic factors are one of the key components of environmental justice. Race, ethnicity, and low-income status ire tome of the primary considerations of the environmental justice movement.
However, numerous other demographic factors also may play vital roles in an environmental justice assessment. These include, but are not limited to:
Population Age
Population Density
Population Literacy
Population / Economic
Growth
Older or younger population! may be more susceptible to risks, when taking into account special health concerns of the elderly and potential for greater exposure in younger
populations (e.g. , tngeslion of soil). In addition, children's immature bodily defense systems may make them more susceptible to toxic effects.
High population density may promote a synergiiltc effect between industrial pollutants and typical urban pollutants (e.g., ground level ozone), especially if industry is located in
close proximity (5 miles or less) to high density populations. Low population density may lead the NEPA analyst to underestimate the actual environmental harm to the affected
population when conducting a risk assessment.
If documents are technically complex and not adequately explained communities with lower levels of education may encounter difficulty in its ability to understand or sufficiently
identify and interpret risk and other factors.
Rspid or severe changes in population or economic growth rate may result in potential impacts to existing community or public services and infrastructure. Changes in growth rale
may include: (1) an increase in low-income or minority population(s) in an area (e.g., migration), (2) high birth rales, and (3) cumulative impacts due to multiple sources of
population increases.
GEOGRAPHIC FACTORS
Certain communities may be at high risk from environmental hazards or exposed to substantial environmental hazards due to geographic factors that isolate them from other surrounding communities or that
lend to allow pollutants to accumulate in the environment surrounding the community. Such factora include, but are not limited to:
Climate
Geomorphtc Features
Hydrophlc Features
Weather patterns (e.g., prevailing winds) that may concentrate pollutants in a certain area, allow pollutants to migrate, increase certain exposure pathways (such as respiration), or
csuse pollutants to behave in a manner that differs from that expected under normal weather conditions.
Mountains, hills, or other surface features, natural or human in origin, that may affect pollutant dispersal and may focus or funnel pollutants in particular directions or to particular
locations.
Presence of surface water and/or aquifers that may provide drinking water, subsistence fisheries, cultural significance and use, and recreational use.
20
-------
\ ExYubit 1. SVMM\R\ OF ₯ \CTORS TO CONSIDER IN ENVIRONMENTS JUSTICE \NMASIS
ECONOMIC FACTORS
Economic factors cm be divided into two categories: the economic condition of the individuiti in the community in question, and the overall economic bite of the community. The economic condition of the
individual! in the population, if poor, may exacerbate risk ficton ind may preclude avoidance of risk factor*. The economic condition of the community at large may result in aitualions that preclude the local
lovemmeM'a ability lo adequately protect (he population or may promote the acceptance of diaproportionately high and advene effect*. Such factor* include, but are not limited lo:
Individual Economic
Conditions
Income Lete!/ Health
Care Access
{rrxtttruccwe
Condillom
Ufe-Snpport Resources
Distribution of Costs
Community Economic
Base
Industrial
fUM.
Natural Resources
Other
This includes nich issues as whether affordable or free quality health care is available and, whether any cultural barriers exist to seeking health care. Many low-income and/or
minority communities lack adequate level* and quality of health care, often due lo lack of resource* or lack of access lo health care facilities.
... . . ».
Conuderalion should be given to whether existing infrastructure provides aufficient protection from advene impact* (e.g., protection of domestic water supply, especially if the
community relies on public or non-public drinking wells or surface water; adequacy of sewage facilities) and the effect that new facilities may have on the ability of existing
infrastructure lo be reliable and provide adequate protection. In many low-income and/or minority communities, historic allocation of resources hss resulted in inadequate
infrastructure development and maintenance.
This includes subsistence living situations (e.g. , subsistence fishing, bunting, gathering, farming), diet, and other differential pattern* of consumption of natural resources. If a
community is relisnt on consumption of natural resources, such as subsistence fiihtng, an additional exposure pathway may be associated with the community that is not relevant to
the population at large. Similarly, dietary practices within a community or ethnic group, such a* a did low in certain vitamins and minerals, may increase risk factors for that group.
Constderslion of the distribution of costs lo pay for environmental projects to the extent that regulstiom and program* ire paid for by user fees on necessiry goods and services
(e.g., aewer and water billa, garbage services, electric bills, gasoline laxea). These have a substantial negative effect on low-income families who must pay a disproportionate
fraction of their income for these good* and services, the addition of user fees for another plant or facility may add lo the disparate treatment of those individuals.
Reliance on polluting industries for Jobs and economic development. If the community is relisnt on polluting industries for jobs and lax revenue, there may be reluctance to lake
actions that would avoid risk to health and the environment at a cost lo the industry. In addition, minority or low-income communities msy not enjoy other benefits in proportion to
the risks or impacts they bear.
Communhiea with low revenue* may be unable to finance economic rehabilitation efforts that would improve the physical environment of a community.
Reliance on natural resources for economic base (e.g., tourism, crops; use of resource* lo create salable Hems. Mich a* woven basket* among Native Americans; subsistence and
conuncfCMi fiuicncs)*
Other indirect effects which a low-income or minority population, due to economic disadvantage, may not be able lo avoid, that will have a aynergistic effect with other risk factors
(e.g.. vehicle pollution, lead-baaed paint poisoning, existence of abandoned toxic sites, dilapidated housing stock).
-------
linHt>* ftf KPA'» NKPA rntttpllnnr.
Exhibit 2. SUMMARY OF FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS
HUMAN HEALTH AND
RISK FACTORS
Evaluation of human health and risk factors relevant lo environmental justice concerns may prove to be complicated when detailed technical analyses of risk factors and interaction of toxic chemicals are
undertaken. However, the following include, but are not limited to, factors which allow for consideration of whether more detailed risk assessment or analyses specific lo minority or low-income populations
are appropriate:
Emissions
Toxics
Exposures
Pollutants
Pesticides
IxKallons
Concentrations
Health Data
Research Gaps
Data Collection
Number of point and nonpoint sources of emissions including permitted and non-permitted (violations) releases.
Presence of or exposure to highly loxic pollutants,
Multiple exposure sources and/or paths for the same pollutant.
lixposure to multiple poMutanta.
Exposure lo pesticides by workers and lo the misuse of pesticides.
Exposure through multiple locations (e.g.. workplace, home, school, ambient).
Exposure lo emissions from concentrated locations of the same type of industry (or industries).
Health data for population In question (eg., abnormal levels of cancers, asthma, emphysema, birth defects, low birth weight, infant and childhood mortality blood lead levels
esbeslosis). This data could indicate historical hazards and health risks which, in concert with the effects of the proposed action could cumulatively or indirectly raise environmental
justice issues.
Research gsps (e.g.. subsistence consumption, demographics dietary effects, synergiflic effects of chemicals).
Data collection/analysis reliability and validity.
22
-------
ExhtoU 1. SUMMARY OF FACTORS TO CONSIDER TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS
FACTORS RBlATED TO CULTURAL AND ETHNIC DIFFERENCES AND COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNS
When determining whether conntnnhiei have been afforded opportunity for meaningful involvement, braid factor* for consMentton include the following, Other considerations for public pirticipition ire
discussed In ropier 4 of the 'GaOifafic* an J%vf^
Public Access
Cultural Expectations
Meaningful
InToroiBdM
Job Security
LHeracy Rale
Translation*
CammanHy
Community
Identification
IndfeoHms PopaMtes
Whelher commurily memben hive KCCM to the decision-making process (/.«., whether the community it fairly represented on commitriont. boards, etc.. »nd whether the
community it fairly nude awire of their role in the decision-making procen).
Cuhunl eipecliliom and understanding of the decision-making procen.
Access lo meaningful and understandable information, such as clear presentation of what facility produces, what pollutanta it releases, how these are managed, and the potential
risk to the population.
Potential for fear within the community thai participating in the procen may jeopardize Job security.
If a low literacy rale eclats, consideration should be given lo the clarity and accuracy of presentations lo the community and whether non- written materials, such as videos, have been
considered for use in presentations.
Whether identification of minority and/or low-income communities took into account all potentially-impacted commuiuliei. If communities were geographically defined rather than
culturally defined, certain communities thai arc impacted, given other cultural factors, may be unfairly excluded.
In addition, when projects or activities may affect tribal lands or resources or Native American communities, the NEPA analytical team should include one or more analysts familiar
with Native American issue* and cuhne. and the Agency should formally request the affected Indian Trifae(s) lo seek participation as a cooperating agency. Specific factors lo
consider in such tnuauom include, but an not limited lo:
The trust responsibility to and Ircatict tfltutei anl ciertithm nntcn with f»iW«!U nuuianiTMl liutiin Trltuu
Impacts to treaty-protected itwmvn, cuttunl mo of natural resources, and/or sacred shes.
«i«iiwito i*»u«iuon process may DC appropriate 10 ensure mat resources an not diminished.
Potential fur risk assesunent lo undeiesllinale relationship between environmental degradation and human health concerns, especially in low population density areas.
Fundamental differences in world view" ; where the values placed on resources vary significantly between cultures (i.e.. some Native American cultures dispute the
ability lo "own" land and other resources.
-------
Knvirnnm?ntal IntHff in KPA 'i NKPA Cnmplinnr* Analyst
Exhibit 2. SUMMARY OF FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS
FACTORS RELATED TO HISTORICAL A ND POLICY ISSUES
Environmental justice assessments may require looking it historical condition*, enisling condition*, and the impact of future actions. Many of the factors discussed above, such as cumulative risk, will necessarily
addrest thii question, but certain other factors may also require consideration, including: . _. ...
Industrial Concentration
Inconsistent Standards
Research Gaps
Program Gaps
Non-lnclinUe Processes
Past Practices
Cultural Diversity
OMigalloiu
Concentration of industries that may create a high risk of exposure to environmental hazard* for the community') economic base. Factors that may lead to such a result include
government/industry arrangement! thai may reduce available public funding for adequate protection of low-income or minority populations (e.g. , tax breaks provided to certain
industries to encourage the location of such industries to a certain area).
Non-uniformity In enforcement and site- selection standards across communities including methods for pursuing enforcement targeting, compliance actions and compliance initiatives.
Research gaps and past data collection practices and validity. For example, data relevant to low-Income communities may not be adequately collected and analyzed given the
potential for inadequate resources within the community to collect and analyze data.
Program gaps between tribal, slate, and federal programs (tuch aa asbestos worker protection program)) that may have subjected communities to high risk of exposure la
environmental hazards. Such gaps include the lack of explicit Congressional authorization for tribal participation in and delegation/authorization of certain liPA programs
sufficiency of funding and technical assistance for the development of tribal environmental programs.
Decision-making and documentation processes that were non-scientific, and/or non-inclusive in nature {e.g., selection of community representatives by potentially-affected
rather than by community decree).
and the
industry
Adequacy of past resource allocation practices.
Past and present cultural diversity or lack thereof on decision- making boards, within agencies, commissions, etc.
Adherence to prior agreements, such M treaties, statute* and executive orders with tribes. EPA should be particularly careful not to diminish tribal resources, including cultural and
natural resources and treaty rights, without tribal concurrence and EPA should ensure the protection of such resources from environmental harm.
24
-------
Environmental Justine in EPA's NEPA Comalianee Anahses
3.0 INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INTO THE NEPA PROCESS
3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE NEPA PROCESS
A general framework for implementing NEPA requirements is presented in regulations (40 CFR Parts
1500 through 1508) promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (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's regulations are found
at 40 CFR Pan 6. Over the past 25 years, the NEPA framework for environmental review of proposed
federal actions has been substantially refined, based on further congressional directives, action by CEQ, and
an extensive body of case law.
As stated in Section 1.0, an EIS is required for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment. The basic analytical-planning process for EISs required under NEPA and its
implementing regulations for a*$g$s'"g the environmental impacts that may result from a government action
includes:
1. Definition: Define the purpose and need for the action.
2. Screening: Preliminary delineation of potential impacts.
3. Scoping: Outline proposed action; define objectives; define scope; identify decisions that need to
be made; focus resources; initiate public participation.
4. Affected Resources: Define the resources that may be affected if the action meets the proposed
objectives.
5. Alternatives: Identify and define practical alternatives for meeting objectives.
6. Mitigation: Identify possible mitigation measures to minimise or avoid potential impacts.
7. Consequences: Predict the environmental impacts and other consequences of the proposed action
and alternatives.
8. Decisions: Make decisions regarding a course of action, including mitigation measures developed
to address environmental effects threatened by proposed actions.
9. Monitoring: Observing, recording, and documenting mitigation measures to evaluate their
effectiveness,
CEQ regulations (40 CFR Pan 1502) dictate the process that federal agencies must follow for all EISs,
except where compliance with the regulations would be inconsistent with statutory requirements or where
agency procedures allow for exceptions for national security reasons. Public participation and involvement
is required throughout the NEPA process, beginning with scoping.
Proposed actions predicted to present less significant impacts often are analyzed in environmental
assessments (EAs). As mentioned in Section 1.0, EAs are important analytical tools, originally intended
to aid in the determination of significance of the effects of a proposed action. Compared to EISs, there are
25
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
fewer detailed regulatory requirements for EAs as to content, format or public participation. The scale of
EAs usually depends on the relative significance of the projected impacts.
Environmental justice issues encompass a broad range of impacts covered by NEPA, including impacts
on the natural or physical environment and interrelated social and economic effects. 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." In preparing EISs,
NEPA requires EPA to consider both impacts on me natural or physical environment and interrelated social
and economic impacts. In analyzing social and economic impacts, unique cultural aspects should also be
reviewed. EPA, as a mannr of policy, will consider interrelated social and economic impacts in EAs. This
serves as a base to further the goals of the Executive Order. Environmental justice concerns may arise from
impacts on the natural or physical environment, such as human health or ecological impacts on minority
populations and low-income populations, or from inter-related social or economic impacts.
Moreover, EISs and EAs should document the extent to which environmental justice issues have been
identified and addressed. The initial step in the analysis of potential effects is to assess whether there indeed
will be potential physical or natural environmental impacts. If it is determined by the analytical team that
there will be no environmental effects, and thus no disproportionately high and adverse effects, then this
finding should be documented and no further analysis of effects is necessary.
If preliminary analysis indicates that there is a potential for environmental effects, then a more detailed
assessment is conducted to estimate the level of those effects. There are occasions in which "grey areas"
may be encountered. The EPA NEPA analyst may be unsure as to whether the environmental effects are
de minimis, meaning when there are very small effects, or something greater than de minimis yet less than
significant natural or physical impacts demanding an EIS. This guidance suggests that when the EPA NEPA
analyst is unsure whether these environmental impacts are de minimis or something more than de minimis
but less than significant, the EA should include an analysis of interrelated social and economic effects (and,
as described in Section 3.2 below, there now should be an ElS-like scoping process if the screening analysis
indicates that there may be disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and/or low-income
communities). The EA should include socioeconomic analyses scaled according to the severity of the
impacts.
Following an EIS or EA, the Agency must announce its decision in a Record of Decision (ROD) or
a FONSI. The ROD, and where appropriate the FONSIs, should document the conclusion of the findings
presented in the EIS or EA (i.e., whether the action will or will not have a disproportionately high and
adverse effect on minority and/or low-income communities) and include a description of those mitigation
measures that the Agency is committing to implement to reduce or avoid environmental consequences
associated with the proposed action.
26
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
3.2 INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS INTO THIS PROCESS
One of the most important means by which EPA can ensure that disproportionately high and adverse
effects on minority and/or low-income communities are identified and analyzed, is to "institutionalize" the
process of identification and analysis. The next sections of this Chapter describe the screening-level analysis
that begins the process, and how environmental justice considerations can be integrated into later steps and
activities required under CEQ and EPA regulations.
As noted in Chapter 1, one effect of incorporating environmental justice considerations into NEPA
analyses will be to more sharply focus these analyses. To do this, it is necessary to assess the distribution
of environmental impacts demographically and/or geographically, as well as to assess the overall impacts
to the affected communities.- As described in Chapter 5, the analytical tools commonly used tor analyzing
potential impacts may have to be modified to allow this more refined focus. Overall, the evaluation of
environmental justice concerns raises a number of issues related to "significance" and to other NEPA
procedures. The discussion below describes several issues that are relevant to the determination of
significance and the consequent level of analysis; also included are discussions of how consideration of such
issues should affect the determination and subsequent analyses. The analytical team should keep in mind
that the presence of disproportionately high and adverse effects may or may not necessarily change the final
decision, but will change the focus of the analysis and may result in additional mitigation measures.
3.2.1 Environmental Justice Screening Analysis
In preparing for any proposed action, one of the first actions is a preliminary delineation of potential
impacts and of the potentially affected area. A screening for environmental justice concerns should be
incorporated into this initial NEPA screening analysis. This section describes a two-step screening process,
the results of which then guide subsequent actions related to environmental justice.
The first step in identifying potential environmental justice concerns should be a screening-level
analysis to determine the existence of a low-income and/or minority population. Depending on the
outcome, it may then be necessary to enhance public participation to gain a fuller understanding of the
potential environmental justice issues (see Chapter 4), initiate development of alternatives and mitigation
options, and/or initiate analyses to identify and assess disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects (see Chapter 5). In addition, if the proposed project may affect tribal lands or
resources, then EPA, in keeping with federal and EPA policies of governmem-to-government relations, will
formally request that affected Indian Tribe(s) seek to participate as a cooperating agency.
The screening analysis should occur as soon as the proposed action is well understood, around the time
planning for scoping begins for EISs and planning begins for EAs. Although neither the impacts nor the
full area to be affected may be fully understood at this point, it is usually possible to make fair
approximations. In the screening analysis, two questions should be addressed, as described below.
27
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
Question 1
Does the potentially affected community include minority and/or low-income populations?'
If yes, this should trigger both an enhanced outreach effort to assure that low-income and minority
populations are engaged in public participation and analysis designed to identify and assess the impacts.
Also, a positive response to this question should increase the team's sensitivity to the potential for
cumulative impacts.
In general, census and other data should be used to characterize the population within the affected area,
in terms of minority (i.e., racial or ethnic), economic, and educational demographics. However, it should
be noted that census data have been shown to be unreliable in some cases, in part because the level of
aggregation may not offer a fine enough mesh to identify the existence of such communities. Also, census
data are based on self-reporting. These data are not always consistent and are prone to undercounting
minority populations and low-income populations due to a perceived reluctance for certain populations to
divulge information (see Section 2.1.1). This is a screening-level analysis, so extensive efforts to validate
census data should not be necessary at this stage, unless there is substantial uncertainty in (a) the answer to
the screening question or (b) the ability to delineate the affected area at this early stage. Because the
applicability of the census data can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, the EPA NEPA analyst
should supplement this information with data from other sources. For example, additional information can
be obtained from: local resources through questions, interviews, and research; geographical mapping system
(CIS) or other similar overlay mapping systems; and economic impact analyses.
Environmental effects are often realized in inverse proportion to the distance from the location or site
of the proposed action (i.e., the closer the population is to the action, the greater the potential impacts).
As a result, an effort should be made to correlate the demographic analysis to the area most likely to bear
environmental effects. On the other hand, depending on the resource affected, and the users of that
resource, proximity to the site may not correlate with the likelihood of disproportionately high and adverse
effects on minority communities or low-income communities.
It also is important during the initial screening stages to locate all minority communities or low-income
communities within the region surrounding a proposed location. The analytical teams should keep in mind
that sometimes distinct minority communities or low-income communities may be geographically located
within another minority community or low-income community. In some cases, a minority community or
low-income community that is surrounded by another minority community or low-income community may
bear disproportionately high and adverse effects compared to the surrounding communities. In addition,
the EPA NEPA analyst should be sensitive to situations where the affected community represents the
majority population over the extended area. For example, locations along the United States-Mexico border
include entire counties where minority populations represent a majority of the population in the county.
These areas are predominantly Latino, although when the county population is compared to the population
of the entire state, the proportion represents a much smaller percentage of the population. Similarly,
Guidance on the terms "minority population" and 'low-income population* U contained in Appendix A.
28 " "
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
counties in the Mississippi Delta region represent areas where African Americans comprise a majority of
the total population.
Question 2
Are the environmental impacts likely to fall disproportionately on minority and/or low-income members
of the community and/or tribal resources?
A positive response should trigger both an enhanced outreach effort to assure that low income and
minority populations are engaged in public participation and an analysis designed to identify impacts on
both the larger population and on minority and/or low-income members of the population. A positive
response could result from any of several-factors, including {he-following:
Within a potentially affected area, minority and/or low-income populations could be unevenly
distributed, thus subject to different levels or intensity of impacts than the larger population. This
pattern should cause concern for cumulative impacts. An example would be subsistence dependence
on an affected resource by members of a community.
The impacts may affect a cultural, historical, or protected (e.g., treaty) resource of value to an
Indian Tribe or a minority population, even when the population is not concentrated in the vicinity.
If the answer to both screening questions is "no," then the environmental justice screening analysis
should be documented in scoping notices and in EISs/EAs and RODs/FONSIs. In addition, certain unique
cultural, geographic, or economic factors may exist within an area that could warrant additional
investigation. Also, later information and analyses may show that the screening analysis was mistaken.
Indeed, analysts should re-examine the screening questions (and the key factors identified in Chapter 2) at
key steps in the NEPA process (e.g., following scoping, in drafting the EIS/EA, in soliciting comments on
draft EISs, in responding to comments, and in preparing RODs and FONSIs).
323. Environmental Justice and the Determination of Significance
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.27) detail factors that should be considered in making a determination
of whether a proposed action is significant, thereby requiring a "detailed statement" (i.e., an EIS).
Economic or social effects alone do not trigger an EIS [40 CFR 1508.14].
According to CEQ's Guidance for Considering Environmental Justice under the National
Environmental Policy Act, 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 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 of disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects that are
significant and that otherwise would be overlooked." CEQ requires that significance be evaluated in terms
of intensity "or "severity of impact." Here too, the narrowed focus could affect the determination. Several
factors that affect the evaluation of intensity are relevant to situations involving environmental justice issues.
These include the degree of scientific controversy, uncertainty (since distributional analysis is relatively new
in the NEPA context and this introduces an element of uncertainty in impact assessment), and cumulative
significance of related actions.
29
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
Environmental justice concerns should sensitize EPA NEPA analysts to the need to focus analyses on
relevant contexts. Focusing the analysis may show that potential impacts, which are not significant in the
NEPA context, are particularly disproportionate or particularly severe on minority and/or low-income
communities. As mentioned previously, disproportionately high and adverse effects should trigger the
serious consideration of alternatives and mitigation actions in coordination with extensive community
outreach efforts.
3.2.3 Scoping and Planning
Scoping consists of identifying and defining the range of actions, alternatives and impacts that will be
considered in an environmental impact statement (40 CFR 1508.25). During the scoping phase of the EIS
process, EPA must consider connected, cumulative and similar actions to the proposed action, identify
alternatives to the proposed action that may mitigate or avoid potential environmental consequences, and
assess potential impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative). A similar planning process is used for EAs.
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 scoping analysis, the EIS and/or the
EA.9 Indian Tribe representation in the process should be sought in a manner that is consistent with the
government-to-govemment relationship between the United States and tribal governments, the federal
government's trust responsibility to federally-recognized tribes, and treaty rights. This will help to ensure
that the NEPA process is fully utilized to address concerns identified by tribes and to enhance protection
of tribal environments and resources. As defined by treaties, statutes, and executive orders, the federal trust
responsibility may include the protection of tribal sovereignty, properties, natural and cultural resources,
and tribal cultural practices.
3.2.3.1 Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns into EA Development
If the environmental justice screening analysis does not identify minority communities or low-income
communities, and suggests no disproportionately high and adverse effects on those communities and/or on
tribal resources, then the EA and FONSI should describe the analysis and note the conclusion.
If the initial screening analysis identifies an affected community that is minority and/or low-income
or identifies a disproportionately high and adverse effect upon a minority community, and/or on tribal
resources, or on a low-income community, then a smaller scale scoping analysis (than that undertaken for
an EIS) should be conducted and some level of public participation should be designed and implemented
to solicit community involvement and input, and to develop alternatives and mitigation measures. Mitigation
measures should be developed and alternatives should be crafted so as to allow an evaluation of the relative
disproportionality of impacts across reasonable alternatives. The EA also should include a comparative
socioeconomic analysis that is scaled and tailored to evaluate the potential effects to the minority and/or
low-income community (i.e., in the case of environmental justice concerns, the EA should include
socioeconomic analyses scaled according to the severity of the impacts).
3.2.3.2 Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EIS Scoping
If the environmental effects of a project are deemed significant, the scoping notices (including the
notice of intent for the EIS) should include a description of die results of the environmental justice screening
analysis. If the results of the screening analysis are negative (i.e., any potentially affected population is not
9 See CEQ "Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act" page 10,
Helpful Information to Inform toe Public During the Scoping Process.
30
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
a minority community or low-income community and the effects are not likely to fall disproportionately on
a minority and/or low-income community, and/or on tribal resources), then the scoping notice should state
this finding and request additional information on whether there may be disproportionately high and adverse
effects that were overlooked during the screening analysis.
If the environmental justice screening analysis concludes that there is a potential for disproportionately
high and adverse effects, then the EPA NEPA analyst should ensure that the EIS scoping process raises
environmental justice concerns and that sufficient data and information are generated to evaluate these
potential effects. Prior to the full-scale scoping process, public outreach strategies should be developed and
implemented. The public participation process should be used to define and evaluate environmental justice
concerns by:
Consulting with community leaders and members of the surrounding communities to seek their
assistance in identifying all minority and/or low-income communities that may be affected by the
proposed action.
Consulting with officials in tribal, state and/or local government agencies over the environmental
and human health concerns within the region and who may be fatMar with the demographics of
the affected populations. Where environments of Indian tribes may be affected, agencies must
consider pertinent treaty, statutory or executive order rights and consult with tribal governments
in a manner consistent with the government-to-government relationship.
Soliciting information from the local community on potential environmental justice issues through
public participation efforts (see Chapter 4 for a discussion of public participation).
Soliciting public comment on environmental issues through formal public notice and comment
procedures tailored to the community (see Chapter 4).
If the proposed activity is deemed significant to warrant the development of an EIS, or if the
community has raised significant concerns to be addressed in an EA, EPA should establish a
community advisory board to work with EPA in the development of the respective NEPA
documents.
The public participation efforts 'tesignfd as pan of the scoping effort for an EIS should clearly describe
any environmental justice concerns identified by EPA, and should specifically ask the public to suggest
alternatives and mitigation measures aimed at reducing or avoiding disproportionately high and adverse
effects. The Agency also should design comparative socioeconomic, environmental and health analyses of
all reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that are tailored and/or scaled to evaluate the impacts
to the affected minority and/or low-income community and/or tribal resources.
31
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
33.4 Identification of Affected Resources
CEQ regulations state that an EIS is required only when there is a significant impact on the physical
or natural environment. Notwithstanding, early in the EA and/or EIS process, the EPA NEPA analyst
should identify the physical environment and all natural resources that could be potentially affected by the
proposed action and by alternative actions. The EPA NEPA analyst should develop a full understanding
of baseline demographic, socioeconomic, and environmental conditions so that a comprehensive assessment
of the types of impacts that may be imposed upon all human and natural resources (e.g., air, water, soils,
wildlife) can be conducted and an understanding of how these impacts may translate into human health
concerns can be developed. For a detailed discussion on how effects to human health and natural resources
might be determined, please reference Section 2.2.
To account for potential environmental justice concerns, EPA NEPA analysts should be sensitive to
identifying whether affected resources are used by a minority or low-income community. In addition,
analyses of potential effects on all surrounding resources should be focused narrowly or specifically toward
how potential effects to these resources may translate into disproportionately high or adverse human health
and/or environmental effects on minority and/or low income communities.
The EPA NEPA analyst should use all means available to identify particular natural resources that, if
affected by the proposed action, could have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and/or
low-income communities. In particular, natural resources that support subsistence living (e.g., hunting,
fishing, gathering) should be identified. In addition, Indian Tribes may have treaty-protected resources on
or off reservation lands and may hold some natural resources sacred due to religious beliefs and/or
social/ceremonial ties. Alternatives and mitigation measures should be explicitly solicited from the affected
community early in the process, such as during scoping. Throughout the process, but especially beginning
in this phase, the Agency should provide affected communities with technical assistance to ensure that the
communities thoroughly understand the proposed action and have meaningful participation and input. All
resources that could be affected should be thoroughly developed and documented. A discussion of all
findings should be shared with potentially affected communities during public participation phases of the
NEPA process to ensure full disclosure and to solicit additional public comment and input.
3.2.5 Identification of Alternatives
NEPA and the CEQ regulations require the identification and development of a reasonable array of
alternatives. In addition, CEQ requires that all reasonable alternatives, including a "no action" alternative,
must be analyzed rigorously and objectively. The selection of potential alternatives should begin early in
the evaluation and, in fact, should be part of the scoping process. In addition, if environmental justice
issues are identified, then alternatives should be drawn so as to allow an assessment of the disproportionate
nature of the effects, as well as the magnitude of the effects, on the communities of concern.
An evaluation of potential environmental justice issues should be conducted for all reasonable
alternatives. In addition, for each alternative that may result in potential environmental justice concerns,
mitigation measures aimed specifically at those impacts should be identified and analyzed. The results of
all analyses of environmental justice issues, including study results that identify no environmental justice
issues, should be described fully in scoping documents, EISs and EAs. All results should be fully disclosed
during public participation procedures, and public comment and input on the analyses and conclusions
should be solicited. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the factors that should be evaluated to identify and
define potential environmental justice concerns. These factors will also be helpful in understanding the need
for mitigation or additional alternatives and identifying mitigation or alternative options.
32
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
The EPA NEPA analyst 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. Instead, alternatives should be developed that
mitigate or avoid effects to both the population at large and any disproportionately high and adverse effects
on minority or low-income communities. In other words, the goal of developing reasonable alternatives
is not to move the impacts around, but to identify viable alternative actions that meet program goals and
avoid or reduce the environmental, socioeconomic, human health and/or ecological effects associated with
the preferred action. Generally, the types of alternatives that may potentially lead to the avoidance or
reduction of effects include: a) the identification of alternate locations or sites where impacts to susceptible
populations or environments will be avoided; b) altering the timing of planned activities or periodic
emissions to account for seasonal dependencies on natural resources; c) the adoption of pollution prevention
practices and policies to reduce or mitigate emissions and/or impacts; d) reducing the size or intensity of
an action; and e) taking no action.
3.2.6 Prediction of Environmental Consequences
CEQ regulations require government agencies to identify, predict and describe reasonably foreseeable
beneficial as well as adverse changes to existing conditions that may result from implementing either the
proposed action or alternative actions. Impacts across alternatives must be compared. The prediction and
description of potential disproportionately high and adverse effects must begin during the screening and
scoping stages of the process, as noted above. Throughout the NEPA process, environmental justice
concerns should be identified, disclosed, and discussed with affected communities.
In preparing an E1S or EA, ecological and human health risk assessments are conducted to identify and
evaluate potential environmental and human health impacts that may be imposed. In addition, interrelated
socioeconomic impacts that would result from a proposed action and alternatives are analyzed. Chapter 5
provides an overview of the types of analyses and analytical tools that may be used to analyze these issues
and approaches that may be appropriate to assess disproportionately high and adverse effects. Again,
throughout the development and public disclosure of EPA NEPA analyses and findings, full discussions of
the analytical process undertaken to identify environmental justice concerns and all findings and conclusions
should be disclosed to and discussed with all affected and interested parties.
In evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternative actions in an EIS, CEQ
regulations (40 CFR 1508.25) require EPA to consider: three types of actions (connected actions,
cumulative actions, and similar actions); three types of alternatives (no action, other reasonable course(s)
of actions, and mitigation measures not in the proposed action); and three types of impacts (direct, indirect,
and cumulative). Environmental justice concerns should be identified and analyzed within the context of
all actions, alternatives and impacts. Exhibit 4 provides examples of how environmental justice issues could
arise and/or be considered for each of these variables.
33
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
1 Exhibit 3. Scoping Considerations and Examples of Environmental Justice (El) Issues
Considerations
TYPE OF ACTION
Connected
Cumulative
Similar
Examples and Approaches to EJ Issues
Installation of sewers (e.g.. effects on communities affected by
installation, communities served) to feed new treatment plant
discharge is property in scope of discharge permit action, since
actions and effects are connected. Tims, potentially affected
'^MTI [nunitiffs would include those along Ifai** *rv^ served by Kit***
effects of pollutant loadings from new discharges and existing
sources and reasonably foreseeable future sources could be
significant issue.
Multiple similar «i*ti«r'« (t.g-, permits) for Hiffwmnr industries in
"industrial park" in low-income area could need to be addressed in
single EA/EIS.
TYPE OF ALTERNATIVE
No action
Other reasonable courses of action
Mitigation measures (not in the
proposed action)
conditions is ncccutry for no Action alternative. For population*
include education, income, r»H«i/gflmig (minority) stilus.
identify/develop reasonable allernative($) that have less impact or
less disproportionate impart
concerns. Both physical and soooeconomic measures arc
appro pruuc.
TYPE OF IMPACTS
Direct
Indirect
Cumulative
ifnm*/ii*t> *nd local impacts on afftc**fl minority/fow-tncGfnt
m(]fVi'ii1a/f>n*«**ni«iri»« WQii1«l be ^'^BCt
in mmy if^yfsm^^^ social, ^rlftTral, HBJ *«^n^Tpie nrm*t*t\ would
irnTTP^iftftrly
Have to consider historical, current, and reasonably foreseeable
cumulative impacts of new action.
Source: 40 CFR 1508.25 identifies the types of actions, alternatives, and impacts.
34
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
35
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
3.2.7 Mitigation Measures
Regulations require that mitigation measures be developed to address environmental effects, including
cumulative impacts, threatened by proposed actions (40 CFR 1502.14(f) and 1502.16(h)). In addition,
mitigation measures should be developed specifically to address potential disproportionately high and
adverse effects to minority and/or low-income communities. When identifying and developing potential
mitigation measures to address environmental justice concerns, members of the affected communities should
be consulted. Enhanced public participation efforts should also be conducted to ensure that effective
mitigation measures are identified and that the effects of any potential mitigation measures are fully analyzed
and compared (see Chapter 4). 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).
5. Relocating affected communities, upon request or with concurrence from the affected individuals.
6. Establishment of 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 minority communities or low-income communities.
8. Conducting medical monitoring on affected communities and providing treatment or other
responses if necessary.
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 FONSI or ROD. This provides an additional avenue for public notice and involvement.
Other steps that can be considered to ensure that mitigation measures are effective and are implemented
include the following:
Establishing the mitigation measure as a requirement in the permit or authorizing document.
Requiring financing at the outset of the project for both implementing the measure and monitoring
its effectiveness. Ensure clearly defined monitoring guidelines are in place.
Requiring monitoring reporting, which should be made available to the public.
Identifying dear consequences and penalties for failure to implement effective mitigation measures.
36~~~~~
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Anotvscs
3.2.8 Decisions
The two NEPA decision documents identified in CEQ regulations are: 1) a ROD following an EIS and,
2) a FONSI following an EA. All EPA NEPA decision documents should include a concise summary of
all steps undertaken to identify environmental justice concerns and the results of those steps. In cases where
environmental justice concerns are identified, the decision documents should fully discuss these concerns,
explain all alternatives and mitigation options that were analyzed, and explain how environmental justice
concerns factored into the decision. In cases where effects to tribal lands or resources have been identified
and the Indian Tribe and EPA disagree as to the preferred alternative or mitigation measures, the Indian
Tribe may request that the EPA initiate a dispute resolution process to resolve this conflict. In addition,
public participation efforts related to environmental justice concerns should be documented in the decision
document. Finally, mitigation measures that are evaluated, disclosed to the public, and chosen in
conjunction with the alternative to be implemented should be identified and discussed. If no concerns are
identified, this finding should be stated along with the basis of EPA's conclusion.
4.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Adequate public participation is crucial to incorporating environmental justice considerations into
EPA's NEPA actions, both to enhance the quality of the analyses and to ensure that potentially affected
parties are not overlooked and excluded from the process. Public participation under NEPA involves two-
way communications, with EPA receiving information, comments, and advice, as well as disseminating
information on possible approaches, analyses, and decisions. This is particularly important when there are
potential environmental justice issues involved. To sufficiently and adequately address potential
environmental justice concerns and communicate with potentially affected communities, the EPA NEPA
analyst should include one or more persons who are familiar with environmental justice issues and
appropriate communications strategies. It is important that EPA take steps to encourage and facilitate more
active participation by low-income communities and minority communities in its NEPA process. This goal
can be accomplished through careful identification of target audiences and aggressive community outreach
beyond the traditional forms.
There are established procedures for public participation in NEPA actions and decision-making
processes (as in other federal actions). However, these procedures have not always been successful in
informing or gaining participation by minority communities and low-income communities. Although they
may be most affected, they may be the least informed, simply because of the means of communications
used; this can be for any number of obvious reasons, such as language, culture, educational level or
geographic location. In most cases, relatively simple approaches-well within the purview of "standard"
public participation techniques-can overcome most barriers to informing and seeking involvement of
interested or affected communities. This in turn can ensure that federal decisions are consistent with
Executive Order 12898 and enhance the actual and perceived fairness of federal actions.
The first subsection below briefly describes public participation that is required during the NEPA
process by CEQ and EPA regulations. The next subsection then identifies a number of the special concerns
and unique issues that may arise in addressing environmental justice issues, and identifies several
mechanisms that may be used in EPA's NEPA process to address those special concerns and issues.
4.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION UNDER NEPA
Public participation is one of the hallmarks of NEPA, and is reflected in CEQ's and EPA's NEPA
regulations. According to 40 CFR 6.400(a), "EPA shall make diligent efforts to involve the public in the
37
-------
EnvironmentalJustice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
environmental review process...." There are several clearly defined steps in public participation under
NEPA, and these are described below.
Scoping. CEQ regulations require "scoping" following the publication of a notice of intent to prepare
an EIS, but before the EIS is prepared. CEQ regulations define scoping as "an early and open process for
determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a
proposed action" (40 CFR 1501.7). In general, scoping has three broad purposes: identifying public and
agency concerns with a proposed action, defining issues and alternatives to be examined in detail, and
saving time by ensuring that relevant issues are identified early and drive the analyses (see 40 CFR
1500.4(g), 1500.5(d)). A public meeting is held during scoping, with notice of the meeting made in the
Federal Register, local newspapers, and utilizing other means of announcing public meetings, depending
on case-specific circumstances.
Scoping for EAs is not addressed in either CEQ or EPA regulations. In practice, EA scoping can range
from a process more or less identical to that used for EISs, to relatively minimal involvement of outside
parties.
CEQ has indicated that the scoping process ends "once the issues and alternatives to be addressed in
the EIS have been clearly identified," usually "during the final stages of preparing the draft EIS..." (CEQ
"Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations"). It is emphasized that public participation does not end here,
but continues throughout the NEPA process, as described below, and even beyond.
Public review of EISs and EAs. As with scoping, CEQ and EPA NEPA regulations clearly specify
the means by which the public is involved in reviewing draft and final EISs. EPA regulations require at
least one public meeting on all draft EISs (40 CFR 6.400(c)). The meeting is generally announced in the
Federal Register and in local newspapers and by other means. Regulations also provide other means of
soliciting comments and information. Comments must be solicited from other appropriate federal, tribal,
state, and local agencies, and from the public, specifically including a request for comments from "those
persons or organizations who may be interested or affected" (40 CFR 1503.1(a)(4)).
EPA then has to consider and address all comments received on the draft EIS in preparing the final
EIS, and final EISs must include responses to comments. As with draft EISs, final EISs are noticed in the
Federal Register and elsewhere. Again, interested parties may submit comments on final EISs prior to
EPA's final decisions.
EAs must be made available to the public (40 CFR 1506.6: C.E.Q. 40 Questions, #38). A
combination of methods may be used to provide notice of availability; the methods should be tailored to the
needs of particular cases. Traditionally there has been limited public involvement before and during EA
preparation by EPA unless there is a question of significance (i.e., some question as to whether an EIS is
necessary) or some particular public interest.
Public review of RODs and FONSIs. Records of Decision on EISs must be disseminated to all those
who commented on the draft or final EIS (40 CFR 6.400(e)). No public review is required prior to or after
issuance of the ROD. Findings of No Significant Impact on EAs, in contrast, must be made available for
public review before they become effective (40 CFR 6.400(d)), and this involves at least local notice and
advertising. The FONSI and "attendant publication" must state that comments disagreeing with the decision
may be submitted, and any such comments must be considered by EPA (40 CFR 6.400(d)).
38
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
4.2 MECHANISMS TO ENHANCE PARTICIPATION
The public participation provision in Executive Order 12898 and its accompanying memorandum are
designed to ensure that there is adequate and effective communication between federal decision makers and
affected low-income communities and minority communities. This is consistent with the NEPA mandate
to involve the public. The involvement of low-income communities and/or minority communities, however,
presents some challenges to what has come to be the "normal" pattern of formal public participation under
NEPA. In order to establish trust with all types of stakeholders, interaction with the affected community
should:
Encourage active community participation.
Recognize community knowledge.
Utilize cross-cultural formats and exchanges.
In all cases where EPA's initial screening indicates that there is a potential for disproportionately high
and adverse effects on low-income and/or minority communities, the Agency should make a concerted effort
to identify stakeholders in the affected community and include the following groups and organizations in
their outreach efforts:
Environmental organizations and agencies
Minority businesses, associations and trade organizations
Civic associations and public interest groups
Grassroots/community-based social service organizations
Federal elected officials and agencies
Homeowners' or tenants' associations, neighborhood watch groups and resident organizations
Labor unions and organizations
State and local elected officials and agencies
News media, the Internet and other electronic media
Tribal governments and Tribal organizations
Religious groups and organizations
Libraries, vocational and other schools, colleges and universities
Medical community
Legal aid providers
Rural cooperatives
39
-------
EnvironmentalJustice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
Civil rights organizations
Senior citizen's groups
Other sources of advice are ethnic and cultural-based environmental justice networks (e.g., Indigenous
Environmental Network, Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, Southern Organizing
Committee). The People of Color Environmental Groups Directory10 is a valuable major source of
information on such local groups and individuals. Similarly, Historically Black Colleges and Universities,
Tribal Colleges and Universities or other higher education institutions located in areas with or serving
predominantly minority or low-income areas, may be able to assist EPA in designing (and participating in)
public participation strategies. Exhibit 5 identifies a number of particular communications challenges and
possible approaches to overcoming these challenges in addressing environmental justice issues. These
should be supplemented by case-specific advice-on challenges and on solutions-that are solicited from local
experts and others familiar with both the proposed action and the affected community.
10
Environmental Justice Resource Center. People of Color Environmental Croups: 1994 - 95 Directory.
Preptred by Dr. Robert D. Dullard, dark Atlanta University, Atlanta, Georgia. 1994.
40
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
Exhibit 4. Communications Issues of Particular Concern in Low-Income and/or
Minority Communities
Challenge
Possible Approaches to Overcoming
Language or
Communication barriers
Provide assistance to hearing or sight imputed individual!
Provide simultaneous translation of meetings
Use local translators where possible
Translate key documents in entirety (notices, summaries, etc.)
EttsMish 'comment line* (t.g., 800 number) for callen to leave n
orfed
Advertise meetings/process in slternative-Laaguege medium
Design communication strategy to retch all segments of population
Use facilitated meeting tuber than conventional stand-up comments to encourage oonunent*
Distance to meeting or
inconvenienl access
(e.g., rural or cross-
town)
Arrange for "comment line" (t.g., 800 number) 10 provide remote access to meeting or to allow ctlleic to
leave recorded comments
Arrange for telephone tie-in firnm seven] locations (t.g., from several schools, religious centers)
Hold series of shorter meetings (down to 1-2 noun each) in multiple locations
Arrange for alternative transportation (possibly through proponent)
Ensure location is accessible to public transportation and identify itinerary in notices
Use local cable-channel broadcast with telephone call-in
Have proponent provide traaspottatioB vouchers
Seek advice of local groupi/indrvidnals
Arrange for satellite link-up (perhaps funded by proponent)
Unfa
lings
(government buildings,
luxury hotel, etc.)
Use schools or other local fa
fading religious centers, chut
iques
Have several smaller decentralized meetings, including open-air meetings (possibly with tent backup) ia
season
Seek advice from local groups/individuals
Use local facilitator
Establish "comment fine* (t.g.. 100 number) for callers to le
remote locations
rdedi
i or to participate from
Outside normal EPA
communications loops
(i.e., Ftdml Rtgitttr,
newspapers)
Use pro-active approach to identify stakeholder (both groups sad affected individuals). Consult with local
advocates/public interest groups to identify cutrtach mechanisms and refer totbefrepteo/Cotor
Emirorantraai Croups Directory.
Disseminate informatioa through alternative media (neighborhood organization newsletters, religious
centers, fliers, local cable access channel, local radio broadcasts, etc.).
Co-sponsor public meetings with local community groups to nurture trust and credibility.
Make fnnaumimfm to tlyw mi thg m«i|iqj l«t; tmlra fnllt«M»p phatM aJU to «tffT"PIt
Direct consulution with tribal fovemments and public aetnsgi at Ifibal facilities or on/near tribal lands.
Forms: of Meetings
Use town lull type meetings.
Avoid 'panel of experts"
Use small focus-group seminars or workshops.
Use community "experts' and commrnfs as pan of cooununtcatio
Seek advice of local group*.
Use * trained facilitator who is sensitive to envirunmeiial justice issues.
strategy
Schedule conflicts (i-e.,
conflict with working
hours, working days)
Conduct personal interviews using audio or video recording devices
Hold aftet-hours and/or weekend meetings or sessions
Hold meetings on successive days
Hold multiple shorter meetings at diverse daws/days
Establish "comment line* (a.g.. NO number) for callers to leave
Arrange for child-care (possibly funded by proponent)
tdedi
Technically complex
issues
Provide sufficient background expluutions beyond the usual means
Use plain language in meetings *"* printed material
Seek advice of local groups/individuals
Provide hands-on demonstrations/parucipatioii {e.g., tours of similar facilities/locations)
Use visual BTescnuutons (t.g.,pictures, videos)
Provide two-way communication Q &. A
Use background summary reports, fact sheets, and abstracts
Provide ""-times! and/or financial assistance to community, local orgamzation. and/or tribal government to
review, evaluate, and comment on the NEPA documents aad provide neaamgful input throughout the
NE?A process.
Trust
Clearly present goals of NEPA. the proposed action, the inibfie invorveinett pnecss, and what ia expected
to be gained nom the process
Do not oversell: present uaccoainties and limitations
Goals should be written and in clear language
Present experiences and track record, successes and failures
41
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
EPA-anticipated impacts and community perceptions of those impacts (and their fairness) can be very
different, so both must be considered. When perceptions are the concern, an effort to involve and inform
the community can go a long way toward building confidence that EPA's analyses and actions are well-
intended and balanced. When actual impacts (i.e., disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects) are the concern, the participation can serve to educate the Agency and help identify
the means to identify alternatives and/or mitigate the impacts.
Although EPA and CEQ public participation regulations focus primarily on public meetings, there are
other mftrhanisms that can also fac'Mtat^ public input. Once community leaders and stakeholders have been
identified and a dialogue established, a mailing list should be assembled so that information can be sent to
this group, as well as formal announcements of a public meeting.
Another mechanism for providing information to the public is the establishment of information
repositories which are accessible to members of the affected community. Locations can include libraries,
churches, community centers, etc. Technical documents should contain a summary written to the lay public
and translated, if necessary, into the dominant language of the affected community.
Meaningful public participation is based on the proposition that people should have a say in decisions
which affect their lives in a significant way. Thus, for the public participation process to be effective, it
must:
Seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected;
Contain the implicit commitment by decision makers to seriously consider the input of the public;
and
Communicate to participants how their advice was or was not utilized.
Minority communities and low-income communities are no different than any other in that there are
nearly as many opinions as there are people. Thus, it is important not to focus exclusively on one
mechanism (or one person or one group) for disseminating or soliciting information. Rather, it is important
to use as many avenues as possible to solicit participation and to disseminate information. For example,
when there are formal or informal representatives that purport to speak for a wider population, it is always
advisable to seek divergent opinions.
Dr. Robert Bullard. Director of the School of Arts and Sciences at Clark Atlanta University, provides
a framework for public participation when addressing environmental justice concerns during the NEPA
process. Dr. Bullard points out that effective public involvement strategies have four common
characteristics: inclusiveness, representation, parity, and communication. Inclusiveness refers to the
assurance that all affected communities and stakeholders are represented and involved in the decision-
making process. In terms of representation, he points out that it is crucial that the persons who are
representing a specific community or stakeholder group truly reflect that community's, stakeholder's, and
constituent's views, values, and norms. Parity involves all stakeholder groups having equal opportunity
42 ~~
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
and capacity to provide input and full participation, as well as an equal voice in the decision-making
process. Dr. Bullard further points out that an effective communications strategy accounts for different
groups weighing and acting upon government actions and policies differently. An effective communications
strategy recogni7.es. respects, and values cultural diversity of communities and stakeholders that represent
a specific race, ethnic group, gender, age, geographic region, and a host of other characteristics.
As mentioned above, a recommended approach to ensure adequate public participation by minority
and/or low-income communities when the screening analysis indicates there may be disproportionately high
and adverse effects is to include a person familiar with environmental justice public participation issues on
the "project review team." CEQ "Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations" recommends that an interagency
project review team be used when appropriate, with the team functioning as a source of information, a
coordination mechanism, and an expert review team. When environmental justice issues must be faced, the
review team should consult with the local community (including but not limited to organized groups
concerned with environmental justice) during and following scoping, and should provide specialized
expertise to EIS preparers.
The following are additional mechanisms for enhancing participation in the NEPA process: 1) allow
public review of RODs; 2) government-to-government consultation with tribal governments, including
formal requests for Indian Tribes to seek participation as cooperating agencies; 3) Community Advisory
Boards for the development of NEPA documents; 4) community consultants; and 5} Tffphn'">^ assistance to
affected communities to Enhance understanding of proposed action, technical documents, and full range of
potential alternatives and mitigation measures.
In general, the effort expended in actively soliciting community involvement after the initial screening
process should reflect the potential significance of the effects. As noted above, however, there should be
some effort to communicate with stakeholders in all cases, including EAs, where the screening analysis
identifies potential disproportionately high and adverse effects. Although the health or environmental
impacts analyzed in EAs may not be "significant," from the NEPA standpoint, they may be perceived as
significant by affected parties. Although this concern would not trigger an HS, it should trigger more EIS-
like scoping and public participation prior to and following EA preparation. To the extent practicable and
consistent with regulations, an ElS-like public participation process should be undertaken for EAs when
social or economic impacts will be or are perceived to be substantial, even when the impacts are not
expected to be significant.
5.0 METHODS AND TOOLS FOR IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING
DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH AND ADVERSE EFFECTS
A fundamental step for incorporating environmental justice concerns into EPA NEPA compliance
activities is identifying minority and/or low-income communities that may bear disproportionately high and
adverse effects as a result of a proposed action. Once these minority and/or low-income communities are
identified and located, the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects to these communities
must be assessed. It is important to understand where such communities are located and how the lives and
43
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
livelihoods of members of these communities may be impacted by proposed and alternative actions.
Minority communities and low-income communities are likely to be dependent upon their surrounding
environment (e.g., subsistence living), more susceptible to pollution and environmental degradation (e.g.,
reduced access to health care), and are often less mobile or transient than other populations (e.g., unable
to relocate to avoid potential impacts). Each of these factors can contribute to minority and/or low-income
communities bearing disproportionately high and adverse effects. Therefore, developing an understanding
of where these communities are located and how they may be particularly impacted by government actions
should be a fundamental aspect of the EA and EIS development process.
Currently, EAs and EISs generally evaluate and compare potential environmental, ecological,
economic and/or human health risk impacts among and between broadly defined affected areas and
populations. Potential impacts to smaller populations, individual communities, neighborhoods, census
tracts, or environments (e.g., single lake or watershed within a larger affected area) are not generally
isolated, or disassociated from total impacts.
Minority and/or low-income communities are often concentrated in small geographical areas within
the larger geographically and/or economically defined population center targeted for study. Minority
communities and low-income communities may comprise a very small percentage of the total population
and/or geographical area. Therefore, the assumptions and inputs used in conjunction with traditional
analytical tools for studying potential impacts under NEPA, and the results of the analyses, may not fully
reflect the impacts that may be borne by these smaller communities or populations. An analysis of
disproportionate impacts will develop an understanding of how the total potential impacts vary across
individual communities. This allows analysts to identify and understand what portion of the total impacts
may be borne by minority or low-income communities, to assess whether they are disproportionately high
and adverse, and to develop alternatives and mitigation measures if necessary.
As described in Chapter 3, the first step in identifying the potential for environmental justice concerns
is to characterize the population affected by the proposed action hi terms of racial and ethnic composition
and in terms of relative income distribution. The composition of the population should then be compared
to the characteristics of the population (e.g., percentage of minority populations residing near a proposed
project versus the percentage of minority populations located within a single or multiple-county area
surrounding the proposed project). Populations surrounding the proposed project should be characterized
in terms of income distribution levels, as well as in terms of racial and ethnic diversity.
Many of the potential effects that may be borne by minority and/or low-income communities may be
analyzed or assessed using the same analytical tools that are currently used hi the development of EAs and
EISs. However, once a potential environmental justice issue is identified, these tools may need to be
modified or more likely, the scope of the analyses may need to be narrowed to focus on a smaller affected
area or population.
Several types of analytical tools are currently available and are being refined and/or modified to assist
analysts and decision makers in identifying potential environmental justice concerns and assessing
potentially disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income communities. The
44 '
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
following sections provide an overview of some of the available tools and the types of analyses that may
be useful for identifying and assessing disproportionately high and adverse effects (by evaluating both total
effects and effects on a smaller scale). It is not an exhaustive listing of available tools, since many tools for
identifying and assessing environmental justice concerns are still being developed, and it is not meant to
promote or endorse one type of tool or analysis over any other. The application of any tool is dependent
upon the type of study, the particular attributes of the area under study, and the data available to undertake
the study.
5.1 LOCATIONAL/DlSTRIBUnONAL TOOLS
Maps, aerial photographs, and geographical information systems (GIS) can be used to locate
geographical areas where potential environmental justice issues may exist. Local maps and aerial
photographs may provide a "snap shot," or general overview, of the locations of minority or low-income
populations or communities and the proximity of the proposed project to these populations or communities.
They also can identify key natural resources that may be affected. Although such tools are relatively
simplistic, they may be useful for identifying distinct communities within a geographical area surrounding
a candidate she, and for identifying clusters of facilities or sites that may contribute to cumulative impacts
to a given region or community. By consulting maps or photographs that depict the locations of minority
or low-income communities, as well as maps of the same geographical area that depict the locations of
hazardous waste facilities, Superfund sites, Toxics Release Inventory facility sites, and/or wastewater
discharges, analysts and EPA decision makers can gain a general understanding of the spatial relationships
between the proposed project and the surrounding communities. These tools can assist the EPA NEPA
analyst in identifying existing sources of environmental pollution and their proximity to minority and/or
low-income communities.
By consulting maps or photographs that depict the locations of minority or low-income communities,
as well as maps of the same geographical area that depict the locations of hazardous waste facilities,
Superfund sites, Toxics Release Inventory facility sites, and/or wastewater discharges, analysts and EPA
decision makers can gain a general understanding of the spatial relationships between the proposed project
and the surrounding communities. Aerial photographs can be used to effectively depict the boundaries of
an identified community and the spatial relationship that exists between the community and natural resources
and known pollutant sources.
Geographic information systems provide a much more powerful tool for identifying and locating
populations of concern. GIS technologies are useful for c*»"M**"*fag environmental justice issues by
identifying the locations of minority communities that potentially may be affected by proposed actions and
providing a visual understanding of how potential impacts may be distributed within a geographical area.
GIS provides the technology for displaying and overlaying locational information and population and site
characterization information on one or more maps. GIS allows for the visual display of vast amounts of
spatially oriented information. In addition, GIS systems can be used to display alternative "what if1
scenarios and provide for relatively quick and easy general comparisons of the potential impacts presented
by alternative locations.
45
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
Several EPA Headquarters and Regional offices are using and/or investigating the use of CIS
technologies for identifying and analyzing environmental justice issues. GIS systems such as ARCINFO
and Landview n are geographic references or computerized atlases. These systems can create maps using
digitized geographical boundary files such as the U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line '92 files, and other
commercially available digitized boundary files (e.g., zip code boundaries, county boundaries, water body
boundaries) to display locational information and geographical areas. GIS systems also can incorporate,
and graphically display on computer-generated maps, other population and demographic information that
is available in digitized format. Landview n includes 1990 demographic and economic data from the
Bureau of Census, including population and housing characteristics and summary information on income,
education levels, employment, race, and age. The census data are available in two databases, STF1A and
STF3A, which contain digitized data files. The census databases are then spatially linked to the TIGER files
that contain geographic and political boundaries. Each county in the census database is divided into several
census tracts that are subdivided into census blocks. The blocks are aggregated into block groups containing
between 250 to 550 housing units. This level of data aggregation allows the user to identify locations of
relatively small, homogeneous communities and to visualize, on the computer screen, the relative proximity
of these communities to the proposed project and mitigation activities.
GIS allows users to easily display, on a single map, general locational and demographic information
(e.g., zip code boundaries, proposed facility site locations, pollutant concentrations, income level, ethnic
background, population density). GIS also will allow a user to display data in terms of policy or decision
criteria. For example, income distribution data for individual census tracts may be segregated by percent
of population below the poverty level (e.g., census blocks shaded differently to correspond to areas where
0-25 percent of the population is below the poverty level, 25-50 percent is below the poverty level, etc.).
GIS also can integrate additional census information on education, employment, race, and age to produce
graphic depictions of all of this information on a single map to obtain a comprehensive profile of the
communities surrounding the proposed project. More than one project can be displayed on a single map
to allow for a comparison of population characteristics surrounding the proposed project. Again, the maps
generated by the GIS are useful tools for identifying minority and/or low-income communities that should
be targeted for further study due to potential environmental justice concerns.
Although the availability of census demographic information in digitized format can significantly
enhance NEPA analytical capabilities, and can be particularly useful for environmental justice analyses, the
EPA NEPA analyst should keep in mind that there are limitations associated with the accuracy of census
information due to the manner in which the data are collected and tabulated. Census data are useful for
screening analyses, but results should always be validated through public participation mechanisms, other
data sources, or by touring the community and talking with local officials and community leaders.
Many other types of information pertinent to NEPA project evaluations also are available for use in
GIS systems. For example, EPA has made available portions of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
database (including facility locations), the Biennial Reporting System (BRS) database, the Aerometric
Information Retrieval System (AIRS), the CERCLA Information System (CERCLJS), and the Permit
Compliance System (PCS), in digitized data files for use in GIS applications. DOT's chemicals in transit
information is also available for GIS applications.
46
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA ComoBanct Anotvses
To enhance the applicability of CIS technologies to NEPA assessments, including the assessment of
potential cumulative impacts from existing and proposed projects, the geographical and demographic
information provided in Census databases can be integrated with other available EPA information (e.g.,
facilities located within particular zip codes or counties that reported releases or emissions of a particular
chemical in TRI reports, locations of NPL sites, etc.) and integrated with other NEPA factors using digitized
data sets on soils, power lines, roads, streams, sources of electricity, locations of threatened and endangered
species, and existing archaeological sites. These additional data sets are readily available from the U.S.
Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of Commerce, and state and local government
agencies. Additional maps depicting community-specific issues (e.g., locations of subsistence fanners and
locations of water bodies supporting subsistence fishing activities) also can be compiled, digitized and
incorporated into a GIS system to further depict and analyze more specific environmental justice issues and
concerns.
Other GIS, or computer mapping, systems that may enhance NEPA analyses of environmental justice
concerns include CAMEO (Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations), ALOHA (Aerial
Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres) and ATT.RSP (American Indian Lands Environmental Support
Project). CAMEO includes chemical-specific information, facility-specific information from EPA's
Chemical Inventory database and TRI database, and transportation information CAMEO integrates
MARPLOT, a mapping application tool that generates maps from U.S. Bureau of Census TIGER files.
ALOHA is a modeling tool for estimating the movement and dispersion of gases and estimating pollutant
concentrations downwind from the source of a potential spill or emission. ALOHA files can be saved and
used in a format compatible with CAMEO. AILESP includes permitted facilities on or near Indian lands
from various EPA databases (e.g., AIRS, BRS, NCDB, PCS, RCRIS, TRI, CERCLIS), pounds of chemicals
released, 1994 spill and one time release data, pesticide use by county, toxic weighting factors for TRI
chemicals, two year inspection and compliance information, 1990 population and census statistics, and
stream reaches with fish advisories, contaminated sediments and contaminated fish tissue.
5.2 ECOLOGICAL AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS
Executive Order 12898 provides for agencies to determine if a proposed action will result in
disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority or low-income populations. Due to the fact that
the characteristics of these populations may differ significantly from the characteristics of the larger affected
population, analyses should address both the minority or low-income population and the comparison
populations. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of the environmental and socioeconomic factors that should be
considered in identifying and assessing disproportionately high and adverse effects.
EPA has a formal risk analysis process which consists of two related, but separate, processes: risk
assessment and risk management. Risk assessment characterizes the likelihood for a chemical or substance
to cause adverse health effects to humans and can provide a means for assessing the possible impacts on a
population, if exposure occurs. Risk assessment provides an estimate of the probability that human
exposure to a chemical agent will result hi an adverse health effect to the exposed individual, or an estimate
of the incidence of the effect upon an exposed population. Risk management is the process whereby it is
decided what actions are appropriate, given an estimate of potential risks and due consideration to other
47
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA ComoUanee Analyses
relevant iactors. Information developed in the risk assessment process is used to guide decision makers in
determining the appropriate action to take within the risk management process. When making risk
management decisions in the context of environmental justice concerns, a number of factors should be
considered along with human health risk calculations or evaluations. These include social concerns,
economic concerns, and acceptance of the proposed action by the affected communities. Within the context
of risk management, there is an opportunity to consider relevant environmental justice issues. In the risk
management process, decisions are made regarding acceptable levels of exposure and risk.
Risk assessment, as conducted by EPA, conforms to the Agency's published guidelines that include
four distinct parts: Hazard Identification, Dose-Response Analysis, Exposure Assessment, and Risk
Characterization. These four parts provide the analytical tools for identifying disproportionately high and
adverse effects. During the risk management process, criteria must be developed to guide the weighing of
information. These criteria provide the basis for risk-based decisions with regard to disproportionately high
and adverse effects. For example, risk assessments usually do not account for exposure traits of racial and
ethnic groups or accurately account for actual environmental harm to human health where the population
density is low (e.g., rural communities, Indian Country). Human activity patterns governed by customs,
social class, and ethnic and racial cultures may be introduced and considered during the risk management
process to allow for the identification of disproportionately high and adverse effects.
To ensure that environmental justice concerns are considered within the risk management process, risk
assessments should be conducted to determine exposure pathways and potential effects and the affected
community should be involved in the development and implementation of the process. This can then be
overlaid with information obtained from locations! analyses using GIS and census data during the risk
management process to identify minority or low-income populations that are located within the identified
exposure pathways. Racial, ethnic, and cultural information can then be used to further refine the risk
management process to account for disproportionately high and adverse effects.
To enhance the analysis of disproportionately high and adverse effects within EPA's health assessment
studies, several efforts are underway to make relevant health and exposure information available to these
studies. EPA's Office of Research and Development is currently developing the National Human Exposure
Assessment Survey (NHEXAS). This survey is designed to generate a human exposure database to address
some of the geographic and demographic questions relevant to environmental justice issues. NHEXAS will
address exposure concerns by providing information on the magnitude, extent, and causes of human
exposure.
EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation is currently developing an environmental justice
database that will integrate health effects data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
in (NHANES-ffl), demographic data from the 1990 Census, environmental data from air monitoring
stations, and the Toxic Release Inventory database. This database integration will assist EPA staff in
developing disease correlations with air exposure data in high impact populations.
Ecological assessments conducted as components of EAs and EISs generally involve identifying the
natural resources (e.g., air, water, soils) that will be used by proposed project or activity and the potentially
_48 "
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Contpffancc Anolvsts
affected environments (e.g., watersheds, wetlands, wildlife habitats) that may be impacted by the proposed
project (including alternatives). After a general cataloging and description of the surrounding
environmental and ecological resources is compiled, the potential changes and impacts of the proposed
action and alternative actions are assessed. Often, these analyses do not fully substantiate the beneficial or
adverse effects on the surrounding geographical area or communities within the area. Instead, impacts may
be described generally, with an assumption that they are distributed equally across all communities or
residents within the affected region or area. As a consequence, the analysis may overlook or ignore
environmental justice concerns. If adverse impacts are not quantified, then special consideration should be
given to whether potential impacts could be borne by minority communities or low-income communities
residing within the larger area and, if necessary, separate analyses should be designed and conducted to
assess this. As discussed above, GIS systems can sometimes be used to identify such populations and to
characterize the environments where the populations reside. In addition, county and state planning agencies
and housing authorities may be useful sources of information for characterizing the unique aspects and
vulnerabilities of these populations.
If environmental, ecological, or human health impacts to the affected geographical area are quantified,
the distribution of such impacts should be assessed. The study should attempt to estimate the proportion
of impacts borne by low-income and/or minority populations within the area of a project's impact compared
to the general population hi and around the project, or the project's region of influence. While traditional
risk modeling may not always be used in the NEPA process, impact assessments and risk management tools
should be tailored to reflect the characteristics of these communities and study assumptions should reflect
the characteristics of the individuals residing in low-income communities and minority-populated
communities (Le., model assumptions should reflect the general health of these individuals and their general
living conditions and unique locations relative to pollutant sources). When tailoring risk management tools
to consider the distribution of impacts to low-income and/or minority communities, differential patterns of
subsistence consumption of natural resources should be considered, including differences in rates of
consumption for fish, vegetation, water, and wildlife among ethnic groups and among cultures. Further,
it should be recognized that land and water resources not predominantly used by the general population may
be important sources of consumption, economy, cultural use, and/or recreation for minority and/or low-
income communities. Degradation of these resources may result hi direct and disproportionately high and
adverse effects to minority and/or low-income communities.
53 SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSES
The analysis and understanding of potential socioeconomic impacts is also important. CEQ regulations
note that economic or social effects alone do not trigger an EIS (40 CFR §1508.14). However, if
environmental justice concerns are identified during the screening analysis or during the development of
an EA, the potential interrelated socioeconomic impacts to both the total affected population (or a "control"
population) and to the low-income and/or minority communities of concern should be evaluated, to the
extent practicable. Cultural or Social Impact Asses""**** are additional tools that can be used for analyzing
specific socioeconomic impacts to a community that shares a common cultural or spiritual environment.
49
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
In the development of EAs and EISs, deterministic models are generally used to predict potential
impacts that a particular action may have upon particular economic indicators (e.g., the level of employment
and changes to income distribution or property values) for the community surrounding the proposed project.
Standard models provide for analyses of the potential effects that an action may have upon the local
economy in both the short term, due to transient or temporary activities (e.g., construction, facility planning
and startup activities), and the long term, due to sustained impacts to the area (e.g., permanent employment
opportunities, reduction in housing quality, degradation of existing environment). Generally, NEPA
modeling activities measure potential shifts in indicators such as income distribution and employment levels
across general income distribution categories (e.g., percentage change in annual income to portion of
affected population earning less than $15,000, between $15,000 to $20,000, etc.). Standard socioeconomic
models also can be used to predict impacts that proposed actions and alternatives may have upon available
housing stock, housing quality, and property values.
Generally, standard socioeconomic models are employed to predict shifts and changes in particular
socioeconomic indicators such as employment, income levels, and housing quality upon a large geographical
area or population center, often a standard, pre-defined economic trade area. The data and information
provided as inputs to the model and assumptions made in employing the model (including economic
conditions and multipliers) broadly characterize the entire population of the large geographical area or
population center surrounding the proposed project. The results of these modeling efforts may include
potential impacts to various categories within the overall population characterized by income level or by
housing category. However, these models generally do not allow (or at least have not been used so as to
allow) for a distributional analysis of potential impacts to specific communities, individual populations, or
to small geographical areas.
To predict or characterize more accurately the potential disproportionately high and adverse effects
to minority or low-income communities and account for potential environmental justice concerns, standard
socioeconomic models currently used for EAs and EISs may have to be modified or specifically tailored to
account for an array of new variables, such as subsistence living, treaty-protected resources, cultural use
of natural resources, sacred sites, dependence on public transit, community cohesion, and a relatively
unskilled labor base. Environmental justice issues and concerns may be integrated into some traditional
socioeconomic analyses by first employing scoping activities and screening tools to identify potential
minority and/or low-income communities prior to the employment of specific modeling techniques. It then
may be possible to tailor modeling assumptions and input data on specific populations or targeted
communities, rather than apply standard modeling techniques to large economic trade areas or standard
metropolitan areas and using average input parameters that may not reflect adequately the characteristics
of minority or low-income communities (i.e., alter model assumptions to characterize the population
affected by the environmental justice concern, rather then characterize the average individual in the entire
study area). As noted above, Census databases contain demographic information (e.g., income levels, race,
age, employment levels) at the census tract and census block levels. Other potential sources of information
include tribal, state and local planning agencies, and state housing, commerce, and welfare agencies. EPA
analysts should keep in mind that some information on the characteristics of local communities and
environments may be available only from community leaders, local government offices, and/or members
of the community. Some information may be available from transcripts of public concerns raised at
__.
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Camotiance Analyses
bearings for other government projects within the same region. In some cases, analysts may need to conduct
interviews of local community leaders and members of the targeted population.
One option for modifying or tailoring socioeconomic analyses to identify and evaluate environmental
justice concerns is to develop index or ranking systems for identifying and scoring potential
disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority and/or low-income communities. Such an index or
ranking system could be applied to specifically defined or targeted areas and used as a screening tool to
identify environmental justice concerns in communities surrounding one or more candidate locations.
Candidate locations that result in high index scores or rankings can either be dropped from consideration,
targeted for additional and more thorough socioeconomic and risk analyses to investigate further potential
disproportionately high and adverse effects, or development of additional alternative actions or projects
designed to mitigate identified impacts.
An environmental justice screening index may be as simple as defining several levels or categories of
potential impacts (e.g., changes in employment levels, changes in income levels, and changes in overall
health levels) or defining and scoring several socioeconomic indicators (e.g., dependence on subsistence
fuming or fishing, percent of population below poverty level, average property value) and weighing each
category of impact as to its importance to contributing to environmental justice issues. Decision criteria
(e.g., undertake further detailed social impact analyses, drop candidate location from consideration) could
then be set for different ranges of index scores or rankings. The index also may combine preliminary
information on potential economic impacts with information on other potential impacts (e.g., environmental
degradation, air emissions) to assign decision criteria for additional targeted analyses or studies.
EPA Region 611 developed a relatively sophisticated ranking scheme to determine whether an
environmental justice indicator exists. The formula provides a means for determining whether an
environmental justice situation exists and includes factors such as population exposed, degree of impact and
degree of vulnerability.
Region 6 evaluates sites using an environmental justice formula and ranks facilities or actions on a scale
of 0 to 100. Regional officials point out that although higher scores can indicate greater potential
environmental justice concerns, the population density, percent minority population, and percent of
economically depressed household data are the more important analytical factors. When evaluated
independently, they often provide greater insight into potential environmental justice concerns and can be
used alone to rank sites. Also, the user should realize that even a location with an index ranking of zero
can have significant environmental justice concerns. For example, an unpopulated area will rank a zero,
but if owned and/or used by minority and/or low-income groups, the site may have significant
environmental justice importance. Recent examples of EPA's use of the EJ index include the draft EIS for
Eagle Pass Mine, in Maverick County, Texas, and the Supplemental Draft EIS for Expansion of the Oak
Hill Surface Lignite Mine into the DID Area, Rusk County, Texas. Utilizing the EJ index on a scale of 1
U.S. EPA Region 6, Office of Planning and AnalyiU. 'Computer Assisted Environnwntal Justice Index
Methodology/ July, 1994.
51
-------
EnvironmentalJustice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
to 100 wherein higher values indicate more concern, neither EIS warranted a closer examination into EJ
issues.
52
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
APPENDIX A
Council on Environmental Quality
Guidance for Addressing
Environmental Justice Under the National Environmental Policy Act
53
-------
EnvironmentalJustife in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
APPENDIX B
Regional Contacts
Region 1
Rhona Mien, EJ Coordinator (617) 565-9454
Betsy Higgins-Cougiam, EPA Environmental Review Coordinator (617) 565-3422
James Sappier, Indian Program Coordinator (617) 565-3935
Susan Coin, NEPA Coordinator (617) 565-3577
Region 2
Melva Hayden, EJ Coordinator (212) 637-5027
Robert Hargrove, EPA Environmental Review Coordinator (212) 637-3495
Christine Yost, Indian Program Coordinator (212) 637-3564
Bob Hargrove, NEPA Coordinator (212) 637-3504
Regions
Reginald Harris, EJ Coordinator (215) 566-2988
John Forren, EPA Environmental Review Coordinator (215) 566-2721
Roy Denmark. NEPA Coordinator (215)566-2782
Region 4
Connie Raines, EJ Coordinator (404) 562-9671
Heinz Mueller, EPA Environmental Review Coordinator (404) 347-7292
Mark Robertson, Indian Program Coordinator (404) 462-9639
Heinz Mueller, NEPA Coordinator (404) 562-9611
Regions
Karla Johnson, EJ Coordinator (312) 886-5993
Mike McMullen, EPA Environmental Review Coordinator (312) 886-7342
Ketutis "Casey" Ambutas, Indian Program Coordinator (312) 353-1394
Mike McMullen, NEPA Coordinator (312) 886-7342
Region 6
Shirley Augerson, EJ Coordinator (214) 665-740!
Mike Jansky, EPA Environmental Review Coordinator (214) 665-7451
Ernest Woods, Indian Program Coordinator (214) 665-7454
Mike Janskyt NEPA Coordinator (214) 665-7451
54
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
Region 7
Althea Moses, EJ Coordinator (913) 551-7649
Ralph Langenneier, EPA Environmenwl Review Coordinator (913) 551-7367
Kim Olsen, Indian Program Coordinator (913) 551-7539
Ralph Langenneier, KEPA Coordinator (913) 551-7367
Regions
Elisabeth Evans, EJ Coordinator (303) 312-6053
Carol Campbell, EPA Environmental Review Coordinator (303) 312-6705
Sadie Hoskie, Indian Program Coordinator (3Q3) 312-6343
Carol L. Campbell, NEPA Coordinator (303) 312-6897
Carol Campbell, NEPA Coordinator (Montana) , (303) 312-6705
Region 9
WillardChin, EJ Coordinator (415) 744-1204
Dave Parrel. EP A Environmental Review Coordinaioi (415) 744-1584
Clarence Tenley, Indian Program Coordinator (415) 744-1607
Dave Parrel, NEPA Coordinator (415) 744-1584
Region 10
Joyce Crosson-Kelly, EJ Coordinator (206) 553^029
Rutb Sigueza, EPA Environmental Review Coordinator (206) 553-2143
Kathleen Veit, Indian Program Coordinator (206) 553-1983
Rutb Siguenza, NEPA Coordinator (206) 553-2143
Headquarters
EJ Coordinators
Angela Chung, OA (202) 260-4724
Will WUson, OAR (919)541-2551
Mary O'Lone, OGC (202) 260-2301
MarylouiseM. Uhlig, OPPTS (202)260-2906
Janice C. Bryant, OPPE (202) 260-2730
Janice Berry-Chen, ORO (202)260-6188
Sherry Milan, OECA (202)564-2619
Dorota Reaves, OCEPA (202)260-3534
Rosezella Canty, OCR (202) 260-4567
Leo Cox. OW (202) 260-3475
Dana Brewington, OSWER (2023 260-0221
Lawrence Martin, ORD (202)260-0673
55
-------
EnvironmentalJustice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
APPENDIX C
References
Council on Environmental Quality. March 1998. Guidance for Addressing Environmental Justice
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Council on Environmental Quality. January 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National
Environmental Policy Act.
Council on Environmental Quality. November 17, 1980. Guidance on Applying Section 404(r) of the
Clean Water Act to Federal Projects Which Involve the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Materials into
Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands.
Council on Environmental Quality. March 23,1981. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's
National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, as amended. 46 Fed. Reg. 18026.
Earnhardt, Melany. 1995. Using the National Environmental Policy Act to Address Environmental
Justice Issues. Clearinghouse Review.
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. February 11,1994.
Executive Order 13007 on Indian Sacred Sites. May 24, 1996.
Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (TWO). Draft Guidance for Federal Agencies on
Key Terms in Executive Order 12898. August 8, 1995.
National Enforcement Training Institute. December 1996. Environmental Justice Training for
Enforcement Personnel: Trainer's Manual.
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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. The Model Plan for Public Participation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities. October 3, 1984. Policy and
Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment.
56
-------
Environmental Justice in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses
U.S. General Accounting Office. June 1, 1983. Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their
Correlation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities.
57
------- |