Jxt 0£ £
                                ?
    Promising Practices

  for EJ Methodologies

       in NEPA Reviews

      Report of the Federal Inter agency
      Working Group on Environmental
      Justice & NEP A Committee
	•

lijfeisjCjlii

          ^"Si-
                       MARCH 2016
                                  NX
                                              \
                                           PRCP
Working


together towards


collaborative


and innovative


solutions
%

                *
                              I
               A NEPA Committee and E] IWG Document

-------
This material is not  intended or offered  as legal advice. It is non-
binding, informal,  and  summary in nature, and the  information
contained herein does not constitute rules or regulations. As such, it is
not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon  to create any
rights, substantive or procedural, that are enforceable at law by any
party, in any criminal, civil, or administrative matter.

-------
NEPA COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS

Committee Co-Chairs
  •   Suzi Ruhl, US EPA
  •   Helen Serassio, US DOT

Education Subcommittee
Co-Chairs
  •   Arthur Totten, US EPA
  •   Brian Collins, US DOJ
                                              Community of Practice Subcommittee
                                              Co-Chairs
                                                •   Stanley Buzzelle, US EPA
                                                •   Andrew Zacker, US HHS
                                                    Forest Service:
                                                     • James Smalls, jsmalls@fs.fed.us
                                                     • Tasha LoPorto, tloporto@fs.fed.us
U.S. Department of Agriculture

  Animal Plant Health Inspection Service:

  • Wendy Hall, wendy.f.hall@aphis.usda.gov
  • Eileen Sutker, eileen.sutker@aphis.usda.gov
  • Michelle Gray, michelle.l.gray@aphis.usda.gov
  • Fan Wang-Cahill, fan.wang-cahill@aphis.usda.gov
  • Phillip Washington,
    phillip.washington@aphis.usda.gov
  • David Bergsten david.a.bergsten@aphis.usda.gov

U.S. Department of Energy

  • Denise Freeman denise.freeman@hq.doe.gov
  • Eric Cohen*, eric.cohen@hq.doe.gov
  • Steven Miller, steven.miller@hq.doe.gov
  • Brian Costner, brian.costner@hq.doe.gov

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  • Andrew Zacher, andrew.zacher@hhs.gov
  • Capt. Edward Pfister*, edward.pfister@hhs.gov
  • Laura Annetta*, laura.anetta@hhs.gov
  • Everett Bole, Everett.bole@foh.hhs.gov

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  • Lisa Quiveors, lisa.quiveors@hq.dhs.gov
  • Jennifer Hass, jennifer.hass@cbp.dhs.gov
  • David Reese*, david.reese@hq.dhs.gov
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
  • James Potter, james.m.potter@hud.gov
* Individuals no longer participating on the EJ IWG or NEPA Committee due to retirement or change in duties.
                     PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
U.S. Department of the Interior

  Bureau of Land Management
  • Robert Winthrop, rwinthro@blm.gov
  • Thomas Bartholomew*, tbarthol@blm.gov
  • Hilary Zarin, hzarin@blm.gov

  Bureau of Reclamation
  • Cathy Cunningham, ccunningham@usbr.gov

U.S. Department of Justice

  • Cynthia S. Huber, cynthia.huber@usdoj.gov
  • Brian Collins, brian.m.collins@usadoj.gov
  • Barbara Marvin, barbara.marvin@usdoj.gov
  • Ayako Sato*, ayako.sato@usdoj.gov

U.S. Department of State

  • Mary Hassell, hassellMD@state.gov
  • Genevieve Walker*, walkerg@state.gov
  • Jill Reilly, reillyJE@state.gov

U.S. Department of Transportation

  • Helen Serassio, helen.serassio@dot.gov
  • Katie Grasty*, katie.grasty@dot.gov

  Federal Transit Administration
  • Maya Sama, maya.sarna@dot.gov
  • Faith Hall, faith.hall@dot.gov

Department of Veteran Affairs

  • Catherine Johnson, catherine.johnson7@va.gov
 Fish and Wildlife Service
 • Iris Ponsano, iris_ponsano@fws.gov
 National Park Service
 • Doug Wetmore, doug_wetmore@nps.gov
  Fe deral Highway Administra tion
  • Harold Peaks, harold.peaks@dot.gov
  • Carolyn Nelson, carolyn.nelson@dot.gov
  • Sharlene Reed*, sharlene.reed@dot.gov
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

  Office of Environmental Justice
  • Suzi Ruhl, ruhl.suzi@epa.gov
  • Stan Buzzelle, buzzelle.stanley@epa.gov

Office of Federal Activities
  • Arthur Totten, totten.arthur@epa.gov
  • Ellen Athas, athas.ellen@epa.gov
  • Julie Roemele, roemele.julie@epa.gov
  • Cliff Rader* , rader.cliff@epa.gov
Regional Offices
• Grace Musumeci, musumeci.grace@epa.gov
• Nikolaus Wirth, wirth.nikolaus@epa.gov
• Reggie Harris, harris.reggie@epa.gov
• Ntale Kajumba, kajumba.ntale@epa.gov
• Alan Walts, walts.alan@epa.gov
• Elizabeth Poole, poole.elizabeth@epa.gov
• Dana Allen, allen.dana@epa.gov
• Thomas Kelly, kelly.thomasp@epa.gov
* Individuals no longer participating on the EJ IWG or NEPA Committee due to retirement or change in duties.
                      PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
U.S. General Services Administration

  • Carol Schafer, carol.schafer@gsa.gov
  • Katrina Scarpato, katrina.scarpato@gsa.gov
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

  • Jeffery Rikhoff, jefferey.rikoff@nrc.gov
  • Emily Larson*, emily.larson@nrc.gov
White House Council on Environmental Quality
  • Cecilia De Robertis*, cecilia_a_derobertis@ceq.eop.gov
* Individuals no longer participating on the EJ IWG or NEPA Committee due to retirement or change in duties.
                      PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis
  of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving
                     federal financial assistance.

 Federal agencies should ensure recipients of federal financial assistance
 engaged in the NEPA process comply with Title VI in addition to fulfilling
the requirements of NEPA. A separate Title VI analysis may be necessary.
For guidance on Title VI compliance, consult with your Agency's Office of
   Civil Rights or the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
               PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
Table of Contents1

Preface	  6

 I.      Meaningful Engagement	8


 II.      Scoping Process	12


 III.     Affected Environment	15


 IV.     Alternatives	18


 V.      Minority Populations	21


 VI.     Low-Income Populations	26


 VII.    Impacts Analysis	29


 VIII.    Disproportionately High and Adverse Impacts	38


 IX.     Mitigation and Monitoring	47


 NEPA and EJ National Training Product	51
 'Similar to the NEPA process itself, the Report is intended to be non-linear in nature. While each
 section of the document has been arranged to loosely mirror a linear progression, in actual practice,
 these steps are often overlapping and interrelated.

                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
                                Preface

The Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJIWG)
established the NEPA Committee in 2012 pursuant to the Memorandum of
Understanding on Environmental Justice and Executive Order 12898 (2011). The
Memorandum identified the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as an area of
focus for inclusion in the agencies' environmental justice efforts and directed efforts
to "include interagency collaboration." The NEPA Committee seeks to improve the
effective, efficient and consistent consideration of environmental justice issues in the
NEPA process through the sharing of best practices, lessons learned, research,
analysis, training, consultation, and other experiences of federal NEPA practitioners.

Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews, an EJ IWG report produced
by the NEPA Committee (hereinafter referred to as "Promising Practices Report")
represents the professional experience,  knowledge, and expertise of the individuals
participating  in the NEPA Committee. The  NEPA Committee  (see List  of NEPA
Committee Participants from ten departments, three agencies, and one White House
office) spent almost 48 months researching, analyzing and discussing the interaction
of environmental justice and NEPA. The Promising Practices Report is a compilation of
methodologies gleaned from current  agency  practices identified by the NEPA
Committee concerning the interface of environmental justice considerations through
NEPA processes. The EJ IWG and NEPA Committee hope that this compilation will
disseminate promising  EJ practices across the federal government so that we can
learn from one  another about effective  ways  to build robust consideration of
environmental justice into our NEPA practice. This document draws from existing
environmental justice and NEPA Guidance developed by White House Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and federal agencies,  but is not and should  not be
considered formal guidance.

The forward-looking promising practices methodologies are derived from examples
of actual agency practices that were presented by one or more agencies during the
multi-agency NEPA Committee meetings. These  examples were used by the NEPA
Committee participants to generate approaches that federal agencies can consider
for understanding environmental justice in the  context of the NEPA process. For
purposes of this document, the NEPA Committee looked at instructive examples from
current practice, and where helpful or relevant, attempted to extract useful lessons
learned from those examples. The NEPA Committee has also produced a National
Training Product which includes information on specific examples that align with the
Promising Practices Report for training purposes.
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
Accordingly, the Promising Practices Report sets forth these promising practices as a
way of presenting a variety of methodological approaches and a broad overview of
options that may be suitable across various NEPA process scenarios, but not as agency
requirements or  guidance. Information in the Promising Practices Report is intended
to provide flexible approaches for agencies as they consider environmental justice in
NEPA activities. The Promising Practices Report does not establish new requirements
for NEPA analysis. It is not and should not be viewed as formal agency guidance, nor
is the compilation of promising practices intended to be legally binding or create
rights and benefits for any person. It is intended, however, as a way for agencies to
compare and improve their methodologies for considering environmental justice now
and in the future by applying methods established in federal NEPA practice. In that
regard, the joint efforts of the NEPA Committee reflect the community of federal NEPA
practitioners who seek to facilitate reasonable consideration of environmental justice
within the context of NEPA.

The EJ IWG and NEPA Committee hope that their efforts provide the groundwork for
a renewed and dynamic process to advance environmental justice principles through
NEPA implementation and thereby promote a more effective, efficient, and consistent
consideration of environmental justice during NEPA reviews.
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
I. MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT                                         oo
Guiding Principles
Agencies can be informed by consideration of the following guiding principles:
1.  For  purposes of consistency with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to
   Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,
   the terms "minority populations2" and "low-income populations" are used in this
   document.3 Within these populations, there are residents, community leaders, and
   organizations, among others.
2.  This document, a compilation of federal NEPA practitioner promising practices, is
   not  formal  guidance. It merely  provides agencies with recommendations for
   conducting environmental  justice analyses for NEPA  reviews. As such,  the
   document is not intended  to modify NEPA, the CEQ NEPA regulations, or any
   agency's NEPA implementation regulations, or impose any requirements beyond
   what NEPA and Executive Order 12898 require of agencies.

3.  In order to meaningfully engage minority populations and low-income populations
   and other interested individuals, communities, and organizations, agencies may
   consider (as appropriate) encompassing adaptive and innovative approaches to
   both public outreach (i.e.,  disseminating relevant information) and participation
   (i.e., receiving community input) since minority populations  and low-income
   populations often face different and greater barriers to engagement.

4.  Meaningful engagement efforts with potentially affected minority  populations,
   low-income  populations,  and  other interested individuals,  communities, and
   organizations  are  generally most  effective and beneficial for agencies and
   communities when initiated early and conducted (as appropriate) throughout each
   step of the NEPA process.

5.  Meaningful engagement efforts for potentially affected minority populations, low-
   income  populations,  and other interested  individuals,  communities,  and
   organizations can play an important role in leveraging agencies' ability to collect
2 See "Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity" at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards/:
See also e.g. "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with
Federally Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples" at
http://www3.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policv/indigenous/ej-indigenous-policv.pdf

3 Agencies use their discretion to define the range of individuals and/or groups to which they will extend EJ analyses
within their NEPA process. This Report recognizes theSaieQIviBidlpjrHg^Bifylapproaches to conductingHyS | February 2016
analyses and terminology, and so for consistency, it uses the wording, "minority populations and low-income
populations" throughout this document.

-------
   data used to inform the decision-making process.

6.  Maintaining  relationships  with  affected  minority populations,  low-income
   populations, and other interested individuals,  communities,  and organizations
   throughout the NEPA process via an agency-designated point of contact can be an
   effective means of facilitating meaningful engagement.
7.  Convening  project-specific  community  advisory  committees  and  other
   established groups to identify potential impacts and mitigation measures (as part
   of the NEPA review process) comprised in part of potentially affected  minority
   populations and low-income populations can enhance agencies' understanding of
   the proposed action's potential impacts and alternatives, and can be a  valuable
   public participation strategy, designed to further inform an agency's decision-
   making process.

8.  Providing minority populations and low-income populations, and other interested
   individuals, communities, and organizations with an opportunity to discuss the
   purpose and need statement early in the NEPA process can help focus public input.
   Explaining the purpose and need for agency action to the minority populations and
   low income populations early in the NEPA process  can help focus meaningful
   engagement (i.e. public outreach and participation) efforts. (See  also section 4.1-
   4.2, p.20)

Specific Steps
As appropriate, agencies can consider the following actions:
 1.  Consider  conducting  early  and diligent  efforts to  meaningfully  engage
    potentially affected minority populations, low-income populations, and other
    interested individuals, communities, and organizations (as appropriate)  when: 1)
    defining the affected environment; 2) identifying potentially affected  minority
    and low-income populations; 3) assessing potential impacts to minority  and low-
    income populations; 4) assessing potential alternatives; 5) determining whether
    potential  impacts  to  minority populations  and low-income populations are
    disproportionately high and adverse (See also section 8, p.40); and 6) developing
    mitigation and monitoring   measures.  Engaging the  community  during
    appropriate key steps in  the  NEPA review  can inform an agency's decision-
    making process. Agencies may benefit by communicating agency objectives for
    the proposed activity.
2.  Consider identifying and  addressing  (as appropriate) concerns such as any
   cultural,  institutional, geographic, economic,  historical,  linguistic, or other
   barriers to achieve meaningful engagement  with potentially affected  minority
   populations,  low-income  populations,   and  other  interested   individuals,
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   communities, and organizations.

3.  Agencies can be informed by soliciting and considering input on the proposed
   action  and alternatives (as  appropriate)  from each  segment  of the minority
   population or low-income population that may potentially be affected (e.g.,
   minority-owned small businesses, low-income transit riders, subsistence fishers).

4.  Consistent with applicable requirements,  agencies should conduct meaningful
   engagement  efforts and  government-to-government  consultation efforts  (as
   appropriate)  specifically designed to reach indigenous tribal populations and
   organizations.

5.  Throughout each step of the NEPA process (as appropriate) consider the use of
   electronic communications  (e.g.,  virtual meetings,  webinars, social  media,
   Listserv).  This  method of  communication may  not  be  effective for some
   populations, and its use could be discussed in conjunction with other methods of
   communication that are viable.  Throughout each step of the NEPA process (as
   appropriate)  consider choosing meeting locations, meeting times, and facilities
   that  are local, convenient,  and accessible to potentially  affected minority
   populations  and  low-income  populations,  and other  interested  individuals,
   communities, and organizations, which includes holding some meetings outside of
   traditional work hours and locations.

6.  Consistent  with  applicable  requirements, agencies  should  prepare  NEPA
   documents in plain, clear language and provide multiple forms of communication
   (e.g., written, oral, pictorial) to accommodate varied levels of reading proficiency,
   to facilitate meaningful engagement, and to account for limited English proficiency
   (LEP). Also,  consider (as  appropriate) providing interpretation and translation
   services at public meetings.

7.  Consider  documenting and explaining the steps  taken throughout the NEPA
   process (as appropriate) for agencies' public outreach and public participation
   actions or decisions (e.g.,  how minority populations and low-income populations
   were identified and how barriers to involvement were identified and addressed).
   Providing these explanations can be helpful to both an agency's decision-making
   process and the community's understanding of the NEPA process.

8.  Consider providing notice to the public (as appropriate) of the meeting date(s)
   and time(s) well in advance and through methods of communication suitable for
   minority and low-income populations (including LEP populations) to accommodate
   the schedules of  minority populations and low-income populations, and other
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
interested individuals, communities, and organizations. By considering mandatory
minimum time requirements between advance notification and meetings that may
exist  (e.g. time  requirements for tribal consultations)  an agency can  more
effectively establish schedules for public notice.
                 PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
I. SCOPING PROCESS

Guiding Principles
Agencies can be informed by consideration of the following guiding principles:
1.  A broad cross-media perspective of affected resource topics analyzed in the NEPA
   document (e.g., water resources, land use, air quality) during scoping may help
   ensure potential human health and environmental effects on minority populations
   and low-income populations are considered within the scope of the NEPA review.
   Agencies can be informed by an understanding that minority populations and low-
   income populations may have increased or unique vulnerabilities from  multiple
   impacts in one or more environmental resource topics or from cumulative impacts,
   and that the extent of the affected environment may vary for each resource topic
   addressed in the NEPA document.4

2.  Agencies  may wish to  conduct several  small  scoping meetings  for  minority
   populations and  low-income  populations to  foster  more  participation  and
   substantive discussions (e.g., community members may feel intimidated by large
   public  meetings  and formal discussions).  If more than  15-20 people are in
   attendance, breaking into discussion groups may improve the effectiveness of the
   meeting.

3.  Prior to the scoping process, it may be beneficial for agencies to develop a written
   strategy to identify, notify, and  solicit input from potentially affected  minority
   populations and low-income populations for agencies to consider in determining
   the scope of the NEPA review. Self-identified minority populations and low-income
   populations can be included in this process.

4.  Due  to the broad nature  of programmatic assessments,  certain site-specific
   environmental justice methodologies described within this section may not be
   directly applicable. For some programmatic assessments, the scope  may be
   regional or national.

Specific Steps
As appropriate, agencies can consider the following actions:
1.  Consider conducting a  preliminary screening analysis at the beginning  of the
   scoping process  to determine  whether minority populations and low-income
4 See US EPA, ^actors for Identifying and Addressing Disproportionate Environmental Health Impacts (2( )7):
Supplement to American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 101, No. SI (Dec 2011).

                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   populations may be present and could be affected by the proposed action. A web-
   based Geographic Information System tool (e.g., EJSCREEN) can be used to help
   identify the location and concentrations of minority populations and low-income
   populations.

2.  If the preliminary screening process identifies a potentially affected  minority
   population or low-income  population, agencies may benefit by conducting the
   remainder of the scoping process  in  consideration  of the  potential unique
   characteristics and vulnerabilities of the minority populations and low-income
   populations.

3.  To develop an effective public participation process, agencies can be informed by
   contacting local community leaders in the potentially affected minority populations
   and low-income populations (as appropriate). This can help determine the number
   of public and individual meetings to be scheduled throughout the NEPA process.

4.  When federally-recognized tribes are potentially affected by the proposed action,
   consider seeking government-to-government  consultation (as appropriate) with
   tribal representatives, leaders, or officials, and offer appropriate opportunities for
   tribal participation (e.g., as a cooperating agency or consulting party).

5.  Consider using media suitable to reach potentially affected minority populations
   and low-income populations (e.g., local newspapers and radio programs word of
   mouth, churches, civic  centers, and other  places where people gather in the
   community) to provide notification about an agency's proposed action and the
   scoping process (as appropriate).

6.  Consider (as appropriate) specifically inviting potentially  affected  minority
   populations  and low-income  populations  when  conducting  public  scoping
   meetings.5 In some cases it may be useful for agencies to use a neutral third-party
   (e.g., convener, facilitator, and mediator) familiar with environmental justice issues
   and with the particular community that is potentially affected by the proposed
   action. It may also be appropriate to provide an interpreter for public meetings
   when LEP communities may be affected.

7.  Consider conferring with minority populations and low-income populations, and
   other interested individuals, communities, and organizations  (as appropriate)  to
   gather any relevant data on the current and past conditions (e.g., ecological,
5When convening groups, agencies should note the potential applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) of 1972 (PL92-463).

                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health) of the potentially affected
   minority populations and low-income populations, in order to inform the NEPA
   review.

8.  Agencies may wish to consider ensuring that agency records clearly reflect the
   rationale for any scoping determinations made concerning minority populations
   and  low-income  populations  (e.g.,   alternatives  development,  mitigation
   measures).

9.  Consider circulating (as appropriate) a post-scoping summary report/document to
   potentially- affected minority populations and low-income populations, informing
   them of the input received and outcomes of the scoping process. Keeping the
   community informed may assist agencies  in receiving meaningful engagement
   from the community during later stages of the NEPA process.

10. Regardless of the  thoroughness of the  scoping efforts, if  new and significant
   information  that  potentially  affect  minority  populations  and low-income
   populations arise later in the NEPA process, in accordance with CEQ regulations
   (40 CFR 1501.7(c)), agencies should consider modifications to the proposed action,
   alternatives or potential mitigation measures.  As appropriate,  agencies may
   benefit by assessing consistency of the proposed modifications with the purpose
   and need.
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
II.   DEFINING THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Guiding Principles
Agencies can be informed by consideration of the following guiding principles:
1.  Consistent with applicable requirements (e.g., 40 CFR §1502.15),  as agencies
   describe the environment of the area(s)  to be affected  or created by  the
   alternatives  under consideration, they can benefit from an  understanding of
   community and population characteristics, location, conditions and other relevant
   information.  One of the important functions of defining the affected environment is
   to help agencies determine the outer boundaries (i.e., footprint) of each potentially
   impacted resource topic analyzed in the NEPA document. These boundaries help
   define the affected area within which potentially impacted minority populations
   and low-income  populations will be  considered during the NEPA  review. The
   geographic extent of the affected environment may vary for  each resource topic
   analyzed in the NEPA document.

2.  Data (including input from minority populations,  low-income populations, and
   other interested  individuals, communities,  and organizations)  on  ecological,
   aesthetic,  historic, cultural, economic,  social, or  health conditions  of minority
   populations  and low-income  populations within the affected environment can
   provide agencies with  useful  insight  into how  the community's  conditions,
   characteristics,  and/or  location  can  influence  the  extent of  the  affected
   environment. (See also section 2.1, p. 14)

3.  After considering unique conditions (e.g., ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural,
   economic, social, or health) of the potentially affected minority populations and
   low-income  populations, Agencies may wish to consider  that the extent  of the
   affected environment maybe larger (or smaller) and differently shaped than the
   boundaries would have been drawn without the existence of those conditions. The
   affected environment may also not be contiguous. (See also section 5, p.23)

4.  When determining whether a potentially affected minority population or  low-
   income population influences the extent of the affected environment, agencies
   can be informed by considering the proposed action's: 1) exposure pathways
   (routes by which the minority or low-income population may come into contact
   with chemical,  biological,  physical, or radiological effects); 2) ecological,
   aesthetic,  historic, cultural, economic,  social, or  health consequences to the
   community;  and 3) distribution of adverse and_beneficial impacts from the
   proposed action. (See also section 5, p.23)
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
5.  Agencies may wish to create a map to delineate the affected environment. A visual
   depiction of the affected environment may be beneficial to an agency's decision-
   making process,  meaningful engagement  efforts, and to the  community's
   understanding of the proposed federal action. (See also section 2, p. 14)

Specific Steps
As appropriate, agencies can consider the following actions:
1.  In order to provide a useful comparative context for the consideration of impacts
   to minority  populations and low-income populations,  when  developing  the
   baseline characterization of the affected environment agencies can be informed
   by considering  for each resource  topic  in the NEPA document: 1)  exposure
   pathways; 2)  direct,  indirect and cumulative ecological,  aesthetic,  historic,
   cultural, economic, social, or health impacts; and 3) distribution of any potential
   beneficial or adverse impacts. Agencies may also be informed by consideration of
   multiple exposures. (See also section 7.1:11, p. 34)

2.  Agencies may wish to consider  collecting data and information relevant to the
   three community considerations in step one (exposure pathways, related impacts,
   and  beneficial impacts distribution) for  minority  populations and low-income
   populations within the boundaries of the baseline characterization. Include data
   related to reasonably foreseeable direct,  indirect, and cumulative adverse and
   beneficial impacts from the proposed federal action on the community. Agencies
   may also be informed by consideration of multiple exposures. (See also section
   8.1:11,p.42)

3.  Agencies may wish to consider data and information from a variety of sources,
   including, but  not limited to:l) community residents  and  other interested
   individuals and  organizations; 2) data sets from federal, state, local and tribal
   governments; 3) peer-reviewed  and other scientific literature; and 4) articles in
   industry and professional journals, popular press, websites, etc.

4.  Agencies may wish to consider identifying and describing any unique conditions
   of the potentially affected minority populations and low-income populations that
   may be affected  by the proposed action, based on data and information collected
   in Specific Step Two above. Unique conditions may include, but are not limited to:
   1) human health vulnerabilities  (e.g., heightened disease susceptibility, health
   disparities);  2)  socioeconomic  vulnerabilities  (e.g.,  reliance  on a particular
   resource that may be  affected by the proposed action, disruptions to community
   mobility and access as a result  of infrastructure development);  and 3) cultural
   vulnerabilities  (e.g.,   traditional  cultural  properties  and ceremonies,  fish
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   consumption practices).

5.  Agencies  may wish  to  consider the need to revise the  initial baseline
   characterization  (see  section 3.2:1)  of the  affected environment, including
   revisions to the outer boundaries and pockets of minority populations and low-
   income populations (as appropriate)  using information obtained from Specific
   Steps Two through Four. Be mindful that data may suggest the outer boundaries
   of the affected environment  and/or pockets  of minority populations and low-
   income populations may require adjustment.

6.  Consider documenting agencies' characterizations of the affected environment in
   plain language that is easily understood by the general public and the potentially
   affected minority populations and low-income populations.

7.  Consider providing written  explanation in the  records for agencies' chosen
   methods and data used to characterize the affected environment (See, e.g., 40
   CFR §1502.24)
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
III.  DEVELOPING AND SELECTING ALTERNATIVES

Guiding Principles
Agencies can be informed by consideration of the following guiding principles:
 I.  Providing minority populations and low-income populations with a purpose and
    need statement early in the NEPA process can help focus public input regarding
    appropriate reasonable alternatives. Reexamination of the potential alternatives
    in light of relevant public input will, in turn,  assist agencies in identifying the
    range of reasonable alternatives, including a preferred alternative that meets the
    purpose and need, while addressing concerns of the community. (See also
    section 1.8, p. 11)

 II. Agencies can be informed when reasonable alternatives reflect (as appropriate)
    a comparable level of detail concerning issues affecting minority populations
    and  low-income populations.  If  reasonable alternatives  have  substantial
    differences in the level of detail of available information concerning impacts to
    minority populations  and  low-income  populations,  agencies may wish  to
    consider generating comparable  information about impacts or mitigation to
    make the comparisons relevant to one another.

III. As agencies explore the  range  of reasonable alternatives, agencies may
    consider (as appropriate) whether structuring alternatives to allow a decision to
    be based on an alternative developed from a combination of elements from
    multiple alternatives  might be appropriate  to  address impacts to minority
    populations and low-income populations. Agencies may consider stating in the
    NEPA document that an alternative developed from the elements of the other
    alternatives may be considered. In this case, the alternatives may be structured
    to enable comparison of key elements across the alternatives (e.g., a modular
    analytic approach) (See, e.g., 40 CFR §1502.14(a)).

IV.  Providing a discussion of how and why the reasonable alternatives were
    developed and explaining why additional  alternatives  supported or proposed
    by the minority populations  and low-income  populations  may  have been
    eliminated from detailed study can assist agencies with managing potential
    public confusion or opposition (See, e.g., 40 CFR §1502.14).

V.   Agencies can benefit by meaningfully engaging minority populations and low-
     income populations to provide input  on  the range  and design of potential
     reasonable alternatives and the purpose and need statement while still under
     development,  or as early as possible  in  the NEPA  process,  as well  as
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
     encouraging communities to propose their  own alternatives. Agencies can
     advance community  engagement  by means  such as community  advisory
     committees, public workshops, and individual and community-wide meetings.6

VI.  The identification of a disproportionately high and adverse impact to a minority
     population or  low-income  population can heighten  agencies'  attention  to
     identifying reasonable alternatives that could mitigate the adverse impact, and
     using community input into agencies' development of mitigation measures.

Specific Steps
As appropriate, agencies can consider the following actions:
1.  Consistent with applicable requirements provide  minority populations  and low-
   income populations with an opportunity  to  provide input during  agencies'
   development of the purpose and need statement and proposed alternatives,  as
   well as reviewing and commenting on the draft purpose and need statement and
   the proposed alternatives during scoping.

2.  Consistent with applicable requirements, agencies should consider any relevant
   public comments regarding the identification of reasonable alternatives.

3.  Consistent with applicable requirements, agencies should consider whether the
   proposed alternatives avoid and/or mitigate impacts to minority populations and
   low-income  populations. As appropriate, agencies  may wish to  consider
   distribution of benefits to minority populations and low-income populations.

4.  Consider  documenting the  rationale used  for  selecting  and eliminating
   alternatives from detailed study, including those additional alternatives supported
   or proposed by the minority populations and low-income populations.

5.  When minority populations and low-income populations would be affected by the
   proposed action, agencies may wish to consider the following types of mitigation
   for selecting reasonable alternatives (as appropriate):
   •  identify alternate locations or sites
   •  alter the timing of activities to account for seasonal dependencies on natural
      and human resources
   •  incorporate pollution prevention practices and policies to reduce the size  or
      intensity of an action or its impacts
   •  include additional benefits to the community
6 When convening groups, Agencies should consider the potential applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) of 1972 (PL92-463).

                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   •  incorporate other measures proposed by the community, including changing
      specific aspects of the project
   •  do not implement the proposed action or action alternative.
   Proper documentation for the chosen type of mitigation should be provided
   in the NEPA document.

6.  Agencies may wish to consider identifying any alternatives that would result
   in a disproportionately high and adverse impact to minority populations and
   low-income populations.

7.  Agencies may wish to consider which alternative(s) have the least adverse
   impact to minority populations and low-income populations and alternatives
   that would minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse impacts
   as a factor when identifying  reasonable  alternatives and  the  preferred
   alternative.

8.  Consider documenting any steps that may have been taken by agencies to receive
   community input during the development of: 1) the purpose and need statement;
   2) reasonable alternatives; and 3) identification of a preferred alternative.
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
V. IDENTIFYING MINORITY POPULATIONS
                                                                                     CS]
Guiding Principles
Agencies can be informed by consideration of the following guiding principles:
1. In  general,  minority  populations  are  identified  based on  the  "affected
   environment."  (See section 3) Minority populations may consist of groups of
   culturally different subpopulations with potentially different impacts and outreach
   needs. Minority populations may be dispersed throughout the study area, but have
   significant numbers.

2. Minority populations may reside in tightly clustered communities, or be evenly or
   unevenly distributed throughout the general population. Selecting a geographic
   unit of analysis (e.g., county, state, or region) without sufficient justification may
   portray minority population percentages inaccurately by artificially diluting their
   representation within the selected unit of analysis.

3. To sufficiently identify small concentrations (i.e., pockets) of minority populations,
   agencies may wish to supplement Census data7 with local demographic data. Local
   demographic data  and information (including data provided by the community
   and Tribes) can improve an agency's decision-making process.  Anecdotal data
   should be validated for accuracy whenever possible. Agencies should disclose, as
   appropriate, when anecdotal data has not been validated.

4. When conducting the Meaningfully Greater analysis8 (described below) agencies
   can benefit by being sensitive to situations where a large percentage of the
   residents is  comprised of minority individuals.  In  selecting the appropriate
   reference community, it is important to capture relevant demographic information.
   A larger scale  reference community (e.g., municipal, state, or regional) may be
   required under this  circumstance to obtain results  that accurately  reflect the
   existence of a minority population in the geographic unit of analysis (e.g., census
   block) being analyzed.
7 Some populations may not be fully accounted for in Census data. As appropriate, agencies can consider using local
sources of data (including data provided by the community and Tribes) to conduct the No Threshold analysis.

^Meaningfully greater is a term used in "Appendix A, Text of Executive Order 12898, Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, Annotated with Proposed Guidance on Terms" which is attached to CEQ's Environmental Justice
Guidance Under the National MQMMN^PRMcWIOESlFgm ET METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS |  February 2016

-------
5. The Fifty Percent analysis 9(described below) can be conducted to initially identify
   the extent to which minority populations reside within the affected environment.
   An aggregate of minority populations over 50% for the entire affected environment
   indicates increased scrutiny in the EJ analysis may be appropriate (e.g. to assess
   majority minority populations). Agencies may wish to conduct the Meaningfully
   Greater analysis, regardless of the results from the Fifty Percent analysis.

6. The use of thresholds to identify minority populations is an established method but
   may  not  always capture relevant  demographic  information.  Regarding  the
   identification of minority populations, population size is a factor considered in the
   Fifty Percent analysis and Meaningfully Greater analysis. The No-Threshold analysis
   (described below)  attempts to identify all minority populations  regardless of
   population size.  Either the No-Threshold analysis alone, or conducting both the
   Fifty Percent and Meaningfully Greater analyses together can be used to identify
   minority populations prior to the determination of disproportionately high and
   adverse impacts.

7. The Fifty  Percent  analysis  plays  an  important  role in  identifying minority
   populations when a large percentage of the population in the geographic unit of
   analysis or reference community is comprised of minority individuals. Under these
   circumstances, the Fifty Percent analysis can function as a direct measure, to ensure
   that when minority individuals comprise a majority of an appropriate geographic
   unit of analysis (e.g., block group10) a minority population is identified, regardless
   of whether the Meaningfully Greater analysis has a similar outcome.

8. When either the No-Threshold analysis has been conducted, or when the  Fifty
   Percent analysis and Meaningfully Greater analysis have been conducted, and the
   applicable analysis has documented a majority minority population (i.e., where a
   majority of the population in the affected environment is comprised of minorities)
   special emphasis should (as appropriate) be placed on identification of impacts.
   Due  to  the  larger  number  of  identified  minority  populations  in  these
   circumstances, agencies can benefit from focusing attention and available agency
   resources (e.g., outreach activities and impacts analyses) on minority populations
950% is a term used in "Appendix A, Text of Executive Order 12898, Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, Annotated with Proposed Guidance on Terms" which is attached to CEQ's Environmental Justice
Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997).

10 Census 31ock Groups are statistical divisions of census tracts, are generally defined to contain between 600 and
3,000 people, and are used to present data and control block numbering. A block group consists of clusters ofS | February 2016
blocks within the same census tract that have the same first digit of their four-digit census block number.

-------
   that are potentially disproportionately impacted by the proposed action (i.e., see
   the factors listed in Disproportionately High and Adverse Impacts section).

9. Agencies can be informed by determining if any minority or low-income transient
   or geographically dispersed populations (e.g., Native Americans, migrant farm
   workers) reside seasonally within the affected area or may otherwise be affected
   (e.g.  may reside elsewhere but come within the affected area for  subsistence
   fishing or to collect traditional medicines) by consulting sources such as: 1) the US
   Department of Agriculture 2012 Census of Agriculture, Table 7: Hired Farm Labor
   Less than 150 Days and Migrant Farm Labor on Farms with Hired Labor; and 2)
   community members and other interested individuals or organizations, or other
   appropriate sources.

Specific Steps
As appropriate, agencies can consider the following actions:
The identification of minority populations can be accomplished in various ways. These
ways, discussed in the following Specific Steps, include but are not limited to: A) the
No  Threshold  analysis;  or B) both the Fifty Percent  analysis and the Meaningfully
Greater analyses in concert.

A reference community is helpful  for context and for  future disproportionate effects
analysis. A reference community's total number of minority individuals and percent
minority  can  be  compared to the population  in  the  affected  environment  or
geographic unit of analysis. Agencies may wish to clearly articulate  the basis for the
selection of a reference community.

A) To conduct the No-Threshold analysis:
   1. Select an appropriate  geographic unit of analysis  (e.g.,  census block, block
      group).11

   2. Determine the total number of minority individuals (all individuals other than
      non-Hispanic whites) and the  percent minority for each geographic  unit of
      analysis within the affected environment.
11 Census Blocks are the smallest geographic areas that the Census Bureau uses to tabulate decennial data. Blocks are
statistical areas bounded by visible features, such as streets, roads, streams, and railroad tracks, and by nonvisible
boundaries, such as selected property lines and city, township, school district, and county limits. Block Groups are
statistical divisions of census tracts, are generally defined to contain between 600 and 3,000 people, and are used to
present data and control block numbering. A block group consists of clusters of blocks within the same census tract
that have the same first digit oft&ejftfigfl^^^                           IN NEpA REVIEWS , February 2016

-------
   3.  Identify the existence of a minority population for each geographic unit  of
      analysis in which Step 2 (above) indicates a minority percentage.

   4.  Display the minority populations in map and table format by geographic unit of
      analysis, as appropriate.

   5.  Provide a written rationale which explains the selection of the geographic
      unit of analysis, the reference community, and other methods used to
      identify minority populations.

                                   -OR-
B) To conduct both the Fifty Percent analysis and the Meaningfully Greater analyses in
concert:

  (i) Conducting the Fifty Percent analysis

     1. Determine the total number of individuals residing within the affected
        environment.

     2. Determine the total number of minority individuals (all individuals other than
        non-Hispanic whites) residing within the affected environment.

     3. Select the appropriate geographic  unit of analysis  within the affected
        environment (e.g., census block, block group).

     4. Determine the percentage of minority individuals (including Hispanics)
        residing within the geographic unit of analysis.

     5. If the percentage of minorities residing within the geographic unit of
        analysis meets  or exceeds 50%,  note  the  existence of a  minority
        population.

     6. Next, compare the total number of minorities residing within the affected
        environment against the total  number of individuals residing within the
        affected environment,  in order to  determine the percentage of minority
        individuals residing within the affected environment.

     7. If the  percentage of minorities residing in the affected environment
        exceeds 50%,  consider  noting the need for a  heightened  focus
        throughout the entire EJ analysis.

     8. After completion  of the Fifty Percent analysis, conduct the Meaningfully
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
         Greater analysis.
                                                                                     CS]
 (ii) Conducting the Meaningfully Greater analysis:

      1.  Select  the appropriate  geographic  unit  of  analysis  for  the  affected
         environment (e.g., census block, block group).

      2.  Select the appropriate reference community (e.g., county, state).

      3.  Select the appropriate meaningfully greater threshold for comparison. The
         Meaningfully Greater analysis requires use  of a reasonable, subjective
         threshold12 (e.g.,  ten or  twenty percent greater  than the  reference
         community). What constitutes 'meaningfully greater' varies by agency, with
         some agencies considering any percentage in the selected geographic unit
         of analysis that is greater than the percentage in the appropriate reference
         community to qualify as being meaningfully greater.

      4.  Compare the  percentage of minority  individuals  residing within the
         selected  geographic units of analysis to the  percentage  of minority
         individuals residing within the reference community.

      5.  If the  percentage of minorities residing within  the  geographic  unit of
         analysis is  meaningfully greater (based on application of the  threshold)
         either individually or in the aggregate, than the percentage of minorities
         residing  within the  reference community,  disclose  the existence of a
         minority population.

      6.  Display identified minority  populations  in  a map and table format, as
         appropriate. Care should be taken to present accurate and current data and
         information, and explain the limitations of the data and information.

      7.  Provide  a  written rationale which explains the  selection  of  the
         geographic unit of analysis, the reference community,  the meaningfully
         greater threshold, and other  methods  used  to identify  minority
         populations.
12 To calculate benchmark values, some Agencies use a percent of the absolute number rather than adding a
subjective threshold present. This is especially important when the percent of the minority population is small.

                     PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
VI.  IDENTIFYING LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS
                                                                                 CS]
Guiding Principles
Agencies can be informed by consideration of the following guiding principles:
1.  When identifying low-income populations, it  may  be useful  for agencies to
   consider the publication date for poverty data that is used in the Census Bureau's
   poverty thresholds  and the U.S.  Department  of Health and Human Services'
   poverty guidelines or other agency-specific poverty guidelines. Using the most
   current poverty data is preferable but agencies should also consider whether
   there are differences in the dates for local, state and national data.

2.  Agencies  may wish  to  refine low-income status  determinations,  whenever
   possible. Use  of local data sources on poverty may be more current than the
   Census Bureau's American Community  Survey or other periodically-collected
   data sources.

3.  There are several ways to assess low-income thresholds, such as identifying
   the proportion of individuals below the poverty level, households below the
   poverty level,  and families with children below the poverty level.  It may be
   reasonable to assess low-income thresholds in more than one way to be more
   inclusive.

4.  Low-income populations may reside in tightly  clustered communities, rather
   than being evenly distributed throughout the general population.  Selecting a
   geographic unit of analysis (e.g.,  county, state, or  region) without sufficient
   justification may portray low income population percentages inaccurately by
   artificially diluting their representation within the selected unit of analysis.

5.  Low-income status need not always be capped at the poverty level.  In some
   instances,  it may be appropriate for  agencies to select a threshold for
   identifying low-income populations that exceeds the poverty level.

Specific Steps
As appropriate, agencies can consider the following actions:

The identification of low-income populations can be accomplished in various ways,
including by conducting either: A) the Alternative Criteria analysis; or B) the Low-
Income Threshold Criteria analysis.

While not required for the Alternative Criteria analysis, a reference community can be
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
helpful  by providing context and  for  future disproportionate effects  analysis.
Agencies may wish to clearly articulate  the basis for the selection of a reference
community for either the Alternative Criteria analysis or the Low-Income Threshold
Criteria analysis.

A. Conducting the Alternative Criteria analysis:

   1.  Select  and disclose  the appropriate poverty  thresholds as defined by  the
      Census Bureau, the poverty guidelines as defined by the Department  of Health
      and Human Services,  or  other  appropriate source (e.g.,  federal  program
      eligibility standards).

   2.  Select an appropriate geographic unit of analysis (e.g. block group, census
      tract) for identifying low-income populations in the affected environment.

   3.  Select  an appropriate  threshold  for determining whether  a particular
      geographic  unit of analysis is identified as  a low-income population. (See
      section 6.1:5, p.28)

   4.  Determine the total number of low-income individuals (or households) and the
      percent low-income  for each geographic unit  of analysis within the affected
      environment.

   5.  Identify the existence of a low-income population for each geographic unit of
      analysis in which Step 4 (above) indicates a low-income percentage at  or above
      the selected Census Bureau poverty threshold or the Department of Health and
      Human Services poverty guidelines, or other appropriate alternate source.

   6.  Display the low-income populations in map and table format by geographic
      unit of analysis, as appropriate.

B. Conducting the Low-Income Threshold  Criteria analysis:

   1.  Select and disclose the appropriate poverty thresholds as defined by the
      Census Bureau, the poverty guidelines as defined by the Department of
      Health and Human Services, or other appropriate source (e.g., federal
      program eligibility standards).

   2.  Select  an  appropriate  geographic unit  of analysis (e.g., block group,
      census tract)  for identifying low-income populations in the  affected
      environment.
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
3.  Select the appropriate reference community (e.g., county, state) to compare
   against the geographic units of analysis.

4.  Select an appropriate measure(s) (such as individuals below the poverty level,
   median household income, or families below the poverty level) for comparing
   the poverty level in the geographic unit of analysis to the reference community.

5.  Select  an  appropriate  threshold  for  determining  whether  a particular
   geographic unit of analysis is identified as low-income. (See Guiding Principle
   5).

6.  Determine  the percentage of individuals (or households) at or below  the
   selected  low-income  threshold for the reference community  and in each
   geographic unit of analysis.

7.  Compare the percentage (from Step 6 above) in each  geographic unit of
   analysis to the percentage in the reference community.

8.  If the percentage in the geographic unit of analysis is equal to or greater than
   that of the reference community, disclose the  existence of a  low-income
   population.

9.  Display in the NEPA document low-income populations identified within the
   affected environment in a meaningful way, such as a map, table, pie-chart,
   etc. (as appropriate).

10. Provide a written rationale in the NEPA document  which explains the
   selection of data sources and other methods that were used to identify low-
   income populations regardless of whether the Alternative Criteria analysis or
   Low-Income Threshold Criteria analysis was done. If some data sources were
   preferentially used over others, provide rationale supporting their selection.
                 PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
VII.  IMPACTS
                                                                                    CS]
Guiding Principles
Agencies can be informed by consideration of the following guiding principles:
1.  When analyzing  the  proposed  action, it  is  important  to  recognize  the
   relationship between potential impacts and potential exposures, as these terms
   are not synonymous. An impact is the adverse or beneficial result of exposure
   or other environmental consequences of the proposed action.

2.  Impacts from the proposed action to minority populations and low-income
   populations in the affected environment may be either adverse or beneficial.
   The specific conditions and characteristics of the affected community including
   differences among minority subpopulations can inform whether the impact is
   beneficial or  adverse. It is  important to realize that  what is considered  a
   beneficial impact to some communities may be considered an adverse impact
   to others.

3.  Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on minority populations and
   low-income populations in the affected environment include both human health
   and environmental impacts from an agency's programs, policies, or activities.
   Potential  environmental impacts  encompass both  the natural and physical
   environment and can include ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic,
   social, or  health 13impacts to minority populations and low-income populations
   in the affected environment.

4.  Background data on minority populations and low-income populations in the
   affected environment can enhance an agency's understanding of the nature and
   severity of potential impacts, which in turn informs an agency's decision-
   making process. Sources of data include, but are not limited to, national data
   sets  (e.g., U.S. Census, National  Vital Statistics System, National Birth Defect
   Registry, Area Health Resources Files, and National Registry for Historic Places)
   and state  and local data sets (e.g., State Cancer Registries, State Register of
   Cultural   Properties).   In  addition,  empirical  data,  based  on  verifiable
   observations or experience, can also be used for the analysis.

5.  In accordance with applicable  regulations, federal agencies may  wish to
13 Ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health impacts are delineated as effects in 40 CFR §
1508.8 and in Appendix A, "Text of Executive Order 12898, 'Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,' Annotated with Proposed Guidance on Terms" which is
attached to CEQ's EnvironmentalJustice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (li
                     PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   consider identifying the presence of transient and/or geographically dispersed
   populations and whether there is a potential for any unique or amplified impacts
   to  these populations.  Native  Americans,  farm workers, and other transient
   laborer and/or geographically dispersed populations  are potentially more
   susceptible to environmental and health impacts. Reasons for this may include:
   1)  prolonged exposure to the natural environment with  potential exposure to
   environmental hazards; 2) limited access to health care providers; 3) generally
   lower level of education; or 4)  propensity for limited English proficiency.

6.  As appropriate, Health Impact Assessments (HIAs), Social Impact Assessments
   (SIAs), and social determinants of health (consideration of economic and social
   conditions influencing human health) can provide agencies with important
   background data. Agencies may consider reaching out to entities both inside
   and outside the Federal government to seek their help in preparing HIAs, SIAs,
   and considering the social determinants of health, as either part of or an
   addendum to the NEPA document.

7.  Minority populations and low-income populations in the affected environment
   may hold  an opposing technical or scientific view (which can be based on
   several sources,  including the community) from agencies regarding specific
   impacts and/or methods of analysis. Responsible opposing views from minority
   populations and low-income populations in the affected environment, including
   views regarding an impact's status as disproportionately high and adverse, may
   warrant discussion in a NEPA document. In instances of a Final Environmental
   Impact Statement, NEPA requires that agencies must discuss any responsible
   opposing view raised by the community which was not adequately discussed in
   the draft statement and indicate the agency's response to the issues raised (e.g.,
   40CFR§1502.9(b)).

8.  NEPA requires agencies to consider three types of effects or impacts: (1) direct
   effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the  same time and place;
   (2) indirect effects, caused the action and are later in time or farther removed in
   distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable; and (3) cumulative impacts, the
   impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the
   action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
   actions. When assessing  cumulative impacts, agencies  may wish to (as
   appropriate):
   •  be mindful that minority populations and low-income populations in the affected
      environment may  be  differently  affected by past,  present, or reasonably
      foreseeable future impacts than the general population; and
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   •  in some circumstances, consider (among other existing conditions) chemical
      and non-chemical stressors that could potentially amplify impacts from the
      proposed  action  to the health  of  minority  populations  and  low-income
      populations in the affected environment. Non-chemical stressors  can include
      current health status (e.g. pre-existing health conditions) and past exposure
      histories, and  social factors such as  community property values, sources of
      income, level of income, and standard of living.
9.  Consistent with applicable  requirements, agencies should consider, when a
   proposed action  that may  fall within a categorical exclusion (CE) involves
   impacts to minority populations  and low-income populations in the affected
   environment, whether  any extraordinary  circumstances  are applicable.
   Extraordinary circumstances are unique situations that may result in potential
   impacts beyond  those generally  arising from  actions  subject to the CE.
   Agencies have developed their own definitions of the type of circumstances that
   may constitute extraordinary circumstances, and those regulations should be
   consulted. Before determining that a proposed  action can be categorically
   excluded, it must be determined whether extraordinary circumstances may
   exist (e.g., 40 CFR §1508.4)  If  a  proposed action that  otherwise would be
   categorically excluded could potentially have a disproportionately  high and
   adverse impact on minority populations and low-income populations in the
   affected  environment,   this could  contribute to finding an extraordinary
   circumstance  requiring the  project  undergo  further  analysis  in   an
   Environmental Assessment  or EIS, as appropriate.

10. According  to the Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (IPCC)
   "[cjlimate-related hazards  exacerbate other stressors,  often with  negative
   outcomes for livelihoods, especially for people living in poverty...  Climate-
   related  hazards  affect poor people's  lives  directly  through impacts  on
   livelihoods, reductions in crop yields, or destruction of homes and indirectly
   through, for example, increased food prices and food insecurity" (IPCC, Climate
   Change 2014). Agencies may wish to consider how impacts from the proposed
   action could potentially amplify  climate change-related hazards (e.g., storm
   surge,  heat  waves, drought, flooding,  and sea  level  change) in  minority
   populations and low-income populations in the affected environment, and vice
   versa. Agencies may benefit by considering climate resilience in the proposal's
   design and alternatives.
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
11. In some circumstances, agencies may consider cumulative impacts that may
   result from  chemical and non-chemical stressors,  exposures from  multiple
   routes or sources, and factors that differentially affect exposure or toxicity to
   communities.
   •  The cumulative ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social,  or
      health effects  of the proposed action can arise  from and also include non-
      chemical stressors.
   •  Communities can experience  cumulative impacts to one or more chemical,
      biological, physical, or radiological contaminants across environmental media
      (e.g., air, water, soil, land use) from single or multiple sources, over time in one
      or more locations.
   •  Communities can experience  multiple exposures from any combination of
      direct,  indirect, or cumulative impacts to two or more chemical, biological,
      physical, or radiological contaminants from single  or multiple sources.

12. As with any resource area, whether environmental justice is being addressed
   within each individual resource section of the NEPA document or it is addressed
   in a single section  of  the  NEPA document,  agencies  can  benefit  from a
   transparent presentation of environmental justice issues. Agencies may wish to
   consider including in the Introduction, Overview, and/or Executive Summary
   section of the NEPA document a brief discussion and/or table presenting a
   summary of the environmental justice impacts discussed in greater detail within
   the document. This discussion may consider providing environmental justice
   information, such as general findings and conclusions to make the information
   readily accessible for  agency decision-making  and to facilitate  public use.
   Agencies may note in the table of contents all areas where environmental justice
   is discussed.
Significance
1.  Pursuant  to NEPA, the  human environment includes both the natural and
   physical (e.g., built) environment and the  relationship  of people with that
   environment. Significant impacts to the human environment (including minority
   populations and low-income populations) can result from ecological, aesthetic,
   historic, cultural,  economic, social, or health impacts. However, economic or
   social impacts are not considered significant unless  they are interrelated with
   natural or physical environmental  impacts.

2.  Executive Order  12898 does not change  the  legal thresholds for NEPA,
   including whether a Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment, or an
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.

3.  A disproportionately high and adverse impact to minority populations and low-
   income populations  can occur at any level of NEPA review.  In  some
   circumstances,  an agency may determine that impacts are disproportionately
   high and  adverse, but not significant within the meaning of NEPA. In other
   circumstances,   an  agency  may  determine  that  an  impact  is   both
   disproportionately high  and adverse  and significant within the meaning of
   NEPA.

4.  In general, pursuant to NEPA, determining whether an impact is significant
   requires consideration of both context (i.e., society as a  whole, the affected
   region, the affected interests, and the locality) and intensity (i.e., the severity of
   the impact) (see 40 CFR §1508.27(a)-(b)). The impacts of a proposed action on
   minority  populations  and  low-income  populations should  inform  the
   determination of whether impacts are significant.

5.  An assessment  of an impact's significance to the general population without
   consideration of the impact to minority populations and low-income populations
   in the affected environment may not be adequate. An agency's consideration of
   impacts to minority populations and low-income populations helps ensure that
   significant impacts are identified.

6.  Executive Order 12898 instructs agencies to determine whether impacts are
   disproportionately high and adverse to minority populations and low-income
   populations but EO 12898 does not address significance. Agencies may choose
   to consider  determining whether  an impact is significant prior to analyzing
   whether the impact is disproportionately high and adverse, since significance
   may be a  factor for consideration in an agency's disproportionately high and
   adverse determination.14 To the extent agencies seek additional guidance on
   how to analyze significance. Refer to CEQ NEPA regulation  on significance at 40
   CFR §1508.27. (See also section 7.1-2)

7.  Determining whether an impact is significant to minority populations and low-
   income populations in the affected environment involves focusing the analysis
   on aspects of context and intensity most relevant to the impacted community. In
   general, this entails focusing on various factors related to an impact's severity
14 See Appendix A, "Text of Executive Order 12898, 'Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations,' Annotated with Proposed Guidance on Terms in the Executive Order,"
which is attached to CEQ's EnvironmentalJustice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (li

                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   (discussed in 40 CFR §1508.27(b)) as they pertain to the community's affected
   interests and locality (context).

8.  The degree to which an impact involves unique or unknown risks (see 40 CFR
   §1508.27(b)(5)) to minority populations  and low-income  populations in the
   affected environment can inform how agencies assesses the significance of the
   impact. Minority populations and low-income populations could be uniquely
   susceptible to impacts from a proposed action due to: 1) special vulnerabilities,
   e.g.  pre-existing health  conditions that exceed norms among the general
   population; 2) unique  routes of exposure, e.g. use of surface or well water in
   rural communities; or 3) cultural practices, e.g. subsistence fishing, hunting or
   gathering, access to sacred sites.

9.  When both positive and  adverse impacts have been  identified, a significant
   impact may exist even if an agency believes that on balance the effect will be
   beneficial (see 40 CFR§1508.27(b)(l)). While an action may result in an overall
   potentially beneficial  impact to the general population, the impact may still
   present an adverse impact to minority populations and low-income populations
   in the affected environment.

10. Additional factors related to an  impact's  intensity  (discussed  in 40 CFR
   §1508.27(b)) that could lead to a finding of significance to minority populations
   and  low-income populations in the affected environment, despite having no
   significant impact to the general population include:  1) the health and safety of
   the  community;  2)  the  community's  unique  geographic  characteristics,
   including proximity to cultural resources; 3) the degree to which the action may
   establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects; 4) loss of
   significant cultural or historical resources; and 5) the impact's relation to other
   cumulatively significant impacts.

11. The  various factors related  to an impact's  intensity (discussed  in 40 CFR
   §1508.27(b))  can also help  inform an agency's consideration of potential
   mitigation measures and identification of potential disproportionately high and
   adverse impacts.

12. When assessing the availability of information regarding minority populations
   and low-income populations in the affected environment, information may be
   less  available than for the general population. When an agency is evaluating
   reasonably  foreseeable   significant  impacts in an  environmental  impact
   statement, it  may wish to consider the availability  of information regarding
   minority populations and low-income populations. If relevant information on
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   minority  populations  and low-income populations is  not  currently in the
   possession of  an agency, this should be clearly stated. If the unavailable
   information is essential to making a reasoned choice among alternatives, NEPA
   provides that an agency must make reasonable efforts to collect the information,
   so long as the means for obtaining it are known and the cost is not exorbitant
   (see 40 CFR §1502.22(a)-(b)).  If the overall costs of obtaining the unavailable
   information needed to conduct the analysis is exorbitant or the means to obtain
   it are not known, NEPA provides that an agency should (as appropriate): 1) state
   the  information is  incomplete or unavailable;  2) state  the  relevance of the
   incomplete or unavailable information;  3)  summarize existing credible
   scientific evidence relevant  to  evaluating the impact; and 4)  include  an
   evaluation  of such impacts based  on theoretical approaches or research
   methods  generally accepted in the scientific community.  Agencies may
   consider  addressing unavailable information in other NEPA documents in a
   similar manner. Agencies may  choose to proceed  in the same  way  if
   subpopulation  information not currently  in possession of an agency is not
   essential,  but  could  aid in  assessing  impacts  rather than  determining
   significance regardless of whether the proposed action is significant (e.g.,
   during Environmental Assessments).

13. Considering whether a proposed action may result in  an impact with a low
   probability of occurrence, but  with catastrophic  consequences  (i.e., low-
   probability, high impact event)  can inform an agency's assessment of the
   significance of the impact. When analyzing a proposed action's impacts and
   risks in an EIS from reasonably foreseeable low-probability, high-impact events
   (including, but not limited to,  accidental releases of contaminants and natural
   disasters)  agencies may  wish to consider the availability of information
   concerning the potential unique vulnerabilities of minority populations and low-
   income populations in the affected environment (see  40 CFR §1502.22(b)).
   Potential vulnerabilities of minority populations and low-income populations to
   low-probability, high-impact events may include, but are not limited to, a lack
   of infrastructure and resources to address these unanticipated impacts; inability
   to evacuate or  relocate; lack of access to health care; and reliance on affected
   natural and cultural resources. Agencies may consider addressing unavailable
   information in other NEPA documents (e.g. during Environmental Assessments)
   in a similar manner.

14. The degree to which an impact to minority populations  and low-income
   populations in the affected environment is highly controversial (see  40 CFR
   §1508.27(b)(4)) (e.g., a substantive dispute as to the size,  nature, or effect of the
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   action) can inform whether there is a significant impact. If an agency identifies
   a  highly  controversial impact to  minority populations  and  low-income
   populations  it may wish  to  consider seeking  additional information  and
   coordination in order to evaluate the controversy.

Specific Steps
As appropriate, agencies can consider the following actions:
1.  Agencies may wish to recognize that there may be cultural differences among
   various individuals, communities, and organizations regarding what constitutes
   an impact or the severity of an impact.

2.  Evaluation of impacts to minority populations and low income populations may
   inform other sections,  including  an agency's consideration of the affected
   environment, alternatives and meaningful engagement.

3.  Agencies may wish to begin analyzing potential adverse and beneficial impacts
   to minority  populations and low-income  populations  after the  exposure
   pathways  and environmental consequences  of  the  proposed  action (e.g.,
   ecological, aesthetic, historic,  cultural, economic, social, or health impacts) are
   identified and the affected environment is established. However, economic or
   social impacts, alone, are not considered significant unless they are interrelated
   with natural or physical environmental impacts.

4.  Agencies may wish to make diligent efforts to meaningfully engage minority
   populations and low-income populations in the affected environment regarding
   possible impacts from the proposed action and document findings throughout
   the NEPA process. Engaging  the  community  about possible impacts is most
   effective when initiated as early as possible in the NEPA process (see Section I).

5.  Agencies may consider analyzing potential impacts in light of: 1) public input
   documented in Step Two above; and 2) previously collected data on minority
   populations  and  low-income  populations  in  the  affected  environment,
   particularly with regard to unique conditions. Unique conditions include, but
   are not limited to ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or
   health vulnerabilities.

6.  Agencies may consider describing all reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect
   and cumulative  adverse impacts to minority populations and low-income
   populations in the  affected environment that may result from a change to the
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   environment  or exposure to environmental  contaminants (e.g., chemical,
   biological, physical,  or radiological) or  arising from related ecological,
   aesthetic,  historic, cultural, economic, social,  or health consequences of the
   proposed action to the community.

7.  Agencies may consider describing all reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect
   and cumulative beneficial impacts  to minority populations and low-income
   populations in the affected environment that may result from a change to the
   environment  or exposure to environmental  contaminants (e.g., chemical,
   biological, physical,  or radiological) or  arising from related ecological,
   aesthetic,  historic, cultural, economic, social,  or health consequences of the
   proposed action to the community.

8.  Agencies may consider identifying and documenting sources of uncertainty in
   the impact analyses,  particularly  with  regard to  data supporting  the
   characterization of subpopulations (See section 5, p.23 and section 6, p.28)

9.  Agencies may wish to provide the records that reflect an agency's rationale for
   any decisions made as part  of the  analyses, as well as an agency's chosen
   methods and data used to conduct the impact analyses.
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
VIII. DISPROPORTIONATELY    HIGH   AND    ADVERSE
       IMPACTS

Guiding Principles
Agencies can be informed by consideration of the following guiding principles:
1.  As informed by CEQ's Environmental Justice Guidance  Under the  National
   Environmental Policy Act (1997). the identification of a disproportionately high
   and adverse impact on minority and low income populations does not preclude
   a proposed agency action from going forward, nor does it necessarily compel
   a conclusion that a proposed action is environmentally unsatisfactory. If an
   agency determines there is a disproportionately high and adverse impact to
   minority populations and low-income populations, an agency  may wish to
   consider heightening its focus on meaningful public engagement regarding
   community preferences, considering an appropriate range  of alternatives
   (including alternative sites), and mitigation and monitoring measures.

2.  'Context' and 'intensity', evaluated during the  consideration of an  impact's
   significance (See 40 CFR §1508.27) may be factors that can (as appropriate)
   inform an agency's determination whether an impact is disproportionately high
   and adverse (See Executive Order 12898).

3.  'Significance' may, as appropriate, be a factor in determining if an impact is
   disproportionately high and adverse. (See Appendix A, Text of Executive Order
   12898,  Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
   and Low-Income Populations, Annotated with Proposed  Guidance  on Terms"
   which is attached to CEO's Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National
   Environmental Policy Act (1997) ).  In some circumstances, an agency may
   determine  that impacts are disproportionately  high  and  adverse,  but  not
   significant within the meaning of NEPA. In other circumstances,  an agency may
   determine  that  an impact is both disproportionately  high and adverse and
   significant within the meaning of NEPA. A finding of no significant impacts to the
   general population is insufficient (on its own)  to base a determination that there
   are no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority populations and
   low-income populations.

4.  Disproportionately high and adverse impacts are typically determined  based
   on the  impacts in one or more resource topics analyzed in NEPA documents.
   Any identified impact to human health or the environment (e.g., impacts on
   noise, biota, air quality, traffic/congestion, land use) that potentially affects
                   PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   minority populations and low-income populations in the affected environment
   might result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts.

5.  Agencies   may  wish  to  integrate  the  analysis  of  the  potential  for
   disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority populations and low-
   income populations into the NEPA process. The basic principles and practices
   of analysis applicable to all resource topics analyzed in the NEPA document (air
   emissions,  water, biota, human health, noise, etc.) apply to the analysis of
   disproportionately high and adverse impacts as well.

6.  Agencies may wish to consider factors that can amplify identified impacts (e.g.,
   the unique exposure pathways, prior exposures, social determinants of health) to
   ensure a comprehensive review of potential disproportionately high and adverse
   impacts to minority populations and  low-income populations.

7.  Agencies may wish to recognize that in instances where  an  impact from  the
   proposed action initially appears to be identical to both the affected general
   population and the affected minority populations and low-income populations,
   there may be inter-related ecological, aesthetic, historic,  cultural, economic,
   social, or  health factors  that amplify the  impact (e.g., unique  exposure
   pathways,  social  determinants  of health,  community  cohesion).    After
   consideration of factors that can amplify an impact to minority populations and
   low-income populations in the affected environment, an agency may determine
   the impact to be disproportionately high and adverse.

8.  Agencies'  approaches should  not determine that  a  proposed  action or
   alternative would not have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on
   minority populations and low-income populations solely because the potential
   impacts of the proposed action or alternative on the general population would
   be less than significant (as defined  by NEPA). Agencies may wish to consider
   unique vulnerabilities, special  exposure pathways,  and cultural  practices
   associated with minority  populations  and  low-income  populations in  the
   affected environment.

9.  The  disproportionately high  and  adverse  impacts determination  can help
   inform how an agency develops and/or selects alternative(s) and mitigation
   measures to  avoid, minimize, rectify,  reduce, or compensate for adverse
   impacts.

10. Agencies  may wish to consider the distribution  of beneficial and adverse
   impacts between minority populations and low-income  populations  in  the
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   affected  environment  and  the general  population as  a  factor  in  the
   disproportionately high and adverse impacts determination. Scenarios in which
   minority  populations  and  low-income  populations receive  an  uneven
   distribution of benefits in the presence of adverse impacts, (e.g. a smaller
   proportion of beneficial impacts accrue to minority populations and low income
   populations  than  the  general population)  could  indicate  a  potential
   disproportionately high and adverse impact.

11. Beneficial impacts  from, and mitigation measures to, reduce  the impacts
   associated with federal actions are distinct concepts.

12. Agencies' approaches to making a disproportionately high and adverse impact
   determination  can  be informed  by the equitable distribution of beneficial
   impacts and how adverse impacts are mitigated. The end result is the same, as
   agencies consider mitigation for identified adverse impacts and address
   identified potentially disproportionately high  and  adverse impacts  with
   additional  mitigation  measures informed  by  community  involvement.
   Regardless of the approach that is selected, an agency may wish to explain its
   analysis and rationale.

13. While all approaches for identifying and addressing disproportionately high
   and adverse impacts consider the distribution of adverse and beneficial impacts
   to  minority populations and   low-income  populations  in  the affected
   environment, the timing for considering mitigation varies for some approaches.
   Some agencies  identify potentially  disproportionately  high  and adverse
   impacts prior to developing  mitigation measures for  addressing the impact.
   Other agencies wait until all possible mitigation measures to address the impact
   have been developed before making the disproportionately high and adverse
   impact determination.

14. Agencies may  wish to identify a relevant and appropriate comparison group
   when evaluating the impact of the proposed federal  action  on minority
   populations  and low-income populations.  The comparison group provides
   context (as appropriate) for the analysis of human health effects, environmental
   effects and the  risk or rate of hazard exposure to minority populations and low-
   income populations in the affected environment. Comparison group is distinct
   from a reference community (See section 5, p.23 and section 6, p.28) which are
   used to  identify the existence of minority populations and low-income
   populations.

15. In the disproportionately high and adverse impact analysis, agencies may wish
                   PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   to compare (as appropriate) impacts to minority populations and low-income
   populations in the affected environment with an appropriate comparison group
   within the affected environment. Relevant and appropriate comparison groups
   are selected based on the nature and scope of the proposed project. The types
   of calculations used for the comparison can include, but are not limited to, rates
   and risks. In addition, agencies may wish to (as appropriate) reference relevant
   national,  state, and/or  local data  sets to  inform  the determination of a
   disproportionately high and adverse impact.

16. Agencies may wish to consider  delineating parameters for selecting relevant
   comparison groups that can be  applied on a case-by-case basis. Parameters
   may be different for a programmatic document versus a document that is either
   tiered to  the initial programmatic document or is a stand-alone site-specific
   NEPA review.  More than one comparison group may be appropriate in some
   instances. When selecting relevant comparison groups,  it is  important  to
   capture, as appropriate, relevant demographic, ecological, aesthetic, historic,
   cultural, economic, social, and health information. Considerations include, but
   are not limited to the following parameters:
   a.  Relevant jurisdictional boundaries based on the affected  environment
      attributed to the specific impact being analyzed (county, state,  or national
      level);
   b.  Environmental stressor sources that may cause adverse health effects, such
      as the number of environmentally-regulated facilities within a community,
      proximity  of regulated facilities, and quality of the  air, water, and other
      environmental media;
   c.  Existing health conditions such as percent of infant mortality, average birth
      weight, adult  mortality, life expectancy at birth, and life span (e.g., age
      groups, healthy versus vulnerable populations);
   d.  General demographics, e.g., percent of racial/ethnic population, population
      density, percent  of the  Native  American population, distribution  of
      languages spoken in population, and percent of the population that is literate
      in English or other languages; and
   e.    Economic  information, e.g.,  unemployment  rate, income level  and
      distribution, percent of homeowners and renters in a community, percent of
      residents  relying on agriculture in the area,  and percent  relying  on
      government resources.

16. Agencies may wish to document the selection process used to identify relevant
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   comparison groups in the NEPA review document.

17. Potential disproportionately high and  adverse impacts  should  be described
   quantitatively whenever possible. At minimum, agencies may wish to provide a
   qualitative  description.  Agencies may  want to pay particular attention to the
   description of human health impacts, which may be described in terms of risks or
   rates of exposure, if appropriate data are available.
Specific Steps
As appropriate, agencies can consider the following actions:
Specific   Steps  from  Previous  Sections   to   be  Completed  Prior  to
Disproportionately High and Adverse Impact Analysis:
1.  Consider determining the affected environment for  the proposed federal
   action. The geographic scope of the affected environment may be different for
   each resource topic analyzed in the  NEPA document (e.g., human health, air,
   water, socio-economics, wildlife, etc.)  and analyzed  alternative. The  NEPA
   documents should contain a description of the environment of the areas to be
   affected by the alternatives under consideration. (See section 3, p. 17)

2.  Consider referencing available  information on environmental, and related
   ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health impacts from
   the proposed action within the affected environment. (See section 3, p. 17)

3.  Consider determining whether  any minority populations and  low-income
   populations are  present within the affected  environment for  each  of the
   alternatives carried forward for detailed analysis in the NEPA document (See
   section 5, p.23 and section 6 p.28). Generally, if minority populations and low-
   income populations are  not identified, then the environmental justice analysis
   is complete.

4.  Consider  analyzing  direct, indirect,  and  cumulative impacts to minority
   populations and low-income populations in the affected environment from
   resource topics analyzed in the NEPA document for each alternative carried
   forward for detailed analysis in  the NEPA document.  Look at impacts to:  1)
   human health;  and 2) other environmental effects (See section 7, p. 31).

5.  Consider determining whether any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to
   minority populations and low-income populations in the affected environment,
   for each alternative carried forward for detailed analysis in the NEPA document,
   are 'significant' (as employed by NEPA). (See section 7, p.31).
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
Specific Steps to Conduct the Disproportionately High and Adverse Impacts
   Analysis:
1.  When appropriate and as decided on a case-by-case basis, agencies may wish
   to select and explain the parameters  used for identifying a relevant and
   appropriate comparison group within the affected environment.

2.  Consider identifying the relevant and appropriate comparison group within the
   affected environment using the parameters selected in Step One, above.

3.  Agencies may wish to consider the degree to which any of the following seven
   factors 15could amplify identified impacts. Factors that can potentially amplify an
   impact to minority populations and low-income populations in the affected
   environment include, but are not limited to, the following:
   a. Proximity  and  exposure to chemical and other  adverse stressors, e.g.,
      impacts commonly experienced by fence-line communities;
   b. Vulnerable populations, e.g., minority and low-income children, pregnant
      women, elderly, or groups with high asthma rates;
   c. Unique exposure pathways, e.g., subsistence fishing, hunting, or gathering
      in minority and low-income populations;
   d. Multiple or cumulative  impacts,  e.g.,  exposure to  several sources  of
      pollutions or pollutants from single or multiple sources;
   e. Ability to participate in the decision-making process, e.g., lack of education
      or language barriers in minority and low-income populations;
   f.  Physical infrastructure, e.g., inadequate housing, roads, or water supplies in
      communities;
   g. Non-chemical stressors,  e.g.,  chronic stress related to environmental or
      socio-economic impacts.
   Agencies can be informed by considering additional factors that could amplify
   an impact to minority populations and low-income populations in the affected
   environment (as appropriate). Any identified factors that amplify the impacts to
   minority populations and low-income populations may (as appropriate) inform
   all subsequent analyses.

4.  Consider  summarizing adverse  and  beneficial  impacts  to  both  minority
15 See US EPA, Factors for Identifying and Addressing Disproportionate Environmental Health Impacts (2007):
Supplement to American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 101, No. SI (Dec 2011).

                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   populations and low-income populations in the affected environment and, if
   applicable, appropriate comparison groups. Also, consider summarizing any
   mitigation measures that may have been developed prior to the commencement
   of the disproportionately high and adverse impact assessment that reduce
   adverse impacts to minority populations and low-income populations and, if
   applicable, comparison groups (see 40 CFR §1508.20). These summaries can
   (as  appropriate)  apply to the analysis of determining whether  there is a
   disproportionately high and adverse impact from the proposed action for each
   alternative carried forward in the NEPA document.

5.  Consider analyzing the distribution of adverse and beneficial impacts between
   the general population and minority populations and low-income populations in
   the  affected environment as a factor when determining whether there is a
   disproportionately high and adverse impact. The distribution of adverse and
   beneficial impacts between the general population and minority populations
   and  low-income  populations is  a factor  that can be  considered in the
   disproportionately high and adverse impacts determination.

6.  There are various approaches to determine whether a proposed agency action
   will cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority populations
   and low-income populations in the affected environment. For example:
   a) Impact Focus Approach:
     i.   Beneficial impacts are considered in the analysis of the distribution of
         adverse and beneficial impacts between the general  population and
         minority populations and  low-income  populations  in the affected
         environment (see Step 5 above).
     ii.   Consider  (as  appropriate)  relevant mitigation measures  (including
         avoidance and minimization) developed prior to the commencement of
         the disproportionately high and adverse impact  assessment that reduce
         adverse impacts to minority populations and low-income populations.
     iii.   If an  adverse  impact  to  minority  populations  and low-income
         populations remains  after accounting for the mitigation  measures
         developed prior to the commencement of the disproportionately high
         and adverse impact assessment, an agency should continue to consider
         whether the remaining adverse impact(s) is/are disproportionately high
         and adverse.
   b) Balancing Approach:
     i.    Consider  both   mitigation   measures  developed   prior  to  the
         commencement of the disproportionately  high and  adverse impact
                   PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
         assessment that reduce adverse impacts to minority populations and low-
         income populations and any additional mitigation developed during the
         disproportionately high and adverse impacts assessment (see also Step
         iv. below).

    ii.   After considering all appropriate  mitigation  measures, balance any
         remaining adverse impacts with beneficial impacts of the project to the
         community, as appropriate (see also Steps iv. and v. below).
    iii.   If an adverse impact to minority populations and low-income populations
         remain after accounting for all appropriate mitigation  measures and
         related project benefits, continue to consider whether  the remaining
         adverse impact(s) is/are disproportionately high and adverse.

    iv.   In determining the  balance of beneficial and  adverse impacts,  the
         beneficial impacts and mitigation should be related to the type and
         location of the adverse impact.
    v.   Agencies should not balance adverse impacts that directly affect human
         health at levels of concern, especially those that exceed health criteria,
         with project benefits.

7.  When appropriate, as decided on a case-by-case basis, after full consideration
   of Specific Steps to Conduct the Disproportionately High and Adverse
   Impacts  Analysis   (see  Steps  1-6  above)  consider comparing  direct,
   indirect and cumulative adverse  impacts to minority  populations and  low-
   income populations in the affected environment within the geographic unit of
   analysis to an  appropriate comparison  group. Measurable standards and
   evidence-based approaches can be used, if available  and appropriate. This
   comparison may be considered for each alternative carried forward for detailed
   analysis in the NEPA document.

8.  Consider  whether any  of the following conditions are met, which may (as
   appropriate) be measured in risks and rates:
   •  Exposure:
      o  exposure by minority populations  and low-income populations to an
         environmental hazard  that appreciably  exceeds   or  is  likely  to
         appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the appropriate comparison group

   •  Human health or environmental impact:
      o  to minority populations and low-income populations is above generally
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
         accepted norms16
      o  to minority populations and low-income populations exceeds or is likely
         to appreciably exceed the impact to an appropriate comparison group
      o  predominantly borne by minority populations or low-income populations
      o  occurs in minority populations and low-income populations affected by
         cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards
      o  to minority populations and low-income populations is significant and
         adverse.

9.  Consider   determining  and  stating  in  the  NEPA  document  whether
   disproportionately high and adverse impacts exist for the proposed action and
   alternatives carried forward for detailed analysis in the NEPA document.

10. As appropriate, at this stage in the  analysis, agencies may wish to reassess
   whether any disproportionately high and adverse impact is significant under
   NEPA through a review of context and intensity.

11. Consider  communicating  identified disproportionately high  and  adverse
   impacts to the affected minority populations and low-income populations and
   the public as early as appropriate to help identify potential mitigation measures.

12. As practicable, consider coordinating with minority populations and low-
   income populations in the affected environment as an agency develops and
   explores potential mitigation measures to address identified impacts to minority
   populations and low-income populations, including but not limited to those
   determined by an  agency to be disproportionately high and  adverse (See
   section 9, p.50).
^Generally accepted norms is a term used in "Appendix A, Text of Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Annotated with Proposed
Guidance on Terms" which is attached to CEQ's Environmental Justice
                       .
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
IX.  MITIGATION AND MONITORING

Guiding Principles
Agencies can be informed by consideration of the following guiding principles:
1.  Identifying mitigation is an important component of NEPA and Executive Order
   12898.  Generally,  in NEPA documents,  when an agency identifies  potential
   adverse impacts it may wish to evaluate practicable mitigating measures, even if
   an agency determines  the adverse impacts  are not significant.  The unique
   characteristics and conditions of minority populations and low-income populations
   in the  affected environment  may  require  adaptive and innovative mitigation
   measures to sufficiently address the specific circumstances and impacts presented
   by the proposed action. This includes mitigation of identified disproportionately
   high and adverse impacts, whenever  feasible. Agencies may wish to evaluate
   mitigation measures even  if the project will  have  some  benefits to minority
   populations and low-income populations.

2.  Throughout the NEPA process, agencies may wish to (as  appropriate) involve
   potentially affected  minority  populations  and low-income populations as
   agencies  develop  and  implement mitigation measures  and  monitoring.
   Establishing groups  made up of community members  can be an effective
   method of engaging minority and low-income populations as an agency
   develops mitigation measures.

3.  Agencies may wish to consider whether mitigation or monitoring measures can
   be included as conditions in its associated permits and licenses or  in federal
   assistance grants and agreements, as appropriate.

4.  Including  monitoring requirements and sharing monitoring results with the
   public can often help to alleviate issues raised by minority populations and low-
   income populations.   Discussions with  minority populations and low-income
   populations regarding the types of monitoring information that are of interest
   and how to best share monitoring results may improve the effectiveness of
   monitoring efforts.  Feedback from minority populations  and  low-income
   populations can also be considered when developing monitoring measures.

5.  Agencies  may  wish  to  consider,  when  preparing  an  Environmental
   Assessment17, developing  mitigation measures to avoid,  minimize,  rectify,
   reduce, or  compensate for  potentially  significant  adverse environmental
17CEQ, Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated
Findings of No Significant Impact (Jan. 2011)

                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   impacts that would otherwise require full review in an environmental impact
   statement.

6.  When there are unavoidable adverse impacts to minority populations and low-
   income populations in the affected environment, agencies may wish to consider
   appropriate  compensating mitigation and/or additional project benefits and
   provide express details in the NEPA document (see 40 CFR §1508.20(e)). These
   unavoidable  adverse impacts  can also be addressed separately  in  an
   environmental justice technical report.

7.  Agencies may wish to make their mitigation and monitoring commitments clear
   and accessible in a  format easily understandable  by the public,  including
   minority populations and low-income populations.

8.  Agencies may wish to identify mitigation and monitoring measures designed
   specifically  to address  impacts to minority populations  and  low-income
   populations  in the affected  environment separately in the  NEPA decision
   document and also separately in an environmental justice technical report.

9.  If mitigation measures for impacts to  minority populations and low-income
   populations  in the  affected environment have been identified in  the NEPA
   document, agencies may wish to develop an adaptive management plan and
   conduct   implementation   and   effectiveness  monitoring.  Monitoring
   implementation of mitigation measures can inform an agency  and community
   whether the  measures are on schedule and when they have been completed.
   Through the use of effectiveness monitoring, an agency and  community can
   learn  if the  mitigation measures are providing  the predicted outcomes.  An
   adaptive management plan can provide agencies  with a means for  taking
   corrective action if mitigation implementation  or  effectiveness monitoring
   indicates the measures are not achieving the intended outcomes.

Specific Steps
As appropriate, agencies can consider the following actions:
1.  Agencies can be informed by data and information on the affected environment,
   adverse and beneficial impacts, (direct, indirect and cumulative effects) and
   public outreach and participation  when  developing potential mitigation
   measures.

2.  When  agencies  are developing  mitigation  measures they  should  consider
   engaging minority populations and low-income populations early and throughout
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   the process, as appropriate.

3.  Consistent with applicable requirements, agencies should identify and analyze
   mitigation measures  for impacts  to  minority populations  and low-income
   populations in the affected environment (See 40 CFR §1502.14 and 1502.16).
   This includes  appropriate mitigation  measures not already included in the
   proposed action or alternatives (See 40 CFR §1502.14(f)) and any additional
   means to mitigate (if not fully covered under 40  CFR §1502.14(f)) for  each
   identified disproportionately high and adverse impact to minority populations
   and low-income populations (See 40 CFR §1502.16(h).

4.  If an agency determines there are disproportionately high and adverse impacts
   to minority populations and low income populations from its proposed project,
   the agency should consider and take action, as appropriate, to mitigate and
   monitor  the impacts.  When  developing mitigation  measures for adverse
   impacts, including for disproportionately high and adverse effects18 to minority
   populations and low-income populations in the affected environment, consider
   the following five mitigation methods for each potential impact identified:
   a. Avoiding an impact by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
   b. Minimizing an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
     its implementation.
   c. Rectifying an impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
      environment.
   d. Reducing or eliminating an impact's frequency over time, such as through
     preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
   e. Compensating for an impact by replacing or providing substitute resources
     or environments.
5.  Consistent with applicable requirements, agencies should state whether  all
   practicable means  to  avoid or  minimize environmental  harm from the
   alternative  selected  have  been adopted.  (See 40  CFR §1502.2(c)).   If
   disproportionately high and adverse impacts are unlikely to be fully mitigated,
   agencies may wish  to explain in the  analysis which measures to avoid  or
   minimize environmental  harm  to minority  populations  and  low-income
   populations from the selected alternative would be  adopted, and describe any
   measures that were not adopted, and why they were not. An agency's analysis
   can  disclose remaining disproportionately high  and  adverse impacts  on
18 See e.g. Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance
Analyses. (April 1998)

                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
   minority populations and low-income populations in the affected environment,
   if any, and explain why further mitigation is not proposed.

6.  Consider  specifying  mitigation or monitoring commitments  in  terms of
   timeframe, measurable performance  standards  or expected  results (as
   appropriate) so as to  establish clear performance expectations, and include
   appropriate language in the NEPA documents. The description of the mitigation
   measures  should include (as appropriate) accountability measures (e.g.,
   identify clear consequences) for failure to implement selected mitigation or
   monitoring measures.  Agencies can  be informed regarding feasibility of
   implementation by an explanation of how the mitigation and monitoring
   measures will be funded and who will implement the measures.

7.  Consider developing an implementation and effectiveness monitoring plan to
   track performance and outcomes and  reference the plan within the decision
   document (as appropriate).

8.  Consider  including an adaptive management process  to adjust mitigation
   measures based on monitoring results.

9.  Consider  providing mitigation  commitments and  monitoring reports to the
   public including  minority  populations  and  low-income  populations  in
   appropriate formats (e.g., online, in print) whenever possible.

10. When conducting an Environmental Assessment, agencies may evaluate direct,
   indirect, and  cumulative impacts to potentially affected minority populations
   and low-income populations for all of the relevant resource areas/impact topics.
   Regardless of whether an agency determines that a 'finding of no significant
   impact' (FONSI) or mitigated FONSI  is appropriate for a proposed action
   analyzed in an environmental assessment,  agencies may wish to explore in the
   environmental  assessment  mitigation  measures  for all potential  adverse
   impacts. If issuing a FONSI, agencies may wish to clearly describe the specific
   mitigation for any identified impacts, including mitigation for impacts that are
   disproportionately high and adverse to minority populations and low-income
   populations.
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
NEPA AND EJ NATIONAL TRAINING PROJECT

Overview

The  NEPA  Committee seeks to improve the effective,  efficient and  consistent
consideration of environmental justice issues in the NEPA process through the sharing
of best practices, lessons learned, research, analysis, training, consultation, and other
experiences of federal NEPA practitioners. To accomplish this purpose, the NEPA
Committee produced a National Training Product (NTP) that serves as a companion to
Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews (Promising Practices).

Several measures were taken to develop the foundation for the NTP. First, exemplary
trainings on environmental justice from across the federal family were identified and
reviewed for best practices. Second, training material from multiple federal agencies
on EJ and NEPA including guidance, protocol and related documents, were assessed
for best practices. Third, examples of NEPA reviews that addressed environmental
justice were collected. Finally,  draft PowerPoints were produced, reviewed and
revised over the course of 36 months in order to produce the final NTP.

In addition, the NTP is aligned with Promising Practices. This alignment does not imply
a line-by-line  interpretation but that the key  elements are  captured.    It  is
recommended that Promising Practices be read before taking the training and kept
close by for reference so that the full nature and context of the NTP can be better
understood.  Promising Practices guiding principles and specific steps are referenced
throughout  the NTP. However, the NTP also includes more details and provides
additional options, methods and examples.

The NTP consists of a Master PowerPoint Presentation that can be used in whole or in
part to increase understanding of the intersection between NEPA and environmental
justice. The target audience is federal NEPA and environmental justice practitioners.
The NTP uses a variety of approaches (e.g. mapping tools, examples, and videos) to
help explain elements of an effective  environmental  justice analysis in the NEPA
process.
                    PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
OUTLINES OF NATIONAL TRAINING PRODUCT

Part One: Background on NEPA and EJ

•  Learning Objectives
•  EJ Defined
•  EJ/NEPA Common Themes
•  Core Principles of EJ


Part Two: Integration of EJ Analysis in the NEPA Process

I.  Meaningful Engagement
   •  Outreach
   •  Other Options
   •  Public Participation
      Case Example [NY/NJ/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign (FAA)]

II. Scoping Process
   •  Early Planning, Case Example [New Pueblo, Colorado Freeway (FHWA)]

III. Defining the Affected Environment
   •  Demographic Data
   •  Base  Line Characteristics
   •  Unique Conditions

IV. Developing and Selecting Alternatives (Alternatives Analysis)

V. Identifying Minority Populations
   •  Guiding Principles
   •  Conduct Appropriate Analyses
   •  Test 1: The No-Threshold Analysis
   •  Test 2: Part 1- The 50% Criteria and Part 2 - The Meaningfully Greater Test
   •  Determining Appropriate Benchmarks
   •  Comparative Magnitude vs Absolute Threshold
      Case Example [Moganza to the Gulf Feasibility Study, Storm and Hurricane
      Risk-Reduction System (ACoE)]
                   PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
VI. Identifying Low-Income Populations

  • Guiding Principles
  • Alternative Criteria Analysis
  • Low-Income Threshold Criteria
  • Case Example [Did They Do It Right, an Interactive Scenario]

VII. Impacts

VIII. Disproportionately High and Adverse Impacts (DHAI)
   •   Disproportionate Impact Factors
   •   DHAI Determination
   •   Assessing Benefits and Burdens
      Case Example [Gasco Development - Oil and Gas Development on BLM lands,
      Utah; Klamath River Facilities Removal, OR and CA]

IX. Mitigation and Monitoring
   •   Mitigation Methods
      Case Example [Central Corridor Light Rail Transit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN]
   •   Community Benefits Agreements
      Case Example Charleston Naval Base Expansion
                   PROMISING PRACTICES FOR EJ METHODOLOGIES IN NEPA REVIEWS | February 2016

-------
\


                 I

                                                              A product of the
                                              Federal Interagency Working Group
                                                      on Environmental Justice
                                                                     MARCH 2016

                                                                     EPA 300B16001

-------