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
------- |