Project development

Environmental process | Environmental review | Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice (EJ) process

Standard Attachment for Environmental Justice Analysis (Word)

Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool

EJ Assessment Tools Guidance

MnDOT’s role is to assess the benefits and adverse effects of transportation activities among different population groups and use that capability to develop appropriate procedures, goals, and performance measures in all aspects of their mission.

FHWA is involved with all projects that use federal transportation funding, require an Interstate Access Request (IAR) or tie to an FHWA undertaking, including approvals that MnDOT takes on FHWA’s behalf. Work with MnDOT to ensure Title VI and environmental justice considerations are integral to all surface transportation activities.

Threshold criteria

Any program, policy, activity, or project funded or approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), or other U.S. DOT component, specifically if a MnDOT action requires preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA), or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA, where an agency of the USE DOT is the lead federal agency. In these situations, an analysis must be conducted in accordance with the lead federal agency guidance and reported in the NEPA document. Additionally, an environmental justice analysis must be completed if a MnDOT action requires the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion when there are residential or business relocations. See the specific terms of the PCE Agreement under the Right of Way subject area for projects requiring the relocation of business or residential properties.

Steps in Environmental Justice investigation and documentation

The steps for preparing an EJ finding are shown in the EJ Determination Process Flow Chart and detailed in the text below. The description is specific to projects where FHWA is the lead federal agency. If FTA, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or another U.S. DOT agency is the lead federal agency, other agency-specific guidance may apply.

Note that "Public Involvement" is not a distinct or separate step, but occurs throughout the EJ assessment process. The Executive Order and its implementing DOT order place great stress on the involvement of minority populations and/or low-income populations in this process. The public involvement activities must be documented in the environmental review document whether an EJ analysis is required or not.

Project proposers who are not familiar with the EJ process requirements should work with the Office of Environmental Stewardship (OES) to discuss the process requirements and strategies in more detail.

There are links to U.S. DOT agency guidance, current as of April 2015, toward the end of this chapter; however, the project proposer should confirm the latest relevant guidance for the appropriate lead federal agency.

Project proposers are encouraged to use the Standard Attachment for Environmental Justice (EJ) Analysis. The Metro District should continue to use their methodology for completing an environmental justice analysis. While the scale will differ, the steps in the assessment/determination process are the same for all three classes of environmental documentation (Non-programmatic categorical exclusions (CATEXs); EAs; and EISs). See the following steps.

Step 1. Identify EJ study area

Additional guidance on how to use the Environmental Protection Agency's EJSCREEN Tool and the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Fact Finder to review demographics within or near the project area for low income and/or minority populations for Steps 1 and 2a is here.

The EJ study area is the geographic area where the proposed project has potential for human health or environmental effects. Like many of the Social, Environmental, and Economic (SEE) impacts, EJ includes both direct and indirect impacts. The boundaries will depend upon the project type, but would typically be 0.25 mile from project limits (including each of the project alternatives under consideration). If the project involves road or pedestrian/bike/transit facility closure or grade separation or interchange removal , the EJ study area includes the broader area that could be affected by a resulting negative change to community connections, e.g. creating a longer, less convenient route between neighborhoods and services.

If the project has a detour route, especially one that negatively impacts non-motorized or transit operations along the detour, the EJ analysis includes the detour route as well.

After identifying the EJ Study area, go to Step 2.

Step 2: Determine if there are readily-identifiable minority and/or low-income EJ populations in the EJ Study Area

Definitions:

• Minority: The U.S. DOT Order on EJ - Order 5610.2(c) (PDF) - defines “minority” as including “Black or African American, Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.”
  • A minority population is any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy, or activity


• Low income population: The U.S. DOT Order 5610.2(c) (PDF) defines “low income population” as “any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy, or activity

U.S. DOT and FHWA define a low-income individual as a person whose median household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines. HHS updates these guidelines annually and they are available online at the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) website.

Because the HHS poverty guidelines vary by household size and the census does not report income by household size, this data is not readily available from census data. However because the HHS guidelines are based on poverty level, the census reporting of persons with incomes below the poverty level is the best data available as a proxy for the FHWA definition.

The April 1, 2015 FHWA Environmental Justice Reference Guide states that “a State or locality may adopt a more inclusive threshold for low-income than that specified by HHS as long as it is inclusive of all persons at or below the HHS poverty guidelines. It is permissible to use industry-recognized tools such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “EJ SCREEN” to assist identification of low-income populations as long as the documentation explains what is being used and why and makes clear that the data is inclusive of low-income households as defined by the HHS.” (The threshold should not exceed 200% of the poverty level.)

2-a. Compile demographic data

Examine census information at the lowest level of aggregation available for the EJ study area. The decennial U.S. Census includes race/ethnicity data at the census block group level. The most recent American Community Survey (ACS) provides the best available income data at the block group level.

The EPA has a useful environmental justice mapping and screening tool called EJSCREEN that allows users to choose a geographic area for which the tool will provide demographic (and environmental) information.

Compare the percentages of minority and low-income persons in the EJ study area to the percentages of minority and low-income persons at the city and/or county level depending upon the context of the project. The most likely geographic units to be used for comparisons are at the city and county level. If the percentages of either of these groups are meaningfully greater than those of the city and/or county, it is a strong indicator of the presence of an EJ population and therefore a closer look at the community context is warranted. A study area where the percentage of minority persons is 10 percentage points higher than the county average, or represents greater than 50 percent of the total geographic unit, would be a strong indicator of a minority population for purposes of the EJ analysis.

See EJ Tools for information on using the Census Bureau’s American Factfinder and the EPA’s EJSCREEN to compile demographic data for the EJ analysis. See example tables in the Standard Attachment for Environmental Justice Analysis.

2-b. Conduct field review of the EJ study area

You can conduct the field review of the EJ study area via on-line maps/photography (Google maps) and/or on-the-ground (walk or drive the area). Identify locations of potential indicators of EJ populations in the EJ study area, including:

• Affordable housing types such as manufactured home communities and public housing
• Community facilities (e.g. governmental agencies, places of worship, service organizations) providing services to ethnic groups or low-income households
• Businesses that are readily-identifiable as serving EJ populations (e.g. stores specializing in ethnic goods/services, signs in non-English languages, etc.)

2-c. Consult local representatives who are knowledgeable about community demographics

• Contact relevant city or county officials who would be familiar with the EJ study area demographic makeup
  • These officials may include a city administrator, city or county planners, community action council staff, county human services staff, school administrators, or personnel from other agencies that serve low-income and or minority persons
• Identify organized groups that represent, provide services to, or act as cultural/social centers for minority and/or low-income persons who may reside in the EJ study area
  • Doing so may involve contacting places of worship or initiating contact with various state councils
• Contact Tribal Governments in the EJ study area

2-d. Conduct public outreach with special effort for EJ population engagement

Talk directly to people who live, work, or own businesses in and near the EJ study area. Include specific efforts in the project’s public engagement process to reach EJ populations (e.g. announcements and meeting materials translated into languages known to be common in the study area, project staff presence at local events, advertising/project information at community gathering places, interpreters at public meetings). Consider working with local agencies on outreach.

2-e. Based on the data collection above, determine whether there is or is not an identifiable EJ population in the EJ study area

• If there is an identifiable EJ population in the EJ study area, depict the boundaries of the EJ population(s) on a map relative to project construction limits
  • Go to Step 3
• If there is not an identifiable EJ population in the EJ study area, then you do not need to do any further study regarding EJ impacts
  • Go to Step 7

Step 3: During project development, strive to avoid/minimize adverse impacts to identified EJ populations

Keep track of the avoidance/minimization efforts during project development so that you can easily report them in the environmental document.

Define build alternative(s) and conduct the typically required environmental assessment of impacts on the proposed mitigation.  Go to Step 4 of the EJ analysis after you define the Build Alternative(s) and the initial project impacts, including all impacts (direct and indirect) on human health and the environment regardless of income or minority status, and mitigation for these impacts have been identified.

Step 4: Analyze proportionality of impacts on populations

Definition:

• Disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income populations means an adverse effect that:
• Is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population
• Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population

Complete Step 4 as follows:

4a. Review the project impacts to human health and the environment (to all persons, not just EJ populations) that have been identified to date.

The following items typically have the potential to impact human health and the environment:

• Land use
• Parks/recreational facilities
• Surface or groundwater quality
• Contamination
• Historic/archaeological resources
• Visual quality
• Air quality
• Noise
• Vibration
• Traffic
• Parking
• Transit
• Bicycle/pedestrian facilities
• Access
• Right of way acquisition
• Relocation
• Economic conditions
• Social conditions
• Tribal lands

Only consider the items for which the project has been found to have adverse impacts to human health and the environment (of any population). If a topic has no impact or only a beneficial impact to human health or the environment (for either EJ populations or non-EJ populations), there is no need to analyze the topic in the EJ section of the document.

4-b. Confirm whether any of the adverse impacts to human health and the environmental occur outside of the EJ study area identified in Step 1. If so, the EJ study area will need to be revised to match the actual area of impact and the information about EJ populations updated accordingly prior to completing the analysis for disproportionate impact.

Confirming or revising the study area after identifying the project’s actual adverse impacts to human health and environment is an essential step in the EJ process.

4-c. Consider the effect of the mitigation that has already been identified for the identified impacts (e.g. noise walls, measures to avoid drinking water contamination, relocation benefits, park restoration/improvements, aesthetic treatments, traffic control, historic property recordation) to the EJ population(s).

If there are multiple EJ populations along a linear transportation project, look at impacts in the context of each identified EJ population.

Identify the adverse impacts that remain to human health and the environment for each of the topics that remain after this identified mitigation is considered.

If the identified mitigation measures sufficiently address the impact so that no substantial adverse impacts to any populations remain, then there is no need to further address the proportionality of impacts in the EJ analysis, however, such a conclusion should be well supported and vetted  through the public involvement process.

4-d. Consider the adverse impacts to populations remaining after mitigation.

Determine if any of the identified adverse impacts to populations remaining after mitigation:

• Are predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population
• Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and are appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effects that will be suffered by the nonminority population and/or non-low-income population
  • Remember the concern is with impacts on “populations” not on specific individuals

Does Step 4 identify any disproportionately high and adverse impacts on EJ population remaining after the initially identified mitigation has been considered?

• If yes, go to Step 5
• If not, go to Step 7

Step 4 Examples

Below are some potential situations and the types of questions (not exhaustive) that would need to be considered in Step 4.  The affected community’s view of the project impacts are important in answering questions in the examples below.

The Build Alternative would have noise impacts, but all noise walls are cost effective and the noise wall voting process has “approved” the walls.

The noise impact will be mitigated and therefore there is no need to address the proportionality of the noise impacts in the EJ analysis.

The Build Alternative would result in noise impacts that do not meet cost effective criteria and therefore walls are not proposed.

Would these noise impacts be predominately borne by an EJ population or greater in magnitude than the noise impacts borne by the non-EJ population?

The Build Alternative would result in noise impacts that do meet cost effective criteria, but through the noise voting system, the walls are “voted down” and therefore not proposed.

Would these unmitigated noise impacts be predominately born by an EJ population or greater in magnitude than the noise impacts borne by the non-EJ population? If so, is it readily apparent from the voting responses whether or not the noise voting outcome reflects the expressed preferences of the disproportionately affected EJ population? When answering these questions, focus on the votes of the benefited receptor residents, not the owner.

The Build Alternative would require the relocation of a business; the business will receive relocation benefits.

While relocation benefits would “make whole” the affected business, there may be broader impacts to consider. Is it likely that the business relocation would adversely affect its employees? Will they lose their jobs or have to travel substantially greater distances to a new business location? Is it likely that the business relocation would adversely affect people’s access to goods/services? Is it a business that uniquely serves EJ populations? If so, would any of these adverse impacts be predominately borne by an EJ population or greater in magnitude than the effect borne by non-EJ population?

The Build Alternative would require relocation of homes; the residents will receive relocation benefits.

Again, while the relocation benefits will “make whole” the affected residents, there may be broader impacts to consider. Will the removal of several homes negatively affect the fabric (“community cohesiveness” or “community identity”) of the neighborhood or disturb established EJ social communities? If so, would the social impact be predominately borne by an EJ population or greater in magnitude than the effect borne by non-EJ population?

The Build Alternative has been determined to have an adverse effect on a historic property and a mitigation plan has been developed in agreement between MnDOT and SHPO/THPO.

After considering the mitigation plan, does the community still view the effect as substantially negative and if so, is this negative effect predominately borne by an EJ population or greater in magnitude than the effect borne by the non-EJ population?

Step 5: Identify any off-setting benefits to the affected EJ population

Off-setting benefits to the affected EJ populations typically involves the improvement of conditions identified in the project need statement, but may also include other amenities or benefits to the EJ population that result from the project, such as enhancements that go beyond basic mitigation of impacts. Project enhancements or other positive outcomes, such as improvement to express/regional transit services that do not directly serve the EJ population are not part of the equation when answering this question.

After factoring in these off-setting benefits, are the impacts still disproportionately high or adverse to the affected EJ population?

• If yes, go to Step 6
• If no, go to Step 7

Step 6: Consider feasibility of project refinements and/or additional mitigation to avoid disproportionate impacts to EJ population

The consideration of project refinements and additional mitigation may involve a balancing of impacts to other social, economic (including cost) or environmental resources as well as public engagement with the affected population.
Is avoidance of disproportionate impacts to EJ population feasible?

• If yes, revise build alternative(s) and/or include additional mitigation
  • Revise Step 4 and Step 5 accordingly
  • Go to Step 7
• If no, go to Step 7

Step 7: Document the previous steps in the environmental document

More information is provided by class of action/document type in the next section, but in general the documentation includes the following (see Standard Attachment for Environmental Justice Analysis).

• Describe (text, tables, and maps) the analysis and conclusions from Step 1 and Step 2
• Describe efforts made to avoid identified EJ populations during Step 3 and Step 6
• Describe the analysis, rationale, and conclusions from Step 4 and Step 5
• Include discussion of the public engagement efforts
• Conclude with the formal environmental justice finding
  • See example text in the Prepared Statements

There are also additional considerations that apply if the disproportionate impact falls on a population protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If that is the case, the project proposer should discuss the impacts with the EJ Contact in OES.

Documentation for Class I Action (Environmental Impact Statements – EIS)

Scoping Documents

Identify any minority populations and/or low-income populations that lie within the area where the project has potential for human health or environmental effects. Assess the potential for any significant impacts. Early coordination with city, county, or other local governments to assist in identifying populations and potential for adverse impacts is advised. If potentially affected populations are identified, work with stakeholders to identify appropriate outreach efforts to connect with the affected populations. Consider the potential for impacts in the screening of alternatives during the scoping process. Report relevant information in the Draft and Final Scoping Decision documents.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

Discuss any possible adverse impacts to minority populations and/or low- income populations, and any potential measures that could be taken to alleviate or minimize these impacts for each alternative with impacts. Make of preliminary finding as to whether or not the alternatives under consideration would result in a disproportionate impact to EJ populations.

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

Summarize the EJ information of the DEIS (if applicable), limiting the discussion to those facts pertinent to the selected alternative, updated to reflect the impacts of design refinements. Include what measures will be taken to mitigate these impacts. Include the formal Environmental Justice finding.

Documentation for Class II Action (Categorical Exclusions CE)

An environmental justice analysis is required anytime there is a residential or business relocation. Identify any minority populations and/or low-income populations that lie within the area where the project has potential for human health or environmental effects. Discuss any possible adverse impacts and any proposed measures to be taken to alleviate or minimize the impacts. Include the formal Environmental Justice finding.

Early coordination with city, county, or other local governments to assist in identifying populations and potential for adverse impacts is advised. If potentially affected populations are identified, work with stakeholders to identify appropriate outreach efforts to connect with the affected populations.

Documentation for Class III Action (Environmental Assessment EA)

Identify any minority populations and/or low-income populations that lie within the area where the project has potential for human health or environmental effects. Discuss any possible adverse impacts to minority populations and/or low-income populations, and any potential measures that may be taken to minimize these impacts. Include the formal Environmental Justice finding. Also see the early coordination discussion for Class II Actions.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Include the formal EJ finding, updated to reflect the impacts of design refinements, and discussion of the measures to be taken that will avoid, minimize and/or mitigate for adverse impacts to the minority populations and/or low-income populations in the request for a FONSI package and the state Negative Declaration.

Glossary

These definitions are from the DOT Order on Environmental Justice - Order 5610.2(c) (PDF).

DOT: The Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation operating administrations, and all other Department of Transportation components.

Low-income population: Any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy, or activity. U.S. DOT and FHWA use the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) poverty guidelines. The guidelines are updated annually and available online at online.

Minority: Black or African American, Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.

Minority population: Any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy or activity.

Adverse effects: The totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which may include, but are not limited to bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death; air, noise, and water pollution and soil contamination; destruction or disruption of man-made or natural resources; destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality; destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services; vibration; adverse employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations; increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits of DOT programs, policies, or activities.

Disproportionately high and adverse effect: An effect on minority and low-income populations that:

• Is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population
• Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population

Programs, policies, and/or activities: All projects, programs, policies, and activities that affect human health or the environment, and which are undertaken or approved by DOT. These include, but are not limited to, permits, licenses, and financial assistance provided by DOT. Interrelated projects within a system may be considered to be a single project, program, policy or activity for purposes of Executive Order 12898.

Regulations and guidance: Regulations, programs, policies, guidance, and procedures promulgated, issued, or approved by DOT.

Agency involvement

MnDOT assesses the benefits and adverse effects of transportation activities among different population groups and uses that capability to develop appropriate procedures, goals, and performance measures in all aspects of their mission.

The FHWA is involved with all projects that use federal transportation funding, require an Interstate Access Request (IAR), or tie to an FHWA undertaking, including approvals that MnDOT takes on FHWA’s behalf. Work with MnDOT to sure that Title VI and EJ considerations are integral to all surface transportation activities.