This document summarizes information about cumulative impacts found in federal and state legislation, government agency guidance documents, and selected journal articles from the academic literature. You can navigate this information by searching the table of contents on the left side of this page.Here you will find: (1) a timeline of federal and state CI legislation and agency documents, (2) a table with links to state CI legislation, (3) a table with links state CI reports and mapping tools, (4) three sections (state, federal and journals) with summary information about the methodologies, indicators, and thresholds used for determining cumulative impacts. In these sections you will also find information on the main purpose of the CI definition, tool, or guidance and web links to the source legislation and documents, along with supporting tables and images (if available).
The information contained in this tool is not exhaustive and thus does not include all possible definitions or methodologies related to cumulative impacts in use today or previously proposed. This data is meant as a representative snapshot of cumulative impacts, definitions, and methodologies in wide circulation.
If you have questions about this tool, please contact tedc@newschool.edu
Research Context
The issue of cumulative impacts (CI) has been a central focus of the environmental justice (EJ) movement for decades. Understanding CI requires consideration of the complex interplay between socio-demographic, environmental, and public health factors that impact EJ communities. EJ leaders and federal and state policymakers have increasingly turned their attention to developing CI definitions and methodologies for application in policies, agency guidance, and academic research. The information presented in this report is aimed at supporting EJ movement stakeholders and policymakers with a searchable site for definitions, indicators, thresholds, and benefits in various CI policies and reports developed in the U.S. from 1997-2022.
The research conducted shows that the definitions of CI have expanded to include more health disparities and socio-economic indicators, and that an increasing number of CI analysis reports, mapping tools, and policies have been released in the last decade. Most of these policies, tools, and agency guidance are intended to provide enhanced information and participation in decision-making processes. Some policies use these tools to allocate resources, such as funding or increased enforcement, while only a handful of policies aim to mitigate CI through permitting. Thirteen states (CA, HI ,IL, MA, MD, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA) were identified that have legislation, mapping tools, and/or agency guidance documents that include consideration of CI. Since 2012, CI bills have been enacted in California, New York, New Jersey, and Washington. However, the progress on the enactment of protective legislation has not been as rapid as the development of mapping tools and the increasing comprehensiveness of indicators. The enactment of protective legislation that addresses regulatory reform and substantive decision-making processes are necessary for addressing the legacy of cumulative impacts – yet these policies face significant legal and industry opposition. Key to the success of these policies is the leadership of EJ communities in the development of tools and legislation, including the processes for determining CI indicators and methodologies specific to their communities.
The summary of CI legislation and reports in this tool includes information about their purpose, classified following Ringquist’s policy typologies: (1) redistributive, (2) protective, and (3) environmental/analytical. We include here a brief explanation of these categories. These typologies are a simplification of complex policies that can have multiple or overlapping purposes. The categories serve as a very general way to group policies for summary purposes according to their most prominent features.
Redistributve
Goal is to target investments, resources (i.e.,
enforcement actions, funding, etc.)
Protective
Goal is to enact new or added protections through
decision making powers of agencies (i.e. enhanced public participation,
regulatory permitting, siting, etc.)
Environmental
Goal is to promote further studies, increase analytic
understanding of EJ related issues or concerns (i.e. mapping or modeling
of risk, etc.)
These categories are based on the policy typologies described in Ringquist, E. J., & Clark, D. H. (2002). Issue definition and the politics of state environmental justice policy adoption. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(2-3), 351-389.
A timeline of federal and state CI legislation and agency reports, as well as academic articles is included here. It is organized from oldest to most recent, with the purpose of aiding the understanding and analyzing the evolution in the past two decades of CI policies in the US. A full description of the legislation, reports and articles listed here can be found by clicking on each title to navigate to the Federal/State/Journal Definitions, Indicators, and Thresholds sections.
1997
1. Environmental Justice Guidance
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
In light of Executive Order 12898 (1994 - Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations) the CEQ issued this guidance that includes six principles
for environmental justice analyses to determine any disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects to low-income,
minority, and tribal populations.
2. Considering Cumulative Effects
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implement the
procedural provisions of NEPA, which defines cumulative effects. This is
a handbook providing a framework for advancing environmental impact
analysis by addressing cumulative effects in either an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement.
3. EPA Guidance on Cumulative Risk
Assessment, Part 1.
Planning and Scoping, Science Policy Council, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Guidance initially focuses (Part 1.) on risk
assessments that integrates risks of adverse health and ecological
effects from the narrower set of environmental stressors.
1999
1. Consideration Of Cumulative Impacts
In EPA Review of NEPA Documents - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Federal Activities (2252A) EPA 315-R-99-002.
Guidance is to assist EPA reviewers of NEPA documents with an emphasis
on the effects of projects on ecological resources, specific issues, and
critical areas of EPA’s review of NEPA documents under Section 309 of
the Clean Air Act. This guidance offers practical suggestions on how to
prepare comments to address cumulative impacts in NEPA documents.
2003
1. EPA Framework for Cumulative Risk
Assessment (2003)
This framework for cumulative risk assessment emphasizes chemical risks
to human health in its discussion and also in the context of the effects
from a variety of stressors, including non-chemical stressors. Some
important topics that could be characterized as “cumulative risk,” such
as global climate change, are beyond the scope of this report. The
report provides a ‘flexible structure for the technical issues and
defines key terms associated with cumulative risk assessment.’
2004
1. National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC) - Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with
Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risks/Impacts
(Report)
This report contains recommendations to the EPA that are not enforceable
but serve as a set of stakeholder comments for agency advisement and
consideration.
2016
1. EPA - Technical Guidance for
Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis
(Report)
This document identifies internal agency policies and recommended
procedures for EPA employees. The technical guidance presents key
analytic principles and definitions, best practices, and technical
questions to frame the consideration of environmental justice in
regulatory actions. It also includes recommendations that are designed
to enhance the consistency of our assessment of potential
environmental-justice concerns across all regulatory actions. This
document is not a rule or regulation but rather a guidance document
subject to ad hoc application on the agency.
2. Promising Practices For EJ
Methodologies in NEPA
This report reviews a compilation of methodologies gleaned from current
agency practices identified by the NEPA Committee concerning the
interface of environmental justice considerations through NEPA
processes.
It is not (and should not be viewed as) formal agency guidance;
practices exposed here are not legally binding, nor do they create
rights and benefits for any person.
2020
1. H.R.8271 - Environmental Justice
Legacy Pollution Cleanup Act of 2020
This act provides supplemental appropriations for the cleanup of legacy
pollution (including National Priority List sites, certain abandoned
coal mining sites, and formerly used defense sites), to replace lead
drinking water service lines, to provide grants under certain programs,
and to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the issuance of new major
source air pollution permits in overburdened communities, and for other
purposes.
2021
1. H.R.2021 - Environmental Justice
For All Act
This act aims to restore, reaffirm, and reconcile environmental justice
and civil rights, and other purposes.
2. S.2630 - Environmental Justice
Act of 2021
This act requires federal agencies to address environmental justice and
consider cumulative impacts in certain permitting decisions and for
other purposes. It reintroduces the S.2239 Environmental Justice Act of
2019.
2022
1. EJScreen 2.0
(Does not incllude a cumulative score.)
2. H.R 6548 Justice in Power Plant
Permitting Act
This act establishes new renewable energy federal purchase requirements,
supports the equitable transition to clean energy power generation, and
requires cumulative impact assessments for fossil fuel-fired power plant
permitting, and other purposes.
3. Cumulative Impacts: Recommendations
for ORD Research
This white paper informs the EPA Office of Research and Development’s
(ORD) FY23-26 Strategic Research Action Plans. The Cumulative Impacts
Scoping Workgroup was tasked to more fully understand how to grow ORD’s
existing cumulative impact research across the six National Research
Program Partners’ needs in the context of ORD’s FY23-FY26 research
planning process. The Workgroup synthesized in this report inputs from
multiple engagement events with ORD partners, both internal and
external, to the agency to identify research gaps and barriers to
conducting and translating the research, which formed the basis for the
workgroup’s recommendations.
2004
1. Massachusetts: Bill S.817: An Act to
Create Environmental Justice
2. New Mexico Environment Department
(NM ED): A Report on Environmental Justice in New Mexico
New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) conducted four listening
sessions in an effort to highlight environmental justice (EJ) concerns
in New Mexico. Listening sessions were designed to gather the EJ
viewpoint of grassroots organizations and were used to create this
report.
2008
1. Hawaii Environmental Justice
Initiative Report
To meet the requirements of Act 294, this report documents a definition
of EJ for Hawaii. This is an EJ guidance document that includes, among
other components, information on EJ screening analyses and community
benefits agreements, an overview of the legal foundations for EJ in
Hawaii, and recommendations for future EJ efforts in the state.
2. Minnesota: MPCA Cumulative Impact
Analysis Methodology (Webpage Description)
2009
1. New Jersey: Report: NJ DEP
STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
COMMUNITIES
This report reflects the research and findings of the subcommittee of
the EJ Advisory Council in NJ on cumulative impacts in NJ and their
recommendations to the State.
2. New Jersey: NJ Memorandum:
Cumulative Impacts in Permitting a Reply to Environmental Justice
Advisory Council March 2009 Report: “Strategies for Addressing
Cumulative Impacts in Environmental Justice Communities.”
This memorandum announces a preliminary
geographic-information-system-based screening tool that integrates
measures of environmental hazards and human exposures alongside
demographic and socioeconomic factors–as well as a list of EJ policies
and priorities.
Environmental regulation includes implementation in the following
divisions: Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste-Recycling, Division of
Air Quality - Diesel Program, Division of Air Quality - Air Quality and
Permitting.
2010
1. California: CalEPA Cumulative
Impacts: Building a Scientific Foundation Report
This report by OEHHA is a basis for further scientific evaluation and
technical discussion. It is not a regulatory action, but presents the
first step in developing a screening methodology to evaluate the CI of
multiple sources of pollution in specific communities or geographic
areas.
2012
1. New York: NYDEC - Part 487 Analyzing
Environmental Justice Issues in Siting of Major Electric Generating
Facilities Pursuant to Public Service Law Article 10
The purpose of this Part is to establish a regulatory framework for
undertaking an analysis of EJ issues associated with the siting of a
major Electric Generating Facility (EGF) in New York State pursuant to
article 10 of the Public Service Law, enacted in the Power NY Act of
2011. In addition it is intended to enhance public participation and
review of environmental impacts of proposed major electric generating
facilities in environmental justice communities and reduce
disproportionate environmental impacts in overburdened communities. It
is not intended to, nor shall it be construed to create any right to
judicial review involving the compliance or noncompliance of any person
with this Part.
2014
1. Maryland: SB 706.
This environment permit determinations cumulative impact assessment
requires the Department of the Environment to require a specified
applicant to conduct and submit to the Department a cumulative impact
assessment before the Department prepares a tentative determination on a
specified permit application. It requires a cumulative impact assessment
to address the likely impact on the environment and on human populations
that will result from specified incremental impacts.
2015
1. Minnesota: Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency: Environmental Justice Framework
This framework provides direction and guidance to modify MPCA practices
and integrate EJ principles into MPCA work over the next 2-3
years.
2. Maryland: SB 693. Environment - Ambient Air Quality
Control - Cumulative Air Impact Analysis
This legislation prohibits the Department of the Environment from
issuing a specified air quality permit until specified requirements have
been met. It prohibits the Department from recommending specified
licensing conditions until specified requirements have been met, and it
requires the Department to conduct a Cumulative Air Impact Analysis
under specified circumstances in accordance with specified requirements,
etc.
2016
1. New Jersey: Environmental Justice and
Cumulative Impact Ordinance
This ordinance amends the City of Newark Municipal Code to include the
requirements which assist the Environmental Commission, Newark Central
Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Adjustment in better understanding
the environmental impacts of development projects, and support improved
long-term planning in order to enhance, protect and preserve a healthy
urban environment for the benefit of all present and future residents
and workers.
2. California: SB-1000 An act to amend Section 65302 of the
Government Code, relating to land use.
This act requires local governments to identify environmental justice
communities (called “disadvantaged communities”) in their jurisdictions
and address environmental justice in their general plans through an
environmental justice element or related policies in other elements.
This new law has several purposes, including to facilitate transparency
and public engagement in local governments’ planning and decision-making
processes, reduce harmful pollutants and the associated health risks in
environmental justice communities, and promote equitable access to
health-inducing benefits, such as healthy food options, housing, public
facilities, and recreation.
3. California: AB-1550. An act to amend Section 39713 of
the Health and Safety Code, relating to greenhouse gases
This act modifies the investment minimums to disadvantaged communities
and increases percentage of funds directed–at least 25 percent–that
should go to projects within and for the benefit of disadvantaged
communities and at least an additional 10 percent to go for low-income
households or communities.
4. Oregon: State of Oregon Environmental Justice Task
Force Environmental Justice: Best Practices for Oregon’s Natural
Resource Agencies (2016)
The purpose of the handbook is to provide specific tools and approaches
to better identify potential disparate impacts and engage in
intentional, targeted outreach to all stakeholders to ensure equitable
outcomes and equal opportunity for meaningful participation.
2018
1. Michigan: Michigan EJ Work
Group Report (2018)
This report makes recommendations submitted to the Governor for
consideration that present an implementation roadmap of short, medium,
and long-term actionable tasks that meaningfully and effectively advance
EJ across Michigan and its communities.
2019
1. California: SB 673 An act to add
Sections 25200.21 and 25200.23 to the Health and Safety Code, relating
to hazardous waste.
This legistlation enhanced regulations to hazardous waste facilities to
include analysis of CI/impacts on vulnerable populations.
2. New York: S6599. Climate Leadership and Community
Protection Act
This Act amends the environmental conservation law, the public service
law, the public authorities law, the labor law, and the community risk
and resiliency act, to establish the New York State Climate Leadership
and Community Protection Act.
3. Washington: Washington Environmental Health Disparities
Map Project (2019)
The University of Washington Department of Environmental &
Occupational Health Sciences (DEOHS) collaborated with partners across
Washington to develop an interactive tool that ranks the cumulative risk
each neighborhood in Washington faces from environmental factors that
influence health outcomes.
2020
1. New Jersey: S.232 AN ACT concerning
environmental permits in certain areas, and supplementing Title 13 of
the Revised Statutes.
Under the bill, the DEP would not be able to grant permits to
new/expansions of facilities that cause or contribute to adverse
cumulative environmental or public health stressors in the overburdened
community that are higher than those borne by other communities within
the state, county, or other geographic unit of analysis.
2021
1. Massachusetts: S.2135 An Act relative
to energy facilities siting reform to address environmental justice,
climate, and public health
This act proposes permitting regulations for energy facilities. These
include cumulative impact assessments and environmental justice impact
statements.
2. Hawaii: SB 1277 Environmental Justice, Mapping, Data
Collection This legislation establishes the environmental justice
mapping task force and an advisory council to develop high-quality data
relating to environmental justice concerns, identify environmental
justice communities, and devise a method to correct for racist and
unjust practices leading to historical and current environmental
injustices.
3. Minnesota: SF. 2127
This is a bill that provides for environmental justice considerations in
determining certain state permitting. It amends Minnesota statutes 2020,
sections 116.06, by adding subdivisions; 116.07, subdivision 6; and
proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 116.
It also amends state statutes to include consideration of cumulative
impact analyses, and adverse impacts to EJ communities for permitting of
emitting facilities, and adds language relating to the powers of the
Pollution Control Agency to ensure consideration of CI.
4. California: SB 673 Cumulative Impacts and Community
Vulnerability Draft Regulatory Framework
SB 673 directs the Department of Toxic Substances Control to update its
criteria to consider “the vulnerability of, and existing health risks
to, nearby populations” when deciding whether to issue new or modified
permits or permit renewals of hazardous waste facilities. This document
is an informal proposal for regulations that enable the Department to
“implement, interpret, or make specific” provisions of Health and Safety
Code sections 25200.21(b) and (c) in SB 673.
6. Washington: SB5141 The Healthy
Environment for All Act
This is an Act relating to reducing environmental and health disparities
and improving the health of all Washington State residents by
implementing the recommendations of the environmental justice task
force. The act seeks to prevent and mitigate cumulative environmental
health impacts and to reduce exposure to environmental hazards within
Indian country.
7. Illinois: HB4093.
The EPA Environmental Justice Amends the Environmental Protection Act
requires EPA to annually update the indicators used to determine whether
a community is designated as an environmental justice community. It
requires Environmental Justice Assessment for permit applications, and
it contains provisions regarding public participation requirements for
permitting transactions in an environmental justice community.
8. Maryland (Journal Article): Payne-Sturges, D. C.,
Sangaramoorthy, T., & Mittmann, H. (2021). Framing Environmental
Health Decision-Making: The Struggle over Cumulative Impacts Policy.
International journal of environmental research and public health,
18(8), 3947.
Thi article examins the social context of policy challenges related to
cumulative risks and impacts in the state of Maryland between 2014 and
2016. Findings illustrate that policy impasse over cumulative impacts is
highly dependent on how policy-relevant actors come to frame issues
around legislating cumulative impacts, rather than the “standard
narrative” of external constraints. Findings show that the emphasis of
development of analytical tools to measure CI has led to a ‘paralysis of
analysis,’ where the process of attempting to assess risk significantly
slows down or even prevents government interventions.
2022
This is a response to Bill S6599 (above). The Environmental Justice working group and state agencies were tasked with establishing criteria to identify ‘disadvantaged communities.’ In Feb 2022, the working group voted unanimously to move forward with its proposal for how to identify disadvantaged communities. March 9, 2022, marks the beginning of a 120-day public comment period for New Yorkers to provide feedback on the draft before the criteria is finalized. A draft of Disadvantaged Communities Map is also available for public comment.
Subdivision 2 of section 8-0113 of the environmental conservation law
is amended by adding a new paragraph that includes cumulative health
effects analysis in required burden reports for permitting.
3. Maryland: SB. 528 - An Act concerning Climate Solutions
Now Act of 2022
The Act calls for Maryland to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by 60% (compared to a 2006 baseline) by 2031 and for the Maryland economy to reach net-zero emissions by 2045. Threaded throughout the Act are provisions designed to reduce impacts on overburdened communities. For the first time, definitions are provided for those terms. The Act requires the Commission on Environmental Justice to establish goals for the percentage of state funding that will be used for these communities and to develop strategies for reducing GHG and co-pollutant emissions in those communities.
4. Vermont: SB.148 - An act relating to environmental
justice in Vermont
This bill proposes to establish an environmental justice policy for the State of Vermont and require the state agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their work. It would establish the Advisory Council on Environmental Justice within the Agency of Natural Resources to advise the state on environmental justice issues. It also would require the creation of an environmental justice mapping tool.
This table lists the title and status of all state CI legislation included in this tool. You can click on a title to navigate to a complete description of any piece of legislation. “Enacted” refers to any legislation that was made law, while “Introduced” refers to legislation that has not been adopted. In some cases the legislative body may have passed the bill in both chambers but it awaits the Governor’s signature, or sometimes the bill is introduced but never gets passed committees, etc…
Click on a title to navigate to a complete description any piece of legislation.
| State | Title | Status |
|---|---|---|
| California | SB-1000 | Enacted (2018) |
| AB-1550 | Enacted (2016) | |
| SB 673 | Enacted (2019) | |
| Hawaii | SB 1277 | Introduced(2021) |
| Illinois | HB4093 | Reintroduced (2021) |
| Maryland | SB 706 | Not Reintroduced (2014) |
| SB 693 | Not Reintroduced (2015) | |
| SB. 528 | Enacted (2022) | |
| Massachusetts | Bill S.817 | Not Reintroduced (2004) |
| S.2135 | Introduced (2021) | |
| Minnesota | SF. 2127 | Introduced (2021) |
| New Jersey | Environmental Justice and Cumulative Impact Ordinance | Enacted (2016) |
| S.232 | Enacted (2020) | |
| New York | NYDEC-Part 487 | Enacted (2012) |
| S6599 | Enacted (2019) | |
| S.1031C | Passed (2022) | |
| Vermont | SB.148 | Introduced (pending amendments) (2022) |
| Washington | SB5141 | (2019) |
This table includes a list of all the state reports and mapping tools included in this document. You can click on a title to navigate to a complete description of any report and mapping tool.
Click on a title to navigate to a complete description any report or tool.
This section contains the definitions of CI found on state policies and or reports (see Type subtitle), as well as the indicators, thresholds, and threshold calculations used for determining CI that are outlined in these policies/reports. The policies are organized by state, and chronologically for each state.
Authority: The Senate of Massachusetts
State: Massachusetts
Type: Legislation
Status: Not Reintroduced
Year: 2004
Definition:
Cumulative Impact is not defined. However, Section 5b, Notice to the
Department, states the department may designate areas near vulnerable
populations where certain projects, or the cumulative impact of
projects, require notice to the department when an environmental
notification is not required.
“Communities Health Index” is a cumulative evaluation of the health of communities based on health outcome indicators that ranks communities based on their health status so as to identify communities whose residents suffer disproportionately high rates of disease and premature death.
“Health Impact Assessment,” or “HIA,” is a combination of procedures, methods, and tools by which a regulation, program, or other project is assessed as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of those effects within the population. A HIA evaluates the potential health effects of a project before it is built or implemented. HIA encompasses a heterogeneous array of qualitative and quantitative methods and tools to focus on health impacts and outcomes. Health impacts and outcomes are the overall effects of a regulation, program, or other project, directly and indirectly, on the health of a population.
Social/Environmental Indicators:
A “most vulnerable community” is a community identified in the
communities health index (CHI) as being in the percentile of having the
worst health outcomes.
The Community Health Index (CHI) are based off of the following primary and secondary indicators for a most vulnerable community:
Primary indicators: total age adjusted mortality, total age adjusted emergency room visits, elevated blood lead levels in children age 13 and younger, asthma and asthma-related hospital admissions or prevalence in children age 14 and younger, and infant mortality
Secondary indicators: total age adjusted non-congenital cardiovascular disease and stroke morbidity, total age adjusted heart attack hospitalizations, total age adjusted stroke and stroke-related hospitalizations, and bronchitis and bronchitis-related hospitalizations in children age 14 and younger and adults age 65 and older
Other indicators: other health outcome indicators, and environmental indicators (such as elevated levels of particulate matter in the air)
Thresholds:
Community Health Index Thresholds
A community in the top 50th percentile of the index for poor health
outcomes is determined to have the worst health outcomes and deemed to
be most vulnerable. The department may adjust the percentile up or down
by no more than 10% to identify the communities with the worst health
outcomes in the commonwealth.
As part of the expedited and Enhanced Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Review included in Bill S.817 the following actions shall be taken by the secretary of environmental affairs:
Develop enhanced public participation for any project that requires an environmental notification for air, solid and hazardous waste, other than remediation projects, or wastewater and sewage sludge treatment and disposal, if
Threshold Calculations:
The department shall adopt regulations to implement the community health
disparities program and create a Community Health Index (p.4 line
56-58). Threshold values will be based off of commonwealth rates (See
Section 4 of the Bill for Commonwealth Rate Thresholds).
For the purpose of creating community health index: • community shall include 10,000 residents, or less than will be clustered with contiguous municipalities to create a combined 10,000, and no more than 100,000 residents. • community shall not exceed 100,000 residents or department shall divide municipality into geographically contiguous communities (GCC) of 10,000 to 50,000 residents • department may divide municipalities of 50,000 - 100,000 into GCC of 10,000 to 50,000 residents if there are distinct differences in indicators within areas of the municipality
Purpose/Application:
Environmental & Protective
Enhance participation plan, establish a community health disparities program, and create a communities health index
Authority: Massachusetts State Senate
State: Massachusetts
Type: Legislation
Status: Introduced
Year: 2021
Definition:
The cumulative impact assessment seeks to demonstrate that there is no
adverse public health, environmental, or climate impact to the impacted
communities; it is consistent with the policies stated in section
sixty-nine H to provide a necessary energy supply for the commonwealth
with a minimum impact on the environment at lowest possible cost.
The environmental justice impact statement demonstrates a finding of
environmental and energy benefits to the impacted environmental justice
populations without any environmental or energy burden.
Social/Environmental Indicators:
A petition to construct a generating facility shall include: (i) a
description of the environmental impacts and the costs associated with
the mitigation, control, or reduction of the environmental impacts of
the proposed generating facility (ii) a description of the project
development and site selection process used in choosing the design and
location of the proposed generating facility (iii) either (a) evidence
that the expected emissions from the facility meet the technology
performance standard in effect at the time of filing, or (b) a
description of the environmental impacts, costs, and reliability of
other fossil fuel generating technologies (iv) an environmental justice
impact statement detailing all potential impacts to environmental
justice populations as defined in section 62 of chapter 30 (v) impacts
of the facility with respect to mitigating climate change (vi) plans for
the facility to adapt to a changing climate including current and future
flooding, storm surges, and sea level rise (vii) public health impacts
of the proposed facility (viii) a cumulative impact assessment that
considers an exposure, public health or environmental risk, or other
effect occurring in a specific geographical area, including from any
environmental pollution emitted or released routinely, accidentally, or
otherwise, from any source, and assessed based on the combined past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable emissions and discharges affecting
the geographical area
Thresholds:
No specific thresholds mentioned in bill text. There is currently (April
2022) a stakeholder engagement process going on for on incorporating
cumulative impact analysis (CIA) in its review of applications for
certain categories of air permits and approvals, that includes the
review of thresholds and methodologies.
Threshold Calculations:
No specific threshold calculations mentioned. Yet, as a method for
environmental justice impact statement, it is recommended to compare the
proposed site to other potential sites that do not impact environmental
justice populations.
Purpose/Application:
Protective
Authority: New Mexico Environment Department
State: New Mexico
Type: Report
Year: 2004
Definition:
CI are described as multiple sources of exposure to environmental
hazards in low income and people of color communities in which the roles
of multiple agencies should require an inter-agency response in
addressing the causes and factors that compromise environmental health
and quality of life in these communities.
The report recommends that NM laws/regulations should include assessments of CI for both existing and proposed facilities to accurately reflect impacts on public health and safety.
Social/Environmental Indicators:
Consider demographics, social impacts, secondary impacts, nuisance
impacts (e.g., noise, odor), impacts to cultural and traditional uses of
the impacted area; impacts to vulnerable populations, such as the ill,
children and the elderly; known future land uses; proper emergency
response, such as capacity of fire department; water quantity and
quality impacts of the facility
Thresholds:
No specific thresholds mentioned.
Threshold Calculations:
No specific threshold calculations mentioned.
Purpose/Application:
Environmental & Protective
As part of the NM EJ toolkit: encourage partners to undertake community
characterization projects and analysis; draft qualitative frameworks to
evaluate EJ (such as surveys, community impact statements, comparative
assessment, findings and recommendations); develop qualitative review
guidelines for environmental health, socio-economic, and other quality
of life indicators
Environmental Benefits Districts (EBD) are recommended and described. EDBs could achieve the following results: increased environmental protection via coordinated effort and attention; better assessment and evaluation of community concerns (i.e., characterizations of health, environment, quality of life); community-based planning; stabilization of neighborhoods, homes, and jobs; less programmatic and regulatory fragmentation; less contestations; comprehensive response to community concerns; improved economic development in communities; and enhanced quality of life through a vision of land-use and growth that encourages environmental protection and economic development which the community supports.
State: Hawaii
Type: Report
Year: 2008
Definition:
Cumulative and indirect impacts can be determined by combining past,
present, and future impacts with the impacts of the proposed project.
The report notes that these impacts may affect the cultural, health, and
occupation-related aspects of underrepresented populations, discussed
further in the ‘Social and environmental indicators’ section.
The general definition of characterizing CI in terms of the chemical and
physical environment is also noted. Consideration of community
dependence on natural resources from the perspective of cultural values
in addition to economic base (tourism and/or agriculture) is
recommended. Some elements to support this point include:
What are the emotional and/or spiritual impacts on the fourth generation who has grown up in an environment surrounded by dumps?
Impacts are defined differently, depending on one’s perspective or cultural viewpoint. From a Western mindset, for example, the impacts are monetary–the cost will be passed down the line. From an indigenous perspective, the land is worth something.
Social/Environmental Indicators:
Some suggested cultural, health, and occupation-related factors
include:
Additional factors to inform indicators were mentioned, such as: air emissions, diversion of water/water rights, non-point source pollution, cesspools/septic systems and golf course chemicals that impact groundwater quality, over development of resorts, tourism marketing that is racist and exploits the culture, tourism that creates service jobs that do not pay high enough wages for residents to afford decent housing, diesel and gasoline in the water, etc.
Thresholds:
Low-income populations should be identified with the annual statistical
poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau’s Current Population reports,
Series P-60 on Income and Poverty.
Annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on income and poverty
Threshold Calculations:
No specific threshold calculations mentioned.
Purpose/Application:
Environmental & Protective
(Related to permitting, but this is only a guidance document)
Guidance on identifying EJ target populations and impacts, also an
outline for a community-involvement methodology is presented. Targeted
at ensuring that principles of environmental justice are systematically
included in all phases of the environmental review process (for
permitting).
Description of Graphic:
Example of CBA relationships during meetings for the neighborhoods
surrounding the proposed project to discuss its impact and determining
“give back”