Are hunters and conservationists on this forum aware that skin color and ethnicity are important considerations by the Biden Adminstration and state governments for distribution of billions of dollars of public funding including funding directly tied to conservation?
Do hunters think skin color or ethnicity should play a role in the allocation of public funding?
Executive Order issued by the Biden Administration requires 40% of all funding from several incredibly large omnibus spending packages such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act to go to environmental justice communities.
Known as Justice40, many states have developed and started to implement an environmental justice screening tool in order to accomodate the 40% EJ funding allocation requirement and receive funds from these enormous federal spending packages in addition to each states own environmental justice program.
Among the criteria for consideration as an environmental justice community is a demographic analysis that ranks a geographical area by the number of non-hispanic whites or people of color residing there. While it is possible to be considered an environmental justice community for other reasons, skin color is one criteria through which funding priority is allocated. For every 1 dollar allocated through these large federally funded programs, a MINIMUM of 40 cents must go to benefitting these environmental justice communities (Figure attached from Whitehouse Framework document).
Using WA as an example and EPAs map for a federal example:
Washington: Washington has gotten a lot of attention for its attacks on hunting and wildlife conservation. Washington in some ways is further along the path of environmental justice implementation than even places like California.
Washingtons Environmental Justice Mapping tool is located here: https://doh.wa.gov/data-and-statist...shington-environmental-health-disparities-map
Here is the direct link for the reason of including race/ethnicity as a criteria for prioritization of funding in WA: https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/wtn/WTNPortal#!q0=4707
Here is the description provided by the state of Washington showing this map provides data relevant to funding decision making:
"Health Disparities Map is an interactive mapping tool that compares communities across our state for environmental health disparities.
The map shows pollution measures such as diesel emissions and ozone, as well as proximity to hazardous waste sites. In addition, it displays measures like poverty and cardiovascular disease.
The map also provides new and rigorous insights into where public investments can be prioritized to buffer environmental health impacts on Washington's communities, so that everyone can benefit from clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment."
EPA map:
Plenty more information is available on this subject but I do not want make this post any longer. You can check your own states to see what information is available on funding allocation through this criteria.
Do hunters think skin color or ethnicity should play a role in the allocation of public funding?
Executive Order issued by the Biden Administration requires 40% of all funding from several incredibly large omnibus spending packages such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act to go to environmental justice communities.
Known as Justice40, many states have developed and started to implement an environmental justice screening tool in order to accomodate the 40% EJ funding allocation requirement and receive funds from these enormous federal spending packages in addition to each states own environmental justice program.
Among the criteria for consideration as an environmental justice community is a demographic analysis that ranks a geographical area by the number of non-hispanic whites or people of color residing there. While it is possible to be considered an environmental justice community for other reasons, skin color is one criteria through which funding priority is allocated. For every 1 dollar allocated through these large federally funded programs, a MINIMUM of 40 cents must go to benefitting these environmental justice communities (Figure attached from Whitehouse Framework document).
Using WA as an example and EPAs map for a federal example:
Washington: Washington has gotten a lot of attention for its attacks on hunting and wildlife conservation. Washington in some ways is further along the path of environmental justice implementation than even places like California.
Washingtons Environmental Justice Mapping tool is located here: https://doh.wa.gov/data-and-statist...shington-environmental-health-disparities-map
Here is the direct link for the reason of including race/ethnicity as a criteria for prioritization of funding in WA: https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/wtn/WTNPortal#!q0=4707
Here is the description provided by the state of Washington showing this map provides data relevant to funding decision making:
"Health Disparities Map is an interactive mapping tool that compares communities across our state for environmental health disparities.
The map shows pollution measures such as diesel emissions and ozone, as well as proximity to hazardous waste sites. In addition, it displays measures like poverty and cardiovascular disease.
The map also provides new and rigorous insights into where public investments can be prioritized to buffer environmental health impacts on Washington's communities, so that everyone can benefit from clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment."
EPA map:
Plenty more information is available on this subject but I do not want make this post any longer. You can check your own states to see what information is available on funding allocation through this criteria.
