Environmental Justice Outreach Report · Public Involvement Techniques ... in the early stages of the project with reasonable and full public access to information, key decisions,

Environmental Justice Identification

and

Proposed Outreach Report

Georgia State Transportation Improvement Program

Fiscal Year 2007-2009 &

Fiscal Year 2008-2011

Georgia Department of Transportation

December 2006

Prepared by:

Sycamore Consulting, Inc.

Environmental Justice Outreach Report, 2007 – 2009 STIP


Page 2 December 2006




TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 4

II. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 5

III. Findings ............................................................................................................................. 9

Overview ............................................................................................................................... 9

Rural GDOT District Summaries ...................................................................................... 14

District 1 (NE Georgia) .................................................................................................. 15

District 2 (E. Central Georgia) ...................................................................................... 17

District 3 (W. Central Georgia) ..................................................................................... 19

District 4 (SW Georgia).................................................................................................. 21

District 5 (SE Georgia) .................................................................................................. 23

District 6 (NW Georgia) ................................................................................................. 25

IV. Outreach Plan ................................................................................................................. 27

Process Documentation ..................................................................................................... 27

Public Involvement Techniques ........................................................................................ 28

Public Involvement Plan Evaluation ................................................................................ 36

V. References ......................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix A. Areas of Consideration ................................................................................. 38

Appendix B. District Maps .................................................................................................. 43

Appendix C. District Data Summaries .............................................................................. 56




I. Purpose

Federal legislation requires that each state produce a State Transportation Improvement

Program (STIP). The STIP lists federally funded projects for the next three years, and is

updated and approved on an annual basis.

A major component of the STIP development process is public involvement. In the fifteen

metropolitan areas of the state, public involvement is the responsibility of the local

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in developing local Transportation

Improvement Programs (TIPs). MPO areas are shown as ―excluded counties‖ in Figure 1.

The Office of Planning coordinates the STIP public involvement process for the six rural

GDOT Districts and distributes the STIP to the Districts for use in their public meetings and

consultation with rural elected officials.

The FHWA and FTA regulations provide guidance on statewide planning processes in 23

CFR 450. Specific reference to public involvement is made in section 450.322(c). It states

that there must be adequate opportunity for public officials, elected officials, agency

representatives, citizens and other interested parties to be involved in the development of the

transportation plan. The procedures stipulate that involvement take place in the early stages

of the plan development process. The procedures also require publication and availability of

the plan for public review and comment. For statewide projects, which can include

metropolitan and rural areas, public involvement should be proactive. It should be initiated

in the early stages of the project with reasonable and full public access to information, key

decisions, and opportunities for involvement throughout the life of the project.

The Georgia Department of Transportation conducts public involvement open houses and

public hearing open houses under procedures described in The Plan Development Process in

the Department‘s Manual of Guidance, Section 4055-1 on Public Involvement, and the

Official Code of Georgia Annotated. Additionally, GDOT has adopted a comprehensive

Public Involvement Plan and a Public Involvement Policy. These documents represent a

conscious effort to create proactive programs and initiatives that form additional partnerships

and provide greater opportunities to involve residents and other stakeholders in transportation

planning and project development.

Ultimately, public involvement in the transportation planning process leads to better planning

outcomes. As such, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) makes every effort

to include the public in all facets of its planning process. The process includes identifying

environmental justice (EJ) populations.

U.S. Executive Order 12898 defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and

meaningful involvement of all people—regardless of race, ethnicity, income or education

level—in transportation decision making. This report identifies the characteristics and

locations of environmental justice populations in the GDOT rural STIP area and outlines

outreach strategies to involve everyone equally in the planning process.




II. Methodology

This section describes the methodology employed in defining and identifying environmental

justice populations in the GDOT STIP area. The rural STIP area consists of the 129 counties

in Georgia that are not under the purview of a metropolitan planning organization (MPO).

(There are 30 counties included in MPO areas.) Figure 1 displays all the counties in Georgia

and demarcates the study area.

To guide the environmental justice outreach program, a quantitative analysis of racial, ethnic,

income, and age demographics was conducted. The populations analyzed were the African-

American, Hispanic, low-income, and elderly communities in the rural STIP area.

Additionally, a survey of transportation corridors was conducted to identify where safety, air

pollution, and noise problems exist to capture where transportation problems overlap with EJ

populations.

Upon selecting these variables for study, data for each of the 598 Census tracts in the 129

counties in the STIP study area were collected from the U.S. Census website

(http://www.census.gov). Relevant data from the 2000 Census includes the following

(collected at the tract level): total population, total African-American population, total

Hispanic population, total population below the poverty level, and total population age 65

and above. Each variable was then calculated as a percentage of the total population of each

tract. Additionally, each variable was calculated as a percentage of the total population for

each county and as a percentage of the total population for the entire rural STIP study area.

Within the large rural area of the State of Georgia that was considered, an average percentage

for each variable was calculated. This percentage was used as the threshold above which a

Census tract level population was considered an ―EJ population‖. Where a Census tract‘s

percentage on a variable meets or exceeds the expected STIP-wide percentage, the Census

tract is identified as an EJ community. In other words, these tracts have a larger-than-

average percentage of African-Americans, Hispanics, low-income residents, or elderly

residents. Throughout this report, the terms ―EJ community‖ or ―EJ population‖ refer to a

group that is above the STIP-wide threshold. See Table 1 for the EJ thresholds based on

STIP-wide population characteristics.

Table 1. Environmental Justice Thresholds

African-

American Hispanic

Low-

Income

Elderly

(65+)

STIP-wide

Percentage 23.9% 2.9% 15.5% 11.8%

Source: 2000 U.S. Census and Sycamore Consulting, Inc.

Telephone interviews with the GDOT Planning & Programming Engineer in each rural STIP

district added an additional layer of information to the Census data. The district interviews

bolstered the quantitative analysis with information about previous outreach to environmental

justice populations, including logistical information such as possible meeting places and




databases of community contacts. This information provided a richer, more localized

snapshot of the environmental justice issues particular to a district and was incorporated with

the quantitative data supporting the Environmental Justice Outreach Program. Please see

Figure 2 for a map of GDOT districts.

One element of the interviews was a survey of the safety, air quality, and noise problems on

district transportation corridors. Assessing transportation corridors in conjunction with

demographic data identifies locations where transportation problems, in addition to

demographic patterns, might indicate a particularly sensitive population. This method of

combining demographic data with corridor characteristics to locate sensitive EJ populations

is modeled after the ―Environmental Justice Module‖ described by Karen K. Dixon, Ph.D. in

a technical paper on environmental justice identification in transportation planning.1

1 Dixon, Karen K. ―Environmental Justice Module Proposed Analysis Approach for the Multi-modal

Transportation Analysis Tool.‖




Figure 1. Georgia Counties and Rural STIP Study Area




Figure 2. Georgia DOT Districts




III. Findings

Overview

Environmental justice populations were identified across the rural STIP area. African-

American environmental justice (EJ) populations tend to be concentrated in the eastern,

south-central, and southwestern parts of the state, encompassing GDOT Districts 2, 3, and 4

(see Figure 3). Hispanic EJ populations are concentrated in Districts 1, 4, and 5 (see Figure

4). Low-income EJ populations are widespread, encompassing large portions of Districts 2,

3, 4, and 5 (See Figure 5). Lastly, elderly EJ populations are scattered across the rural STIP

area, with concentrations in Districts 1, 2, and 4 (See Figure 6).

Some areas in the state are particularly affected, having populations above the EJ threshold

on more than one variable. For example, Districts 2, 3, and 4 have areas with both a low-

income EJ population and an African-American EJ population. These districts also have a

combination of low-income and elderly EJ populations. An area of low-income and Hispanic

EJ populations straddles the border of Districts 2 and 5. Additionally, there are thirty-seven

tracts that have EJ populations on all four variables; the majority of these can be found

throughout Districts 2, 3, and 4.

Overall, a clear geographic pattern of EJ populations can be seen. Three districts – 2, 3, and

4 – have large African-American, low-income, and elderly EJ populations. Each GDOT

district, however, has unique EJ outreach needs. The following section provides an

individual look at each of the six rural districts included in this study.

For environmental justice analysis, it is important to not only determine where populations

are above the EJ thresholds but also the degree to which they are above the threshold. This is

important because the implications for public outreach are different, for example, between a

Hispanic population constituting 4% of a census tract (slightly above the EJ threshold) and

one constituting 24% of a census tract (much higher than the EJ threshold). As such, in

addition to merely determining the EJ status of a population, each was placed in one of four

classes, denoted Class I, Class II, Class III, or Class IV. A Class I population is only slightly

higher than the EJ threshold, while a Class IV population is much higher.




Figure 3. African-American EJ Populations




Figure 4. Hispanic EJ Populations




Figure 5. Low-Income EJ Populations




Figure 6. Elderly EJ Populations




Rural GDOT District Summaries

This section narrows the EJ analysis from the entire rural STIP area to the district level,

providing two sets of information for each rural district. First, a summary of environmental

justice populations based on Census data is provided for each district, including the location

and intensity of the populations. Second, information obtained during the interviews with

GDOT district Planning & Programming Engineers was compiled into a summary of the

public involvement outreach techniques employed previously by each district.

As mentioned previously, in addition to merely determining the EJ status of a population,

each was placed in one of four classes, denoted Class I, Class II, Class III, or Class IV. A

Class I population is only slightly higher than the EJ threshold, while a Class IV population

is much higher.

These ranges were determined using ―natural breaks‖ to separate the tracts with populations

above the EJ threshold into four classes. The value of each class above the EJ threshold was

calculated using an algorithm called ‗Jenks' Optimization‘ to group the data into classes. The

algorithm selects groups of data that minimize internal error and place breaks within large

gaps in the data. The natural breaks algorithm is the default selection method for ArcGIS and

best presents the data in this report. Table 2 shows the natural breaks for each class of each

variable.

Table 2. Environmental Justice Class Natural Breaks

Class I Class II Class III Class IV

African-

American

23.9% - 36.2% 36.2% - 49.0% 49.0% - 64.8% 64.8% - 94.4%

Hispanic 2.9% - 6.3% 6.3% - 11.5% 11.5% - 19.2% 19.2% - 30.2%

Low-Income 15.5% - 20.2% 20.2% - 25.7% 25.7% - 34.5% 34.5% - 54.9%

Elderly 11.8% - 13.5% 13.5% - 15.6% 15.6% - 19.1% 19.1% - 28.4% Source: 2000 U.S. Census and Sycamore Consulting, Inc.




District 1 (NE Georgia)

District 1, in northeastern Georgia, consists of 21 counties, beginning directly northeast of

the Atlanta metro area and stretching to the Tennessee and South Carolina borders. Five

counties in District 1 are under the purview of a metropolitan planning organization and

therefore not included in the rural STIP study area, leaving 16 in this assessment. Please

refer to Appendix B for a visual representation of the findings described below.

African-American EJ Populations___________________________________________

African-American EJ populations are not frequent in District 1, as only 11% of tracts have

African-American populations above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows no Class IV tracts

and one Class III tract located in Elbert County (town of Elberton). There are two Class II

tracts located in Walton County (town of Monroe) and six Class I tracts located in Barrow,

Elbert, Hart, and Walton Counties.

Hispanic EJ Populations___________________________________________________

Hispanic EJ populations appear with low frequency in District 1, as 23% of tracts have a

Hispanic population above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows one Class IV tract located

in Habersham County (Cornelia/Demorest) and zero Class III tracts. There are three Class II

tracts located in Habersham and Rabun Counties and 16 Class I tracts located in ten counties:

Banks, Barrow, Elbert, Habersham, Jackson, Lumpkin, Madison, Rabun, Towns, and

Walton.

Low-Income EJ Populations________________________________________________

Low-Income EJ populations are not frequent in District 1, as 17% of tracts have a low-

income population above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows zero Class IV or III tracts.

There are six Class II tracts located in Elbert, Hart, Lumpkin, Stephens, and Walton Counties

and seven Class I tracts located in Banks, Elbert, Franklin, Habersham, Hart and Walton

Counties.

Elderly EJ Populations____________________________________________________

The elderly population is the most significant EJ population in District 1, as 63% of tracts

contain elderly populations above the EJ threshold. This is likely due to the large retirement

community in the district. The analysis shows ten Class IV tracts in Jackson, Rabun,

Stephens, Towns, Union, and White Counties. Additionally, eleven Class III tracts are

located in Elbert, Franklin, Habersham, Hart, Rabun, Stephens, and Walton Counties. There

are 12 Class II tracts and 14 Class I tracts in the district.

Areas of Combined EJ Populations___________________________________________

In the District 1 towns of Elberton (Elbert County) and Monroe (Walton County), EJ

populations on all four variables are present. The combination of African-American and

low-income EJ populations exists in five tracts in Elbert, Hart, and Walton Counties. The

combination of Hispanic and low-income EJ populations exist in four tracts across Elbert,

Habersham, Lumpkin, and Walton Counties. Additionally, ten tracts with a combination of




elderly and low-income populations exist in seven District 1 counties. Most notably, a tract

in the town of Toccoa (Stephens County) contains a Class IV elderly population and Class I

and Class II low-income populations.

Previous Outreach Strategies_______________________________________________

The outreach methods generally used in District 1 include advertising in newspapers such as

the White County News-Telegraph, occasional radio ads, and placing signs at the roadside

near the meeting locations.

There are no locally specific databases available from District 1 for use in outreach efforts. It

was suggested that targeting the senior citizen centers in each county and inquiring with local

chambers of commerce and newspapers for databases of churches and schools would be

useful. Unique communities that have shown recent interest in the STIP (and/or may have

latent interest) include bicyclists, motorcyclists, and the RV clubs in the area.

Previous public meetings in District 1 have generally been held in school gymnasiums, while

the District office has been used in a very limited role. Schools and county administration

offices such as the Department of Driver Services, courthouse, and county commissioners‘

office are likely well-known to the local community and could be used as public involvement

venues in the future. Additionally, although not previously used, colleges in the area such as

Temple Piedmont College in Demorest and North Georgia Technical College in Clarkesville,

may also serve as good meeting places.




District 2 (E. Central Georgia)

District 2 consists of 31 counties to the southeast of the Atlanta metro area, stretching to the

South Carolina border. One county in District 2 is under the purview of a metropolitan

planning organization and therefore not included in the rural STIP study area, leaving 30 in

this assessment. Please refer to Appendix B for a visual representation of the findings

described below.

African-American EJ Populations___________________________________________ The African-American population is the greatest EJ population in District 2, as 69% of all

tracts in the district have African-American populations above the EJ threshold. The analysis

shows nine Class IV tracts located in Baldwin, Burke, Hancock, Jefferson, and Laurens

Counties. Twenty-one Class III tracts are found in Bleckley, Burke, Greene, Hancock,

Jefferson, Johnson, Laurens, McDuffie, Newton, Putnam, Taliaferro, Warren, Washington,

and Wilkinson Counties. Washington County has four tracts of its own. The analysis also

shows 30 Class II tracts across 14 counties and 27 Class I tracts across 12 counties.

Columbia County is the only county in District 2 with zero African-American EJ

populations.

Hispanic EJ Populations___________________________________________________ Hispanic EJ populations are not frequent in District 2, as only 13% of tracts have a Hispanic

population above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows zero Class IV or III populations.

There are two Class II tracts located in Greene and Columbia Counties. Additionally, there

are 14 Class I tracts across nine counties.


Low-income EJ populations are a significant category in District 2, as 55% of tracts have a

low-income population above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows three Class IV tracts in

Laurens and Burke Counties and seventeen Class III tracts in Burke, Emanuel, Greene,

Hancock, Jefferson, Jenkins, Screven, Warren, and Washington Counties. Additionally,

twenty-three Class II tracts are found across 17 counties, and 29 Class I tracts exist in 16

different counties.


Elderly EJ populations are also a significant category in District 2, as 54% of tracts have an

elderly population above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows three Class IV tracts in

Columbia, Laurens, and Warren Counties. Twelve Class III tracts exist in Bleckley, Dodge,

Glascock, Greene, Johnson, Laurens, Lincoln, Newton, Putnam, Wilkes, and Wilkinson

Counties. Additionally, 31 Class II tracts are found in 17 counties and 25 Class I EJ tracts

are found in 17 counties.


District 2 has several areas for consideration. The analysis shows seven tracts (6%) with EJ

populations for each variable, located in Emanuel, Greene, Jenkins, Newton, and Wilkes




Counties. A combination of African-American and Hispanic EJ populations can be found in

ten tracts in Baldwin, Emanuel, Greene, Jenkins, Newton, Screven, and Wilkes Counties.

The combination of African-American and low-income EJ populations is very frequent,

occurring in 67 tracts across 26 counties (particularly Burke and Laurens Counties). The

combination of Hispanic and low-income EJ populations is found in ten tracts across six

counties (particularly Emanuel County). Finally, the combination of elderly and low-income

EJ populations is frequent, occurring in 43 tracts across 21 counties.


In the past, District 2 has held STIP meetings in local malls, including Augusta Mall, Dublin

Mall, and Milledgeville Mall. The meetings consisted of an informational display hosted by

District 2 engineers for an entire day. Using this method, District 2 capitalized on existing

foot traffic. Beyond the Family of Partners database, District 2 does not have any local

databases of community contacts. Historically, public STIP meetings have been advertised

in press releases and by passing out meeting flyers door-to-door.




District 3 (W. Central Georgia)

District 3 consists of 31 counties to the southwest of the Atlanta metro area. Seven counties

in District 3 are under the purview of a metropolitan planning organization and therefore not

included in the rural STIP study area, leaving 24 in this assessment. The District is located to

the southwest of the Atlanta metro area, stretching to the Alabama border. Please refer to

Appendix B for a visual representation of the findings described below.

African-American EJ Populations___________________________________________ The EJ population of significance for District 3 is the African-American population, as 72%

of all tracts in the district are above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows six Class IV tracts

in Peach, Macon, Stewart, Sumter, Talbot, and Troup Counties. Twenty Class III tracts can

be found across Crawford, Dooly, Macon, Marion, Meriwether, Peach, Stewart, Sumter,

Talbot, Troup, Twiggs, Upson, and Webster Counties. Additionally, there are 18 Class II

tracts in 11 counties and 26 Class I tracts in 16 District 3 counties. Heard County is the only

county in the district with zero African-American EJ tracts.

Hispanic EJ Populations___________________________________________________ Hispanic EJ populations are relatively infrequent in District 3, as 21% of tracts have a

Hispanic population above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows zero Class IV tracts and one

Class III tract, located in Chattahoochee County. There are four Class II tracts found in

Marion, Peach, and Sumter Counties. Fifteen Class I tracts exist across 11 counties.


Low-income populations are frequent in District 3, as 52% of tracts are above the EJ

threshold. The analysis shows one Class IV tract located in Peach County and seven Class

III tracts found in Macon, Marion, Peach, Sumter, Taylor, and Troup Counties. There are 18

Class II tracts in 12 counties and 24 Class I tracts in 15 counties.


Elderly EJ populations are frequent in District, as 52% of tracts have an elderly population

above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows three Class IV tracts located in Mason, Stewart,

and Upson Counties. There are 13 Class III tracts across Dooly, Harris, Macon, Meriwether,

Peach, Pulaski, Stewart, Sumter, Talbot, and Troup Counties. Additionally, there are 17

Class II tracts in 11 counties and 18 Class I tracts across 10 counties. There are three

counties with no elderly EJ populations at all: Chattahoochee, Pike, and Schley.


There are areas for consideration in District 3. Most notably, eight tracts (8%) across six

counties – Dooly, Marion, Pulaski, Sumter, Troup, and Webster – have populations above the

EJ threshold on all four variables. In addition to this, a combination of African-American

and Hispanic EJ populations can be found in 20 tracts across 13 counties. A combination of

African-American and low-income EJ populations can be found in 47 tracts across 19

counties (with a particularly high frequency in Sumter and Troup Counties). These 47 tracts




represent 49% of all tracts in District 3. A combination of Hispanic and low-income EJ

populations exists in 14 tracts across 9 counties (it should be noted that all 14 of these tracts

contain African-American EJ populations as well). Finally, a combination of elderly and

low-income EJ populations can be found in 32 tracts across 15 counties (with a particularly

high frequency in Troup County).


In the past, District 3 has specifically targeted EJ populations in its public involvement

process. The participation of the African-American community in District 3 has been low,

despite specifically targeting it via newspapers (especially ad-related papers like the Thrifty

Nickel) and postcards. Outreach to the Hispanic community has been done with Spanish

language signage and an interpreter, though participation of Hispanic attendees has been

limited. To target the low-income community, postcards, bilingual signage, area newspapers,

the DFACS office, and ads on rural transit buses have previously been employed. For the

elderly community, no specific outreach has been conducted in the past. Beyond the GDOT

Family of Partners database, no local database of community contacts is available in District

3.

District 3 has used a variety of different venues in the past for public meetings. In addition to

malls, the senior center in Marion County, Flint River Technical College in Upson County,

and the Plains High School historical site in Sumter County have been used. The District 3

Planning and Programming Engineer‘s opinion on locating meetings is to place them in the

MPO area because, in his experience, rural residents are attracted to the MPO area for the

opportunity to combine a public meeting with other activities such as shopping. This may

improve public attendance.




District 4 (SW Georgia)

District 4 consists of 31 counties in the southwestern corner of Georgia. Two counties in

District 4 are under the purview of a metropolitan planning organization and therefore not

included in the rural STIP study area, leaving 29 in this assessment. Please refer to Appendix

B for a visual representation of the findings described below.

African-American EJ Populations___________________________________________ There are significant African-American EJ populations in District 4, as 60% of all district

tracts have African-American populations above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows that 5

Class IV tract exist in Decatur, Mitchell, Terrell, Thomas, and Tift Counties. There are 26

Class III tracts across 18 counties: Baker, Brooks, Calhoun, Clay, Colquitt, Crisp, Decatur,

Early, Grady, Mitchell, Quitman, Randolph, Seminole, Terrell, Thomas, Tift, Turner, and

Worth Counties. Additionally, twenty Class II tracts can be found in 16 counties, while 28

Class I tracts exist across 19 counties. Compared to other districts with greater

concentrations of multiple EJ tracts, the EJ tracts in District 4 appear to be situated less

densely.

Hispanic EJ Populations___________________________________________________ Hispanic EJ populations are a moderately significant category in District 4, as 40% of tracts

have an Hispanic population above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows three Class IV

tracts in Tift, Colquitt, and Echols Counties and seven Class III tracts in Atkinson (3 tracts),

Coffee, Colquitt, and Echols Counties. Additionally, 14 Class II tracts exist across six

counties and 29 Class I tracts are found across 17 counties.


Low-income EJ populations are a major category for District 4, as 71% of all tracts in the

district have populations above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows five Class IV tracts in

Clay, Mitchell, Thomas, and Tift Counties and 19 Class III tracts across 15 counties.

Additionally, there are 41 Class II tracts across 24 counties and 28 Class I tracts in 20

counties. With a large number of Class III and IV tracts dispersed broadly across the district,

the low-income EJ population in District 4 is significant.


The elderly EJ population in District 4 is also a significant category, as 64% of all tracts have

populations above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows six Class IV tracts in Miller, Clay,

Early, Quitman, Thomas, and Wilcox Counties and 21 Class III tracts distributed across 17

counties: Clay, Baker, Ben Hill, Berrien, Brooks, Calhoun, Coffee, Crisp, Decatur, Early,

Mitchell, Quitman, Randolph, Seminole, Thomas, Tift, and Wilcox Counties. Additionally,

there are 27 Class II tracts across 12 counties and 30 Class I tracts in 18 counties. The

analysis shows that Class I and II tracts are more concentrated in fewer counties, while Class

III and IV tracts are more isolated from each other across a number of counties.





There are areas of special consideration in District 4. Most notably, 14 tracts (11%) in 9

counties – Baker, Ben Hill, Colquitt, Crisp, Decatur, Grady, Seminole, Thomas, and Turner

Counties have populations above the EJ threshold on all four variables. In addition, a

combination of African-American and Hispanic EJ populations exists in 24 tracts across 13

counties. A combination of African-American and low-income EJ populations is found in 67

tracts across 28 counties. In fact, only 12 tracts in District 4 have an African-American EJ

population but no low-income EJ population. A combination of Hispanic and low-income EJ

populations is found in 38 tracts across 18 counties. Finally, a combination of elderly and

low-income EJ populations can be found in 67 tracts across 25 counties. In fact, all but 17

tracts combine an elderly and low-income EJ population.


In the past, District 4 has targeted EJ populations in its public involvement process. Ads on

the rural transit systems are used to target African-American, low-income, and elderly

populations. However, Spanish language ads have not previously been posted and public

involvement opportunities have not been advertised via newspapers or mailings.

Traditionally, District 4 holds three STIP meetings at area malls in an open-house format that

allows them to capitalize on existing foot traffic.




District 5 (SE Georgia)

District 5 consists of 24 counties in the southeastern portion of Georgia, including all coastal

counties. Three counties in District 5 are under the purview of a metropolitan planning

organization and therefore not included in the rural STIP study area, leaving 21 in this

assessment. Please refer to Appendix B for a visual representation of the findings described

below.

African-American EJ Populations___________________________________________ African-American EJ populations are a moderately significant category in District 5, as 44%

of all tracts in the district contain populations above the EJ threshold. However, the analysis

shows that there are relatively few Class III and IV populations; two Class IV tracts are

located in Ware County and one Class III tract exists in Bulloch County. Additionally, 11

Class II tracts can be found in nine counties and 25 Class I tracts exist across 12 counties.

Hispanic EJ Populations___________________________________________________ Hispanic populations are also a moderately significant category in District 5, as 46% of all

tracts in the district contain populations above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows zero

Class IV tracts and seven Class III tracts located in four counties: Candler, Long, Tattnall,

and Toombs. Additionally, there are nine Class II tracts across seven counties and 25 Class I

tracts in 12 counties.


Low-income EJ populations are the most significant category in District 5, as the analysis

shows that 69% of all district tracts have low-income populations above the EJ threshold.

Four Class IV tracts can be found in Bulloch, Toombs, and Ware Counties and eight Class III

tracts are present in Bacon, Bulloch, Candler, Evans, Toombs, Ware, and Wheeler Counties.

Additionally, 15 Class II tracts exist across 11 counties and 35 Class I tracts are in 20

counties.


Elderly EJ populations occur with moderate frequency in District 5, with 43% of tracts

having an elderly population above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows three Class IV

tracts, all in Ware County, and 10 Class III tracts across eight counties. Additionally, there

are 10 Class II tracts across nine counties and 16 Class I tracts found in 11 counties.

Areas of Combined EJ Populations ___________________________________________

There are areas for consideration in for District 5. Most notably, nine tracts (10%) in seven

counties have populations above the EJ threshold on all four variables. Additionally, a

combination of African-American and Hispanic EJ populations exists in 18 tracts across nine

counties (particularly Toombs and Ware). A combination of African-American and low-

income EJ populations exists in 33 tracts across 17 counties (particularly Bulloch and Ware).

A combination of Hispanic and low-income EJ populations can be found in 30 tracts across




17 counties. Finally, a combination of elderly and low-income EJ populations is found in 33

tracts across 17 counties.


District 5 traditionally holds one annual STIP meeting at the district office in Jesup, Wayne

County. Advertising consists of English-language advertisements in the local legal organs.

Historically, the only attendees at the meetings are elected officials.




District 6 (NW Georgia)

District 6 is composed of 17 counties located in the northwest corner of Georgia. Six

counties in District 6 are under the purview of a metropolitan planning organization and

therefore not included in the rural STIP study area, leaving 11 in this assessment. Please

refer to Appendix B for a visual representation of the findings described below.

African-American EJ Populations___________________________________________ African-American EJ populations are not prevalent in District 6, as only 6% of tracts have an

African-American population above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows one Class III tract

in Carroll County and four Class I tracts in three counties – Carroll, Chattooga, and Polk.

Hispanic EJ Populations___________________________________________________ Hispanic EJ populations are a moderately significant category for District 6, as 39% of all

tracts in the district contain populations above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows zero

Class IV tracts and eight Class III tracts across Carroll, Gilmer, Gordon (four tracts), and

Polk Counties. Additionally, eight Class II tracts are found in five counties and 15 Class I

tracts in seven counties.


A modest number of low-income EJ populations are scattered across District 6, as only 15%

of tracts have a low-income population above the EJ threshold. The analysis shows one

Class IV tract in Carroll County and zero Class III tracts. Additionally, there is one Class II

tract in Polk County and ten Class I tracts in eight counties.


Elderly EJ populations are the most prevalent EJ population in District 6, as 49% of all tracts

in the district have populations above the EJ threshold. This is likely due to the large

retirement community in the district. The analysis shows three Class IV tracts in Fannin and

Pickens Counties and nine Class III tracts across Bartow, Carroll, Fannin, Gilmer, Pickens,

and Polk Counties. Additionally, ten Class II tracts can be found in six counties and 18 Class

I tracts across nine counties.

Areas of Combined EJ Populations ___________________________________________

There are few areas for consideration in District 6. Only one tract (1%) in Polk County has a

population above the EJ threshold on all four variables. Additionally, a combination of

African-American and Hispanic EJ populations exists in four tracts – three in Carroll County

and one in Polk County. A combination of African-American and low-income EJ

populations can be found in three tracts – two in Carroll County and one in Polk County. A

combination of Hispanic and low-income EJ populations exists in nine tracts across six

counties. Finally, a combination of elderly and low-income EJ populations exists in seven

tracts across six counties.





At the present time, the outreach strategies previously employed by District 6 are

unavailable. A new Planning & Programming Engineer with limited knowledge of previous

practices has recently filled the position. Successful environmental justice outreach

techniques used by other districts will be employed in District 6.




IV. Outreach Plan

The STIP public involvement process includes an environmental justice program that is

designed to build and sustain meaningful participation for the rural districts‘ EJ populations.

Specifically, the technical approach will include:

Coordination of meeting notices with grass-roots organizations representing

the interests of environmental justice populations, including neighborhood

groups, religious institutions, and senior centers

Distribution of study information via public libraries, school superintendents,

and social and community organizations as they express interest or are

identified through the stakeholder process

Translation services, as needed, to ensure suitable communication

Adherence to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for public

information.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, GDOT and study area

municipalities, if requested, will provide special assistance at the meeting for those persons

who are disabled. Those persons requiring special assistance, including translation services,

must send written notification to the appropriate GDOT District at least five days prior to the

Public Information Meeting.

Process Documentation

Comprehensive documentation and accurate interpretation and analysis of findings are

essential to the successful implementation of the STIP public involvement process.

Documenting all aspects of the public involvement process will help GDOT to maintain

continuity in decision-making and to improve future STIP meetings. The public involvement

process deliverables include the following:

Stakeholder Database Development

Media Coordination

Study Website Content

Public Meetings

Meeting Handouts & Collateral Materials

Public Comment Collection & Analysis

Annual Public Involvement Report

All study documentation will be prepared in accordance with GDOT‘s Public Involvement

Policy.




Public Involvement Techniques

The STIP public involvement strategy includes a range of techniques that meet the needs of

each district and allow for flexibility if the needs of the target audiences (including EJ

populations) or the project are to change. The deliverables to be used for this project are

outlined below.

Stakeholder Database

An essential component of the public involvement strategy will be the development of a

comprehensive stakeholder database of individuals, communities, businesses, faith-

based organizations, environmental groups, and other interested parties as identified

through the stakeholder involvement process or as interest is shown in the studies. The

database will be used to disseminate information about the study, such as the study Fact

Sheet and notification of meetings related to the studies. The list, used to facilitate

invitation of stakeholders to meetings, will build upon the existing GDOT Family of

Partners database, lists from previous studies completed in the study area, and other

sources. The database will be updated throughout this STIP cycle as new stakeholders

are defined. A final database will be provided to GDOT at study completion.

Media Coordination

The consultant team will coordinate with GDOT on media and public relations efforts by

developing draft press releases for finalization and approval by the GDOT Project

Manager. A proactive approach to these efforts will make accurate, up-to-date

information available to the public and should minimize misconceptions or

misinformation. In conjunction with the Communication Officer in each GDOT District,

information will be disseminated using press releases, paid display advertisements, and

GDOT web site announcements. Existing communications mechanisms, such as legal

organs, GDOT‘s On Target newsletter, county newsletters, and stakeholder group

publications, may also be utilized to promote meetings.

Study Website

Materials from each public information open house meeting, including meeting

announcements, will also be made available to GDOT for posting to the department‘s

website. The website address will be displayed on all study public informational

materials.

Public Meetings

The consultant team will coordinate all facility logistics through the GDOT District

Planning & Programming Engineers. The number of meetings will be determined based

on consultation and coordination with each district. Districts will be encouraged to

dovetail meetings where one meeting location is able to serve the stakeholders in two

adjacent districts. Meetings will be held during the last two weeks of July each year. To

ensure EJ populations are equitably served by the meetings, every attempt will be made

to ensure that meeting venues are ADA compliant, are easily accessible by public




transportation, and are located near the areas identified as EJ communities through

analysis. In addition, every attempt will be made to secure meeting venues that are non-

threatening, welcoming, familiar locations. Schools, public places such as malls and

welcome centers, religious institutions, and recreation centers are all viable options for

meeting locations.

Meeting Handouts & Collateral Materials

Meeting notifications will be distributed to the study‘s stakeholder database before each

public meeting. The consultant team will work closely with GDOT to develop materials,

including flyers, meeting handouts, graphics, and maps illustrating the location of STIP

projects. These collateral materials and maps are essential to provide straightforward

information to the public. Considering the existence of concentrations of Spanish-

speaking citizens in key districts, relevant materials will be translated into Spanish on an

as-needed basis to ensure successful outreach efforts to all populations. Additionally,

flyers will be prepared and mailed to different locations to be posted throughout the

STIP area to advertise each public meeting. Potential locations include libraries, social

and civic buildings, and other major activity centers.

Public Comment & Collection

Meeting attendees will have the opportunity to provide input on displays and

information made available to them at each public meeting location. Comment forms

will be made available for completion on site or may be returned to GDOT via postal

mail or fax. Comment forms will also serve as meeting evaluation surveys, as attendees

will be encouraged to provide feedback on the quality of each public involvement

activity and the community outreach strategies employed.

Annual Public Involvement Report

At the conclusion of each STIP cycle, the consulting team will produce a comprehensive

report based on all public outreach conducted. The report will synthesize all process

documentation completed throughout the preparation and implementation of the

meetings.

Though EJ population trends vary per district, these public outreach techniques will be used

in each district throughout the STIP study area. However, the EJ populations and their

geographic concentrations will dictate how the outreach techniques are targeted for each

district. Customized outreach strategies for each GDOT district are outlined below.




District 1 (NE Georgia)

EJ Category Geographic Areas Outreach Targets

Elderly Elbert, Franklin,

Habersham, Hart,

Rabun, Towns,

Union, White

Counties

Recreation Centers

Senior Centers

Civic Clubs

Cycling, RV interest Groups

African-American Towns of Elberton,

Monroe Recreation Centers

Neighborhood Associations

Churches

Hispanic Banks, Habersham,

Jackson, Lumpkin,

Rabun Counties

Recreation Centers

Churches

Latin American Associations

Low-Income Elbert County Recreation Centers

Neighborhood Associations

Churches




District 2 (E. Central Georgia)


African-American Baldwin, Bleckley,

Burke, Dodge,

Emanuel, Greene,

Hancock, Jasper,

Jefferson, Jenkins,

Johnson, Laurens,

Lincoln, McDuffie,

Morgan, Putnam,

Screven, Taliaferro,

Treutlen, Warren,

Washington,

Wilkes, Wilkinson

Counties

Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches

Interest Groups (NAACP, United

Way, Urban League)

Major Activity Centers (Malls)

Low-Income Burke, Dodge,

Emanuel, Glascock,

Greene, Hancock,

Jefferson, Jenkins,

Johnson, Laurens,

McDuffie, Screven,

Taliaferro, Treutlen,

Warren,

Washington,

Wilkes, Wilkinson

Counties

Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches


Way, Urban League)


Elderly Bleckley, Dodge,

Emanuel, Glascock,

Greene, Hancock,

Jasper, Jefferson,

Jenkins, Johnson,

Laurens, Lincoln,

McDuffie, Morgan,

Oglethorpe, Putnam,

Screven, Treutlen,

Warren,

Washington, Wilkes

Counties

Recreation Centers

Senior Centers

Churches

Social Services




District 3 (W. Central Georgia)

EJ Category Geographic Areas Outreach targets

African-American Butts, Chattahoochee,

Crawford, Dooly,

Lamar, Macon, Marion,

Meriwether, Monroe,

Peach, Pulaski, Schley,

Stewart, Sumter,

Talbot, Taylor, Troup,

Twiggs, Upson,

Webster Counties

Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches

Senior Centers


Way, Urban League)


University (Ft. Valley State)

Low-Income Dooly, Macon, Marion,

Meriwether, Peach,

Schley, Stewart,

Sumter, Talbot, Taylor,

Twiggs, Webster

Counties

Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches

Senior Centers


Way, Urban League)


Elderly Harris, Lamar, Macon,

Meriwether, Pulaski,

Stewart, Sumter,

Talbot, Taylor, Troup,

Upson, Webster

Counties

Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches

Senior Centers


Way, Urban League)


Hispanic Chattahoochee, Peach,

Marion Counties Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches


Consider tailored notification

(use of Agriculture organizations,

unions, etc) and the use of give-

aways or incentives to encourage

meeting attendance




District 4 (SW Georgia)

EJ Category Geographic Areas Outreach targets

African-American Baker, Ben Hill, Brooks,

Calhoun, Clay, Clinch,

Coffee, Cook, Crisp,

Decatur, Early, Grady,

Irwin, Lanier, Miller,

Mitchell, Quitman,

Randolph, Seminole,

Terrell, Thomas, Tift,

Turner, Wilcox, Worth

Counties

Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches


Way, Urban League)

Universities (Albany State,

Valdosta State)

Low-Income Atkinson, Baker, Ben Hill,

Berrien, Brooks, Calhoun,

Clay, Clinch, Coffee,

Colquitt, Cook, Crisp,

Decatur, Early, Echols,

Grady, Irwin, Lanier,

Miller, Mitchell, Quitman,

Randolph, Seminole,

Terrell, Thomas, Tift,

Turner, Wilcox, Worth

Counties

Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches


Way, Urban League)

Hispanic Atkinson, Ben Hill, Coffee,

Colquitt, Decatur, Echols,

Grady, Seminole, Tift

Counties

Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches


Consider tailored notification

(use of Agriculture organizations,

unions, etc) and the use of give-

aways or incentives to encourage

meeting attendance

Elderly Baker, Ben Hill, Berrien,

Brooks, Calhoun, Clay,

Clinch, Colquitt, Cook,

Crisp, Decatur, Early,

Grady, Irwin, Miller,

Mitchell, Quitman,

Randolph, Seminole,

Terrell, Thomas, Turner,

Wilcox, Worth Counties

Recreation Centers

Senior Centers

Churches

Social Services




District 5 (SE Georgia)


African American Bulloch, Candler,

Charlton, Evans,

Long, McIntosh,

Montgomery,

Tattnall, Telfair,

Ware, Wheeler

Counties

Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches


Way, Urban League)

Low-Income Appling, Bacon,

Brantley, Bulloch,

Candler, Charlton,

Evans, Jeff Davis,

Long, McIntosh,

Montgomery,

Pierce, Tattnall,

Telfair, Toombs,

Ware, Wayne,

Wheeler Counties

Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches


Way, Urban League)

Hispanic Appling, Camden,

Candler, Evans, Jeff

Davis, Long,

Tattnall, Toombs,

Wayne Counties

Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches


Consider tailored notification (use of

Agriculture organizations, unions,

etc) and the use of give-aways or

incentives to encourage meeting

attendance

Elderly Appling, Bacon,

Candler, Evans, Jeff

Davis, Pierce,

Telfair, Toombs,

Ware, Wheeler

Counties

Recreation Centers

Senior Centers

Churches

Social Services




District 6 (NW Georgia)


Hispanic Bartow, Gilmer,

Gordon, Murray,

Polk Counties

Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches


Consider tailored notification (use of

Agriculture organizations, unions,

etc) and the use of give-aways or

incentives to encourage meeting

attendance

Low-Income Fannin County Recreation Centers

Social Services

Churches


Way, Urban League)

Elderly Carroll, Chattooga,

Fannin, Gilmer,

Haralson, Murray,

Polk Counties

Recreation Centers

Senior Centers

Churches

Social Services




Public Involvement Plan Evaluation

Evaluation of the effectiveness of public involvement efforts is a key aspect of developing a

public involvement plan. Spurred by federal interest, regional planning organizations and

other agencies have started evaluating all public involvement efforts in order to determine

which techniques are most effective and under which circumstances they are not. Evaluation

measures are also important in documenting the level of public involvement achieved. The

following table outlines the major tasks and key performance measures.

Technique Performance Measures

Study Database/

Mailing List

Number of contacts

Number of mailings

Media Coordination Amount of media coverage

Accuracy of information delivered to citizens

Accessibility to media outlets for affected parties

Study Website Content*

Number of website visitors

Number of comments received

Types of comments received

Public Meetings Location of meeting venues with respect to EJ populations

Location of meeting venues with respect to public

transportation (where applicable)

Number of attendees

Meeting Handouts &

Collateral Materials

Number of notifications/flyers distributed

Timeliness of distribution

Notification/flyers are translated as needed

Number of avenues used to reach the public

Public Comment

Collection & Analysis

Number of comments received

Types of comments received *The study website capabilities will impact the extent to which this public outreach strategy may be successful.

Based on plan performance, existing communication and outreach techniques will be

modified and new techniques added to increase public awareness in future cycles of the STIP

public involvement process. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of outreach efforts, a

debrief will be held with the consulting team, GDOT project manager, and other staff as

appropriate at the conclusion of each cycle regarding the meeting outcomes. A brief

synopsis of each meeting, an overview of the success of the public involvement program, and

supporting documentation will be presented in the final public involvement report.




V. References

Brewer, George – Pre-Construction Engineer, GDOT District 2. Telephone interview. 2

June 2006.

Dixon, Karen K. ―Environmental Justice Module Proposed Analysis Approach for the

Multi-modal Transportation Analysis Tool.‖

Hood, Greg – Planning and Programming Engineer, GDOT District 6. Telephone

interview. 14 June 2006.

Kantner, Neal – Planning and Programming Engineer, GDOT District 1. Telephone

interview. 25 May 2006.

Pridgen, Shane – Planning and Programming Engineer, GDOT District 4. Telephone


Queen, Tom – Planning and Programming Engineer, GDOT District 3. Telephone

interview. 24 May 2006.

Scott, Teresa – Planning and Programming Engineer, GDOT District 5. Telephone





Appendix A. Areas of Consideration

This appendix contains maps displaying areas of focus for environmental justice

outreach. These areas are defined as census tracts in the STIP study area that have more

than one overlapping environmental justice population. For example, the ―African-

American & Low-Income‖ map seen on the next page shows areas where both an

African-American EJ population and a low-income EJ population are present. These

areas are particularly sensitive due to the confluence of more than one EJ indicator.




Figure A-1. Overlapping African-American and Low-Income EJ Populations




Figure A-2. Overlapping Hispanic and Low-Income EJ Populations




Figure A-3. Overlapping Elderly and Low-Income EJ Populations




Figure A-4. Overlapping African-American and Hispanic EJ Populations




Appendix B. District Maps

This appendix contains environmental justice maps for each district. The data used to

create these maps were the same Census data used to create the statewide maps found in

the body of the report. However, these district maps contain additional details such as

highway infrastructure. These can be used to more precisely identify the location and

nature of EJ communities with respect to proposed transportation projects. (Note: some

census tracts in densely populated areas occupy too small of a geographic area to be

seen on the following District maps. Please use the maps in conjunction with the written

analysis for a complete understanding of the location of all EJ populations.)

Similarly to the maps in the body of the

report, the district maps draw two

geographic distinctions. The first is

whether or not an area is above or below

the EJ threshold. The second places EJ

areas into one of four Classes that indicate

the degree to which an area is above the

threshold. A Class I area is only slightly

above the EJ threshold, while a Class IV

area is exceptionally far above the EJ

threshold. In the maps that follow, yellow

and red areas denote Class III and IV EJ

areas where the populations are well above

the EJ threshold. The tables below and

statewide STIP map to the left are

reproduced here for use in conjunction

with the district maps on the following

pages.

Table B-1. Environmental Justice Thresholds

African-

American Hispanic

Low-

Income

Elderly

(65+)

STIP-wide

Percentage 23.9% 2.9% 15.5% 11.8%

Source: 2000 U.S. Census and Sycamore Consulting, Inc.

Table B-2. Environmental Justice Class Natural Breaks

Class I Class II Class III Class IV

African-

American

23.9% - 36.2% 36.2% - 49.0% 49.0% - 64.8% 64.8% - 94.4%

Hispanic 2.9% - 6.3% 6.3% - 11.5% 11.5% - 19.2% 19.2% - 30.2%

Low-Income 15.5% - 20.2% 20.2% - 25.7% 25.7% - 34.5% 34.5% - 54.9%

Elderly 11.8% - 13.5% 13.5% - 15.6% 15.6% - 19.1% 19.1% - 28.4% Source: 2000 U.S. Census and Sycamore Consulting, Inc.




GDOT District 1 (NE Georgia)







GDOT District 2 (E. Central Georgia)







GDOT District 3 (W. Central Georgia)







GDOT District 4 (SW Georgia)







GDOT District 5 (SE Georgia)







GDOT District 6 (NW Georgia)







Appendix C. District Data Summaries

This appendix contains a variety of data on each GDOT district. The data includes a

number of summary tables including a histogram showing the frequency of EJ tracts in

each district, a table showing what percentage of district census tracts are above the EJ

threshold, and EJ population percentages at the county level.

District 1 Data Summary

District 1 Rural STIP Counties: Banks, Barrow, Dawson, Elbert, Franklin, Habersham,

Hart, Jackson, Lumpkin, Madison, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, Union, Walton, White

Non-STIP Counties (excluded from analysis): Clarke, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Oconee

Figure 1-1. Frequency of Environmental Justice Census Tracts

District 1 -- NE Georgia

Frequency of Environmental Justice Census Tracts

8

1713

47

67

5862

28

0

20

40

60

African-American Hispanic Low-Income Elderly

Environmental Justice Population

Nu

mb

er

of

Cen

su

s T

racts

(75 t

ota

l tr

acts

in D

ist.

1)

Non-EJ tracts

EJ tracts

75

Table 1-1. District 1 EJ Census Tract Frequency


Number of EJ Census tracts 8 17 13 47

Percentage of all tracts in district 11% 23% 17% 63%




Table 1-2. District 1 County Summary County %

African- American

% Hispanic

% Low-

Income

% Elderly

Banks 3.5% 3.1% 12.5% 10.4%

Barrow 10.2% 2.5% 8.2% 9.3%

Dawson 0.1% 0.5% 7.6% 9.3%

Elbert 30.8% 2.7% 17.1% 15.1%

Franklin 9.9% 0.6% 13.4% 15.4%

Habersham 4.3% 7.6% 11.6% 13.8%

Hart 19.5% 1.1% 14.5% 16.4%

Jackson 7.5% 3.0% 11.7% 10.4%

Lumpkin 1.2% 3.2% 12.4% 9.8%

Madison 8.3% 2.0% 11.5% 10.9%

Rabun 1.0% 4.5% 11.0% 18.1%

Stephens 11.6% 1.0% 14.6% 8.0%

Towns 0.1% 1.6% 11.2% 25.9%

Union 0.7% 0.6% 12.2% 21.6%

Walton 12.8% 1.9% 9.5% 9.3%

White 2.0% 1.5% 10.2% 14.5%

District 1 Total 9.1% 2.5% 11.5% 12.8%

Grey area indicates county at or above EJ threshold





District 2 Rural STIP Counties: Baldwin, Bleckley, Burke, Columbia, Dodge,

Emanuel, Glascock, Greene, Hancock, Jasper, Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Laurens,

Lincoln, McDuffie, Morgan, Newton, Oglethorpe, Putnam, Screven, Taliaferro, Treutlen,

Warren, Washington, Wilkes, Wilkinson

Non-STIP Counties (excluded from analysis): Richmond


District 2 -- E. Central Georgia


87

16

70 69

40

111

57 58

0

20

40

60

80

100

120



Nu

mb

er

of

Cen

su

s T

racts

(127 t

ota

l tr

acts

in D

ist.

2)

Non-EJ Tracts

EJ Tracts

127









African- American

% Hispanic

% Low-

Income

% Elderly

Baldwin 43.1% 1.4% 13.8% 10.6%

Bleckley 24.1% 1.5% 15.0% 13.6%

Burke 51.3% 1.3% 28.5% 11.0%

Columbia 11.0% 2.5% 5.1% 8.0%

Dodge 29.1% 1.2% 16.0% 13.3%

Emanuel 32.9% 3.4% 26.6% 13.2%

Glascock 8.6% 0.5% 17.2% 18.4%

Greene 44.6% 2.5% 21.9% 14.4%

Hancock 77.2% 0.4% 25.3% 12.2%

Jasper 27.5% 1.3% 14.0% 11.8%

Jefferson 56.6% 0.7% 22.5% 13.7%

Jenkins 39.6% 3.0% 28.2% 13.9%

Johnson 36.5% 0.8% 21.0% 15.6%

Laurens 34.4% 1.1% 17.9% 13.2%

Lincoln 34.3% 1.0% 15.2% 14.9%

McDuffie 37.9% 0.7% 18.3% 12.4%

Morgan 29.3% 0.9% 10.8% 12.5%

Newton 22.2% 1.8% 9.8% 10.0%

Oglethorpe 20.2% 0.9% 13.1% 12.2%

Putnam 30.1% 2.2% 14.3% 14.4%

Screven 44.7% 1.4% 19.8% 14.1%

Taliaferro 59.7% 0.2% 23.1% 10.9%

Treutlen 32.6% 1.1% 24.9% 13.6%

Warren 58.9% 0.6% 26.3% 16.1%

Washington 53.0% 0.5% 21.5% 12.7%

Wilkes 43.4% 1.3% 17.2% 17.5%

Wilkinson 52.6% 2.7% 22.8% 11.6%

District 2 Total 32.9% 1.6% 15.6% 11.6%






District 3 Rural STIP Counties: Butts, Chattahoochee, Crawford, Dooly, Harris,

Heard, Jones, Lamar, Macon, Marion, Meriwether, Monroe, Peach, Pike, Pulaski, Schley,

Stewart, Sumter, Talbot, Taylor, Troup, Twiggs, Upson, Webster

Non-STIP Counties (excluded from analysis): Bibb, Coweta, Fayette, Henry, Houston,

Muscogee, Spalding


District 3 -- W. Central Georgia


69

20

50 50

27

76

46 46

0

20

40

60

80



Nu

mb

er

of

Cen

su

s T

racts

(96 t

ota

l tr

acts

in D

ist.

3)

Non-EJ tracts

EJ Tracts

96









African- American

% Hispanic

% Low-

Income

% Elderly

Butts 29.1% 0.9% 10.3% 10.0%

Chattahoochee 28.7% 10.6% 7.1% 1.8%

Crawford 25.6% 0.9% 15.2% 9.1%

Dooly 51.5% 2.8% 19.6% 11.5%

Harris 20.1% 0.6% 8.1% 12.0%

Heard 10.8% 0.6% 13.4% 11.6%

Jones 23.3% 0.8% 10.0% 10.3%

Lamar 29.2% 1.4% 10.6% 12.9%

Macon 58.8% 2.4% 24.0% 13.0%

Marion 33.7% 6.0% 22.1% 10.8%

Meriwether 42.3% 0.6% 17.4% 13.8%

Monroe 28.4% 1.0% 9.5% 10.0%

Peach 45.2% 4.3% 19.4% 9.8%

Pike 15.0% 0.9% 9.3% 11.0%

Pulaski 33.5% 3.5% 14.5% 13.2%

Schley 56.6% 1.2% 24.6% 9.8%

Stewart 62.0% 0.4% 20.9% 18.4%

Sumter 42.8% 3.2% 18.5% 13.6%

Talbot 61.0% 0.5% 24.1% 14.4%

Taylor 43.3% 1.0% 24.9% 13.1%

Troup 31.6% 1.8% 14.4% 12.6%

Twiggs 42.7% 0.7% 19.4% 11.7%

Upson 26.5% 1.6% 14.5% 14.9%

Webster 46.2% 4.4% 19.2% 14.7%

District 3 Total 34.2% 2.0% 15.0% 11.7%






District 4 Rural STIP Counties: Atkinson, Baker, Ben Hill, Berrien, Brooks, Calhoun,

Clay, Clinch, Coffee, Colquitt, Cook, Crisp, Decatur, Early, Echols, Grady, Irwin, Lanier,

Lee, Miller, Mitchell, Quitman, Randolph, Seminole, Terrell, Thomas, Tift, Turner,

Wilcox, Worth

Non-STIP Counties (excluded from analysis): Dougherty, Lowndes


District 4 -- SW Georgia


79

52

9384

52

79

3847

0

20

40

60

80

100

120



Nu

mb

er

of

Cen

su

s T

racts

(131 t

ota

l tr

acts

in D

ist.

4)

Non-EJ tracts

EJ tracts

131









African- American

% Hispanic

% Low-

Income

% Elderly

Atkinson 19.5% 17.4% 22.9% 9.3%

Baker 49.5% 2.7% 23.3% 13.5%

Ben Hill 32.5% 4.3% 21.8% 13.1%

Berrien 11.5% 2.0% 17.4% 12.4%

Brooks 38.8% 2.8% 23.0% 15.1%

Calhoun 60.7% 0.9% 21.0% 12.8%

Clay 59.9% 0.4% 20.4% 12.6%

Clinch 29.2% 0.6% 22.4% 12.2%

Coffee 25.8% 6.9% 18.3% 9.7%

Colquitt 23.6% 10.9% 19.5% 13.0%

Cook 29.2% 2.6% 20.4% 13.1%

Crisp 42.7% 2.2% 28.8% 12.8%

Decatur 39.8% 3.1% 22.1% 13.3%

Early 48.3% 1.4% 25.0% 16.2%

Echols 7.4% 20.5% 28.2% 9.0%

Grady 30.1% 5.1% 21.1% 13.2%

Irwin 25.2% 2.2% 17.0% 14.4%

Lanier 25.4% 2.6% 17.7% 10.5%

Lee 14.5% 2.1% 7.9% 6.3%

Miller 29.8% 0.1% 20.7% 17.2%

Mitchell 48.0% 2.3% 24.2% 11.9%

Quitman 46.0% 0.5% 21.9% 19.8%

Randolph 60.2% 0.8% 26.6% 15.4%

Seminole 35.0% 3.6% 22.9% 15.7%

Terrell 60.2% 1.1% 28.0% 13.3%

Thomas 38.9% 1.5% 16.9% 14.0%

Tift 27.5% 7.9% 19.2% 11.6%

Turner 40.7% 2.7% 26.2% 12.8%

Wilcox 37.1% 1.1% 17.5% 13.6%

Worth 29.8% 1.0% 18.4% 12.2%

District 4 Total 33.1% 4.2% 20.4% 12.6%






District 5 Rural STIP Counties: Appling, Bacon, Brantley, Bryan, Bulloch, Camden,

Candler, Charlton, Effingham, Evans, Jeff Davis, Long, McIntosh, Montgomery, Pierce,

Tattnall, Telfair, Toombs, Ware, Wayne, Wheeler

Non-STIP Counties (excluded from analysis): Chatham, Glynn, Liberty


District 5 -- SE Georgia


40 41

62

39

50 49

28

51

0

20

40

60

80



Nu

mb

er

of

Cen

su

s T

racts

(90 t

ota

l tr

acts

in D

ist.

5)

Non-EJ tracts

EJ Tracts

90









African- American

% Hispanic

% Low-

Income

% Elderly

Appling 19.0% 4.7% 18.3% 12.0%

Bacon 16.5% 2.4% 23.1% 13.0%

Brantley 3.2% 1.2% 15.5% 10.1%

Bryan 13.6% 1.8% 11.6% 7.2%

Bulloch 28.1% 2.0% 23.1% 9.4%

Camden 19.9% 4.0% 9.7% 4.9%

Candler 27.3% 9.4% 25.0% 15.1%

Charlton 28.8% 0.1% 18.4% 9.9%

Effingham 12.4% 1.0% 9.2% 8.0%

Evans 32.7% 6.0% 25.6% 12.3%

Jeff Davis 14.9% 4.8% 19.2% 11.9%

Long 24.6% 8.4% 19.3% 5.6%

McIntosh 36.6% 0.4% 18.3% 11.4%

Montgomery 27.5% 1.9% 18.0% 10.5%

Pierce 10.9% 2.5% 18.2% 12.3%

Tattnall 30.8% 8.5% 19.6% 11.3%

Telfair 38.2% 2.0% 18.3% 15.1%

Toombs 23.6% 9.0% 23.4% 12.2%

Ware 27.4% 2.5% 19.2% 15.5%

Wayne 20.2% 3.5% 15.3% 11.3%

Wheeler 34.4% 2.8% 20.9% 12.6%

District 5 Total 22.4% 3.6% 17.6% 10.4%






District 6 Rural STIP Counties: Bartow, Carroll, Chattooga, Dade, Fannin, Gilmer,

Gordon, Haralson, Murray, Pickens, Polk

Non-STIP Counties (excluded from analysis): Catoosa, Cherokee, Floyd, Paulding,

Walker, Whitfield


District 6 -- NW Georgia


5

31

12

39

75

49

68

41

0

20

40

60

80



Nu

mb

er

of

Cen

su

s T

racts

(80 t

ota

l tr

acts

in D

ist.

6)

Non-EJ tracts

EJ Tracts









African- American

% Hispanic

% Low-

Income

% Elderly

Bartow 8.3% 3.2% 9.4% 8.5%

Carroll 16.0% 2.8% 10.0% 13.2%

Chattooga 10.8% 2.4% 14.2% 13.3%

Dade 0.5% 1.1% 12.0% 9.3%

Fannin 0.1% 0.8% 19.0% 12.3%

Gilmer 0.2% 7.3% 13.2% 12.3%

Gordon 3.4% 7.4% 10.4% 9.7%

Haralson 5.2% 0.6% 13.2% 15.2%

Murray 0.4% 5.7% 8.0% 12.6%

Pickens 1.6% 1.6% 13.2% 9.1%

Polk 13.7% 7.3% 13.2% 15.1%

District 6 Total 7.7% 3.9% 11.7% 11.4%


Documents

Environmental Justice Outreach Report · Public Involvement Techniques ... in the early stages of the project with reasonable and full public access to information, key decisions,