Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum

Technical Memorandum

Environmental Justice

November 2008

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO: Project File

DATE: November 19, 2007

SUBJECT: Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum

1.0 INTRODUCTION This memorandum provides technical information to supplement the environmental justice section of the I-70 East Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and addresses the following topics:

• Laws, regulations, and standards related to environmental justice • Definition of low-income populations • Additional data and maps with block group level data

2.0 APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDANCE In 1994, President Clinton released Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and an accompanying Presidential Memorandum. The Presidential Memorandum emphasized that certain provisions of existing law, both in environmental and civil rights statutes, provide opportunities to address environmental hazards in minority and low-income communities. The Presidential Memorandum specifically addresses Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 United States Code [USC] §2000), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, (42 USC §4321 et seq., Public Law No. [Pub. L. No.] 91-190, 83 Stat. 852), and the Clean Air Act of 1990 (42 USC §§7401–7661, Pub. L. No.101-549), among other statutes. 2.1 APPLICABLE LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Applicable laws and executive orders include Executive Order 12898, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, NEPA, and the Clean Air Act. 2.1.1 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994)

Executive Order 12898 focuses federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions in minority communities and low-income communities with the goal of achieving environmental justice. The Order states in part that each federal agency must “develop an agency-wide environmental justice strategy [...] that identifies and addresses disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” (Clinton, 1994). It also requires that agencies provide information and opportunities for participation to minority and low-income communities related to federal actions that would affect human health or the environment.

Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum November 19, 2007

Page 2 of 19

The Presidential Memorandum accompanying Executive Order 12898 states that federal agencies shall analyze the environmental effects of federal actions, including effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by NEPA. In addition, the Memorandum notes that mitigation measures outlined or analyzed in an EIS or Record of Decision should address, where feasible, significant adverse environmental effects of proposed federal actions on minority communities and low-income communities. Finally, the Memorandum states that federal agencies should provide opportunities for community input in the NEPA process, including consultations with affected communities when identifying potential effects, considering mitigation measures, or improving the accessibility of meetings, crucial documents, and notices. 2.1.2 Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance, and authorizes and directs the appropriate federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. The Presidential Memorandum accompanying Executive Order 12898 states that in accordance with this title, each federal agency should ensure that all programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance that affect human health or the environment do not directly, or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria, methods, or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. 2.1.3 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NEPA’s fundamental policy is to “create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.” The statute mandates that transportation decisions involving federal funds and approvals consider environmental, social, and economic factors in the decision-making process. NEPA also requires that agencies making such decisions consult with other agencies and involve the public, disclose information, investigate the environmental effects of a reasonable range of alternatives, and prepare a detailed statement of the environmental effects of alternatives. 2.1.4 Clean Air Act of 1990

Section 309 of the Clean Air Act calls for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review and comment on the environmental impact of (1) legislation proposed by any federal agency, (2) newly authorized federal construction projects and any major federal agency action, or (3) proposed regulations published by any federal department or agency. Although many federal agencies can prepare an EIS, EPA is the agency that makes a final determination as to the adequacy of an EIS, based upon criteria and analysis laid out in EPA’s guidance materials. EPA judges the adequacy of an EIS in part based on whether the agency involved has fully analyzed environmental effects on minority communities and low-income communities, including human health, social, and economic effects.


Page 3 of 19

2.2 REGULATORY GUIDANCE AND POLICY

Regulatory guidance and policy related to environmental justice include that from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), EPA, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2.2.1 CEQ Environmental Justice Guidance under NEPA

The CEQ is charged with overseeing the federal government’s compliance with Executive Order 12898 and NEPA. CEQ, in consultation with EPA and other affected agencies, issued this guidance to further assist federal agencies with their NEPA procedures so that environmental justice concerns are effectively identified and addressed (CEQ, 1997). Among other things, the document provides a summary of Executive Order 12898 and NEPA, principles for considering environmental justice under NEPA, and guidance for considering environmental justice in specific phases of NEPA, including scoping, analysis, alternatives development, and mitigation. 2.2.2 EPA Guidance for Consideration of Environmental Justice in Clean Air Act

Section 309 Reviews

This guidance document, intended for use by EPA reviewers, provides guidance for reviewing and commenting on other federal agencies’ NEPA documents to ensure that environmental effects on minority communities and low-income communities have been fully analyzed. It incorporates information from the CEQ’s environmental justice guidance and general principles for considering environmental justice under NEPA. 2.2.3 U.S. DOT Order 5610.2, Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations

The USDOT Order 5610.2, Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations addresses the requirements of Executive Order 12898 and sets forth USDOT’s policy to incorporate environmental justice principles into all programs, policies and activities under its jurisdiction (USDOT, 1997). The Order establishes definitions for key terms used in environmental justice analysis, and notes that “planning and programming activities that have the potential to have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on human health or the environment shall include explicit consideration of the effects on minority populations and low-income populations” (USDOT, 1997). The Order also notes that procedures shall be established to provide meaningful opportunities for public involvement by minority communities and low-income communities in planning, including the identification of potential effects, alternatives, and mitigation measures. Furthermore, the Order states that USDOT will take steps to provide the public, including members of minority communities and low-income communities, access to information concerning the human health or environmental impacts of activities, including information that will address the concerns of those communities regarding human health or environmental impacts of proposed actions. 2.2.4 FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.8A, Guidance for Preparing and Processing

Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents

The FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.8A, Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents, effective in 1987, provides guidance on the format and content of


Page 4 of 19

NEPA documents, including EISs. In addition to general guidance on the preparation of documents, the advisory provides guidance on specific types of impacts that should be covered and, in some cases, on recommended methods for assessing impacts. Issued prior to Executive Order 12898, Technical Advisory 6640.8A indicates that project effects should be described for minority and ethnic groups along with other social groups. For example, relative to social impacts, the guidance indicates:

Where the impacts on a minority or ethnic population are likely to be an important issue, the EIS should contain the following information broken down by race, color, and national origin: the population of the study area, the number of displaced residents, the type and number of displaced businesses, and an estimate of the number of displaced employees in each business sector. Changes in ethnic or minority employment opportunities should be discussed, and the relationship of the project to other federal actions which may serve or adversely affect the ethnic or minority population should be identified (FHWA, 1987).

2.2.5 FHWA Order 6640.23, FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations

The FHWA Order 6640.23, FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations, effective in 1998, established policies and procedures for FHWA to use in complying with Executive Order 12898 and USDOT Order 5610.2. It establishes definitions for key terms used in environmental justice analysis, reaffirms FHWA’s policy to actively ensure nondiscrimination in federally funded activities, and describes policies and actions to prevent or address disproportionately high and adverse effects. Notably, the order states that activities that will have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority populations or low-income populations will only be carried out if further mitigation measures or alternatives that would avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effects are not practicable. In addition, the order indicates that activities that will have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority populations or low-income populations will only be carried out if (1) a substantial need for the activity exists, based on the overall public interest; and (2) alternatives that would have less adverse effects on protected populations have either: (a) adverse social, economic, environmental, or human health impacts that are more severe; or (b) would involve increased costs of an extraordinary magnitude. 2.2.6 CDOT Guidebook: Environmental Justice in Colorado’s Statewide and Region

Planning Process

The CDOT Environmental Justice in Colorado’s Statewide and Region Planning Process (CDOT, 2003a) guidebook serves as a resource for those involved in the transportation decision-making process, and provides information on the regulatory history and background on environmental justice issues including public involvement and planning techniques. It is intended to provide all units of the Department with a basic understanding of CDOT’s responsibilities regarding the consideration of low-income and minority communities in the planning process. 2.2.7 CDOT Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects

The CDOT Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects guidance document is intended to assist CDOT project staff and consultants in addressing the specific


Page 5 of 19

factors mandated by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 12898 throughout each step of the NEPA process (CDOT, 2005). The guidelines apply to projects requiring all types of NEPA documentation. The guidance includes definitions of terms, information on how environmental justice should be incorporated into scoping and public outreach, information on how to identify low-income and minority populations, steps for approaching an “environmental justice” complaint, and other information. 2.2.8 CDOT Statewide Transportation Policies

The CDOT Statewide Transportation Policies, adopted in 1994 and reaffirmed in 1996, are a set of twelve policies that relate to CDOT’s mission. Several of these policies relate to the analysis of environmental, social, and economic effects of transportation programs and activities. These include:

• Accessibility – CDOT’s commitment to promote a transportation system that is reliable and accessible to all potential users, including the transportation disadvantaged.

• Environment – CDOT’s commitment to incorporate social, economic, and environmental concerns into the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operations of the transportation system.

• Balance Quality of Life Factors – CDOT’s commitment to balancing the environment, economic vitality, and mobility.

• Safety – CDOT’s commitment to reduce the risk of injuries, fatalities, and related costs related to user, worker, and vehicular safety.

In addition, CDOT’s policies include a commitment to Customer Focus – that is, to strengthen CDOT’s relationships with citizens by reinforcing the public outreach process to include outreach, early involvement and review, candid and understandable presentations, and consistency in follow-up.

2.2.9 CDOT Environmental Stewardship Guide

The CDOT Environmental Stewardship Guide (2003b) documents CDOT’s environmental ethic. The Guide describes CDOT’s mission to provide an effective multi-modal transportation system, and also describes CDOT’s commitment to environmental, economic, and quality of life goals. It summarizes laws and regulations, such as NEPA, that require an analysis of the social, economic, and environmental effects of reasonable alternatives, and states that CDOT has committed to complying with the intent and requirements of NEPA for all transportation activities regardless of whether or not they are federally funded. 3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS This section provides technical information about the definition of low-income populations, and also detailed results for the identification of minority and low-income populations in the I-70 East Corridor. 3.1 DEFINITION OF LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS

As indicated in the environmental justice section of the Draft EIS (DEIS), the primary data sources used to identify low-income populations were the 2000 Census of Population and


Page 6 of 19

Housing and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 30 Percent Area Median Income (AMI30) figures. Environmental justice guidance issued by various federal agencies refers to several different methodologies for identifying low-income persons, each of which were taken into consideration for the EIS:

• CEQ Environmental Justice guidance under NEPA suggests that Census Poverty Thresholds should be used to identify low-income populations (CEQ, 1997).

• FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.23 and USDOT Order 5610.2 indicate that Health and Human Services (HHS) Poverty Guidelines should be used to identify low-income populations (FHWA, 1998; USDOT, 1997).

• FHWA policy also indicates that a higher threshold than the HHS Poverty Guidelines (i.e., inclusive of more people) can be used, “as long as the higher threshold is not selectively implemented and is inclusive of all persons at or below the HHS poverty guidelines” (FHWA, 2002).

• EPA guidance for incorporating environmental justice concerns into EPA’s NEPA compliance analyses notes that “in conjunction with Census data, the EPA NEPA analyst should also consider state and regional low-income and poverty definitions as appropriate” (EPA, 1998).

• CDOT’s Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects instruct analysts to determine low-income populations based on HUD Community Development Block Grant program guidelines – the 30 percent Area Median Income or AMI30 figures.

• Another consideration in determining a method for identifying low-income populations was the methods used in other, concurrent corridor EISs for which the areas of potential effect may overlap. For example, the HUD AMI30 figures are used to identify low-income populations in the U.S. 36 EIS.

The benefit of using the HUD AMI30 figures is that they differ by county, and therefore provide a low-income threshold that is specific to a particular geographic area. Unlike the AMI figures, Census poverty thresholds and HHS poverty guidelines are the same for all areas across the country, regardless of different costs of living. The use of the AMI30 figure is consistent with FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.23 and USDOT Order 5610.2, because the adjusted AMI30 figure for the Denver Principal Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) is higher than the adjusted HHS Poverty Guideline. The use of AMI30 figures has the additional advantage of being consistent with the method used to identify low-income populations in the nearby US 36 Corridor EIS, for which there is some overlap in the study area. Table 1 provides a summary of the AMI30 figures, HHS guidelines, and Census poverty thresholds for different household sizes. As the table shows, the AMI30 figures are higher than


Page 7 of 19

the HHS poverty guidelines and the weighted average Census poverty thresholds, adjusted for inflation, for most household sizes.1

Table 1 Comparison of Low-Income Thresholds

Number of Persons in Household Threshold

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

FY 2004 AMI30 figures for Denver PMSA1

$14,700 $16,800 $18,850 $20,950 $22,650 $24,350 $26,000 $27,700

February 2004 HHS Poverty Guidelines2

$9,310 $12,490 $15,670 $18,850 $22,030 $25,210 $28,390 $31,570

Weighted Average 2003 Census Poverty Thresholds3

$9,453 $12,102 $14,771 $18,934 $22,385 $25,300 $28,826 $31,817

1. AMI30 figures for Denver PMSA from HUD (2004). Figures are effective as of January 2004. 2. National poverty guidelines from HHS (2004). Figures are effective as of February 2004. 3. National weighted average poverty thresholds from U.S. Census Bureau (2004). Adjusted from 2003 to January

2004 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers in the U.S. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004).

As Table 1 shows, HUD AMI30 figures differ by household size, ranging from $14,700 for a one-person household to $27,700 for an eight-person household (HUD, 2004). However, Census data on household or family income are not publicly available by household or family size. CDOT’s Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects instructs analysts using the HUD AMI30 figures to determine the threshold for low-income households based on the average number of people per household in the area of concern. This number is usually not a whole number (e.g., it is usually between two and four). For instance, if the number is between two and three, the guidelines indicate that analysts should use the AMI30 figure for the two-person household, plus a portion of the difference between the two-person and three-person household. The portion of the difference should amount to the same fraction as the decimal part of the average number of people per household. Thus, this method amounts to linear interpolation between the whole-number AMI30 figures based on the average number of people per household. 1 The HHS Poverty Guidelines and the Census poverty thresholds are higher than the AMI30 figures for households of six, seven, and eight persons; however, households of this size account for a relatively small proportion of households in the Denver PMSA (fewer than 32,000 households, or 3.9 percent, according to the 2000 Census). Since the AMI30 figures are up to 1.5 times higher than the weighted average Census Poverty Thresholds for smaller household sizes, they would generally result in a larger number of households being counted as low-income compared to the Census Poverty Thresholds. In addition, the HHS guidelines would require the same adjustment as the AMI30 figures (linear interpolation based on the average household size to generate a single cutoff point). Because the average household size in the Denver PMSA (2.52 persons) is less than six persons, the adjusted AMI30 figure is higher, and therefore inclusive of more households, than the adjusted HHS guideline. Theoretically, unadjusted low-income figures could be used to identify low-income households where both the household size and income is known, but data are not available to provide a cross-tabulation of household income by household size at any geography.


Page 8 of 19

The AMI30 figure for a two-person household is $16,800, and for a three-person household is $18,850. Because the average number of persons per household is between two and three, the adjusted AMI30 figure for the Denver PMSA is $17,866 [= $16,800 + 0.52 x ($18,850 - $16,800)], in 2004 dollars. This figure is then compared to block group household income data from the 2000 Census. Household income data from the 2000 Census is in 1999 dollars; thus, for the purpose of identifying low-income populations using Census data, the AMI30 figure was deflated to 1999 dollars, using the Consumer Price Index for urban residents of the Western U.S. (Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 2004). This deflation results in the figure of $15,932 in 1999 dollars.2 The 2000 Census reports numbers of households by income category in $5,000 increments (e.g., households with income between $10,000 and $14,999; households with income between $15,000 and $19,999). CDOT’s Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects notes that “it may be necessary to count some households that may have a higher income than the threshold income because they fall in the same income range. That is acceptable. Project teams are encouraged to be more, rather than less, inclusive.” Thus, the effective AMI30 figure for the Denver PMSA is $19,999. That is, from a functional perspective, all households in the PMSA (regardless of the number of persons in the household) with incomes of $19,999 or less are counted as being low-income. For comparison purposes, Table 2 reports low-income estimates based on the HHS Poverty Guidelines and the Census Poverty Thresholds (by both households and individuals). The percent of low-income households using the HHS guidelines is calculated using adjustments and data similar to the AMI30 method described above. Census poverty statistics need no adjustments because the 2000 Census directly reports figures for both households and persons in poverty.

2 Note that the same number of households would be counted as low-income regardless of the deflationary adjustment. This is because the method for calculating the number of low-income households involves using Census income data that is reported in $5,000 increments. Both $17,866 and $15,932 are between $15,000 and $19,999, which means that all households in the $15,000 to $19,999 category would be counted as low-income regardless of whether $15,932 or $17,866 is used as the cutoff point.


Page 9 of 19

Table 2 Low-Income Percentages Determined Using Alternative Methods

Area Adjusted AMI30

Figures (Households)

Census Poverty

Thresholds (Persons)

Census Poverty Thresholds (Households)

Colorado 14.8% 9.3% 8.8% Denver PMSA 14.6% 8.1% 7.4% City and County of Denver 22.7% 14.3% 12.1% Adams County 14.4% 8.9% 7.7% Denver & Adams Counties 19.8% 12.1% 10.5% Study Area 21.2% 17.1% 14.4%

Source: Calculated using data from HUD (2004), HHS (2004), U.S. Census Bureau (2002) As reported in the environmental justice section of the DEIS, using the AMI30 method 14.8 percent of the households in Colorado are low-income. The statewide estimate involves the use of AMI30 figures and statistics on average household size that differ by the seven metropolitan areas and 52 non-metropolitan counties in Colorado. Table 3 shows the county-level information that was used to calculate the percent of low-income households for Colorado and the Denver PMSA.

Table 3 Calculation of Percent Low-Income Households for Colorado and Denver PMSA

County Average

Household Size1

AMI30 (1999 dollars)2

Number of households with income

less than AMI303

Number of households

in county

Percent of households with income

less than AMI30

Adams 2.52 $15,932 18,491 128,290 14.4% Alamosa 2.56 $11,832 1,407 5,475 25.7% Arapahoe 2.52 $15,932 22,449 190,961 11.8% Archuleta 2.47 $11,708 648 3,989 16.2% Baca 2.33 $11,514 536 1,907 28.1% Bent 2.53 $11,790 513 2,001 25.6% Boulder 2.47 $19,728 17,154 114,793 14.9% Chaffee 2.26 $11,417 1,216 6,612 18.4% Cheyenne 2.5 $11,749 173 878 19.7% Clear Creek 2.31 $14,406 371 4,028 9.2% Conejos 2.8 $12,164 944 2,981 31.7% Costilla 2.44 $11,666 581 1,496 38.8% Crowley 2.59 $11,873 374 1,362 27.5%


Page 10 of 19


County Average

Household Size1



less than AMI303


in county


less than AMI30

Custer 2.36 $11,555 291 1,490 19.5% Delta 2.43 $11,652 1,991 11,062 18.0% Denver 2.52 $15,932 54,382 239,415 22.7% Dolores 2.35 $11,542 192 783 24.5% Douglas 2.52 $15,932 2,718 61,029 4.5% Eagle 2.73 $17,906 1,191 15,210 7.8% Elbert 2.93 $19,864 505 6,760 7.5% El Paso 2.61 $14,294 20,070 192,599 10.4% Fremont 2.43 $11,652 2,876 15,254 18.9% Garfield 2.65 $14,019 1,651 16,215 10.2% Gilpin 2.32 $18,178 269 2,057 13.1% Grand 2.37 $14,003 493 5,060 9.7% Gunnison 2.3 $12,997 896 5,666 15.8% Hinsdale 2.2 $11,334 54 357 15.1% Huerfano 2.25 $11,403 881 3,074 28.7% Jackson 2.37 $11,569 127 667 19.0% Jefferson 2.52 $15,932 22,336 206,256 10.8% Kiowa 2.4 $11,611 144 655 22.0% Kit Carson 2.5 $11,749 579 3,000 19.3% Lake 2.59 $11,873 429 2,971 14.4% La Plata 2.43 $12,780 2,646 17,346 15.3% Larimer 2.52 $15,151 16,331 97,128 16.8% Las Animas 2.4 $11,611 1,688 6,155 27.4% Lincoln 2.44 $11,666 390 2,056 19.0% Logan 2.45 $11,680 1,514 7,540 20.1% Mesa 2.47 $11,708 7,818 45,840 17.1% Mineral 2.2 $11,334 61 381 16.0% Moffat 2.58 $11,860 666 5,003 13.3% Montezuma 2.54 $11,804 1,927 9,212 20.9% Montrose 2.52 $11,777 2,437 13,008 18.7% Morgan 2.8 $12,164 1,580 9,511 16.6% Otero 2.49 $11,735 1,944 7,902 24.6% Ouray 2.36 $13,002 198 1,577 12.6% Park 2.45 $14,560 494 5,925 8.3% Phillips 2.47 $11,708 315 1,786 17.6% Pitkin 2.14 $20,051 1,046 6,822 15.3%


Page 11 of 19


County Average

Household Size1



less than AMI303


in county


less than AMI30

Prowers 2.67 $11,984 1,127 5,325 21.2% Pueblo 2.52 $11,777 11,167 54,618 20.4% Rio Blanco 2.5 $11,749 362 2,320 15.6% Rio Grande 2.59 $11,873 1,094 4,698 23.3% Routt 2.44 $15,231 1,081 7,980 13.5% Saguache 2.56 $11,832 661 2,311 28.6% San Juan 2.06 $11,141 71 269 26.4% San Miguel 2.18 $15,594 522 3,010 17.3% Sedgwick 2.31 $11,486 233 1,161 20.1% Summit 2.48 $17,259 896 9,106 9.8% Teller 2.56 $15,312 915 7,980 11.5% Washington 2.46 $11,694 349 1,982 17.6% Weld 2.78 $13,008 9,145 63,197 14.5% Yuma 2.55 $11,818 733 3,806 19.3% Colorado N/A N/A 246,343 1,659,308 14.8% Denver PMSA N/A N/A 120,376 825,951 14.6%

N/A = Not applicable. 1. Number of persons per household from U.S. Census Bureau (2002). 2. AMI30 calculated from the HUD AMI30 thresholds shown in Table 1 and the number of persons per household; adjusted to 1999 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for urban residents of the Western U.S. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004). 3. Number of persons with income lower than AMI30 uses data from U.S. Census Bureau (2002), which compiles data on households with income by $5,000 increments as explained in text. For instance, the figure of 1,407 households below the AMI30 in Alamosa County is based on households with income under $14,999 (the closest $5,000 increment that exceeds the AMI30 for the county). Based on comments received from participants in the Environmental Justice Compliance Committee, further adjustments were incorporated when using the AMI30 figures to identify low-income populations in the corridor. This was done to allow for greater consistency with the Census poverty threshold definition of low-income, which is sometimes used by EPA to compare low-income populations in a local area with statewide averages. These additional adjustments resulted in more block groups in the study area exceeding the average concentration of low-income households in the state and the Denver PMSA than if AMI30 were used with only the deflation and household size adjustments identified above. These further adjustments apply only to block groups for which the percentage of low-income households using Census poverty thresholds exceeds the state or Denver PMSA average, but the percentage of low-income households using the AMI30 figures does not exceed the state or PMSA average. For these


Page 12 of 19

block groups, the number of low-income households in each of these block groups is considered to be sufficient to classify the block group as having a low-income population concentration. 3.2 MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS – DETAILED RESULTS

Figure 1 provides a visual overview of the block groups in the study area, along with block group identifiers. Table 4 provides the number and percentage of minority households for each of the block groups in the study area (i.e., those shown in Figure 1) compared to the state and to the Denver PMSA. The table shows block groups identified by their county, four-digit tract identifier, and one-digit block group code. Table 5 provides the number and percentage of low income people for each of the block groups in the study area compared to the state and to the Denver PMSA. The table shows block groups identified by their county, four-digit tract identifier, and one-digit block group code.


Page 13 of 19

Figure 1 Census Block Groups


Page 14 of 19

Table 4 Minority Populations in Block Groups within Study Area

Block group Population Minority Population

Percent Minority

Percent Minority Exceeds PMSA

Average

Percent Minority Exceeds State

Average

Adams: 8200-1 1,877 913 48.6% yes yes Adams: 8200-2 1,612 875 54.3% yes yes Adams: 8200-3 1,904 1,210 63.6% yes yes Adams: 8308-1 1,071 490 45.8% yes yes Adams: 8309-1 254 81 31.9% yes yes Adams: 8353-1 179 54 30.2% yes yes Adams: 8353-2 3,179 1,173 36.9% yes yes Adams: 8353-3 1,254 391 31.2% yes yes Adams: 8701-9 0 0 n/a n/a n/a Adams: 8703-2 1,167 713 61.1% yes yes Adams: 8703-3 734 386 52.6% yes yes Adams: 8703-4 1,794 1,094 61.0% yes yes Adams: 8901-1 945 525 55.6% yes yes Denver: 1500-1 724 595 82.2% yes yes Denver: 1500-2 1,394 1,096 78.6% yes yes Denver: 1500-3 1,336 1,177 88.1% yes yes Denver: 1600-1 1,108 931 84.0% yes yes Denver: 1600-2 849 285 33.6% yes yes Denver: 1600-3 1,526 1,102 72.2% yes yes Denver: 3500-1 1,264 1,114 88.1% yes yes Denver: 3500-2 1,541 1,406 91.2% yes yes Denver: 3500-3 1,491 1,342 90.0% yes yes Denver: 3500-4 1,722 1,571 91.2% yes yes Denver: 3500-5 690 611 88.6% yes yes Denver: 3601-1 1,742 1,654 94.9% yes yes Denver: 3601-2 755 698 92.5% yes yes Denver: 3601-3 1,965 1,853 94.3% yes yes Denver: 3601-4 705 680 96.5% yes yes Denver: 3601-5 495 440 88.9% yes yes Denver: 3602-1 1,163 1,113 95.7% yes yes Denver: 3602-2 800 749 93.6% yes yes Denver: 3602-3 1,072 1,001 93.4% yes yes Denver: 3602-4 1,111 1,057 95.1% yes yes Denver: 3602-5 1,026 942 91.8% yes yes Denver: 4101-1 1,356 1,267 93.4% yes yes


Page 15 of 19

Table 4 Minority Populations in Block Groups within Study Area

Block group Population Minority Population

Percent Minority

Percent Minority Exceeds PMSA

Average

Percent Minority Exceeds State

Average

Denver: 4101-2 1,044 1,023 98.0% yes yes Denver: 4101-3 889 856 96.3% yes yes Denver: 4102-1 1,089 984 90.4% yes yes Denver: 4102-2 992 945 95.3% yes yes Denver: 4102-3 1,195 1,169 97.8% yes yes Denver: 4102-4 1,259 1,214 96.4% yes yes Denver: 4105-1 2,575 1,783 69.2% yes yes Denver: 4105-2 0 0 n/a n/a n/a Denver: 8303-1 3,189 1,705 53.5% yes yes Denver: 8303-2 632 274 43.4% yes yes Denver: 8303-3 3,198 1,894 59.2% yes yes Denver: 8303-4 1,803 1,017 56.4% yes yes Denver: 8304-1 1,745 1,514 86.8% yes yes Denver: 8304-2 934 817 87.5% yes yes Denver: 8304-3 791 718 90.8% yes yes Denver: 8305-1 1,297 1,052 81.1% yes yes Denver: 8305-2 1,205 1,034 85.8% yes yes Denver: 8305-3 1,480 1,288 87.0% yes yes Denver: 8306-1 776 707 91.1% yes yes Denver: 8306-2 1,372 1,242 90.5% yes yes Denver: 8306-3 794 700 88.2% yes yes Denver: 8306-4 2,820 2,677 94.9% yes yes Denver: 8311-1 1,997 1,700 85.1% yes yes Denver: 8311-2 1,544 1,320 85.5% yes yes Denver: 8311-3 2,579 2,148 83.3% yes yes Denver: 8311-4 2,517 2,166 86.1% yes yes Denver: 8312-1 1,736 1,450 83.5% yes yes Denver: 8312-2 2,608 2,348 90.0% yes yes Denver: 8312-3 1,719 1,504 87.5% yes yes Denver: 8313-1 4 2 50.0% yes yes Total 87,588 67,840 77.5% yes yes

n/a = Not applicable. Source: Minority data from U.S. Census Bureau (2002), Summary File 1, P8 (Hispanic Origin by Race). Note: Population is 100% count of population.


Page 16 of 19

Table 5 Low-Income Populations in Block Groups within Study Area

Block group Households Low-Income Households

Percent Low-Income

Households

Percent Low-Income Exceeds PMSA Average

Percent Low-Income Exceeds

State Average

Adams: 8200-1 581 87 15.0% yes yes Adams: 8200-2 479 72 15.0% yes yes Adams: 8200-3 501 56 11.2% no no Adams: 8308-1 328 48 14.6% yes no Adams: 8309-1 123 34 27.6% yes yes Adams: 8353-1 49 0 0.0% no no Adams: 8353-2 1,005 61 6.1% no no Adams: 8353-3 513 8 1.6% no no Adams: 8701-9 0 0 n/a n/a n/a Adams: 8703-2 452 133 29.4% yes yes Adams: 8703-3 248 61 24.6% yes yes Adams: 8703-4 581 133 22.9% yes yes Adams: 8901-1 319 79 24.8% yes yes Denver: 1500-1 198 56 28.3% yes yes Denver: 1500-2 385 137 35.6% yes yes Denver: 1500-3 330 119 36.1% yes yes Denver: 1600-1 330 121 36.7% yes yes Denver: 1600-2 221 33 14.9% yes yes Denver: 1600-3 414 202 48.8% yes yes Denver: 3500-1 288 74 25.7% yes yes Denver: 3500-2 402 110 27.4% yes yes Denver: 3500-3 439 80 18.2% yes yes Denver: 3500-4 441 201 45.6% yes yes Denver: 3500-5 170 83 48.8% yes yes Denver: 3601-1 455 160 35.2% yes yes Denver: 3601-2 272 50 18.4% yes yes Denver: 3601-3 606 308 50.8% yes yes Denver: 3601-4 206 73 35.4% yes yes Denver: 3601-5 95 25 26.3% yes yes Denver: 3602-1 283 91 32.2% yes yes Denver: 3602-2 257 106 41.2% yes yes Denver: 3602-3 308 107 34.7% yes yes Denver: 3602-4 335 97 29.0% yes yes Denver: 3602-5 364 145 39.8% yes yes Denver: 4101-1 446 120 26.9% yes yes


Page 17 of 19

Table 5 Low-Income Populations in Block Groups within Study Area

Block group Households Low-Income Households

Percent Low-Income

Households

Percent Low-Income Exceeds PMSA Average

Percent Low-Income Exceeds

State Average

Denver: 4101-2 439 234 53.3% yes yes Denver: 4101-3 309 127 41.1% yes yes Denver: 4102-1 280 57 20.4% yes yes Denver: 4102-2 334 116 34.7% yes yes Denver: 4102-3 409 105 25.7% yes yes Denver: 4102-4 418 101 24.2% yes yes Denver: 4105-1 0 0 n/a n/a n/a Denver: 4105-2 0 0 n/a n/a n/a Denver: 8303-1 1,121 59 5.3% no no Denver: 8303-2 258 38 14.7% yes no Denver: 8303-3 1,055 9 0.9% no no Denver: 8303-4 673 41 6.1% no no Denver: 8304-1 423 77 18.2% yes yes Denver: 8304-2 268 63 23.5% yes yes Denver: 8304-3 205 30 14.6% yes no Denver: 8305-1 338 85 25.1% yes yes Denver: 8305-2 294 44 15.0% yes yes Denver: 8305-3 336 52 15.5% yes yes Denver: 8306-1 230 36 15.7% yes yes Denver: 8306-2 396 17 4.3% no no Denver: 8306-3 257 17 6.6% no no Denver: 8306-4 887 285 32.1% yes yes Denver: 8311-1 519 86 16.6% yes yes Denver: 8311-2 476 37 7.8% no no Denver: 8311-3 767 61 8.0% no no Denver: 8311-4 730 107 14.7% yes no Denver: 8312-1 566 85 15.0% yes yes Denver: 8312-2 858 146 17.0% yes yes Denver: 8312-3 435 64 14.7% yes no Denver: 8313-1 1 0 0.0% no no Total 25,706 5,449 21.2% yes yes n/a = Not applicable. Source: Low-Income data calculated using HUD (2004) and U.S. Census Bureau (2002), as described in the text. Note: Households are those represented in sample count (which may not equal 100 percent count of households).


Page 18 of 19

4.0 REFERENCES Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S Department of Labor. (2004). Consumer price index. Retrieved

from http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm Clinton, W. J. (1994, February 11). Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority

populations and low-income populations. Exec. Order No. 12898. Colorado Department of Transportation. (1996). Colorado Department of Transportation

statewide transportation policies. Denver: Author. Colorado Department of Transportation. (2003a). Environmental justice in Colorado’s statewide

and region planning process guidebook. Denver: Author. Colorado Department of Transportation. (2003b). Environmental stewardship guide. Denver:

Author. Colorado Department of Transportation. (2005). Title VI and environmental justice guidelines

for NEPA projects. Retrieved May 27, 2007, from https://www.dot.state.co.us/Environmental/StandardsForms/Rev_3_EJ_Guidelines.pdf.

Council on Environmental Quality. (1997). Council on Environmental Quality environmental

justice guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Federal Highway Administration. (1987). Technical advisory-guidance for preparing and

processing environmental and section 4(f) documents. (T 6640.8A). Washington, D.C.: Author.

Federal Highway Administration. (1998, December 2). Federal Highway Administration actions

to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. Order 6640.23.

Federal Highway Administration. (2002). Environmental justice: Facts. Retrieved from

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/facts/index.htm U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). 2000 Census of population and housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Preliminary estimates of weighted average poverty thresholds for

2003. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). 2004 federal poverty guidelines.

Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/04poverty.shtml


Page 19 of 19

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2004). FY 2004 income limits. Retrieved from http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/IL04/index.html

U.S. Department of Transportation. (1997, April 15). U.S. Department of Transportation order on environmental justice Order No. 5610.2.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Final guidance for incorporating environmental

justice concerns in EPA’s NEPA compliance analyses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Final guidance for consideration of

environmental justice in Clean Air Act 309 reviews. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.