ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

ANALYSIS TECHNICAL 

REPORT

Appendix

C

C. Environmental Justice Analysis

Technical Report
Environmental Justice Analysis Technical Report

Technical Report – Environmental Justice Analysis

Tier 2 Evaluation: 

Springfield Rail Improvements Project

Springfield, Illinois

Prepared by:

October 2012
Environmental Justice Analysis i Technical Report

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Location.................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Project Purpose and Need................................................................................ 2-1

 2.2.1 Improve Safety.................................................................................... 2-1

 2.2.2 Alleviate Congestion.......................................................................... 2-2

 2.2.3 Improve Livability and Commercial Activity ................................ 2-2

2.3 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................ 2-4

2.4 No-Build Alternative......................................................................................... 2-4

2.5 Preferred Alternative (2A)................................................................................ 2-5

3.0 METHODS FOR EVALUATING IMPACTS.......................................................... 3-1

4.0 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................... 4-1

5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Racial and Ethnic Characteristics .................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Income and Poverty Levels .............................................................................. 5-3

5.3 Racial and Ethnic Minorities and Low-Income Populations....................... 5-4

6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Rail Traffic impacts............................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Residential Displacements ............................................................................... 6-1

6.3 Commercial Displacements.............................................................................. 6-2

6.4 Public Services/Facilities................................................................................... 6-4

6.5 Community Impacts.......................................................................................... 6-6

6.6 Access Changes.................................................................................................. 6-6

6.7 Public Participation ......................................................................................... 6-11

6.7.1 Stakeholder Interviews ....................................................................... 6-11

6.7.2 Stakeholder Advisory Groups ........................................................... 6-11

6.7.3 Communications, Outreach, and Engagement................................ 6-12

6.7.4 Public Open Houses ............................................................................ 6-14
Environmental Justice Analysis ii Technical Report

7.0 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 8-1

APPENDICES

Appendix A 2010 Census Tract and Block Data

Appendix B Correspondence

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 2-1. Existing Springfield Railroad Corridors............................................................ 2-7

Exhibit 2-2. Preferred Alternative .......................................................................................... 2-8

Exhibit 4-1. Study Area Location............................................................................................. 4-2

Exhibit 4-2. Study Area within Springfield............................................................................ 4-3

Exhibit 5-1. Neighborhood Associations................................................................................ 5-2

Exhibit 5-2. Racial Minority Percentages by Census Block.................................................. 5-6

Exhibit 5-3. Black Population Percentages by Census Block............................................... 5-7

Exhibit 5-4. Racial Minorities other than Black Percentages by Census Block ................. 5-8

Exhibit 5-5. Hispanic or Latino Minority Percentages by Census Block ........................... 5-9

Exhibit 5-6. Low-Income Percentages by Census Tract ..................................................... 5-10

Exhibit 6-1. Community Facilities .......................................................................................... 6-5

Exhibit 6-2. Springfield Bus Routes......................................................................................... 6-9

TABLES

Table 2-1. Springfield Illinois ICC Trespassing Incidents, 2000-2010 ............................... 2-1

Table 5-1. Race and Ethnic Characteristics in 2010 by Percent ........................................... 5-3

Table 5-2. Median Household Income and Poverty Status in 2010.................................... 5-3

Table 5-3. Racial and Ethnic Minorities, and Low-Income Populations............................ 5-4

Table 6-1. Affected Environmental Justice Area .................................................................. 6-1

Table 6-2. Residential Displacements in Minority Communities ....................................... 6-2

Table 6-3. Commercial Displacements ................................................................................... 6-3

Table 6-4. Miles of Rail Corridor Through Residential Neighborhoods ........................... 6-6

Table 6-5. Community Presentations................................................................................... 6-13

Table 7-1. Environmental Justice Analysis Summary .......................................................... 7-1
Environmental Justice Analysis 1-1 Technical Report

1.0 Introduction

This Environmental Justice Technical Report has been prepared for the Springfield Rail 

Improvements Project to satisfy Executive Order 12898 (EO 12898), Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

(February 11, 1994), and to identify and address any disproportionate and adverse 

impacts on minority and/or low-income populations that could result from the 

implementation of the Preferred Alternative proposed in Volume II of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, this environmental justice analysis was 

prepared pursuant to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.2(a), 

Final DOT Environmental Justice Order, issued May 2, 2012. 

The DOT Environmental Justice Order 5610.2(a) is a key component of DOT’s June 21, 

1995 Environmental Justice Strategy (60 FR 33896). The Order reaffirms a process by 

which DOT and its Operating Administrations will integrate the goals of the Executive 

Order into their operations. This is to be done through a process developed within the 

framework of existing requirements, primarily the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA), the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and other DOT 

applicable statutes, regulations and guidance that concern planning; social, economic, or 

environmental matters; public health or welfare; and public involvement. 

The Order is an internal directive to the various components of DOT and does not create 

any right to judicial review for compliance or noncompliance with its provisions. 

However, it directs federal agencies to “promote nondiscrimination in federal programs 

substantially affecting human health and the environment, and provide minority and 

low-income communities access to public information on, and an opportunity for public 

participation in matters relating to human health or the environment.” The EO directs 

agencies to use existing laws to ensure that when they act:

 They do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin;

 They identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental efforts of their actions on minority and low-income communities; 

and

 They provide opportunities for community input during the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, including input on potential efforts and 

mitigation measures.

EO 12898 also requires federal agencies to work to ensure greater public participation in 

the decision-making process. For the Preferred Alternative, this requirement has been 

satisfied by the review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

This report analyzes the Preferred Alternative’s potential effects on minority and lowincome populations, to determine if disproportionately high and adverse impacts on 
Environmental Justice Analysis 1-2 Technical Report

those populations would result. This environmental justice analysis assesses the 

potential environmental and health effects of the Preferred Alternative on minority and 

low-income populations. 

EO 12898 does not define the terms “minority” or “low-income.” However, guidance 

provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) describes the terms in the 

context of an environmental justice (EJ) analysis. These definitions are unique to EJ 

analysis and are the basis for the methodology that follows:

 Minority Individual – A minority individual is classified by the U.S. Census Bureau 

as belonging to one of the following groups, American Indian or Alaskan Native, 

Asian or Pacific Islander, Black and Hispanic.

 Minority Populations – According to the CEQ guidelines, minority populations 

should be identified where either (a) the minority population of the affected area 

exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is 

meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general 

population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. The established 

screening criteria for this Tier 2 analysis were minority populations of the affected 

area which exceeded 50 percent. 

 Low-income population – Low-income populations are identified where 

individuals have incomes below the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services poverty guidelines. A low-income population is either a group of lowincome individuals living in proximity to one another or a set of individuals who 

share common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.

 Adverse Impact – The totality of meaningful individual or cumulative human 

health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects.

 Disproportionately High and Adverse Impact – An impact that is predominantly 

borne by a minority population and/or low-income population or, suffered by the 

minority population and/or low-income population and that is appreciably more 

severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the 

non-minority population and/or non-low-income population.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes provide that no person shall 

on the ground of race, color, national origin, age, gender, disabilities, or religion be 

excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to 

discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal funds. This 

Environmental Justice analysis utilized key efforts to ensure, demonstrate, and 

substantiate compliance with Title VI in conjunction with Environmental Justice 

requirements. These efforts included identifying socio-economic and environmental 

impacts, determining whether the potential for disproportionate or discriminatory 

impacts were adequately addressed, and soliciting adequate involvement from the 

public. 
Environmental Justice Analysis 2-1 Technical Report

2.0 Project Description

2.1 Project Location

The north limit of the Springfield Rail Improvements Project is the south right-of-way 

line of Sangamon Avenue. The south project limit is the north right-of-way line of 

Stanford Avenue. The purpose of the Springfield Rail Improvements Project is to 

enhance rail line capacity to accommodate and reduce the effects of the increasing highspeed passenger and freight train traffic on the three north-south rail corridors that pass 

through Springfield: the Union Pacific (UP) – 3

rd Street, Norfolk Southern (NS) – 10th

Street, and Canadian National (CN)/Illinois & Midland (I&M) – 19th Street (see Exhibit 2-

1). The purpose includes reducing rail line effects by improving safety, reducing 

congestion, and enhancing community livability and supporting commercial activity. 

The Preferred Alternative (2A) is along the 10th Street (NS) rail corridor (see Exhibit 2-2).

2.2 Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Springfield Rail Improvements Project is to enhance rail line capacity 

to accommodate and reduce the effects of the increasing high-speed passenger and 

freight train traffic on the three north-south rail corridors that pass through Springfield: 

the Union Pacific (UP), Norfolk Southern (NS), and Canadian National (CN)/Illinois & 

Midland (I&M), see Exhibit 2-2. The need for the Springfield Rail Improvements Project 

reflects the need for the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Program and includes 

project needs to address track capacity, safety, congestion, and community livability and 

commercial activity in Springfield. 

As part of the needs for enhanced safety of the Chicago to St. Louis corridor, as 

documented in the Tier 1 EIS for that project, there are specific needs inherent to the 

Springfield Project study area. 

2.2.1 Improve Safety

There are 68 at-grade crossings in the Springfield study area. Each one of these 

represents a point of conflict between passenger and freight rail traffic and roadway 

traffic.

There are 24 miles of unfenced railroad right-of-way in the study area providing 

numerous opportunities to trespass in dangerous areas. Table 2-1 shows ICC records 

(ICC, 2001-2010) for trespassing incidents in Springfield for the last 10 years are: 

Table 2-1. Springfield Illinois ICC Trespassing Incidents, 2000-2010

Incidents Fatalities Injuries

23 8 15

While each of the corridors passes through residential and commercial areas, the CN 

(19th Street) corridor is the most residential, and the UP (3rd Street) (Amtrak) corridor is 
Environmental Justice Analysis 2-2 Technical Report

most subject to trespassing because 3rd Street is parallel and immediately adjacent to the 

tracks. The UP tracks are centered in 3rd Street and the public street exists on one or 

both sides and immediately adjacent to the tracks through much of Springfield. 

Numerous homes and businesses front on 3rd Street. Aside from a periodic curb, there 

is little physical separation between the street and the railroad. North of South Grand 

Avenue and through downtown, the UP right-of-way is only approximately 30 feet 

wide. Pedestrians can easily and unknowingly infringe on railroad clearance, putting 

them in danger of being struck by a train.

Since most of the 3rd Street corridor is in dense commercial and residential areas, there 

are numerous pedestrians using the area at all times. The presence of 3rd Street adjacent 

to the tracks results in pedestrians crossing the tracks at locations other than at cross 

streets. Many people frequently find friends, family, jobs, parking, services, and 

shopping right across the tracks and choose to reach them without walking the extra 

distance to the next intersection. 

2.2.2 Alleviate Congestion

All major east-west streets across Springfield have an at-grade railroad crossing and 

many major streets such as North Grand Avenue, Carpenter, Adams, Washington, 

Laurel, and Ash streets cross all three railroads at-grade. A long train on any of these 

tracks can delay vehicle traffic through much of the city since it can simultaneously 

block almost all of the crossings on that track, and traffic queues can block vehicles on 

intersecting north-south streets. The I&M, NS and CN all have active rail yards in 

Springfield that frequently block adjacent crossings with stopped trains or trains 

involved in back and forth movements. Vehicle delays can result in a number of 

problems which reduce livability and inhibit economic activity, especially in an urban 

area.

2.2.3 Improve Livability and Commercial Activity

Noise

Train noise comes from the locomotive engines, air brakes, side-to-side car movement, 

slack-and-bunch car movement, wheels on rail joints, and locomotive horns blown by 

trains as they approach at-grade crossings. This noise is generated by both freight and 

passenger (including high-speed) trains. Of these, train horns are the most disturbing. 

Because of the short distances between at-grade crossings in the rail corridors, trains 

must blow their horns almost constantly when moving through Springfield. The total 

duration of train horn noise in the study area is 207 minutes per day. Federal regulations 

provide public authorities the option to maintain and/or establish quiet zones provided 

supplemental safety measures are in place. There are currently no quiet zones in 

Springfield.

The locations near grade crossings have very high Ldn values, and would be 

comparable to living directly next to a major highway, or just off the end of the runway 

at a busy airport. The HUD threshold for an unacceptable outdoor house environment 

is 75 dBA Ldn. Each of the existing corridors passes through some residential areas, 
Environmental Justice Analysis 2-3 Technical Report

but the CN (19th Street) and UP (3rd Street) corridors have the most adjacent residential 

development. 

Community Division

The UP, NS, and CN/I&M railroads operate on separate north-south corridors through 

Springfield, at 3rd Street, 10th Street and 19th Street, respectively. These rail lines 

present physical and psychological barriers that split downtown and divide 

neighborhoods. These barriers have created a set of development patterns that work 

against a healthy downtown and neighborhoods by isolating portions of the community 

and restricting access. Attracting residential and commercial redevelopment adjacent to 

the tracks is also very difficult. Home buyers see neighborhoods that are frequently 

blocked from access to schools, shopping, and services by rail traffic as less desirable. 

The rail corridors, especially when the crossings are occupied by trains, inhibit 

neighborhood connectivity (Walker, et al, 2009).

Community buildings exist along each of the three corridors. While some of these 

buildings provide services on a city wide basis, many are neighborhood specific. Closed 

streets and blocked crossings from stopped trains inhibit access to these buildings and 

places or make access less safe by requiring the crossing of tracks or encouraging 

walking along the tracks.

Emergency Response and Community Services

The 3rd Street corridor runs directly through Springfield’s Medical District passing 

between the campuses of the city’s major hospitals. Stopped trains can delay emergency 

vehicles traveling to the hospitals, and delay physicians moving from one hospital to the 

other for both routine and emergency purposes. In addition, Springfield’s planning 

goals is to enhance development opportunities in the Medical District, which would 

provide additional jobs and services to the surrounding communities. This 

development expansion is severely hindered because of the rail traffic on the UP rail 

line. 

The project goals, derived from the purpose and need, focus on providing enhancement 

to the community, improvements to livability and improvements to community 

conditions. They include:

 Improve safety and reduce congestion by reducing the number of at-grade 

crossings.

 Reduce train noise.

 Reduce the barrier effect of the rail lines on neighborhoods by construction new 

overpasses and underpasses. 
Environmental Justice Analysis 2-4 Technical Report

2.3 Alternatives Analysis

Several alternatives were developed for the project, including the No-Build Alternative, 

that were assessed in the Draft EIS, including the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred

Alternative (2A) is along the 10th Street (NS) rail corridor (see Exhibit 2-1), and is 

discussed in detail below. 

The alternatives retained for more detailed study in Springfield were:

 Alternative 1A – Double track 3rd Street with a grade separation at the passenger 

state only.

 Alternative 1B – Double track 3rd Street with multiple grade separations on 3rd Street 

only. 

 Alternative 1C – Double track 3rd Street with multiple grade separations on 3rd, 10th

and 19th Streets.

 Alternative 2A – Relocate UP to 10th Street with grade separations on 10th Street and 

19th Street. 

 Alternative 2B – Relocate UP to 10th Street with grade separation or closure of all 

crossings on 10th Street and some on 19th Street. 

Alternatives 1A and 1B were eliminated because they fail to address safety, delay, noise, 

and community division goals on 10th or 19th Streets. The number of accidents and delays 

as well as the noise levels would increase doing more harm to the environmental justice 

communities than other alternatives. 

Alternative 1C was eliminated because of the high cost and number of displacements

while providing no benefit to Springfield relative to the other alternatives. The 

alternative also had a high number of community and environmental justice impacts. 

Alternative 2B was eliminated because it had higher cost and more displacement than 

2B and resulted in more adverse travel in the residential areas between Madison Street 

and North Grand Avenue. 

Alternative 2A is the Preferred Alternative because it best achieves the project goals at 

the least cost. Alternative 2A also maximized benefits to environmental justice 

communities by abandoning one rail line (3rd Street) and reducing accidents, delays, and 

noise in the other two (10th and 19th Streets), and by improving emergency vehicle 

response time. 

2.4 No-Build Alternative

The No‐Build Alternative consists of maintaining the existing rail and street facilities

after completion of the improvements approved by the Federal Railroad Administration 
Environmental Justice Analysis 2-5 Technical Report

(FRA) in the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD Improvements) (see Volume 1 Section 3.2). 

No additional grade separations would be constructed. Quad gate installation along 3rd 

Street as part of the ROD Improvements would allow for a quiet zone for the 3rd Street 

corridor (UP). The No‐Build Alternative would have a substantial increase in freight rail 

traffic for all three rail corridors compared to existing conditions.

The No-Build Alternative would result in increased accidents, delays, and noise on all 

three rail corridors, including those portions through environmental justice 

communities. It would not address the project purpose and need of improving livability 

and commercial activity and would not reduce community division or improve 

emergency response. This alternative would not achieve any of the project goals and 

would contribute to residential deterioration along all tree corridors. 

2.5 Preferred Alternative (2A)

The Preferred Alternative, (2A) relocates UP freight and passenger (HSR) traffic to the 

10th Street corridor. This alternative includes a specific combination of grade separations 

and grade crossing closures (see Exhibit 2-2). The passenger station for the Preferred 

Alternative would be relocated from 3rd Street to 10th Street on the east side of the rail 

corridor on the block between Adams and Washington Streets. An overhead pedestrian 

crossing would provide access to the platforms. This alternative includes closing the 

Adams Street crossing to provide the required 500 feet station platform length. Station 

parking (minimum 100 spaces) would be located east of the station between Adams and 

Washington Streets.

In accordance with EO 12898, the project area was reviewed for publicly funded 

construction projects over the last 10 years that may have had a disproportionally high 

or adverse impact on low-income and minority neighborhoods. These projects are 

discussed below.

The recently completed (2011) Capitol Avenue project extends through minority 

neighborhoods from 11th Street through 19th Street. It included replacement of curbs and 

sidewalks, installation of residential corner monuments, landscaping and burying 

overhead utility lines. This was part of a federal, state and city funded Streetscape 

Project. There were no disproportionate adverse impacts associated with this project. 

The Madison Park Place project was completed approximately 10 years ago and 

included demolition of the degraded John Hay Homes Public Housing project and its 

replacement with a new single family residential subdivision of more than 100 homes. 

The project area is located east of 11th Street between Madison Street and Carpenter 

Street and was a positive impact to minority and low-income groups.

The Genesis Place Housing Redevelopment consists of 41 units, both single family and 

multi-family homes is currently underway. This development replaces a former highrise housing project and is scattered over various locations east of the 10th Street tracks in 

environmental justice communities of concern. 
Environmental Justice Analysis 2-6 Technical Report

Both the Madison Park Place and Genesis Place projects are sponsored by the 

Springfield Housing Authority. No adverse impacts are associated with these projects.

Springfield has funded redevelopment of the old Southtown area at 11th Street and South 

Grand Avenue. This is a business revitalization project designed to both enhance the 

structure of existing businesses and to attract new enterprises to the Southtown area. 

The project area does not have a history of publicly funded construction projects that 

have had a disproportionately high or adverse impact on local minority or low-income 

populations. 
Environmental Justice Analysis 2-7 Technical Report

Exhibit 2-1. Existing Springfield Railroad Corridors
Environmental Justice Analysis 2-8 Technical Report

Exhibit 2-2. Preferred Alternative 
Environmental Justice Analysis 3-1 Technical Report

3.0 Methods for Evaluating Impacts

The environmental justice analysis for the Preferred Alternative follows the guidance 

and methodologies recommended in the federal Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ)’s Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(December 1997). The CEQ, which has oversight of the federal government’s compliance 

with EO 12898 and NEPA, developed its guidance to assist federal agencies with their 

NEPA procedures so that environmental justice concerns are effectively identified and 

addressed. 

The CEQ methodology involves collecting demographic information on the area where 

the project may cause significant adverse effects; identifying low-income and minority 

populations (communities of concern) in that area using census data and other available 

means; and identifying whether the project’s adverse effects are disproportionately high 

on the low-income and minority populations in comparison with those on other 

populations. Under NEPA, the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects 

on minority and/or low-income populations is one of the factors the FRA considers in 

making its finding on a project and issuing a Record of Decision. 

The assessment of environmental justice involves four basic steps:

1. Identify the area where the project may cause significant and adverse effects (i.e., 

the project area);

2. Compile population and economic characteristics for the project area and 

identify potential environmental justice areas (i.e., minority or low-income 

communities) within the area of effect;

3. Identify the Preferred Alternative’s potential adverse effects on minority and 

low-income communities; and

4. Evaluate the Preferred Alternative’s potential adverse effects on minority and 

low-income communities relative to its overall effects to determine whether any 

potential adverse impacts on those communities would be disproportionate. 

Many of the methods used to evaluate each of the four basic steps are typical of 

environmental justice assessments. For the first step of identifying an area that the 

project may affect, a distance of 1,000 feet from the centerline of the Preferred 

Alternative was determined reasonable. This distance includes persons or communities 

that would be directly affected such as displacements or relocation of a community 

facility, and indirectly affected such as changes to pedestrian, vehicular, or business 

access. 

For the second assessment step of compiling population and economic characteristics, 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau is typically used to evaluate the presence of lowincome and minority populations. Data from the 2010 Census were compiled from the 

census website for information on population, race, and ethnicity. This data includes the

maximum extent of roadway work at proposed grade separations.
Environmental Justice Analysis 3-2 Technical Report

This data was available at the census block level. Data from the U.S. Census American 

Community Survey (ACS) 2006-2010 were compiled from the census website for 

information related to income and poverty. The 2010 Census does not provide income 

and poverty estimates. The ACS replaced the decennial census on topics of social, 

economic, and housing data. The ACS releases one-year, three-year, and five-year 

period estimates of income and poverty. The five-year period estimates were used for 

this environmental justice analysis because the five-year estimates have the largest 

sample size, providing the best survey-based income and poverty estimates at this 

project’s geography. The ACS data for income and poverty was available at the census 

tract level, but not at the block group or block level. The census data was compiled and 

linked in a GIS to TIGER geography shapefiles to identify the physical locations of the 

minority and low-income populations. 

Where needed, other means of data collection were used to compliment the census data. 

Businesses likely to be displaced or relocated were contacted for information on 

ownership and number of employees. Aerial photography was reviewed for identifying 

means of access and locations of affected persons and businesses. Several local agencies 

such as the Springfield Chamber of Commerce and Springfield were contacted for 

information on local businesses and communities.

For the third and fourth steps of identifying the Preferred Alternative’s potential adverse 

effects to minority and low-income communities and determining whether those 

impacts would be disproportionate, the following neighborhood and community issues 

were considered: residential and business displacements; changes in neighborhood 

quality and barriers; community cohesion, community facilities, and public services and 

facilities; safety; changes in access to residences, businesses and communities; changes in 

access for bus routes, pedestrians and vehicles; and other environmental resources and 

conditions identified in Volume II.

The analysis determined whether communities of concern within the study area would 

experience disproportionately high and adverse effects. A community of concern would 

experience a disproportionate high and adverse effect if that community would 

predominantly bear the impact, or the impact borne would be considerably more severe 

or greater in magnitude than the adverse impact on the general population. In addition, 

the analysis considered the project’s measures to avoid or minimize disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts and the benefits from the project to identified communities of 

concern. 
Environmental Justice Analysis 4-1 Technical Report

4.0 Study Area

The study area for environmental justice encompasses the area most likely to be affected 

by the Preferred Alternative and considers the area where potential impacts resulting 

from construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative could occur. The study 

area for the environmental justice analysis includes the area within 1,000 feet on either 

side of the 10th Street railroad tracks, which encompasses the limits of disturbance and 

all right-of-way needed to construct the project, and all limits of disturbance, as shown 

in Exhibit 4-1. Sangamon Avenue constitutes the northern limit of the project area and 

Stanford Avenue is the southern limit. The project area used for this environmental 

justice analysis, in relation to the Volume II study area and Springfield is shown in 

Exhibit 4-2. The census blocks and tracts that are partially or wholly within the study 

area were used to assess effects to potential environmental justice populations. Other 

possible effects to the community outside this study area, such as pedestrian access, 

were included in this analysis. 

Identification of potential environmental justice areas includes collecting data on race,

ethnicity, and poverty status gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Census 2010 and 

2006-2010 American Community Survey for the census blocks and tracts within the project

area, and then aggregated for the project area as a whole. For comparison purposes, data 

for Springfield were also compiled. Based on census data and CEQ guidance (described 

above), potential environmental justice areas were identified as follows: 

 Minority communities: CEQ guidance defines minorities to include American 

Indians or Alaskan Native, Asian and Pacific Islanders, African Americans or Black 

persons, and Hispanic persons. This environmental justice analysis also considers 

minority populations to include persons who identified themselves as being either 

“some other race” or “two or more races” in the Census 2010. Following CEQ 

guidance and the screening criteria established for this Tier 2 analysis, minority 

communities of concern were identified where the minority population of the 

affected area exceeds 50 percent. 

 Low-income communities: The percent of individuals living below the poverty level 

in each census tract, available in 2006-2010 American Community Survey, was used to 

identify low-income populations. Because CEQ guidance does not specify a 

threshold for identifying low-income communities, any census tract with a lowincome population greater than 50 percent was considered a low-income 

community of concern. This was the Tier 2 screening criterion established for this 

analysis. 
Environmental Justice Analysis 4-2 Technical Report

Exhibit 4-1. Study Area Location
Environmental Justice Analysis 4-3 Technical Report

Exhibit 4-2. Study Area within Springfield
Environmental Justice Analysis 5-1 Technical Report

5.0 Existing Conditions

The existing conditions of the study area used for this analysis are described in this 

section. Racial and ethnic characteristics, income, and poverty status are included to 

determine if communities of concern occur in the study area, and provide the basis for 

an analysis of impact populations.

The Preferred Alternative passes through or is adjacent to the Springfield 

neighborhoods of Pillsbury, Enos Park, Downtown Springfield, Pioneer Park, Old 

Aristocracy Hill, Mather and Wells, Iles Park, Grand Improvement, Near South, 

Harvard Park, and Springfield South Corridor (see Exhibit 5-1). Racial and ethnic 

characteristics, income, and poverty status of these areas are included to determine if 

communities of concern occur in the study area, and provide the basis for an analysis of 

impact populations.

5.1 Racial and Ethnic Characteristics

Detailed information regarding race and ethnicity of the project area and Springfield 

was compiled at the census block level from the 2010 Census. 

Table 5.1 summarizes the percent of each race for the blocks located in the study area 

and in Springfield. Exhibit 5-2 depicts the racial composition within the study area and 

Springfield as depicted in this exhibit, the composition of the study area is 

predominantly white. Of the minority population, black or African American is the 

predominant race within the project area and Springfield. The “Other Race” category 

reflects individuals who reported themselves as “some other race alone” and “two or 

more races.” Minority populations other than black or African American (American 

Indian and Alaskan native, Asian American, native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, 

and other) in the study area and Springfield comprised about six percent of the total 

population.
Environmental Justice Analysis 5-2 Technical Report

Exhibit 5-1 Neighborhood Associations
Environmental Justice Analysis 5-3 Technical Report

Table 5-1. Race and Ethnic Characteristics in 2010 by Percent

Race Characteristics

Ethnic 

Characteristics

Area White

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian 

American

Native 

Hawaiian 

and 

Other 

Pacific 

Islander Other

Hispanic or 

Latino

Study

Area 64.2 29.7 0.3 0.6 0.0 5.2 2.1

City of 

Springfield 75.8 18.5 0.2 2.2 0.0 3.3 2.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, block level.

See Appendix A for individual block data.

Table 5.1 also summarizes the percent of Hispanic or Latino populations in the study 

area and Springfield. Both geographies were comprised of about two percent of this

ethnicity.

Refer to Table A-1 in Appendix A for detailed census block data of individual blocks in 

the study area.

5.2 Income and Poverty Levels

Information regarding income and poverty levels was compiled at the census tract level 

from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey. Table 5.2 summarizes the median 

household income and the percent of individuals below the poverty level in the study 

area and Springfield. Median household income in the project area (average of all tract 

values) was $16,733 lower than the median household income for all of Springfield. The 

number of individuals in the study area who reported income below the census poverty 

level was 9.8 percent higher than those in Springfield as a whole. 

Table 5-2. Median Household Income and Poverty Status in 2010

Area

Median Household Income

($)

Population below Poverty 

Level

(%)

Project Area 30,476 26.0

City of Springfield 47,209 16.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006-2010, tract level.

See Appendix A for individual tract data.
Environmental Justice Analysis 5-4 Technical Report

Refer to Table A-2 in Appendix A for detailed Census tract data of individual tracts in 

the project area.

5.3 Racial and Ethnic Minorities and Low-Income 

Populations

Based on the census data gathered for racial and ethnic populations, and poverty, an 

overall characterization of the project area was calculated and compared to Springfield. 

Table 5-3 summarizes the percent of racial minorities, Hispanic or Latino, and lowincome populations of the study area and Springfield. The study area had higher 

populations for both percent racial minority and low-income, but the percent of 

Hispanic or Latino population was identical for both geographies.

Table A-1 in Appendix A lists the racial and ethnic characteristics of the 325 individual 

census blocks in the project area. Of the 325 blocks, 75 blocks have minority populations 

greater than 50 percent. These 75 blocks represent communities of concern within the 

project area. 

Table 5-3. Racial and Ethnic Minorities, and Low-Income Populations

Area

Percent Racial 

Minority

Percent Hispanic or 

Latino Percent Low-Income 

Project Area 35.8 2.1 26.0

City of Springfield 24.2 2.0 16.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census (block level) and American Community Survey, 2006-2010 (tract level).

See Appendix A for individual tract and block data.

Exhibit 5-2 depicts the location of racial minority communities of concern in the study

area and the surrounding city. The majority of these minority population blocks are 

located in the central portion of the study area between North Grand Avenue and Ash 

Street and east of the NSRR and east of the NS Railroad corridor, although most are not 

directly adjacent (about 500 feet away).

Exhibit 5-3 depicts the blocks having greater than 50 percent black or African American 

populations, and Exhibit 5-4 depicts the blocks having greater than 50 percent of 

minorities other than black or African American. These exhibits illustrate the majority of 

racial minority composition as black or African American within the study area and 

Springfield. Only two blocks having populations of minorities other than black or 

African American greater than 50 percent area located within the study area. These two 

blocks have total populations of only 1 and 3, and are located on the fringe of the study 

area.

Exhibit 5-5 depicts the census blocks within the project area and Springfield having 

greater than 50 percent Hispanic or Latino populations. Of the 325 total census blocks 
Environmental Justice Analysis 5-5 Technical Report

within the project area, no blocks have Hispanic or Latino populations greater than 50 

percent. 

Exhibit 5-6 depicts census tracts within the project area and Springfield having greater 

than 50 percent low-income populations. No tracts have low-income populations greater 

than 50 percent. Therefore, Environmental Justice populations of minorities exist in the 

study area based on the CEQ definitions and the Tier 2 screening criteria.
Environmental Justice Analysis 5-6 Technical Report

Exhibit 5-2. Racial Minority Percentages by Census Block
Environmental Justice Analysis 5-7 Technical Report

Exhibit 5-3. Black Population Percentages by Census Block
Environmental Justice Analysis 5-8 Technical Report

Exhibit 5-4. Racial Minorities other than Black Percentages by Census Block
Environmental Justice Analysis 5-9 Technical Report

Exhibit 5-5. Hispanic or Latino Minority Percentages by Census Block
Environmental Justice Analysis 5-10 Technical Report

Exhibit 5-6. Low-Income Percentages by Census Tract
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-1 Technical Report

6.0 Impact Analysis

Detailed information regarding minority and low-income populations in the study area

was compiled from the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey 2006-2010 data. 

Table 15-3 provides the percentage of the population in the Preferred Alternative study 

area and Springfield comprised of minority and low-income persons. The study area

contains communities of concern for racial minorities based on individual census blocks. 

However, the project area does not contain an overall greater than 50 percent minority 

or low-income population based on 2010 Census data. Minority or low-income 

percentages greater than 50 percent for the study area could constitute an environmental 

justice impact. 

6.1 Rail Traffic Impacts

The number of census block areas or communities of concern (from 2010 census data) 

where minority populations exceed 50 percent (see Exhibit 5-1), and which would 

experience an increase in rail traffic, is shown in Table 6-1. The number of census tracts 

where low-income communities of concern, which would experience an increase in rail 

traffic is also shown in Exhibit 5-5 and listed in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1. Affected Environmental Justice Areas

Alternative

Environmental Justice Populations

Minority 

Blocks

Total 

Blocks

Low Income 

Tracts

Total 

Tracts

No-Build 208 807 0 20

Preferred 178 607 0 17

6.2 Residential Displacements

Table 6-2 lists the residential displacements located within blocks identified as 

Environmental Justice populations. A total of 23 residences would be displaced from 

areas of racial minorities greater than 50 percent. This represents approximately 20 

percent of the total number of residential displacements. This affected percentage of 

displaced minorities is less than the overall percentages of the racial minorities in the 

study area and Springfield (36 and 24 percent respectively). Therefore, displacement 

impacts to racial minorities in the study area are not disproportionate.
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-2 Technical Report

Table 6-2. Residential Displacements in Minority Communities

Tract, Block

Residential 

Displacement ID # Displaced

Percent Racial Minority 

(Entire Block)

000503, 5009 R1, R104 2 100

000900, 1014 R26-R29, R172 5 75

000900, 1020 R30-R37 8 70

002300, 1035 R162-R165, R168 5 58

001800, 2025 R160 1 79

002300, 3015 R47, R48 2 53

Total 23

6.3 Commercial Displacements

Table 6-3 depicts the number of commercial displacements for the Preferred Alternative. 

This table lists the number of employees for each affected business and if the business is 

minority-owned. This information was obtained through personal communication. Of 

the 43 affected businesses, five are minority-owned and employ 10 people total. The 

displacement numbers can be referenced in Exhibit B-1 of Appendix B in Volume II.

The No-Build Alternative will not directly impact minority or low income populations 

with displacements, however increasing train frequency and longer duration of train 

horn noise will continue to create poor quality of life and environmental impacts to 

these communities.

The Preferred Alternative would result in 43 business relocations, of which 11 percent 

comprise minority and/or low-income businesses. These businesses are predominately 

industrial in nature and not related to service or retail related offerings to residential 

customers. The Uniform Relocation Act applies to all federal or federally assisted 

activities that involve the acquisition of real property or the displacement of person or 

business. In compliance with that Act, property owners would receive just 

compensation for property acquisitions required for the selected alternative as well as

relocation expenses.

Three government or non-profit establishments are included in the commercial 

designation for the Preferred Alternative including: the Illinois Environmental 

Protection (EPA), the Salvation Army, and Planned Parenthood. These non-profit 

establishments serve all of the surrounding communities, both Environmental Justice 

and non-Environmental Justice communities combined. Nearby property appears to be 

available for these facilities to relocate. The Salvation Army currently has plans to move 

to a new location at 100 N. 9th Street independently of this project. Therefore, 

displacing these establishments would result in only temporary impacts to the 

environmental justice areas until the relocation of these facilities is established, as 

discussed in the subsequent section. 
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-3 Technical Report

Table 6-3 Commercial Displacements

Business Minority-Owned Number of 

Employees Exhibit Number(1)

Donald Farley No 2 C1

Martin Wieland Not Applicable - C3

Illinois Disposal Inc. No 17 C4

Public Assets Service Corp. (IEPA) No 700-800 C5

John Lesko Yes 2 C6

Benjamin Kruger No 1 C7

Auto Recyclers/C&D Enterprises No 3 C8

Springfield Electric Supply No 280 C9, 10, 11

Crowder Corporation No 12 C12

Marvin Gubin No 5 C13

Capital City Coalition Unknown 20 C14

St. John’s Hospital No Vacant Lot C15

Salvation Army No 15 C17

Planned Parenthood No No Response C18

Public Building Commission No 370 C19

Family Video Movie Club No 50 C21, 23

Community Care Systems Not Applicable Vacant C22

1015 Capitol LLC No 29 C24

Kwik- Wall Property Co. Yes 5 C26

Kwik- Wall Property Co. No 65 C28

Stamprete of Springfield Not Applicable Vacant C29

Evans Masonry Consortium No 10-60 C30

O’Dells Auto Salvage No 3 C31

Jessie Jones No 8 C32

Global Printing & Graphics No 7-10 C34

Napier Machine & Welding Co. No 1 C35

R&R Properties of Springfield Yes 1 C37

David O’Shea No Vacant C38, 40

Branner Glass Not Applicable Vacant C39

O’Connor Mailing System No 10 C41

Bardo Inc. No 4 C42

Angelo LLC No 2 C43

Marion Myerscough No 3 C44

Christopher Ryan Not Applicable Vacant C45

Elizabeth Dennis Yes 1 C46

T&J Family Limited Partnership No 1 C47

Nudo Enterprise No 15 C48

Bradley & Sheila Zeiger No 2-6 C49

Steve Goulden No 5 C50, 51, 52

People’s National Bank Not Applicable Vacant Lot C53
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-4 Technical Report

Mini Express Inc. Yes 1 C87

James & Kathleen Warren No Vacant C88, 89

Robert Tick Not Applicable Vacant C90

(1) Refer to Exhibit B-1 in Appendix B of Volume II

6.4 Public Services/Facilities

Public and community facilities such as schools, hospitals, fire stations, churches, and 

parks are shown in Exhibit 6-1. As discussed above, public services and facilities that 

would be displaced by the Preferred Alternative are the Illinois EPA, the Salvation 

Army, and Planned Parenthood. The Illinois EPA headquarters is at 1021 North Grand 

Avenue East. The Illinois EPA is an Illinois agency whose mission is to safeguard 

environmental quality, consistent with the social and economic needs of the state, so as 

to protect health, welfare, property, and the quality of life. The agency’s primary 

function is to enforce the environmental laws of the state. The proposed project would 

dissect the headquarters building, and displace the north entrance, office space, and 

parking north and south of the building, all of which is leased by the Illinois EPA. 

Adequate replacement is nearby. Office space could be replaced through the addition of 

floors, or construction of additional buildings or add-ons to the north of the existing 

headquarters. Acquiring property to the north may also be possible for replacing lost 

parking space.

The Salvation Army is at 221 N. 11th Street. The Salvation Army is an evangelical 

Christian church known for charitable work. This parcel is the site for their Main Thrift 

Store and Adult Rehabilitation Center. Construction of the proposed underpasses on 

Madison Street and Jefferson Street would eliminate access to the existing Salvation 

Army lot. Currently, the Salvation Army has plans to move to a recently purchased 

location at 100 N. 9

th Street.

The Planned Parenthood Springfield Health Center at 1000 E. Washington Street is a 

provider of sexual and reproductive health care, education, and information. Their 

services include family planning, abortion and birth control services, HIV and other STD 

testing, and men and women’s health services. The proposed project would displace the 

structure. There are comparable locations within the same vicinity for relocation of this 

facility, resulting in no effect. It could be relocated on the same block lot, or other vacant 

facilities that are available in the area.

The Preferred Alternative is anticipated to have a net positive effect on access and 

response times for emergency vehicles serving the Springfield communities once 

construction is complete (see Appendix B for correspondence from the Police and Fire 

Departments). By reducing the number of rail corridors through Springfield and by 

providing grade separations, the existing rail barriers will be minimized for improved 

emergency vehicle access and response times. Response time for emergency vehicles is 

expected to improve from decreased train delay times and improved roadway access as 
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-5 Technical Report

Exhibit 6-1. Community Facilities
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-6 Technical Report

a result of improved roadway system linkage, elimination of the UP Railroad on the 3

rd

Street Corridor, construction of eight grade separations, and consolidation of UP and NS 

railroad traffic into one corridor. Police, fire, and emergency response times may be 

temporarily affected during construction. Coordination with public response agencies 

serving the project area would continue during construction to avoid and minimize 

disruptions to emergency response.

6.5 Community Impacts

The miles of corridor with rail traffic passing through residential neighborhoods for 

each alternative is shown in Table 6-4. 

Table 6-4. Miles of Rail Corridor Through Residential Neighborhoods 

Alternative Miles of Corridor in Residential Areas

No-Build 9.1

Preferred 5.4

The No-Build Alternative would involve the continued service of three existing rail 

corridors through Springfield, creating barriers with long train stoppages that generate 

noise and congestion; divide the city neighborhoods; isolate portions of the community; 

and increase safety concerns at crossings and force pedestrians into harm’s way by 

trying to move around them.

The Preferred Alternative decreases the amount of rail corridor that extends through the 

residential neighborhoods of Springfield, decreasing the amount of noise impacts to 

communities by establishing Quiet Zones; improving congestion; and improving safety 

to communities by creating grade separations and eliminating unlimited pedestrian 

access across the tracks through road closures and fencing.

6.6 Access Changes 

The need to improve safety in the study area by eliminating the ability of pedestrians to 

cross the tracks throughout the rail corridor will be provided by street closures and 

exclusionary fencing along the Preferred Alternative. Each of the proposed street 

closures associated with the Preferred Alternative would result in changes in travel 

patterns and adverse travel (see Exhibit 5.3 of Volume II). Adverse travel is the 

additional distance individual vehicles or pedestrians would need to travel because the 

street is closed. 

Of the proposed road closures, only a few are within environmental justice areas. Road 

closures along the Preferred Alternative are primarily in industrial areas where 

businesses would be displaced and moved to a new location, or where access would not 

require adverse travel. Adverse travel for these residents would be limited to no more 

than one block at the most. Adverse travel resulting from road closures is not a factor
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-7 Technical Report

for residents within the study area going shopping, or for emergency services, or access 

to public facilities in the study area since the primary east-west arterials are North 

Grand Avenue, Carpenter, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Monroe, Laurel, and Ash 

Streets (see Appendix B for correspondence). 

Abandonment of the 3rd Street Corridor and construction of new grade separations in 

10th and 19th Streets would mitigate the delays due to adverse travel by eliminating

delays due to trains blocking crossings. All locations within the combined 10th Street 

Corridor would be within 0.4 miles of a grade separation as opposed to 1.4 miles under 

the No-Build condition. Areas affected by street closures would see improved 

emergency vehicle access since the risk of crossings being blocked by trains would be 

eliminated on 3rd Street and dramatically reduced on both 10th Street and 19th Street.

Reservoir Street

Traffic using Reservoir Street would reroute one block north to North Grand Avenue 

where a grade separation would be constructed. The current Average Daily Traffic 

(ADT) on Reservoir Street is 900. The maximum adverse travel for any vehicle is 0.4 

miles. There are no community facilities on Reservoir Street, and closure would not 

affect emergency vehicle access. Pedestrians wishing to travel east or west across the 

proposed UPRR would utilize the proposed North Grand Avenue grade separation, a 

maximum extra distance of one block. 

Division Street

Traffic using Division Street would reroute two blocks to the north to North Grand 

Avenue where a grade separation would be constructed. The current ADT is 800. The 

maximum adverse travel for any vehicle is 0.6 miles. There are no community facilities 

on Division Street, and closure would not affect emergency vehicle access. Pedestrians 

wishing to travel east or west across the proposed UPRR would utilize the proposed 

North Grand Avenue grade separation, a maximum extra distance of two blocks. 

Enterprise Street

Pedestrian and vehicular traffic using Enterprise Street would reroute three blocks to the 

north and use the proposed grade separation at North Grand Avenue or two blocks to 

the south to the at-grade crossing at Enos Street. 

Miller/Reynolds Streets

Closing the at-grade rail crossing at Miller Street (Average Daily Traffic (ADT) =500) and 

Reynolds Street (ADT = 700) will likely divert that pedestrian and vehicular traffic to 

Carpenter Street (ADT = 7,700). All three of these streets pass through minority 

neighborhoods east of the 10th Street tracks and non-minority neighborhoods west of 

10th Street. The effect of adverse travel to pedestrians in these nearby neighborhoods 

would be minor due to the unrestricted passageway provided by the proposed grade 

separation at Carpenter Street within one block from Miller and Reynolds Streets. The 
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-8 Technical Report

increase in traffic on Carpenter Street will be the same in the non-minority 

neighborhoods as it is in the minority neighborhoods. There are no other locations 

where the proposed project will increase traffic in minority neighborhoods. The increase 

in traffic on Carpenter Street (primarily commercial) is offset by the corresponding 

decrease in traffic on Miller and Reynolds Streets (primarily residential). In addition, 

construction of an underpass at Carpenter Street will reduce traffic delays and 

congestion and improve traffic safety in the adjacent neighborhoods. 

Adams Street

Vehicular and pedestrian traffic using Adams Street would be rerouted to the at-grade 

crossing of Washington Street one block to the north or Monroe Street one block to the 

south. The current ADT is 2,250. The maximum adverse travel would be 0.4 miles. The 

Sangamon County Complex, including county offices, courtrooms and jail is on the 

south side of Adams Street between 9th Street and the rail corridor. Visitor parking is 

west of 9th Street. Employee parking is on the east side of the rail corridor. Some 

employees would have a longer (up to 600 feet) walk from their parking to the county 

building. There are no other critical community facilities on Adams Street, and closure 

would not affect emergency vehicle access.

Jackson Street

Pedestrian and vehicular traffic using Jackson Street would be rerouted one block to the 

north of the Capitol Avenue at-grade crossing or two blocks to the south to the Cook 

Street grade separation. The current ADT is 350. The maximum adverse travel for 

pedestrians and vehicles would be 0.4 miles. There are no critical community facilities 

on Jackson Street in this area, and closure would not affect emergency vehicle access.

Public transit routes in Springfield currently use the following streets to access both 

sides of the 10th Street railroad tracks (Preferred Alternative) (see Exhibit 6-2):

 Sangamon Avenue  Cook Street

 Jefferson Street  South Grand Avenue

 Washington Street  Ash Street

 Adams Street  6

th Street

 Monroe Street  5

th Street

 Capitol Avenue

All of these crossings may serve minority and low-income communities of concern, 

however only the Adams Street crossing is proposed to be closed by the Preferred 

Alternative for the new station location. Transit service will remain on the streets 

directly one block north and south of Adams Street. This location is also within the 

downtown business district and not within a residential area. Therefore, any change in 

routing is not anticipated to have a negative impact on any communities of concern. 
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-9 Technical Report

Exhibit 6-2. Springfield Bus Routes
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-10 Technical Report

CONCLUSION

The following effects by the Preferred Alternative to communities, access, and public 

services and facilities are:

 Relocation of three public services and facilities - the Illinois EPA, the Salvation 

Army, and Planned Parenthood.

 Increase of rail traffic through 5.2 miles of residential areas.

 Adverse travel for vehicular and pedestrian traffic due to the closure of seven atgrade crossings at the streets of Reservoir, Division, Enterprise, Miller, Reynolds, 

Adams and Jackson.

Minority populations are known to occur in these residential and commercial areas 

served by the three public facilities and existing at-grade crossings. Nearby property 

appears to be available for the three public facilities. The Salvation Army currently has 

plans to move to a new location at 100 N. 9th Street independently of this project. 

Therefore, displacing these establishments would result in only temporary impacts to 

the Environmental Justice areas until the relocation of these facilities is established.

Abandonment of the 3rd Street Corridor and construction of new grade separations in 

10th and 19th streets would mitigate the delays resulting from adverse travel by 

eliminating delays due to trains blocking crossings. Locations within the combined 10th

Street corridor would be within 0.4 miles of a grade separation as opposed to 1.4 miles 

under the No-Build Alternative. Even those areas affected by street closures would see 

improved emergency vehicle access since the risk of crossings being blocked by trains 

would be eliminated on 3rd Street and reduced on both 10th Street and 19th Street. Access 

would be provided to all businesses and residences that remain.

The Preferred Alternative would pass through or are adjacent to the Springfield

neighborhoods of Pillsbury, Downtown Springfield, Pioneer Park, Mather and Wells, 

Iles Park, Grand Improvement, Harvard Park, and Springfield South Corridor (see 

Exhibit 5-1). Consolidating UP rail traffic onto the 10th Street Corridor is not expected to 

result in adverse disruption and further division of these communities. Rail traffic has 

long existed on the 10th Street Corridor, and the proposed action, while accommodating 

the predicted increase in rail traffic, would remain on an existing rail alignment. 

Positive impacts to the Springfield communities and neighborhoods would result from 

the elimination of 32 at-grade crossings, improvements to remaining at-grade crossings, 

and the elimination of train horn blowing. Benefits from these actions center on 

increased safety and general noise reduction city-wide. New grade separations would 

increase safety not only for vehicular traffic but also pedestrians traveling across these 

railroad crossing locations. Safety would also increase for vehicular and pedestrian 

traffic from proposed improvements to at-grade crossings remaining along the 10th and 

19th Street corridors, due to fencing along the railroad right-of-way and four quadrant 

gates at crossings to prohibit vehicles from entering during train crossings. The 
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-11 Technical Report

proposed at-grade crossing treatments would support elimination of blaring noise from 

train horns traveling through the city’s communities. 

6.7 Public Participation

EO 12898 requires federal agencies to work to ensure greater public participation in the 

decision-making process. In addition, CEQ guidance suggests that federal agencies 

should acknowledge and seek to overcome linguistic, cultural, institutional, geographic, 

and other barriers to meaningful participation. 

Public participation has been a key element of the Springfield Rail Improvements 

Project. The study team worked to connect with the project’s interested and impacted 

parties through a variety of communications and outreach tactics. The public has been 

educated and informed about the project’s process, activities and findings. The team has 

maintained a website, written and distributed newsletters, sent out email broadcasts, 

circulated kiosk displays, and facilitated community presentations. Key stakeholders 

and their constituents in the project area were also directly engaged through a series of 

stakeholder interviews and the formation of four advisory groups. The advisory groups 

have met five times through the study. 

Direct engagement of the general public has also been a critical component of the project

team’s public involvement efforts. The project has had two public open houses, each of 

which were attended by about 300 people and a public hearing attended by about 225 

people. These public meetings provided a means to both inform the public and solicit its 

input at key milestones in the project. The project also included additional tools to gain 

public input, including a project email, a telephone hotline, and the maintenance of a 

direct mail repository. 

6.7.1 Stakeholder Interviews

The project team identified stakeholders’ input to learn about community issues that 

could impact the project and to gain insights on effective public outreach and 

participation activities. The team conducted 17 key informant interviews with 

municipal, business and community stakeholders, including minority groups. These 

meetings introduced stakeholders to the project; obtained their initial thoughts on the 

project; and helped the team become aware of key issues, opportunities, and the best 

methods to engage constituents. 

6.7.2 Stakeholder Advisory Groups

Four distinct stakeholder groups were identified and formed corresponding advisory 

committees: Business, Community, Medical and Public Officials. Fifteen representatives 

from the area chamber of commerce, local businesses, and professional trade 

organizations came together to form the Business Advisory Group. The Community 

Advisory Group consists of 20 members serving on behalf of 15 neighborhood 

associations, a bicycle/pedestrian advocacy group, and several civic and minority faithbased organizations. Delegates from the region’s largest health care providers 

participate in the Medical Advisory Group. Lastly, the Public Officials Advisory Group 
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-12 Technical Report

includes elected officials such as city aldermen, county board members, and state and 

federal representatives, as well as agents from the regional planning commission, park 

district, and mass transit district. 

All four advisory groups have convened five times since the beginning of the study 

(February 2010, April 2010, November 2010, August 2011 and June 2012). Advisory 

group members serve as liaisons between the study team and their respective 

constituencies. They also provide guidance on the best ways to attain public input. 

6.7.3 Communications, Outreach, and Engagement

Website

A comprehensive project website that contains information on every aspect of the 

project as well as meeting summaries, a presentation calendar, and information 

presented at the open houses. The project website has had more than 14,000 visits since 

it was launched in April 2010. 

Newsletters

Project newsletters are another means of communicating with the public. Three 

newsletters have been written and distributed. The first newsletter served as an 

introduction to the project and advertised the first open house. The second newsletter 

reported on public input results from the first open house. The third newsletter 

provided an update on the project and announced the second open house. The 

newsletters are distributed to approximately 2,800 people and are also sent via email to a 

list of about 500 individuals. This same email list has received additional e-broadcasts 

about open houses and website updates. 

Email & Mail Correspondence

The project also has an email account that is checked daily and has received 50 emails to 

date. The nature of the email messages range for presentation requests to comments 

regarding the proposed alternatives. Messages are logged in a database and responded 

to as necessary. Additionally, the project has received twelve letters from individuals, 

businesses, and organizations, representing the interests of neighborhoods, property 

owners, professional associations, businesses, and the Mid-Illinois Medical District. 

Community Presentations

Since the project’s onset, the project team has made 29 community presentations, 

reaching more than 1,100 people (see Table 6-6). Presentations have been hosted by 

neighborhood associations, minority faith-based groups, the local school district, and 

civic, trade, and professional organizations. By going into the community to share 

project information, answer questions and obtain feedback, the project gained exposure 

to a wider audience of constituents than those who would normally self-select to attend 

project meetings. Environmental communities were engaged and included in the public 

involvement efforts for the project overall.
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-13 Technical Report

Informational Kiosks

The project team also created four large-scale display kiosk that changed locations about 

every 6-8 weeks. The kiosks’ eight panels described the project’s purpose and 

background, timeline, current and future rail conditions, and how to get involved. 

Beginning in April 2010, the kiosks were displayed at various locations in and around 

the study area, including local hospitals, civic and municipal buildings, churches, and 

shopping malls. 

Table 6-5 Community Presentations

ORGANIZATION DATE

APPROX.

NUMBER 

ATTENDED

1. Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team 02/26/10 8

2. Faith Coalition for the Common Good (Steering Committee) 03/15/10 4

3. Regional Planning Commission 03/17/10 25

4. IDOT Teamsters 03/19/10 450

5. Hawthorne Place Neighborhood Association 03/24/10 28

6. Union Baptist Church 03/25/10 35

7. Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce (Board of Directors) 03/29/10 35

8. Springfield Area Transportation Study 04/01/10 25

9. Randall Court Neighborhood Association 04/06/10 9

10. Pillsbury Mills Neighborhood Association 04/07/10 10

11. Springfield Area Transportation Study Policy Committee 04/08/10 20

12. Pioneer Park Neighborhood Association 04/12/10 8

13. Harvard Park Neighborhood Association 04/14/10 55

14. Springfield School District 04/19/10 65

15. Sacred Heart Griffin High School 04/28/10 8

16. Enos Park Neighborhood Improvement Association 05/11/10 35

17. Rotary Club 05/19/10 30

18. City of Springfield Community Relations Commission 05/20/10 10

19. Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association 05/20/10 22

20. American Institute of Architects 06/02/10 14

21. Capital Area Association of Realtors 06/22/10 13
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-14 Technical Report

6.7.4 Public Open Houses

The project’s two public open houses and public hearing corresponded with: 1) an initial 

discussion of the project’s purpose and needs, and 2) the development of preliminary 

alternatives. These interactive sessions have given interested citizens and stakeholders 

opportunities to examine detailed project information and to share their corridor 

preferences and concerns. They have also provided settings for residents to meet with 

and ask questions of the project team.

The first open house was held on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 and had more than 290 people 

in attendance. Meeting notices in the form of letters, flyers and posters were sent to all 

four stakeholder advisory groups, elected officials, and approximately 120 area 

churches. The first newsletter included the open house announcement and a postcard 

was sent as an email-broadcast. The website’s home page and Facebook page also 

featured event announcements. Radio advertisements ran on WMAY, WTAX, WFMB, 

and WUIS along with newspaper ads in The Illinois Times, Springfield Business Journal, 

Capital City Courier and Pure News. A press advisory was distributed to local media 

contacts and generated an interview on WMAY the day before the open house and an 

article in The State Journal Register the day of the meeting. The four kiosks displayed 

open house flyers and were located at Memorial Hospital, Prairie Capital Convention 

Center, the City’s Municipal Building, and the Central Library. Additionally, door 

hangers were distributed to residences located immediately adjacent to the three 

existing rail corridors. 

At the first open house, participants learned about the project’s purpose and need, 

technical activities and engagement process as well as shared their community values, 

concerns and desires with the project team. To capture public input, project attendees 

were asked to complete a comment form and to visit a public input station where they 

could post their thoughts about the project for all to see. A total of 108 comment forms 

were completed. Respondents, 86 percent of whom were city residents, indicated that 

they found the open house to be well planned and worth their time.

The study’s second open house was held on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 and was 

attended by 309 citizens. The main purpose of this open house was to:

 Present the alternatives for accommodating increasing rail traffic; 

 Share the evaluation factors in the alternative selection process; and 

 Obtain public input on which alternative would best serve Springfield. 

The open house was announced in the project’s third newsletter and was mailed to 

approximately 2,800 people. Advisory groups members were sent letters and an email 

message; flyers were mailed to elected officials; approximately 120 area churches were 

sent posters; and an announcement was sent to 500 people via an e-broadcast. The 

project’s website and Facebook page were updated with an open house notice. Radios 

ads ran on WMAY, WTAX, WFMB, and WUIS. Newspaper ads were featured in The 

Illinois Times, Springfield Business Journal, and Capital City Courier. Flyers were made 

available on the project’s kiosks, which were located at the County Municipal Building, 
Environmental Justice Analysis 6-15 Technical Report

Springfield Art Association, Abundant Faith Christian Center and Pilgrim Rest 

Missionary Baptist Church. Additionally, the Faith Coalition for the Common Good 

circulated an email to its 200 members; St. John’s Hospital notified its 3,600 employees; 

and Memorial Hospital included an announcement in its newsletter to 4,500 employees. 

Earned media included an article in The State Journal-Register and a radio interview with 

WTAX, both the day before the open house. 

Attendees were encouraged to visit 12 stations, three of which featured information on 

the proposed alternatives for accommodating rail traffic. The other stations featured: 

project information; historic structures; noise and vibration; corridor redevelopment 

opportunities; land acquisition process; high-speed rail; non-viable alternatives; railroad 

safety; and public engagement. The alternative stations displayed descriptions, maps 

and technical comparisons based on evaluation factors such as traffic delays, expected 

crash frequency and estimated displacements. These three stations represented 

variations of the following alternatives:

 Double track 3rd Street; 

 Shift 3rd Street rail traffic to 10th Street; and

 Shift 3rd Street and 19th Street rail traffic to 10th Street.

A total of 233 comment forms were received – 199 at the open house, 31 via the project’s 

website and three via mail and electronic mail. 

In order to inform, educate, and engage with the project’s interested and impacted 

parties, Springfield employed a multitude of communications and outreach tools. The 

various tools often complement one another, and the total combination of methods has 

helped to maximize public outreach and engagement efforts. From the onset, public 

input has been regarded as a key element to the project’s success. Comments received 

from the public during the public involvement process which pertain to Environmental 

Justice issues include the perception that the project would further divide the west side 

of Springfield from the east side and concerns of displaced residences.
Environmental Justice Analysis 7-1 Technical Report

7.0 Conclusions

The following table summarizes the conclusions of this Environmental Justice analysis 

regarding the presence of communities of concern, as Environmental Justice areas, 

identified adverse effects to Environmental Justice populations, identified beneficial 

effects to Environmental Justice populations, identified whether adverse impacts are 

disproportionately borne by Environmental Justice populations, identified appropriate 

mitigation for adverse effects, and summarized coordination and outreach activities.

Table 7-1. Environmental Justice Analysis Summary

Communities of Concern  Racial minorities in the study area - 75 of 325 blocks having 

greater than 50 percent minorities consisting predominantly of 

black or African American race. Percent racial minority of the 

study area is 36 percent compared to 24 percent in Springfield.

 Minority and low income populations are identified in the 

study area and within the project area. 

Adverse Effects  Residential displacements – 23 of 113 (20 percent) occur in 

blocks having greater than 50 percent racial minorities.

 Commercial displacements – 5 of 50 (10 percent) are estimated 

to be minority-owned and employ an estimated 10 employees 

total of unknown race.

 Public facilities/agencies displaced: Illinois EPA, Salvation 

Army, and Planned Parenthood.

 Adverse travel of a maximum of 0.6 mile for motorists would 

occur at Reservoir Street, Division Street, Enterprise Street, 

Miller Street, Reynolds Street, Adams Street, and Jackson 

Street.

 Adverse travel up to no greater than one block for residents 

affected by proposed road closures.

 Adverse travel for pedestrians no longer allowed unlimited 

access across tracks used to access neighborhoods and 

communities in and along the study area. 

 Potential temporary affects to police, fire and emergency 

response times during construction.
Environmental Justice Analysis 7-2 Technical Report

Disproportionate Adverse 

Impacts to EJ Populations

 No disproportionate adverse impacts were identified after 

review of all impacts to resource and issue categories assessed 

in the Volume II document. The adverse effects to communities 

of concern identified in this analysis do not appear to be 

disproportionate when considering the magnitude of the 

existing congested and unsafe conditions in the project study 

area as well as the degree of benefits to the communities of 

concern resulting from project implementation. 

Beneficial Impacts to EJ 

Populations

 Elimination of 3

rd Street train traffic, vehicular traffic delays 

and overall congestion.

 Improved safety conditions for all pedestrians and motorists in 

the study area: elimination of 32 at-grade crossings and safety 

improvements to remaining at-grade crossings; and new 

grade separations and fencing eliminates unsafe, unlimited 

pedestrian access points across track. 

 Net positive effect on access and response times for 

emergency, fire and police responders due to grade 

separations and the elimination of the 3rd Street rail corridor.

 Creation of quiet zones by eliminating train horn noise for all 

residents, businesses, and community facilities occurring along 

the 3rd Street, 10th Street, and 19th Street corridors.

 Indirect economic and employment benefits from the planned 

multimodal facility on the 10th Street corridor.

Coordination/Outreach 

Activities

 17 stakeholder interviews.

 4 Stakeholder Advisory Groups including the Community 

Advisory Group which represented local neighborhood 

associations and several civic and minority organizations.

 Project website.

 3 project newsletters were distributed to about 2,800 people by 

mail and about 500 people by e-mail.

 E-mail and mail correspondence for comments and questions.

 29 community presentations reaching more than 1,100 people 

and included locations at neighborhood associations, minority 
Environmental Justice Analysis 7-3 Technical Report

faith-based groups, the local school district, and civic 

organizations.

 4 informational kiosks at various locations in and around the 

project area.

 2 public open houses and 1 public hearing.

Mitigation Measures  Improvements at remaining at-grade crossings and 

construction of new grade separations would offset adverse 

impacts from road closures along the 10th Street corridor by 

allowing unrestricted pedestrian and vehicular passage at 

grade separations during the presence of freight and passenger 

rail traffic, and increased safety from new quad-gate at-grade 

crossings.

 Displaced persons and businesses would receive just 

compensation and relocation assistance for property 

acquisitions

 Compensation and relocation assistance would be given to the 

three public facilities/agencies that would be displaced. 

Adequate replacement property appears to be available nearby 

for the Illinois EPA and Planned Parenthood. The Salvation 

Army plans to move to a recently purchased location 

independent of this project.

 Coordination with public response agencies serving the project 

area during construction to avoid and minimize disruptions to 

emergency response.

 Providing access to all businesses and residences that are not 

displaced.

 Mitigation for adverse travel from the elimination of access by 

constructing grade separations and fencing: installation of 

sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, kiosks, bus station amenities

and pedestrian overpasses at grade separations. 

Considerations regarding environmental justice as required by Executive Order 12898, 

and the U.S. DOT Order, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations” have been reviewed. Minority and lowincome populations are known to occur within the Preferred Alternative study area

based on the 2010 Census data. Railroad traffic currently exists within each of the three 
Environmental Justice Analysis 7-4 Technical Report

existing railroad corridors. The 10th Street (NS) rail lines passes through more nonminority than minority communities, and through more non-low-income than lowincome communities, so the impacts from the Preferred Alternative are not 

disproportionate from that perspective as compared to the No-Build Alternative.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 addresses discrimination issues associated with 

federally funded projects. No groups or individuals have been excluded from 

participation in public involvement activities, denied the benefit of the project or 

subjected to discrimination in any way on the basis of race, color, age, sex, national 

origin, disability or religion.

Alternatives screening compared the number of census blocks/tracts containing over 50 

percent minority or low-income populations which allowed identified communities of 

concern and for a probability of Environmental Justice impacts for each alternative

The Preferred Alternative includes adverse human health and environmental effects, 

however the benefits that are provided by the Preferred Alternative are of a magnitude 

that exceeds the adverse impacts to the Environmental Justice population within the 

project’s study area. 

The public participation process has ensured the full and fair participation of all 

potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. 

The relocation of the 3rd Street Corridor to the 10th Street Corridor under the Preferred 

Alternative would encourage potential opportunities for commercial expansion and 

development of businesses around the Medical District along 3rd Street. Other 

opportunities would also be possible along the abandoned 3rd Street Corridor, such as a 

city-wide pedestrian/bike path or parkway for additional green space. This 

enhancement to the community could provide the opportunity for businesses to cater to 

needs of additional visitors to the Downtown area and the Lincoln sites. In addition, a 

multimodal facility, consisting of a train station and transit hub for buses and taxi 

service, has been planned by Springfield for the 10th Street Corridor. This facility is 

intended to provide services and jobs to Springfield’s east side. This complex is 

proposed to be constructed on about four city blocks and may contain restaurants, 

shops, office space, a daycare facility, meeting rooms, and parking. This facility 

conforms to Springfield’s Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Springfield’s 2030 

Comprehensive Plan. 

Comparable housing for the displaced residents is available within close proximity to 

the railroad corridor. Available space is also within close proximity for businesses 

which choose to relocate in the same vicinity. 

Positive impacts to Springfield, the communities of concern and neighborhoods would 

result from the elimination of 32 at-grade crossings, improvements to remaining atgrade crossings, and the elimination of train horn blowing. Benefits from these actions 

center on increased safety, reduced delays and general noise reduction city-wide. New

grade separations would increase safety not only for vehicular traffic but also 
Environmental Justice Analysis 7-5 Technical Report

pedestrians traveling across these railroad crossing locations. Safety would also increase 

for vehicular and pedestrian traffic from proposed improvements to at-grade crossings 

remaining along the 10th and 19th Street Corridors. The proposed at-grade crossing 

treatments would support elimination of blaring noise from train horns traveling 

through Springfield’s communities. 

The Preferred Alternative will provide the creation of quiet zones throughout the city 

that will greatly enhance the livability with the reduction of noise for all residents. 

Safety will also be enhanced for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians by constructing 

nine grade separations on the most highly traveled roadways. The remaining streets 

will have four-quadrant railroad crossing gates so that access across the track is secured 

while trains are present. The construction of the nine grade separations and the 

abandonment of the 3rd Street tracks will greatly reduce delay times for traffic traveling 

east or west through Springfield.

Consolidating UP rail traffic onto the 10th Street Corridor would result in adverse 

disruption to communities of concern, in that unlimited access across the track would no 

longer exist in the study area and road closures would cut off access. Rail traffic has 

long existed on the 10th Street Corridor, and the proposed action, while accommodating 

the predicted increase in rail traffic, would remain on an existing rail alignment except 

for the section between Ridgely Avenue and Phillips Street. Improvements at 

remaining at-grade crossings and construction of new grade separations would offset 

adverse impacts from road closures along the 10th Street corridor by allowing 

unrestricted pedestrian and vehicular passage at grade separations during the presence 

of freight and passenger rail traffic, and increased safety from new quad-gate at-grade 

crossings. All seven road closures would be within one block of a grade separation or atgrade crossing except for a two-block distance at Division and Enterprise Streets, which 

are located at the junction of the NSRR and proposed UPRR. 

Therefore, because the benefits to communities of concern in the project area were

determined to outweigh the adverse effects to these communities, no disproportionately 

high and adverse human health and environmental effects are anticipated to result from 

implementation of the project.
Environmental Justice Analysis 8-1 Technical Report

8.0 Resources

Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 :

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/facts/restoration_act.cfm

Environmental Justice at Department of Transportation:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_at_dot/order_56102a/

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf

Executive Order 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/Pubs/eolep.php

National Environmental Policy Act : 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 : 

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titlevistat.php

Title VI Regulation 49 C.F.R 21:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-1999-title49-vol1/xml/CFR-1999-title49-vol1-

part21.xml

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 19what 0:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/ua/index.htm

U.S. DOT Order 5610.2 (a): Environmental Justice:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_at_dot/order_56102a/
Appendix A

2010 Census Tract and Block Data
Table A-1. Racial and Ethnic Minorities within the Study Area by Block

Tract Block

Total 

Population White %

Black or 

African 

American %

American 

Indian & 

Alaskan 

Native %

Asian 

American %

Native 

Hawaiian & 

Other Pacific 

Islander % Other %

001800 1022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 5011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 4004 70 50 71 20 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 1031 30 29 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 000900 1012 28 15 54 8 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 18 000800 1001 42 28 67 10 24 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 7 000800 1021 50 29 58 17 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 000800 1017 59 17 29 37 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 000800 1025 22 6 27 16 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002801 1029 19 17 89 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002801 1002 11 10 91 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2036 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2048 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002600 4009 63 41 65 13 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 14 001400 1040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002801 1031 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2044 63 53 84 9 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 000501 1012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1020 16 13 81 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002200 2009 85 74 87 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 000900 1036 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001400 1025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1010 2 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 001500 1008 69 53 77 15 22 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 000800 3004 75 7 9 64 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 001400 1038 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001700 1026 4 4 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001700 1005 3 2 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33 001700 1002 18 1 6 15 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 001800 1020 13 8 62 5 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2028 25 12 48 6 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 28 
Tract Block

Total 

Population White %

Black or 

African 

American %

American 

Indian & 

Alaskan 

Native %

Asian 

American %

Native 

Hawaiian & 

Other Pacific 

Islander % Other %

Race Population 

002700 2006 46 40 87 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 002801 1061 41 35 85 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 002700 2007 16 16 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2050 50 33 66 16 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 002700 2004 46 45 98 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002802 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000100 3067 42 35 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 17 000100 3076 48 48 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002802 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002200 2010 59 55 93 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 002802 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002600 4011 47 39 83 3 6 1 2 1 2 0 0 3 6 000400 1002 58 37 64 5 9 2 3 0 0 0 0 14 24 000400 1011 24 14 58 10 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1018 3 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 5003 50 47 94 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 000900 1027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 1028 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 1015 41 26 63 8 20 1 2 0 0 0 0 6 15 000800 1019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000800 1029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000800 1020 31 24 77 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 000800 1027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000800 1023 42 6 14 34 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 000400 3042 47 42 89 2 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 4 000400 1027 58 20 34 38 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 4000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1016 19 19 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 3045 16 13 81 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13 000503 5008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 5019 32 22 69 6 19 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 9 000900 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2043 131 130 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 002600 4013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2029 12 6 50 6 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001700 1006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Tract Block

Total 

Population White %

Black or 

African 

American %

American 

Indian & 

Alaskan 

Native %

Asian 

American %

Native 

Hawaiian & 

Other Pacific 

Islander % Other %

Race Population 

001700 1023 13 8 62 5 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002300 2013 52 24 46 22 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 12 000100 3095 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1021 39 36 92 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 000400 3044 64 55 86 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 000400 1013 42 39 93 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 5004 27 27 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002600 4001 21 21 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 1035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001400 1022 24 20 83 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 001800 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001700 1004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1019 10 5 50 3 30 0 0 1 10 0 0 1 10 000900 1022 96 67 70 23 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 000900 1023 46 17 37 25 54 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 7 000900 1004 76 51 67 22 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 000900 1001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000800 1026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000800 1004 60 34 57 20 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 10 000800 1022 24 6 25 10 42 0 0 8 33 0 0 0 0 000100 3094 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1009 67 54 81 12 18 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 000501 1002 319 277 87 30 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 4 000503 5005 30 21 70 6 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 000503 5009 11 0 0 11 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 5018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 5021 73 51 70 19 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 000900 1011 21 10 48 10 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 000900 1017 34 20 59 14 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 4006 32 31 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 001500 1005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000800 3009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 5012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 1008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Tract Block

Total 

Population White %

Black or 

African 

American %

American 

Indian & 

Alaskan 

Native %

Asian 

American %

Native 

Hawaiian & 

Other Pacific 

Islander % Other %

Race Population 

000800 1002 71 41 58 25 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 000900 1019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000800 1009 96 28 29 63 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 000800 3003 81 10 12 68 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 001500 1034 35 2 6 33 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1037 43 14 33 29 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2025 57 12 21 38 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 12 001700 1022 6 0 0 6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001400 1023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1001 13 3 23 10 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000800 3005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001400 1011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1024 16 0 0 16 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1038 5 0 0 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1049 18 8 44 10 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1038 7 1 14 6 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1036 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1012 159 109 69 45 28 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 000900 1003 37 16 43 18 49 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 002801 1033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002801 1003 24 23 96 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 002801 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000100 3078 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002801 1001 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100 0 0 0 0 002600 4005 51 47 92 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002600 4006 74 61 82 5 7 0 0 4 5 0 0 4 5 001700 1020 4 3 75 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002300 2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1029 5 2 40 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 40 001800 2015 16 9 56 6 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 001800 2053 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002300 1019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002300 1004 8 8 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Tract Block

Total 

Population White %

Black or 

African 

American %

American 

Indian & 

Alaskan 

Native %

Asian 

American %

Native 

Hawaiian & 

Other Pacific 

Islander % Other %

Race Population 

002300 1022 24 4 17 16 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 17 002300 1023 47 18 38 25 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 000503 5006 2 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1025 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 5001 3 1 33 1 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33 001700 1025 24 3 13 19 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 001800 2023 23 12 52 8 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 001500 1028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2031 3 1 33 2 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2024 35 26 74 9 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001700 1021 6 6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001700 1013 29 1 3 28 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002300 2005 8 8 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002300 3015 76 36 47 18 24 0 0 6 8 0 0 16 21 002300 2004 117 57 49 52 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 000100 3064 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 3053 20 20 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1010 26 26 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 4003 36 19 53 17 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 4009 151 138 91 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 000503 5013 33 32 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 000503 5002 22 18 82 4 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 5020 24 23 96 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 2002 63 36 57 21 33 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 8 000900 1030 5 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 1010 14 14 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 1018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 1006 68 48 71 18 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 000900 1005 36 28 78 6 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 001800 1011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 2001 4 3 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 000400 1023 16 11 69 5 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001400 1039 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001400 1024 295 116 39 169 57 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 3 
Tract Block

Total 

Population White %

Black or 

African 

American %

American 

Indian & 

Alaskan 

Native %

Asian 

American %

Native 

Hawaiian & 

Other Pacific 

Islander % Other %

Race Population 

000900 1034 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000800 3006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002801 1023 71 66 93 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 001800 2046 78 59 76 16 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 002600 3002 74 63 85 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 000400 3046 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2047 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000100 3066 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 1021 85 26 31 58 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 000900 1026 10 10 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000800 1018 60 13 22 39 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 13 000400 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 4005 37 26 70 7 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 11 000503 5007 31 25 81 3 10 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 6 001400 1001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001400 1010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001400 1026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2037 37 20 54 15 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 001800 2002 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 100 001800 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2012 17 1 6 15 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 001800 2013 22 14 64 8 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2030 51 22 43 22 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 14 001700 1033 35 9 26 26 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001700 1019 19 9 47 10 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001700 1032 41 9 22 26 63 3 7 0 0 0 0 3 7 002300 2007 64 35 55 29 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 1009 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002200 2000 100 88 88 5 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 6 002200 2002 15 12 80 3 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2051 40 39 98 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 002802 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002700 2002 153 119 78 24 16 0 0 2 1 0 0 8 5 000400 1015 32 30 94 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 
Tract Block

Total 

Population White %

Black or 

African 

American %

American 

Indian & 

Alaskan 

Native %

Asian 

American %

Native 

Hawaiian & 

Other Pacific 

Islander % Other %

Race Population 

000400 3043 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 000400 4002 29 21 72 6 21 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 001500 1029 16 0 0 16 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1035 4 0 0 4 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001700 1007 19 9 47 10 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1025 32 10 31 17 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16 000800 1007 31 11 35 20 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001400 1035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002801 1032 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002801 1026 3 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002801 1030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 1002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 5016 52 43 83 8 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 000900 2006 223 124 56 87 39 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 5 000900 1014 24 6 25 14 58 3 13 0 0 0 0 1 4 000800 1005 51 17 33 26 51 1 2 0 0 0 0 7 14 000900 1020 73 22 30 50 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 000900 1032 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 4000 30 26 87 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 4008 83 68 82 4 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 9 11 002600 4003 25 19 76 4 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 000503 5000 3 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2011 42 21 50 20 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 001800 2014 75 28 37 33 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 19 002300 1003 33 5 15 27 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 002300 1005 15 11 73 4 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002300 1035 33 14 42 18 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 002300 1016 22 8 36 14 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002300 1015 11 3 27 6 55 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 9 001800 2035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002600 4014 53 41 77 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 15 002600 3004 60 54 90 3 5 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 2 002300 3020 36 23 64 7 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 17 002300 3016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002300 3018 80 74 93 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 002300 3014 79 66 84 12 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 
Tract Block

Total 

Population White %

Black or 

African 

American %

American 

Indian & 

Alaskan 

Native %

Asian 

American %

Native 

Hawaiian & 

Other Pacific 

Islander % Other %

Race Population 

001800 1009 88 76 86 7 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 3 001400 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1037 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1025 91 29 32 60 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 000400 4001 30 30 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002600 2005 48 36 75 9 19 1 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 001400 1036 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000100 3073 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001700 1003 10 0 0 10 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1021 45 24 53 13 29 0 0 1 2 0 0 7 16 001700 1014 13 1 8 9 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 23 002300 1018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002300 1017 12 1 8 10 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 002300 1024 12 0 0 8 67 0 0 1 8 0 0 3 25 000800 3007 75 9 12 57 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 12 000900 1013 38 20 53 17 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 002801 1004 19 18 95 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002600 4010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002802 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2049 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2045 88 80 91 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2052 39 34 87 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 002300 3017 63 46 73 13 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 000100 3068 21 8 38 13 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002600 4008 30 30 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1012 39 22 56 11 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 15 000400 1022 14 14 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002700 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1001 30 28 93 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 2040 85 58 68 20 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8 002600 4000 72 61 85 1 1 0 0 7 10 0 0 3 4 002600 3003 65 50 77 11 17 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 5 002600 3005 61 61 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Tract Block

Total 

Population White %

Black or 

African 

American %

American 

Indian & 

Alaskan 

Native %

Asian 

American %

Native 

Hawaiian & 

Other Pacific 

Islander % Other %

Race Population 

001500 1006 41 24 59 16 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 000900 1025 51 34 67 13 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 000900 1007 23 12 52 11 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 1016 53 37 70 12 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 000800 1006 2 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000800 1000 45 15 33 30 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000800 1008 47 24 51 20 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 000800 1024 40 13 33 27 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 4001 47 43 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 002300 3013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 4002 21 20 95 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000100 3060 26 22 85 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 002600 4002 64 55 86 3 5 0 0 1 2 0 0 5 8 002600 4004 85 72 85 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 001400 1013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1002 30 7 23 20 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 000900 1033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001400 1012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001400 1037 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001500 1036 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 2022 40 40 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000400 1008 75 68 91 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 7 000400 1026 46 30 65 10 22 1 2 3 7 0 0 2 4 000900 1024 4 4 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000900 1029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000503 5010 65 53 82 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 002300 1020 4 4 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002300 1021 11 8 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 27 001500 1039 19 0 0 18 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 001700 1008 3 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1024 22 7 32 10 45 0 0 5 23 0 0 0 0 001800 1039 14 3 21 11 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001800 1048 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001700 1024 71 28 39 36 51 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 8 001700 1031 27 5 19 20 74 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 
I:\09jobs\09L0179\Admin\14‐Reports\Env\Socioeconomics\EJ_Tech_Memo\Census_Tables_JLB.docx

002600 2,804 35,478 665 24 

002801 3,047 40,406 700 23 

Study Area 26,694 30,476 6,941 26 

City of Springfield 113,094 47,209 18,284 16 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006-2010 (tract level). 
Appendix B

Correspondence





Tract Block

Total 

Population White %

Black or 

African 

American %

American 

Indian & 

Alaskan 

Native %

Asian 

American %

Native 

Hawaiian & 

Other Pacific 

Islander % Other %

Race Population 

002300 1034 21 5 24 16 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 002300 1006 20 7 35 12 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 000400 1024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Study Area 9,367 6,016 64 2,781 30 31 0 60 1 0 0 479 5 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census , block level.

Shaded cells indicate blocks with greater than 50 percent minorities