24 September 1997
Source:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html
[Federal Register: September 24, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 50050-50053]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24se97-99]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Finding of No Significant Impact for Implementation of White
House Security Review Vehicular Traffic Restriction Recommendations
AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Department of the Treasury
(Treasury) has made a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) with
respect to the environmental assessment (EA) for implementation of
White House Security Review Vehicular Traffic Restriction
Recommendations. This EA was prepared by the Department of the Treasury
following the security action to restrict vehicular access to certain
streets in the vicinity of the White House Complex pursuant to the
emergency provision (40 CFR 1506.11) of the Council on Environmental
Quality's (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing
regulations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was a
cooperating agency.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the FONSI contact Mr.
Bill McGovern, Environment and Energy Programs Officer, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Treasury Annex Room 6140, Washington, DC,
20220; telephone (202) 622-0043; fax (202) 622-1468. Copies of the EA
are also available at the above address. The EA is still available on
the Department of the Treasury's home page at http://www.treas.gov.
Additionally, copies of the EA were mailed to Federal, State, and local
agencies; public interest groups; interested individuals; and District
of Columbia public libraries.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 2, 1997, the Treasury made the EA
available to the public for a thirty day comment period. A total of 650
copies of the EA were distributed to Federal, state, and local
agencies, Members of Congress, the Government of the District of
Columbia, private organizations and interested members of the public.
Additionally, the EA was available via the Internet. Twelve comment
letters were received. Three of the comment letters were from private
individuals. Two were from individuals or agencies representing the
District of Columbia: Eleanor Holmes Norton, and the District of
Columbia Department of Public Works (DCDPW). Three were from historic
preservation organizations and sites: the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP); the National Trust for Historic Preservation; and
Saint John's Church. Four were from other governmental entities: Region
III of the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Capital
Planning Commission; the National Park Service (NPS); and the
Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro).
A brief description of the security action and the findings of the
EA are presented below followed by a summary of the issues raised in
the comment letters along with Treasury's response for each issue.
On May 19, 1995 the Secretary of the Treasury ordered the Director
of the United States Secret Service to restrict vehicular traffic on
certain streets surrounding the White House Complex. The Director
implemented the action on May 20, 1995. The security action was taken
to provide necessary and appropriate protection for the President of
the United States, the first family, and those working in or visiting
the White House Complex.
This security action was one of several recommendations resulting
from the ``White House Security Review'' (the Review). The final report
of the Review is classified; however a ``Public Report of the White
House Security Review'' was issued in May 1995. The Review's
recommendation states that it was ``not able to identify any
alternative to prohibiting vehicular traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue
that would ensure the protection of the President and others in the
White House Complex from explosive devices carried in vehicles near the
perimeter.''
The EA examined the impacts of the security action on
transportation, air quality, noise, vibration, visual/aesthetic
resources, cultural resources, pedestrian access, socioeconomic
resources, natural resources and cumulative environmental effects.
Available pre-action data was collected from local and Federal
agencies and supplemented by traffic counts and travel time analysis
conducted for the EA. With the exception of traffic counts for certain
intersections, the available pre-action data was not directly
comparable to the post action measurements and did not allow for
accurate comparison of before and after action conditions. The analysis
in the EA described the conditions after the action and several traffic
modifications which the DCDPW implemented to alleviate congestion.
The EA did identify certain streets which received large increases
in traffic after the security action. It also identified other streets
which had large decreases in traffic. It was impossible to determine
exactly how much of the increase or decrease was due to the security
action because of the above mentioned lack of pre-action data. The
majority of the streets in the study area continue to operate at an
acceptable level, and traffic levels are typical of a downtown area in
a major city.
The changes in traffic patterns did not result in any violations of
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide, the
pollutant of highest concern in intersection modeling. While the area
remains in non-attainment status for ozone, ozone levels should not be
significantly changed as a result of the security action. Ozone changes
are more apt to result when there is a significant increase in vehicle
miles traveled. The security action merely shifted traffic within the
local area.
Noise levels in the study area were not significantly increased by
the security action. Levels in the area on the north side of the White
House dropped noticeably. Vibration levels on H street were examined
and found to be similar to pre-existing levels. The frequency of
vibration probably did increase; however, because the vibration levels
remain below the threshold for damage to fragile historic buildings, no
problems are anticipated.
[[Page 50051]]
The placement of the temporary security barriers has had an adverse
visual impact on a number of historic buildings in the study area. This
will be remedied by the NPS when they complete their plan for
replacement of the temporary barriers with an acceptably designed
permanent barrier. The removal of traffic from Pennsylvania Avenue
presents pedestrian tourists and residents alike with an improved view
of the north side of the White House.
Pedestrian access as measured by accident data appears to be
relatively unchanged. Access to the north side of the White House is
improved at Pennsylvania Avenue.
Socioeconomic analysis was limited to emergency services (fire and
police) and Metro bus cost increases and parking meter revenue losses.
No police or fire stations were moved as a result of the security
action. Some minor adjustments in emergency response routes were made.
Metrobus changed several routes and bus stops as a result of the
security action. Some intersections had to be reconfigured to
accommodate the turning radius of the buses. Metrobus provided a cost
estimate of $115,000 in capital costs and $314,000 in annual operating
costs. Parking meter revenue losses were estimated to be $98,000
annually.
No endangered or threatened species are known to frequent the study
area. Little or no impact occurred to the native wildlife since there
was no ground disturbing activity.
The cumulative impacts analysis did not identify any violation of
NAAQSs even when the projected full operation of the Ronald Reagan
Federal Building was added into the air quality analysis.
A number of recommendations are discussed which could further
improve traffic conditions in the area around the White House. These
recommendations are presented in the EA; however, they are meant for
consideration by the relevant NPS and District of Columbia offices
which have the legal authority to implement them.
None of the impacts analyzed in the EA were found to be significant
under NEPA. None of the comment letters raised new issues that were not
addressed in the EA. The comments along with responses to each comment
are included below. Based on the FONSI, an Environmental Impact
Statement will not be prepared for the security action (40 CFR
1501.4(c), (e)).
Summary of issues raised in the comment letters:
Issue 1: Two commenters questioned the lack of alternatives in the
environmental assessment (EA). Both suggested alternatives that should
have been considered.
Response: The White House Security Review, which was an eight month
comprehensive study, considered numerous other alternatives; however,
it ultimately concluded that none of the other alternatives would
provide the necessary level of protection to the White House Complex.
The Security Review is classified top secret and could not be included
in a public review document such as the EA.
Issue 2: Two commenters stated that Treasury should prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because the EA does not adequately
address the socioeconomic impacts of the action. Both stated that there
are significant impacts to the commercial sector of the city from the
restriction.
Response: Neither comment provided any data to support the
assertion as to commercial impact. Treasury's analysis of the economic
impact of the action was limited to identifiable costs incurred by the
District in terms of increased Metro costs and lost parking revenue.
Treasury was able to gather reliable data in each of these areas. Over
150 copies of the EA were mailed to commercial entities and
associations representing the private sector. No comments were received
from any of these entities.
Issue 3: Three commenters questioned how Metro and the District
would be reimbursed for the Metrobus costs incurred and parking meter
revenue lost as a result of the security action.
Response: Treasury continues to work with the Office of Management
and Budget to explore ways in which the Federal Government can provide
economic support to Metro and the District.
Issue 4: Two commenters stated that Treasury should prepare an EIS
because the EA does not adequately address the traffic conditions
resulting from the security action. One commenter alleged that Treasury
did not consider all the traffic data that might be available.
Response: The EA characterizes the traffic operating conditions
within the study area in terms of level of service and travel speed and
identifies the streets which received the increases and decreases in
traffic. It does not quantify the increase or decrease in commuting
time resulting from the security action, because of the lack of a
comparable pre-action data. The emergency nature of the action
precluded a systematic, advance collection of traffic data. Existing
data was used to the extent possible, but no complete set of
information ever existed which could be used for a direct comparison of
before and after conditions. After an extensive search, every available
source of data was used for the traffic analysis in the EA, including
the DCDPW, the FHWA, and the NPS.
Issue 5: One commenter stated that the EA had thoroughly evaluated
the potential impacts of the action. It concluded that the impacts were
minor, should be further reduced by the recommendations in Chapter 3
and recommended that we prepare a finding of no significant impact.
Response: Treasury agrees the impacts are minor. It should be noted
that several of the recommendations in Chapter 3 have been implemented
by the cognizant agencies such as the DCDPW and Metro. The
recommendations are items which could provide additional relief to
traffic problems.
Issue 6: Three commenters questioned the adequacy of the air
quality analysis provide in the EA. They believe that since the
District was in non-attainment status for ozone, even before the
security action, and attainment for carbon monoxide (CO), ozone should
have been modeled to measure any increases. One commenter stated that
slow moving vehicles would emit more emissions than were emitted before
the action.
Response: Ozone is a regional problem. An action that creates
traffic delay within a corridor of the study area does not translate
into increased ozone in that same corridor because of the time lag
between the emission of substances that are the precursors to ozone and
ozone creation. Such an action theoretically could pose a threat to the
region by representing an increase in the inventory of emissions
leading to ozone formulation. The effects of individual projects are
not known; the state of the art is to take care of ozone in planning,
accounting for the interaction of numerous actions and multiple
interrelated factors. The security action is not considered to be
regionally significant. Many things contribute to ozone production.
Hence the analysis at the region wide level. It is not common practice
to conduct an assessment of the effects of an individual project,
primarily because the individual project normally is not significant
enough to perform an entire regional analysis to see how it fits into
the picture. Whatever the effects the individual action would have on
emissions would be within the terms of error of the model and thus
would be statistically insignificant.
Additionally, the security action did not result in a large
increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT); the traffic that
[[Page 50052]]
otherwise would have been using Pennsylvania Avenue has shifted to
adjoining streets. Idling or slow moving vehicles have low volatile
organic compound (VOC) and nitrous oxide (Nox) emission rates. Instead,
the amount of VMT and the speed of the travel are the main influences
on VOC and Nox production. For Nox, which is the more vexing of the
main ozone producing pollutants, any decrease in average speed below 28
miles per hour actually reduces emissions. Most of the traffic in the
study area moves at speeds below this level during the three peak
periods.
Issue 7: One commenter stated the belief that Treasury was trying
to conceal the extent of the increase in carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions, positing that the model results should be compared to
ambient concentrations prior to the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue to
vehicular traffic in 1995.
Response: While a comparison of the CO levels prior to and after
the action could potentially find some increases in emissions, such a
comparison would be impossible to perform, because traffic levels and
CO concentrations were not measured before the action took place. In
addition, an increase in emissions, by itself, is not an indication
that a problem exists, provided that the NAAQS are met, and the State
Implementation Plan is not violated. The EA shows that both these
conditions are met. The analysis performed in the EA satisfies the
requirements of the NEPA.
Issue 8: One commenter questioned the treatment of indirect
emissions in the EA and the assertion that Treasury doesn't have
control over these emissions.
Response: The direct and indirect emissions resulting from the
security action were analyzed under NEPA. The same analysis techniques
were used that would have been used for the analysis under the Clean
Air Act Amendments' (CAAA) conformity requirements had they been
applicable. The indirect emissions were not included in reaching a CAAA
conformity decision because Treasury does not have a continuing program
of control over traffic in the downtown area.
Issue 9: Two commenters stated that the results of the noise and
vibration analysis along H Street are not representative of what they
experience at their locations. One stated that parking tour buses along
H Street were a noisy visual ``wall of steel'' on the historic
structures. The same commenter requested that a vibration barrier be
installed along H Street to eliminate the potential for damage to the
historic structures. One questioned the use of the 95 dB vibration
threshold for damage to extremely fragile historic buildings from the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
Response: The noise and vibration data in the EA are actual data
taken in a representative manner at various locations in the H Street
area. This data is consistent with the limited amount of pre-existing
data that was available. Treasury believes that repairing of the street
could further reduce the noise and vibration levels along H Street.
Treasury agrees that the illegally parked tour buses create additional
sources of noise and vibration and should be removed by the appropriate
authorities.
According to the FTA, the 95 dB vibration threshold is applicable
to both short term impacts from construction and long-term vibration
effects of operational traffic. It was used in the EA because it is one
of only a few guidance publications on the effects of vibration.
Further research has identified the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) criteria for historic buildings and ancient
ruins. The Caltrans guidance applies to continuous vibration sources,
such as those resulting from traffic and trains. The Caltrans guidance
uses a vibration criteria of 0.08 inch/second Peak Particle Velocity
(PPV) as the threshold for damage. PPVs below this level should not
result in damage. This is a more conservative level than the FTA's 95
dB (rms) or 0.12 inch/second PPV criteria. The post-action measured
levels along H Street were 0.016 inch/second or below. Pre-action data
showed levels as high as 0.035 inch/second PPV at Decatur House. Both
the pre- and post-action levels are well below the Caltrans level of
0.08 inch/second PPV. It is clear that the security action did not
result in any significant increase in these levels, and the vibration
data does not show any need for installation of a vibration barrier
along H Street.
Issue 10: Two commenters stated that the cumulative impacts
analysis in the EA was deficient because it did not include a
discussion of the General Service Administration's (GSA) proposal to
limit on street parking at Federal Office Buildings here in the
District.
Response: The purpose of the EA was to analyze the security action,
which occurred two years before the GSA proposal. The GSA proposal is
currently at the scoping stage and was not developed enough to include
in the EA at the time the EA was being written. A draft of the Treasury
EA was reviewed by GSA. GSA did provide detailed information about the
parking at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building for use in the cumulative
impact analysis. The GSA action will be fully described in a draft EIS
they plan to release in December 1997. The security action should be
part of the base condition for their EIS.
Issue 11: Three commenters asked questions related to the Metrobus
impacts. Two requested detailed data on increases or decreases in
ridership resulting from the actions. One provided corrections related
to schedules and stops.
Response: Information obtained from Metro after the security action
indicated there were some ridership changes in the period before and
after the security action, but the changes could not be attributed to
the security action. The corrections related to stops and schedules are
acknowledged.
Issue 12: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation stated that
additional information about the historic character of the affected
buildings would be needed to complete the Section 106 review under the
National Historic Preservation Act. The commenter also clarified the
extent of the original Section 106 review coverage undertaken at the
time of the security action by Treasury.
Response: Additional information on the significance of the
buildings on the register will be included in any follow-on Section 106
compliance activity. Treasury agrees that the temporary barriers were
addressed as an emergency action at the time of the action and that
only newly identified issues would be part of a follow-on Section 106
activity. It was important to recognize the adverse effect of the
temporary barriers and to clarify that the National Park Service will
be replacing the temporary barriers with a system of permanent barriers
as part of its Long-term Design Plan for Pennsylvania Avenue.
Issue 13: One commenter noted that the description of the Section
106 compliance activity was confusing as to which agencies were doing
what.
Response: Section 106 compliance for the placement of the temporary
security barriers was completed by the Treasury in 1995. The NPS has a
project to develop an acceptable permanent design and replace the
temporary barriers, which will be subject to the Section 106 compliance
process. Treasury is conducting a separate Section 106 process to
examine effects other than the placement of the temporary security
barriers, including traffic increases and the resulting visual, noise,
and vibration impacts.
[[Page 50053]]
Issue 14: One commenter noted that the E Street traffic
recommendation could affect the Zero Milestone and the Butt-Millet
memorial, raising historic preservation issues that were not included
in the EA.
Response: The recommendation for providing for resumption of
westbound traffic on E Street assumed that the existing street
configuration would be maintained and not require widening in the area
of the Zero Milestone and the Butt-Millet memorial. The recommendations
provided in Chapter 3 are just that, recommendations for consideration
by the agencies with the authority to implement them.
Issue 15: One commenter stated that the EA was misleading because
it did not describe the process for reaching a decision on whether to
issue a FONSI or a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement.
Response: The CEQ's NEPA regulations have been in place since 1978.
Treasury did not feel it was necessary to explain the purpose of an
environmental assessment in its document. The comment period was
announced in the Federal Register and the EA itself.
Issue 16: One commenter stated that traffic was worse and that
Pennsylvania Avenue and E Street should be reopened to vehicular
traffic.
Response: The security need for the restriction has not been
eliminated; however, Treasury is working with other agencies to examine
potential new designs for traffic on E Street. The EA does show that
some streets have had increases in traffic. The exact amount which is
due to the action cannot be determined due to the lack of pre-action
data.
Issue 17: One commenter criticized the EA for not having a section
on the beneficial impacts of the action such as the better access to
Lafayette Park and providing a more appropriate setting for one of our
preeminent national symbols.
Response: Treasury agrees that there are many beneficial impacts
resulting from the vehicular traffic restriction and attempted to
describe them in qualitative terms in the EA. Most of these impacts are
very difficult to assign dollar figures to and such an effort is not
warranted at the EA level.
Issue 18: One commenter noted that the action is not consistent
with the District's transportation plan, as outlined in the
Transportation Vision, Strategy and Action Plan for the Nation's
Capital.
Response: The action was taken to protect the White House Complex
from explosive devices carried by vehicles near the perimeter. This
action, while inharmonious with the transportation plan, is a necessary
security precaution.
Issue 19: One commenter believes that there is sufficient pre-
existing traffic data available from the District and the FHWA to allow
for estimation of the action's effects.
Response: The EA used the above mentioned data and data from other
sources and still could not identify a method for making the suggested
estimation. FHWA was a cooperating agency for the EA.
Issue 20: One commenter citing anecdotal evidence from her
constituents suggests that noise levels now are noticeably higher. This
commenter also suggested that the methodology used for noise in the EA
contains flaws and therefore failed to fully quantify the actual
increase.
Response: The EA noise data was acquired using standard industry
practices and equipment. It presents the actual dB readings taken at
the time of the measurement in a scientifically accurate manner.
Issue 21: One commenter noted that the boundaries for the extended
study area are appropriate for evaluating the project's effects.
Response: Treasury agrees.
Lawrence H. Summers,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25354 Filed 9-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P