Anacostia Streetcar Phase 2 Environmental Assessment and Section 106 and 4(f) Evaluations. APPENDIX H Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum

Transcription

1 Anacostia Streetcar Phase 2 Environmental Assessment and Section 106 and 4(f) Evaluations APPENDIX H Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum September 2013

2 Table of Contents Contents 1.0 Introduction Project Description Study Area Methodology Public and Agency Involvement Environmental Justice Analysis Environmental Justice Analysis Conclusions

3 1.0 Introduction The District Department of Transportation (DDOT), in coordination with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is conducting an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed construction and operation of a modern streetcar and associated streetscape improvements in the Anacostia neighborhood of Washington, D.C. In support of Executive Order Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (USDOT Order (a), May 2012), and the Federal Transit Administration s (FTA) Circular , Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Administration Recipients (August, 15, 2012), this environmental justice assessment presents the Anacostia Streetcar Extension project s compliance with mandated guidance and methods used to identify minority and low-income populations, and evaluates potential environmental justice issues. FTA and FHWA are joint leads on the EA; however, the proposed action is a transit project and the environmental justice analysis is being conducted according to the FTA guidelines. 2.0 Project Description The DC Streetcar program is a central part of the District Department of Transportation s (DDOT) commitment to improve the quality of life in the District by an efficient and effective transportation service that increases neighborhood access, provides mode choice, connects Metro stations and other transportation facilitates, aids community revitalization, and promotes sustainability. In 2010, DDOT requested that the FTA consider initiating an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process for the Anacostia Streetcar Extension project. The proposed project is an extension of a streetcar line currently under construction with tracks located in the existing streets and transportation rights-of-way, including the CSX railroad right-of-way. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) joined the project in April 24, 2012 due to associated streetscape improvements and the use of Federal Aid Roadway funds on Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE. The project will be an extension of the Anacostia Initial Line (AIL) that is currently under construction. The AIL will connect the northern most gate of the Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling facility (JBAB) to the Anacostia Metro Station at the intersection of Howard Road and Firth Sterling Avenue. This project would extend the AIL from the Anacostia Metro Station north to Good Hope Road and to the foot of the 11 th Street Bridge. The project would serve the existing Barry Farm community and connect the Anacostia community to the District s transit network. The purpose of the proposed action is to improve transit access and capacity in the Anacostia community by fostering and maintaining an efficient, reliable, and convenient transit network 2

4 that enhances connectivity within and between neighborhoods and supports community revitalization. This analysis considers the potential effects of the project on Environmental Justice (environmental justice) populations within a quarter-mile radius from the centerline of each alignment. The quarter-mile radius was chosen because the alignments are less than one mile long and less than 200 yards apart. The study area consists largely of residential uses with commercial, institutional, and industrial land uses along Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE. 3.0 Study Area The proposed action is within Ward 8, located in southeast Washington, DC. The project study area boundary is generally one-quarter mile radius from the centerline of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE and represents a ten-minute walk distance for transit stops along the alignment and the distance over which potential effects from the project would extend. The northern boundary of the study area ends just north of IH-295. The southern boundary of the study area is located near the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE and Pomeroy Road SE. In some areas the eastern and western boundaries of the study area expand beyond the quarter-mile boundary in order to include city blocks that would otherwise be divided. This approach allows the analysis to include a greater portion of the community and provides a more complete picture of the existing conditions within the study area; see Table 1: Study Area Population and Figure 1: Study Area and Census Block Groups. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Methodology Table 1: Study Area Population Study Area Population District of Columbia Population 9, ,723 The following section discusses the methods used to identify minority and low-income populations living within the study area and close to the remaining four build alternatives (Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 9). Potential effects (both positive and negative) to minority and lowincome populations resulting from the implementation of any build alternative, were only evaluated for the remaining four build alternatives carried forward through the EA. The No-build Alternative was not evaluated since it would not directly or indirectly change the existing conditions of the surrounding environment. The analysis provides a qualitative discussion of potential effects to environmental resources and conditions resulting from the No-build Alternative with respect to minority and low-income populations. 3

5 4

6 4.1 Method for Identifying the Census Block Groups for Each Alternative Census Block Groups were selected for each of the four remaining alternatives in the study area using the following method: A quarter-mile buffer was created using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) computer software along each proposed alignment for the four alternatives. All Census Block Groups that intersected the buffer in the study area for each alternative were selected for analysis. All Census Block Groups identified within the study area lie entirely within the District of Columbia Method for Identifying Minority Census Units In accordance with the recommended guidelines outlined in FTA s Circular , the following process was used to identify those Census Block Groups in the study area that are populated by minorities: According to data obtained from the 2010 Census, the minority population percentage for the DC region is 65.2 percent (See Table 2). The minority population percentage for each Census Block Groups within the study area was calculated with the obtained Census data. If the minority population percentage of the Census Block Group was equal to or greater than the DC percentage (65.2 percent), that Census Block Group was identified as a minority Census Block Group. In accordance with the USDOT s updated environmental justice order as published in the Federal Register (Vol. 77, No. 91, May 10, 2012), minority means a person who is: Black: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa; Hispanic or Latino: a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race; Asian American: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent; American Indian or Alaskan Native: A person having origins in any of the original people of North America, South America (including Central America), and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition; or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: People having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. A Minority Population is defined in the USDOT s updated order as any readily identifiable groups of minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who 5

7 will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy, or activity. Table 2 below shows the population of the study area and District of Columbia by ethnicity. Table 2: Population by Race and Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Study Area District of Columbia Number of People Percent of Total Number of People Percent of Total White % 207, % Black or 9, % 301, % African American Asian 26.27% 20, % Hispanic or % 54, % Latino All Other % 15, % TOTAL 9, % 601, % Racial Minority 9, % 392, % Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Method for Identifying Low-Income Census Units Low-income individuals are defined as persons whose median household income is at or below the guidelines set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The HHS threshold for low-income populations is 150% of the Census poverty threshold, which is based on income by household size. The American Community Survey (ACS) , a recurring household survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau provides detailed information at the Census Block Group level on household incomes and the percentage of the population that is below the poverty level. Similar to the identification of minority population areas, ACS data was used to determine whether Census Block Groups within the study area were above or below the poverty percentage for the DC region. According to the ACS data, 25.3 percent of the District s total population qualified as low-income (see Table 3). The low-income population percentage for each Census Block Group within the study area was calculated with the ACS data. If the low-income population percentage for a Census Block Group was found to be equal to or greater than 25.3 percent, the block group was identified as a low-income block group. According to the Census Bureau, a low-income population is defined as any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) who will be similarly affected by a proposed FTA program, policy, or activity. 6

8 4.2 Description of Minority and Low-Income Populations in the Study Area Applying the methodology described in Section 4.0, the analysis first determined the number of Census Block Groups that were either minority and/or low-income within the study area. Table 3 displays the percentages of minorities and low-income populations residing within a quarter-mile of the remaining build alternatives. The minority and low-income population numbers and percentages for the DC region are provided as a means of comparison. The difference between the alignments is less than one-quarter mile; therefore, the effects do not vary greatly between alternatives. The minority population within the study area for all build alternatives is higher than the District by over 30 percent (see Table 3). Thematic maps were developed to show the distribution of minority and low-income populations within a quarter-mile of each build alternative. In terms of low-income populations, a similar number of low-income persons live within a quarter-mile of all the build alternatives. Table 3: Summary of Minority Population and Poverty Status by Alternative Environmental Justice Measure Percentage Minority Percentage Below Poverty Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Alternative 2 Build Alternative Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 9 District of Columbia As evidenced by the Census data, not only are environmental justice populations present within the project study area, the entirety of the study area consists of an environmental justice population. Figures 2 through Figure 5 illustrate the distribution of minority populations within a quarter-mile of the build alternatives considered. The distribution of low-income populations in the study area for each alternative is shown in Figures 6 through Figure 9. 7

9 8

10 9

11 10

12 11

13 12

14 13

15 14

16 15

17 4.3 Components of an Environmental Justice Analysis As described in FTA Circular (page 50), this Technical Memorandum should include the following components below. Each component is cross-referenced to the corresponding section of the document: A description of low-income and minority populations within the study area affected by the project, and a discussion of the method used to identify this population (Sections 4.1 and 4.2). A discussion of all adverse effects of the project both during and after construction that would affect the identified minority and low-income population (Section 6.2). A discussion of all positive effects that would affect the identified minority and lowincome population, such as an improvement in transit service, mobility, or accessibility (Section 6.2). A description of all mitigation and environmental enhancement actions incorporated in the project to address the adverse effects including, but not limited to, any special features of the relocation program that go beyond the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act and address adverse community effects such as separation or cohesion issues, and the replacement of the community resources destroyed by the project (Section 6.2). A discussion of the remaining effects, if any, and why future mitigation is not proposed (Section 6.3.2). For projects that traverse through predominately minority and low-income and predominately non-minority and non-low-income areas, a comparison of mitigation and environmental enhancement actions that affect predominately low-income and minority areas with mitigation implemented in predominantly non-minority or non-low-income areas (Section 6.3.2). For the purpose of this analysis, an adverse effect means the totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or environmental effects including interrelated social and economic effects. A disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income populations means an adverse effect that: 1. Is predominantly borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, or 2. Will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and 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. Adverse effects include major transportation, social, economic, environmental, or human health effects likely to be caused by implementation of any build alternative considered that exceeds an established federal or state standard. The standards by which impacts for the different resource areas are measured can be found in Chapter 3 of the EA. For some potential adverse effects, such 16

18 as traffic, long-standing engineering practices and methodologies exist to quantify potential impacts and their relative level of adversity. For instance, traffic impacts have graded levels of service from A through F. Other potential adverse effects, such as community cohesion, are qualitative in nature. A discussion of these effects to minority and low-income environmental justice populations is included in Section 6. Each of the build alternatives would serve geographic areas with predominantly environmental justice populations, along with non-minority and non-low income (non-environmental justice) areas. All of the four build alternatives traverse environmental justice areas exclusively. Findings of the analysis suggest that potential impacts to environmental resources include traffic and noise and vibration. These effects would be experienced by all populations living in the study area regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic characteristic during and after construction. A detailed discussion of potential impacts to environmental justice populations follows in Section 6 on page Public and Agency Involvement The project s public involvement included activities to facilitate and encourage productive and meaningful dialogue with the community that would be served by the project. Because the project is located entirely within a geographic area identified as an environmental justice neighborhood, the public involvement program provided opportunities for the community to comment on the project as it developed and facilitated an awareness and understanding of the project by residents, businesses, community-based organizations, and other stakeholders in the project area. A detailed description of the Public Involvement meetings can be found in Appendix E Public Involvement Report. Specific examples of public involvement include but were not limited to: Four Interagency Technical Advisory Committee (ITAC) meetings were held regarding the streetcar project (see Table 4). The meetings were held during the workday to facilitate agency attendance. The DDOT held five public meetings in the Anacostia area regarding the streetcar project (See Table 5). The DDOT Streetcar Team (Team) attended several longstanding community meetings. The Team was able to reach out to citizens who attend their ANC or neighborhood meetings, but might not attend a public meeting specifically devoted to streetcar. DDOT also conducted one-on-one stakeholder interviews with ITAC members, by request. Businesses in the corridor were surveyed for their concerns regarding streetcar in the community. Several stakeholder meetings were held with community leaders. A one-week event was held at the Anacostia Library to gather comments on the four remaining alternatives. 17

19 The DC Streetcar team set up a project page on the DC Streetcar Website and included the use of multimedia tools to capture comments such as Survey Monkey for the public to provide comments on the proposed alternatives. The project team utilized social media tools, such as Facebook and Twitter to provide updates on the project and promote public meetings. Table 4: ITAC Meetings Conducted Meeting Date Key Discussion Topics December 16, 2010 March 17, 2011 June 22, 2011 February 7, 2012 TBD Project Kick Off Conceptual Alternatives Alternatives Screening Process Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Final ITAC Meeting 18

20 Table 5: Public Meeting Summary Meeting Date Location Topic Attended Main Concerns Overview Tuesday, January 12, :00 p.m. Saturday, March 26, :00 a.m. Wednesday, June 29, :00p.m. Thursday, January 26, :00 p.m. Savoy Elementary School Matthews Memorial Church Savoy Elementary School Savoy Elementary School Project Kickoff 85 -Better transit service and connections -Economic development -Displacements -Impacts to parking and loading on Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE -Impact of DHS campus -More jobs and activities along Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE -Conceptual Alternatives, -Introduce Section 106 Evaluation Alternatives Screening Process -Preliminary Environmental Impacts, -Section 106 Evaluation 62 -Concerned with impacts on Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE -Some liked the alignment in the CSX railroad right-of-way but felt it missed community -Concern with gentrification -Concern with impacts to narrow streets 24 -Avoid residential areas -What is cost? -Congestion on Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE and Howard Road -Station locations -Overhead wire impacts 60 -Connection to other streetcar lines -Traffic impacts -Appearance of overhead wires -Noise and vibration concerns -Construction impacts -Opposition to construction on Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE -Opposition to streetcar in residential areas -Support for alternative in the CSX railroad right-of-way Liked focus on Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE but concerned about: -Noise -Parking -Construction -Support for Alternative 4 -Alternative 9 misses commercial area -Prefer alignments that avoid Shannon Place -Alternative 9 has fewer impacts but misses core of Anacostia 19

21 Meeting Date Location Topic Attended Main Concerns Overview Tuesday, July 16, :00 pm Savoy Elementary School Results of Environmental Assessment and Section 106 Evaluation 52 -Parking impacts on Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE - Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE alignment serves businesses -CSX railroad alignment reduces impacts on Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE -CSX railroad alignment misses community -Overhead wires and wireless vehicles -Connection to overall streetcar system -Alternative 4 serves core of Anacostia but has impacts -Alternative 9 has no impacts but misses core of community 20

22 Other specific activities designed to reach minority and low-income populations included the following: Postcard Neighborhood Mailings to businesses and residents Flyers at community events, churches, and the Anacostia Metro Station and telephone notifications of upcoming meetings Print ads in both Spanish and English free weekly newspapers Future Business Owner meetings Other outreach tools as appropriate throughout the project 6.0 Environmental Justice Analysis 6.1 No-build Alternative The No-build Alternative would not cause disproportionately high or adverse effects on lowincome and minority populations. The No-build Alternative includes only those projects contained in the region s fiscally constrained transportation improvement plan that would provide limited mobility improvements to the community. The programmed improvements would not enhance transit system connectivity or serve as a catalyst for community revitalization. Currently, the No-build Alternative requires existing transit users who are traveling from the Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling (JBAB) area to Downtown Anacostia to make a transfer at the Anacostia Metro Station to access the Historic District. Air quality benefits under the No-build scenario would be limited to the effects roadway improvements in the area have on traffic congestion. Mobility improvements and quality-of-life benefits that would accrue with changes proposed by the build alternatives would not be realized under the No-build Alternative. 6.2 Build Alternatives The build alternatives would improve transit access between the residential, commercial and employment areas within Anacostia and the remainder of the District. Residents within the project study area would have direct access to the new streetcar service using new streetcar stops that would be constructed within their neighborhood. Project benefits to minority and low-income populations living in the area include more transportation choices, better and more direct access to employment opportunities, potential for job creation, promotion of equitable affordable housing, and economic revitalization. In addition, the is a vital link as part of a premium transit system that would provide enhanced connectivity for residents traveling from JBAB to downtown Anacostia and other parts of the District. 21

23 The environmental justice analysis indicates that there would be no disproportionately high or adverse impact to minority and low-income communities between the build alternatives. The difference between the alignments is less than one-quarter mile; therefore, the effects do not vary greatly between alternatives. No acquisitions requiring displacements and relocations are required, and no impact to access or mobility is expected since no driveways or building entrances will be permanently closed and access will be maintained. The proposed streetcar extension would enhance connectivity within the Anacostia community and to the regional transit network facilitating transit use for the transit-dependent neighborhood. The trips generated by the proposed alternatives are relatively low as compared to the total number of regional trips; therefore, any build alternative is unlikely to have a significant impact on regional air quality. Air Quality analysis near the streetcar stops forecasted to have the highest traffic volumes and worst level of service for any of the proposed build alternatives shows that no violations of federal carbon monoxide standards are expected. The build alternatives would also encourage continued investment in the community to stabilize property values and to revitalize the community. Chapter 3 of the EA explains fully the potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures for each alternative. A summary of the adverse and positive effects of the proposed action on environmental justice populations and communities are listed by alternative in Tables 6-9: 22

24 Table 6: Effects on Environmental Justice Communities Alternative 2 Area of Effect Impacts Adverse Effects Mitigation and Enhancement Actions Positive Effects Cultural Resources No impacts to historic properties. Section 3.2 of the EA discusses the Cultural Resources of the proposed project No adverse effects to cultural resources would occur. Alternative 2 extends deeper into the Anacostia Historic District than the other alternatives, a concern expressed by the community because of potential noise or vibration impacts. Traffic operations degrade at the following intersections: Firth Sterling Avenue at Howard Road; Howard Road at the Metro Station; Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue at Talbert Street; Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue at Chicago Street; Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue at W Street; and the end of the tracks at Good Hope Road. Approximately 53 on-street parking spaces would be relocated within the corridor Noise or vibration impacts can be mitigated through special trackwork. Preconstruction survey of eligible historic structures to assess vibration impacts. Overhead wires were a feature of the original streetcar in the corridor. Expansion of the historic district would promote the preservation of the character of the community. Traffic Deterioration of traffic operations and loss of parking. The traffic analysis is presented in Section 3.5 of the EA. Traffic impacts would be mitigated through signal timing optimization and access management. Alternative 2 would provide benefits to environmental justice populations through improving transit access and capacity in the community and maintaining an efficient, reliable, and convenient transit network that enhances connectivity within and between neighborhoods and supports community revitalization. 23

25 Area of Effect Impacts Adverse Effects Mitigation and Enhancement Actions Positive Effects Noise and Vibration Noise and vibration effects to sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, and churches Section 3.7 of the EA addresses the noise and vibration effects of the proposed project. Alternative 2 has twice as many sensitive receptors as Alternatives 4 and 5 (22 compared to 11) and a greater potential for adverse effects. Noise effects would be mitigated by wheel lubrication, rubber boots on the rails, and special crossing designs. Vibration effects would be mitigated by special trackwork, and resilient mats under the rails Mitigation would reduce potential noise and vibration effects to below adverse impact levels. Visual Impacts The proposed action would introduce overhead utility wires exist along the streets on which Alternative 2 runs. No overhead wires exist along Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE Section 3.10 of the EA addresses the visual effects of the proposed project. None. Overhead wires already exist in the community and were part of the streetcars system that operated on Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE. The addition of an overhead catenary system does not create an adverse visual impact No mitigation required. Overhead wires already exist in the community. The overhead catenary wire is approximately 0.62 inches in diameter and does not create an adverse visual impact. The streetcar and supporting elements are consistent with visual features that already exist in the corridor. 24

26 Area of Effect Impacts Adverse Effects Mitigation and Enhancement Actions Positive Effects Construction Effects The construction effects associated with Alternative 2 include the temporary loss of parking and access and noise and vibration effects. Construction impacts are discussed in Section 3.12 of the EA. No adverse impacts anticipated. The construction effects and proposed mitigation measures associated with Alternative 2 do not create disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations. Parking and access effects would be mitigated through proactive coordination with property owners for temporary access. Noise and vibration impacts would be mitigated by limiting hours of operation to accommodate adjacent land uses, storing equipment away from sensitive activities, and temporary noise barriers Construction activities would add jobs temporarily. 25

27 Table 7: Effects on Environmental Justice Communities Alternative 4 Area of Effect Impacts Adverse Effects Mitigation and Enhancement Actions Positive Effects Cultural Resources No known impacts to cultural resources. Section 3.2 of the EA discusses the Cultural Resources of the proposed project. No adverse effects to cultural resources are known. A pre-construction survey to determine vibration impacts during construction would be required at the corner of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE and Chicago Street where the tracks are near the Anacostia Police Station No. 11/Max Robinson Center, an eligible historic structure. Overhead wires were a feature of the original streetcar in the corridor. Expansion of the historic district would promote the preservation of the character of the community. Traffic Deterioration of traffic operations and loss of parking. Alternative 4 has four turns that bring the tracks into near to the property inside the turn and clip the sidewalk, altering pedestrian facilities (see Appendix J). The traffic analysis is presented in Section 3.5 of the EA. Traffic impacts associated with Alternative 4 are greater that the No-build because of streetcar operations at key intersections, such as Firth Sterling Avenue at Suitland Parkway; Firth Sterling Avenue at Howard Road; Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue at Talbert Street; Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue at Chicago Street; Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue at Pleasant Street; Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue Traffic impacts would be mitigated through signal timing optimization and access management. Pedestrian crossings and wheelchair ramps would be relocated maintain pedestrian movement. Loading conflicts would be addressed by coordinating loading hours and streetcar operations. Alternative 4 would provide benefits to environmental justice populations through improving transit access and capacity in the community and maintaining an efficient, reliable, and convenient transit network that enhances connectivity within and between neighborhoods and supports community revitalization. 26

28 Area of Effect Impacts Adverse Effects at W Street; Shannon Place at W Street; and the end of the track at Good Hope Road. Approximately 81 on-street parking spaces would be relocated within the corridor and approximately 11 loading docks would have conflicts between the streetcar tracks and loading and unloading areas. Mitigation and Enhancement Actions Positive Effects Noise and Vibration Noise and vibration effects would occur along the alignment Section 3.7 of the EA addresses the noise and vibration effects of the proposed project. Alternative 4 has eleven sensitive receptors along the alignment. Noise effects would be mitigated by wheel lubrication, rubber boots on the rails, and special crossing designs. Vibration effects would be mitigated by special trackwork, and resilient mats under the rails. Mitigation would reduce potential noise and vibration effects to below adverse impact levels. Pre-construction survey of eligible historic structures to assess vibration impacts. Visual Impacts The proposed action would introduce overhead utility wires exist along the streets on None. Overhead wires already exist in the community and were part of the streetcars system that operated on No mitigation required. Overhead wires already exist in the community. The overhead catenary wire is The streetcar and supporting elements are consistent with visual features that already 27

29 Area of Effect Impacts Adverse Effects Mitigation and Enhancement Actions Positive Effects which Alternative 4 runs. No overhead wires exist along Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE Section 3.10 of the EA addresses the visual effects of the proposed project. Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE. The addition of an overhead catenary system does not create an adverse visual impact approximately 0.62 inches in diameter and does not create an adverse visual impact. exist in the corridor. Construction Effects The construction effects associated with Alternative 4 include the temporary loss of parking and access and noise and vibration effects. Construction impacts are discussed in Section 3.12 of the EA. No adverse impacts anticipated. The construction effects and proposed mitigation measures associated with Alternative 4 do not create disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations. Parking and access effects would be mitigated through proactive coordination with property owners for temporary access. Noise and vibration impacts would be mitigated by limiting hours of operation to accommodate adjacent land uses, storing equipment away from sensitive activities, and temporary noise barriers Construction activities would add jobs temporarily. 28

30 Table 8: Effects on Environmental Justice Communities Alternative 5 Area of Effect Impacts Adverse Effects Mitigation and Enhancement Actions Positive Effects Cultural Resources No known impacts to cultural resources. Section 3.2 of the EA discusses the Cultural Resources of the proposed project. No adverse effects to cultural resources are known. A pre-construction survey to determine vibration impacts during construction would be required at the corner of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE and Chicago Street where the tracks are near the Anacostia Police Station No. 11/Max Robinson Center, an eligible but historic structure. Overhead wires were a feature of the original streetcar in the corridor. Expansion of the historic district would promote the preservation of the character of the community. Traffic Deterioration of traffic operations and loss of parking would occur. Alternative 5 has five turns that bring the tracks into near to the property inside the turn and clip the sidewalk, altering pedestrian facilities (see Appendix J). The traffic analysis is presented in Section 3.5 of the EA. Traffic impacts associated with Alternative 5 are greater that the No-build because of streetcar operations at key intersections, such as; Firth Sterling Avenue at Howard Road; Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue at Talbert Street; Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue at Chicago Street; Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue at W Street; Shannon Place at W Street; and the end of the track at Good Hope Road. Traffic impacts would be mitigated through signal timing optimization and access management. Pedestrian crossings and wheelchair ramps would need to be relocated maintain pedestrian movement. Loading conflicts would be addressed by coordinating loading hours and streetcar operations. Alternative 5 would provide benefits to environmental justice populations through improving transit access and capacity in the community and maintaining an efficient, reliable, and convenient transit network that enhances connectivity within and between neighborhoods and supports community revitalization. 29

31 Area of Effect Impacts Adverse Effects Approximately 90 on-street parking spaces would be relocated within the corridor and approximately 13 loading docks would have conflicts between the streetcar tracks and loading and unloading areas. Mitigation and Enhancement Actions Positive Effects Noise and Vibration Noise and vibration effects would occur along the alignment Section 3.7 of the EA addresses the noise and vibration effects of the proposed project. Alternative 5 has eleven sensitive receptors along the alignment. Noise effects would be mitigated by wheel lubrication, rubber boots on the rails, and special crossing designs. Vibration effects would be mitigated by special trackwork, and resilient mats under the rails. Mitigation would reduce potential noise and vibration effects to below adverse impact levels. Pre-construction survey of eligible historic structures to assess vibration impacts. Visual Impacts The proposed action would introduce overhead utility wires exist along the streets on which Alternative 5 runs. No overhead wires exist along Martin Luther King, None. Overhead wires already exist in the community and were part of the streetcars system that operated on Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE. The addition of an overhead catenary system No mitigation required. Overhead wires already exist in the community. The overhead catenary wire is approximately 0.62 inches in diameter and does not create an adverse visual impact. The streetcar and supporting elements are consistent with visual features that already exist in the corridor. 30

32 Area of Effect Impacts Adverse Effects Mitigation and Enhancement Actions Positive Effects Jr. Avenue SE Section 3.10 of the EA addresses the visual effects of the proposed project. does not create an adverse visual impact Construction Effects The construction effects associated with Alternative 5 include the temporary loss of parking and access and noise and vibration effects. Construction impacts are discussed in Section 3.12 of the EA. No adverse impacts anticipated. The construction effects and proposed mitigation measures associated with Alternative 5 do not create disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations. Parking and access effects would be mitigated through proactive coordination with property owners for temporary access. Noise and vibration impacts would be mitigated by limiting hours of operation to accommodate adjacent land uses, storing equipment away from sensitive activities, and temporary noise barriers Construction activities would add jobs temporarily. 31

33 Table 9: Effects on Environmental Justice Communities Alternative 9 Area of Effect Impacts Adverse Effects Mitigation and Enhancement Actions Positive Effects Cultural Resources No historic properties would be affected. An archeological survey as described in Section of the EA would be required to determine if any archeological resources are present. No known adverse effects to cultural resources would occur. An archeological survey would be required in the CSX railroad right-of-way to determine if any archeological resources are present. Mitigation would be coordinated with SHPO. Alternative 9 avoids the core of Anacostia and any potential impacts to historic properties. No known archeological resources are present in the CSX railroad corridor. Traffic Alternative 9 crosses only one intersection at Firth Sterling Avenue and Howard Road. It is not projected to have any impact on traffic or parking. Alternative 9 would not have any impact on traffic or parking. No mitigation would be required. Alternative 9 would provide benefits to environmental justice populations through improving transit access and capacity in the community and maintaining an efficient, reliable, and convenient transit network that enhances connectivity within and between neighborhoods and supports community revitalization. The potential addition of a shared use trail in the CSX railroad right-of-way with Alternative 9 would further enhance connectivity. 32

34 Area of Effect Impacts Adverse Effects Mitigation and Enhancement Actions Positive Effects Noise and Vibration No noise and vibration impacts are associated with Alternative 9. Section 3.7 of the EA addresses the noise and vibration effects of the proposed project. No adverse impacts are anticipated. No mitigation would be required. Streetcar in the CSX railroad right-of-way would be removed from sensitive receptors and would not have noise and vibration impacts. Visual Impacts Streetcar structures and facilities, such as overhead catenary wires, support poles, and substations would not create an adverse visual with Alternative 9. Section 3.10 of the EA addresses the visual effects of the proposed project. Streetcar structures and facilities, such as overhead catenary wires, support poles, and substations would not create an adverse visual with Alternative 9. No mitigation would be required. The streetcar structures and facilities, such as overhead catenary wires, support poles, and substations are consistent with the elements of a railroad corridor and would not create a visual intrusion. 33

35 Area of Effect Impacts Adverse Effects Mitigation and Enhancement Actions Positive Effects Construction Effects The construction effects associated with Alternative 9 include the temporary loss of parking and access and noise and vibration effects. Construction impacts are discussed in Section 3.12 of the EA. No adverse impacts anticipated. The construction effects and proposed mitigation measures associated with Alternative 9 do not create disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations. Parking and access effects would be mitigated through proactive coordination with property owners for temporary access. Noise and vibration impacts would be mitigated by limiting hours of operation to accommodate adjacent land uses, storing equipment away from sensitive activities, and temporary noise barriers Construction activities would add jobs temporarily. 34

36 6.3 Remaining Effects and Comparison of Mitigation and Environmental Enhancement Actions No-build Alternative The No-build Alternative would not impact low-income and/or minority populations in the study area, so no specific mitigation would be required. However, current and future land use actions that occur in or adjacent to the study area will have an affect on the area. Current development patterns would continue as the market meets demand, and traffic congestion could increase as more vehicular traffic is introduced into the area. Planned improvements to Suitland Parkway and other roadway facilities surrounding Anacostia could relieve some of the traffic congestion. However, increased development and redevelopment activities may offset any planned traffic improvements Build Alternatives None of the mitigation measures for the effects of the build alternatives are anticipated to have disproportionately high or adverse impacts on low income and/or minority populations. The entire study area is composed of an environmental justice population and the alternatives are relatively close together; therefore potential impacts and mitigation measures would not be distributed inequitably between an environmental justice community and a non-environmental justice community. No displacements and relocations are anticipated and no additional activities are required to mitigate impacts to environmental justice populations. Alternative 9 has fewer overall effects on the community than the other alternatives; it is also farther removed from the core of the Anacostia community and would be less convenient for residents, visitors, and patrons to access from the commercial corridor along Martin Luther, King Jr. Avenue. Additional accessibility improvements between the core of Anacostia and Alternative 9 could improve the connectivity and make it more accessible. All of the build alternatives could encourage economic investment, in addition to what is already occurring and planned. Benefits that a streetcar add to the community include improved mobility and connectivity to educational and employment activities in the community and region. 7.0 Environmental Justice Analysis Conclusions The project would not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on the minority or low-income populations in the study area. Each of the alternatives has varying degrees of impacts, but they are not disproportionately distributed among environmental justice populations for the following reasons: 35

37 The entire study area qualifies as an environmental justice community, so none of the effects of the proposed action affect non-environmental justice communities, The alignments are less than one-quarter mile apart so the effects are felt by the same neighborhoods, None of the mitigation measures for the potential effects vary between alternatives. The project provides a benefit to the community by enhancing mobility and access through increased transit connectivity with greater capacity, as well as promoting community revitalization through public investment that encourages transit-oriented development for a walkable neighborhood. Less transportation investment in the study area could disproportionately impact minority and low-income populations. The Anacostia Streetcar Extension is a vital link in a District-wide streetcar system. Failure to construct the extension tie into the overall transit network could leave the Anacostia community isolated. Although there would be impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the streetcar, the impacts would not be any greater in the study area than if the project in a non-minority and non-low income (non-environmental justice community) areas. 36