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