Environmental Justice Discipline Report Duportail Bridge Project, City of Richland, WA

Prepared by:

Federal Highway Administration 711 South Capitol Way, Suite 501 Olympia, WA 98501

Washington State Department of Transportation P.O. Box 12560 Yakima, WA 98909

October,January 24, 2011 2011 This page left blank intentionally for printing purposes.

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 What alternatives were analyzed? ...... 1 What is the No Build alternative? ...... 1 What are the principal features of the build alternative? ...... 1 What is the purpose of the project? ...... 2 How was the Preferred Alternative Selected? ...... 4 What are the key points of this report? ...... 6 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions ...... 7 How did we Collect Information on Environmental Justice for this Report?...... 7 What is the study area for this Environmental Justice analysis? ...... 8 Are there gathering places, businesses, or services in or near the study area that are important to environmental justice populations? ...... 10 What are the community cohesion and population characteristics in the study area? ...... 11 What are the growth trends in the study area? ...... 11 Chapter 3: Public Involvement ...... 12 How will minority or low-income populations be involved? ...... 12 What public involvement activities are ongoing? ...... 13 Chapter 4: Potential Effects ...... 13 What methods did we use to evaluate potential effects on EJ populations? ...... 13 What are the potential construction effects? ...... 15 What are the operational effects? ...... 16 What are the indirect effects of the project? ...... 17 What are the cumulative effects of the project? ...... 18 Chapter 5: Measures to Avoid or Minimize Project Effects ...... 18 How will we avoid or minimize adverse effects from construction? ...... 18 How will we avoid or minimize permanent adverse effects from the project? ...... 19 Chapter 6: Environmental Justice Determination ...... 19 Will this project have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority or low-income populations? ...... 19 References ...... 21 Personal Communications ...... 21 Documents and Publications ...... 21 Web ...... 21 Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... 23 Appendix A: Methods ...... 25 Appendix B: Supporting Documents ...... 29

Exhibits Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map ...... 3 Exhibit 2: Corridor Alternatives Considered Map ...... 5 Exhibit 3: Study Area North of Proposed Bridge, Census Tract 103 Map ...... 9 Exhibit 4: Study Area South of Proposed Bridge, Census Tract 108.03 Map ...... 10 Exhibit 5: Income Demographic for Census Tracts 103 and 108.3- 2000 Census Table ...... 13 Exhibit 6: Race Demographic for Census Tracts 103 and 108.3- 2006-2008 Census Table ...... 13 Exhibit 7: School Demographic Data Table ...... 14

Chapter 1: Introduction

What alternatives were analyzed? This report includes analysis of one build alternative and one “no build” or “no action” alternative. The report also suggests a range of mitigation measures to relieve any potential negative effects on Environmental Justice populations. This approach is consistent with FHWA’s guidelines for preparing a NEPA EA.

What is the No Build alternative? The No Build Alternative is assumed to maintain the status quo: only routine activities such as road maintenance, repair, and safety improvements would occur within the corridor between now and 2032. The No Build Alternative does not include improvements that would increase roadway capacity or reduce congestion on feeder streets to I-182 or other surface streets in the City of Richland.

What are the principal features of the build alternative? . Construction of a four lane bridge; with two 11-foot travel lanes and a 12-foot pedestrian/bicycle path on the upriver side of the bridge. . Sidewalks will be installed between City View Drive and Tanglewood Drive to connect with the existing network. . The north-east segment of Duportail Street will be extended south to connect with the proposed bridge, and will be widened north, to between Cottonwood Drive and Birch Avenue; sidewalks will be added where needed to connect with the existing network. . Tanglewood Drive will be extended eastward to intersect with Duportail Street north of the proposed bridge and terminate in a dead end approximately 700 feet east of the proposed intersection. . The intersection of Duportail Street and SR 240 will be upgraded to handle higher traffic volumes. . The BNSF railroad tracks running parallel to SR 240 will be raised to the same grade as the intersection of SR 240 and Duportail Street. . SR 240 will be widened on both sides of intersection with Duportail Street due to the addition of right turn exit lanes from SR 240 onto Duportail Street. . A new access road will be built from Tanglewood Drive cul-de-sac behind the Shoreline Village apartment complex east of Duportail Street to the Desert Streams Bible Church. . The existing water main crossing within the Yakima River will be replaced and placed on the bridge. . The existing CID (Columbia Irrigation District) canal south of the proposed bridge will be enclosed under the proposed bridge. . A drainage/detention pond will be installed southeast of the intersection of Duportail Street and Tanglewood Drive. . The existing parking lot used to access the boat launch and trails on the north side of the bridge will be re-constructed. . A trail will be constructed under the new bridge to connect with the existing riverfront trails on the north side of the bridge.

1

What is the purpose of the project? The purpose of this project is to create another crossing of the Yakima River to aid in the movement of traffic, and improve emergency vehicle response times from the south side of the Yakima River to the north by providing a bridge that will address current and future transportation needs. An additional north-south crossing in the city of Richland aims to improve mobility for cars, bicycles, pedestrians and public transit, and will alleviate current and future congestion within the SR 240 and I-182 corridor areas. All new pedestrian facilities will be designed to seamlessly blend with the existing facilities, and will be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, as amended1. Refer to Figure 1 for a map depicting the proposed project.

1 Civil Rights Division. 2010. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services. September 15. Department of Justice. Federal Register 75 (178): 56164-56358. Accessed January24, 2011. http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=4AwcwM/0/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve

2

0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles

¯ 1 in = 0.5 miles Columbia River Columbia

Duportail Street Bridge

Figure 1: Vicinity Map Duportail Street Bridge Project City of Richland

City of Richland December 16, 2010 This page left blank intentionally for printing purposes.

4

How was the Preferred Alternative Selected? In mid 2006 the Richland City Council formed an ad hoc citizen steering committee to explore alternative transportation improvements across the Yakima River. The committee started with two alternatives, one using Duportail Street and the other expanding the existing interstate bridge. The committee felt additional alternatives should be considered, so two additional alternatives were selected; one to the north using Swift Blvd. and one to the south using Goethals Drive. An open house was held in January of 2007 and, ultimately, preference was expressed for the Duportail corridor. In May of 2007 the Richland City Council selected the “Duportail / Stevens Corridor” as a high priority project.2 Figure 2 shows these alternative corridors, while the paragraph below it shows the relative scoring of these various alternatives. Later, in November of 2008, the bridge concept was shown to area residents at a local middle school. This included a flyer with a bird’s eye photo rendering of the new bridge.

Exhibit 2: Corridor Alternatives Considered Map

As shown above, a major consideration and purpose for this project was to connect the downtown section of Richland with growth forming around the Queensgate area. The alternatives were scored on four primary considerations: Mobility / Feasibility / Development Impact/ Neighborhood impact. Of these, the Duportail corridor had the best score on all but the

2 City of Richland, Duportail Bridge Project website 5 residential neighborhood impact category. The Swift and Goethals corridors would both have had significant environmental impacts to the Yakima River, wetlands, and wildlife. Furthermore, the Swift and Goethals corridors provided the least congestion improvement. The Goethals corridor would likely impact EJ populations more directly than the Duportail corridor, as it is adjacent to a low income population (2000 Census Data). The Swift Blvd. corridor would not likely affect any EJ population as it goes through a cemetery.

Expansion of the I-182 Interstate scored second best to the Duportail corridor; however expansion of I-182 was estimated at three times the cost of constructing the Duportail Bridge. Duportail was the least costly, and could be pursued more easily by the City of Richland to fund and construct. In addition, the I-182 Bridge is increasingly being used as a route for local trips from the city center to the newer developments. The need for local trips to use I-182 is anticipated only to increase as development and population rise. Expansion of the I-182 corridor would not likely affect any EJ populations.

Once the preferred alternative was chosen its proximity to existing land uses was considered and documented. Individuals familiar with the area were interviewed to assess the potential for minorities or low-income populations to be present within the study area, and what community relationships might be at work. This included assessment of apartments on the northeast side of the Yakima River, as well as a mobile home park and new employment centers on the southwest side of the river.

What are the key points of this report? The project will have proximity impacts on a number of properties on both sides of the Yakima River. Minority populations are known to live and work near both existing segments of Duportail Street within the project footprint. Property will be acquired for this project, using strip takes along the northeast side of the river in order to widen the existing street. Strip takes will occur in two locations, first along the Shoreline Village Apartments, in the area between the parking carports and the roadway adjacent to the apartments (no parking spaces will be removed), and second, along undeveloped land on the northwest corner of the Duportail Street/Riverstone Drive intersection. Access driveways for the Shoreline Apartments and a private driveway for the church are being relocated to use the future traffic signal to get onto Duportail Street. The public street of Riverstone Drive will be converted to right turns only. A connection to the extension of Tanglewood Drive will be provided for access via the traffic signal as well. Additional property will be leased from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Therefore, in summary, this project will have unavoidable short-term effects from construction such as increased noise levels from construction equipment, increased dust from vegetation removal/grading, and work zone traffic control measures. However, the Duportail corridor alternative is the least costly, has minimal effects on the Yakima River and adjacent recreation areas, and provides the most opportunity for congestion relief.

During construction Best Management Practices (BMP’s) will be in place for noise, and dust. The speed limit on the bridge will be set at 35 mph and controlled through traffic enforcement should evidence from ongoing traffic volume and speed measurements show a need. All populations will benefit from the additional crossing in the City of Richland, and the

6 opportunities it presents for improved emergency vehicle response times, bicycle and pedestrian provisions, as well as better public transit efficiency. Thus, there will be no disproportionately high impacts on EJ populations, as all populations will be affected equally.

Chapter 2: Existing Conditions

How did we Collect Information on Environmental Justice for this Report? The study reviewed records and statistical data on file for local schools, including data on the number of children enrolled in the Free Lunch Program. Eligible families must be low income or below the poverty level. Lastly, census records from 2000 were reviewed for which maps are shown in Appendix A of this report. As available, data from recent census updates has been incorporated into the report.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made into law that minorities were to have equal rights, specifically in Federally Assisted Programs3. In time it was found that minorities, as well as low income populations, were less able to represent their community interests against the impacts of infrastructure improvement projects. These projects, due to the need for less expensive property acquisition, would more often than not cause disproportionate impacts to minority and low income neighborhoods while providing benefits for other people.

In February of 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, requiring that federal funds not be used in such as way that would create high adverse and disproportionate impacts on minority or low income populations (EJ populations). A disproportionate high and adverse effect on EJ populations is defined as an effect that: 1) Is predominately borne by a minority population and/or 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.

In August of 2000, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). This order states that, “…each Federal agency shall examine the services it provides and develop and implement a system by which LEP persons can meaningfully access those services consistent with, and without unduly burdening, the fundamental mission of the agency. Each Federal agency shall also work to ensure that recipients of Federal financial assistance (recipients) provide meaningful access to their LEP applicants and beneficiaries.”4

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, establishes a uniform policy for the fair and equitable treatment of individuals and businesses displaced as a direct result of programs or projects undertaken by a federal agency or with federal financial assistance. The primary purpose of this Act is to minimize the hardship of

3 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/title_vi.htm 4 Executive Order 13166 http://www.justice.gov/crt/cor/Pubs/eolep.php 7 displacement and to ensure that such persons shall not suffer disproportionate adverse effect as a result of programs and projects designed for the benefit of the public.5 No individuals or businesses will be displaced as a result of this project.

Other discipline reports used to document the impacts of this project include:

Duportail Bridge Evaluation Report Cultural Resource Survey Biological Assessment Hazardous Materials Discipline Report GeoTechnical Report Noise Discipline Report/Barrier Analysis Traffic Impact Analysis Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report Land Use Discipline Report Floodplain Discipline Report Visual Impacts Discipline Report

The City of Richland has coordinated with the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, as necessary to get the project on the local Transportation Improvement Plan. The city also coordinated with Ben Franklin Transit, the Tapteal Greenway Association, a local environmental preservation group, and with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).

What is the study area for this Environmental Justice analysis? The study area is roughly bounded by Swift Blvd to the north, Keene Road and an agricultural field to the west, Interstate 182 to the south, and Thayer Drive to the east. The WSDOT guidance on Environmental Justice suggests a ½ mile radius from centerline, making sure to include complete neighborhoods. The area north of the bridge is included in Census Tract 103, Benton County, WA. Refer to Figure 3. The area south of the proposed bridge is included in Census Tract 108.03, Benton County, WA. Refer to Figure 4. Together, Figures 3 and 4 contain the recommended study area of an approximate ½ mile from the project’s centerline.

5 WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 458 8

Exhibit 3: Study Area North of Proposed Bridge, Census Tract 103 Map

9

Exhibit 4: Study Area South of Proposed Bridge, Census Tract 108.03 Map

Are there gathering places, businesses, or services in or near the study area that are important to environmental justice populations?

Though not within the project area, recent retail and other commercial development near the intersection of Queensgate Drive and Duportail Street does create new shopping, employment, and recreational opportunities. Some of the retail services are discount stores, presumably of value to low-income populations as well as others. These businesses also employ many people, including minorities and low-income populations. There are no businesses specifically serving the needs of the Hispanic population. The multi-family housing tracts mentioned above have small gathering places.

There is one known religious facility within the project area, The Desert Streams Bible Church, located immediately southeast of the Shoreline Village apartments. There are no senior centers or other group oriented facilities or services along either segment of Duportail Street. The multi- family housing tracts appear to have recreational and common areas, which could certainly be used for religious or social services, but are not specifically reserved for such purposes.

10

What are the community cohesion and population characteristics in the study area? Community cohesion, as described in Chapter 458 of the WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, is, “The ability of people to communicate and interact with each other in ways that lead to a sense of community, as reflected in the neighborhood’s ability to function and be recognized as a singular unit.” To date, no effort has been made to specifically measure and monitor community cohesion either in the residential developments northeast of the river or in the mobile home park to the southwest. However, some qualities of community cohesion can be inferred from the existing infrastructure and informal trails worn in the surrounding areas.

To the northeast, the existing cul-de-sac is used for access to the Yakima River and adjacent riparian areas. In aerial photos, the trails going past the cul-de-sac appear large enough to support boat launching, and lead to likely launch points downstream of rapid currents. The cul- de-sac also provides access to several other trails, likely used for hiking, bird watching, and access to the river for fishing. While this is true for the nearby neighborhoods, it is likely that some from outside the neighborhood also use the cul-de-sac for access to river oriented recreation. Pedestrian access to the riverfront will remain available. Vehicular access will be better controlled, which has been a concern of the City, State Fish and Wildlife Department, and the US Army Corps of Engineers.

While cross street access is readily available to the residents of the multi-family units, there is no known combined association of residents and/or owners, official or otherwise. None of the apartment complexes are Section 8 housing units. Public transit does not currently serve the area. Ben Franklin Transit has indicated they would likely use the Duportail corridor if available instead of I-182 since they have a transit facility near the southern limits of the project.

To the southwest, the mobile home park likely has a lot owner’s or member’s association. In fact, a petition was received from residents of the mobile home park in support of this project so some type of neighborhood function is clearly at work. Refer to Appendix B for a copy of the letter and petition from The Hills Mobile Home Park. The mobile home park is not split by Duportail, and has a number of access roadways with speed bumps, as shown from an aerial photo. This indicates that the roads have lower traffic speeds and are walkable. The mobile home park also has a central common space and facility. These are signs that the community has ways to develop a sense of cohesion.

Due to the canal, access to the river from the southwest side is not as readily available, especially for boats. Aerial photos of the area do not show the same presence of boat launching sites on the southwest shore as on the northeast shore. Informal trails are present to the north of this cul-de- sac and to the east of City View Drive. Pedestrian activity is low to moderate given the lack of facilities and connectivity. The project will improve connections to a regional and community trail system that runs along the Yakima River and SR 240 respectively.

What are the growth trends in the study area? The total population of Richland has grown from 38,708 in 2000 to an estimated 45,460 as of 2008, which represents a net growth rate of approximately 17.4%. When broken down by minority and low-income populations some categories have declined in numbers, such as black or African American individuals from 1.4 to 0.8 percent, while Hispanics have grown from 4.7

11 to 6.9 percent of the population. Both families and individuals who are below the poverty level have increased, from 5.7 to 9.6% and 8.2 to 11.2%, respectively. Chapter 3: Public Involvement

How will minority or low-income populations be involved? A public open house regarding the Duportail Bridge Project was held on November 5, 2008, at Carmichael Middle School a bilingual flyer announcing the open house was sent to the surrounding community, along with a phone number to reach a Spanish speaking staff member to answer questions. Refer to Appendix B for a copy of the flyer. Approximately 90 people from the surrounding community attended the open house, and 38 written comments were received. Many of the comments were individuals concerned with traffic on Duportail Street blocking residents from leaving the apartment complex during rush hour. To address this concern, a traffic signal is planned at the new intersection of Tanglewood Drive and Duportail Street.

A few comments indicated worries about traffic noise and air pollution from cars using the new roadway. Washington State requires a traffic noise study for projects that build a new roadway. The traffic noise study has been completed and was approved by the WSDOT. The noise study shows that noise above established thresholds (as defined by FHWA/WSDOT) would occur at five locations along the project corridor; three of the five receivers would be experience levels above the Noise Abatement Criteria, and all five would experience substantial increases. The greatest increase in sound level experienced under the 'Build 2032' condition as compared to the existing condition is 13.6 dB(A), and the highest sound level modeled under the 'Build 2032' condition is 70.3 dB(A) which is above the noise abatement criteria of 66 dB(A) for residential locations.

Based on the results of this study, abatement measures were fully evaluated in accordance with FHWA and WSDOT noise abatement policy. It was concluded that a noise barrier is warranted at two locations for impacted residential receivers. The recommendation for Barrier 1 is a 420 foot long, 12 foot high wall, which meets the WSDOT ‘reasonable and feasible’ criteria and is considered ‘optimized,’ as it provides a minimum of 10 dB(A) in sound reduction. The recommendation for Barrier 2 is a 534 foot long, 16 foot high wall since a 10 dB(A) minimum reduction cannot be reached at this location, the addition of wall height continues to provide benefit until the cost allowance is reached. Traffic noise will impact all populations equally, and the noise model has shown a noise barrier to be an effective means of reducing traffic noise for residences. While the model has shown noise barriers to be an effective means of reducing traffic noise for residences, ultimately it will be up to the residents of the community to decide if they want the barriers, as they may have negative visual impacts.

For this project, an air quality report was not warranted since the City of Richland does not lie in a non-attainment or ‘maintenance’ area for any of the criteria pollutants that trigger an analysis. Sidewalks are currently located along developed properties. There are gaps in sidewalk connectivity where adjacent properties are undeveloped.

12

What public involvement activities are ongoing? The City of Richland is committed to reaching all aspects of the community and informing/notifying any potential affected parties. The largest minority community is the Hispanic population. Outreach efforts to the Hispanic community will include any future meetings regarding this project have written materials available in English and Spanish, and a translator present to answer/translate questions regarding the project. In addition, mailings sent out regarding the project will be printed in both English and Spanish. Chapter 4: Potential Effects

What methods did we use to evaluate potential effects on EJ populations? Demographic information for this report relies on two primary sources: 2000 Census data, and local school district data. Secondary sources of data were also used and are shown later in this report. Data from the 2000 Census was pulled for the block group locations contained within the pertinent Census Tracts shown in Figures 3 and 4. According to 2000 Census data the following groups and their percentages were identified.6

Exhibit 5: Income Demographic for Census Tracts 103 and 108.3- 2000 Census Table

Percent of Population Below Population in Study Area Population Below Poverty Level Poverty Level 3,344 202 6%

Exhibit 6: Race Demographic for Census Tracts 103 and 108.3- 2006-2008 Census Table

Race Category Individuals/Total Population Percent White 3007/3344 90% Hispanic or Latino 168/3344 5% Black of African American 34/3344 1% American Indian 25/3344 0.7% Asian 70/3344 2% Native Hawaiian 0 0 Other 40/3344 1.2%

According to 2000 Census data, within the study area 6% of the population is considered low- income. The majority of the population is considered non-minority, and is 90% white. Hispanics make up the largest minority group, consisting of 5% of the population in the study area. American Indian, Black, Asian and persons identifying themselves as “other” race make up the remaining 5% of the population living near the study area. In 2000, 10.2% of those in Richland, Washington, spoke a language other than English at home.

6 U.S. Census Bureau Fact Sheet and downloaded map-data 13

According to the Richland School District and National Center for Education Statistics, students within the northeast segment of Duportail Street attend the following schools: Lewis & Clark Elementary, located at 800 Downing Street Carmichael Middle School, located at 620 Thayer Drive Hanford High School, located at 450 Hanford Street Marcus Whitman at 1704 Gray Street* * included for comparison as the students who attend it come from a neighborhood that is adjacent to the northeastern project limits.

Students within the southwest segment of Duportail Street attend the following schools: White Bluffs Elementary, located at 1250 Kensington Way Enterprise Middle School, located at 5200 Paradise Way Richland High School, located at 930 Long Avenue

The following table (Table 3) summarizes the demographic data available for these schools.

Exhibit 7: School Demographic Data Table School Name / % % Low- % % % % Total Enrollment American Income White Black Asian Hispanic Indian Lewis & Clark Elem / 45.9% 73.9% 4.0% 1.8% 8.3% 11.9% 444 White Bluffs Elem / 10% 88.5% 0.5% 1.0% 4.0% 6.1% 624 Marcus Whitman Elementary/ 52.9% 83.4% 2.4% 1.4% 2.2% 10.6% 416 Carmichael Middle School / 28.0% 82.6% 2.7% 1.3% 5.2% 8.2% 827 Enterprise Middle School / 16.9% 85.8% 1.9% 0.9% 4.5% 6.8% 776 Hanford High School / 15.7% 81.7% 2.8% 1.0% 7.3% 7.3% 1377 Richland High School / 17.7% 85.7% 3.0% 0.5% 4.0% 6.8% 1956

Data from the National Center for Education Statistics indicates that there is potentially a larger low-income population in the study area than the 2000 Census data shows. The higher numbers of low-income students are in elementary schools, which suggest that things may have changed in the past few years since the 2000 Census. District wide, in 2008 there were 216 children out of 10, 281enrolled in public school that had Limited English Proficiency (LEP).

Secondary sources, which are other groups or organizations that measure or monitor demographics in order to provide services, include organizations such as the Benton-Franklin County Community Action Committee, which conducts an annual ‘Point In Time’ spot-survey of

14 homeless households and individuals throughout the two county region to spot trends in homelessness and the resulting need for services. Their most recent survey found a total of 24 households, or families, were homeless in the city of Richland.7 A similar distribution was found for homeless individuals. There have been no sightings of homeless persons in the project area, nor is there any evidence of homeless persons within the project area.

The Yakama Nation includes the project limits as part of their Usual and Accustomed area, as do the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla and other inland tribes that would have used the confluence of the Yakima, Columbia, and Snake Rivers to meet and trade. The Yakama, with the closer proximity to the project limits, did not express a special interest in the project when contacted for the purposes of cultural resource protection. The Umatilla and Wanapum Tribes did express an interest in cultural resources and both received copies of the Cultural Resource Survey8. Neither tribe expressed any concern regarding fishing or the protection of fish habitat.

The above secondary-source information infers low likelihood of encountering homeless populations in Richland. However, no inference can be drawn in regards to where homeless populations reside within the City of Richland.

What are the potential construction effects? The project will construct a new bridge over the Yakima River, as well as bridge approach spans and roadways connecting the new bridge to the existing segments of Duportail Street. Effects from this construction will come from the following sources.  Noise: Heavy equipment such as cranes and bulldozers, pile-driver, air compressors, generators, and construction-traffic noise such as dump trucks and concrete trucks  Dust and odors: Disturbance of the ground on either side of the river will generate dust, and emissions of diesel fumes and particulates.  Traffic: The existing segments of Duportail Street are now only traveled by area residents for local access as they do not connect. Construction staging areas will likely be near the current ends of these roads and construction related traffic will impact anyone using Duportail Street for access to their property or residence. However, the construction work zone will not require a detour or a closure of any lanes on the existing segments of Duportail Street.  Erosion and Stormwater: Ground disturbance, with wind or rain, will have the potential to erode soils and carry sediments to nearby areas and rivers. However, a Temporary Erosion and Stormwater Control system will be used to minimize these effects.

7 Benton Franklin Community Action Council, 2009 Point In Time Survey 8 September 27, 2010, e-mail communication with Trent deBoer, WSDOT HQ Local Programs, archaeologist- confirming Yakama, Umatilla, and Wanapum Tribes were contacted.

15

What are the operational effects? Traffic, traffic related noise, and air-pollution, will be the primary operational effects on people who work or live near the existing segments of Duportail Street. Part of the impact will be the change in traffic patterns, due to the construction of a roadway that did not previously exist. This will have a beneficial effect as public transit will be able to serve more people and areas in less time and emergency vehicle response time will be reduced. Additionally sidewalks will be constructed/infilled throughout the project area providing improved connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians. All new pedestrian facilities will be designed to seamlessly blend with the existing facilities, and will be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, as amended.

The southwestern segment of Duportail Street currently has trips generated by the City of Richland’s Maintenance shop, and by use of side access roads to a mobile home park. The mobile home park has over a hundred spaces, but has its primary access on Queensgate Drive. Recent retail development in the vicinity of Duportail Street and Queensgate Drive includes a Wal-Mart, Target, and other commercial uses. A fire station is also planned near the intersection of Duportail and City View Drive. With a new connection over the Yakima River it can be expected that some trips would instead choose to cross the river using Duportail Street for a more direct route.

The northeastern segment of Duportail Street has trips generated by two housing developments to the north side, currently accessed via Riverstone Drive and Coulee Drive, and an apartment village on the south side. Riverpoint Apartments is closest to Duportail Street and has, by count from aerial photos, 20 complexes of approximately 12 units each. An additional housing tract appears to have space for approximately 100 homes, and does not appear to have direct access to State Route 240. This housing tract now uses Riverstone Drive to access Duportail, near the intersection with State Route 240, and would in the future only have full access via the extended Tanglewood Drive. Riverstone Drive would be restricted to right-in / right-out due to its proximity to the improved Duportail / SR 240 intersection. The apartment village to the south has 9 complexes, as counted from the aerial photo, each with 3 floors and approximately 24 units. Combined, there are 456 multi-family housing units and approximately 100 single-family housing units, now or in the future, using this segment of Duportail Street to access the road network. Using typical trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, this would be approximately 1000 ADT from the single-family units and 2800 to 3800 ADT due to the multi- family units.

Again, with a new connection over the Yakima River it can be expected that some trips would instead choose to cross the river using Duportail for a more direct route to shopping, employment, or other purposes. No specific traffic data is available to quantify this re-distribution of existing traffic.

Traffic data is available for State Route 240 and Interstate 182, regarding Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes provided in the Annual State Traffic Report. The most recent data was from 2008. On Interstate 182, west of Queensgate Drive, there were 20,000 AADT. After Queensgate Drive there were 41,000 AADT, and then 52,000 AADT east of Interstate 182’s interchange with State Route 240. On State Route 240, there were 30,000 AADT south of Van

16

Giesen Road, which is north of Duportail Street. Currently, the Interstate 182 bridge across the Yakima River is the only river crossing within 2 or more miles. A new crossing across the river would divert at least some of the above traffic onto Duportail Street.

School buses on the northeast segment of Duportail are assumed to use the cul-de-sac either before or after picking up or discharging students who live in the apartment complexes. The new roadway arrangement could require school buses to make adjustments to their routines. During some phases of construction, traffic will experience delays. However, much of the project does not lie on existing streets, so construction in these areas will not have an impact on traffic.

Ben Franklin Transit provides bus service in the area. The closest service is from Route 20, which services the neighborhood northeast of State Route 240, and Route 39, which services the new shopping areas to the southwest of the project limits.9 These routes will not be affected by construction or operation. The proposed project will have a benefit to public transit by improving connectivity and providing transit service where it does not exist today. According to 2000 Census Data for the Census Tracts in the study area, 93% of individuals drive to work alone, carpool, or ride a motorcycle. Approximately 1% of persons ride the bus, and less than 1% relies on non-motorized transportation, such as bicycle or walking. The remaining 5% work from home. Construction of a new crossing with a trail and sidewalk network would not only provide more opportunities for non-motorized transportation, buses would be able to serve areas that are not currently served. Refer to the endorsement letter from Ben Franklin Transit is support of this project in Appendix B. Sidewalk improvements included in the proposed project will make access to transit locations easier as well.

Street lighting will increase ambient light levels along Duportail Street. Street lights would be installed at 150-foot intervals, alternating between both sides of Duportail Street. This will have some impacts due to glare, but might also help discourage crime.

What are the indirect effects of the project? Indirect effects are impacts that are caused by an action and occur later in time, and though they are not a direct result they are still reasonably certain to occur. These types of effects could result from changes in land use, in growth, and economic costs.

A fire station is planned for construction on the southwest side of the river, to be built after completion of a bridge. Its location, at the northwest corner of the intersection of City View Drive and Duportail Street, together with the new bridge, would provide the nearby residential communities on both sides of the Yakima River with improved access to emergency services.

In the case of further development on either side of the river, the City of Richland would take action under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to assess that development’s impacts and issue conditions on that development in order to approve required permits. Such conditions could include traffic impact mitigations, stormwater mitigations, and potentially fees to offset related impacts to schools and utilities. There will be no indirect effects to fishing and habitat in the project area or downstream, nor any impacts to the Tribes.

9 Ben Franklin Transit System Map, via website 17

The indirect effects associated with the above actions would in some cases be beneficial providing improved access to emergency services due to the new fire station. Additional development and redevelopment, to be expected over time, would trigger improvements to infrastructure as mitigations, and provide benefits from new jobs and services.

What are the cumulative effects of the project? Cumulative Effects are effects of future state or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within or near the project limits. These effects need not be dependent on the proposed project taking place.

A waterline and trail improvements are planned for the vicinity of the project limits, regardless of whether a bridge is built. The waterline, being a buried utility, would have minimal impact on the community. Improvements to the trail network would likely provide benefits from a more formal and less weather sensitive, trail system. Trail improvements would, if anything, be more accessible to all people, including those with reduced mobility. Together with a bridge, more people in the community will have access to the riverfront and recreational opportunities. Chapter 5: Measures to Avoid or Minimize Project Effects

How will we avoid or minimize adverse effects from construction? Adverse effects from noise will be minimized by restricting construction to daytime hours, between 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM. This should also avoid or minimize the need for supplemental lighting. The city’s municipal code, Section 9.16.045 (9), in summary, prohibits construction noise between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM if it can be heard near a residential district. Pile-driving equipment will primarily utilize a vibratory hammer – which has lower peak decibel values – and only use an impact hammer to proof-test piles. Mufflers will also be utilized on noise-generating equipment and vehicles.

Dust will be minimized by applying water to disturbed areas and unpaved surfacing as needed, depending on weather conditions. Odors will be minimized by keeping volatile chemicals in sealed containers when not in use, periodic removal of wastes, and by keeping idling of equipment to a minimum.

The effects from construction related traffic will be minimized by staging equipment and delivery vehicles away from residential access driveways and by providing work zone traffic control to assure safe and orderly passage of traffic and pedestrians. Pedestrian access will not be impacted by the project. Improvements to the intersections and nearby changes to access will be staged so as to maintain access to properties and businesses.

Stormwater and erosion will be minimized by utilizing approved Best Management Practices and a Temporary Erosion and Stormwater Control plan. Ground disturbance will be kept to a minimum.

18

How will we avoid or minimize permanent adverse effects from the project? Traffic will be managed and impacts minimized by monitoring new traffic patterns as they form. The speed limit will be set at 35 mph and controlled through traffic enforcement measures should evidence from ongoing traffic volume and speed measurements show a need. There will also be improvements to the intersections of Queensgate Drive and State Route 240 with Duportail Street. A new signal will also be installed at the new intersection of Tanglewood Drive and Duportail Street, and access to the Shoreline Village apartment complex will be facilitated by a new driveway onto a local access road which connects to the new signal.

Transit now serves nearby areas, though does not currently stop on State Route 240 or Duportail Street near the existing dead ends. Although there are no official plans to change or add bus routes in this area, a new bridge across the Yakima River will make such route changes possible. The new roadway section of Duportail can accommodate bus service, and will have provisions for pedestrians and bicycles.

After the subject improvements are made school buses should be able to accomplish any needed turnaround movements previously done utilizing the cul-de-sac within the adjacent local access roads, as well as passenger loading and unloading.

Chapter 6: Environmental Justice Determination There are three fundamental Environmental Justice principles to consider when making an Environmental Justice determination:

1) To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations. 2) To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. 3) To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority populations and low-income populations.

Demographic research for this report indicates that minority and low-income populations live and/or work within the project area. During construction, everyone in the project area will have to make adjustments to their daily routine due to noise increases and minor detours. When completed, the proposed bridge will provide a benefit to residents living in the project area as the bridge will create a non-interstate crossing of the Yakima River with bicycle and pedestrian access. Residents will also benefit from improved emergency service response times, and possible new routes for public transportation that will serve areas previously not served.

Will this project have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority or low-income populations? The project will not result in any displacements, and only minor changes in access will take place with the proposed project. The changes in access will not affect any population more than

19 another. The proposed new bridge would enhance transportation options in the area, and provide improved non-motorized transit options. The growing residential and commercial business area to the southwest of the river would become more accessible to people on the northeast side of the river (perhaps providing more opportunities for work) – both to distant populations as well as the communities adjacent to the improvements.

This project will result in no high adverse impacts to any minority or low-income population, and will have no disproportionate impacts or benefits. Therefore, this project is in compliance with both the intent of the Environmental Justice principles

20

References

Personal Communications February 12, 2010, telephone conversation with Roger Arms, WSDOT Local Programs, South Central Region, Local Programs Engineer

February 22, 2010, telephone conversation with Trent deBoer, WSDOT HQ Local Programs, archaeologist

September 27, 2010, e-mail communication with Trent deBoer, WSDOT HQ Local Programs, archaeologist- confirming Yakama, Umatilla, and Wanapum Tribes were contacted.

Documents and Publications Widener, 2009. Traffic Noise Discipline Report, Duportail Bridge Project. December 11, 2009.

Widener, 2009. Biological Assessment, Duportail Bridge Project. February 3, 2010.

Web Benton Franklin Community Action Council, 2009 Point In Time Survey / http://bfcac.org/

Benton Franklin Community Action Council, 2009 Community Needs Assessment

Ben Franklin Transit, System Map and website http://www.bft.org/routes/system.pdf

City of Richland, Duportail Bridge Website http://www.ci.richland.wa.us/RICHLAND/Utilities/index.cfm?pagenum=121

Environmental Justice law reference / http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/title_vi.htm

Executive Order 12898 / http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/ej/exec_order_12898.pdf

Executive Order 13166 / http://www.justice.gov/crt/cor/Pubs/eolep.php

Civil Rights Division. 2010. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services. September 15. Department of Justice. Federal Register 75 (178): 56164-56358. Accessed January24, 2011. http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi- bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=4AwcwM/0/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve

WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 458

21

U.S. Census Bureau Fact Sheet http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=16000US5358235 &_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US53%7C16000US5358235&_street=&_county=Ri chland&_cityTown=Richland&_state=04000US53&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&Active GeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_ 2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=

22

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic ADT Average Daily Traffic BFCAC Benton Franklin Community Action Council BFCOG Benton Franklin Council of Governments DSHS Washington State Department of Social and Health Services EJ Environmental Justice FHWA Federal Highway Administration HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ITE Institute of Traffic Engineers LEP Limited English Proficiency NEPA National Environmental Policy Act SEPA State Environmental Policy Act USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WDFW Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

23

This page left blank intentionally for printing purposes.

24

Appendix A: Methods

25

This page left blank intentionally for printing purposes.

26

Methods and resources used for this report included the following:

 Review of Census Data: Reviewed census information for the City of Richland, Washington, from 2000 and from any recent updates. Not all information from 2000 had recent updates. Maps were printed of the primary minority and low-income groups that could be impacted, using a scale that would readily show the project area and census- blocks near it.  Review of School Data: Reviewed data about the Richland School District and several schools serving children residing within the project limits. This data included demographic breakdowns, and numbers using the free or reduced school lunch program.  Review of Secondary Sources: Less specific data was available from the Benton Franklin Community Action Council and from cultural resource consultation with area tribes. This data inferred that fewer low-income or homeless populations would be present in Richland than in the nearby cities of Pasco and Kennewick.

The above data, and general feedback from public involvement, was assessed to determine whether EJ populations were likely to be present near the project limits, and whether impacts from the project would, due to their proximity or otherwise, have high adverse effects on any EJ populations. These same impacts were then considered for any effects to non-EJ populations within the same general area to determine whether effects would be disproportionate.

High adverse effects, as described in the Executive Order, include displacement, interruption to services such as transit, disruption to employment centers, and disruption from proximity effects such as noise. Project officials were contacted to determine whether known property takes would result in displacement, either to residential or commercial land-uses. Transit services were reviewed to see if routes could be impacted. A noise report was assembled and analysis made to see if noise-impacts would result in substantial increases in noise-levels. A noise wall is being considered on the southwest segment of Duportail Street as homes are close to the street. A noise wall was not deemed to be helpful along the northeast segment of Duportail as the residential units there are further away from the street.

27

This page left blank intentionally for printing purposes.

28

Appendix B: Supporting Documents

29

This page left blank intentionally for printing purposes.

30

DUPORTAIL BRIDGE Wednesday, November 5, 2008 6 to 8 p.m. Carmichael Middle School Cafeteria 620 Thayer Drive

This meeting is an opportunity to learn about the progress of the bridge design and discuss your comments on the bridge with City staff and the design consultant. More information can be found on the City’s webpage: www.ci.richland.wa.us or call: 942-7504

TITLE VI - The City of Richland ensures full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by prohibiting discrimination against any person on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex in the provision of benefits and services from its federal or non-federal assisted programs and activities alike. For more details, you may contact the City’s Title VI Coordinator at (509) 942-7327. Puente Duportail Miércoles, 5 de Noviembre de 2008 6:00 a 8:00 p.m. Cafetería de Carmichael Middle School 620 Thayer Drive

Esta reunión es una oportunidad de conocer el progreso del diseño del Puente y compartir sus comentarios sobre el Puente con funcionarios de la Ciudad y del consultor de diseño. Más información puede ser adquirida en la página web de la Ciudad: www.ci.richland.wa.us o llamando al: 942-7504

TITULO VI – La ciudad de Richland asegura conformidad completa con el Título VI del acto de los derechos civiles de 1964, prohibiendo la discriminación contra cualquier persona a base de raza, de color, de origen nacional, o de sexo en la disposición de beneficios y de servicios de sus programas y actividades con financiamiento federal. Para más detalles, por favor llame al coordinador del Título VI de la Ciudad al (509) 942-7327