FreightMobilityPlan

Contents

Introduction 3

Section 1: Case Study Analysis 7
   1.1 Atlanta Road / Marietta Boulevard 8
   1.2 Fairburn Area 25
   1.3 Fulton Industrial Boulevard 41
   1.4 Gwinnett County 57
   1.5 Henry County 72

Section 2: Impacts of Freight and Mitigation Best Practices 86

Section 3: Mitigation Best Practices Abstracts 97
   3.1 Air Quality 97
   3.2 Road Issues 99
   3.3 Noise Pollution and Vibration 101
   3.4 Light Pollution 102
   3.5 Water 102

Section 4: Acknowledgements and Source List 103

Appendix: Land Use Case Study Characteristics 106

3
Community Impact Technical Report

Introduction

The purpose of this report is three-fold: to analyze the impacts of freight movement on communities and the environment based on current conditions and populations; to assess future impacts, and to suggest mitigation practices. The analysis of the report is based upon the five case study areas—Atlanta Road / Marietta Boulevard, Fairburn, Fulton Industrial Boulevard, Gwinnett County, and Henry County— determined by the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). The case studies were chosen by the ARC because they are representative of current development patterns and conditions in the truck-based freight movement industry. As such, the analysis conducted in this report, while specific to the case study areas, is representative of the current conditions of communities and the environment located near truck-based freight facilities. In addition, the mitigation strategies for freight-based impacts provided in this report are also designed to be applied where needed throughout the region.

This report is divided into five sections and an appendix:

Introduction:
The introduction sets the stage for this report. It briefly describes the state of the freight industry in the Metropolitan Atlanta Region; some of the challenges faced by the industry; and some of the impacts of the freight industry on the environment and communities. Finally, the introduction
discusses some of the key findings from the report.

Section 1: Case Study Analysis
This section of the report is divided into the five case study areas. For each of the areas an analysis of the community, current and future land uses, and the environment is conducted.

 The community analysis determines if environmental justice is an issue within each of the case study areas, and if so, who is affected, and to what extent.
 The current and future land use analysis determines if incompatible land use adjacencies between freight-based facilities and residential development currently exist; if current zoning ordinances allow or discourage such adjacencies; and if the Future Land Use Map continues
these trends.
 The environmental analysis examines possible impacts of freight on the environment –air quality, water, and greenspace—within each case study area.

Section 2: Impacts of Freight and Mitigation Best Practices Table
This table summarizes the major impacts of freight—air pollution, road issues, noise and light pollution, community safety, environmental issues, and visual and aesthetic concerns. The table details the health and quality of life impacts of freight on the community and the environment.
Finally, it provides tools for preventing and mitigating these impacts along with links to best practices mitigation case studies.

Section 3: Mitigation Best Practices Abstracts
This section examines in greater detail a selection of mitigation best practices case studies listed in the table in Section 2.

Section 4: Acknowledgments and Source List
This section lists the references used in the writing of this report.

Appendix: Land Use Characteristics of the Five Study Areas

We are only including part of this study.

Atlanta Road / Marietta Boulevard

4
Community Impact Technical Report
This table provides a summation of the findings of the land use assessment conducted by Wilbur Smith Associates for each of the five case study areas that formed the basis for the analysis in this report.

An Overview of the Freight Industry

Freight movement is the transportation of goods from manufacturing, warehousing and distribution locations to consumers by air, rail, truck, water or pipeline. Nationally, freight is the fastest-growing segment of travel with expected increases in growth by 2020 in both truck volumes and truck ton-miles. Growth in freight transportation in Atlanta is among the largest of any city in the country. The Atlanta region is a major hub for distribution of goods across the country because of its extensive interstate, roadway, and rail network and access to a major international airport. Trucks are the primary mode of freight transportation in the region, accounting for approximately 90 percent of all freight movement. The Atlanta Regional Commission predicts that by 2010 approximately, 940 million truck tons of goods will be moved through the region, nearly 9 million truckloads of commodities will be moved annually and 40 percent of all truck trips will be primarily through trips without an origin or destination in the Atlanta region. Although freight distribution by rail makes up less than 10 percent of freight movement in the Atlanta region today, rail is the fastest growing segment nationaly.1

As freight mobility and volumes increase, the Atlanta region faces substantial challenges and issues associated with freight movement. Major population and employment growth in the region has fueled the demand for goods. A significant amount of freight movement is by trucks that share the existing roadway network with passenger traffic, since there are no dedicated truck facilities in the region. According to the ARC Freight Mobility Needs Assessment, congestion was identified as the primary issue regarding freight mobility, and infrastructure deficiencies were identified as the principal cause of congestion due to lack of alternative routes and interstate interchange bottlenecks causing recurring congestion. Additionally, there are several land use conflicts that were commonly identified as challenges to freight mobility in the region,
including residential encroachment on traditionally industrial corridors and operational issues such as the need for improved network management, updated design standards to accommodate new commercial vehicle requirements, and an updated and properly signed regional truck route system.2

Community and Health Impacts
Freight movement has increasingly invoked “not in my backyard” reactions from communities concerned about noise, air quality, traffic, safety, and land use issues leading to concerns about the location of freight facilities and the movement of cargo.3 Trucking, which is the primary mode of freight transportation in the Atlanta region, generates the greatest number of community issues. Issues related to truck movements include inadequate infrastructure, wear and damage to pavement, insufficient loading space at customer facilities, and heavier truck movements adversely affecting automobile speeds on roadways. There are also a number of health impacts on communities given their proximity to freight facilities and pollution. Air pollution issues stemming from diesel emissions, hazardous materials spills, accidents caused by truck movements, noise pollution and vibration, and safety issues can have serious health implications for community residents. Despite community apprehension, there is a mutual understanding that freight transportation plays a vital role in the economic well-being of communities and businesses. National efforts have been made to balance the movement of freight with community goals by making freight transportation operations and facilities “good neighbors”.4 There is no one-size-fits-all

1
Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta Region Transportation Planning Fact Book 2006, pg 15.
2
Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta Region Freight Mobility Plan Needs Assessment, pg 77.
3
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Integrating Freight Facilities and Operations with Community Goals: A Synthesis of Highway Practice, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 320, 2003, pg 3.
4
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Integrating Freight Facilities and Operations with Community Goals: A Synthesis of Highway Practice, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 320, 2003, pg 3.

5
Community Impact Technical Report
approach to making freight a good neighbor for a community, but a wide range of practices to balance or mitigate the presence of freight facilities and operations have been developed and implemented, such as modifying the hours of freight operations to reduce noise impacts, incorporating low emission technologies and practices, and creating buffer zones to transition between freight/industrial uses and residential uses in an effort to address land use conflicts.5

Environmental Impacts
Freight transport enables trade and offers a wide range of benefits including accessibility to goods and services in the Atlanta region. However, freight transport is also identified as one of the main consumers of fossil fuels and the resultant emissions cause negative impacts on the environment and human health.6 Freight vehicles emit a substantial amount of pollutants and the transport sector is a significant contributor
to air pollution at the local, regional, and global scales.7 The main pollutants emitted from freight transport are carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, and sulfur dioxide. Emissions of these pollutants:

• increase the greenhouse effect and acid rain;
• cause acidification, eutrophication, and formation of ozone and photochemical smog that lead to fish kills, soil damage, and other adverse environmental effects; and
• result in various human health effects including respiratory problems, cancer, hindrance of oxygen transport to the cells through the blood, and damage to reproductive systems.8

In addition to air pollution, freight movement induces other environmental problems such as water pollution and storm water runoff issues, consumption and fragmentation of land, light pollution that can confuse animal navigation, noise pollution, generation of waste, and disruption of the delicate balance of ecosystems, among others.

Key Findings

This report conducts three areas of analysis regarding the impacts of freight: a community impact scan to identify environmental justice issues; a land use scan to detect current and future land use issues, and an environmental scan to pinpoint key environmental impacts. The analysis of each case study can be found in Section 1 of this report. To limit the redundancy within the case studies, the impacts of freight on
communities and the environment—air pollution, road issues, noise pollution and vibration, light pollution, safety issues, environmental issues, and aesthetic and visual concerns—are addressed in tabular form in Section 2 of this report. Within the case study analyses, impacts are referenced briefly and then the reader is directed to the Impacts of Freight and Mitigation Best Practices Table for further information about the impact itself and tools and methods for mitigation.

Environmental Justice Analysis:
An environmental justice (EJ) community is defined as a community that has populations that exceed regional averages for certain population groups that are adversely or disproportionately affected by negative impacts in the area. In the case of this report, negative impacts refer to freight-based operations and facilities. As defined by the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) EJ communities in the Metropolitan

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Integrating Freight Facilities and Operations with Community Goals: A Synthesis of Highway Practice, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 320, 2003, pg 41.
6
Andersson, J.. Reducing environmental impacts of freight transport sector: The case of the Czech Republic, January 2005, pg 10.
7
Andersson, J. Reducing environmental impacts of freight transport sector: The case of the Czech Republic, January 2005, pg 10.
8
Andersson, J. Reducing environmental impacts of freight transport sector: The case of the Czech Republic, January 2005, pg 11- 12.

6
Community Impact Technical Report
Atlanta Area have greater than 9.1% of the population living in poverty, 30.4% African American, 3.6% Asian, or 7% of Hispanic origin.

Based on U.S. Census numbers from 2000, the environmental justice analysis in this report revealed that of the 74 census block groups in the five case study areas 64 meet at least one of the ARC’s criteria for an environmental justice community; 37 meet at least two of the criteria; and nine meet three. What this demographic analysis shows is that the well-established freight-based study areas, Atlanta Road/Marietta
Boulevard and Fulton Industrial Boulevard, have acute environmental justice concerns. Atlanta Road/Marietta Boulevard meets EJ criteria in 30 out of 34 block groups; Fulton Industrial Boulevard in 16 out of 17. The Fairburn study area has nine of its nine block groups meeting at least one EJ criteria. Gwinnett and Henry Counties have relatively few environmental justice concerns. Thus the well- established freight areas need to deal with the mitigation of EJ issues and the prevention of new EJ communities. While study areas defined by large amounts of natural space need to be cognizant that they do not produce EJ communities by allowing future residential development to encroach upon freight facilities.

Current and Future Land Use Analysis:
The five study areas were chosen by the ARC because each represents a particular development pattern that exists in the Metropolitan Atlanta Area (See Appendix). Atlanta Road/Marietta Boulevard typifies the trend of redeveloping urban areas with mixed-use developments. The Fairburn area exemplifies greenfield development opportunities. Fulton Industrial Boulevard presents opportunities for brownfield
redevelopment. Gwinnett County has opportunities for interchange development. Finally, Henry County exemplifies an area experiencing rapid warehouse and distribution facility development. Although the analysis identifies key issues associated with the development patterns of each study area, trends became apparent across the study areas. These include: the upzoning of almost all natural and open space to accommodate industrial uses; a lack of transitional zoning classifications between industrial and residential land uses; a general lack of adequate buffering between incompatible land use types; and encroachment of residential development on industrial land uses.

Environmental Analysis:
The land use analysis identified the key environmental elements present in each case study area (See Appendix). They include: floodplains, steep topography, wetlands, reservoirs, agricultural and forest lands, and streams and rivers. This report describes in general how freight impacts these elements of the environment and what some of the specific issues are in each study area. Overarching trends indicate
that: freight, particularly diesel-emitting freight, has a significant impact on air quality; the construction and operation of freight facilities can disrupt the functionality of natural habitats; and freight is a significant contributor to point- and non-point source water pollution.

8
Community Impact Technical Report

10
Community Impact Technical Report
Environmental Justice Analysis

Atlanta Road/Marietta Boulevard in Fulton County is a sensitive area with respect to environmental justice issues, due both to its high concentrations of African-American and low-income populations as well as the significant presence of rail within the study area boundaries. Twenty of the 34 block groups that intersect or are contained by the study area11 meet both of the ARC’s criteria for African-American percentage and percentage in poverty. In 13 block groups, the African-American population is 90% or more of the total population in that block group.

In addition, there are four block groups that exceed ARC specifications for EJ criteria in three separate categories (Figure 1). Block groups 88.001 and 89.011, in the north center of the study area, exceed the criteria for Hispanic populations. Block group 89.011 has 31.7% of its population of Hispanic origin, compared to 5.33% for the study area as a whole (Table 1). Block group 21.001, intersecting the extreme south of the study area, exceeds the ARC criteria for both African-American population (69.5%) and Asian population (7.7%) as well as population in poverty (43.6%). Block group 89.024, intersecting with the study area in the east, exceeds the ARC criteria for population in poverty (16%), Asian population (4.2%), and population of Hispanic origin (12.8%).

Each of these four block groups that exceed the ARC criteria for three EJ categories are located along rail lines which run parallel to one another on the western edge of the study area and to the east of Marietta Boulevard (Figure 3). Block group 88.001 which includes where the CSX and Norfolk Southern rail lines merge into a large rail yard and storage facility has a population total of 1,752 of which almost 60% or
1,037 are African American, 304 are Hispanic, 583 people exceed the regional average for poverty and 140 children under the age of 11 live in poverty (Table 1). Block group 89.011 has similar demographics although the total population is larger, 3,028 with 1,545 African Americans, 959 Hispanics, 604 living in poverty, and 165 children in poverty (Figure 2). Block group 89.024 shifts from a concentration in African-
American population to Asian and Hispanic although the degree of magnitude of the problem in this area is less according to the numbers (fewer people affected). Block group 21.001 in the southern tip of the study area exceeds ARC criteria for African Americans, Asians, and people living in poverty along with higher than average poverty rates for children and the elderly.

In addition, all of the block groups that abut the various rail lines all meet at least one EJ criteria, most meet two. Block groups 22.001 and 22.002 at the southern tip of the study area tell a clear EJ story. Block group 22.001 has a total population of 921 of which 100% are African American, 70% or 646 people live in poverty, and 32 elderly and 244 children under the age of 11 live in poverty. Block group 22.002 has a
total population of 242 of which 236 are African American, over half live in poverty, and 100%, or 22 of the children under age 11 live in poverty. In contrast the northeastern portion of the study area, block groups 89.016, 97.002, and 97.003, which geographically corresponds to the edge of Buckhead, reveals no EJ issues for the nearly 4,000 people who live there. Additionally, the residential neighborhoods are well-buffered with vegetation, larger lot sizes, and lower densities against impacts from the rail line that runs proximally.

The environmental impacts of the rail line cause the abutting communities to qualify as EJ communities. Although other non-freight environmental issues are also present, it is the purpose of this report to focus on freight-related impacts. Rail freight impacts air quality, contributes to noise and light pollution and vibration, has impacts where rail intersects the road, has implications for community safety, impacts soil and water quality, and can have visual and aesthetic ramifications (see the Freight Impacts and Mitigation Best Practices table for more details). In the case of rail, air and noise pollution are the expected primary

11
For this study, demographic data were obtained for each study area using Census data from the 2000 census and gathering and analyzing data from the census block groups that intersect or lie completely within the study area boundary.

11
Community Impact Technical Report
impacts on a community, with the remainder of the impacts playing roles to a lesser degree.12 Health impacts associated with air pollution result from exposure to ozone and diesel particulate matter. Negative health impacts include increased risks of certain cancers, respiratory illnesses, increased risk of heart disease, and a compromised immune system, among others. The magnitude of impact has a relationship both to the existing health condition of the individual, their EJ status, and their proximity to the polluter. Neighborhoods in block group 88.001, which are predominantly African American, high poverty, with high percentages of children and elderly living in poverty, directly abut the rail yard where the CSX and Norfolk Southern lines come together.13 Research in the public health field has shown that these populations are at increased risk of suffering the negative health effects associated with air pollution.

Additionally, there are health consequences associated with other freight impacts. Noise pollution and vibration have both physical and mental health impacts such as annoyance, sleep disturbance, reduced productivity, hearing loss and tinnitus, ischemic heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and effects on the immune system, among others. Light pollution causes such adverse health outcomes as headaches, carcinoma and other cancers, sleep deprivation leading to decreased mental capacity, a compromised immune system, type 2 diabetes, depression, hypertension, and weight gain, among others. Light pollution also has environmental consequences such as disrupting delicate ecosystems by confusing animal navigation or changing predator-prey relationships. In addition, it wastes energy, can encourage criminal activity when it creates shadows, and can infringe upon one’s sense of privacy causing anxiety or stress.

Road issues associated with freight movement include traffic congestion at at-grade crossings. Traffic congestion has been linked to negative health effects caused primarily by stress—hypertension, headaches, weakened immune system. Traffic congestion also increases the exposure of the occupants of the car to traffic-related air pollutants. Train crossings can have safety implications particularly when drivers try to out-maneuver traffic delays. Rail lines and rail yards have environmental impacts as well. Spills from maintenance work and fueling of trains, particulate matter that contaminates the air typically from diesel engines and equipment utilized in rail yards, fluids generated from the cleaning of equipment that contaminate ground water, and chemicals used for vegetation management that leach into the soil and water all have health implications for surrounding communities.

It is for these reasons that the populations surrounding the rail lines and rail yard in the Atlanta Road/Marietta Boulevard study area qualify as EJ communities. They are at-risk by virtue of their high concentrations of vulnerable populations and disproportionately suffer the impacts of the rail yard as compared to other populations in the study group, primarily the wealthier, predominately white communities in the northeastern portion of the study area.

12
It was beyond the scope of this demographic analysis to conduct on the ground research in the case study areas, so all freight impacts discussed in this report are based upon extensive literature reviews of respected researchers in the field including the Federal Highway Administration and the Transportation Research Board.
13
The land use analysis section discusses this particular incompatible land use situation in greater detail and offers possible mitigation solutions.

16
Community Impact Technical Report

Current and Future Land Use Analysis

The Atlanta Road/Marietta Boulevard area historically has been the site of rail yards and freight and logistics facilities with the prevailing land use being industrial. In fact, 27% of the land use in the study area is classified as industrial.14 However, 23% of current land uses are residential in nature with the area experiencing a renewed interest in residential development. Mixing of industrial and residential land uses,
while possible, must be planned and designed carefully so as to mitigate the effects of what are incompatible land use adjacencies. Otherwise the health, well-being, and quality of life of neighboring communities are likely to be compromised. Additionally, the rail and freight entities will probably experience increased objection and push-back from residents as they try to reclaim or create a “neighborhood-feel” for their communities, devoid of freight movement particularly by heavy truck.

A similar study area was the subject of a 2005 report for the City of Atlanta entitled Bolton/Moores Mill Livable Centers Initiative Transportation and Circulation Study.15 As part of this report, heavy vehicle travel routes and impacts were monitored and issues were identified by neighborhoods as being problematic. These issues included: cut-through traffic, noise, traffic and pedestrian safety, congestion, poor roadway and pavement conditions, and poorly designed intersections. An outcome of this report was proposed new truck routes to alleviate the impacts of freight on residential areas. Clearly, this report indicates that industrial and residential land use adjacencies have compatibility issues within this case study area and freight is considered by the community to be the entity that needs to change in response to encroaching residential development (Figure 4). Was community input sought to draw this conclusion?

The future land use map supports the continued influx of residential development to this largely industrial case study area (Figure 5). Three trends are evident from the future land use map. The first trend is the up-zoning of greenspace to residential zoning classifications. The second is an increase in the presence of mixed-use zoning; the third, an increase in zoning for residential uses primarily in the medium to high
density classifications. The first trend, converting greenspace to residential uses, is problematic in that the few remaining opportunities for adequate buffering between industrial and residential land uses are being lost. The potential loss of greenspace is evident after comparing Figures 3 and 5.

The second trend of incorporating a mixed-use category as a buffering land use between industrial and residential uses is good in theory but not necessarily in practice. In Figure 4, the land lots that roughly equate to 17-227 and 17-192, and surrounding lots, show a shift of land use classifications from industrial to mixed-use. However, land lot 17-227 to the south of the CSX/Norfolk Southern rail yard convergence does not buffer the medium density residential classification found in 17-228, formerly greenspace, from the industrial rail yard. Land lot 17-192 was primarily industrial and becomes mixed-use in the future land use map. However, it slices through industrial uses, runs along Marietta Boulevard a designated truck route, and between two major rail yards and rather than acting as a buffer, potentially places future residents (should residential be part of the mixed-use) in increased harms way of suffering from freight- related impacts.

Finally, the third trend of allowing more residential development proximal to freight-related uses whether the rail yards, rail lines, or truck routes not only places more people at increased risk, it increases the likelihood of continued freight-neighborhood schisms. Residential development, such as in Figure 6 that shows single family homes less than 100 feet16 from the busy intermodal rail yard and buffered only by

14
All percentages of land uses are taken from Wilbur Smith Associates Land Use Case Studies.
15
The report is available on the City of Atlanta website at
http://www.atlantaga.gov/client_resources/government/planning/bmt/bmt%20final%20report.pdf. Graphics for the report are available on the City of Atlanta website at http://www.atlantaga.gov/government/planning/boltontransportation.aspx
16
Exposure to air pollution is exacerbated at distances less than 200 meters to a roadway with 10,000 AADT or greater.

17
Community Impact Technical Report
Marietta Road, a designated truck route with approximately 17% heavy truck traffic,17 is according to the future land use map, an acceptable and desired development pattern. In fact, such development patterns place people in close proximity to heavy polluters, traffic congestion, pedestrian-vehicle safety situations, noise, and other offenders for sensitive land uses. Such adjacencies become of increasing concern when
vulnerable populations are affected as is potentially the case in this instance. Figure 2 shows that block group 88.001 has a larger than average percentage of African Americans, Hispanics, and people living in poverty, satisfying three of the ARC’s criteria for an environmental justice community. In addition, the block group has a larger than average percentage of elderly and children under the age of 11 living in
poverty.

Atlanta Road/Marietta Boulevard exemplifies a highly industrial area (rail and truck) that is experiencing the pressures of encroaching residential and mixed-use development. This case study area is also at increased sensitivity to environmental justice issues with 30 out of 34 block groups satisfying at least one ARC criteria for an at-risk population. Freight-related issues that have been identified by residents in this
study area include: noise, air pollution, cut-through traffic, road and pavement conditions, inadequate intersection infrastructure, and traffic congestion. All of which are typical complaints with freight located adjacent to incompatible land uses such as highly sensitive receptors like residential neighborhoods. Prevention and mitigation methods for these freight impacts and others can be found in the Impacts of Freight and Mitigation Best Practices Table in Section 2.

21
Community Impact Technical Report
Environmental Impacts of Freight Movement and Freight Facilities

Freight movement and freight facilities can affect the surrounding environment in many ways. The buildings and infrastructure of freight facilities and operations can disrupt habitat and can contribute to the loss of green and open space. The movement of freight into, out of, and through facilities and on freight corridors contributes to regional and local air pollution. Fueling, maintenance, cleaning and other routine operational activities can lead to pollutants in surrounding surface and ground waters and soils. Additionally, the land uses associated with freight facilities and movement often consists of large amounts of impervious surfaces which can lead to increased non-point source stormwater runoff into surrounding waterways. These impacts can also affect surrounding communities and populations leading to health concerns and decreased quality of life. While numerous, these impacts can be prevented or mitigated through technological, operational, education, planning and design, and policy and regulation efforts. This section provides a brief overview of the general effects of freight movement and freight facilities on the surrounding environment and also gives a summary of the specific impacts of the study area.

Air Quality

Diesel emissions are a primary contributor to ambient particulate matter and gaseous pollution levels. These emissions contribute to regional and atmospheric changes that exacerbate global warming, acid rain, decreased visibility, and ozone depletion. In addition, due to high volumes of trucks and other diesel vehicles, freight facilities can be air quality hot spots, locales where pollutant concentrations are substantially higher than concentrations indicated by ambient outdoor monitors located in adjacent or surrounding areas. The pollutant concentrations within hot spots can vary over time depending on various factors including emission rates, activity levels of contributing sources, and meteorological
conditions. In areas where residential land uses are proximate (closer than 200 meters) to freight facilities or corridors, these hot spots can lead to acute and chronic exposure to elevated pollution levels negatively affecting the populations living nearby.

There are many health effects associated with both ambient and locally concentrated air pollution. These include reduced lung function, asthma and other respiratory illnesses, cancer, irritation of breathing passages and premature death with children and the elderly being at a higher risk than the general population. Furthermore, both short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposure to particulate matter has been associated with increased rates of cardio-respiratory morbidity (illness) and mortality (death) including increased lung cancer risk.

There are several strategies that can mitigate the effects of freight facilities and movement on the surrounding areas.

 Develop and utilize cleaner fuels.
 Develop and require regular monitoring of air quality hot spots.
 Cluster industrial uses and provide adequate buffer zones between industrial and residential uses.
 Develop education programs for facility managers, developers, and officials on pollution prevention.

Water

Land uses associated with freight corridors and facilities contribute to non-point source water pollution through stormwater runoff. Non-point source water pollution comes from many diffuse sources and is caused by water moving over and through the ground picking up and carrying pollutants into waterways and groundwater sources. This is in part due to the large amounts of impervious surfaces associated with the industrial facilities and infrastructure related with freight movement. Non point-source pollution can lead to a deterioration of recreational uses of waterways, can harm water quality, and can potentially

22
Community Impact Technical Report
affect the health of nearby residents. Impervious surfaces can also contribute to increased quantities of runoff leading to erosion problems, flooding, and increased sediment loads in nearby streams and rivers.

In addition to environmental impacts, stormwater runoff can also contribute to health effects. Stormwater runoff, especially from industrial land uses, can carry large amounts of contaminants, both microbial and chemical, into storm sewers and streams affecting water quality. Polluted runoff can also contaminate groundwater sources. Polluted stormwater runoff has been associated with outbreaks of waterborne diseases implying a link between polluted runoff and public health. Waterborne illnesses can be caused by drinking contaminated water, recreational contact with contaminated water, or by eating produce irrigated with untreated water. The effects of contact or ingestion of contaminated water are much greater in vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems.

Stormwater runoff reduction measures in the construction and redevelopment phases of freight facilities could help mitigate some of the negative effects of stormwater runoff associated with freight movement and freight facilities.

 Capture and treat water used in cleaning processes.
 Minimize use of toxic cleaning solutions.
 Incorporate detention and retention ponds, vegetated swales and filter strips, filtering systems, and porous pavements where appropriate and feasible.
 Develop training programs on pollution prevention and stormwater best management practices.
 Develop a system to monitor water quality in groundwater sources and nearby streams and water bodies.

Greenspace

The land uses associated with freight movement and freight facilities often cause fragmentation in green and open spaces. These spaces are made up of ecologically active lands such as parks, farms, forest lands, and wetlands. These types of spaces provide external benefits such as improved air and water quality, wildlife habitat and biological diversity, and social benefits including preservation of historic/rural character and aesthetic value and positive health benefits. Additionally, vegetative buffers can benefit both people and the environment. They can provide necessary separation between incompatible land uses blocking excess noise and light and can also mitigate negative environmental effects associated with air emissions and stormwater runoff. Green and open spaces can be proactively planned as part of greenfield developments or can be undertaken retroactively as brownfield re- developments.18

Green and open spaces provide many benefits to the community and can also be used to mitigate and minimize many of the environmental impacts associated with the movement and processing of freight.

 Utilize greenspace in the form of vegetated swales and constructed wetlands to aid in the control and treatment of stormwater runoff.
 Develop training programs on the use of greenspace and open space to mitigate air and water quality issues.
 Study, and when possible, require the use of green roofs in freight areas. This could help reduce the urban heat-island effect, associated with large amounts of impervious surfaces, which can contribute to increased levels of ground-ozone formation and heat related illnesses and death (EPA, 2007).
 In areas of greenfield development, proactively plan for the strategic conservation and location of green and open space.

18
The EPA has a publication entitled “Characteristics of Sustainable Brownfield Projects” which covers strategies for effectively returning industrial uses to functional green and open spaces. This can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pdf/sustain.pdf

24
Community Impact Technical Report
Environmental Analysis

The Atlanta Road/Marietta Boulevard study area contains a wide array of environmental concerns that should be taken into account when planning and developing freight movement infrastructure and freight facilities. Issues surrounding water quality and proximity to air quality hot spots are the most prevalent environmental issues in this study area. The study area contains wetlands, floodplains, some areas with steep topography and is close to the Chattahoochee River. Future land use plans and decisions should require that non-point source pollution from warehouse and distribution areas is minimized. This can be accomplished through the use of both structural and non-structural best management practices (BMP). Structural BMPs are those that physically treat runoff at the point of generation or discharge. Filtration,
detention, and retention systems are examples of structural BMPs. Non-structural BMPs are less direct methods designed to address the runoff problem through education, design, and open space protection to name a few.

Additionally, there are some locations within the study area where residences are located immediately adjacent to rail yards (see the Environmental Justice Section of this report). There are also transitional land uses adjacent to rail yards and other freight facilities that could possibly become residential areas. These residences and potential future residences could be in air quality hot spots which could be subject to air pollutant levels that are higher than ambient concentrations. These air quality hot spots could put local residents at higher risk for the negative health effects associated with air pollution.

An overview of hot spot monitoring and mitigation practices is covered in Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
published by the Environmental Protection Agency.19 Additionally, the Impacts of Freight and Mitigation Best Practices Table, Section 2, contains links to best practices and case studies for managing freight uses with respect to environmental concerns.
19
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b06902.pdf