Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

38C H A P T E R 5 Environmental FactorsBackground Literature Prior to the 1970s, the environmental effects of transporta- tion projects were investigated but not heavily weighted in decision making. Many of these negative impacts went unmit- igated due to a lack of universal governing policy or com- munity awareness and understanding regarding the gravity of these harmful environmental effects. The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) advanced the state of the practice by requiring environmental review of all federal actions, including transportation improvements. As these reviews began to uncover “fatal flaws,” major environmental issues that threatened environment health and costly delays to projects that had been under consideration for years, trans- portation agencies began considering environmental issues earlier in the planning process (Amekudzi and Meyer, 2005; Evink, 2002). But the practice of environmental performance measurement is not yet comprehensively developed or prac- ticed within state DOTs. Many admit they are not as advanced in this field as they wish to be (Cambridge Systematics, Inc., forthcoming). Though environmental performance measurement is not yet fully developed, several reports address environmental issues within the context of transportation planning and imple- mentation (Amekudzi and Meyer, 2005; Evink, 2002; Venner, 2005; Venner, 2004; The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2002). NCHRP Report 541: Consideration of Environmental Factors in Trans- portation Systems Planning comprehensively assesses state- and metropolitan-level practices for addressing the environment in transportation planning. Based on these findings, it presents an approach for integrating environmental factors in transporta- tion planning and decision making (Amekudzi and Meyer, 2005). The FHWA maintains the Environmental Guidebook, a portal to 47 environmental topics of concern to transporta- tion practitioners (FHWA, 2007). Through a partnership with FHWA, the American Association of State Highway and Trans- portation Officials (AASHTO) operates the Center for Envi- ronmental Excellence. The Center’s objective is to promoteenvironmental stewardship and encourage innovative ways to streamline the transportation delivery process. It maintains a comprehensive web site to serve these purposes (AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence, 2007). The literature reflects a convergence of trends toward both environmental stewardship and performance-based planning (Cambridge Systematics, Inc., forthcoming; Venner, 2003; TERM 2001, 2007). Several related resources are organized under the rubric of sustainability (Sustainable Development Strategy, 2007-2009, 2006; CST, 2002; Litman, 2006). Transportation agencies such as the Washington State Department of Trans- portation (WSDOT) and Transit New Zealand are leading efforts both in the United States and abroad to incorporate environmental performance measures into their decision- making processes (Measures, Markers, and Mileposts, 2007; Environmental Plan, 2007). Current examples of common environmental measures have focused on either air quality measures, which are well estab- lished or environmental inputs and outputs, which can be more easily measured than outcomes. Some examples include: • Tons of pollution (or vehicle emissions) generated; • Total area of wetlands impacted/mitigated; and • Number of water quality-related watershed restoration projects. The remainder of this section identifies attempts to better incorporate environmental concerns into transportation decision making including using performance measures. Rec- ommended environmental outcome measures for the SHRP 2 effort follow. Key Findings Departments of transportation are working with partners to better address environmental issues throughout the

39transportation planning and project development process. One effort that takes a comprehensive approach to the envi- ronmental impacts of transportation projects is Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Proj- ects, developed cooperatively by a team of eight federal agen- cies and four state DOTs. Eco-Logical defines an ecosystem approach based on: 1) integrated planning (i.e., agencies working together and with the public to determine trans- portation and environmental priority areas); 2) exploring mitigation options that include potentially mitigating off-site and with nonimpacted resources; and 3) using performance measures to track progress. “Green infrastructure” provides another framework for understanding the natural environ- ment as integral to the infrastructure we rely on. Green infra- structure refers to the interconnected network of waterways, wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitats, and other natural areas; greenways, parks and other conservation lands; work- ing farms, ranches, and forests; and wilderness and other open spaces that support native species, maintain natural ecological processes, sustain air and water resources and con- tribute to the health and quality of life for America’s commu- nities and people. Just as communities need to upgrade and expand their gray infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewers, utility lines), so too they need plans to upgrade and expand their green infrastructure. Green infrastructure plans provide a blueprint for conservation in the same way that long-range transportation plans provide a blueprint for future roads or transit lines. These plans can create a framework for future growth while also ensuring that significant natural resources will be preserved for future generations. State agencies already utilize many methods of integrat- ing environmental concerns into transportation decision making. California DOT’s (Caltrans) Division of Environ- mental Analysis manages its Standard Environmental Refer- ence, an on-line resource compiled to assist state and local staff in planning, preparing, and submitting environmental documents. Arizona, Florida, and New York have informa- tion systems to track projects and associated major mile- stones. Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) system, part of the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process, allows staff from multiple collaborating agencies to input and update information about transporta- tion projects. FDOT began tracking 23 performance measures to gauge the efficacy of the ETDM process in 2005. Vermont DOT (VTrans) and WSDOT compiled an Environmental Operations Manual to guide environmental procedures on transportation projects (State DOT Environmental Programs: Evaluation and Performance Measures, 2007). FHWA, EPA, the Maryland State Highway Administration, the National Asphalt Pavement Association, the American Concrete Pave- ment Association, and several other organizations have estab- lished a Green Highways Partnership with the objective ofminimizing the impacts of transportation projects on the environment (Green Highways). The emphasis of the pro- gram is on the implementation of best management prac- tices, especially with respect to watershed-driven storm water management, recycling and reuse, and conservation and ecosystem management (Paving the Way . . . , 2006). Green Highways is a voluntary, nonregulatory collaboration of private and public partners at both the state and federal levels to identify opportunities that will improve the envi- ronmental impacts of transportation systems. Opportuni- ties include joint funding, technology transfer, collaboration, and joint research. Leaders are recognized and rewarded for their good practices, thereby encouraging others to adopt similar practices. Efforts to develop environmental performance measures must continue to overcome practical challenges. Many environmental issues are difficult to quantify and may be out- side the scope of influence of transportation agencies. Certain data are sometimes difficult and costly to obtain. Instead of working with resource agencies, transportation agencies often collect primary data themselves (Cambridge Systematics, Inc., forthcoming; Venner, 2003). Determining the appropriate temporal and geographical scales to monitor is particularly challenging because ecosystems contain a wide variety of interdependent flora and fauna, each having its own lifespan and range of habitat (Evink, 2002). Transportation agencies need to engage environmental resource agencies in a variety of ways. Transportation agen- cies must work with resource agencies for a variety of reasons. State transportation agencies commonly fund positions within overworked resource agencies to expedite reviews of trans- portation projects. Most DOTs report that these arrange- ments are helping to avoid problems, allow early consultation and development of programmatic approaches, and trouble- shoot problems when they arise (DOT-Funded Positions . . . , 2005; Venner, 2003). Transportation agencies also create Mem- orandums of Understanding and share information with resource agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Eco-Logical, 2006). However, transportation and resource agencies alike note the time-consuming nature of developing interagency partner- ships and how this hinders widespread application of stream- lining techniques (Venner, 2005). A Gallup (2004) survey of transportation and resource agencies involved in interagency environmental efforts noted differences in perceptions of how well the efforts were working among participating organiza- tions. A survey of 10 pilot projects indicated that collaboration is hard work, time-consuming, labor-intensive, and expensive (Bracaglia, 2005).

40New tools for transportation decision making incorpo- rate environmental considerations and facilitate environ- mental performance measurement. Numerous tools already incorporate environmental performance measures into trans- portation planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operations (Schwartz, 2006; Amekudzi and Meyer, 2005). Envi- ronmental Management Systems (EMS) and related Environ- mental Information Management Systems (EIMS) are used to support the NEPA process, track commitments, and manage public involvement (Cambridge Systematics, Inc., forthcoming; Cambridge Systematics, Inc. et al., 2006). Remote sensing equip- ment and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) facilitate data collection, analysis, and reporting (Muller et al., 2007; Thieman, 2007; Donaldson and Weber, 2006). On-line statewide GIS repositories are making a variety of previously unavailable datasets known to transportation planners, including air qual- ity, endangered species, wetlands, and water quality data (VIGN, 2007; WiscLINC, 2007). Environmental Performance Factors and Measures Environmental impacts of highway capacity projects have traditionally been addressed through the National Environ- mental Policy Act (NEPA) process, parallel state processes, and related federal and state regulations. These efforts focus on minimizing the impacts of new or expanded infrastruc- ture through modifications to specific alignments and mitigation of those impacts that cannot be avoided. These efforts have typically focused narrowly on the transportation right-of-way, but recent federal and state efforts are shifting how environmental factors are addressed by: 1) consider- ing the relationship between transportation and the natu- ral environment more broadly, with a focus on protecting and enhancing quality environmental areas, rather than mitigating the impacts of specific projects; and 2) under- standing and addressing environmental factors starting at the earliest stages of project development, especially long- range planning. Six performance factors have been identi- fied within the environmental element of the framework, including: • Ecosystems, Habitat, and Biodiversity; • Water Quality; • Wetlands; • Air Quality; • Environmental Health; and • Climate Change. Each of these factors is discussed below in more detail, including specific performance measures and applications of those measures. In addition, though not directly applicable tothe framework, performance measures were identified in the areas of energy, materials, and waste. These are discussed at the end of this section. Ecosystems, Habitat, and Biodiversity Highways can cause direct loss of habitat resulting from road construction; fragmentation and isolation of existing habi- tats; obstacles that limit migration and dispersal and create smaller, more inbred populations; and animal-vehicle colli- sions resulting in wildlife mortality and a serious safety con- cern for the traveling public. Recent work in this area focuses on the way an entire ecosystem works, rather than narrowly examining impacts on individual species. In general, three broad objectives are considered in this area: • Maintain or improve ecological functions of potentially affected ecosystems or habitat areas; • Minimize harm to wildlife species; and • Protect native plant communities. Table 5.1 presents four broad performance measures to address these objectives and specific applications of each performance measure. The case study highlight illustrates how Arizona’s Wildlife Linkage Program measures loss of habitats. Water Quality Considering the effects of highway capacity on water resources can help protect water resources and also ecosystems, bio- diversity, wildlife habitat, and endangered or sensitive species that rely on healthy aquatic ecosystems. Water quality protec- tion has historically been considered after project sites have been selected, but there is growing support for considering water quality protection much earlier in the planning process, before environmental and permitting processes are required. Recent work in this area focuses on a watershed approach that considers the functions of individual water bodies in an over- all system. • Maintain and improve water quality; and • Minimize indirect impacts on water quality at watershed scale. Table 5.2 presents eight broad performance measures to address these objectives and specific applications of each per- formance measure. The case study highlight illustrates how Colorado’s I-70 Mountain Corridor Tier 1 EIS captures the impact of highway capacity projects on water quality.

41SHRP 2 Framework Measure Specific Measure Applications Loss of Habitats – Impact of transportation construction on degradation in quality and quantity of land essential to the survival of target plant or animal species. Natural Resource Plan Consistency – Consistency between natural resource plans and transportation project plans. Animal-Vehicle Collisions – Impact of transportation projects on the number and characteristics of collisions between animals and vehicles. Losses of Native Plants – Impact of transportation construction on the quality and quantity of native plant communities. Table 5.1. Environmental Measures – Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Habitat Factor • Acres of fragmented or threatened habitat in the state or region; • Change in number of acres of a specific habitat; • Change in composition and structure of habitat; • Change in the amount of habitat edge (locations where habitat stops or starts); • Change in the acreage of interior habitat; • Distance of habitat fragments from each other; • Preservation of high-quality wildlife habitat (wetlands, old-growth forests, etc.); • Number of projects that protect sensitive species or restores habitat; • Number of acres of priority conservation areas acres protected annually; • Sustained population ecology (increased size and density of species, balanced age and sex structure, reduced mortality, new growth, etc.); and • Population size of indicator species. • Project contributes to the goals and objectives identified in the natural resource plan. • Project sponsor has coordinated with local natural resource agency to align project with goals and objectives. • Project has expected impacts on high-priority sensitive natural resources as identi- fied in a natural resource plan. • Is ecosystem protection incorporated into the agency/authority’s strategic planning as an articulated goal or objective? • Have existing ecosystem protection and related efforts (e.g., habitat conservations plans) been identified and screened for relevancy? • Number of state highway miles with up-to-date natural resource maps relative to total that need mapping. • Number of vehicle collisions with animals listed on the endangered species list; and • Change in animal-vehicle collisions. • Losses of Native Plants – Impact of transportation construction on the quality and quantity of native plant communities: – Change in health and diversity of native plant community; – Change in acres of native plants relative to nonnative plants; – Change in acres of invasive plants within highway corridor right-of-way; – Percent of native vegetation preserved; – Number of acres with newly planted native plants; – Acres sprayed with herbicide; – Total square feet of noxious weed infestation, per 0.10-mile section; and – Total square feet of nuisance vegetation, per 0.10-mile section. Case Study Highlight: Arizona’s Wildlife Linkage Assessment Description: The purpose of this effort is to identify critical habitat connectivity areas and potential linkage zones that are important to Arizona’s wildlife and natural ecosystems. Nine public agencies and nonprofit organizations collaborated to produce an assessment document and map which provide a first step toward identifying large blocks of protected habitat, potential wildlife movement corridors through and between them, the factors that could possibly disrupt these linkage zones, and opportunities for conservation. The non-binding document and map serves as an informational resource to planners and engineers, providing suggestions for the incorporation of these linkage zones into their management planning to address wildlife connectivity at an early stage of the process. Sample Measure: Each transportation project is evaluated in the context of the Wildlife Linkage Assessment, and what the probable impact will be. The Assessment provides a common reference point for all projects under consideration.

42SHRP 2 Framework Measure Specific Measure Applications Water Quality Protection Areas – Impact of transportation construction on priority water quality protection area. Hydromodification – Impact of transportation construction on water quality due to the alteration of water bodies by transportation projects. Losses of Riparian and Floodplain Areas – Impact of transportation construction on the quality, quantity, location, and functioning of the areas adjacent to the affected water bodies that strongly influence water quality. Water Resource Plan Consistency – Consistency between water resources and watershed management plans and transportation project plans. Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts – Impacts on water quality due to highway construction. Water Quality Standards Compliance – Consistency of transportation project-related water quality impacts with water quality standards. Table 5.2. Environmental Measures – Water Quality Factor • Degree of intrusion of transportation infrastructure into water quality protec- tion area; • Proximity of transportation projects to receiving waters; • Proximity of transportation projects to water bodies with established TMDLs; • Change in pollutant loadings for nutrients; • Expected pollutant emissions from construction and operation of new trans- portation infrastructure; and • Percent of water samples collected that meet state quality standards for clarity when working in water. • Extent of modification of a water body as a result of new capacity investment (significant, minor, none); • Change in sediment load (predicted or observed); • Change in nutrient load (predicted or observed); • Change in temperature (predicted or observed); • Change in velocity on receiving water body (predicted or observed); • Degree of steam bank and shoreline erosion (predicted or observed); and • Number of culverts retrofitted for fish passage, number of barriers removed at major construction projects. • Change in acres of riparian areas; • Acres of riparian areas disturbed or degraded; • Acres of riparian areas improved; • Change in ecological function of riparian areas impacted by a capacity investment; • Amount of watershed improvement achieved after five or more years through appropriate measures; and • Acres of open space land protected from development. • Project contributes to the goals and objectives identified in the watershed management plan; • Project sponsor has coordinated with local water resource agency to align project with goals and objectives; and • Project has expected impacts on high-priority sensitive water resources as identified in a water resource plan. • Change in turbidity due to construction activities; • Change in sediment loads due to construction activities; • Change in pollutant loads due to construction activities; • Quantity of dredged material disposed at various sites (ocean, coastal waters) and used for various purposes (wetlands creation); and • Percent of surface waters degraded from highway development projects. • Project impact on TMDLs and water quality standards for specific water bodies; • Available pollutant loads prior to exceeding allowable thresholds; and • Average pollutant concentrations of various metals, suspended solids, and toxic organics in road runoff.

43SHRP 2 Framework Measure Specific Measure Applications Highway Runoff – Change in water quality due to added highway capacity. Impervious Surface – Impact on watershed water quality due to additional buildings, roads, and other impervious surfaces built as a result of added transportation capacity. • Change in pollutant loads due to change in highway capacity based on VMT; • Change in pollutant loads due to change in highway capacity based on new lane-miles; • Proximity of new road to receiving waters; • Percentage of urea (deicing compound) discharged directly to surface waters; • Pollutant loads during “first flush” events; • Quantity of oil and grease loading via road runoff; • River miles, lakes, and ocean shore miles impaired by urban runoff (not just highways); • Amount of road salts generated per VMT or per lane-mile; and • Per capita vehicle fluid losses. • Increase in impervious surfaces due to direct facility construction; and • Increase in impervious surfaces due to development induced by facility construction. Case Study Highlight: Colorado I-70 Mountain Corridor Tier 1 EIS Description: The Colorado DOT (CDOT) has undertaken a Programmatic EIS to identify solutions for the I-70 Mountain Corridor between Denver and Glenwood Springs. The PEIS examined the indirect impacts of alternatives, including land use and development patterns, and the resulting impact on various environmental indicators. Environmental areas addressed include wildlife movement and habitat, threatened and endangered species, vegetation, wetlands, riparian areas, fishery resources, streams, winter maintenance, stormwater runoff, land use, growth effects, eco- nomic effects, visual resources, recreation resources, historic properties, air quality, noise, geologic hazards, regulated material and mining waste, environmental justice, and public lands (4(f) properties). Sample Measures: For each alternative the following issues were considered: • Water quality issues from winter maintenance activities and impact of stormwater runoff – Measured in sediment, suspended solids, phosphorus, sodium chloride; • Identified water quality impaired streams and TMDLs – Measured in sediment; • Identified water supply sources (including drinking and public water supplies – Measured in sediment, phosphorous, chloride; • Issues associated with stream stability hydraulic function, and stream health – Measured in instream flow requirements, ammonia, sediment, temperature, dissolved oxygen; • Issues associated with spills or release of hazardous materials associated with transport on I-70 – Measured in various possible types of spills; and • Identified antidegradation standards, nonpoint, and point sources – Measured in nutrients, ammonia, phosphorus, suspended sediment, instream flows, dissolved metals, chloride, dissolved oxygen, temperature. Table 5.2. (Continued).Wetlands Wetlands are complex ecosystems that, depending on their type and on circumstances within a watershed, can improve water quality, provide natural flood control, diminish droughts, recharge groundwater aquifers, and stabilize shorelines. They are vital to both water quality and ecosystem function. Regu- lated by the Clean Water Act, wetlands can be addressed by the watershed and ecosystem approaches identified under the water quality and ecosystems factors. There has been a recent move toward the consideration of wetlands quality,and not solely quantity, in project planning and programming processes. • Minimize taking of wetlands; and • Enhance ecological integrity by minimizing impacts to high-quality wetlands. Table 5.3 presents three broad performance measures to address these objectives and specific applications of each per- formance measure. The case study highlight illustrates how the Washington State DOT’s Transportation Project Mitigation

44SHRP 2 Framework Measure Specific Measure Applications Ratio of Wetland Acres Taken and Replaced – Annual impact of transportation construction on statewide amount of wetlands lost compared to new wetlands built. Losses of High-Quality Wetlands – Impact of transportation construction on high-value wetlands. Wetlands Plan Consistency – Consistency between wetlands plans and transportation project plans. • Annual acreage of wetlands destroyed versus wetlands created. • Change in acreage of high-quality wetlands; • Expected change in ecological function of wetlands as a result of mitigation for capacity investments; and • Ecological value of wetlands impacted by a capacity investment. • Project contributes to the goals and objectives identified in the wetlands plan; • Project sponsor has coordinated with local wetlands (or natural resource) agency to align project with goals and objectives; and • Project has expected impacts on high-quality wetlands as identified in a wetlands plan. Case Study Highlight: Washington DOT Transportation Project Mitigation Cost Screening Matrix Description: The Transportation Project Mitigation Cost Screening Matrix or “screening tool” is a tool that helps transportation planners identify proposed projects that may benefit from the application of watershed-based mitigation. The screening tool analyzes readily-available data on urbanization, floodplain areas, soil types, topography, wetlands, hazardous materials, parks, and other cultural resources. Projects that encounter these features commonly have the highest environmental mitigation costs, especially for stormwater treatment and wetlands replace- ment. The tool generates a “mitigation risk index” or “MRI” consisting of a single score that estimates the percentage of land area within the project limits that will likely experience logistical difficulties or elevated costs for in right-of-way environmental mitigation. Specific to wetlands mitigation, the tool includes a “Potential Wetland Restoration Site Environmental Benefits Ranking Criteria.” Sample Measures: • Site has extensive hydrologic alteration – Loss of hydrology can mean the total conversion of the site from wetland to upland. Sites with exten- sive hydrologic alteration have the greatest potential to restore many of the recognized wetland functions. • Site has extensive vegetation alteration – Sites with extensive forest clearing have potential to restore some flood storage/flow control, water quality, temperature maintenance, and organic export functions. • More than 50 percent of site has Hydric Code A or B soils – Site has increased potential for providing groundwater recharge function. Site has surface hydrology connection to river/stream – improve site’s ability to provide impacted functions and priorities from City Comprehensive Plans. One point if site has surface water connection, 2 points for regular surface water flooding, and 1 additional point if the site’s stream reach supports fish species. Table 5.3. Environmental Measures – Wetlands FactorCost Screening Matrix is used to measure the losses of high- quality wetlands. Air Quality Clean Air and transportation legislation has required the inte- gration of the transportation and air quality planning processes since 1970. This integration is intended to ensure that trans- portation decisions are consistent with the air quality goals for a region. Current requirements include the transporta- tion conformity process, which requires that projects within transportation improvement programs do not exceed air quality standards for an area. • Meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards; and • Reduce carbon monoxide and particulate matter hotspot violations.Table 5.4 presents two broad performance measures to address these objectives and specific applications of each per- formance measure. The case study highlight illustrates how carbon monoxide and particulate matter concentrations are measured in the Minnesota DOT’s 2003 Statewide Trans- portation Plan. Climate Change Climate change should be addressed both in terms of trans- portation impacts on the climate, and the potential impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure. A con- formity process, similar to what is used for other emissions, may suggest a method to address transportation’s impacts on climate change. Research suggests that climate change will significantly impact transportation infrastructure through rising sea levels and related changes.

45SHRP 2 Framework Measure Specific Measure Applications Transportation Conformity – Comparison of actual on-road transportation-related emissions in air quality non- attainment or maintenance region versus desired level of emissions identified in state’s air quality plan to ensure national ambient air quality standards are met or exceeded. Carbon Monoxide and Particulate Matter Concentrations – Contribution of projects to localized CO or PM violations in nonattainment and maintenance areas. • Change in air quality conformity status due to increased emissions; • Number of urban areas (or population in areas) classified as nonattainment status; and • Expected impact of new capacity investments on criteria pollutants. • Carbon Monoxide and Particulate Matter Concentrations – Contribution of projects to localized CO or PM violations in non- attainment and maintenance areas. Case Study Highlight: Mn/DOT 2003 Statewide Transportation Plan Description: Minnesota’s 2003 Statewide Transportation Plan and 2005 district-level plans comprise one of the nation’s first comprehensive, performance-based state transportation planning efforts. The Statewide Plan sets a framework for long-range investment planning, with perfor- mance measures and targets in 10 policy areas. The district-level plans identify investment levels needed to meet targets and detail a prioritized, fiscally constrained 20-year implementation program. The statewide and district plans serve as the critical link between Mn/DOT’s strategic goals and the capital investment program in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Mn/DOT employs regular performance monitoring to evaluate investment choices and adjust the state’s investment program. Environmental measures are used to monitor impacts on air quality, water quality, land management, and streamlining of the environmental process. These measures are calculated on a statewide scale to support the goal of “protect(ing) the environment and respect(ing) community values.” Sample Measures: • Federal Compliance Standards: Outdoor levels of ozone, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter; • Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicle in Minnesota; and • Percent of Mn/DOT fuel consumption defined as cleaner fuels. Table 5.4. Environmental Measures – Air Quality Factor• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources; • Reduce risk of damage to transportation infrastructure or disruption of transportation service due to global climate change; and • Offset greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources. Table 5.5 presents three broad performance measures to address these objectives and specific applications of each per- formance measure. The case study highlight illustrates how the Puget Sound Regional Council measures greenhouse gas emissions in their Vision 2040 plan. Environmental Health Although the topic of environmental health is broad, this framework focuses on the issue of mobile source air toxics, a by-product of vehicle emissions and a well-documented con- tributor of cancer and noncancer human health problems. This is an emerging area of research. • Minimize near-roadway human health risk from air toxics. Table 5.6 presents two broad performance measures to address this objective and specific applications of each per-formance measure. The case study highlight illustrates how air toxics exposure was measured in the Sacramento/I-5 Aerosol Transect Study. Energy, Materials, and Waste The SHRP 2 C02 framework is primarily focused on the eval- uation of major highway capacity projects in planning, project development, and environmental review. The considerations of energy, materials, and waste are generally addressed during design, construction, and operation of the transportation sys- tem, and thus fall outside of the primary focus on this effort. However, several general measures have been identified in these areas, as they are important complements to the other set of issues addressed in this factor area. Table 5.7 provides a set of measures consideration. Environmental Data Gaps and Opportunities The evaluation of environmental impacts is one of the top priorities of the SHRP 2 C02 Performance Measurement Framework. A set of potential data investments was evaluated for this area. Findings by planning factor are summarized here. Additional detail on these data investments can be found in Appendix B.

46SHRP 2 Framework Measure Specific Measure Applications Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Total amount of transportation- related pollutants that cause global climate change. Infrastructure Vulnerability – Susceptibility of transportation infrastructure to damage caused by environmental hazards associated with global climate change. Carbon Sequestration – Net change in quantity of carbon stored in biomass located along transportation corridors as a result of construction and operations-related vegetation management practices. • Expected change in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of capacity investments (e.g., using EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Stimulator). • Level of vulnerability (e.g., extremely vulnerable, vulnerable, not vulnerable) to sea level rises expected as a result of climate change; • Level of vulnerability (e.g., extremely vulnerable, vulnerable, not vulnerable) to storm frequencies and severity expected as a result of climate change; and • Level of vulnerability (e.g., extremely vulnerable, vulnerable, not vulnerable) to temperature changes expected as a result of climate change. • Sequestration capacity of existing vegetation; and • Sequestration capacity of planned vegetation. Case Study Highlight: Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Vision 2040 Description: PSRC’s long-range transportation plan, Destination 2030, and regional transportation/land use plan, Vision 2040, were developed using an extensive array of performance measures addressing mobility, safety, land use, the environment, and other issues. The agency has implemented performance monitoring systems to continue to track transportation and land use trends in the region. Projects included in the region’s TIP must be included in, or consistent with, Destination 2030. Sample Measure: • Outcome – Air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced; • Measure – Annual average emissions of greenhouse gases; and • Data Source – Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. Table 5.5. Environmental Measures – Climate Change FactorSHRP 2 Framework Measure Specific Measure Applications Air Toxics Concentrations – Impact of transportation construction on concentrations of mobile source air toxics. Air Toxics Exposure – Proximity of vulnerable populations potentially affected by mobile source air toxics. • Expected concentrations of mobile source air toxics as a result of capac- ity investments. • Number of housing units, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes within 240 meters of existing or new right-of-way; • Number of housing units, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes within 240 meters of a transportation facility right-of-way with significant truck volumes (i.e., over 10,000 trucks per day); • Number of nursing homes within 240 meters of ROW; and • Number of days that Pollution Standard Index is in an unhealthful range. Case Study Highlight: Sacramento/I-5 Aerosol Transect Study Winter Months 2003-2005 Description: The American Lung Association of Sacramento – Emigrant Trails Task Force conducted this study to continue monitoring the air quality impacts of I-5, compare the data to other sites in California, and conduct a thorough study of aerosols on a particular community. During the period December 12, 2002 through January 16, 2003, fine aerosol mass, (fine liquid or solid particles suspended in the air) was collected continuously and measured every three hours along a nine site transect from west of Davis, California, to Shingle Springs, California. The fine PM2.5 aerosols were size segregated into either three or six size modes above 0.09 µm diameter. Coarser aerosols were also measured at five of the sites. The direct impact of I-5 and a secondary roadway monitored on downwind sites was evident in all weather conditions. On many days, aerosol mass values were similar across the entire network, but with an enhancement at the sites downwind of I-5. Sample Measure: • Levels of fine aerosol mass measured and compared at specific sites (museum, middle school site) and across entire network to understand impact on populations. Table 5.6. Environmental Measures – Environmental Health Factor

47Potential Framework Area Potential Measures Energy Consumption Materials Waste • Final energy consumption in transport by mode and energy sources; and • Share of final energy consumption in transport produced from renewable energy sources. • Amount of solid raw materials used in building transport infrastructure; and • Amount of solid raw materials used in vehicle manufacture. • Total amount of nonrecycled waste generated by transport mode and by type of waste; • Number of motor vehicles scrapped annually; • Estimated annual garbage generation by transportation sector; • Amount of wastewater produced in transport manufacturing industries or service infrastructures not treated in wastewater treatment plants; and • Number of tons of recycled/waste materials used in construction projects. Note: Energy, materials, and waste were not specifically included as factors within the SHRP 2 C02 performance measurement framework but are included here as additional measures that may be broadly useful in evaluating transportation infrastructure. Table 5.7. Environmental Measures – Energy, Materials, and WasteWater Quality Analysis of the impacts of highway projects on water quality requires bringing together land, hydrology, and biological data, as well as information derived from planning efforts to identify sensitive areas and/or areas to be targeted for improvement. Assessments may include proximity of the proposed highway project to receiving waters within identified water protection areas, encroachment on riparian or other sensitive areas, pro- jected increases in pollutant load due to the project (related to runoff, displacement, or hydromodification), impacts on com- pliance with established water quality standards, consistency with existing water resource plans, or impacts on impervious surfaces (considering the highway itself as well as associated induced development). A wealth of information exists for water quality analysis, including searchable national GIS data sets and query tools. Key gaps for performance assessment are the lack of tailored data sets and tools for assessing impacts of highway capacity projects on watershed health and impervious surfaces. Data and tools also are needed for enhanced analysis of stormwater management, beyond the existing focus on total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessment. The greatest opportunities for progress in addressing data gaps in the water quality area are through partnerships between transportation and other agencies with an interest in environ- mental protection and natural resources. Such partnerships could focus on data sharing via clearinghouses that provide access to multiple GIS data layers needed for project screen- ing or more detailed impact analysis. Partnerships also may extend beyond data sharing and include ongoing collabora- tion at the planning and programmatic level. (The NorthCarolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program is one example of this). This model provides a more holistic context for analysis and joint planning of transportation improvement programs and watershed quality improvements. There also may be opportunities at the federal level for col- laboration between U.S. DOT, EPA, USGS, and other agencies to develop methodologies and tools for more sophisticated sim- ulation capabilities for water quality (and other environmental) impacts. Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Habitat Highway project impacts in this area are typically considered at the project level as part of the NEPA permitting process, though a few states have implemented broader approaches that go beyond looking at individual transportation projects and are integrated with planning efforts of environmental and natural resource agencies. DOTs typically collect data on road kill; other data used for analysis within this area (land- scape and ecosystem data, species data) come primarily from agencies outside of the DOT. Key data sources include EPA, Fish & Wildlife, USGS, and NOAA at the national level; Wildlife Action Plans and Natural Heritage Programs at the state level; and Ecoregional Conservation Assessments pro- vided by the Nature Conservancy. Significant quantities of data related to ecosystems, biodiversity, and habitat are col- lected by dozens of governmental, academic, and private organizations. The major gap in this area is the current fragmentation of data sources, making it difficult to locate and integrate infor- mation when needed. Key opportunities for improvement include GIS data sharing agreements and web-based GIS data

48access, and interagency collaboration allowing for integrated planning approaches. One specific approach to collaboration involves development of a regional ecosystem framework for assessment of cumulative impacts of multiple infrastructure and development projects. Wetlands State DOTs typically track wetlands loss due to transporta- tion project construction, as well as wetlands replacement acreage in compensatory mitigation related to projects. While these measures provide a gauge of the quantity of impacts to wetlands, they do not provide an understanding of true ecological consequences at a broader, watershed level. This would require better information on the location, types, and quality of wetlands lost and on the long-term suc- cess of mitigation sites. Availability of this kind of data is uneven and fragmented across multiple agencies. Consider- ation of statewide wetland quality data early in project development would enable DOTs to select project align- ments that minimize mitigation costs and strengthen envi- ronmental stewardship. There are two opportunities for improving data on wetland quality: 1. Development of improved remote-sensing-based data col- lection methods. These methods provide a cost-effective estimation of wetland quality which currently is gathered through time-intensive field surveys. Several states are experimenting with these methods. 2. Further development of model monitoring programs for statewide tracking of the effectiveness of wetland mitigation sites. Programs in North Carolina and Washington State provide a useful starting point. Environmental Health Within the performance measurement framework, environ- mental health focuses on mobile source air toxics (MSAT) that may contribute to human health problems. Informa- tion of interest includes ambient concentrations of MSATs, potential impacts of new highway projects on MSAT emis- sions, and proximity of vulnerable populations to major roadways. The science on air toxics is still evolving and data are limited. Key gaps are availability of data on ambient con- centrations in proximity to highway corridors of interest, understanding of how future vehicle fuel mix changes will impact prevalence of different MSATs, and data that provides an ability to translate measured or modeled MSAT concen- trations to health risk factors. Three opportunities for improvement in this area were identified:1. Development of partnerships between highway agencies and EPA, state, and local environmental agencies to mon- itor MSAT concentrations in key areas of concern presents a cost-effective way to leverage existing data and monitor- ing resources; 2. Investment in a meta-analysis of existing site-specific MSAT studies could help to identify best practice mitiga- tion measures that may reduce the need for near-road air toxics monitoring; and 3. Provision of support for ongoing efforts outside of the DOT community to advance the state of knowledge about MSAT exposure and health effects. Climate Change Climate change measures are only beginning to be introduced as part of state DOT and MPO decision making. There are two distinct areas of concern: 1. Impacts of highway projects on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and 2. Potential impacts of climate change effects on future vulner- ability of highway facilities. Rough measures of GHG emissions can be derived from fuel consumption statistics at a system level, and from estimated VMT and fuel economy at the project level. Improved accuracy would require incorporating information on average speeds, drive cycles, and vehicle types–which would require more complex assumption and/or use of more advanced modeling and simulation techniques. The shift toward nonpetroleum fuels is increasing the level of uncertainty in emissions estima- tion; additional data are needed to improve understanding of the GHG emissions of these fuels. Development of life-cycle models for GHG emissions would improve accuracy and con- fidence levels in estimation of GHG emissions from trans- portation projects. Measures of climate change-related risk to transportation facilities require integration of multiple factors: location, condition, and criticality of infrastructure; probability of impact; and the degree of severity of multiple climate change factors, including changes in temperature, precipi- tation, sea level rise, storm surge, coastal and inland ero- sion, ice and snow melt, and permafrost condition. Risk assessment must be tailored to specific regional and local- ized conditions. Though several global circulation models are available to project climate change at national and regional scales, the current state of science involves levels of uncertainty that preclude specific projections at more localized scales. Another gap is the lack of standardized data on locations and elevations of infrastructure, in geo- spatial format. This information is essential for assessment

49of risk for facilities in coastal areas and other sensitive locations. Development of a geospatially based platform that integrates transportation and climate information would facilitate climate-change-related risk assessment and would be an effec- tive way to leverage available data. Such a platform should incorporate data on facility location, emergency evacuation routes, land and facility elevations, locations of protectivestructures; and trends in precipitation levels, temperatures, storm surge heights, relative sea level rise, and location and duration of flooding events. It should enable scenario-based analyses involving differing assumptions about precipitation levels, temperatures, relative sea level rise, severe storm fre- quency and intensity, storm surge heights, and areas of inun- dation. This effort would require interdisciplinary partnerships between transportation and environmental agencies.