Practices for Project-Level Analyses for Air Quality (2021)

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.

14 A survey was developed to get a snapshot of current practices of DOTs with respect to project- level air quality issues. The survey consisted of 50 questions and was designed to query all aspects related to project-level air quality. It included questions on • Project-level air quality procedures and guidance, • Pollutants addressed, • Availability of streamlining tools (such as programmatic agreements), • Traffic data and analysis, • Triggers for a project-level air quality analysis, • Scope and scale of analysis, • Models used, • Data availability, • Documentation, • Use of consultants, • Litigation, • Transportation conformity, and • Staff knowledge and experience. Depending on the topic and the question, responses were multiple choice, yes or no, or explan- atory. For some questions, a yes or no answer required some explanatory text for clarification or amplification. See Appendix A for the survey questionnaire. Appendix B is a PDF displaying survey results. To find Appendix B for this report, go to www.trb.org and search for “NCHRP Synthesis 576”. The survey began with a question of whether the DOT had written project-level air quality procedures. If an agency responded “no,” they were asked if they had any recent air quality analyses performed, and were then sent further into the survey to the next common question. If they responded “yes,” they were sent into the bulk of the survey and asked a series of questions probing into the content and nature of the written procedures and their experiences implementing and managing those procedures, as well as analyses outcomes. The next common question asked about air quality litigation, followed by a question on nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a state/district had no nonattainment or maintenance areas, they were directed to questions on their knowledge of pertinent project-level air quality guidance and comments or suggestions on relevant federal guidance. If a state/district did have nonattainment or maintenance areas, they were asked about their DOT’s role in the interagency consultation process and about state or local transportation conformity regulations. They were then directed to the questions on their knowledge of pertinent project-level air quality guidance and comments or suggestions on relevant federal guidance. The survey concluded with all respondents being asked for contact information for C H A P T E R 3 Survey of DOTs

Survey of DOTs 15   possible questions and follow-up to their responses. At locations within the survey, a few (two to five) consecutive questions dealt with similar topics. These similarly themed questions are included within the grouped topics discussed in the following text. A link to the survey was sent to air quality staff at 50 state DOTs and the District of Columbia (subsequent references to DOTs responses to the survey include the District of Columbia’s responses, as appropriate) in early January 2020. The contact list was based on the AASHTO Committee on Environment and Sustainability’s Air Quality, Climate Change, and Energy Subcommittee membership list, with some updates. Forty DOTs responded to the survey, yielding a 78% response rate (see Figure 1). One of the DOTs deferred to its state air quality agency to complete the survey. That state’s survey results are included in the descriptions and findings that follow. Based on a review of the survey responses, follow-up telephone calls or email exchanges were conducted with the District of Columbia and 19 states. They are California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The purpose of the follow-ups was to clarify responses to one or more of the survey questions or to seek additional information or data based on a response to one or more survey questions. All but three of these states and the District of Columbia were able to supply the requested additional information. Created with mapchart.net Figure 1. DOT survey participants.

16 Practices for Project-Level Analyses for Air Quality Findings and Observations The survey contained some questions that were sequential and dealt with similar topics or themes. Other questions covered topics that were independent of other questions but delved into important topics related to project-level air quality analysis. Thus, the findings and observations discussed below are presented as themes of project-level air quality issues. There is no significance to the order of presentation of the themes. Organizational and Staffing Issues The survey provided an opportunity for new hires or staff recently working in air quality issues at DOTs to self-identify. Six months was chosen as the benchmark for defining “new” to air quality. Of the 40 respondents, five (12.5%) identified themselves as “new” (Florida, Maine, North Dakota, Nevada, and Oklahoma). The survey also contained a small number of questions dealing with air quality issues and occurrences within the last 5 years. A number of additional respon- dents indicated that they had not been in their positions for that 5-year period and could not fully respond to those questions. Therefore, a significant number of DOT air quality staff members do not have extensive experience. DOT staff members want to become more knowledgeable in the field. They are seeking general training in the field and specific modeling training (e.g., MOVES training). However, they are finding it difficult to obtain the training they need. Primarily, this because of the infrequency of the training and because when it does occur, it is typically not in their state/district. Also, many DOTs do not have all air quality work located within one functional unit. In some DOTs, different functional units work on transportation conformity and regional air quality issues (commonly planning staff) while different functional units work on project-level air quality issues (commonly engineering or highway design staff). This is especially so in those DOTs working on GHG emission reduction strategies. Some of the project-level air quality staff members (the majority of respondents to the survey) indicate that this could be an opportunity for miscommunication and problems for project delivery. Many project-level air quality staff members are also doing double-duty in other environmental issues, most commonly, noise analysis. Depending on the DOT and its program of projects, some project-level staff may be spending the majority of their time and effort on these other environmental issues. Some DOTs are decentralized, in that the main office or central office develops policy and guidance while the regions or districts implement the policy and guidance and do the project implementation work. This is especially so in the larger (geographic) states. From a project-level air quality perspective, this means that air quality procedures and guidance are written in the main office or central office, but it is left up to the regions or districts to apply the procedures or guidance to their projects. Unless there is an issue with a project-level air quality analysis with a particular project, the main office or central office staff may not know the results of an analysis or the frequency of analyses. In responding to the survey questions dealing with numbers of projects analyzed for air quality, some main office or central office staff did not have that data available and had to seek assistance from the region or district staff. Terminology Among the DOTs, various air quality terms do not always have the exact same meaning, or different terms are used to refer to essentially the same thing. This becomes quite evident in examining various DOT air quality analysis procedures or guidance. Even the terms “guidance” and “procedures” are applied interchangeably or have different meanings and only one term is

Survey of DOTs 17   used. Guidance is typically what should be done, whether at the state or federal level, and proce- dures are the step-by-step description of how to do the analysis. The term “hot-spot analysis” is also not always defined the same way. Most DOTs recognize the term in its more generic application, that is, a localized air quality analysis for potentially elevated levels of a pollutant. Some DOTs apply the term strictly, only as applying to U.S. EPA’s transpor- tation conformity requirements for a project-level analysis for CO, PM10, or PM2.5. Some DOTs developed terms that were specific to their state/district and only used in their state/ district. For example, in its project-level air quality guidance, Texas uses the term TAQA, or Traffic Air Quality Analysis, applying it to CO hot-spot analyses, typically for NEPA purposes (Environ- mental Affairs Division, Texas Department of Transportation, 2020). It uses the common terms and acronyms for other types of analyses [including MSAT or Project of Air Quality Concern (POAQC)]. Traffic Analysis Like many other aspects of project-level air quality analysis across the DOTs, the type and source of traffic data as input into the air quality analysis process is widely varied. The survey provided some common methods. As is evident from Figure 2, there is no one preferred method, and all of the options are used across the nation. Generally, two aspects emerge from reviewing the responses to the traffic data questions. One is that the air quality staff may have little involvement in how the traffic data is derived. Typically, it is provided by the planning functional group staff or consultants that are being utilized for the design project. The second aspect that seems to be common is that the scale of the analysis is determined by the traffic data sources. For hot-spot analyses, microsimulation models are commonly used (Georgia, Texas, and Washington), while for larger scale analyses (MSATs, GHGs) travel demand models are commonly used (Georgia, Texas, Wisconsin, and Washington). Figure 2. How traffic inputs are obtained.

18 Practices for Project-Level Analyses for Air Quality Traffic surveys are used to measure existing conditions (e.g., vehicle mixes or operating condi- tions) and to validate the traffic models (Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, and New York). Travel demand models provide future volumes, speeds, growth rates, and mode choice (Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin). In addition to traffic volumes and congested speeds, microsimulation models are used to provide traffic signal information and turning movements (Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, New York, and Virginia). VMT projections are also used for growth rates and volumes, most frequently for MSAT analysis applications (the District of Columbia, Georgia, New York, and Virginia). Highway performance monitoring system data and projections, when used, are typically applied for specific corridors or individual routes, providing volumes and vehicle mix or in rural areas, where a travel demand model may not be available (Arizona, Colorado, and the District of Columbia). Vehicle classification counts are the most common source of traffic data from methods other than those listed in the survey question (Delaware and New York). Consideration for “Large” Projects Fifteen DOTs (29%) responded to this question. Of those, 10 (two-thirds of the DOTs responding to this question) indicated they did not have any additional considerations for “large” projects. Of the five that responded positively, three referred to MSAT analyses. Wisconsin discussed its role in performing analyses for projects in isolated rural ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas. Only New York’s guidance included specifics on what type of “large” projects may be subject to additional consideration (“analysis for criteria pollutants including ozone precursors and GHG emissions for the following project types: HOV lanes vs. general use lanes; new or substantial modi- fications to interchanges on access controlled facilities; large-scale signal coordination projects; widening to provide additional travel lanes more than 1mile in length; 10% change in emissions; regional emissions analysis for projects not from a conforming TIP and plan in nonattainment and maintenance areas; [and] substantial controversy regarding air quality issues associated with the project”) (Engineering Division, Office of The Environment, New York State Department of Transportation, 2018). New York reports that approximately five projects within the last 5 years triggered this type of analysis for ozone precursors. Other Issues The survey included questions on a number of topics that most DOTs do not address in their project-level air quality analysis procedures. 1. Indirect and cumulative effects – Fourteen DOTs (27%) responded to this question, with eight (57% of the respondents to this question) indicating they are not considered and six assuming the effects are included in the traffic analysis (such as the travel demand model used). No state identified a specific methodology to address this issue in its procedures or practices. 2. Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) – This question queried the DOTs on methods to assure the modeling inputs and outputs and consultant work products were technically sound. Twenty DOTs (39%) responded to this question with eight (40% of respondents to this ques- tion) indicating that this is not a consideration. The remaining responses included references to agency-wide procedures for vetting all consultant work, model inputs pre-approved by the state air quality agency or through the interagency consultation process, or review of air quality work by the DOT air quality staff. 3. Risk analysis – This question asked about risks associated with the air quality modeling and analysis and possible impacts on project budgeting and/or schedule. Nineteen DOTs (37%) responded to this question with 14 (74% of respondents to this question) indicating it is not a consideration. The remaining states generally assume worst-case for budgeting and schedule.

Survey of DOTs 19   Georgia, for example, scopes for worst-case, detailed analysis level of effort in order to avoid having to re-scope the project efforts, requiring additional procurement time. This does not directly mean that this level of analysis is required or expected, but the scope is covered in the case that it does occur. 4. Rollback – A rollback adjustment accounts for reductions in assumed future background concentrations to account for future improvements in vehicle emission control technology. No DOT reports using a rollback adjustment for future background calculations. Modeling As expected, MOVES is used to generate emission estimates in all states that answered the emission-modeling question, except for California, where EMFAC is used. Minnesota reports using a Minnesota version for FHWA’s Infrastructure Carbon Estimator (ICE) model for construc- tion emissions. For dispersion modeling (see Figure 3), the model used depends on the pollutant. Commonly, for CO project-level hot-spot analysis, CAL3QHC or a refined version (CAL3QHC/R) is used. Colorado reports also using CALINE3. Analyses for a PM hot-spot analysis of either species will have used AERMOD. Two states responded in the other category, explaining their distinc- tion between CO and PM hot-spot modeling and application of a dispersion model. Litigation Only one state (North Carolina) reported litigation related to air quality on a project. The project’s NEPA environmental impact statement (EIS) was challenged on a number of environmental issues, including GHGs. In the settlement, North Carolina agreed to “take steps to reduce green- house gas emissions from construction equipment, conduct greenhouse gas analyses as part of major project studies in North Carolina, and focus on strategies and tools to reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicular emissions across the state” (North Carolina Department of Transporta- tion, 2019). Nevada reports that, although not involved in litigation recently, it is “hyper-vigilant” Figure 3. Dispersion models used. The lack of a bar for CALINE4 indicates that option was not selected by any of the state DOT responders.

20 Practices for Project-Level Analyses for Air Quality on air quality and environmental issues, including assuring that projects are properly listed on the TIP for transportation conformity analyses, and keeping track of the latest developments regarding MSATs. Nevada and FHWA were previously sued with regard to MSATs on one of its projects. Documentation When a quantitative air quality analysis is performed for a project, the common approach is for the analysis process and results to be documented in a technical report with a summary of the effort included in the environmental document (11 states, or 58% of DOTs responding to this question). Arizona reports that all non-environmental-assessment (EA)/EIS conformity analyses are posted online for public review. Road Dust and Construction Emissions Only four of the 14 DOTs responding to this question (29%) account for road dust for PM analyses in their air quality analysis procedures. U.S. EPA’s AP-42 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, “AP-42: Compilation of Air Emissions Factors”) is typically the document used to determine this emission source. Only five of the 15 DOTs responding to this question (33%) address project construction emissions as part of their project-level air quality analysis procedures, mostly in a qualitative fashion. Three states address construction emissions quantitatively: New York uses FHWA’s ICE model for EIS projects or for projects that have substantial controversy regarding construction emissions, Washington generates construction emission estimates with ICE for its project-level GHG analyses, and Minnesota uses a Minnesota-specific version of ICE. Mitigation Most (11 DOTs, or 58%) of the DOTs responding to this question (19) do not discuss air quality mitigation in their project-level air quality analysis procedures. Of the remaining states, some reference mitigation during construction, with measures such as dust control, construction vehicle staging, or engine idling. These kinds of measures, to varying degrees, are likely found in project construction specifications for most projects for most DOTs and described in NEPA final environmental documents, even though many respondents did not indicate that in their response to this question. Some DOTs include discussion of mitigation measures for MSATs in their guidance that are similar to the discussion of mitigation measures found in Appendix E— MSAT Mitigation Strategies—of FHWA’s “Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents”. In its air quality guidance, Virginia DOT does include an extensive list of mitigation measures for CO and PM2.5 (Environmental Division, Virginia Department of Transportation, 2018; see Appen dix K-2). Some measures listed include signal timing and coordination improvements, turning lanes, travel demand management strategies, engine retrofits, idling reduction programs, and project design changes. Mitigation strategies from other modes (marine sources, locomotives, or stationary sources) that could affect the project air quality analysis outcome are described as well. No state DOT reports that it has had to apply mitigation measures to a project as a result of the project-level air quality analysis. Use of Consultants Twenty DOTs responded to the questions related to the use of consultants (a 39% response rate). No DOT reports that all of their project-level air quality analyses are done in house by DOT air quality staff. Typically, the analysis work is split between air quality staff and consultants, with the

Survey of DOTs 21   consultants doing the majority of the analyses. The percentage done by consultants varies widely among the DOTs, ranging from 99% to 30%. The most common model is that air quality staff will determine a need for modeling and/or perform the screening analysis, and consultants will perform the modeling (MOVES and dispersion model). Only Arizona reports that the majority of project-level air quality analyses are done in house (70% in house, 30% consultant work). There are different examples of how consultants are selected for an air quality analysis. In some of the larger, more decentralized DOTs, the semi-autonomous regions (or districts) select the consultants to perform the analysis with review and/or approval by central office air quality staff. In other cases, the firm doing the design work or NEPA preparation for the transportation project selects a sub-consultant to perform the project-level air quality analysis. Finally, a small number of states have on-call (also called stand-by) consultants selected to perform general NEPA work (including air quality analyses) or that specialize in air quality. The level of effort for a consultant’s air quality analysis is typically based on the project’s scale and scope. Four states (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio) have established estimates of level of effort for different types of air quality analyses or aspects of an air quality analysis. One of these states (North Carolina) has an estimate for level of effort for a qualitative analysis and determines level of effort for a quantitative analysis based on the project’s circumstances. Greenhouse Gas Analysis Eighteen DOTs responded to the question on performing GHG analyses for transportation projects (see Figure 4). Of these, seven (39% of DOTs responding to this question) report that GHGs are not considered as part of the project’s impact analysis. Some DOTs report that they have recently revised their guidance to include GHG analysis for projects or are considering requiring more projects to undergo a quantitative project analysis. Most of the 11 DOTs that do address GHGs at the project level discuss GHG emission in a qualitative analysis, to varying degrees of depth, generally based on the size and scale of the project. Some states do have provisions for a quantitative GHG analysis. Arizona and Washington include GHGs when they perform a MSAT analysis since it is simple to include GHGs in a MOVES run. Colorado, Minnesota, New York and Oregon perform quantitative GHG analyses at the project level depending on the project’s scale, scope, or degree of public controversy or scrutiny. Texas has qualitative discussions for EIS projects that refer to a quantitative statewide transportation GHG inventory. When completing a quantitative project-level GHG analysis, four states report that they include construction and maintenance GHG emissions in their analysis, while three states indicate they include neither. Yes_____, please describe the circumstances for the analysis [e.g. size and scale of the project, environmental classification (EA, EIS), etc.] No. Figure 4. GHG analysis.

22 Practices for Project-Level Analyses for Air Quality Air Quality Analysis Procedures Of the 40 DOTs responding to the survey, 23 (57.5%) report that they do not have written air quality analysis procedures for their area. Of these DOTs, 19 report that they would generally rely on guidance if they had to perform an air quality analysis. One state reported that it would rely on state air quality agency guidance. Five states reported that they would use a combination of federal guidance with state guidance or policy to modify the federal guidance to meet their state’s need. Of the DOTs that do not have written air quality analysis procedures, 14 report that they have not had to perform a project-level air quality analysis in the last 5 years. Of the DOTs that do have written air quality analysis procedures, there is a wide variety in the procedures, in terms of pollutants addressed, documentation of results, topics included within the guidance, degree of specificity, meteorological data usage, or other parameters of a project-level analysis. See Appendix C for links to the air quality analysis procedures that were provided by the DOTs (Note: Nevada and Wisconsin indicated their procedures were being revised but included a link to the current procedures). CO and MSATs are the most common pollutants (see Figure 5) included in the air quality analysis procedures (17 DOTs), followed by PM2.5 (16 DOTs). The other pollutants have varying levels of consideration, with only one state addressing NO2 (Illinois). Only one state (New York) reported that its procedures were primarily quantitative; six states reported that their procedures were primarily qualitative. The rest (12 DOTs) have a mixture of qualitative and quantita- tive aspects to their procedures, typically following FHWA’s guidance on MSATs for determining the qualitative/quantitative nature of the analysis. The type of environmental document (CE, EA, or EIS) is also a determinant for a quantitative or qualitative analysis, with the highest level of docu- mentation (EIS) more frequently resulting in a quantitative analysis. However, most DOTs report that they expect most projects not to require any air quality analysis (quantitative or qualitative), using a short, often boilerplate statement explaining that an air quality analysis is not necessary for the project. Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter and smaller (PM2.5) Ozone and ozone precursors [O3(VOCs/NOx)] Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter and smaller (PM10) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Greenhouse Gasses (GHGs) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) Figure 5. Pollutants addressed in state DOT written air quality procedures.

Survey of DOTs 23   Based on their procedures, the DOTs that responded to this question (15) estimate that within the last 5 years, they have done the following amount of project-level air quality analyses. See Table 1. The “total” number in Table 1 is the total number of analyses for the specified pollutants for all respondents to the question, while the “range” identifies the range of responses for the specified pollutant. The most frequent entry for each pollutant was 0 analyses. CO and MSATs are the most common pollutants analyzed, also exhibiting a wide range in the number of analyses performed. This wide range reflects a mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses, consistent with the guidance within their procedures. There is also a wide variety in the determination of when an air quality analysis is needed (see Figure 6). These triggers for analysis depend upon the pollutant being analyzed and apply to both hot-spot analyses and non-concentration analyses (MSATs and GHGs). For MSATs and PM hot-spot analyses, the triggers follow the applicable federal guidance (for example, traffic volumes for MSATs and percentage of trucks for PM hot-spot analyses). As described above, the most common trigger for a GHG analysis is the type of environmental document (EIS versus EA or CE). The most variety for project-level analysis is for hot-spot analyses for CO, typically involving intersections. Triggers for these analyses include (separately or in combination) new signalized intersections, decreases in level of service, adding capacity, or decreasing the roadway-receptor distance. There is a sense among the DOT air quality practitioners that project-level analyses will decline with time, especially if considering an analysis only to meet NEPA needs. They recognize CO PM10 PM2.5 NO2 MSAT GHG Total 196 17 13 0 118 32 Range 0 - 100 0 - 10 0 - 5 0 0 - 50 0 - 10 Table 1. Number of project-level air quality analyses by pollutant. Significant change in speeds Level of trucks Other (please specify) Type of project (capacity) % increase in traffic on affected facilities Figure 6. Triggers for project-level air quality analysis.

24 Practices for Project-Level Analyses for Air Quality the possibility that such a need could conceivably arise but are not expecting to have to do one. One state (Wisconsin) reported that, through their interagency consultation process, it has been agreed that project-level CO analyses are no longer needed. Streamlining Tools One question in the survey asked the DOTs if they have any streamlining tools available to assist in project-level analyses. Streamlining tools can be such items as programmatic agreements, pre- vetted model inputs, template tools, pre-approved documentation, or other inter-agency agree- ment. Three DOTs reported that they had none while the rest (11 of the 14 DOTs responding to this question, or 79%) reported that they, indeed, had some streamlining tools available. The tools chosen by the states include a wide range of items and practices. Georgia and Virginia have formal programmatic agreements that govern the air quality process, modeling, and reporting in place with their state air quality agency and the FHWA Division Office. Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and Washington have agreements with the state air quality agency regarding the use of an inter- section screening tool or method to determine the need for an analysis. Some states (New York, Oregon, and Texas) rely upon pre-approved inputs for MOVES and/or worst-case meteorological inputs. Other states (North Carolina and Texas) have pre-approved language for inclusion into an air quality report or environmental document. Arizona has CE/NEPA assignment that allows for a process using specific forms for projects only in nonattainment areas and limits analysis only to conformity. Meteorological and Background Data Meteorological inputs (see Figure 7) and background concentrations are required for hot-spot analyses. For CO analyses, eight DOTs (of 13 DOTs responding to this question) use worst-case meteorological assumptions, at least for screening applications. This approach is typically agreed to between the DOT and the air quality agency. For PM species hot-spot analyses and for CO analyses that go beyond the screening stage, air quality agencies provide meteorological data sets to be used for refined modeling (AERMOD or CAL3QHC/R), as indicated by eight states. One DOT (the District of Columbia) reports that they receive meteorological data from the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) that receives it from the air quality agency. CAL3QHC/CAL3QHCR compatible data Worst case AERMOD compatible data processed by AERMET Met data sets provided by the state air agency Raw data processed for the project analysis Figure 7. Source of meteorological data.

Survey of DOTs 25   With regard to background data, most DOTs (nine DOTs of the 15 responding to this question, or 60%) obtain background data from the air quality agency, using the nearest air quality agency monitoring site, typically using the average of the previous 3 years of data. Two state DOTs (Oregon and Washington) report that they are not able to obtain CO background data and, to be conserva- tive, assume high background concentrations. Three DOTs (the District of Columbia, Illinois, and Ohio) report also receiving background data from MPOs in those areas where the MPOs are heavily involved in the state implementation plan (SIP) planning for their nonattainment or maintenance area. Two DOTs (the District of Columbia and Minnesota) report that their procedures allow for on-site project-level air quality monitoring. Since DC has passed the end of the maintenance plan for CO, they do not expect this option to be necessary anymore. Minnesota reports that on-site monitoring is rare and would only occur if one of the top 10 intersections in a project area were negatively impacted by a project. Transportation Conformity The presence of a nonattainment or maintenance area within a state or district is perhaps the largest determinant of a DOT’s involvement in transportation air quality issues, the DOT’s development of an air quality analysis process at the project level, and the overall experience and preparedness to deal with air quality matters. See Appendix D for a table of pollutants with a notation of whether the state or district has a nonattainment and maintenance area, and, therefore, whether transportation conformity applies, as of the preparation of this report [Note: some states, and the District of Columbia, have both nonattainment and maintenance areas. This is indicated in Appendix D. The appendix does not distinguish between nonattainment and maintenance area types (e.g., limited maintenance plan or isolated rural ozone nonattainment area)]. Of the 40 respondents to the survey, six DOTs (15%) reported that they did not have a non- attainment or maintenance area in their state. None of the six reported having written project-level analysis procedures. Of the states with nonattainment or maintenance areas, 50% of the DOTs report that they do not have written air quality analysis procedures. Only one of the six has had to do a project-level air quality analysis (an MSAT analysis). Five of the states reported some familiarity with existing federal project-level air quality guidance. None of the six states reported familiarity with all or most of the federal guidance. On the question offering an opportunity to make comments or suggestions related to the guidance documents, only one DOT of the six made a suggestion, which was for more EPA or state air quality agency training. Having nonattainment or maintenance areas within offers the DOT an opportunity to play a role in the interagency consultation process. A question in the survey asked the DOTs to self- describe their role in the process (see Figure 8). One state (North Carolina) reported that they are not active in the interagency process. Fourteen DOTs (of the 23 responding to this question, or 61%) reported that they were active while five other states (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Ohio) reported they are the lead for the interagency consultation process in their state (as chair, secretary, or other designation for lead agency). The DOTs generally view their role in the consultation process positively. As active members or as the lead agency, they can better manage their program and projects through the process to assure an outcome that satis- fies the appropriate regulatory requirements. In addition, in states where there is more than one nonattainment or maintenance area, the DOT leadership offers the ability to standardize the conformity process in the state and make the review and approval of conformity deter- minations across the state more efficient and routine. The recent court case regarding “orphan” nonattainment and maintenance areas and the revocation of the 1997 ozone standard [United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. District v. EPA (“South Coast II,” 882 F.3d 1138)] has complicated the conformity situation for some DOTs. Virginia is helping out some of their smaller MPOs that are affected by the ruling,

26 Practices for Project-Level Analyses for Air Quality but which had not been doing conformity for some years. In general, the DOTs are viewed as the “go-to” agency for transportation issues outside the typical conformity situation (e.g., TIP or plan conformity determination). They become the lead agency for such conformity matters as the “orphan” areas or isolated rural ozone nonattainment areas, for example. Paragraph 390 of Subpart T of Part 51 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which implements the transportation conformity section (Section 176c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, requires the states to adopt a SIP and implement regulations for transportation conformity in their nonattainment and maintenance areas that are at least as stringent as the federal regulation. Twenty-two states (of the 33 DOTs responding to this question, or two-thirds) reported that their state does not have a state-specific conformity regulation. Based on this finding, it should not be construed that the requirements of the federal transportation conformity regulation, including interagency consultation, are not being followed in these states. Some of the remaining states’ regulations (e.g., Colorado’s and Wisconsin’s) are highly detailed and thorough and are typically referenced or incorporated into the state DOT’s written air quality analysis procedures. They cover all aspects of the interagency consultation process, including membership, public participation, meeting frequency, and the roles of various agencies under different conformity scenarios (e.g., isolated rural nonattainment areas). One state (Minnesota) reports that its transportation conformity guidance goes beyond federal and state requirements, having a lower threshold for CO analysis. Some DOTs also report that there may be a lag between when the U.S. EPA revises the federal regulations and when the state air quality agency revises its state version. Limitations of the Survey There are potential sources of error or incompleteness in the survey findings. DOT air quality staff have varying levels of knowledge, longevity, and experience in their jobs, which may influ- ence their ability to fully answer questions that relate to events and circumstances that may have occurred within the last 5 years (the time frame for some of the questions in the survey) or before Other (please specify) There is no active Interagency Consultation Process in the nonattainment/maintenance area(s) The Department is not an active member in the Interagency Consultation Process The Department is a member and is active in the Interagency Consultation Process The Department is the lead (e.g., Chair, Secretary, etc.) for the Interagency Consultation Process Figure 8. State DOT role in the interagency consultation process. The lack of a bar for the first legend indicates that option was not selected by any of the state DOT responders.

Survey of DOTs 27   they were on staff. Also, there may be incomplete knowledge on some issues. This is particularly possible in those states where regional air quality issues, such as transportation conformity, are handled in different organizational units than those handling NEPA or project-level issues. Based on follow-up telephone calls and e-mails, it appears that the necessary coordination within relevant functional areas within the DOT occurred. Yet, some error or incompleteness due to this internal organization arrangement may have occurred. The responders to the survey were, typically, main office (or central office) staff. Yet in some of the larger DOTs, the actual project-level air quality analysis occurs at the regional (or district) level, based on guidance and policy set by the main office. The relationship is not a supervisory one, so information to respond to some of the survey questions was not available to the main office staff and the responses were based on a voluntary response from the regional staff at the request of the main office staff. Some requests for regional information in some DOTs were more directly requested than in other DOTs. Observations and findings from the survey are not necessarily generalizable to all DOTs, and the requirements and situations of one DOT may not necessarily apply to others.