National Academies Press: OpenBook

Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes (2003)

Chapter: Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies

« Previous: Appendix B: State Environmental Laws, Regulations and Policies
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Results from Statewide, Metropolitan, and Environmental Resource Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22058.
×
Page 77

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.

C-1 APPENDIX C: RESULTS FROM STATEWIDE, METROPOLITAN, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE AGENCIES Statewide Survey The statewide survey was sent out to 50 members – one from each U.S. state and the District of Columbia – of the American Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). A total of 42 responses were received – an 82% response rate. Legislation/Regulations The responses indicate that seventy-one percent (71%) of state DOTs are aware of legislation and/or regulations that require the consideration of environmental factors in the development of the statewide transportation plan, while only eighteen percent (18%) indicated that they are unaware of any rules that require the consideration of environmental factors. Importance of Environmental Factors in Planning In the update of the most recent statewide transportation plans, fourteen percent (14%) of state DOTs indicated that environmental factors were a very important consideration (see Table C.1). The majority (25%) of respondents indicated that environmental factors were somewhat important. As indicated by Table C.1 and Figure C-1, the state DOTs indicated that, overall, 10 years in the future, environmental factors will have more importance in the update of the statewide transportation plan. Twenty- one percent (21%) of respondents indicated that environmental factors will be very important 10 years from now. Again, the majority of state DOTs indicated that environmental factors will be somewhat important in the update of their statewide transportation plan 10 years in the future. Overall, air quality was ranked the most important environmental factor for consideration in transportation planning by the respondents to the statewide survey. Air quality was considered the most important factor in the update of the most recent statewide plan, as well as for the development of the statewide plan 10 years in the future (see Figure C-1). Socioeconomic and land use considerations were identified as the environmental factors that should have been the next most important in the most recent update of the statewide transportation plan. Land use was identified as the next most important environmental factor for the development of the statewide transportation plan 10 years in the future, followed by socioeconomic considerations. Other environmental factors considered in the transportation planning process identified by the state DOTs were national forests, smart growth, congestion mitigation, and economic development. Methods/Tools for Considering Environmental Factors in Transportation Planning State DOTs identified data trend analysis as the most frequently used method or tool for considering environmental factors in statewide planning. Sixty-six percent (66%) of respondents use data trend analysis. The least frequently used tools are ecosystem models (2%). Overall, ninety-one percent (84%) of the respondents indicated that they are aware of at least one method/tool that has been used when environmental factors

C-2 have been considered in the statewide planning process. Figure C-2 summarizes the percentages of respondents using various methods and tools for considering environmental factors in the planning process. Current Status of Environmental Data The majority (53%) of state DOTs believe that only some of the supporting environmental data currently exists for planning purposes. Table C.2 summarizes the overall status of environmental data for planning purposes according to the state DOTs. Of the environmental factors, the state DOTs indicated that the most data exists for air quality analyses. Historic properties and land use data followed air quality data in availability. Data required to analyze aesthetics was the least available according to the state DOTs. Figure C-3 summarizes the current status of supporting environmental data by factor according to the respondents to the statewide survey. Data Sources The statewide survey respondents indicated that the majority of environmental impact data (38%) for use in the transportation planning process comes from outside the state transportation agency. Other sources of data included “historical data from our agency”, “historical data from another agency”, and “new data collection”. A summary of overall data sources can be found in Table C.3. Environmental justice and hazardous wastes have the highest percentages of data already in existence, with 95.8% and 95.3% of data, respectively, as historical data or data from another group. Most historical data from within the state DOTs is for socioeconomic considerations (37%) followed by air quality (29%) and environmental justice (29%). Wetlands historic data (47%), followed by historic data on environmental justice and hazardous wastes (both 43%) is most often acquired from agency outside the state DOT. The most pressing need for new data is the areas of socioeconomic considerations and water quality. It should be noted that even though the most in-house data exists for socioeconomic considerations and air quality, approximately twenty-eight percent (28%) of socioeconomic data and twenty-six percent (26%) of water quality data must come from new data collection. Sources of data for specific environmental factors can be found in Figure C-4. Performance Measures Twenty-five percent (25%) of state DOTs responded that they do not use performance measures to monitor the performance of the transportation system or of their own progress toward achieving program goals. Thirty-four percent (34%) indicated that they do use performance measures, however they do not include environmental factors in the measures. Forty-one percent (41%) of the respondents indicated that they do include environmental factors in their performance measures. Interaction with Groups During the Planning Process The respondents were asked to indicate the level of interaction that occurs between their agency and the following individuals/groups on environmental issues during the planning process: • Federal environmental resource agency • Federal transportation agency

C-3 • Governor’s office • State environmental resource agency • Other state agencies • Environmental advocacy groups: National office • Environmental advocacy groups: State/Local office • MPOs • Public interest groups (other than environmental) Seventy-four percent (74%) of state DOT’s indicated that they interact with these individuals/groups often during the planning process. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the state DOTs indicated that they only interact with these groups during times of public concern, seventeen percent (17%) indicated that they interact frequently with these groups, and 10 percent (10%) indicated that they never interact with the previously mentioned groups/individuals on environmental issues during the planning process. Among the various individuals and groups, state transportation agencies interact most frequently with MPOs. Local and national offices of environmental advocacy groups receive the least interaction with state transportation agencies. Figure C-5 summarizes the levels of interaction with the various individuals and groups. Obstacles in the Planning Process The state DOTs were asked to identify the major obstacles they have experienced in incorporating environmental concerns into statewide transportation planning. The major obstacles they were given to choose from included: • Competing priorities that distract from environmental issues • No regulations requiring the consideration of environmental factors • Lack of data for considering environmental factors • Lack of appropriate analysis tools for considering environmental factors On average, the respondents identified that 1.6 major obstacles were faced by agencies in incorporating environmental consideration into transportation planning. Of these obstacles, competing priorities seems to be the biggest obstacle to incorporating environmental considerations in the transportation planning process, with sixty-one percent (61%) of the respondents indicating that it was a major obstacle. Fifty-three percent (53%) of the respondents indicated that lack of appropriate analysis tools was a major obstacle, thirty-nine percent (39%) indicated that lack of data was a major obstacle, and seven percent (7%) of respondents indicated that no regulations was a major obstacle in considering environmental factors in transportation planning. These statistics are summarized in Figure C-6. Other obstacles identified by the statewide survey respondents include: • The statewide plan is a policy plan – environmental data is limited and difficult to incorporate at the policy level • Lack of agreement on which environmental factors to include in the plan

C-4 Incorporating Environmental Factors Earlier in Project Development Eighty-four percent (84%) of the respondents to the statewide survey indicated that they have taken action to promote the consideration of environmental factors earlier in the project development process of implementing agencies, while only three percent (3%) indicated that they have not taken action to incorporate environmental factors earlier in project development. If environmental factors were considered earlier in the project development process, respondents were asked to choose from a list of actions that they may have taken. These actions included: • Defined purpose and need earlier in the planning process • Developed software programs to better manage environmental analyses • Entered into agreements with environmental resource agencies • Paid for environmental resource agency staff to work with my agency • Hired new DOT staff targeted at environmental impact assessment • Implemented changes to the organization of my agency to better handle environmental issues • Developed new standard operating procedure that require earlier consideration • Implemented a fatal flaw assessment that identifies environmental problems early on • Used environmental experts to identify environmentally sensitive areas • Adopted the approach of developing a EIS/EA as part of earlier studies Eighty-nine percent (89%) of respondents who do consider environmental factors earlier in the project development process have defined the purpose and need earlier in the planning process. Seventy-two percent (72%) have entered into agreements with environmental resource agencies earlier. Only nineteen percent (19%) of the respondents have developed software programs to better manage environmental analyses. Figure C-7 shows the percentage of respondents (who have taken action to promote the consideration of environmental factors earlier) taking each action. Benefits of Incorporating Environmental Factors Earlier in Project Development The respondents were asked to choose the one most important reason for incorporating environmental factors earlier in project development, as well as the other important reasons. The following is the list of reasons provided for incorporating environmental factors earlier: • Shortens time to project implementation • Reduces amount of resourced needed for project • Engages environmental resource agencies earlier • Reduces level of potential public controversy • Results in better decisions

C-5 • Helps develop a constituency for a project • Improves our agency image • Links planning better with project development • We do not consider early consideration of environmental factors to be important When asked which one reason they thought was the most important reason for incorporation environmental factors earlier in project development, thirty-nine percent (39%) of the respondents chose “results in better decisions”. The other reasons thought to be most important include shortening time to project implementation (25% of respondents), reducing level of public concern (7%), engaging environmental resource agencies earlier (3%) and linking planning better with project development (7% of respondents). Of reasons thought to be important, the majority of respondents (72%) indicated engaging the environmental resource agencies earlier was an important benefit to be gained from incorporating environmental factors earlier in project development. In addition, reducing public concern (68%), and improving agency image (70%) and linking planning better with project development (76%) were considered important benefits of incorporating environmental factors earlier in project development. Reducing the amount of resources needed for a project and helping develop a constituency for a project were the least important of the benefits, however fifty-nine percent (59%) of the respondents still indicated that they are important reasons for considering environmental factors earlier. Figure C-8 summarizes the percentage of respondents choosing each reason as important. Examples of Where Considering Environmental Factors Earlier Resulted in Benefits Forty-eight percent (48%) of the respondents to the statewide survey could identify examples from their agency of where considering environmental factors earlier in project development resulted in benefits. Metropolitan Survey The metropolitan survey was sent out to 340 members of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. A total of 45 responses were received – a 13.2% response rate. Legislation/Regulations The responses indicate that sixty-seven percent (67%) of MPOs are aware of legislation and/or regulations that require the consideration of environmental factors in the development of the metropolitan transportation plan, while only twenty-two percent (22%) indicated that they are unaware of any rules that require the consideration of environmental factors. Importance of Environmental Factors in Metropolitan Transportation Planning In the update of the most recent metropolitan transportation plans, the majority, twenty-four percent (24%), of MPOs indicated that the importance of environmental factors lied between a very important and a somewhat important consideration (see Table C.4). Eleven percent (11%) indicated that environmental factors were a very important consideration in the development of the most recent metropolitan transportation plan. As indicated by Table C.4 and Figure C-9, the MPOs indicated that,

C-6 overall, 10 years in the future, environmental factors will have more importance in the update of the metropolitan transportation plan. Twenty-five (25%) of respondents indicated that environmental factors will be very important 10 years from now. The majority of MPOs indicated that the importance of environmental factors will lie somewhere between somewhat important and very important in the update of their metropolitan transportation plan 10 years in the future. Overall, land use was ranked the most important environmental factor for consideration in transportation planning by the respondents to the metropolitan survey. Land use was considered the most important factor in the update of the most recent metropolitan plan, as well as for the development of the metropolitan plan 10 years in the future (see Figure C-9). Air quality, socioeconomic considerations, and environmental justice considerations were identified as the environmental factors that should have been the next most important in the most recent update of the metropolitan transportation plan. Air quality and environmental justice considerations were again identified as the most important environmental factors next to land use for the development of the metropolitan transportation plan 10 years in the future. Other environmental factors considered in the transportation planning process identified by the MPOs were trails, economic development, solid waste impacts, and stream flow hydrology. Methods/Tools for Considering Environmental Factors in Transportation Planning The MPOs identified data geographic information systems (GIS) as the most frequently used method or tool for considering environmental factors in metropolitan planning. Seventy-one percent (71%) of respondents use GIS. The least frequently used tools are ecosystem models. Only six percent (6%) of the respondents identified using this tool. Overall, ninety-six percent (96%) of the respondents indicated that they are aware of at least one method/tool that has been used when environmental factors have been considered in the metropolitan planning process. Figure C-10 summarizes the percentages of respondents using various methods and tools for considering environmental factors in the planning process. Current Status of Environmental Data The majority (51%) of MPOs believe that only some of the supporting environmental data currently exists for planning purposes. Table C.5 summarizes the overall status of environmental data for planning purposes according to the MPOs. Of the environmental factors, the MPOs indicated that the most data exists for land use analyses. Socioeconomic considerations and air quality followed land use. The least amount of data exists for analyses of aesthetics and biological considerations according to the MPOs. Figure C-11 summarizes the current status of supporting environmental data by factor according to the respondents to the metropolitan survey. Data Sources The metropolitan survey respondents indicated that the majority of environmental impact data (41.5%) for use in the transportation planning process comes from another group. Other sources of data included “historical data from our agency”, “historical data from another agency”, and “new data collection”. A summary of overall data sources can be found in Table C.6.

C-7 The metropolitan survey respondents indicated that one hundred percent (100%) of the environmental data for climate, water quality, biological, historic properties, and community cohesion considerations is in existence as historical data or data from another group. The most historical data from within the MPOs exists for noise and energy consumption (30%). The most historical data acquired from another agency is community cohesion data (52%), followed by data on climate and environmental justice (50%). The most new data collection is needed for air quality (29% of data) and cultural considerations (23% of data). Sources of data for specific environmental factors can be found in Figure C-12. Performance Measures Forty-three percent (43%) of MPOs responded that they do not use performance measures to monitor the performance of the transportation system or of their own progress toward achieving program goals. Twenty-one percent (21%) indicated that they do use performance measures, however they do not include environmental factors in the measures. Thirty-six percent (36%) of the respondents indicated that they do include environmental factors in their performance measures. Interaction with Groups During the Planning Process The respondents were asked to indicate the level of interaction that occurs between their agency and the following individuals/groups on environmental issues during the planning process: • Federal environmental resource agency • Federal transportation agency • Governor’s office • State environmental resource agency • Other state agencies • Environmental advocacy groups: National office • Environmental advocacy groups: State/Local office • MPOs • Public interest groups (other than environmental) Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the respondents to the metropolitan survey indicated that they interact with these individuals/groups only during times of public concern. Twenty-seven percent of MPOs indicated that they interact often with the aforementioned groups, twenty-four percent (24%) indicated that they interact frequently with these groups, and fifteen percent (15%) indicated that they never interact with the previously mentioned groups/individuals on environmental issues during the planning process. Of the various individuals and groups, the federal transportation agency is interacted with most frequently during the planning process. The state, local and national offices of environmental advocacy groups are interacted with least frequently during the planning process. Figure C-13 summarizes the levels of interaction with the various individuals and groups.

C-8 Obstacles in the Planning Process The MPOs were asked to identify the major obstacles they have experienced in incorporating environmental concerns into statewide transportation planning. The major obstacles they were given to choose from included: • Competing priorities that distract from environmental issues • No regulations requiring the consideration of environmental factors • Lack of data for considering environmental factors • Lack of appropriate analysis tools for considering environmental factors On average, the respondents identified two major obstacles that were faced by agencies in incorporating environmental consideration into metropolitan transportation planning. Of these obstacles, competing priorities seems to be the biggest obstacle to incorporating environmental considerations in the transportation planning process, with sixty-four percent (6476%) of the respondents indicating that it was a major obstacle. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the respondents indicated that lack of appropriate analysis tools was a major obstacle, forty-seven percent (47%) indicated that lack of data was a major obstacle, and twenty seven percent (27%) of respondents indicated that no regulations was a major obstacle in considering environmental factors in transportation planning. These statistics are summarized in Figure C-14. Other obstacles identified by the MPOs include: • Lack of analysis of transportation’s impact on land use • Lack of staff time and resources • Determining regional long range implications versus project specific implications • Determining environmental impacts (positive/negative/no impact) at the planning level is difficult • Early planning may precede environmental analyses Incorporating Environmental Factors Earlier in Project Development Sixty-two percent (62%) of the respondents to the metropolitan survey indicated that they have taken action to promote the consideration of environmental factors earlier in the project development process of implementing agencies, and thirty-one percent (31%) indicated that they have not taken action to incorporate environmental factor earlier in project development. If environmental factors were considered earlier in the project development process, respondents were asked to choose from a list of actions that they may have taken. These actions included: • Defined purpose and need earlier in the planning process • Developed software programs to better manage environmental analyses • Entered into agreements with environmental resource agencies • Paid for environmental resource agency staff to work with my agency • Hired new DOT staff targeted at environmental impact assessment

C-9 • Implemented changes to the organization of my agency to better handle environmental issues • Developed new standard operating procedure that require earlier consideration • Implemented a fatal flaw assessment that identifies environmental problems early on • Used environmental experts to identify environmentally sensitive areas • Adopted the approach of developing a EIS/EA as part of earlier studies Sixty-eight percent (68%) of respondents who do consider environmental factors earlier in the project development process have defined the purpose and need earlier in the planning process. Forty-three percent (43%) have used environmental experts to identify environmentally sensitive areas. Figure C-15 shows the percentage of respondents (who have taken action to promote the consideration of environmental factors earlier) taking each action. Benefits of Incorporating Environmental Factors Earlier in Project Development The respondents were asked to choose the one most important reason for incorporating environmental factors earlier in project development, as well as the other important reasons. The following is the list of reasons provided for incorporating environmental factors earlier: • Shortens time to project implementation • Reduces amount of resourced needed for project • Engages environmental resource agencies earlier • Reduces level of potential public controversy • Results in better decisions • Helps develop a constituency for a project • Improves our agency image • Links planning better with project development When asked which one reason they thought was the most important reason for incorporation environmental factors earlier in project development, thirty-six percent (36%) of the respondents chose “shortens time to project implementation” and “results in better decisions”. Of reasons thought to be important, the majority of respondents (69%) indicated that incorporating environmental factors earlier in project development results in better decisions. Sixty-seven percent (67%) indicated that incorporating environmental factors earlier in project development links planning better with project development. Improving agency image was the least important of the benefits, however forty-four percent (44%) of the respondents still indicated that improving agency image is an important reason for considering environmental factors earlier. Figure C-16 summarizes the percentage of respondents choosing each reason as important.

C-10 Examples of Where Considering Environmental Factors Earlier Resulted in Benefits Only twenty-two percent (22%) of the respondents to the metropolitan survey could identify examples from their agency of where considering environmental factors earlier in project development resulted in benefits. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the respondents indicated that they do not have examples of where considering environmental factors earlier in project development resulted in benefits. Support of Implementing Agencies Seventy-three percent of the metropolitan survey respondents believe that implementing agencies in their area would be supportive of addressing environmental concerns earlier in the project development process, while only nine percent (9%) of the respondents indicated that they did not think that implementing agencies in their area would be supportive. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE AGENCIES The environmental survey was sent out to 293 members of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAAPA), the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO), and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS). A total of 13 responses were received – a 4.4% response rate. Of these respondents, ninety-two percent (92%) indicated that they are aware of environmental factors being considered in the planning process. Legislation/Regulations The responses indicate that sixty-nine percent (69%) of environmental organizations are aware of legislation and/or regulations that require the consideration of environmental factors in the development of the statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, while only thirty-one percent (31%) are unaware of any rules that require the consideration of environmental factors. Importance of Environmental Factors in Planning In the update of the most recent statewide and metropolitan transportation plans, the majority of environmental organizations indicated that environmental factors should have been a very important consideration, with 35% and 34% of respondents ranking environmental considerations very important for the statewide and metropolitan plans respectively (see Table C.7). Again, the majority of respondents indicated that environmental considerations should be very important in the update of the statewide and metropolitan transportation plans 10 years from now. Forty percent (40%) of respondents indicated that environmental factors should be very important in the update of the statewide transportation plan 10 years in the future, and increase from the percent of respondents who believed environmental factors should have been very important in the most recent update of the statewide plan. However, only 32% of respondents indicated that environmental factors would be very important in the development of metropolitan plan 10 years from now, a slight decrease from percent of respondents who indicated that environmental factors should have been very important in the most recent update of the transportation plans.

C-11 Important Factors in the Development of Transportation Plans Overall, air quality was ranked the most important environmental factor for consideration in transportation planning by the respondents to the environmental survey. Air quality was considered the most important factor in the update of the most recent statewide plan, as well as for the development of the statewide plan 10 years in the future (see Figure C-17). Similarly, air quality was ranked the most important factor in the update of the most recent metropolitan plan and for the development of the metropolitan plan 10 years in the future (see Figure C-18). Erosion and water quality were identified as the environmental factors that should have been the next most important in the most recent update of the statewide transportation plan. Erosion and aquatic ecology were identified as the most important environmental factor next to air quality for the development of the statewide transportation plan 10 years in the future. Erosion, water quality, and storm water runoff were identified as the next most important environmental factors to air quality in the most recent update of the metropolitan transportation plan. Erosion and storm water runoff were again identified as the most important factors next to air quality for the update of the metropolitan transportation plan 10 years in the future. Another environmental factor considered in the transportation planning process identified by the environmental agencies was greenhouse gas emissions. Methods/Tools for Considering Environmental Factors in Transportation Planning Environmental organizations identified environmental impact specific models as the most frequently used method or tool for considering environmental factors in statewide/metropolitan planning. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of respondents use environmental impact specific models. The least frequently used tools are ecosystem models. None of the respondents identified using this tool. Overall, 92% of the respondents indicated that they are aware of at least one method/tool that has been used when environmental factors have been considered in the statewide/metropolitan planning process. Figure C-19 summarizes the percentages of respondents using various methods and tools for considering environmental factors in the planning process. Environmental Impact-Specific Models The following is a list of environmental impact-specific models that environmental agencies are aware of being used for planning: • MOBILE 5 • MOBILE 5B • MOBILE 6 • CAL3QHC • STAMINA • Traffic Noise Model • EMME Traffic Model • EPA Cumulative Exposure Assessment

C-12 • EPA Mobile model • Urban Air Shed Model • PART5 air quality model Current Status of Environmental Data The majority (57%) of environmental organizations believe that only some of the supporting environmental data currently exists for planning purposes. Table C.8 summarizes the overall status of environmental data for planning purposes. Of the environmental factors, the environmental organizations indicated that the most data exists for air quality analyses. Erosion and water quality followed air quality, however it should be noted that the environmental survey respondents still did not indicate there was a significant amount of data available for these two factors, or for the other factors. The least amount of data exists for analyses of community cohesion according to the environmental agencies. Figure C-20 summarizes the current status of supporting environmental data by factor according to the respondents to the environmental survey. Environmental Organization Roles The following is a list of roles that environmental agencies have played in the promotion of the consideration of environmental factors in the statewide and metropolitan transportation planning process: • We are a local air quality agency and are very active in the MPO process • We provide the air quality data • Our agency promotes an 'Environmental Ethic', which emphasizes that 'consideration of environmental factors' is not just a requirement, but an expectation that adds value to transportation decisions and actions. • A limited amount - we need to be more participative • We worked with the local planning agency, TMACOG, to stop construction of a new outer belt that would have promoted sprawl. • Riparian buffers and surface water quality - surveys Air quality - public information and outreach Storm water runoff/CSOs/SSOs and flood recovery - participation in cleanup and public information • We have provided expertise for air quality analysis. • Oregon DEQ worked to gain representation on MPO TAC and Policy committees to support environmental considerations in transportation decision-making. DEQ supported adoption of a strong Transportation Planning Rule. • We comment as an interested local county air pollution control district on transportation planning efforts and analytical efforts. • The Dept. of Ecology sits on various transportation committees relating to how resource agencies play a role in transportation planning and permitting. We participate in "Reinventing NEPA" through three pilot projects where we become involved at the NEPA planning stage.

C-13 • The Office of Air Resources has a consultative role along with the Department of Transportation, in designing the conformity analysis. • Participation in conformity process, participation in CMAQ project selection process • Support where possible and promote. • Review findings/demonstrations. Act as resource partner in environmental protection. • We regulate air and water quality. Our role is large relative to air quality in metropolitan transportation planning. Water quality role is only in erosion control. Interaction with Groups During the Planning Process The respondents were asked to indicate the level of interaction that occurs between their agency and the following individuals/groups on environmental issues during the planning process: • Federal environmental resource agency • Federal transportation agency • Governor’s office • State environmental resource agency • Other state agencies • Environmental advocacy groups: National office • Environmental advocacy groups: State/Local office • MPOs • Public interest groups (other than environmental) • State transportation agency The majority of environmental agencies (34%) indicated that they interact with these individuals/groups only when an environmental issue becomes a public concern. Thirty percent (30%) of environmental agencies indicated that they interact often during the planning process; ten percent (10%) indicated that they interact frequently, and eighteen percent (18%) indicated that they never interact with the previously mentioned groups/individuals on environmental issues during the planning process. Of the various individuals and groups, the state environmental resource agency is interacted with most frequently during the planning process. The governor’s office and state, local and national offices of environmental advocacy groups are interacted with least frequently during the planning process. Figure C-21 summarizes the levels of interaction with the various individuals and groups. Examples of Incorporating Environmental Considerations in the Planning Process The following is a list of examples of how agencies have incorporated environmental considerations into statewide and/or metropolitan transportation planning:

C-14 • The regional government (Metro) developed a 50-year plan for controlling growth in the Portland metropolitan area. The purpose of the plan (the "2040 Growth Concept") is to achieve simultaneous benefits in the areas of land use, quality of life, and environmental quality. • Ecology participated in the Merger Agreement process with various state and federal resource agencies, along with the state Dept. of Transportation. The agencies developed procedures relating to early project planning and permit review and resource agency involvement. • There is a Memorandum of Understanding among DOT, DEM and the Division of Planning detailing each agency's role in the planning process. • Efforts to meet minimum requirements only. • East-West Gateway Coordinating Council (St. Louis, MO) and Mid-America Regional Council (Kansas City, MO) address environmental justice in their Transportation Improvement Plans and their Long Range Transportation Plans. Obstacles in the Planning Process The environmental organizations were asked to identify which major obstacles they thought that agencies faced in incorporating environmental considerations into statewide and metropolitan transportation planning. The major obstacles they were given to choose from included: • Competing priorities that distract from environmental issues • No regulations requiring the consideration of environmental factors • Lack of data for considering environmental factors • Lack of appropriate analysis tools for considering environmental factors On average, the respondents identified that 1.6 major obstacles were faced by agencies in incorporating environmental consideration into transportation planning. Of these obstacles, competing priorities seems to be the biggest obstacle to incorporating environmental considerations in the transportation planning process, with eighty-five percent (85%) of the respondents indicated that it was a major obstacle. Twenty-three percent (23%) of respondents indicated that no regulations was a major obstacle, fifteen percent (15%) indicated that lack of data was a major obstacle, and thirty-eight percent (38%) of the respondents indicated that lack of appropriate analysis tools was a major obstacle in considering environmental factors in transportation planning. These statistics are summarized in Figure C-22. Other obstacles identified by the environmental organizations include: • Engaging the public in weighing environmental factors • Lack of interest/concern on the part of federal transportation agencies (state and federal) • Data too broad at state/federal levels – need local information Benefits of Incorporating Environmental Factors Earlier in Project Development The respondents were asked to choose the one most important reason for incorporating environmental factors earlier in project development, as well as the other

C-15 important reasons. The following is the list of reasons provided for incorporating environmental factors earlier: • Shortens time to project implementation • Reduces amount of resourced needed for project • Engages environmental resource agencies earlier • Reduces level of potential public controversy • Results in better decisions • Helps develop a constituency for a project • Improves our agency image • Links planning better with project development • We do not consider early consideration of environmental factors to be important When asked which one reason they thought was the most important reason for incorporation environmental factors earlier in project development, the majority, sixty-two percent (61.5%), of the respondents chose “results in better decisions”. The other reasons thought to be most important include shortening time to project implementation (7.7% of respondents), reducing resources (15.4% of respondents), engaging the environmental resource agencies earlier (7.7% of respondents) and linking planning better with project development (7.7% of respondents). Of reasons thought to be important, the majority of respondents (85%) indicated that linking planning better with project development was an important benefit to incorporating environmental factors earlier in project development. Engaging environmental resource agencies earlier and shortening time to project implementation were also considered to be important benefits. None of the respondents indicated that they did not consider early consideration of environmental factors to be important. Figure C-23 summarizes the percentage of respondents choosing each reason as important. Examples of Where Considering Environmental Factors Earlier Resulted in Benefits Only twenty-three percent (23%) of the respondents to the environmental survey could identify examples from their agency of where considering environmental factors earlier in project development resulted in benefits. Two of these projects included: • The Tacoma Narrows bridge project • The Metro-Atlanta TIP

C-16 Figure C-1: Importance of Environmental Factors in Statewide Transportation Planning (as Ranked by state DOTs)

C-17 Figure C-2: Percentage of Statewide Respondents Using Specific Methods/Tools for Considering Environmental Factors in the Planning Process

C-18 Figure C-3: Current Status of Environmental Data (According to State DOTs)

C-19 Figure C-4: Sources of Data when Environmental Factors are Considered in the Statewide Transportation Planning Process

C-20 Figure C-5: Level of Interaction with Various Individuals/Groups during the Planning Process (according to the Statewide Respondents)

C-21 Figure C-6: Major Obstacles Faced by State DOTs when Incorporating Environmental Considerations into Transportation Planning

C-22 Figure C-7: Actions to Promote the Consideration of Environmental Factors Earlier

C-23 Figure C-8: Reasons to Consider Environmental Factors Earlier in Project Development (according to the Statewide Respondents)

C-24 Figure C-9: Importance of Environmental Factors in Metropolitan Transportation Planning (as Ranked by MPOs)

C-25 Figure C-10: Percentage of Metropolitan Respondents Using Specific Methods/Tools for Considering Environmental Factors in the Planning Process

C-26 Figure C-11: Current Status of Environmental Data (according to MPOs)

C-27 Figure C-12: Sources of Data when Environmental Factors are Considered in the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process

C-28 Figure C-13: Level of Interaction with Various Individuals/Groups during the Planning Process (according to the Statewide Respondents)

C-29 Figure C-14: Major Obstacles Faced by MPOs when Incorporating Environmental Considerations into Transportation Planning

C-30 Figure C-15: Actions to Promote the Consideration of Environmental Factors Earlier (according to the Metropolitan Survey Respondents who indicated that they have promoted the consideration of environmental factors earlier)

C-31 Figure C-16: Reasons to Consider Environmental Factors Earlier in Project Development (according to MPO Respondents)

C-32 Figure C-17: Importance of Environmental Factors in Statewide Transportation Planning (as ranked by Environmental Organizations)

C-33 Figure C-18: Importance of Environmental Factors in Metropolitan Transportation Planning (as ranked by Environmental Organizations)

C-34 Figure C-19: Percentage of Environmental Respondents Using Specific Methods/Tools for Considering Environmental Factors in the Planning Process

C-35 Figure 20: Current Status of Environmental Data (according to Environmental Organizations)

C-36 Figure 21: Level of Interaction with Various Individuals/Groups during the Planning Process (according to the Environmental Respondents)

C-37 Figure C-22: Major Obstacles thought to be Faced by Agencies when Incorporating Environmental Considerations into Transportation Planning (according to Environmental Organizations)

C-38 Figure C-23: Reasons to Consider Environmental Factors Earlier in Project Development (according to the Environmental Respondents)

C-39 Table C.1: Overall Importance of Environmental Factors (as Ranked by State DOTs) Statewide Plan Most Recent 10 Year 5 (Very Important) 12.1% 17.9% 4 19.8% 22.9% 3 (Somewhat Important) 26.1% 28.6% 2 16.4% 8.2% 1 (Not Important) 9.9% 6.1% 0 (No Response) 15.6% 16.3% Table C.2: Percent of Respondents to the Statewide Survey Regarding the Current Status of Data Current Status of Data Percent of Respondents Most Data Exists 21.2% Some Data Exists 52.5% No Data Exists 11.4% No Response 14.9%

C-40 Table C.3: Percent of Respondents to the Environmental Survey Regarding the Current Status of Data Data Source Percent of Data Historical – Our Agency 16.2% Historical – Another Agency 25.8% Another Group 36.1% New Data Collection 21.9% Table C.4: Overall Importance of Environmental Factors (as Ranked by MPOs) Metropolitan Plan Most Recent 10 Year 5 (Very Important) 10.6% 22.2% 4 24.0% 25.1% 3 (Somewhat Important) 20.7% 19.2% 2 17.9% 13.1% 1 (Not Important) 15.6% 7.7% 0 (No Response) 11.1% 12.7%

C-41 Table C.5: Percent of Respondents to the Environmental Survey Regarding the Current Status of Data Current Status of Data Percent of Respondents: Most Data Exists 28.9% Some Data Exists 51.1% No Data Exists 13.5% No Response 6.5% Table C.6: Percent of Respondents to the Environmental Survey Regarding the Current Status of Data Data Source Percent of Data: Historical – Our Agency 12.9% Historical – Another Agency 24.9% Another Group 41.5% New Data Collection 20.7 %

C-42 Table C.7: Overall Importance of Environmental Factors (as Ranked by Environmental Organizations) Statewide Plan Metropolitan Plan Most Recent 10 Year Most Recent 10 Year 5 (Very Important) 35.3% 39.9% 34.3% 31.8% 4 27.6% 19.6% 21.0% 19.6% 3 (Somewhat Important) 26.2% 19.6% 24.1% 21.0% 2 7.0% 7.3% 4.6% 4.6% 1 (Not Important) 3.5% 3.2% 3.5% 3.2% 0 (No Response) 0.4% 10.5% 12.6% 19.9% Table C.8: Percent of Respondents to the Environmental Survey Regarding the Current Status of Data Current Status of Data Percent of Respondents: Most Data Exists 12.2% Some Data Exists 57.3% No Data Exists 9.4% No Response 21.0%

Next: Appendix D: Example Interagency Agreements from Minnesota »
Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes Get This Book
×
 Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning: Appendixes
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Web-Only Document 77: Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Skills Planning consists of the appendixes to NCHRP Report 541 of the same name, which examines procedures and methods for integrating environmental factors in transportation systems planning and decision making at the statewide, regional, and metropolitan levels.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!