Methods for State DOTs to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Transportation Sector (2022)

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.

A-1 A P P E N D I X A State DOT Survey Overview A total of 52 State departments of transportation (DOT), including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, received a web-based survey that sought to identify recent and planned activities and needs with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) consideration. The survey included 16 questions relating to GHG consideration in policy, inventory and forecasting, long-range planning, programming, project development, use of assessment tools, collaboration with other agencies, adequacy of existing tools/ resources, and planned activities. A request to complete the survey with a link to the survey site was distributed by email to agency directors and key planning and environment staff as identified from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) records in August 2018. The project team provided a PDF copy of the survey upon request, and followed up by email and/or phone with agencies that did not initially respond. A total of 41 States completed the survey. Five State DOTs began the survey without completing it, while 6 never began the survey. Three States completed multiple entries. Since the survey questions allow for multiple responses and only unique State responses in a category are reported below, this was not considered to be a problem. Summary of Findings Policy (Q2): About one-quarter (11) of the responding States had at least one policy in place related to GHG emissions. About five of these States (California; Washington, DC; Massachusetts; Vermont; and Washington) had a comprehensive set of policies addressing all three issues in the survey—GHG in planning activities, agency operations, and systemwide goals or targets. Several States noted that they were participants in a cross-agency statewide policy. Agency inventory/footprint (Q3): About one-quarter (11) of the States had developed an agency GHG inventory/footprint; three of these agencies mentioned that they had used that information to identify GHG reduction measures. Several agencies had done partial assessments. Statewide inventory/forecast (Q4): About two-fifths of respondents noted that they had developed, or partnered to develop, a statewide GHG inventory from the transportation system. This was not always up to date. Several noted that a comprehensive inventory, including transportation, was developed by another State agency. Planning and performance measurement (Q5): About 13 States had established qualitative GHG goals/objectives in long-range planning; four had set quantitative measures, including three that had set reduction targets. Programming (Q6): Use of GHG measures in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) development was very limited, with only three States noting that they considered GHG in the STIP at a program-wide or project level. Project development (Q7): About 12 States indicated that they required qualitative consideration of GHGs in project development, typically as a part of environmental documentation. Five States required quantitative consideration for certain types of projects. No State required the identification of mitigation

A-2 measures. Two States commented that the difference between project alternatives has been too small to be a factor in decision-making. Communication of progress (Q8): One-quarter of responding States noted that they reported on achievement of GHG goals or targets in some way. This reporting typically came as part of annual or infrequent published reports on performance measures more generally, though in several cases was specifically geared towards air quality or GHG emissions. Assessment tools (Q9/Q10): About half the responding agencies had applied at least one assessment tool. These include a mix of inventory/footprinting tools (8 agencies), planning-level tools (11 agencies), and project-level tools (8 agencies). About 5 agencies reported having tools in regular use per agency guidance. Tools mentioned by at least 2 agencies included:  Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) for project analysis or statewide inventories (10 agencies).  Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) tool for project planning (3 agencies).  Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy Analysis Tool (EERPAT), GreenSTEP, and/or other members of the VisionEval family (3 agencies). Work with partner agencies (Q11): A majority of respondents (25) indicated that they had worked with State, regional, and/or local partner agencies to support GHG consideration. Half (20) had worked collaboratively on strategies, analysis, and/or reduction targets; others supplied data for other agency efforts. Partners were typically the State environmental agency and/or one or more metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) or regional planning agencies. Adequacy of resources (Q12/13): About one-quarter of agencies noted that existing resources for GHG consideration were adequate. One-fifth to one-quarter noted a need for better analytical tools and/or better resources for addressing institutional/procedural issues. About 13 agencies indicated they were “not sure,” likely indicating lack of familiarity with existing tools and resources. Other needs or barriers noted were:  Tools for project evaluation and prioritization (5 agencies).  Desire for tools that translate GHG or air quality impacts into economic benefit terms (3 agencies) and quantify other related impacts (health, equity, etc.) (1 agency).  Lack of trained/dedicated staff (3 agencies).  Measuring GHG from agency activities/operations (2 agencies).  Engaging stakeholders and public for long-range scenario planning (1 agency).  Incorporating GHG reduction across department functions (one agency). Additional steps (Q14): About half of respondents were undertaking additional steps related to GHG. These agencies identified those steps as additional policy development (9), agency inventory (5), program- level measures/targets (3), program/system analysis tools (5), project-level tools (4), and additional collaboration (9). Several mentioned related activities, such as alternative fuel corridor development. Interest in additional activities (Q15): About 8 agencies were strongly interested in participating in follow-up project activities with 14 “possibly interested” and 11 asking to “please check back later.” Only seven indicated no interest in further participation in this project. Detailed Results Complete survey results are provided below. Note that multiple responses were allowed for every question, so the total of “unique State respondents” may be greater than the total number of survey respondents. “Other responses by State” are provided verbatim. Responses from New York were received after the deadline and are not reflected in the tabulations provided below. Question 1: Which State DOT do you represent? Surveys were completed by the following 41 States: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,

A-3 Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Question 2: Does your agency have a policy or policies related to GHG emissions reduction? Table A-1. Question 2. Answer Unique State Respondents States No. 26 AR, AZ, GA, HI, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MO, MS, MT, NE, NH, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY Policy to consider GHG emissions in planning, programming, project development, and/or operations. 9 CA, DC, MA, MD, NC, OR, VA, VT, WA Policy that sets reduction goals or targets for GHG emissions from the agency’s operations. 6 CA, DC, MA, MN, VT, WA Policy that sets transportation systemwide GHG reduction goals or targets. 6 CA, DC, MA, MN, VT, WA Other. 7 CO, DC, DE, ID, MD, NJ, TX, WA Other Reponses by State: Colorado: Policy Directive 1901.0 and its Air Quality Action Plan; CDOT statewide planning factors; Colorado Climate Plan (2018) Explanation: CDOT has Policy Directive (PD) 1901.0 (CDOT Policy on Air Quality) and the associated CDOT Air Quality Action Plan (Plan). The PD establishes goals and direction of CDOT in regard to air quality, including GHGs. The Plan summarizes CDOT activities that have a secondary benefit of improving air quality. Plan appendices are updated annually. Some of the activities may help reduce GHG emissions. A State law, 43-1-1103(5)(j), states that a statewide transportation plan shall address but shall not be limited to certain planning factors, including reduction of GHG emissions. In addition, CDOT wrote the transportation chapter of the 2018 Colorado Climate Plan: State-Level Policies and Strategies to Mitigate and Adapt. That climate plan has the following commitments from CDOT regarding GHG reduction: Support new technology, fiber optics, and planning. DC: The District of Columbia DOT (DDOT) follows statewide policies through coordination with other State and regional agencies. Delaware: Reviewing. Idaho: 08-09 GHG Emission Reduction Action Plan. Maryland: Maryland DOT (MDOT) supports statewide targets from 2006 levels of 25 percent by 2020 and 40 percent by 2030. Massachusetts: Other agencies have set goals for on-road emissions and for our agency’s emissions. New Jersey: New Jersey enacted Global Warming Response Act 7/6/2007, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Global Warming Response Act (GWRA) recommendations report released December 2009, New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) participated. Texas: We have a best practice for project development. Washington: Washington State DOT (WSDOT) is voluntarily establishing a performance measure and target for GHG emissions on the National Highways System under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) performance measure framework.

A-4 Question 3: Has your agency developed an inventory of GHG emissions (carbon footprint) for its own operations? Table A-2. Question 3. Answer Unique State Respondents States No. 28 AR, AZ, DE, GA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MO, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WY Yes, but have not yet used to identify and implement GHG reduction measures. 4 DC, IA, ID, MI Yes, and have used to identify and implement GHG reduction measures. 3 CA, MN, VT Other. 9 CO, DC, HI, MA, MD, OR, TX, WA Other Reponses by State: Colorado: CDOT began quantifying its GHG emissions in 2016 per a Greening of State Government Executive Order (EO) (D 2015-013). The GHG emissions are calculated based on agency energy and petroleum consumption. The EO goal is to: "Reduce GHG emissions by a minimum of 1 percent annually and at least 5 percent below Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 levels by FY2020." Since this is a State EO, numbers are compiled from all executive State agencies and departments and reported on an annual basis in a Statewide Annual Report Card. DC: DDOT developed a GHG inventory of its operations but have not used it specifically. However, DDOT has identify and implemented GHG reduction measures through cooperation and participation in statewide and regional GHG reduction efforts. Hawaii: For Honolulu International Airport only. Maryland: MDOT does not have an agencywide inventory. Individual Transportation Business Units (TBU) have developed GHG inventories, e.g., MAA and MPA. Massachusetts: Have an inventory. Causal link to reductions is arguable as there are many drivers for these investments. Oregon: Track energy use and fleet fuel emissions. Texas: We have a statewide on-road emissions analysis as a best practice. Washington: State statute sets GHG limits for State agency operations and requires reporting annual agency emissions.

A-5 Question 4: Has your agency developed a transportation-sector GHG inventory and/or forecast for the State, or worked with a partner agency to develop one? Table A-3. Question 4. Answer Unique State Respondents States No. 22 AR, AZ, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, SC, SD, WV Yes, but have not used it for transportation planning. 7 CO, DC, MA, RI, TN, VA, WY Yes, have used in transportation planning. 3 MA, OR, VT Yes, have used to specifically support performance metrics. 4 CO, MN, UT, VT Other. 7 CA, DE, HI, NJ, TN, TX, WA Other Reponses by State: California: California DOT (Caltrans) has not completed a transportation sector (to include fuel consumption of use of the State highway system); however, California Air Resources Board (CARB) compiles and prepares statewide inventory and forecasts for all sectors under its agencies requirements related to AB32 and the Scoping Plan. Delaware: Working with other State agencies to develop. Hawaii: For Honolulu International Airport. New Jersey: The NJDOT has worked with the NJDEP and NJ Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) to establish GHG Inventories for the GWRA in the past. Tennessee: Inventory now several years old. Texas: As mentioned, we have a statewide analysis that includes a base year and projects 30 years in the future. Washington: The Washington State Department of Ecology updates the statewide GHG emissions inventory every two years.

A-6 Question 5: Has your agency established long-range transportation plan (LRTP) goals, objectives, and/or performance measures related to GHGs? Table A-4. Question 5. Answer Unique State Respondents States No. 22 AZ, DE, HI, ID, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MO, MS, MT, NE, NH, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY Qualitative goals/objectives. 13 CA, CO, DC, IA, IL, IN, MD, NC, NJ, OR, VA, VT, WA Quantitative measures. 1 GA Quantitative measures with reduction targets. 3 DC, MN, RI Other. 4 AR, CO, DC, WA Other Reponses by State: Arkansas: The Statewide Long-Range Intermodal Transportation Plan mentioned the GHG rule. It does not establish GHG goals, objectives, or measures. The rule was rescinded. Colorado: CDOT’s last published Statewide Plan (SWP), Transportation Matters: Statewide Transportation Plan 2040, has a list of strategies intended to address the four goals of the SWP: safety, mobility, economic vitality, and maintaining the system. It also has Strategic Policy Actions that address more than one goal. One such Strategic Policy Actions deals with Sustainability and the Environment. That one states: Sustainability and the Environment: Continue to implement CDOT’s Sustainability Plan and other environmental initiatives. Ensure all projects undergo timely and proper environmental review and compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other State and Federal statutes. Grouped under this Strategic Policy Action are six key initiatives: CDOT’s Sustainability Program and Plan, Alternative Fuels Program, Environmental Compliance, Innovation, Storm Water Management, and C--Plan. The one that has the most bearing on GHG emissions is the Alternatives Fuels Program, focused on developing a statewide market for compressed natural gas and other alternate fuel vehicles. DC: The DDOT’s moveDC plan has set qualitative goals/objectives as related to our contributions to climate change impacts. In the District’s Climate Action Plan and SustainableDC plan, there are specific targets to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. Washington: WSDOT’s annual Corridor Capacity Report includes GHG emissions on key commuter corridors.

A-7 Question 6: Does your agency consider GHG impacts in transportation improvement program (TIP), State TIP, and/or other capital programming evaluation? Table A-5. Question 6. Answer Unique State Respondents States No. 32 AR, AZ, CO, DE, GA, HI, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WV, WY Yes, measure for the overall TIP/STIP. 1 MA Yes, quantitative project assessment, where feasible. 3 ID, MA, MD Other. 8 CA, DE, HI, MA, NJ, TN, TX, WA Other Reponses by State: California: The California 2018 STIP guidelines mirror the requirements of Executive Order B-30-15, to consider climate preparedness and reduction of GHG emissions when approving programming recommendations. DC: DDOT does not do a quantitative project assessment; however, DDOT works with the regional MPO to quantify the GHG impacts in the regional long-range plan. Rhode Island: Overall, GHG plan for the State is mentioned in the STIP. Question 7: Does your agency consider GHG impacts in project development and alternatives analysis? Table A-6. Question 7. Answer Unique State Respondents States No. 21 AR, AZ, CO, HI, IA, IL, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, NH, NJ, SC, SD, TN, UT, WV, WY Qualitative consideration (e.g., increase/decrease, high/medium/low). 11 CA, DC, MA, MD, NC, NE, PA, RI, VA, VT, WA Quantitative consideration, where feasible (e.g., tons GHG). 5 CA, GA, ID, IN, WA Quantitative consideration with mitigation strategies identified. 0 Other. 7 CA, IA, ME, MT, OR, TX, WA Other Reponses by State: California: Greenhouse gas emissions analysis is required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Qualitative or Quantitative analysis completed at the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) stage dependent on project type.

A-8 Iowa: No, but GHG impacts have been considered from a qualitative standpoint in the past. Maine: They may be a minimal component when conducting a NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) study. Montana: Qualitative analysis on limited projects involving an EA or EIS. Oregon: No GHG impacts are considered for categorically excluded projects under 23.771.117, Qualitative consideration may be done for EA under NEPA, Quantitative consideration may be done for EA and must be done for EIS under NEPA. Oregon: GHG considered in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) process. Texas: We provide a statewide analysis, but it is not used in alternatives analysis (the difference between alternatives is too small). Washington: Projects being reviewed at the NEPA EA or EIS level typically include a GHG analysis. To date, analysis has not led to making different project decisions. Typically, project alternatives have relatively the same emissions, with some differences between existing or no build conditions. Question 8: Does your agency externally communicate progress regarding plans or projects which contribute to achieving GHG targets or goals? Table A-7. Question 8. If Yes: How, how often, and to whom does your agency publish and circulate these results? Colorado: CDOT’s Air Quality Action Plan Appendices A and B contain information about plans and projects that contribute to reducing GHGs; Appendix C contains data that shows if GHGs are being reduced from year to year. Delaware: As needed for projects. Maryland: Annually, Governor, General Assembly, Maryland Commission on Climate Change, and the public. Massachusetts: STIP appendix, annually, the public. Minnesota: Annual Sustainability Report. Oregon: Publicly available monitoring report on agency’s progress towards achieving State reduction goal. Five-year monitoring report for stakeholders. Vermont: Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) completes a biennial Transportation Energy Profile. In addition, VTrans participates in a variety of workgroups, including the Vermont Climate Action Commission, relating to reducing GHGs from the transportation sector. Further, VTrans contributes to annual reporting under the State’s Comprehensive Energy Plan. Washington: Biennial Office of Financial Management (OFM) Attainment Report address transportation-sector emissions, annual Corridor Capacity Report. Answer Unique State Respondents States No. 30 AR, AZ, DC, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, ME, MI, MO, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WY Yes. 9 CA, CO, DE, MA, MD, MN, OR, VT, WA

A-9 Question 9: What GHG assessment tools or methods (if any) have been applied by your agency? Table A-8. Question 9. Answer Unique State Respondents States None. 19 AR, AZ, HI, IA, IL, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MO, MS, MT, NE, NH, SC, SD, TN, WV Agency inventory/carbon footprinting. 9 CO, DC, ID, MA, MD, MN, RI, VT, WA Planning-level tools. 10 AR, CO, IN, MA, OR, PA, UT, VA, VT, WA Project-level tools. 9 GA, ID, IN, MA, OR, PA, VA, VT, WA Planning- and project-level tools in regular use per agency guidance. 5 CA, MA, MD, NC, VT Other. 8 AR, CO, DE, IA, NJ, RI, TX, WY Other Reponses by State: Colorado: Statewide GHG inventories are calculated using two methods and reported in Appendix C of the CDOT Air Quality Action Plan. These performance measure calculations are updated annually. The rest of this answer is more for the future than about what CDOT is applying today. CDOT has been approved for a $30,000 pilot project with EERPAT, an update to the MOVES model that will estimate air pollution improvements from various strategies and assess CDOT’s own contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If used in concert with the statewide travel model, currently under development, EERPAT could eventually help CDOT choose among competing projects. Delaware: Working with partners. Iowa: None, but we have used planning-level tools on a trial basis. Massachusetts: Note: environmental agencies are responsible for compiling the statewide GHG inventory. New Jersey: Developed a tool to assess Department activities/operations, but practical considerations (data, usability) have prevented implementation. Rhode Island: Setting up Portfolio manager for our buildings to track GHG reductions. Texas: The statewide on-road analysis and projections. Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) coordination. Question 10: Which specific tools or methods have you applied and for what purpose? Arkansas: We use MOVES and other spreadsheet tools to quantify GHG changes for discretionary grant applications. California: CARB VISION tool used for scenario planning in the California Transportation Plan 2040. FHWA ICE tool used for broad overview of GHG emissions related to projects at the planning stage. CARB Emission Factor (EMFAC) model used for project-specific GHG emissions estimates at the PA&ED phase for analysis in CEQA documents. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Road Construction Emissions Model (RCEM)—used for estimating construction-related GHG emissions at the project level.

A-10 Colorado: Appendix C of CDOT’s Air Quality Action Plan uses two methods of GHG inventory calculation to determine if statewide GHG emissions are increasing or decreasing from year to year. One method is based on vehicle-miles traveled; the other is based on fuel consumption. DC: DDOT used the AASHTO GHG accounting procedures guidance that incorporates the Local Government Operations protocol. Georgia: FHWA Spreadsheet MOVES for project-level analysis. Idaho: We use the economic benefits of GHG reduction that are included in emissions reduction when performing benefit/cost analysis. Indiana: Coordination with applicable MPOs on MOVES emissions modeling, use of the State’s Major Corridor Investment Benefit and Analysis (MCIBAS) tool for alternatives testing for major capacity adding projects direct use of the MOVES model analysis for affected areas not represented by an MPO; and TREDIS/REMI Econometric modeling for major corridor investments and improvement strategies. Iowa: FHWA Sensitivity Matrix for vulnerability assessment. Maryland: Environmental Planning Agency (EPA) MOVES model (including nonroad) inventory, planning- and project-level, spreadsheet-based and proprietary tools/software inventory, planning and project level. Massachusetts: Travel demand model and MOVES model for projecting total on-road emissions under build and no build packages of projects. Fuel sales data and emission factors for estimating and reporting historical on-road GHG emissions. A range of project-level GHG estimation tools for project categories that cannot be reflected in the travel demand model analysis. Project selection methodology that includes GHG impact for scoring projects. Levelized cost of carbon methodology for evaluating cost effectiveness of GHG reductions. Guidance on GHG quantification and reporting for MPOs and Regional Transit Authorities (RTA). Michigan: None. Montana: None. New Hampshire: None. North Carolina: NCDOT has used EPA’s MOVES model when Mobile Source Air Toxic (MSAT) analyses have been required. Oregon: GreenSTEP for statewide GHG scenario planning. Regional Strategic Planning Model (RSPM) for regional GHG scenario planning. Transitioning to the VisionEVAL suite. Oregon: Planning-level tools include GreenSTEP for statewide scenario planning, and Regional Strategic Planning Model for MPO-level scenario planning. Project-level tools for GHG assessment include EPA MOVES for operational emissions and the ICE model for construction and maintenance emissions and the application of FHWA fuel factor of 27 percent to account for emissions released during fuel extraction, refining, and transport prior to use by vehicles. Pennsylvania: Qualitative analyses for EAs and EISs. Rhode Island: Using Portfolio manager to begin tracking energy usage in our buildings and measure the difference as buildings are upgraded for energy efficiency. Texas: We compare statewide on-road, to total statewide emissions, total national emissions, and total global emissions. MOVES, with county specifics and county vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) projections are summed to estimate statewide on-road emissions. Vermont: The Transportation Energy Profile tracks progress toward meeting the transportation-sector goals of the State’s Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP). VTrans considers the goals of the CEP in planning. In addition, VTrans works with other agencies to accelerate vehicle electrification in Vermont. Virginia: MOVES, for evaluating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Washington: WSDOT completed a pilot analysis using EERPAT in about 2014 Lynwood Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) 2 case study project-level analyses for NEPA EA and EIS documents are conducted using EPA’s MOVES. Construction emissions for projects evaluated in EAs and EISs are calculated using FHWA’s ICE tool.

A-11 Wyoming: Worked with the Wyoming DEQ on GHG use in Sublette County and surrounding areas. Question 11: In the past five years, has your agency worked with a partner agency (State, MPO, or local agency) to support their consideration of transportation GHG emissions? Table A-9. Question 11. Answer Unique State Respondents States No. 14 AR, AZ, DE, ID, KS, LA, MI, MO, MS, NH, PA, SD, TN, WV Supplied data. 8 CA, DC, IA, MA, MT, NJ, WA, WY Worked collaboratively on strategies and analysis. 13 CO, GA, IL, IN, MA, MN, NC, NE, OR, RI, UT, VT, WA Worked collaboratively on strategies, analysis, and reduction targets. 8 CA, DC, MA, MD, MN, RI, VA, WA Other. 7 HI, IA, KY, ME, SC, TX, WA Other Reponses by State: Hawaii: State has established Climate Change Commission which has begun considering impact of GHG. Iowa: Supplied information in the form of survey responses. Maine: We work with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) who conduct our Air Conformity Analysis. South Carolina: We’ve had discussions with our State Air Quality Agency, but nothing developed. Texas: We provide data for the State DEQ to use for VMT and county emission projections for multiple pollutants, including GHG emissions. Washington: WSDOT contributes to multiagency resources to help local governments develop transportation-efficient communities. Question 11a: Which agencies? Colorado: Colorado Department of Natural Resources, City and County of Denver, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Colorado: Collaboration includes Colorado Department of Natural Resources on the 2018 Colorado Climate Plan City and County of Denver on its "80 by 50" plan to reduce the City’s GHG emissions by 80 percent by 2050. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment on annual updates to one of the Air Quality Action Plan’s appendices, Appendix D: Statewide Motor Vehicle Performance Measure Emissions Methodology: Colorado Air Pollution Control Division Report. DC: District Department of Energy and Environment, Metropolitan Washington Council of Government, District Office of Planning. Georgia: Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). Wyoming: Wyoming DEQ. Illinois: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Indiana: MPOs (Indianapolis, South Bend, Fort Wayne, Evansville, Louisville KY, NW Indiana), Indiana Department of Energy Management (IDEM). Maryland: State agencies, MPOs, and others through the Maryland Commission on Climate Change.

A-12 Massachusetts: All MA MPOs, All MA Regional Transit Authorities, MA Department of Environmental Protection, MA Executive Agency of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Minnesota: MN Pollution Control Agency (State environmental agency). Montana: MPO. Nebraska: MAPA MPO in the Omaha area. New Jersey: NJDEP and NJBPU. North Carolina: NC Department of Environmental Quality—Air Quality Division. Oregon: State energy, environmental quality, and health agencies, MPOs, local jurisdictions. Oregon: States Department of Energy, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Land Conservation and Development, MPOs, and local jurisdictions. Rhode Island: Worked with all the Rhode Island (RI) State agencies on the overall State goals for GHG emission reduction targets and GHG reduction plan. Vermont: Regional planning commissions, municipalities, Department of Buildings and General Services, Department of Public Service, Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Housing and Community Development, Department of Health, and Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets. Utah: Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG). Virginia: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington: Department of Ecology, Department of Commerce, Department of Health, MPOs, especially Puget Sound Regional Council. Question 12: How adequate are existing resources for supporting your agency’s current and expected consideration of GHG issues? Table A-10. Question 12. Answer Unique State Respondents States Resources are adequate. 10 DE, ID, ME, MA, NC, NH, TN, UT, VA, WV Need better analytical tools (or information about tools). 8 CO, DC, HI, MN, NJ, OR, RI, WY Need better resources for addressing institutional/procedural issues. 9 CA, CO, DC, HI, LA, MN, NJ, RI, WA Not sure. 13 AZ, GA, IA, IN, KS, KY, MI, MO, MT, NE, OR, PA, SC Other. 8 AR, HI, MD, ME, MS, SD, TX, VT Other Reponses by State: Arkansas: It would be beneficial to have clear guidance on monetizing local (as opposed to global) impacts of air quality. Hawaii: Need technically knowledgeable staff. Maine: Working with Maine DEP. Maryland: Emissions tools can always be improved at Federal level, i.e., moves, but have been adequate for our purposes. Could use better integration with economic tools. Mississippi: Very limited resources related to GHG issues. South Dakota: South Dakota has no nonattainment areas and is a very rural State and do not have issues with air quality.

A-13 Texas: Resources are adequate at the moment. That could change depending upon Federal or State policy changes. Vermont: All agencies are thinly staffed. Question 13: How would better tools facilitate additional consideration of GHG issues by your agency? Arkansas: The ability to monetize air quality impacts would allow for a quantitative treatment in benefit/ cost analyses. California: Need better information on how to efficiently and cost effectively incorporate GHG emissions reduction measures at the project level. Case studies of incorporating GHG reduction across department functions. Colorado: Better tools would provide better data. Criteria could be established and considered as part of the project selection process. DC: In prioritizing projects for implementation during planning, programming, and project development. Georgia: Comparison Data (i.e., building roads cause and effect). More Guidance on how to analyze the data. Idaho: If they can calculate economic or safety benefits. Illinois: With better GHG analyze tools the agency would be in a greater position to analysis projects and predict impacts in programming documents like the TIP and STIP. Iowa: Not sure at this time. Kansas: In the long term, this agency may begin to consider GHG issues, but we have not begun work in this area. For the short term, this likely will remain the case, but we will coordinate with our Transportation Management Areas (TMA) should they begin work on GHG issues. Maryland: Economic impacts, positive and negative externalities (workforce impacts, opportunity cost of focus on GHG, public health, multipollutant impacts, equity, and environmental justice). Massachusetts: Our existing GHG quantification tools and practices have been reviewed by air quality experts and best practices of other agencies considered under a recent SHRP 2 project. These appear fit for purpose. It is always possible to improve, but a range of research projects and analysis completed for our agency and results from estimating GHG outcomes from several hundred projects all point towards transportation infrastructure investments being ineffective and/or inefficient at reducing GHG emissions, so arguably we have reached or passed the point of diminishing returns for GHG consideration at least as far as planning and project selection are concerned. With respect to systemwide GHG reduction goals or targets, it is important to be realistic about the obligations of State DOTs. There might be an understandable misconception that transportation agencies should bear responsibility for reducing transportation-sector emissions, but the effective policy levers typically rest with other agencies. It is important to align responsibilities with the authority to pursue affordable solutions and to avoid pursuing costly GHG reductions in one sector at the expense of low-cost abatement elsewhere in the economy. Minnesota: Currently, we have no dedicated staff or staff with portion of their position officially dedicated to this work. Mississippi: To be determined. New Jersey: Would enable us to better understand the GHG impacts of our activities and projects. North Carolina: Not sure. This would be dependent on the tools and their application. We look forward to receiving future guidance on the consideration of transportation-related GHG emissions. Wyoming: Better collaboration with the DEQ on high-ozone/GHG emissions areas. Oregon: The tools (MOVES, ICE, Fuel factor) we use sufficiently define emissions for project impacts. A guidance document for best practices would be helpful for GHG with MOVES. Need a more cost-effective method to engage stakeholders and the general public in long-range scenario planning for GHG reduction. Rhode Island: Tools and support are needed for GHG measurements of our operations. South Carolina: No plans.

A-14 South Dakota: Air quality is not an issue in South Dakota. Tennessee: It seems unlikely that additional tools would have a significant impact on the status quo. Vermont: Marginally. VTrans is pursuing a variety of means to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector, but one essential tool, which is to accelerate vehicle electrification, depends on part on regional, national, and global policies. Washington: WSDOT has good support from our Governor’s office on reducing GHG emissions and we have a Senior Policy Specialist for Air Quality and Energy who works primarily on GHG emissions (agency, sector, and project levels). The agency has a strong focus on multimodal transportation solutions, and supports other approaches to reducing emissions in our State. We are working to modernize our ferry fleet; initial steps include operational improvements to reduce fuel use and work to convert three vessels to electric hybrid. Recently upgraded rail engines are more efficient than previous equipment and support increased passenger rail service between Seattle and Portland. One staff person dedicated to expanding EV charging infrastructure in the State and an initial $1 M funding provided in grants. WSDOT is working closely with State partners on Volkswagen funding for additional electric vehicle (EV) charging. We do not have analytical standards or procedures incorporated into agency processes to understand the effects of the decisions we make. Question 14: Is your agency considering taking additional steps to address GHG emissions in the near future? (check all that apply) Table A-11. Question 14. Answer Unique State Respondents States Not at this time. 21 AZ, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NJ, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, WV, WY Additional policies. 9 DC, DE, HI, IL, NC, OR, RI, VA, VT Agency inventory/carbon footprinting. 4 DC, DE, MA, RI Program-level performance measures or targets. 3 DC, DE, RI Develop/improve/apply program- or systems-level analysis tool. 5 CA, CO, DC, OR, RI Develop/improve/apply project-level analysis tools. 4 CA, DC, MA, RI Additional collaboration/coordination with partners on data and tool development. 9 CO, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, OR, RI, VT Other. 8 AR, CO, HI, IA, NH, NJ, TX, WA Other Reponses by State: Arkansas: While not directly addressing GHG emissions, the Department is working with the State environmental agency to achieve Alternative Fuel Corridor Designations along several corridors. The Department also works closely with two of the State’s TMAs to program CMAQ funds for planning activities related to emission reductions. Additional partnerships include participation in the Ozone Actions Days program in central Arkansas. Colorado: Systems-level planning will be performed along with scenario planning in development of the 2045 Statewide Transportation Plan. CDOT’s Statewide Travel Model will be one of the tools that will be utilized. In conjunction with the Statewide Travel Model, the EERPAT model will be used as a

A-15 complementary tool to determine GHG emissions on various types of improvements. As we use these tools, will be coordinate with our planning partners to define areas of collaboration and coordination. Hawaii: Participating in State Climate Change Commission that is initiated discussions on GHC. Iowa: Possibly vulnerability assessment. Massachusetts: A range of activities relevant to GHG reduction but they serve multiple objectives. GHG reduction policy is not lead by our agency but we participate in discussions with the lead agencies. New Hampshire: New Hampshire DOT (NHDOT) would seek to cooperate with other agencies to comply with any GHG-related laws, rules, or guidance, should it be developed in the future. New Jersey: New Governor’s administration is more active on climate change than the previous administration. How this will translate to specific Department policies and actions is not yet determined. Texas: We will be participating in the pooled fund for refining the FHWA ICE tool. Washington: We are developing a metric and target to track GHGs on the NHS, as was described in the January 2017 version of the Performance Measure rule 3 (PM3). Question 15: Would your agency be interested in participating in additional activities of this research project, including workshops to develop and review GHG resources, and/or implementation support of GHG analysis methods? Table A-12. Question 15. Answer Unique State Respondents States Not interested. 7 LA, ME, MO, MT, TN, WV, WY Please check back later. 11 AZ, ID, IN, KS, KY, MA, MI, MS, NH, SC, SD Possibly interested. 14 AR, CA, GA, HI, IA, MD, NC, NE, NJ, PA, TX, UT, VA, VT Strongly Interested. 8 CO, DC, DE, IL, MN, OR, RI, WA Level of Engagement The survey and literature review findings were used to initially classify States into an “engagement model” framework, considering dimensions of policy, practice, and technology. Four general “levels of engagement” were established to help differentiate State needs and provide context for ultimate development of the guide to assist State DOTs in evaluating transportation GHG emissions and including GHG considerations in decision-making. The general engagement levels were defined as follows with the understanding that highly precise classifications are neither required nor desired. Note that the levels currently are being used to gain a better understanding of how States currently are addressing GHG issues and that guide topics may need to include attributes beyond Level 4 to be useful for that particular audience.  Level 1: “New to the topic.” Few or no formal actions to address GHG, although the agency might be involved in discussions regarding GHG activities or supporting another agency’s activities.  Level 2: “We are developing our own policies or goals.” Policy—has established general policies, goals, and/or objectives related to GHG; Practice—may apply qualitative project or program evaluation criteria; Technology—no or limited/partial GHG inventory.  Level 3: “We are measuring and planning our actions and engaging others.” Policy—has established specific policies, goals, and/or objectives related to GHG; Practice—apply quantitative project and/or

A-16 program evaluation criteria; Technology—has developed GHG inventory and/or forecast, possibly limited use of assessment tools.  Level 4: “We are taking action and tracking progress internally and with partners.” Policy—serious multiagency effort; Practice—strategic planning: has evaluated GHG reduction strategies, linked strategies to plans and programs, and conducted quantitative assessment; Technology—has developed inventory, forecast, specific data and measurement methods, and established a range of specific policies, goals, and/or objectives related to targeted GHG reductions; tracks progress towards achieving targets; addressing GHG from both agency operations and the transportation system. Agencies were classified into levels for responses to individual survey questions. Table A-13 shows the rules used to generally classify the responses. In some cases, agencies responded using the “other” option with a free-response note; in these cases, judgment was used to assign a response to a given level. Agencies that did not respond to a question were not classified for that question. For each agency, the total number of responses by level was then determined, and a “score” calculated as the average value of the number of responses by level multiplied by the level (1–4). Agencies were then assigned an overall score with the following cutoffs: Level 1 = < 1.3; Level 2 = 1.3–1.99; Level 3 = 2.0–2.49; Level 4 = 2.5 or greater. The overall distribution of States by classification, as assigned based on the survey responses, is shown in Figure 3-1. This taxonomy is inherently subjective, and agencies with scores close to the cutoff could be reasonably categorized into either level. The scoring also is primarily based on self-reported actions, and the accuracy of the reported activities was not verified. However, document review of States at higher levels of engagement helped to provide more insights into specific policies and actions referenced in published documents (see Section 4.0). This document review suggested the need for minor revision of a couple of categorizations. As more States move to Level 4, this level might be further differentiated based on how extensively GHG considerations are integrated throughout the agency’s planning and operations. The issue of what it means to comprehensively consider GHG was further explored as part of guide development and is discussed in Section 19.0 of the guide. Table A-13. Rules used to assign levels. Question Dimension and Level 2. Does your agency have a policy related to GHG emissions reduction? Policy a. No. L1 b. Policy to consider GHG emissions in planning, programming, project development, and/or operations. L2 c. Policy that sets reduction goals or targets for GHG emissions from the agency’s operations. L3 d. Policy that sets transportation systemwide GHG reduction goals or targets. L4 3. Has your agency developed an inventory of GHG emissions (carbon footprint) for its own operations? Practice a. No. L1 b. Yes, but have not yet used to identify and implement GHG reduction measures. L2 c. Yes, and have used to identify and implement GHG reduction measures. L4

A-17 Question Dimension and Level 4. Has your agency developed a transportation-sector GHG inventory and/or forecast for the State, or worked with a partner agency to develop one? Practice a. No. L1 b. Yes, but have not used it for transportation planning. L2 c. Yes, have used in transportation planning. L3 d. Yes, have used to specifically to support performance metrics. L4 5. Has your agency established LRTP goals, objectives, and/or performance measures related to GHGs? Practice a. No. L1 b. Qualitative goals/objectives. L2 c. Quantitative measures. L3 d. Quantitative measures with reduction targets. L4 6. Does your agency consider GHG impacts in TIP and/or STIP evaluation? Practice a. No. L1 b. Yes, measure for the overall TIP/STIP. L2 c. Yes, qualitative project assessment. L3 d. Yes, quantitative project assessment where feasible. L4 7. Does your agency consider GHG impacts in project development and alternatives analysis? Practice a. No. L1 b. Qualitative consideration (e.g., increase/decrease, high/medium/low). L2 c. Quantitative consideration, where feasible (e.g., tons GHG). L3 d. Quantitative consideration with mitigation strategies identified. L4 8. Does your agency externally communicate progress regarding plans or projects which contribute to achieving GHG targets or goals? Practice a. Yes. L3 b. No. L1 9. What GHG assessment tools or methods (if any) have been applied by your agency? Technology a. None. L1 b. Agency inventory/carbon footprinting. L2 c. Planning-level tools. L3 d. Project-level tools. L3 e. Planning and project-level tools in regular use per agency guidance. L4 11. Has your agency worked with a partner agency (State, MPO, or local) to support their consideration of transportation GHG emissions? Practice a. No. L1 b. Supplied data. L2 c. Worked collaboratively on strategies and analysis. L3 d. Worked collaboratively on strategies, analysis, and reduction targets. L4