CHAPTER 4

Outreach and Implementation Activities

The project team undertook the following outreach and implementation activities to engage potential guide users and other stakeholders in development of the guide:

• Screening surveys distributed to State DOTs, as well as follow-up interviews with selected States to discuss key issues in more detail. Survey and interview questions are provided in Appendix A.
• Screening surveys distributed to NGOs and CBOs known to have an interest in transportation GHG, climate, and/or equity issues; a virtual workshop with interested respondents; and follow-up interviews with a subset of NGO/CBO participants to discuss key issues in more detail. The project team also engaged three NGO/CBOs to participate as paid members of the project team to provide limited advisory services in planning outreach and reviewing documents.
• Two peer exchanges with State DOTs, one focused on GHG emissions and one on climate change effects, to discuss current approaches and needs for additional guidance and resources. A preliminary outline of the guide was discussed in these exchanges.
• Pilot applications of the complete draft guide with two DOTs. Each pilot included a series of three to five workshops focusing on various elements of the guide. The pilot applications were intended to help States with their efforts while obtaining feedback on the usability and content of the guide.

DOT Surveys, Interviews, and Peer Exchanges

Surveys and Interviews

The project team distributed a web-based survey to 52 State DOTs (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) to identify each agency’s current approach to considering GHG and climate effects, key resources (e.g., sample environmental documents), and their potential interest in participating in further activities, including interviews and/or workshops. The survey instrument included 10 questions and was conducted in October and November 2021. A total of 33 States completed the survey.

A summary of survey responses is provided below. Responses of “not sure” are excluded from the totals.

• Does your agency have an established set of procedures or guidance for considering GHG emissions and/or climate change effects as part of environmental review conducted under NEPA and/or per State environmental review requirements? Yes—9 States; Procedures “under development”—6 States; No—16 States.
• Does your State have any State-specific environmental review requirements? Yes, and they include GHG and/or climate requirements—10 States; Yes, but without specific GHG or climate requirements—11 States; No—11 States.
• Has your agency developed any environmental documentation (e.g., Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Statement, Community Impact Assessment) for any project(s) in the past 10 years that quantifies GHG emissions? Yes—11 States; No—16 States.
• Has your agency developed any planning-level assessments of GHG emissions and/or climate change effects? Yes—11 States; No—13 States.

• Has your agency developed any planning-level or project-level equity assessments that consider GHG emissions and/or climate change effects? Yes—7 States; No—18 States.
• Has any transportation project in your State received public comment or legal challenges based on GHG emissions and/or climate change effects? Yes—14 States; No—13 States.
• Would you be interested in participating in an interview and/or virtual workshop with the NCHRP 25-64 project team in the fall of 2021 to further discuss your current approach and anticipated needs with respect to consideration of GHG emissions and climate change in environmental documentation? Yes—11 States; Possibly—12 States; No—8 States.

The project team conducted follow-up interviews were conducted with nine State DOTs representing a diversity of experiences and geographic contexts. The State DOTs interviewed were Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia.

Peer Exchanges

Two peer exchanges were held: one in May 2022 on considering climate change effects, and one in June 2022 on considering GHG emissions. Both of the peer exchanges were about four hours in length and were held on a virtual meeting platform. Both included staff from five State DOTs who shared their experiences and discussed key questions. Some partner agencies, including neighboring State DOTs and MPOs, also were present. Discussion topics included:

• How does your State currently consider GHG emissions and/or climate change effects in environmental review? What are the drivers for doing so? How might that evolve in the future? What questions or concerns do you have?
• In what ways are current guidance and resources related to treatment of GHG emissions or climate change effects in environmental reviews adequate? In what ways are they lacking? Are there data or tools you need that you do not have?
• What specific equity issues should be considered with respect to GHG emissions and climate effects, and how?
• What information related to GHG emissions and climate change effects is most useful to inform decision-making regarding projects, and when is it needed?
• At what stage(s) of transportation planning and project development are GHG and climate issues most appropriately considered?
• What level of assessment/analysis and disclosure of GHG emissions climate change effects is most warranted for each level of NEPA (categorical exclusion [CE], EA, EIS)? (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative analysis, reference to a programmatic analysis)
• How should findings be presented and communicated to the public and decision-makers? How can questions about “significance” be addressed?
• When should mitigation measures be considered, and what types of measures?

Key Findings

The following key findings emerged from these initial rounds of outreach to State DOTs:

• Current status. Many State DOTs are working to incorporate the treatment of GHG emissions, climate change effects, or both in project planning and environmental reviews. There is a wide range of experience, with some States working hard to integrate all their activities (including environmental review) into unified, agencywide treatment of climate change while others just beginning their efforts. Many States recognized that they needed to develop or update their guidance but were waiting for finalization of CEQ guidance to do so (note that the outreach was conducted prior to release of the interim CEQ guidance in January 2023).

• Relevance of environmental review. The relevance of environmental review in the overall context of transportation planning may be increasingly limited as States shift resources from building capacity to maintaining a state of good repair. Most projects are CEs, and States typically do not require either GHG assessment or extensive consideration of climate change effects for these projects. More quantitative or in-depth consideration is most often done for EAs and EISs, but many States prepare only a small number of EAs and EISs.
• Stage of planning/project development at which issues are considered. States observed that NEPA analysis comes at the end of project planning and after key decisions have been made affecting GHG emissions. Considering GHGs earlier, in transportation planning and programming, could support resource prioritization decisions with greater impacts on emissions. Even at that stage, decisions related to transportation infrastructure investments appear to have a relatively small incremental impact on GHGs compared to the overall scale of emissions. There also are advantages to considering climate change effects at earlier stages of long-range, corridor, and project planning. Better connection to data developed during statewide, regional, and corridor studies would support NEPA analysis of climate effects.
• GHG assessment methods. States that have been quantifying GHG emissions have often been using the FHWA MSAT guidance as an analog for determining analysis need and also have aligned analysis methods with MSAT analysis (FHWA (2016). “Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents.” Memo from Emily Biondi to Division Administrators and Federal Lands Highway Division Engineers, October 18, 2016. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/msat/). Common tools for GHG analysis include travel demand models, the MOVES emission factor model, and the FHWA ICE. The States thought that the existing tools for GHG emission analysis and addressing climate change effects were generally adequate but had some limitations. For example, statewide travel demand models, when they do exist in a State, may not be able to adequately capture mode shift, safety, or congestion relief effects. Consideration of induced demand effects when evaluating projects that expand capacity or reduce travel times is done inconsistently and often not at all; travel demand forecasting models capture some elements of induced demand (to varying degrees depending on the model), but other forecasting methods such as microsimulation models or growth factors usually do not capture induced demand at all, and agencies do not have agreed-upon methods or assumptions to estimate induced demand.
• Climate change effects assessment methods. While few States have specific project-level written guidance or established approaches for addressing climate change effects in project environmental reviews, this does not mean the State DOTs have not been working on climate change effects. States are addressing climate change effects through statewide or planning-level studies. These efforts typically focus on a statewide or subregion vulnerability assessment, often delineating climate change impacts most likely to affect their State (e.g., sea level rise in a coastal State), as well as including mitigation of climate change effects into project designs. Tools to assess climate effects often fall short because 1) they contain dated information, 2) they are highly focused on one or another climate effect but not all, 3) they may not answer specific climate effect questions that are relevant to a project, and/or 4) they may be difficult to use.
• Equity and environmental justice. States typically consider environmental justice in NEPA reviews consistent with FHWA and FTA requirements and guidance. However, whether a State DOT goes beyond Federal requirements often depends upon whether the State has legislation, regulation or a statewide policy requiring the consideration of equity in addressing emission reduction targets and goals and addressing mitigation of climate change effects. No States were identified that had developed guidance or procedures for addressing equity or environmental justice related to GHG emissions or climate change effects specifically within the context of environmental reviews, and no environmental documents were identified where an explicit linkage had been made.

• Public comment. States indicated they are receiving project comments from the public and from other agencies, both on GHG emissions and treatment of climate change effects. Federal agencies also have been commenting on projects, for example, on project design features to address sea level rise potential impacts on fish habitat and dealing with the biologic effects of climate change. Comments related to climate change effects have related to urban heat island effects, landscape design, sea level rise, and flooding and drainage; and have included concerns related to design features that do or do not address climate change impacts.
• Significance of findings. States expressed concern that there is no clear way to consider whether GHG emissions changes related to a project are ‘significant.’ Any comparison with statewide, national, or global emissions will make project-related emissions or emissions changes look relatively small. One approach is to balance the level of effort required for analysis with utility and value for decision-making. Consistency with other procedures (e.g., FHWA MSAT guidance) can help to minimize the level of effort while providing utility for decision-making.
• Need for guidance. A number of States expressed a desire for more guidance, for both consideration of GHGs and climate change effects. This guidance could come from FHWA to supplement the CEQ interim guidance. For consideration of emissions, elements of this guidance could include:
  • When to do a quantitative versus qualitative analysis or referencing a programmatic analysis.
  • Consideration of future technological and social developments such as electric vehicles in baseline forecasts.
  • Appropriate inputs for emission estimation at different geographical scales (statewide, corridor, project).
  • How to determine the significance or interpretation of the emission analysis results.
  • What constitutes adequate mitigation.
• For consideration of climate change effects, elements of this guidance could include:
  • Treatment of resilience in the project’s purpose and need discussion.
  • How upstream and downstream effects from the project area should be considered.
  • Treatment of properties and areas near and around transportation facilities that may not be resilient.
  • Working with other agencies with vulnerable infrastructure.
  • The balance of addressing climate change impacts and cost with mitigation effort considerations at statewide, regional and project level.
  • Considering environmental justice communities when locating and designing mitigation measures.
• Some requests for guidance apply to both GHG emission and climate change effects consideration. These include:
  • Clearer treatment of direct versus indirect and cumulative impacts.
  • Communication throughout the project development process, including better connecting and explaining a project alternative decision to the public.
  • Consideration of large, high-profile, or “mega” projects whose opening year climate and GHG emission levels are worse than currently experienced.

NGO/CBO Surveys, Interviews, and Workshop

Involvement Process

A web-based survey was distributed to 31 NGOs and CBOs, including 12 national or international organizations as well as 19 with a primarily local, regional, or State-level focus. Candidate organizations were identified based on a review of the organizations’ websites to identify whether they had a mission or focus areas related to climate change (including climate justice), as well as any campaigns or experience related to the transportation sector. The purpose of the screening survey was mainly to determine the depth of the organization’s involvement in climate and equity issues, as well as their potential interest in

• NEPA practices differ significantly from agency to agency, and NEPA in practice is often very different from how it appears to be written. Many projects proceed under CEs, despite real-world impacts. In some cases, the intent of the law does not appear to be fulfilled by agencies’ execution of the law.
• Agency staff is often under-resourced and/or does not have the experience or knowledge to do community engagement effectively. One approach that can be effective is for agencies to contract or partner with local firms to carry out community engagement.
• There is a need for better modeling related to emissions. For example, models often show that building more highways will reduce emissions, when the opposite happens. There needs to be better guidance and accounting for induced demand.
• There is a need for more robust data and definitions around community impacts. For example, air quality data (e.g., particulate matter) at a very localized level (e.g., individual household) is a better indicator of harm than regional indicators. (The focus of this project is on GHG emissions rather than local air quality. However, a distinction between GHG emissions and other air pollutant emissions is often not made by stakeholders in practice. The comment on local air pollution is retained in this report to highlight this lack of distinction as a common challenge faced by practitioners when communicating and discussing GHG emissions impacts.)
• A lack of clarity on what amounts to "community impacts" or public harms can sometimes lead to beneficial projects getting vetoed that would actually reduce overall emissions. Examples can include transit-oriented development, affordable housing, renewable energy projects, and more.
• Traffic impacts are still often the impact most heavily weighted in NEPA analysis of “environmental impacts,” and used to justify project decisions that will increase emissions.

There is a not always a lot of clarity on whether Federal funds can be used towards some of the best practices that are essential for effective community engagement. For example, States and MPOs are not always clear on whether they can use Federal funding to compensate community members for their time in engagement processes around planning or project development.

Pilot Applications

Once the draft guide was developed, it was pilot tested with 2 agencies: the Colorado DOT (CDOT) and the North Carolina DOT (NCDOT). Both of the pilots involved a series of workshops with the participating State agencies to introduce the content of the guide and to discuss potential approaches that each agency could take. The workshops were held between February and June 2023. Colorado workshops included between 6 and 11 CDOT staff. North Carolina workshops included between 10 and 15 participants, including NCDOT staff as well as 2 FHWA Division office staff and a consultant for the agency.

The two participating agencies were at somewhat different points in the process of developing approaches to considering GHG emissions. CDOT already had extensive experience with considering GHGs at a planning level, due to a statewide GHG planning rule adopted in December 2021, and already had developed draft text for a GHG section of their NEPA Manual. The project team reviewed and commented on this text and discussed potential refinements with the agency. NCDOT had just recently started considering GHG emissions, with one NEPA project in process where the agency was planning to evaluate GHGs. The project team outlined a potential approach that NCDOT could apply to projects requiring NEPA review and discussed this approach with the agency.

Both agencies already had developed approaches to resilience at a systemwide or corridor level, but had not had experience with considering climate change effects specifically within the NEPA environmental documentation process. The project team identified a set of proposed tools, resources, and methods for considering climate change effects at this level and developed a sample outline of a section of the environmental documentation report. The approach for both agencies was similar but customized to reference each agency’s existing programmatic activities and tools for resilience. The proposals included