INTRO TO AIR QUALITY

Transcription

1 INTRO TO AIR QUALITY

2

3

4

5 Table of Contents 1 Introduction to Air Quality Criteria Pollutants Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Project Level Compliance Project-Level Transportation Conformity Hot-Spot Analysis Carbon Monoxide Traffic Air Quality Analysis (CO TAQA)

6 Table of Contents 8 MSAT Analysis Congestion Management Process (CMP) Analysis Construction Emissions Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) MOU New Guidance Q & A 111 3

7

8

9 Intro to Air Quality By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest. Confucius 4

10 Intro to Air Quality Goals of this Training Course Discuss pollutants of concern for transportation projects Identify laws, rules, regulations, and guidance that apply to air quality for transportation projects Understand the specific air quality analyses and elements needed for transportation projects Locate and understand the structure of the air quality toolkit and associated guidance 5

11 Intro to Air Quality Acronyms Appendix A 6

12 Intro to Air Quality Transportation Related Air Pollutants Criteria Pollutants Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) 7

13

14

15 Criteria Pollutants 8

16 Criteria Pollutants Criteria Pollutants Transportation Related Not Transportation Related Ozone (O 3 ) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Particulate Matter (PM) Lead (Pb) Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Ozone (O 3 ) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Particulate Matter (PM) Lead (Pb) Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Criteria Pollutants The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes 6 criteria pollutants, 4 of which are associated with transportation activities 9

17 Criteria Pollutants National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed standards for the criteria pollutants, these are called NAAQS Primary NAAQS are based on levels expected to be protective of human health Secondary NAAQS are based on levels expected to be protective of public welfare (e.g., visibility, animal life, vegetation, buildings) EPA will designate areas as nonattainment if they exceed a NAAQS EPA will designate areas as being in attainment-maintenance status if they no longer exceed the applicable NAAQS 10

18 Criteria Pollutants Nonattainment and Maintenance Area (NA/MA) in Texas Area Name Counties Pollutant Classification Houston-Galveston- Brazoria (HGB) Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, Waller Ozone Marginal Nonattainment Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) Collin, Dallas, Denton, Tarrant, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwell, Wise Ozone Moderate Nonattainment El Paso Portion of El Paso PM 10 Moderate Nonattainment El Paso Portion of El Paso CO Attainment-Maintenance Collin County Portion of Collin County Lead Nonattainment This table is only showing NA/MAs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS since transportation conformity no longer applies to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Lead is not a transportation related pollutant. 11

19 Criteria Pollutants State Implementation Plan (SIP) A SIP identifies how a state or area will attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS Some areas have specific provisions which are part of Texas overall SIP The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) maintains Texas SIP An area s SIP may have a Motor Vehicles Emission Budget (MVEB)* The MVEB establishes the maximum allowable emissions associated to transportation activities For an action to conform to the purpose of a SIP it cannot cause or contribute to a new violation, increase the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely attainment or interim emission reductions of the area. * Or another emissions test under certain circumstances 12

20 Criteria Pollutants Transportation Conformity Overview Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in NA/MA areas must establish that their transportation projects will not exceed their area s MVEB* As part of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) development, MPOs in these NA/MAs will model the air emissions associated with all the regionally significant projects in their network Based on this analysis, FHWA will make a determination as to whether the MTP conforms to the SIP this is called the regional conformity determination Project-level conformity is based on a project being consistent with this regional conformity determination (i.e., consistent with the MTP) Project-level conformity must also address potential hot-spots in CO or PM NA/MAs * Or other applicable emissions analysis 13

21 Criteria Pollutants Conformity FHWA/FTA Other Federal Lead Transportation Conformity Projects MTP/TIP/STIP General Conformity Project-Level Conformity Regional Conformity Hot-Spots (only in ELP) Consistency with MTP/TIP/STIP Transportation Conformity applies to FHWA/FTA projects Regional Conformity applies to the MTP, TIP, and STIP Project-Level Conformity applies to projects and includes consistency and hot-spots 14

22 Criteria Pollutants Trends Criteria Pollutant Nat l Average Date Range Nat l Average % Change Regional Average Date Range Regional Average % Change Ozone % % CO % % NO % % SO % % PM % % Lead % - - Source: EPA. Regional Average based on EPA South Region. Method annual 4th maximum of daily max 8-hr average annual 2nd maximum 8-hr average annual 98th percentile of daily max 1-hr average annual 99th percentile of daily max 1-hr average seasonally-weighted annual average annual maximum 3- month average Both nationally and regionally, there has been a trend of decreasing concentrations of all of the criteria pollutants. In terms of air quality, areas may be in poor health but not declining health. 15

23 Criteria Pollutants Summary There are six criteria pollutants, four of which are transportation related (ozone, CO, PM, and NO 2 ) EPA has developed health-based standards for criteria pollutants called NAAQS BMT, DAL, FTW, and HOU have nonattainment areas (NA) for ozone; and ELP has a NA for PM 10 and a maintenance area (MA) for CO Transportation conformity rules apply to FHWA/FTA projects and regionally significant non-federal roadway projects. General conformity applies to projects with a federal lead other than FHWA/FTA. Transportation conformity includes conformity of the MTP and TIP (regional conformity) and conformity of specific projects (project-level conformity) There is a trend of decreasing criteria pollutant concentrations over time 16

24 Notes

25

26

27 MSAT 17

28 MSAT MSAT Background The CAA mandated that EPA regulate 188 air toxics EPA identified a group of 93 of these air toxics that had mobile sources EPA further identified 7 of these MSAT as national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers In their interim guidance, FHWA identifies those 7 MSAT to be the priority MSAT EPA has not established health-based air quality standards for MSAT like they have for the criteria pollutants 18

29 MSAT Priority MSAT Transportation Nexus No Transportation Nexus Acrolein Benzene 1,3-butadiene Diesel PM Formaldehyde Naphthalene Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) Acrolein Benzene 1,3-butadiene Diesel PM Formaldehyde Naphthalene Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) All MSAT are associated to transportation Mobile Source Air Toxics FHWA considers these 7 air toxics as the priority MSAT. All MSAT are transportation related pollutants, even though other non-transportation sources emit them as well. 19

30 MSAT FHWA Interim MSAT Guidance Has been updated several times, with the latest being in December of 2012 Provides a national qualitative assessment of MSAT Identifies three methods for addressing MSAT in a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) context no analysis qualitative analysis quantitative analysis Provides a threshold for determining which MSAT disclosure method is appropriate Provides a discussion of information that is incomplete and unavailable for localized modeling of MSAT 20

31 MSAT Diesel PM Benzene, Formaldehyde MSAT Emissions (tons/yr) 140, , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, Diesel PM Trillions VMT VMT (trillion/yr) MSAT Emissions (tons/yr) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, Benzene Formaldehyde Trillions VMT VMT (trillion/yr) Acrolein, Butadiene, Naphthalene, Polycyclics MSAT Emissions (tons/yr) 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Acrolein Butadiene Naphthalene Polycyclics Trillions VMT VMT (trillion/yr) Take Away MSAT Trends Each of the priority MSAT is expected to decrease in the future until about 2030, even with a substantial increase in VMT (~102%) Even with a slight uptick in concentrations after 2030 for some of the MSAT, the future MSAT concentrations are still expected to be significantly lower than today. These charts do not yet include the revised CAFE standards. Source: FHWA. Interim Guidance Update on MSAT Analysis in NEPA. December 6,

32 MSAT Summary There are seven priority MSAT all of which are transportation related EPA has NOT developed health-based standards (i.e., NAAQS) for MSAT FHWA has developed interim guidance for MSAT which recommends either no analysis, a qualitative analysis, or a quantitative analysis for MSAT MSAT emissions show a decreasing trend over time 22

33 Notes

34 Notes

35

36

37 Project Level Compliance 23

38 Project Level Compliance Air Quality Analyses in Transportation Projects Conformity Hot-Spots CO Traffic Air Quality Analysis (TAQA) MSAT Analysis Congestion Management Process (CMP) Construction Emissions Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 24

39 Project Level Compliance Project Level Analyses Related to Criteria Pollutants Related to MSAT Conformity Hot-Spots CO TAQA MSAT Analysis CMP Construction Emissions Conformity Hot-Spots CO TAQA CMP Construction Emissions MSAT Analysis Construction Emissions Relating the pollutants of concern to the project level analyses Except for the MSAT analysis, all project level analyses deal with criteria pollutants. Construction emissions include both PM (criteria pollutant) and diesel PM (MSAT). 25

40 Project Level Compliance Clean Air Act (CAA) Conformity Hot-Spots Statutes and Law National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) CO TAQA MSAT Construction Emissions Transportation Code CMP State Transportation Code TCEQ MOU 26

41 Project Level Compliance AQ Analysis Statue/Law Implementing Rule or Guidance Procedural or Substantive Conformity Hot-Spots CAA 42 USC 7506(c) CAA 42 USC 7506(c) 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive CO TAQA NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Substantive* MSAT NEPA - 42 USC 4332 Interim Guidance Update On Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis In NEPA Documents (12/12) Procedural Construction Emissions NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Procedural CMP TCEQ MOU Transportation Code - 23 USC 134(k)(3) and 134(m) State Transportation Code CFR Substantive 43 TAC Procedural * Even though this is a NEPA analysis, and NEPA is a procedural law, the CAA does not allow for an exceedance of the NAAQS. Procedural requirements only require that you go through a process to comply Substantive requirements dictate specific requirements or thresholds to comply 27

42 Project Level Compliance Project-Level Compliance Thresholds Appendix B 28

43 Project Level Compliance Summary Various air quality analyses for transportation projects includes conformity, hot-spots, CO TAQA, MSAT, CMP, and construction emissions Each analysis is associated with either criteria pollutants, MSAT, or both The CAA, NEPA, and Transportation Code and the associated rules and guidance dictate the necessary air quality elements for specific projects Various thresholds have been established for when each air quality element may be required for a specific project 29

44 Notes

45

46

47 Project-Level Transportation Conformity 30

48 Project-Level Transportation Conformity Description Project-level conformity is a determination from FHWA that a project conforms to the SIP. For non-assigned projects, this determination is combined with FHWA s NEPA approval. For NEPA assigned projects, this determination is separate from and must be obtained prior to the NEPA decision. 31

49 Project-Level Transportation Conformity Old Process NEPA Assignment Process Complete any Hot-Spot Requirements Disclose Project is Consistent with MTP, TIP, STIP Project-level conformity determination combined with FHWA NEPA decision Complete any Hot-Spot Requirements Fill out Conformity Report Form Coordinate with ENV/FHWA to obtain Project-Level Conformity Determination NEPA decision Project-level conformity determination used to be combined with NEPA decision With NEPA approval being delegated, a project-level conformity determination must be obtained from FHWA prior to the NEPA decision 32

50 Project-Level Transportation Conformity Regulatory Background AQ Analysis Statue/Law Implementing Rule or Guidance Procedural or Substantive Conformity Hot-Spots CAA 42 USC 7506(c) CAA 42 USC 7506(c) 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive CO TAQA NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Substantive* MSAT NEPA - 42 USC 4332 Interim Guidance Update On Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis In NEPA Documents (12/12) Procedural Construction Emissions NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Procedural CMP TCEQ MOU Transportation Code - 23 USC 134(k)(3) and 134(m) State Transportation Code CFR Substantive 43 TAC Procedural * Even though this is a NEPA analysis, and NEPA is a procedural law, the CAA does not allow for an exceedance of the NAAQS. Conformity is a CAA requirement EPA s conformity rule (40 CFR 93) is the implementing rule for this CAA requirement 33

51 Project-Level Transportation Conformity Applicability* Transportation conformity applies if all of the following apply: Project located in a NA/MA for ozone, CO, NO 2, or PM FHWA/FTA project OR non-fhwa/fta project if regionally significant NOT otherwise exempt from conformity * Please note that these are transportation conformity requirements. General conformity requirements are not discussed here. 34

52 Project-Level Transportation Conformity Exemptions Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas Non-FHWA/FTA projects that are also NOT regionally significant Projects listed in 40 CFR & Projects listed in 40 CFR , if a hot-spot does NOT apply 35

53 Project-Level Transportation Conformity Required Coordination Upload Conformity Report Form in ECOS FHWA/FTA must make the final project level conformity determination The conformity report should be coordinated at least 60 days prior to the project decision Assign review to ENV Air Specialist ENV Air Specialist will review and coordinate with FHWA If approved, ENV will upload to ECOS ENV Air Specialist will notify District 60 days 36

54 Project-Level Transportation Conformity Compliance Requirement Exempt Projects Documentation that project is exempt from conformity Non-Exempt Projects Federal project: Project-level conformity determination from FHWA prior to NEPA decision State-only project: Validation of project conformity prior to the NEPA decision If a project is exempt from conformity, then no conformity determination is required. A federal project includes any that has federal funding or decision (e.g., IAJ required) A state-only project includes any project without federal funding and does not require a federal action on the environmental decision (e.g., no IAJ) 37

55 Project-Level Transportation Conformity Timing Exempt Projects Non-Exempt Projects Mandatory: prior to NEPA decision. Mandatory: prior to NEPA decision. Recommended: Coordination of Conformity Report Form with ENV and FHWA at least 60 days prior to NEPA decision. A project level conformity determination must be obtained prior to the NEPA decision. Recommend coordination of the conformity report form at least 60 days prior to decision 38

56 Project-Level Transportation Conformity Modeling NOT APPLICABLE 39

57 Project-Level Transportation Conformity Documentation Requirement Exempt Projects Documentation that project is exempt from conformity scope development tool, risk assessment form, or environmental review document Non-Exempt Projects Federal project: Conformity Report Form signed by ENV and FHWA (which includes applicable hot-spot documentation) State-only project: Conformity Report Form signed by ENV Summary statement in the environmental review document A federal project includes any that has federal funding or decision (e.g., IAJ required) A state-only project includes any project without federal funding and does not require a federal action on the environmental decision (e.g., no IAJ) NO TXDOT PROJECT DECISION CAN LEGALLY BE MADE FOR A PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONFORMITY W/O A PROJECT LEVEL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION FROM FHWA 40

58 Project-Level Transportation Conformity Example Appendix C 41

59 Project-Level Transportation Conformity Summary Project-level conformity is a determination from FHWA/FTA that a project conforms to the SIP (i.e., consistency with current MTP and TIP) There is a new process for obtaining a project-level conformity determination under NEPA assignment All non-exempt projects in a NA/MA must have a project-level conformity determination prior to environmental clearance A conformity report form is the tool for coordinating and documenting a project-level conformity determination 42

60 Notes

61

62

63 Hot-Spot Analysis 43

64 Hot-Spot Analysis Description A hot-spot analysis is a quantitative analysis of localized CO or PM concentrations associated with a transportation project to demonstrate that air quality will either not exceed the applicable NAAQS or will at least be better than the no-build alternative. Requires complex emissions and dispersion modeling to be performed. Only required for the preferred alternative but potentially for the no-build alternative as well. 44

65 Hot-Spot Analysis Regulatory Background AQ Analysis Statue/Law Implementing Rule or Guidance Procedural or Substantive Conformity Hot-Spots CAA 42 USC 7506(c) CAA 42 USC 7506(c) 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive CO TAQA NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Substantive* MSAT NEPA - 42 USC 4332 Interim Guidance Update On Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis In NEPA Documents (12/12) Procedural Construction Emissions NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Procedural CMP TCEQ MOU Transportation Code - 23 USC 134(k)(3) and 134(m) State Transportation Code CFR Substantive 43 TAC Procedural * Even though this is a NEPA analysis, and NEPA is a procedural law, the CAA does not allow for an exceedance of the NAAQS. Hot-spots are a CAA requirement EPA s conformity rule (40 CFR 93) is the implementing rule for this CAA requirement 45

66 Hot-Spot Analysis Applicability* A hot-spot analysis applies if all of the following apply: Project located in a NA/MA for CO or PM FHWA/FTA project NOT otherwise exempt from hot-spot requirements Consultation Partners determine that it is a project of air quality concern * Hot-spots are a part of project level conformity 46

67 Hot-Spot Analysis Exemptions Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas for CO and PM Non-FHWA/FTA projects Projects listed in 40 CFR &

68 Hot-Spot Analysis Required Coordination The Consultation Partners* make a determination as to whether this is a project of air quality concern (POAQC) The Consultation Partners must approve the analysis methodology before a hot-spot analysis is prepared The Consultation Partners will review the final hot-spot analysis Any public comments on a hot-spot analysis should be distributed to the Consultation Partners The Consultation Partners include EPA, TCEQ, FHWA, TxDOT, the MPO, etc Not a POAQC. Coordinate with Consultation Partners to determine if project is a POAQC Is a POAQC. Prepare analysis methodology (preanalysis consensus form). Coordinate analysis methodology with Consultation Partners. Perform hot-spot analysis. Coordinate analysis results with Consultation Partners Perform appropriate public involvement Coordinate any public comments on hot-spot with Consultation Partners. 48

69 Hot-Spot Analysis Compliance Requirement Exempt from Hot Spot Req. Documentation that the project is exempt from hot-spot requirements NOT A POAQC The Consultation Partners determine that this is NOT a POAQC Decision had appropriate public involvement Project-level conformity determination from FHWA Summary of decision in environmental document POAQC A hot-spot analysis has been prepared which demonstrates that the project will either: Not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS, or Will have less emissions than the no-build Written mitigation commitments, if applicable Analysis had appropriate public involvement Project-level conformity determination from FHWA Analysis summary in environmental document Remember: For NEPA assigned projects, a project-level conformity determination must be obtained from FHWA prior to the NEPA decision. 49

70 Hot-Spot Analysis Timing NOT A POAQC Mandatory: Traffic data must be available prior to coordination with the Consultation Partners. Consultation Partner coordination and public involvement must be complete prior to the coordination of the conformity determination. Recommended: Combine hot-spot public involvement with NEPA public involvement. POAQC Mandatory: Hot-spot analysis and public involvement must be complete prior to the coordination of the conformity determination. Recommended: Get FHWA approval of the hot-spot analysis approximately 60 days prior to a project s public hearing, if applicable. Recommended: Combine hot-spot public involvement with NEPA public involvement. All hot-spot requirements have to be completed prior to obtaining a conformity determination from FHWA. Hot-spot public involvement should be combined with NEPA public involvement whenever possible. 50

71 Hot-Spot Analysis Applicable Models Emissions Model MOVES Dispersion Model CAL3QHCR or AERMOD 51

72 Hot-Spot Analysis Documentation Requirement Exempt from Hot Spot Req. Documentation that the project is exempt from hot-spot requirements scope development tool, risk assessment form, or environmental review document NOT A POAQC Conformity Report Form signed by ENV and FHWA Summary of POAQC decision in environmental review document POAQC Hot-spot analysis technical report Conformity Report Form signed by ENV and FHWA Written mitigation commitments, as applicable Summary of POAQC decision and hot-spot analysis in environmental review document Remember: Since hot-spots are a subset of project-level conformity, hot-spot requirements must be documented in the Conformity Report Form prior to FHWA /FTA making a project-level conformity determination 52

73 Hot-Spot Analysis Example Appendix D 53

74 Hot-Spot Analysis Summary A hot-spot analysis is a localized analysis of CO or PM impacts It is necessary to show project-level conformity in a CO or PM NA/MA Currently only applies to ELP All non-exempt projects in a NA/MA for CO or PM must have coordination with Consultation Partners to receive a determination as to whether a hotspot is required A hot-spot technical report would document the analysis 54

75 Notes

76 Notes

77

78

79 CO TAQA 55

80 CO TAQA Description A CO TAQA is a quantitative analysis of worst-case CO concentrations associated with a transportation project to demonstrate that these concentrations should never exceed the CO NAAQS. This analysis requires both emissions and dispersion modeling to be performed; however, ENV often has lookup tables available, which can potentially prevent the need for the emissions modeling. When a CO TAQA is applicable, all build alternatives would be modeled. 56

81 CO TAQA Regulatory Background AQ Analysis Statue/Law Implementing Rule or Guidance Procedural or Substantive Conformity Hot-Spots CAA 42 USC 7506(c) CAA 42 USC 7506(c) 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive CO TAQA NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Substantive* MSAT NEPA - 42 USC 4332 Interim Guidance Update On Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis In NEPA Documents (12/12) Procedural Construction Emissions NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Procedural CMP TCEQ MOU Transportation Code - 23 USC 134(k)(3) and 134(m) State Transportation Code CFR Substantive 43 TAC Procedural * Even though this is a NEPA analysis, and NEPA is a procedural law, the CAA does not allow for an exceedance of the NAAQS. The CO TAQA is considered a NEPA requirement. The CO TAQA requirement is in FHWA guidance, rather than rule. 57

82 CO TAQA Applicability A CO TAQA analysis applies if all of the following apply: Project adds capacity Design year* Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) > 140,000 vehicles per day (vpd) * The design year correlates to the out year of the MTP (e.g., 2035 for the 2035 MTP or 2040 for the 2040 MTP) 58

83 CO TAQA Exemptions Projects that do NOT add capacity Projects with a design year AADT < 140,000 vpd 59

84 CO TAQA Required Coordination NOT APPLICABLE 60

85 CO TAQA Compliance Requirement Exempt from a CO TAQA Documentation that project is exempt from a CO TAQA CO TAQA Req d A CO TAQA technical report which shows the project will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the applicable CO NAAQS Analysis summary in environmental document Additional Information: The CO TAQA is a worst-case analysis, so it uses highly conservative data inputs. No CO TAQA has ever indicated a potential exceedance of the CO NAAQS. The CO TAQA is not to be confused with a CO hot spot analysis, which is substantially more complex and resource intensive. 61

86 CO TAQA Timing Mandatory Prior to a public hearing, if required Included in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Recommended: Start the analysis immediately after availability of the traffic data. 62

87 CO TAQA Applicable Models Traffic Data Transportation Planning and Programming Division (TPP) traffic data Emissions Model* MOVES Dispersion Model CALINE3 for free-flow conditions, except in El Paso CAL3QHC for congested intersections, and in El Paso *A table of applicable CO emission rates may be available from TxDOT ENV, preventing the need for MOVES modeling. 63

88 CO TAQA Documentation Requirement Exempt from a CO TAQA Documentation that project is exempt from a CO TAQA scope development tool, risk assessment form, or environmental review document CO TAQA Req d A CO TAQA technical report A summary of the analysis incorporated into the environmental review document A CO TAQA technical report is now required. 64

89 CO TAQA Example Appendix E 65

90 CO TAQA Summary A CO TAQA is a localized analysis of CO under worst-case conditions It is a NEPA requirement rather than a CAA requirement (i.e., not a hot-spot analysis) Required for all added capacity projects over 140,000 AADT. Documented using a CO TAQA technical report 66

91 Notes

92 Notes

93

94

95 MSAT Analysis 67

96 MSAT Analysis Description An MSAT analysis can typically take one of two forms: Qualitative MSAT Analysis Template language based a national MSAT analysis performed by FHWA Provides analysis of all alternatives Includes MSAT Background, Project-Specific Information, Incomplete and Unavailable Information, and Conclusion Quantitative MSAT Analysis Analysis identifies emission changes of a project over time Identifies the projects impacts across an entire network, rather than a localized analysis Includes the qualitative MSAT analysis Quantitative analysis should support the national analysis trend of decreasing MSAT over time. Requires MPO to adjust their TDM to provide traffic data for the analysis 68

97 MSAT Analysis Regulatory Background AQ Analysis Statue/Law Implementing Rule or Guidance Procedural or Substantive Conformity Hot-Spots CAA 42 USC 7506(c) CAA 42 USC 7506(c) 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive CO TAQA NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Substantive* MSAT NEPA - 42 USC 4332 Interim Guidance Update On Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis In NEPA Documents (12/12) Procedural Construction Emissions NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Procedural CMP TCEQ MOU Transportation Code - 23 USC 134(k)(3) and 134(m) State Transportation Code CFR Substantive 43 TAC Procedural * Even though this is a NEPA analysis, and NEPA is a procedural law, the CAA does not allow for an exceedance of the NAAQS. MSAT is considered a NEPA requirement. The MSAT requirement is in FHWA guidance, rather than rule. 69

98 MSAT Analysis Applicability A qualitative MSAT analysis applies if all of the following apply: Project adds capacity A quantitative MSAT analysis is not otherwise required Not otherwise exempt from a MSAT analysis A quantitative MSAT analysis applies if all of the following apply: It is a FHWA/FTA project Any of the following apply: Adds capacity and design year* AADT > 140,000 vpd Affects a major intermodal facility Public concern over air quality Determined to need a quantitative analysis during MSAT conference call Not otherwise exempt from a MSAT analysis * The design year correlates to the out year of the MTP (e.g., 2035 for the 2035 MTP or 2040 for the 2040 MTP) 70

99 MSAT Analysis Exemptions Projects listed in 40 CFR Other projects with no meaningful MSAT impacts Not adding capacity, and Not expected to significantly increase diesel-fueled traffic vs the no-build 71

100 MSAT Analysis Required Coordination MSAT conference call* is required to establish: Whether a quantitative analysis is required Which models to use The appropriate base and design years If an interim year is necessary The methodology for determining the affected network (i.e., +/- 5% volume change) Which Travel Demand Model (TDM) network years to use * Participants should include the ENV air specialist, district coordinator, contractor performing the analysis, the MPO, and the FHWA air specialist (cannot participate for NEPA assigned projects) 72

101 MSAT Analysis Compliance Requirement Exempt from MSAT Documentation that the project is exempt from MSAT requirements Qualitative MSAT Qualitative MSAT analysis template language Quantitative MSAT A quantitative MSAT technical report Analysis summary in environmental document which includes the qualitative MSAT analysis An MSAT analysis can either be qualitative or quantitative A quantitative MSAT analysis includes and incorporates the qualitative MSAT analysis 73

102 MSAT Analysis Timing Qualitative MSAT Mandatory: - Prior to public hearing, if required - Prior to NEPA decision Quantitative MSAT Mandatory: - CEs and EISs: Prior to NEPA decision - EAs: Prior to public hearing, if required Recommended: - Qualitative MSAT analysis in DEIS for all alternatives with quantitative MSAT analysis in FEIS for preferred alternative As a NEPA requirement, potential MSAT impacts should be disclosed to the public during applicable NEPA public involvement activities For Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), a qualitative MSAT analysis can be included in the Draft EIS, with the quantitative MSAT included in the Final EIS 74

103 MSAT Analysis Applicable Models Qualitative MSAT Quantitative MSAT None Traffic Data - Travel Demand Model data obtained from MPO Emissions Model - MOVES Dispersion Model - None Required No project level modeling is required for the qualitative MSAT analysis Both the MPO s TDM and emissions modeling are required for a quantitative MSAT analysis ENV maintains a table of MSAT emission rates to prevent the need for running the emission model separately. 75

104 MSAT Analysis Documentation Requirement Exempt from MSAT Documentation that the project is exempt from a MSAT analysis scope development tool, risk assessment form, or environmental review document Qualitative MSAT Qualitative MSAT analysis template language Quantitative MSAT A quantitative MSAT technical report Analysis summary in environmental document A quantitative MSAT technical report is now a requirement. If there is no environmental review document, qualitative MSAT language should be uploaded into ECOS. 76

105 MSAT Analysis Example Appendix F 77

106 MSAT Analysis Summary An MSAT analysis can either be qualitative or quantitative. The quantitative analysis is not localized but it does capture the project specific emissions Added capacity FHWA projects with an AADT over 140,000 vpd will require a quantitative analysis. Projects with potential litigation risk and specific public concern regarding air quality may also be subject to a quantitative analysis MSAT conference call is required when a quantitative analysis is anticipated A qualitative analysis is documented in the environmental review document or project-file. A MSAT technical report documents a quantitative analysis. 78

107 Notes

108 Notes

109

110

111 CMP 79

112 CMP Description The Congestion Management Process (CMP) discussion is a disclosure that applicable projects come from the MPOs CMP, and identification of reasonable travel demand reduction and operational management strategies in the corridor to be incorporated into the project or committed to by the State and MPO for implementation. 80

113 CMP Regulatory Background AQ Analysis Statue/Law Implementing Rule or Guidance Procedural or Substantive Conformity Hot-Spots CAA 42 USC 7506(c) CAA 42 USC 7506(c) 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive CO TAQA NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Substantive* MSAT NEPA - 42 USC 4332 Interim Guidance Update On Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis In NEPA Documents (12/12) Procedural Construction Emissions NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Procedural CMP TCEQ MOU Transportation Code - 23 USC 134(k)(3) and 134(m) State Transportation Code CFR Substantive 43 TAC Procedural * Even though this is a NEPA analysis, and NEPA is a procedural law, the CAA does not allow for an exceedance of the NAAQS. CMP is a requirement of the Transportation Code and not NEPA. It is a substantive requirement that applicable projects come from a CMP. 81

114 CMP Applicability A CMP analysis applies if all of the following apply: FHWA/FTA project In a nonattainment area for ozone or CO Adds capacity Within a Transportation Management Area (TMA) 82

115 CMP Geographic Applicability Nonattainment Area Districts for Ozone or CO Dallas Fort Worth Houston TMAs in Texas Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Houston San Antonio Austin El Paso McAllen Denton Lewisville Corpus Christi Conroe The Woodlands Lubbock Laredo Killeen Brownsville Districts in Which a CMP Analysis Applies Dallas Fort Worth Houston Identifying areas where a project level CMP analysis is required: Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston all require project level CMP analyses. El Paso is not listed because it only has a MA for CO and is attainment for ozone. 83

116 CMP Exemptions Not a FHWA/FTA project NOT located within a nonattainment area for ozone and CO NOT adding capacity NOT located within a TMA 84

117 CMP Required Coordination If the MPO does not have a process in place to look this information up, then coordinate with the MPO to: Identify any reasonable travel demand reduction and operational management strategies that may be applicable to the project Identify other operational improvements within the corridor Obtain a CMP waiver if it is not included in the MPO s CMP 85

118 CMP Compliance Requirement The project must come from an MPO s approved CMP. All identified reasonable travel demand reduction and operational management strategies shall be incorporated into the SOV project or committed to by the State and MPO for implementation. 1 1 Quotes from 23 CFR

119 CMP Timing Mandatory - Prior to the NEPA decision 87

120 CMP Applicable Models NOT APPLICABLE 88

121 CMP Documentation Requirement Exempt from a CMP Documentation that project is exempt from a CMP scope development tool, risk assessment form, or environmental review document CMP Req d The applicable CMP disclosure language. If there is no environmental review document, the CMP disclosure language should be uploaded into ECOS. 89

122 CMP Example Appendix G ITEMs 21 & 22 90

123 CMP Summary A project-level CMP analysis is simply a disclosure statement identifying that a project comes from an MPO s CMP and also identifies operational improvements in the corridor. It is required for added capacity FHWA projects that are located in a NA for ozone or CO and that are also located within an area large enough to be identified as a TMA (i.e., DAL, FTW, and HOU) The CMP disclosure statement should be documented in either the environmental review document or the project-file 91

124 Notes

125

126

127 Construction Emissions 92

128 Construction Emissions Description Potential construction emissions and any proposed mitigation measures have to be disclosed in NEPA documents. Standard disclosure language is available to address this requirement. 93

129 Construction Emissions Regulatory Background AQ Analysis Statue/Law Implementing Rule or Guidance Procedural or Substantive Conformity Hot-Spots CAA 42 USC 7506(c) CAA 42 USC 7506(c) 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive CO TAQA NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Substantive* MSAT NEPA - 42 USC 4332 Interim Guidance Update On Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis In NEPA Documents (12/12) Procedural Construction Emissions NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Procedural CMP TCEQ MOU Transportation Code - 23 USC 134(k)(3) and 134(m) State Transportation Code CFR Substantive 43 TAC Procedural * Even though this is a NEPA analysis, and NEPA is a procedural law, the CAA does not allow for an exceedance of the NAAQS. Construction Emission disclosure is considered a NEPA requirement. The requirement is in FHWA guidance, rather than rule. 94

130 Construction Emissions Applicability and Exemptions Applicability: All projects that will have a construction component. Exemptions: None. Coordination, Timing,, & Modeling Coordination: None. Timing: Prior to NEPA decision. Modeling: None. Compliance and Documentation In the environmental review document: Identify any anticipated construction related emissions PM Diesel PM Identify any mitigation measures to be utilized during construction Dust suppression TERP This is a procedural requirement, so we only need to disclose potential impacts. Dust suppression is built into our construction specs, so an EPIC is not needed. TERP only applies to NA/MAs or near-nonattainment areas. 95

131 Construction Emissions Example Appendix G Item 23 96

132 Construction Emissions Summary Is simply the disclosure of potential construction emissions and mitigation It is required for any project which requires an environmental review document (i.e., all EAs and EISs). The construction emission disclosure statement should be documented in the environmental review document 97

133 Notes

134 Notes

135

136

137 TCEQ MOU 98

138 TCEQ MOU Description Coordination of an environmental review document with TCEQ. ENV project delivery generally performs this coordination. 99

139 TCEQ MOU Regulatory Background AQ Analysis Statue/Law Implementing Rule or Guidance Procedural or Substantive Conformity Hot-Spots CAA 42 USC 7506(c) CAA 42 USC 7506(c) 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive 40 CFR 93, 30 TAC Substantive CO TAQA NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Substantive* MSAT NEPA - 42 USC 4332 Interim Guidance Update On Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis In NEPA Documents (12/12) Procedural Construction Emissions NEPA - 42 USC 4332 FHWA Technical Advisory T A Procedural CMP TCEQ MOU Transportation Code - 23 USC 134(k)(3) and 134(m) State Transportation Code CFR Substantive 43 TAC Procedural * Even though this is a NEPA analysis, and NEPA is a procedural law, the CAA does not allow for an exceedance of the NAAQS. It is Texas law that requires a MOU with resource agencies. The MOU is located in TxDOT s environmental rules. 100

140 TCEQ MOU Applicability and Exemptions Applicability: All EIS documents and all EA documents that are adding capacity in a NA/MA. Exemptions: CEs. Coordination, Timing,, & Modeling Coordination: TCEQ. Timing: Prior to NEPA decision. Modeling: None. Compliance and Documentation Documentation of coordination activity in the project file. Letter to TCEQ Possible response from TCEQ Coordination is typically performed by ENV-PD after document is complete. Coordination can be performed early using an air quality tech report to summarize. 101

141 TCEQ MOU Summary The coordination of an EA or EIS with TCEQ for an air quality review ENV-PD will usually perform the coordination after document completion Documentation of the coordination should be in the project file 102

142 Notes

143

144

145 New Guidance 103

146 New Guidance Old ENV Guidance AQ SOP AQ SOU 2006 AQ Guidelines New ENV Guidance Environmental Handbook AQ Toolkit 7 SOPs 4 Document Standards 4 Review Standards Misc. Forms Comparison of the old air quality (AQ) guidance to the new AQ guidance The environmental handbook will now be the primary document for identifying how to achieve compliance. New Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) will provide step-by-step instructions. New document standards and review standards will allow for consistency among various documents and the review of those documents. 104

147 New Guidance Guidance Structure The Environmental Handbook will provide the actual compliance regulations and requirements. The AQ Toolkit will provide the supplemental guidance to support the environmental manual compliance activities and will include the following: SOPs Document Standards Review Standards SOPs will include step-by-step instructions for completing a specific air quality analysis or documentation. Document Standards will provide a specific format and content requirements for documents to support air quality analyses. In the case of conformity, the document standard is a specific form. Review Standards will provide a checklist to help reviewers identify whether documents are complete and correct. 105

148 New Guidance SOPs Document Standards Review Standards Conformity Hot-Spots CO TAQA MSAT Analysis CMP Construction Emissions Air Quality Statements Conformity Report Form Hot-Spot Technical Report CO TAQA Technical Report Quantitative MSAT Technical Report Conformity Report Form Hot-Spot Technical Report CO TAQA Technical Report Quantitative MSAT Technical Report Note that there is a specific report form or technical report required for each air quality element except CMP and Construction Emissions The SOP for Air Quality Statements contains disclosure language for each of the air quality analyses for the environmental review document or project file. 106

149 New Guidance Environmental Handbook or Scope Development Tool SOPs for Individual AQ Analyses Technical Reports & Forms SOP on AQ Statements Each SOP is the starting point for each air quality element The SOP will identify applicable technical reports and forms required The SOP on AQ Statements is the final SOP to use to identify appropriate language and analysis summations for environmental review documents. 107

150 New Guidance What s? New process for conformity SOPs step-by-step instructions New forms Conformity Report Form Hot-Spot Forms Required Tech Reports CO TAQA Quantitative MSAT Documentation standards for: Hot-Spots CO TAQAs Quantitative MSAT 108

151 New Guidance Example Appendix H 109

152 New Guidance Summary Environmental handbooks are now the compliance guidance documents The air quality handbook and other associated compliance tools are located in the Air Quality Toolkit ( The air quality toolkit consists of the air quality handbook, SOPs, documents standards, and review standards Whereas the handbook provides overall compliance requirements, the SOPs have specific detailed procedures on how to comply and when to perform analyses and how to document them 110

153 Notes

154 Q&A Any Questions? Tim Wood TxDOT ENV Air Specialist

155

156

157 Acronyms AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AERMOD current EPA approved steady-state dispersion model AQ Air Quality BMT Beaumont District CAA Clean Air Act CAFÉ Corporate Average Fuel Economy CAL3QHC(R) current EPA approved dispersion model to incorporate intersections CALINE current EPA approved line source dispersion model CE Categorical Exclusion CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMP Congestion Management Process CO - Carbon Monoxide DAL Dallas District DEIS Draft EIS DFW Dallas/Fort Worth EA Environmental Assessment ECOS Environmental Compliance Oversight System EIS Environmental Impact Statement ELP El Paso District ENV TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEIS Final EIS FHWA Federal Highways Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration

158 FTW Fort Worth District HGB Houston-Galveston-Brazoria HOU Houston District IAJ Interstate Access Justification MA EPA designated maintenance area MOU Memorandum of Understanding MOVES current EPA emissions model MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan MVEB Motor Vehicles Emissions Budget NA EPA designated nonattainment area NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NO 2 nitrogen dioxide O 3 ozone Pb lead PD ENV s Project Delivery Section PM particulate matter PM 10 particulate matter 10 microns or less POAQC Project of Air Quality Concern Q&A Questions and Answers SIP State Implementation Plan SO 2 sulfur dioxide SOP Standard Operating Procedure

159 SOU Standard of Uniformity SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program TAC Texas Administrative Code TAQA Traffic Air Quality Analysis TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TDM Travel Demand Model TERP Texas Emission Reduction Plan TIP Transportation Improvement Program TMA Transportation Management Area TPP TxDOT Transportation Planning and Programming Division TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation vpd vehicles per day

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167 Transportation Conformity Report Form Project Facility Name: MPO Project IDs: Project CSJ Numbers: Project Limits From: To: Project Sponsor: Project Description 1 : Date of anticipated environmental decision/re-evaluation: Let Year: ETC 2 Year: Conformity Year 3 : Total Project Cost: Adding Capacity? Yes No Counties: Project Classification: CE EA EIS Re-evaluation Important Information A determination of project-level conformity is not permanent. It is recommended that conformity be checked early and often in the project development process, but that this specific form be coordinated within 60 days of the anticipated environmental decision to avoid coordinating the form more than once. The following events would require a project s conformity determination to be reevaluated. 1. Changes to the project s design concept, scope, limit, funding, or estimated time of completion (ETC) year 2. Changes to the project s listing in the MTP, TIP, or STIP related to design concept, scope and limits; funding or ETC year 3. New conformity determinations on the applicable MTP, TIP, or STIP (even if it occurs after the FHWA/FTA project-level conformity determination has been made) 1 Project description, project details, and other project information should include enough detail in order to make a determination of project consistency with the MTP, TIP, STIP, and corresponding transportation conformity determination. 2 The ETC or estimated time of completion year is the date the entire project as described in the environmental review document will be open to traffic. 3 If this project is NOT considered regionally significant by the MPO, enter N/A non-regionally significant. In addition, note that the conformity year is sometimes referred to as the network year. When a MTP identifies a specific timeframe during which a project will be operational, the last year of that timeframe is the conformity year. Form Version 2 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division FRM Effective Date: October 2015 Page 1 of 8

168 Transportation Conformity Report Form In particular, if there is a planned MTP update/amendment and associated transportation conformity determination expected to be completed on or near the time of project approval, it is recommended that the project sponsor prepare this conformity determination after the plan update/amendment and associated transportation conformity determination is completed, if the update/amendment will affect the project as specified in item 1 above. Consult with ENV air specialist if further assistance is needed. Instructions Check the appropriate box for each question, using the most current information available, and be aware that the answers will dictate which questions must be answered for each specific project. Start with Step One, and follow the instructions included in each step, if any additional instructions are provided. The information displayed between carets, <like this> represents a field that should be customized with project specific information. In the electronic file, these fields are highlighted in grey. Content prompts, like Choose an item, represent dropdown menus, which also must be customized with project specific information. If the form requires the preparer to STOP because something is lacking, then it is recommended that the time it would take to make the necessary changes to the MTP, TIP, or project should be re-evaluated against the project s proposed letting date (i.e., letting date may need to be adjusted). Step 1: Is this a federal project with a federal lead other than FHWA/FTA? Yes STOP. Transportation conformity does not apply to the project, however, general conformity may apply. Consult the ENV air specialist regarding this project and potential general conformity requirements. No Continue to Step 2. Step 2: Is this a FHWA/FTA project 4? Yes Proceed to Step 4. No Continue to Step 3. Step 3: Is this project considered regionally significant 5 in accordance with 40 CFR or 30 TAC (d)(2)(iv)? Yes Continue to Step 4. No STOP. In accordance with 40 CFR (a)(2), a project level transportation conformity determination is not required for non-regionally significant, non- FHWA/FTA projects. 4 Note that this includes projects which may not have federal funding but would otherwise require federal approval. 5 If a project is on the MPO s NON-regionally significant project list, it is not regionally significant. Each MPO may have different criteria for designating a project as regionally significant. Form Version 2 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division FRM Effective Date: October 2015 Page 2 of 8

169 Transportation Conformity Report Form Step 4: Step 5: Step 6: Step 7: Is the project located in a nonattainment or maintenance area6 for ozone7, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM2.5 or PM10)? Yes Transportation conformity rules apply. The project is located in the EPA designated <insert area's name> <insert area's classification> 8 area for <insert appropriate NAAQS>. Continue to Step 5. No STOP. Transportation conformity does not apply to the project. Is the project exempt 9 from conformity in accordance with 40 CFR or 40 CFR ? Yes STOP. Transportation conformity does not apply to the project. This project falls under the following exemption: Choose an item. No Continue to Step 6. Is the project exempt from the regional conformity analysis in accordance with 40 CFR ? Yes The project is exempt from regional conformity requirements. This project falls under the following exemption: Choose an item. Proceed to Step 16. No Continue to Step 7. Does the project fall within the boundaries 12 of an MPO? Yes Proceed to Step 9. No Continue to Step 8. 6 If unsure about the nonattainment or maintenance status, it can be checked in multiple locations, including: the EPA Greenbook, the TCEQ website, or the applicable table in the Air Quality toolkit. 7 Note the 1997 ozone standard was revoked by EPA. 8 Area classifications can be either maintenance, marginal nonattainment, moderate nonattainment, serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment 9 Most added capacity projects will not be exempt, whereas most non-added capacity projects will be exempt. 10 Ultimately, the interpretation of what projects types meet these exemption criteria is under the purview of the federal lead agency. For example, although it could be interpreted to meet some of the exemption project types, a project changing from general purpose to managed lanes is NOT considered to be exempt from conformity. 11 Grouped CSJ projects, by rule, must be exempt under these criteria. 12 i.e., within a Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) Form Version 2 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division FRM Effective Date: October 2015 Page 3 of 8

170 Transportation Conformity Report Form Step 8: Is the project design concept, scope and limits, conformity analysis year, and funding consistent with an approved 13 regional conformity analysis for an isolated rural area that meets the requirements of 40 CFR ? Yes The project is consistent with an approved regional conformity determination that meets the requirements of 40 CFR for isolated rural areas. Proceed to Step 16. No STOP. The project is not consistent with a regional conformity determination for an isolated rural area. TxDOT will not take final action until the project is consistent with an approved regional conformity determination that meets the requirements of 40 CFR for isolated rural areas. Do not sign this form. Please ensure that the project is included in and consistent with an approved regional conformity determination then reevaluate the project using this form. Step 9: Are all of the project phases 14 for the entire project described in the environmental document included in the fiscally constrained portion of the MTP? Yes Continue to Step 10. No STOP. The project was not included in the area s regional conformity determination, and, therefore, is not consistent with it. The MTP needs to be amended to include this project and a new conformity determination needs to be made on the MTP before consistency can be determined for the project, or the project needs to be revised to be consistent with the existing MTP. Consult with the district TP&D and MPO on how to proceed. Step 10: Is at least one phase of the project beyond the NEPA study (corridor study) included in either the appropriate year of the conforming TIP 15 or in Appendix D (if will not be let within the timeframe of the TIP)? Yes Continue to Step 11. No STOP. The project is not included in the conforming TIP and is therefore not consistent with it. At least one phase of the project must be added to the conforming TIP before consistency can be determined. Consult with the district TP&D and MPO on how to proceed. 13 The consultation partners are responsible for approving regional conformity analyses. 14 A project phase is a separate portion of a project such as: NEPA study, ROW acquisition, final design, construction, and/or partial construction. 15 In Texas, a conforming TIP is one that has been included into the STIP, so projects must be in the STIP in order to show that they come from a conforming TIP. Form Version 2 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division FRM Effective Date: October 2015 Page 4 of 8

171 Transportation Conformity Report Form Step 11: Are the current project limits the same 16 or do they fall within the project limits listed in the MTP and STIP? Yes Continue to Step 12. No STOP. The project is not consistent with the conforming MTP and TIP. Either the MTP and TIP, or the project needs to be revised before consistency can be determined. Consult with the district TP&D and MPO on how to proceed. Step 12: Is the activity being proposed the same as that in the MTP and STIP project description in both type 17 of facility and number 18 of lanes? Yes Continue to Step 13. No STOP. The project is not consistent with the conforming MTP and TIP. Either the MTP and TIP, or the project needs to be revised before consistency can be determined. Consult with the district TP&D and MPO on how to proceed. Step 13: Does the project s ETC year fall between its identified conformity year 19 in the MTP and the previous conformity year identified in the MTP? Yes Continue to Step 14. No STOP. The project is not consistent with the conforming MTP and TIP. Either the MTP and TIP or the project needs to be revised before consistency can be determined. Consult with the district TP&D and MPO on how to proceed. N/A This project is non-regionally significant. Continue to Step 14. Step 14: Is the estimated total project cost or the cost identified in the MTP greater than $1,500,000? Yes Proceed to Step 15. No Fiscal constraint requirements do not apply. This project is consistent with the currently conforming MTP and TIP. Proceed to Step The limits are considered the same if the logical termini noted in the environmental document fall within the limits of the project noted in the MTP or the logical termini noted in the environmental document are not significantly greater (~1mile) than the limits noted in the MTP due to transition areas for safety or other factors required to be considered when establishing logical termini for environmental document purposes. 17 The type of activity refers to the type of enhancement, such as: main lanes, frontage roads, HOV lanes, direct connectors, bridge replacement, etc 18 The number refers to the amount of each activity type, such as: number of main lanes or number of frontage lanes. 19 For the purposes of this determination, the term conformity year is synonymous with the network analysis year for the MTP. Form Version 2 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division FRM Effective Date: October 2015 Page 5 of 8

172 Transportation Conformity Report Form Step 15: Does the estimated project cost exceed what is contained in the MTP by more than 50% 20? Yes STOP. The project is not consistent with the MTP and TIP because it is not fiscally constrained. Either the MTP and TIP, or the project needs to be revised before consistency can be determined or a case-by-case decision will need to be made by FHWA. Consult with the district TP&D and MPO on how to proceed. No This project is consistent with the currently conforming MTP and TIP. Continue to Step 16. Step 16: Is the project located in either a CO, PM 2.5, or PM 10 nonattainment or maintenance area? 21 Yes Continue to Step 17. No Hot-spot conformity requirements do not apply. Proceed to Step 21. Step 17: Is this a state or local project with NO federal funding and NO federal decision required? Yes Hot-spot conformity requirements do not apply. Proceed to Step 21. No Hot-spot conformity requirements apply. Request the local MPO to initiate a consultation call with the Consultation Partners. Fill out the Hot-Spot Analysis Data for a Consultation Partner Decision Form to present the project data to the Consultation Partners for review prior to the consultation call. Continue to Step 18. Step 18: Did the consultation partners determine that this is a project of air quality concern (POAQC)? Yes A hot-spot analysis is required and must be approved by the consultation partners. Conduct a hot-spot analysis in accordance with the methodology approved by the consultation partners, and use the applicable EPA hot-spot guidance. Continue to Step 19. No A hot-spot analysis is not required because the project is not a POAQC. The consultation partners made this determination on <insert date>. Proceed to Step Multiply the MTP cost by 1.5. The current estimated total project cost should not exceed this amount. 21 Note that this currently only applies to projects in El Paso. Form Version 2 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division FRM Effective Date: October 2015 Page 6 of 8

173 Transportation Conformity Report Form Step 19: Does the approved hot-spot analysis verify that the project will not cause, contribute to, or worsen a violation of applicable CO, PM 2.5, or PM 10 NAAQS or that the project will at least improve conditions from that of the no-build alternative? Yes The project is not anticipated to cause, contribute to, or worsen a violation of the applicable NAAQS. Continue to Step 20. No STOP. The project, as it is currently presented, does not comply with conformity requirements because it is anticipated to cause, contribute to, or worsen a violation of the applicable NAAQS. Identify and get consultation partner agreement upon mitigation measures to offset project impacts to air quality. Reevaluate this project using this form once these mitigation measures have been identified and committed to. Step 20: Have all the agreed upon mitigation measures as well as any applicable SIP control measures received a written commitment? Yes Continue to Step 21. No STOP. Do not proceed until there are written commitments to implement all the agreed upon mitigation measures and any applicable SIP control measures. Reevaluate this project using this form once these commitments have been made in writing. N/A because no mitigation is required and there are no applicable SIP control measures which affect this project, Continue to Step 21. Step 21: The transportation conformity evaluation is complete. Attach applicable pages of the MTP and TIP, or the STIP, project schematics, typical sections, hot-spot analyses and determinations, and any conformity related public comment and response. Implement the following processing instructions as applicable. This is a regionally significant State-only project with no FHWA/FTA action required (the answer to Steps 3 is yes); therefore: Submit this form to the ENV air specialist. If ENV concurs that all project level conformity requirements have been met, ENV shall sign the form below. Coordination with FHWA/FTA is not required. Retain this form in the project file. This is a FHWA/FTA non-exempt project (the answer to Steps 2 and 4 is yes, and the answer to Steps 5 and 6 is no); therefore: Submit this form to the ENV air specialist. After ENV air specialist review, ENV will coordinate this form with FHWA/FTA for a project level conformity determination. If FHWA/FTA agrees that all project level conformity requirements have been met, they shall sign the project level conformity determination line below. A project level conformity determination is not complete and project clearance cannot be given until FHWA/FTA signs this form. Retain this form and any coordination with FHWA/FTA in the project file. Form Version 2 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division FRM Effective Date: October 2015 Page 7 of 8

174 Transportation Conformity Report Form TxDOT ENV Transportation Conformity Validation Complete: Project CSJ Numbers: <Enter CSJ Number> Signature Name: Title: Date: FHWA/FTA Determination of the Project-level Conformity: Signature Name: Title: Date: Form Version 2 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division FRM Effective Date: October 2015 Page 8 of 8

175

176

177 Hot-Spot Analysis Data for a Consultation Partner This form is filled out by the project sponsor and is sent to the consultation partners immediately after an MPO schedules a conference call with the consultation partners. The data recorded using this form is necessary for the consultation partners to decide whether the proposed project is a project of air quality concern. I. Project Details Project Element CSJs Location - County/City/Roadway Name/Mile-Post Attach a map showing the proposed project site. Describe Project Type Project Sponsor Traffic Analysis Results If there was a traffic analysis study done for this project, provide information on the scope and who performed the analysis, and attach the results. Ready to Let Date Letting Date Proposed Hearing Date Proposed Start of Construction Date Target Completion Date Other II. Reasons for a Determination from the Consultation Partners Check any boxes that apply in the first 4 rows. 1 FHWA/FTA funded project or project that requires FHWA/FTA action (e.g. interstate access) 2 The proposed project is located within a PM 10 non-attainment or maintenance area. 3 The proposed project is located within a PM 2.5 non-attainment or maintenance area. Note: None currently in Texas. 4 The proposed project is located within a CO non-attainment or maintenance area. Form Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division FRM Release Date: 2/2014 Page 1 of 4

178 Hot-Spot Analysis Data for a Consultation Partner Decision 5 Applies to Criteria 6 PM New/expanded highway project with a significant number of diesel vehicles PM PM PM PM 11 PM Other: New exit ramp or other highway facility improvement project to connect a highway or expressway to a major freight, bus, or intermodal terminal Affects an intersection that is at or will change to a Level-of-Service D, E, or F with significant number of diesel vehicles New/expanded bus or rail terminal or transfer point with a significant number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location In or affects a location, area, or category of site identified in the applicable PM State Implementation Plan or Implementation Plan submission, as a site of violation or possible violation 12 CO Affects locations, areas, or categories of sites identified in the applicable CO State Implementation Plan as sites of violation or possible violation 13 CO Affects intersections that are at Level-of-Service D, E, or F, or those that will change to Level-of-Service D, E, or F because of increased traffic volumes related to the project 14 CO Affects one or more of the top three intersections in the nonattainment or maintenance area with highest traffic volumes, as identified in the applicable State Implementation Plan 15 CO Affects one or more of the top three intersections in the nonattainment or maintenance area with the worst level of service, as identified in the applicable State Implementation Plan 16 CO Other: Explanation Provide a more detailed explanation of how this project meets or does not meet the above criteria in rows 6-11 for PM nonattainment or maintenance areas and for CO nonattainment or maintenance areas, so Consultation Partners can make a decision if the project is or is not a project of air quality concern. If needed, contact ENV air specialist for assistance. <Enter Explanation > Form Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division FRM Release Date: 2/2014 Page 2 of 4

179 Hot-Spot Analysis Data for a Consultation Partner Decision III. Available Network Section Traffic Data for the Project Use all available traffic data to fill out the table, and include a reference to the source of the traffic data in the field below the table. This information should be provided for each intersection and interchange and for each section of the proposed project delineated in the traffic analysis. DATA TYPE <Insert Section, Intersection, Interchange> <Insert Base Year> Existing <Insert ETC Year> No-Build <Insert Base Year> Build <Insert Design Year> No-Build <Insert Design Year> Build Annual average daily traffic (AADT) Peak-hour traffic volume (% of AADT)(k) Directional split in peak-hour (D) Truck percentage, daily or peakhour (T) Average speed (most likely for peak-hour) Level of Service Other Source of Information, Key Assumptions, and Method Attach any additional traffic data and analyses to this document. Form Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division FRM Release Date: 2/2014 Page 3 of 4

180 Hot-Spot Analysis Data for a Consultation Partner Decision Appendix A The following table shows the revision history for this guidance document. Revision History Effective Date Month, Year Reason for and Description of Change Form Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division FRM Release Date: 2/2014 Page 4 of 4

181 Documentation Standard for a Hot-Spot Analysis Technical Report Use this document standard for developing a hot-spot analysis technical report, which must include the components outlined below. The documentation standard is a tool used to state the requirements necessary for a document to be classified as a certain type of document. Documentation standards are used by technical experts as they write environmental review documents and environmental reports. I. Project Description The hot-spot analysis technical report must include the following components related to the project description. A. An identification of the project location B. A brief explanation of the current facility C. A brief explanation of the proposed facility D. An identification of estimated time to completion (ETC) year E. An identification of the design year of the project II. Background Information The hot-spot analysis technical report must include the following components related to background information on hot-spot compliance. A. An identification of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as the law requiring project-level conformity determinations B. An identification of the conformity rule (40 CFR 93) as the implementing rule for conformity determinations and hot-spot requirements C. A brief description of project types that are subject to hot-spot analysis (i.e., projects of air quality concern ) D. An identification of the current attainment status of the project area. III. Consultation Partner Decision The hot-spot analysis technical report must include the following components related to the Consultation Partner decision regarding whether this is a project of air quality concern. A. An identification of who the Consultation Partners are B. An identification of the date of initial Consultation Partner coordination C. A statement that the Consultation Partners determined that this is a project of air quality concern D. An identification of the reason that the Consultation Partners made this determination Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division DS Release Date: 2/2014 Page 1 of 4

182 Documentation Standard for a Hot-Spot Analysis Technical Report IV. Analysis Methodology The hot-spot analysis technical report must include the following components related to the hot-spot analysis methodology. A. A description of the overall methodology being used B. A description of the methodology for determining background concentrations C. A description of other area sources included in the analysis D. An identification of the future years analyzed in the analysis E. An identification of receptor locations used in the analysis, including a map showing the receptor locations F. An identification of the specific models used in the analysis G. An identification of the source of the input data (e.g., TCEQ meteorological data, TPP traffic data, MPO fleet and fuel data, etc ) H. A table identifying the specific traffic data used for each year and alternative analyzed I. A table identifying the background concentrations used in this analysis J. An identification of the specific months analyzed in the analysis K. An identification of any other input data that would be considered significant to disclose L. A statement identifying when coordination was performed with the Consultation Partners regarding this analysis methodology M. A concluding statement that the Conformity Consultation Partners reviewed and approved the analysis methodology V. Analysis Results The hot-spot analysis technical report must include the following components related to the hot-spot analysis results. A. A table of the emission results at each receptor for each alternative analyzed and for each year analyzed B. A statement that the emission results presented include background concentrations and other point-source contributions that were analyzed as part of this analysis C. A statement identifying what mitigation measures, if any, were included as part of the analysis Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division DS Release Date: 2/2014 Page 2 of 4

183 Documentation Standard for a Hot-Spot Analysis Technical Report D. A summary of the analysis results, which indicates that the project emissions (including any associated mitigation measures, if needed) either will remain below the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or the build alternative emissions will be lower than the no-build alternative emissions VI. Mitigation Commitments The hot-spot analysis technical report must include the following components related to the mitigation commitments. A. A list of any SIP required mitigation requirements B. A list of any mitigation measures that were assumed in the analysis C. A signed statement from the project sponsor committing to implementation of each of these mitigation measures VII. Public Involvement The hot-spot analysis technical report must include the following components related to the public involvement requirements. A. A statement identifying that Consultation Partner decisions require public involvement B. A statement identifying the specific public involvement* that will be used * The hot-spot public involvement requirements can and should be combined with NEPA public involvement, except in the case that no further NEPA public involvement is anticipated. Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division DS Release Date: 2/2014 Page 3 of 4

184 Documentation Standard for a Hot-Spot Analysis Technical Report Appendix A The following table shows the revision history for this guidance document. Revision History Effective Date Month, Year Reason for and Description of Change Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division DS Release Date: 2/2014 Page 4 of 4

185

186

187 Draft Traffic Air Quality Analysis (TAQA) The primary pollutants from motor vehicles are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO,) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides can combine under the right conditions in a series of photochemical reactions to form ozone. Because these reactions take place over a period of several hours, maximum concentrations of ozone are often found far downwind of the precursor sources. Thus, ozone is a regional problem and not a localized condition. The modeling procedures of ozone require long-term meteorological data and detailed areawide emission rates for all potential sources (industry, business, and transportation) and are normally too complex to be performed within the scope of an environmental analysis for a highway project. However, concentrations for carbon monoxide are readily modeled for highway projects and are required by federal regulations. Topography and meteorology of the area in which the project is located will not seriously restrict dispersion of the air pollutants. The traffic data used in the analysis were obtained from TxDOT s Transportation Planning and Programming division. The maximum Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) projected for the main lanes and frontage roads for the 2035 design year is estimated to be approximately 209,800 vehicles per day. Carbon monoxide concentrations for the Build Alternative were modeled using the worst case scenario (adverse meteorological conditions and sensitive receptors at the right of way line) in accordance with the TxDOT Air Quality Guidelines. The FHWA- and TxDOT-preferred CALINE3 roadway air quality computer model and MOVES2010b emission factors were used in the analysis. Local concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected to exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) at any time. The following Table 1 summarizes the results of the analysis: Year Table 1 Project Carbon Monoxide Concentrations One-Hour Standard* Eight-Hour Standard* NAAQS Percent of Concentration NAAQS (ppm) NAAQS (ppm) (ppm) Concentration (ppm) Percent of NAAQS % % % % * Analysis includes a one hour background concentration of 3.7 ppm and an 8-hour background concentration of 2.3 ppm.

188 Documentation Standard for a CO TAQA Technical Report Use this document standard (DS) to prepare a carbon monoxide traffic air quality analysis (CO TAQA) technical report, which must include the components outlined below. Each section of this DS represents a required. I. Project Description The CO TAQA technical report must include the following components related to the project description. A. An identification of the project location B. A brief explanation of the current facility C. A brief explanation of the proposed facility D. An identification of each of the build alternatives modeled E. An identification of estimated time to completion (ETC) year* F. An identification of the design year** of the project * Date the entire project as described in the environmental review document as the date the facility will be open to traffic. ** Typically, the design year for CO analyses is either the out-year (last year) of the current Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) when a quantitative Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis is also performed, or the ETC year + 20 years in the rare instances when an MSAT is not also performed. II. Background Information The CO TAQA technical report must include the following components related to background information. A. A brief explanation of project types that are subject to a CO TAQA B. An identification of why this particular project is subject to a CO TAQA III. Analysis Methodology The CO TAQA technical report must include the following components related to the analysis methodology. A. An explanation of the overall methodology being used B. An identification of the specific models used in the analysis C. An identification of the 1-hr and 8-hr CO background concentrations* that were used D. An identification of the source** of the traffic data used Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 1 of 4

189 Documentation Standard for a CO TAQA Technical Report E. A table identifying the specific annual average daily traffic (AADT) volume and design hour volume (DHV) used for each roadway segment analyzed for both the ETC year and design year F. An identification of the emission rates used G. An identification of the source of the emission rates (i.e., emission rate table vs MOVES modeling) H. An identification of the atmospheric stability class*** used I. An identification of the mixing height*** used J. An identification of the wind speed*** used K. An identification of the wind directions*** modeled L. An identification of the projected vehicle speeds in the future years analyzed M. An identification that the input and output files have been submitted to the District for inclusion in the project files to the extent practicable * The background concentrations must be consistent with Appendix B of the SOP for Producing a CO TAQA. ** The traffic data must come from or be otherwise approved by the Transportation Planning and Programming Division (TPP). *** These must be consistent with a worst case scenario, as identified in Appendix D of the SOP for Producing a CO TAQA. IV. Receptor Locations The CO TAQA technical report must include the following components related to receptor locations. A. An aerial map showing the receptor locations for each alternative analyzed B. Project schematics showing the receptor locations for each alternative analyzed and roadway geometry C. A table with a description of all of the receptors analyzed for each alternative analyzed (including but not limited to distance from roadway, ROW width, traffic volume traffic speed, DHV) D. An identification of the specific receptors that represent the highest traffic volumes for each alternative analyzed Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 2 of 4

190 Documentation Standard for a CO TAQA Technical Report V. Analysis Results The CO TAQA technical report must include the following components related to the analysis results. If the analysis results indicate that CO concentrations at any location are expected to exceed the applicable CO NAAQS, consult with the ENV air specialist. A. A table identifying the 1-hr and 8-hr CO emissions at each receptor for both the ETC and design year B. An identification of the 1-hr and 8-hr background concentrations for CO and their source C. An identification of the applicable 1-hr and 8-hr CO NAAQS D. A brief summary of the analysis results in comparison to the applicable CO NAAQS E. An identification of any required mitigation (only if the analysis indicates that the project will exceed the CO NAAQS)) Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 3 of 4

191 Documentation Standard for a CO TAQA Technical Report The following table shows the revision history for this document. Revision History Effective Date Month, Year September 2015 Reason for and Description of Change Version 1 was released. Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 4 of 4

192

193

194

195 1.0 BACKGROUND Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007), and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) ( In addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) ( These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While FHWA considers these the priority mobile source air toxics, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules. The 2007 EPA Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. Based on an FHWA analysis using EPA s MOVES2010b model, as shown in Figure 1 and Table 1, even if vehicle-miles travelled (VMT) increases by 102% as assumed from 2010 to 2050, a combined reduction of 83% in the total annual emissions for the priority MSAT is projected for the same time period. MSAT Emissions (tons/yr) FIGURE 1: Projected National MSAT Emission Trends For Vehicles Operating on Roadways Using EPA s MOVES2010b Model 140, , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, VMT (trillion/yr) Diesel PM Benzene Formaldehyde Acrolein Butadiene Naphthalene Polycyclics VMT Source: Table 1 below. Note: Trends for specific locations may be different, depending on locally derived information representing vehicle-miles travelled, vehicle speeds, vehicle mix, fuels, emission control programs, meteorology, and other factors.

196 Pollutant / VMT TABLE 1 Projected National MSAT Emission Trends For Vehicles Operating On Roadways Using EPA s MOVES2010b Model Pollutant Emissions (tons) and Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) by Calendar Year % Change 2010 to 2050 Acrolein 1, Benzene 18,995 10,195 6,765 5,669 5,386 5,696 6,216 6,840 7, Butadiene 3,157 1,783 1, ,017 1,119 1, Diesel PM 128,847 79,158 40,694 21,155 12,667 10,027 9,978 10,942 11, Formaldehyde 17,848 11,943 7,778 5,938 5,329 5,407 5,847 6,463 7, Naphthalene 2,366 1, Polycyclics 1, Trillions VMT Source: EPA MOVES2010b model runs conducted during May June 2012 by FHWA. Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project-specific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT exposure remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate how the potential health risks posed by MSAT exposure should be factored into project-level decision-making within the context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FHWA, EPA, the Health Effects Institute, and others have funded and conducted research studies to try to more clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with highway projects. The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field. Added Capacity projects with FHWA involvement that have a high potential for meaningful MSAT impacts within the existing right of way (a project of MSAT concern), or have an annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of over 140,000 vehicles are required to complete a quantitative MSAT analysis. The I-30 frontage road project is an added capacity project with federal involvement, and is therefore subject to a quantitative MSAT analysis. The process for completing a quantitative MSAT analysis begins with an MSAT conference call between TxDOT, FHWA and the relevant MPO. The call establishes the parameters for the analysis, including the base year, the design year and whether an interim year should be included in the modeling. The call also determines the schedule for the analysis including the availability of the relevant travel demand model to be used to establish the transportation network affected by the proposed project. Once the appropriate traffic and other data are available, modeling is conducted to determine the potential MSAT emissions that would be expected from the proposed project. For the proposed I-30 frontage road project, the MSAT conference between TxDOT, FHWA and the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) the MPO for the Dallas-Ft. Worth area was held on October 23, 2013.

197 2.0 PROJECT SPECIFIC MSAT INFORMATION The methodology employed by NCTCOG to determine the affected network for the quantitative MSAT modeling effort involved identifying those roadway links in the 2035 MTP transportation network that experienced a change of +/- 5% in the traffic volume between the no build and build alternatives. This affected network was then used as input for the project-specific MOVES2010b model along with emission rates derived through a separate, regional MOVES modeling effort undertaken by NCTCOG. For the I-30 frontage road MSAT modeling, a base year of 2013 and a design year of 2035 were used; no interim year was chosen for analysis. The numeric results of the MSAT modeling are shown below in Table 2. These results are represented graphically in Figure 2, which shows emissions for each primary MSAT for each affected network (i.e., base year and design year for build and no build scenarios), and Figure 3, which shows total MSAT emissions as compared to total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for each affected network. Table 2 MSAT Emissions by Alternative (Tons/Year) Year/Scenario % Difference Compound 2035 Design Year 2013 Base Year No Build Build No Build Build Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Benzene Formaldehyde Butadiene Acrolein Polycyclic Organic Matter Napthalene Total MSAT (Tons) Total VMT (Miles/Year) 133,454, ,482, ,662, Source: NCTCOG data (2014)

198 Figure 2: Projected Changes In MSAT Emissions By Project Scenario Over Time Base 2013 Build 2035 No-Build 2035 DPM Benzene Formaldehyde Butadiene Acrolein Polycyclic Organic Matter Naphthalene Source: NCTCOG data and Project Study Team (2014). The analysis indicates a decrease in total MSAT emissions can be expected for both the build and No Build Alternatives (2035) relative to the base year (2013). Emissions of total MSAT are predicted to decrease by approximately 78 percent in the 2035 Build Alternative compared with 2013 levels. Of the seven priority MSAT compounds, DPM contributes the most to the emissions total in 2013 as well as in 2035 (see Table 2 and Figure 2). In future years, a substantial decline in DPM is anticipated (82.9% reduction from 2013 to 2035 Build Alternative; 82.5% reduction from 2013 to 2035 No Build). The amount of benzene is expected to decrease by 25.6% for the 2035 Build Alternative and 25.9% for the 2035 No Build. When total emissions are plotted over time, a substantially decreasing level of MSATs can also be seen (Figure 3) while overall VMT continues to rise. The 2035 Build Alternative is expected to generate a 78% decrease in total MSAT emissions while the total VMT increases 101%; the 2035 No Build Alternative has a similar 78% decrease in total MSAT and a 99% increase in VMT.

199 Figure 3: Total MSAT Emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled By Alternative (Tons/Year) 6 300,000,000 Total MSAT (tons/year) 5 250,000,000 VMT MSAT (Tons/year) ,000, ,000, ,000,000 VMT (miles/year) 1 50,000,000 0 Base 2013 Build 2035 No-Build 2035 Year/Scenario 0 Source: NCTCOG Data and Project Study Team (2014). 3.0 INCOMPLETE OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION FOR PROJECT-SPECIFIC MSAT HEALTH IMPACTS ANALYSIS In FHWA s view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project-specific health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of highway alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced more by the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption and speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or anticipated effect of an air pollutant. They are the lead authority for administering the Clean Air Act and its amendments and have specific statutory obligations with respect to hazardous air pollutants and MSAT. The EPA is in the continual process of assessing human health effects, exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which is a compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the environment and their potential to cause human health effects (EPA, Each

200 report contains assessments of non-cancerous and cancerous effects for individual compounds and quantitative estimates of risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude. Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health effects of MSAT, including the Health Effects Institute (HEI). Two HEI studies are summarized in Appendix D of FHWA s Interim Guidance Update on Mobile source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds at high exposures are; cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in animals; and irritation to the respiratory tract, including the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious is the adverse human health effects of MSAT compounds at current environmental concentrations (HEI, or in the future as vehicle emissions substantially decrease (HEI, The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling; dispersion modeling; exposure modeling; and then final determination of health impacts each step in the process building on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for lifetime (i.e., 70 year) assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time frame, since such information is unavailable. It is particularly difficult to reliably forecast 70-year lifetime MSAT concentrations and exposure near roadways; to determine the portion of time that people are actually exposed at a specific location; and to establish the extent attributable to a proposed action, especially given that some of the information needed is unavailable. There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSAT, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population, a concern expressed by HEI ( As a result, there is no national consensus on air dose-response values assumed to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT compounds, and in particular for diesel PM. The EPA ( and the HEI ( have not established a basis for quantitative risk assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings. There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context is the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine whether more stringent controls are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the maximum achievable control technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries. The decision framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine an acceptable level of risk due to emissions from a

201 source, which is generally no greater than approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of which is to maximize the number of people with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks from exposure to air toxics are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual risk determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA s approach to addressing risk in its two step decision framework. Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway projects would result in levels of risk greater than deemed acceptable. Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any predicted difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against project benefits, such as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus improved access for emergency response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis. 4.0 CONCLUSION In this document, a quantitative MSAT assessment of MSAT emissions relative to the various alternatives has been provided acknowledging that both the Build and No Build Alternatives may result in increased exposure to particular MSAT emissions in certain locations, although DPM would decrease substantially between 2013 and 2035 under either alternative. The concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain, however, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot be estimated. Overall, total MSAT emissions for the project are expected to decrease 78% between the base year 2013 and the design year 2035, for both the Build and No Build Alternatives, and therefore mitigation strategies for further reductions are not proposed.

202 Documentation Standard for a Quantitative MSAT Technical Report Use this document standard (DS) to prepare a quantitative MSAT technical report, which must include the components outlined below. Each section of this DS represents a required section of the report. I. Background Information The quantitative MSAT technical report must include the following components related to background information. A. The project location and limits B. A description of the project C. A brief explanation of project types that are subject to a quantitative MSAT analysis D. An identification of why this particular project is subject to a quantitative MSAT analysis E. An identification of the date of the MSAT conference call II. Qualitative MSAT Analysis The quantitative MSAT technical report must include the following language related to the qualitative MSAT analysis. A. The most current MSAT Background language B. The most current Project-Specific MSAT Information language C. The most current Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project-Specific MSAT Health Impacts Analysis language III. Analysis Methodology The quantitative MSAT technical report must include the following components related to the analysis methodology, and must be consistent with the meeting minutes from the MSAT consultation call. A. An identification of the methodology for determining the affected network (e.g., +/- 5% change in traffic volumes between build and no-build alternatives) B. An identification of the emission model used in the analysis C. An identification of the emission rates used D. An identification of the source of the emission rates (i.e., emission rate table vs MOVES modeling) E. An identification of the current MTP and Travel Demand Model (TDM) from which the affected links were determined (e.g., 2035 RTP Update-2013 Amendment) Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 1 of 3

203 Quantitative MSAT Technical Report Documentation Standard F. Maps that show the affected network links G. An identification of the base year, interim year (if applicable), and design year that were analyzed IV. Analysis Results The quantitative MSAT technical report must include the following components related to the analysis results. A. A table identifying the total MSAT emissions for each primary MSAT and total VMT for each affected network (i.e., base year, interim year no-build, interim year build, design year no-build, design year build) B. A bar chart showing the emissions for each primary MSAT for each affected network and with the VMT charted on a secondary y-axis. C. A bar chart showing the total MSAT emissions (aggregate of all primary MSAT) for each affected network and with the VMT charted on a secondary y-axis D. A brief analysis of the modeling results V. Conclusion The quantitative MSAT technical report must include the following components related to the analysis conclusion. If the analysis results indicate that total MSAT emissions in the interim or design year are expected to exceed the applicable total MSAT emissions in the base year, consult with the ENV air specialist. A. A statement identifying whether the total MSATs are expected to decrease in the future years analyzed regardless of the whether the build vs no-build alternative is implemented Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 2 of 3

204 Quantitative MSAT Technical Report Documentation Standard The following table shows the revision history for this document. Revision History Effective Date Month, Year September 2015 Reason for and Description of Change Version 1 was released. Standard Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division DS Effective Date: September 2015 Page 3 of 3

205

206

207 SOPs for Preparing Air Quality Statements ( have not established a basis for quantitative risk assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings. There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context is the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine whether more stringent controls are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the maximum achievable control technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries. The decision framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine an acceptable level of risk due to emissions from a source, which is generally no greater than approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of which is to maximize the number of people with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks from exposure to air toxics are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual risk determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA s approach to addressing risk in its two step decision framework. Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway projects would result in levels of risk greater than deemed acceptable. Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any predicted difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against project benefits, such as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus improved access for emergency response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis. Conclusion In this document, a qualitative MSAT assessment has been provided relative to the various alternatives of MSAT emissions and has acknowledged that <some, all, or identify by alternative> of the project alternatives may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain and, because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot be estimated. 20. This project is <select one of the following: within an attainment or unclassifiable area for ozone and CO, not an FHWA/FTA project, not adding capacity, or not in a TMA >; therefore a project level CMP analysis is not required. 21. The congestion management process is a systematic process for managing congestion that provides information on transportation system performance and on alternative strategies for alleviating congestion and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet state and local needs. The project was developed from the <insert MPO s name> s CMP, which meets all requirements of 23 CFR and , as applicable. The CMP was adopted by <insert MPO s name> on <insert date of adoption and latest amendment date>. The region commits to operational improvements and travel demand reduction strategies at two levels of implementation: program level and project level. Program level commitments are inventoried in the regional CMP, which was adopted by <insert MPO s name>; they are included in the financially constrained MTP, and future resources are reserved for their implementation. Procedure Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division SOP Release Date: 7/2015 Page 16 of 23

208 SOPs for Preparing Air Quality Statements The CMP element of the plan carries an inventory of all project commitments (including those resulting from major investment studies) that details type of strategy, implementing responsibilities, schedules, and expected costs. At the project s programming stage, travel demand reduction strategies and commitments will be added to the regional TIP or included in the construction plans. The regional TIP provides for programming of these projects at the appropriate time with respect to the single occupancy vehicle (SOV) facility implementation and project-specific elements. Committed congestion reduction strategies and operational improvements within the study boundary will consist of <insert committed congestion reduction strategies for this project (e.g. signal timing, intersection improvements, pedestrian facilities, etc...)>. Individual projects are listed in Table <Insert Table ID>. Table <insert Table ID> - Congestion Management Process Strategies Operational Improvements in the Travel Corridor Location Type Implementation Date Click on the pushpin to copy this table. In an effort to reduce congestion and the need for SOV lanes in the region, TxDOT and <insert MPO s name> will continue to promote appropriate congestion reduction strategies through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program, the CMP, and the MTP. The congestion reduction strategies considered for this project would help alleviate congestion in the SOV study boundary, but would not eliminate it. Therefore, the proposed project is justified. The CMP analysis for added SOV capacity projects in the TMA is on file and available for review at <insert MPO s name>. 22. In July 2013, the RTC also adopted a policy that requires the review and application of congestion mitigation strategies to correct corridor deficiencies identified in the CMP when performing corridor and environmental studies and report findings back to NCTCOG. Therefore, NCTCOG has developed a project level CMP analysis. The analysis requires completion of the Project Implementation Form, and, if warranted, the Roadway Corridor Deficiency Form and Corridor Analysis Fact Sheet. The results of this analysis are attached in Appendix <insert Appendix ID>. 23. During the construction phase of this project, temporary increases in PM and MSAT emissions may occur from construction activities. The primary construction-related emissions of PM are fugitive dust from site preparation, and the primary construction-related emissions of MSAT are diesel particulate matter from diesel powered construction equipment and vehicles. The potential impacts of particulate matter emissions will be minimized by using fugitive dust control measures contained in standard specifications, as appropriate. The Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) provides financial incentives to reduce emissions from vehicles and equipment. TxDOT encourages construction contractors to use this and other local and federal incentive programs to the Procedure Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division SOP Release Date: 7/2015 Page 17 of 23

209 SOPs for Preparing Air Quality Statements fullest extent possible to minimize diesel emissions. Information about the TERP program can be found at: However, considering the temporary and transient nature of construction-related emissions, the use of fugitive dust control measures, the encouragement of the use of TERP, and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements; it is not anticipated that emissions from construction of this project will have any significant impact on air quality in the area. Procedure Version 1 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division SOP Release Date: 7/2015 Page 18 of 23

210

211

212

213 Air Quality Toolkit Page 1 of 4 2/22/2016 Air Quality Toolkit Home > Inside TxDOT > Divisions > Environmental Affairs > Environmental Compliance Toolkits The Clean Air Act (CAA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal Aid Highways Cod proposed transportation projects on air quality in Texas. Use the following tools to document project level compliance with laws, regulations and guidance. Questions? Contact the Air Quality Section of the Environmental Affairs Division at (512) You may download the software (Tools and Plug Ins) needed to access forms or view frequently asked qu General Tools Transportation Conformity Hot Spot Analysis Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Traffic Air Quality Analysis (TAQA) Congestion Management Process (CMP) Construction Emissions Additional Resources Date General Tools Description 07/14 Air Quality Compliance Process Outlines the steps to comply with the CAA, in regards to potential project effects on ai 01/16 Environmental Handbook for Air Quality Outlines the steps to comply with the CAA, in regards to potential project effects on ai 08/15 Standard Operating Procedure for Preparing Air Quality Statements Contains the applicable finding and negativ air quality compliance with applicable laws, Date Transportation Conformity Description 10/15 Standard Operating Procedure for Complying with Conformity Requirements Explains how to prepare and coordinate a c 02/14 Review Standard for a Conformity Report Verifies that a project level conformity repo 11/15 Transportation Conformity Report Form Used to prepare the conformity report

214 Air Quality Toolkit Page 2 of 4 2/22/ /15 Texas Air Quality Nonattainment or Attainment Maintenance Areas and Counties Sept. 14, 2015 Provides tabular information on nonattainm transportation plan conformity dates Date Hot Spot Analysis Description 02/14 Standard Operating Procedure for Complying with Hot Spot Requirements 02/14 Review Standard for a Hot Spot Analysis Technical Report 02/14 Documentation Standard for a Hot Spot Analysis Technical Report Explains when and how to prepare and coo Verifies that a Hot Spot Analysis report me Lists the required sections and components 02/14 Hot Spot Pre Analysis Consensus Form After an air quality concern has been identi to the consultation partners during the init partners use the data to decide whether th appropriate. 02/14 Hot Spot Analysis Data for a Consultation Partner After a metropolitan planning organization project sponsor completes and sends this fo proposed project is "of air quality concern" Date Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Description 11/15 Standard Operating Procedure: Complying with MASAT Analysis Requirements 02/14 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Analysis Quick Start Guide The Missing MSAT Diesel Particulate Matter Assists project sponsors comply with NEPA source air toxics (MSAT) emissions at the p Provides an overview of the quantitative M references to FHWA MSAT workshop mate Provides FHWA guidance on adding diesel p analysis for MOBILE6.2 07/14 Emissions Table Provides tabular MSAT emission rates, inclu through /14 Documentation Standard for Quantitative MSAT Technical Report 09/15 Review Standard for Quantitative MSAT Technical Report Used to prepare a quantitative MSAT techn Used by TxDOT to review a quantitative MS Date Carbon Monoxide (CO) Traffic Air Quality Analysis (TAQA) Description

215 Air Quality Toolkit Page 3 of 4 2/22/ /15 Standard Operating Procedure for Complying with CO TAQA Requirements 09/15 Documentation Standard for a CO TAQA Technical Report Explains how to comply with CO TAQA requ project sponsors determine when and how technical report Used to prepare a CO TAQA technical repor 09/15 Review Standard for CO TAQA Technical Report Used by TxDOT to review a CO TAQA techn Date Congestion Management Process (CMP) Description 09/15 Standard Operating Procedure for Complying with CMP Requirements Used to assist project sponsors in documen the project level Date Construction Emissions Description 09/15 Standard Operating Procedure for Complying with Construction Emission Requirements Provides project sponsors a clear explanatio construction emission requirements Date Additional Resources Description Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans (40 CFR 93) Supplement to Jan. 28, 2008 Transportation Planning Requirements and their Relationship to NEPA Process Completion (02/09/11) Distribution Memo Transportation Conformity: A Basic Guide for State and Local Officials Transportation Conformity Brochure Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot Spot Analysis in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas Memorandum Explains Federal Aviation Administration (FA for projects involving civilian airports and air agency EPA administered code implementing Sectio the related requirements of 23 USC 109(j) an procedures to demonstrate and ensure proje plan developed pursuant to Section 110 and Provides a detailed description of how trans process (i.e., project level consistency and co Provides FHWA's high level overview of tran requirements relate to transportation invest metropolitan transportation plans, transport transportation projects FHWA answers to basic questions about tran FHWA provides guidance for qualitative PM quality concern in PM nonattainment/main started prior to December 2012

216 Air Quality Toolkit Page 4 of 4 2/22/2016 Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot Spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas Guidelines for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections Using MOVES in Project Level Carbon Monoxide Analyses FHWA Technical Advisory for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents T 6640A Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Memorandum A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Conducting Quantitative MSAT Analysis for FHWA NEPA Documents EPA guidance for quantitative PM hot spot a concern in PM nonattainment/maintenance started post December 2012 EPA guidance on how to model CO at roadw EPA guidance for using its mobile vehicle em rather than the older MOBILE emissions mod analysis was started post December 2012 FHWA guidance on preparing environmenta for performing a CO TAQA and disclosing con Provides an update to FHWA guidance on M Detailed guidelines on performingquantitati Provides FHWA recommendations for projec analysis concerning defining the scope of MO processing results

217 Standard Operating Procedure for Complying with Conformity Requirements Approval Authority: Air Quality & Noise Work Leader, Jackie Ploch Effective Date: 10/01/15 Review Authority: Air Specialist, Tim Wood Version: 2 Purpose of This SOP The purpose of this SOP is to explain clearly how to comply with conformity requirements at the project level. In particular, it details how to prepare and coordinate a conformity report, which is used to document that project-level conformity requirements have been met. Subject Overview The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that all federal actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas have to conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP), unless otherwise exempt. A project requiring a projectlevel conformity determination must receive a FHWA/FTA conformity determination prior to the environmental decision being made. This SOP was developed to assist project sponsors with preparing conformity reports and, when applicable, getting a project-level conformity determination from FHWA/FTA. A determination of project level conformity is not permanent. It is recommended that conformity be checked early and often in the project development process, using the Transportation Conformity Report Form. This form should be coordinated at least 60 days prior to the anticipated environmental decision so as to avoid having to coordinate it more than once. In particular, if there is a planned MTP update/amendment and corresponding transportation conformity determination expected to be completed on or near the time of project approval, then it is recommended that the project sponsor prepare this conformity determination after the plan update/amendment and corresponding transportation conformity determination is completed. Authorities There is no specific authority or requirement to use this SOP, but it designed to help project sponsors meet the conformity requirements of the CAA in regards to transportation projects. Correctly following the procedure outlined in this SOP should ensure the production of a legally sufficient report that meets the CAA requirements. Toolkit The following tools should be used in conjunction with this SOP. Transportation Conformity Report Form Texas Nonattainment Areas and Counties Table SOP for Complying with Hot-Spot Requirements SOP for Preparing Air Quality Statements Personnel The audience for this SOP includes project sponsors, contractors, and consultants responsible for preparing valid documentation that a project complies with CAA conformity requirements. Procedure Version 2 TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division SOP Effective Date: October 2015 Page 1 of 7