1. Climate Change and the Arizona Highway System Jeff Houk, FHWA Resource Center Arizona Rural Transportation Summit January 13, 2016 1

2. Overview, climate change and the transportation system Possible requirements for climate change analysis in NEPA Greenhouse gas analysis approaches and tools Possible requirements for considering climate effects on transportation infrastructure ADOT Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment Overview

3. Climate Change Results from the Accumulation of GHGs in the Atmosphere, Year after Year Emissions Concentrations Temperature Change (0.7° C / 1.3°F to date) 3

4. End Sector GHG Emissions Source: U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2009 (U.S. EPA, 2011)

5. Transportation-Related GHG Emissions Source: U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2009 (U.S. EPA, 2011)

6. Trend, 2015-2040 EIA projections of VMT and fuel consumption (and GHG emissions) from on-road vehicles, 2015 Assumed VMT growth rates: – Light duty: 1.1% – Commercial: 1.7% – Heavy duty: 1.5%

7. Components of Vehicle GHG Emissions

8. Draft CEQ Climate Change in NEPA Guidance CEQ issued draft guidance on consideration of climate change in NEPA, including GHG analysis, on 2/18/2010 – Recommends that federal agencies address GHG emissions impacts of proposed actions where the analysis would “provide meaningful information to decision makers” – Recommends consideration of potential impacts of future climate change on proposed actions

9. Draft CEQ Guidance: When to Analyze GHG Emissions Suggests that NEPA EA and EIS documents for proposed federal actions resulting in direct GHG emissions of 25,000 metric tons per year should include a GHG emissions analysis of alternatives Just documentation and disclosure, not a “pass/fail” test (no requirement that federal actions reduce GHG emissions compared to No Action)

10. 25,000 metric tons per year equates to a VMT increase of roughly 160,000 miles per day (in 2035) as a result of a proposed project – This is the difference between Build and No Build (the impact of the project itself), not total VMT on the corridor – Many rural projects have no impact on VMT (traffic volumes the same with or without the project) Construction (total for project, not per year): – 4-lane highway: 2000 metric tons/mile – Typical 4-lane single-span bridge: 120 metric tons Draft CEQ Guidance: When to Analyze GHG Emissions

11. Programmatic Approaches CEQ’s draft guidance also provides for programmatic analysis – GHG emissions and potential impacts of climate on proposed actions could be analyzed at a broad scale (e.g., in the planning process), and this analysis could be cited in NEPA documents for individual federal actions conducted under that plan This is consistent with FHWA’s long-standing policy preference, which is to estimate GHG emissions in planning, instead of conducting project-specific analysis

12. Goal: capture GHG emissions impacts of all projects planned for construction during the transportation plan’s timeframe Individual NEPA documents for projects would just cite this analysis, rather than including a project-specific analysis Planning-level analysis can capture synergy between projects, and facilities analysis of GHG/energy strategies GHG Analysis in Planning

13. Analysis Tools: MOVES EPA’s MOVES model can estimate energy consumption and GHG emissions in addition to NAAQS pollutants Can be used for regional or project-level analysis Can calculate total energy/emissions, or produce emissions rates FHWA can provide lookup tables of MOVES emissions rates by speed, if running the actual model is not practical

14. FHWA has developed a spreadsheet tool, the Infrastructure Carbon Estimator, to estimate energy and CO2 from construction and maintenance Covers construction materials, equipment fuel use, maintenance materials and fuel use Estimates emissions/energy reductions from mitigation strategies Tool and User Guide available at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/ mitigation/publications_and_tools/carbon_estimator/index.cfm 14 Analysis Tools: FHWA ICE Tool

15. Input information about construction and maintenance activities: Roadway Projects Roadway Construction Roadway Rehabilitation Facility type New Roadway (lane miles) Construct Additional Lane (lane miles) Re- Alignment (lane miles) Lane Widening (lane miles) Shoulder Improvemen t (centerline miles) Re- construct Pavement (lane miles) Resurface Pavement (lane miles) Rural Interstates 000050010 Rural Principal Arterials 500100030 Rural Minor Arterials 00200000 Rural Collectors 00020000 Urban Interstates / Expressways 0000402030 Urban Principal Arterials 00000010 Urban Minor Arterials / Collectors 0000000 15 Project Inputs

16. Tool automatically calculates emissions estimates: Annualized energy use (mmBTUs), per year over 20 years Unmitigated Roadway - new construction Roadway- rehabilitation Roadway - total Bridges Rail, bus, bicycle, ped. Total Upstream Energy Materials89,975152,838242,81324,643178,067445,523 Direct Energy Construction Equipment33,94227,07960,02110,74761,606132,374 Routine Maintenance 158,585 Total123,917179,917302,83435,390239,673736,482 Annual GHG emissions (MT CO2e), per year over 20 years Unmitigated Roadway - new construction Roadway- rehabilitation Roadway - total Bridges Rail, bus, bicycle, ped. Total Upstream Emissions Materials5,6269,27614,9022,06512,50729,474 Direct Emissions Construction Equipment2,4021,9754,3777844,4919,652 Routine Maintenance 11,564 Total8,02811,25119,2792,84916,99850,690 Results

17. If a planning-level analysis isn’t available to incorporate by reference, then project-level analysis would be needed under CEQ guidance (for projects >25,000 MT/year) South Mountain Freeway example: Project-Level Analysis (This is for fuel consumption, which can easily be converted to GHG emissions. Does not include construction & maintenance.)

18. For smaller projects, qualitative analysis could potentially be completed Does not have to be extensive: Qualitative Analysis

19. FHWA can provide technical assistance for project-level GHG analysis: – Example analyses for past projects – Lookup tables of MOVES emissions rates (for areas without the capability to run MOVES) – Example qualitative analyses – Assistance with ICE construction & maintenance tool FHWA Assistance

20. Part 2: Climate Effects

21. Trends

22. EO 13653, “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change” DOT Policy Statement on Climate Change Adaptation: – www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/ policy_and_guidance/usdot.cfm FHWA Order 5520, Transportation System Preparedness and Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events – http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/5520.cfm No FHWA NEPA guidance or requirements at this time 22 Climate Change Impacts/ Adaptation: National Policy

23. Why Consider Climate Change Effects During Project Development? Direct impacts on transportation infrastructure Cumulative impacts of transportation projects on an environment vulnerable to the effects of climate change 23

24. 1: Direct impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure 2:Impacts of climate change on the natural and built environment 3: Cumulative impacts of the project and climate change on the environment Climate Change Effects in Project Development 24

25. Incorporate existing information about future climate change in the project area Discuss potential impacts of future climate change on the proposed project Incorporate existing information about climate effects on the affected environment (water resources, species, etc.) Discuss combined effects of climate change and the proposed project on the affected environment Conceptual Analysis Framework

26. Finalized January 2015 Focus on Interstate corridor between Nogales, Tucson, Phoenix and Flagstaff 4 impacts evaluated: – Extreme Heat – Freeze/Thaw – Extreme Precipitation – Wildfire ADOT Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment

27. Climate Stressors & Potential Effects

28. Temperature/Precipitation Projections

29. Summary of Findings: Flagstaff/North Prescott Districts

30. Summary of Findings: Phoenix/South Prescott Districts

31. Summary of Findings: Tucson District

32. Development of programmatic and project-specific approaches to assessing risk underway within ADOT’s Sustainable Transportation Program ADOT developing a Resilience Pilot Program in 2016 – Abrupt incidents of flood, overtopping, system hotspots, hydraulic-related failure, and extreme weather impacts will make up the core of the pilot program Vulnerability: Next Steps

33. Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment: – Thor Anderson, ADOT Multimodal Planning, tanderson@azdot.gov – Steve Olmsted, ADOT Environmental Planning, solmsted@azdot.gov General climate change/GHG issues: – Steve Olmsted, ADOT – Ed Stillings, FHWA Arizona Division, ed.stillings@dot.gov – Jeff Houk, FHWA Resource Center, jeff.houk@dot.gov – FHWA climate change web site, www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/index.cfm For more information