© 2011

MANUAL
v1.5

© 2011

Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Table of Contents

© 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword............................................................................................................................................................1
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................................3
Introduction
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................7
Background.....................................................................................................................................................17
ProjectRequirements
PRͲ1EnvironmentalReviewProcess...............................................................................................................29
PRͲ2LifecycleCostAnalysis............................................................................................................................39
PRͲ3LifecycleInventory..................................................................................................................................47
PRͲ4QualityControlPlan................................................................................................................................65
PRͲ5NoiseMitigationPlan..............................................................................................................................69
PRͲ6WasteManagementPlan.......................................................................................................................79
PRͲ7PollutionPreventionPlan.......................................................................................................................91
PRͲ8LowImpactDevelopment.......................................................................................................................95
PRͲ9PavementManagementSystem...........................................................................................................107
PRͲ10SiteMaintenancePlan........................................................................................................................117
PRͲ11EducationalOutreach.........................................................................................................................123
Environment&Water
EWͲ1EnvironmentalManagementSystem..................................................................................................129
EWͲ2RunoffFlowControl.............................................................................................................................135
EWͲ3RunoffQuality......................................................................................................................................153
EWͲ4StormwaterCostAnalysis....................................................................................................................173
EWͲ5SiteVegetation....................................................................................................................................177
EWͲ6HabitatRestoration.............................................................................................................................183
EWͲ7EcologicalConnectivity........................................................................................................................193
EWͲ8LightPollution......................................................................................................................................201
Access&Equity
AEͲ1SafetyAudit..........................................................................................................................................207
AEͲ2IntelligentTransportationSystem........................................................................................................211
AEͲ3ContextSensitiveSolutions..................................................................................................................219
AEͲ4TrafficEmissionsReduction..................................................................................................................231
AEͲ5PedestrianAccess.................................................................................................................................241
AEͲ6BicycleAccess.......................................................................................................................................245
AEͲ7Transit&HOVAccess............................................................................................................................251
AEͲ8ScenicViews..........................................................................................................................................259
AEͲ9CulturalOutreach.................................................................................................................................267
ConstructionActivities
CAͲ1QualityManagementSystem...............................................................................................................279
CAͲ2EnvironmentalTraining........................................................................................................................285
CAͲ3SiteRecyclingPlan................................................................................................................................291
CAͲ4FossilFuelReduction............................................................................................................................303
CAͲ5EquipmentEmissionReduction............................................................................................................309
CAͲ6PavingEmissionsReduction.................................................................................................................315
CAͲ7WaterUseTracking..............................................................................................................................321
CAͲ8ContractorWarranty............................................................................................................................327
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Table of Contents

© 2011
Materials&Resources
MRͲ1LifecycleAssessment...........................................................................................................................339
MRͲ2PavementReuse..................................................................................................................................357
MRͲ3EarthworkBalance...............................................................................................................................375
MRͲ4RecycledMaterials..............................................................................................................................385
MRͲ5RegionalMaterials...............................................................................................................................403
MRͲ6EnergyEfficiency.................................................................................................................................411
PavementTechnologies
PTͲ1LongͲLifePavement..............................................................................................................................419
PTͲ2PermeablePavement............................................................................................................................429
PTͲ3WarmMixAsphalt................................................................................................................................441
PTͲ4CoolPavement......................................................................................................................................447
PTͲ5QuietPavement....................................................................................................................................455
PTͲ6PavementPerformanceTracking..........................................................................................................465
CustomCredit
CCͲX[YourTitleHere]...................................................................................................................................471

Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Foreword
University of Washington © 2011
FOREWORD
Welcome to the new and improved Greenroads Manual v1.5! In our fourth year of research and development, we 
have plenty of news to report! We are happy to announce that we have made great progress toward refining this 
continually developing system and you will see many changes in this version of the document as a result of input 
from case studies, pilot projects, and thoughtful comments we’ve gathered in the last year. Plus, we are pleased to 
announce that Greenroads has commercialized and is now a pending trademark of the University of Washington 
(UW)! We have also formed the Greenroads Foundation, a third‐party non‐profit corporation, with a mission of 
benefiting communities by promoting sustainability in transportation practice and education. 
This Greenroads Manual contains ALL of the finer details of each Project Requirement (PR) and Voluntary Credit 
(VC) currently included in the Greenroads Rating System. You can use this document as a reference guide while 
you proceed through the design and construction phases of your Greenroads projects. For each PR and VC, this 
Manual provides the goal, what needs to be done to meet that goal, the documentation to prove those things 
were done, benefits, sustainability components addressed (Ecology, Economy, Equity, Extent, Expectations, 
Experience and Exposure), strategies, helpful examples and a supporting body of research and references to help 
you along the way. For those of you who may not have the time to read hundreds of pages of roadway research, 
you may note that there is also a shorter version of this manual, the Greenroads Abridged Manual v1.5, which is 
also available for download on the Greenroads website (http://www.greenroads.us). It has a green cover image. 
IMPORTANT STUFF
• All 11 Project Requirements must be met and completed in order to be considered for certification. All of them. 
No exceptions. They are designed not to be difficult to do, especially if you start thinking about them early. 
• Current point ranges for the four available certification levels are listed in the Introduction to the Manual. The 
minimum level of “Certified” means that all 11 PRs have been completed and that a minimum of 32 points have 
been earned by completing a variety of Voluntary Credits (VC). 
• Please do not use the Greenroads logo or “Greenroads” without written permission of UW. 
• Please give credit where credit is due. If you are using Greenroads in an article or paper, please be sure to cite 
appropriately. Here is a sample, in APA format: 
Muench, S.T., Anderson, J.L., Hatfield, J.P., Koester, J.R., & Söderlund, M. et al. (2011). Greenroads Manual v1.5. 
(J.L. Anderson, C.D. Weiland, and S.T. Muench, Eds.). Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 
HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS
• Visit the Greenroads website: http://www.greenroads.us.  
• Sign up to be a Reviewer by clicking the bottom grey and white button on the front page that says “Review the 
Manual” or by following this link directly: http://www.greenroads.us/312/register‐to‐review.html  
• Fill in your contact information and you will receive a confirmation email with your login credentials. 
• Navigate the online version of the Manual, which is in the orange box on the right hand side of your screen 
when you visit the website. 
ADDITIONAL NOTES
• We fixed the pagination and have provided a table of contents in this edition. 
• We have published a version 1.0.1 to v1.5 “Errata” which is downloadable from our Manual webpage. Errata 
have a blue cover image and show the date of publish in their titles. 
We look forward to working with you on Greenroads! 
Jeralee Anderson, Craig Weiland, and Steve Muench 
Editors 
1
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Foreword
University of Washington © 2011
   
2
Greenroads

ACKN
This updat
many sma
particular, 
Söderlund
for an Envi
AUTHOR
The editor
Washingto
University
Stephen T.
Jeralee L. A
Craig Weila
Jared Koes
Eric Peters
Maleena S
Steven Lam
Celeste Ho
Nicholas Jo
David Vich
Malissa Ph
Aaron Knig
Erika Rami
 
RESEARC
Greenroad
our four re
Transporta
(TransNow
 
 
s™ Manual v1.5
NOWLED
ed version of t
rt individuals w
Greenroads w
. Much credit i
ironmental Rat
S & CONTR
s would also li
on and CH2M H
 of Washingto
. Muench, PhD
Anderson, P.E.,
and 
ster 
son 
carsella 
mpert 
offman 
ones 
itthavong 
hok 
ght 
rez 
CH SPONSO
ds would also n
esearch sponso
ation Northwe
w)  
DGEME
the Greenroads
who are devote
would not have
s due to Marti
ting System (20
IBUTORS
ke to thank the
HILL, Inc. for th
on   
D., P.E. 
, LEED®AP 
M
Jo
Ka
Ye
Pa
Ji
Ra
A
A
A
Ka
Ju
M
RS
not have been 
ors. 
est  Stat
Tech
(SPT
 
NTS
s™ Manual wo
ed to making r
 become what
na. Her origina
007) is availab
e following cur
heir work in res
Martina Söderlu
oshua Hatfield
ari Watkins, P.
enyu Lin 
aul Prigge 
n Woo Bae 
achel Liberty 
dnan Shabir 
ndrea Gagliano
ndrew Sahl 
atherine McInt
uliette Peyroux
Manisa Veeravig
possible at the
te Pavement 
hnology Conso
TC) 


© 2011
ould not have b
oadway design
t it is today wit
al master’s the
le at the Unive
rrent and form
search, credit d
CH2
und
E. 

tyre 

grom 
Tim
Sam
Mar
Krist
Joe 
Scot
Dan
Rob
Chu
Amy
 
e University of 
ortium 
We
Lan
Divi
 
been possible w
n and construc
thout the initia
esis work, Susta
ersity of Washi
mer students an
development, 
2M HILL, Inc.
othy Bevan, P.
m Seskin 
rcy Schwartz 
tin Hull 
Guenther 
tt Barber, R.L.A
niel Pitzler 
bin Senner, Ph.
ck Blair, C.W.B
y Elliott, P.E. 
Washington w
stern Federal 
nds Highway 
ision (WFLHD)
without the co
ction practice m
al concept from
ainable Roadw
ngton libraries
nd employees a
revisions and i
 
.E.
A. 
D. 
B. 
Anneke
Daniel 
Linda C
Steve M
Russell
Donald
Guy Ca
Louise 
Loren B
Kathlee
 
without funding

Orego
Transp
Acknowledg
oncerted effort
more sustainab
m Martina 
way Design: a M
s. 
at the Universi
initial contribu
e Davis, P.E.
Peterson, P.E.
Cyra‐Korsgaard
Mader, C.E. 
l Mudgett 
d Wagner, P.E.
aley, P.E. 
Brown 
Bloomberg, P.E
en Penney, P.E
 
g and support 
n Department
portation (ODO
gments

t of 
ble. In 
Model 
ity of 
tions. 
 
d, R.L.A. 
E. 
E. 
from 
t of 
OT) 
 
3
Acknowledgements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
©2011
SPECIAL THANKS
The editors would also like to thank the following people at the University of Washington, CH2M HILL, Inc. and 
other organizations for their work in reviewing, collaboration, case studies, coordination and other efforts. 
University of Washington    CH2M HILL, Inc.  
Joe Mahoney, PhD. 
Tim Larson, PhD. 
Russell Torgesen, P.E., LEED®AP 
Joyce Nuesca, M.D. 
 
Sabine Eisma
Rosslyn Luke 
Christopher Croft 
Ancelmo McCarthy 
Tim Neuman, P.E.
Kirsten Pennington 
Mark Bastasch, P.E.,  
Mike Paddock, P.E., P.L.S. 
Bill Derry 
Canisius Chan, P.Eng. 
Alex Chan, P.Eng.
John Willis, P.E. 
Kevin Murphy, P.E. 
Thomas Cahill, P.E. 
Grahm Satterwhite 
 
Others 
Amit Armstrong, Ph.D., P.E., Western Federal Lands Highway 
Division (WFLHD) 
Lyn Cornell, ODOT 
Kim Willoughby, P.E., Washington Department of 
Transportation (WSDOT) 
Jeff Uhlmeyer, P.E., WSDOT 
Jim Weston, P.E., WSDOT 
Freeman Anthony, City of Bellingham, WA 
Maureen Jensen, Minnesota Department of Transportation 
Angela Brady, P.E., PMP Seattle Department of 
Transportation (SDOT) 
Mark Mazzola,  SDOT 
Erin Moxon, British Columbia Ministry of Transportation 
Daniel Medina, Ph.D., P.E., PBS&J 
Michael Booth, P.E., Perteet, Inc. 
Jesse Thomsen, Perteet, Inc. 
Travis Rauscher, Perteet, Inc. 
Debra T. Johnson, Eco‐Edge, LLC 
Mike Hutchinson, GeoEngineers, Inc. 
Kiva Lints, AECOM, USA, Inc. 
Kara Swanson, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. 
Steve Carter, TriCar, Ltd. 
Tom Wheeler, Transportation Corridor Agencies 
 
Volunteer Manual Reviewers 
Bob Gansauer, National Park Service 
Bob Holzheimer, National Park Service 
Darin Thacker, National Park Service 
Dennis Nagao, National Park Service 
Ginger Molitor, National Park Service 
Jan Burton, National Park Service 
Jesse Van Horne, National Park Service 
Jessica Hendryx, National Park Service 
Karen Vaage, National Park Service 
Lee Terzis, National Park Service 
Margaret McRoberts, National Park Service 
Robin Gregory, National Park Service 
Steven Culver, National Park Service 
Treff Alexander, National Park Service 
Dean Potts, Caterpillar
Gary Aamold, Consultant 
Skip Stothert, Green Roads Recycling, Ltd. 
Jonathan Braadvedt, KOA Corporation 
Lionel Lemay, National Ready Mixed Concrete 
Association 
Tarek Eweida, Parsons International 
Ryan Westrom, Patrick Engineering, Inc. 
Mike Hendrix, Perteet, Inc. 
Fares Abdo, Portland Cement Association 
Donna DeNinno, UNI‐GROUP, USA 
Judith Rochat, US DOT / RITA / Volpe Center 
 
4

Greenroads Manual v1.5 © 2011

INTRODUCTION

5

Greenroads Manual v1.5 © 2011

6
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Introduction
University of Washington © 2011
INTRODUCTION
WHY GREENROADS™?
Didyouknowthatinordertomakeonelaneofroad,onemilelong,youwouldneedtousethesameamountof
energyusedinoneyearbyabout50averageAmericanhouseholds?In2008,theUnitedStateshadalmost8.5
millionlaneͲmilesofpavementsand600,000bridges.So,theenergywehavealreadyusedtomakeour
transportationnetworkisover25%ofthatusedbytheentireU.S.intheentireyearin2005.Withthenationalcall
toenergyefficiencystandardsforourbuiltenvironment,whynotalsolooktoimprovehowwegetfromplaceto
placeeverydaybyrethinkingwhatweuse,howweuseit,whereitcomesfrom,andhowitallfitstogether?
Roadsandbridgesareacriticalpartofournation’seconomicprosperityandlocalcommunitywellͲbeing.Itmaybe
hardtobelievethatoutofthetotal100hoursAmericansspendontheroadcommutingtoworkeveryyear,almost
onewholeworkweek(36hours)islostjustwaitingforroadconstructionprojectstobefinished.Youmighteven
besurprisedtolearnthatconstructiondelayscostregularAmericansalmost$80billioninlostproductivity,
benefits,andwagesannually.Thesedelaysalsorepresent2.9billiongallonsofwastedfuelandcountlesscarbon
dioxideemissions,aswellasotherharmfulenvironmentalexhauststhatcancauseacidrainandsmog.Inbusy
cities,manypeoplemayagreethattheirlocalcongestionproblemscanbeevenworse(insomecases,theyare)!
Peopleobviouslysufferfrustrations,butournaturalenvironmentprobablysuffersevenmore.Wealldependon
howwelltheenvironmentfunctionsforourownhealth,livelihoods,andcultures.Sadly,eventheconvenient
streettoandfromyourlocalgrocerystorecouldbetoblameforlossanddestructionofsensitivehabitatsand
wetlands,undrinkablewater,collisionswithinnocentanimals,andlotsofloudnoiseandunpleasantodors.
Thegoodnewsisthatthereisnowawaytoaddressandsolvesomeoftheseproblems,oratleastawaytohelpus
managethembetterandtomaketherightdecisionswhenwearethinkingaboutbuildingnewroadsinour
communities:theGreenroads™RatingSystem.Greenroadsisatool(http://www.greenroads.us)thatcanhelp
roadbuildersworktomakebettertransportationprojectseveryday,oneprojectatatime.

FigureI.1:GreenroadsPilotProjectatNorthshoreDriveinBellingham,Washington.
PhotobyFreemanAnthony,CityofBellinghamPublicWorks
7
Background Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
University of Washington © 2011
WHAT IS GREENROADS™?
GreenroadsisavoluntarythirdͲpartyratingsystemforroadprojects.Aratingsystemcanbeusefulformany
reasons.Ultimately,Greenroadsseekstorecognizeandrewardroadwayprojectsthatexceedpublicexpectations
forenvironmental,economicandsocialperformance.
Fundamentally,Greenroadshelpsquantifythesustainableattributesofa
roadwayproject.Thisquantificationcanbeusedto:
x Definewhatfeaturescontributetosustainabilityontheproject.
x Provideaccountabilityforsustainabilityonroadwayprojects.
x Measureandtrackspecificsustainabilitygoalsovertime.
x Manageandimproveroadwaysustainability.
x Encouragenewandinnovativepractices.
x Promotecompetitiveadvantageandothereconomicormarketincentivesforsustainability.
x Communicatesustainablefeaturestostakeholdersinanunderstandableway,especiallytothegeneralpublic.
GreenroadsisanawardͲbased,flexibleratingsystem(sometimescalleda“performancemetric”)thatcanbeused
torank,scoreandcomparedifferentroadprojectsfortheiroverallperformancetowardbeingmoresustainable
thananaverageroadproject.EarningaGreenroadsaward,called“certification”islikewinningtheOlympicGames
forroads:projectsearnpointsforspecialactivities.Uponsuccessfulcompletion,adistinctivesigncanbeusedon
roadprojectsthatgoaboveandbeyondcurrentstandardsforenvironmentalcompliance,roadwaydesignand
constructionpractice.Theseprojectsdemonstratealevelofexcellenceinsustainabilitybeyondtheaverage
roadwayprojectandcommunicatesubstantialachievementtoprojectstakeholders.

FigureI.2:YellowstoneEastEntrancePilotProject,WesternFederalLandsHighwayDivision.
PhotobyChrisCroft

A NOTE ON COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK USE
Greenroadsisapubliclyavailablesystemthatcanbeusedbyanyone.However,theGreenroadslogoandname
remainthepropertyoftheUniversityofWashingtonandmayonlybeusedwithexpresspermissionoftheUWora
licensedagent.AnyuseofideasorreferencestoGreenroadsrequirespropercitationofGreenroadsastheorigin
oftheseideasandrecognitionthatUWownsthetrademark.
WHAT IS A GREENROAD?
AGreenroadisdefinedasa
roadwayprojectthathasbeen
designedandconstructedtoa
levelofsustainabilitythatis
substantiallyhigherthancurrent
commonpractice.
8
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Introduction
University of Washington © 2011
HOW GREENROADS™ WORKS
Greenroadsisacollectionofsustainabilitybestpracticesthatapplytoroadwaydesignandconstruction.These
bestpracticesaredividedintotwogeneraltypes:requiredandvoluntary.Greenroadsactivitiesarenotintended
tosupersedelocal,state,orfederalregulationorotherjurisdictionalordinances.
WHAT IS REQUIRED
Atminimum,everyGreenroadsprojectmustcomplete11specificactivitiesinordertoqualifyforanyaward.No
exceptions.TheseactivitiesarestraightforwardlycalledProjectRequirements(PRs)andaregroupedtogetheras
thefirstcategoryintheManual.
ThePRsareintendedtocapturesomeofthemostcriticalideasof
sustainabilityforanyroadwayprojectfromplanning,design,
constructionandoperationsandmaintenance,suchas:
x EnvironmentalandeconomicdecisionͲmaking
x Publicengagement
x DesignforlongͲtermenvironmentalperformance
x Constructionplanning
x Planningforlifetimemonitoringandmaintenance
Notethatmany,butnotall,projectswillmeetseveralofthePR
outrightwithlittleornoadditionaleffort.Thisisbecauseunderlying
manyofthesecreditsareideasthatareoftenregulatedbybothfederal
andstatelaws.However,becausestatescarryasignificantamountof
autonomyformanylaws,someofthestandardsinthePRsmaybe
somewhatstricterorpossiblylessstrictthantheproject’sactualstate
laws.PRscarrynopointvalue.
WHAT IS OPTIONAL
Voluntarybestpracticesarethosethatmayoptionallybeincludedinaroadwayproject.Thesearecalled
“VoluntaryCredits”.EachVoluntaryCreditisassignedapointvalue(1Ͳ5points)dependinguponitsimpacton
sustainability.Currently,thereare37VoluntaryCreditstotaling108points.Greenroadsalsoallowsaprojector
organizationtocreateanduseitsownVoluntaryCredits(called“CustomCredits”),subjecttoapprovalof
Greenroads,foratotalof10morepoints,whichbringsthetotalavailablepointsto118.
ProjectteamsapplyforpointsbysubmittingspecificdocumentationinsupportoftheProjectRequirementor
VoluntaryCredittheyarepursuing.Thesedocuments,whichcanrangefromprojectspecificationstofield
documentation,areverifiedbyanindependentreviewteam.Onceaprojectiscomplete,theGreenroadsteam
verifiestheapplicationandassignsaGreenroadsscorebasedonachievingall11oftheProjectRequirementsand
thenumberofpointsearnedfromtheVoluntaryCredits.Thisscoremaythenbeusedattheowner’sdiscretion
andmayalsobetranslatedtoastandardachievementlevelor“certification”ifsodesired:themorepointsearned,
thehighertherecognition.IfaprojectreachesacertificationlevelitwillbeabletodisplaytheGreenroadslogo
andappropriatecertificationgraphiconcepermissionfromtheGreenroadsteamisgiven.TheGreenroads
certificationlevelsaredetailedinasubsequentsectionofthisdocument.
Owneragencies,developers,designconsultantsandcontractorsmaywishtopursueofficialcertificationoruse
Greenroadsinotherwaysthatareeithervoluntaryorprescriptive.Forinstance,developersanddesignersmay
wishtouseGreenroadsasalistofpotentialideasforimprovingthesustainabilityofaroadwayproject.Or,owners
maywishtouseGreenroadspointvaluesorcertificationlevelsasgoalsorbenchmarksfornewroadwayprojects
ormetricsbywhichtheycanmeasureandmanagetheirroadwaysustainabilityefforts.
FigureI.3:FernanLakeRoadPilotProject,
FernanLake,ID.WesternFederalLands
HighwayDivision.
PhotobyChrisCroft
9
Background Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
University of Washington © 2011
IS GREENROADS RIGHT FOR ME?
Thereareanumberofstakeholderswhomayhaveinterestinaroadwaysustainabilityratingsystem.Each
stakeholderislikelytohaveopinionsonhowGreenroadsshouldwork;howeveritshouldbenotedthatnotall
pointsofviewcanbefullyaccommodated.Stakeholdersinclude:
x Roadowners:federal,state,countyandcityagenciesaswellasthegeneralpublic.
x Fundingagencies:federal,state,county,cityandotherregionalauthorities
x Designconsultants:thoseinvolvedwithcorridor,roadorevenparkinglotdesign
x Contractors:heavyconstruction,roadandpavingcontractors
x Regulatoryagencies:U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
x Sustainabilityorganizations:U.S.GreenBuildingCouncil(USGBC),GreenHighwaysPartnership,SierraClub,etc.
x Researchorganizations:universitiesandotherresearchorganizationsthatparticipateininvestigating
transportationrelatedsustainabletechnologies.
GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE RATING SYSTEM
ThefundamentaltenetsthatguidethedevelopmentandwritingofGreenroadsare:
x Straightforwardandunderstandable.NonͲexpertsshouldbeabletounderstandthesystem.Simplicityis
valuedoverexcessivedetailbecauseitismoreunderstandable.ProjectRequirementsandVoluntaryCredits
areoftensimplisticinterpretationsofcomplexideas;theyareboundtocontainsomecontroversyhoweverthe
interpretationshouldholdtruetothefundamentalidea.
x Empiricalevidenceandexistingevaluativetechniques.ProjectRequirementsandVoluntaryCreditsarebased
onapreponderanceofempiricalevidenceand,totheextentpossible,shouldbeevaluatedusingexistingtools
andtechniques.
x Pointscommensuratewithimpact.Itemsthathavehigheconomic,environmentalorsocialimpactare
assignedmorepointsthanlowimpactitems.
x Flexible.Greenroadsshouldbeabletoaccommodateabroadrangeofbothurbanandruralroadwayprojects
frompreservationoverlaystomajornewcorridordevelopment.ProjectRequirementsandVoluntaryCredits
shouldbeapplicableanywhereintheU.S.Internationalversionsmayneedfurtherdevelopmentinthefuture.
x Continualevolution.Overtime,betterideas,morecompleteknowledgeandtechnologyadvanceswillrequire
Greenroadstobeupdatedandchanged.
x Minimalbureaucracy.Pursuingcertificationrequiresdocumentationbutdocumentsshouldeithercomefrom
existingdocuments(e.g.plansandspecifications)orbesimpleandinexpensivetoproducefromexisting
documents.
x Beyondminimumrequirements.Greenroadsshouldspurinnovationandencouragedesignandconstruction
decisionsbasedonsustainabilityconsiderationsthatgobeyondregulatoryrequirements.Whileregulatory
requirementsanddesignstandardscontributetosustainability,aratingsystemthatawardscreditforthese
itemsaloneessentiallybecomesamarketingtoolthatistechnicallyredundantandadministratively
burdensome.
WHO DEVELOPED GREENROADS?
GreenroadsisaresearchprojectthatoriginatedattheUniversityofWashingtonandhasdevelopedinseveral
versionssincetheinitialbeginningsofresearchworkin2007.Version0.95(2009)wasdevelopedjointlybythe
UniversityofWashington(UW)andCH2MHILL,withfurtherworkonv1.0,v1.0.1andthisversionoftheRating
SystemandManualweremanagedthroughtheUniversityofWashington,withhelpfulcollaborationfromCH2M
HILLandanumberofotherindustrygroupsandconsultantswhohavecontributeddataandcommentaryby
meansofpilotprojects,casestudiesandpubliccomments.
CurrentresearchattheUniversityofWashingtonisheadedbySteveMuench,anAssociateProfessorinthe
DepartmentofCivilandEnvironmentalEngineering.Workontheoriginal0.95versionofGreenroadsatCH2MHILL
10
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Introduction
University of Washington © 2011
wasledbyTimBevan,MountainWestRegionTechnologyandQualityManager,TransportationBusinessGroup.
Importantly,althoughUWandCH2MHILLaredevelopingthissystem,thebrandassociatedwithanyratedproject
willonlybetheGreenroadsbrand,whichisapendingtrademarkoftheUniversityofWashington.TheGreenroads
Foundation,athirdͲpartyindependentnonͲprofitorganizationincorporatedin2010,isintendedtobethesole
licenseeoftheratingsystemandwillmanagefutureupdatestomaintainandcontinuallyimproveGreenroads.
GREENROADS WEBSITE
AllGreenroadswork,includingthisManualandallofitscredits,isdocumentedontheofficialwebsite:
www.greenroads.us
Pleasevisitthiswebsitetoseethelatestnews,copiesofpresentationsgiven,ratedprojectsandotherGreenroads
relatedinformation.YoucanalsocontactGreenroadsFoundationstaffdirectlyviatheContactUsform,register
yourprojectsorvolunteertoreviewtheManual.

FigureI.4:HomepageoftheGreenroadsWebsite:http://www.greenroads.us

FUTURE CHANGES
Greenroadswillchangeinthefutureasmoreinformationisgatheredandnewindustrystandardpractices/rules
aredeveloped.Thismeansthatnewcreditscouldbeadded,oldonesremoved,pointvalueschanged,certification
levelsadjustedandmore.NomatterwhatthecurrentGreenroadsversionis,wearealreadyworkingonthenext.
Therefore,usercommentsarewelcomedandmightverywellbeincorporatedintothenextversion.Ifyouare
gettingpursuingcertificationunderoneversionoftheratingsystemwhileanothercomesout,youwillbegiven
theopportunitytoupgradetothelatestversion.
11
Background Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
University of Washington © 2011
GREENROADS ESSENTIALS
ThissectiondescribestheessentialsoftheGreenroadsRatingSystem.Theseareitemsaprojectmaywanttoknow
aboutwhendecidingwhetherornottopursueGreenroadscertification.
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
ProjectRequirementsaretheminimumstepsthatmustbecompletedinordertobeconsideredaGreenroad.They
canbethoughtofascharacteristicscommontoallGreenroads.Inordertoachievecertificationtheymustallbe
metandanadditionalnumberofVoluntaryCreditpointsmustalsobeearned.Inotherwords,regardlessofhow
manyVoluntaryCreditpointsareachieved,ifaprojectdoesnotmeetalloftheProjectRequirements,a
GreenroadscertificationlevelwillNOTbeawarded.
ProjectRequirementsarelistedintheirowncategoryatthefrontofthemanualtodistinguishthemfromthe
VoluntaryCreditcategories.TheProjectRequirementsalsoconsistofitemsorproceduresthatareoftenrelatedto
practicesthatcanachievepointsinoneormoreoftheVoluntaryCreditcategories,whichmaystrategicallyassist
projectsthatareplanningtopursuecertification.
VOLUNTARY CREDITS
InadditiontotheProjectRequirements,thereisawideselectionofVoluntaryCreditsthataprojectcanearn.Each
VoluntaryCreditisassociatedwithanumberofpoints(from1to5)dependingupontheimpactthecredithason
sustainability(asdefinedlaterinthisdocument).AprojectchoosestopursueVoluntaryCreditsonavoluntary
basis;nonearerequired.OncethosepursuedVoluntaryCreditsareverifiedbytheGreenroadsteam,thenumber
ofpointsachievedistalliedupandacertificationlevel(seenextsection),ifdesired,isawarded.
VoluntaryCreditsspanawidespectrumofprojectactionsfromculturaloutreachandmultimodalaccesstosafety
topavementmaterials.Therefore,itislikelythatnoprojectwillbeabletoachievealloftheVoluntaryCredits.
However,thegoalofGreenroadsistohaveenoughchoiceinVoluntaryCreditsthatanyroadwayprojectcouldfind
enoughrelevantcreditstoachieveatleastaminimumcertificationlevel.ThismeansthatGreenroadsshouldwork
forallroadwayprojectsfrombasicpreservationoverlaystolarge,multiͲbilliondollarcorridorprojects.
ACHIEVEMENT/CERTIFICATION LEVELS
Greenroadsmaybeusedto“certify”aprojectbasedontotalpointsachieved.Dependingupontheappetiteofthe
project,theselevelscanbecalled“achievement”or“certification”levels.Obtainingtheselevelsisanofficial
acknowledgementbyGreenroadsthataprojecthasmetallProjectRequirementsandachievedenoughofthe118
possibleVoluntaryCreditpointstosurpassapredeterminedcertificationlevel.Therearefourcertificationlevelsas
shownbelow:
x Certified:AllProjectRequirements+32Ͳ42VoluntaryCreditpoints(30Ͳ40%oftotal)
x Silver:AllProjectRequirements+43Ͳ53VoluntaryCreditpoints(40Ͳ50%oftotal)
x Gold:AllProjectRequirements+54Ͳ63VoluntaryCreditpoints(50Ͳ60%oftotal)
x Evergreen:AllProjectRequirements+64+VoluntaryCreditpoints(>60%oftotal)
TheselevelsaresubjecttorevisionwithnewversionsofGreenroadsandmaychangeinthefutureasthesystemis
updated.AcertifiedroadwaycanbeconsideredaGreenroad.

12
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Introduction
University of Washington © 2011
SCOPE OF THE GREENROADS RATING SYSTEM
Thissectiondescribestheunderlyingideas,scopeandlimitsofGreenroads.Itisexpectedthatthebasicsystemwill
growandchangeassustainabilitythought,technologiesandregulationschange.However,thefundamental
conceptsaddressedhereareexpectedtoremainrelativelyconstant.
HOW DOES GREENROADS FIT WITH REGULATORY STANDARDS?
Greenroadsisdesignedtopromotesustainabilitybestpracticeswithinandbeyondexistingfederal,stateandlocal
regulations.Specifically,Greenroadscreditsaredesignedtoinfluencedecisionsregardingsustainabilityoptions
wheretheyarenotprecludedbyregulationorwhereregulationallowsachoicebetweenoptionsthatcouldhave
sustainabilityimpacts.
AnimportantcorollarytothisisthatGreenroadsisnotanabsolutemeasureofsustainabilitybecauseitdoesnot
includesustainabilityitemsthatarecoveredbycurrentU.S.regulation(e.g.,CleanWaterAct,CleanAirAct,
NationalHistoricalPreservationAct,AmericanswithDisabilitiesAct,etc.).However,giventhatallU.S.agenciesare
governedbythesamesetoffederalregulations,GreenroadscanbeconsideredasustainabilitymetricbuiltonU.S.
standardpractice.
GreenroadsisalsomeanttoencourageorganizationstoincludesustainablepracticesintheircompanyͲwide
strategyanddailyworkpractices.Importantly,GreenroadsisnotmeanttodictatedesignortradeͲoffdecisions.
Ratheritprovidesatooltohelpwithsuchdecisions.
WHAT ARE THE SYSTEM BOUNDARIES?
Greenroads,initscurrentversion,isaprojectͲbasedratingsystem.Thismeansthatitisapplicabletothedesign
andconstructionofneworrehabilitatedroadways,includingexpansionorredesign.Thereareshortcomingstoa
projectͲbasedsystemwhicharehighlightedmorebrieflybelow.Specificallythough,Greenroadsbestappliestothe
designprocessandconstructionactivitieswithintheworkzoneaswellasmaterialhaulingactivities,productionof
portlandcementconcrete(PCC)andhotmixasphalt(HMA).
IfyouarewonderingifyourprojectfitswithasystemlikeGreenroads,contactusdirectlyoryoucanalsobrowse
theAbridgedManualwithachecklistinhandtohelpyoumakethatdeterminationyourself.Chancesarethatyou
willbeabletoincorporatemanyoftheideasintoyourproject.Actually,youmayfindthatyouarealreadythinking
aboutmanyofthem,butmayhavehadtroubleseeinghowtheywouldfittogether,orhelpachieveyour
sustainabilitygoals.
WealsothinktransportationplannersandpublicworksagenciescanuseGreenroadsasahandytoolduringearly
projectdecisionͲmaking,internalaccountabilityprogramsorevenasapartofhighͲlevelplanningorlongͲterm
maintenanceandoperationsdecisions.However,themajorityofthecreditsintheRatingSystemdonotaddress
planningandoperationsindepth.Werecognizetheconcernthatthisappearstocreateapiecemealapproachto
sustainabilitybutalsothatanenormousenvironmentalimpacthappensimmediatelyupongroundbreakingduring
roadwayconstruction.OurlongͲtermgoalistobeabletodevelopprojectͲspecificcreditsthathelproadway
projectssupportandinterconnectwithmanyofthenetworkͲleveldecisionsforsustainabilityatanyownerͲagency.
How Do Greenroads Projects Relate To Transportation Planning?
Decisionsregardingthelocation,type,timing,feasibilityorotherplanninglevelideasforroadwayprojectsare
excluded.Forexample,Greenroadsdoesnotanswerthequestion“shouldwebuildaroadornot?”While
planningisfundamentaltoroadwayandcommunitysustainability,thesedecisionsareoftentoocomplexor
politicaltobeadequatelydefinedbyapointͲbasedsystem.Projectlevelplanninghowever,intermsofproject
developmentand/orprojectdelivery,isincludedandmanyoftheProjectRequirementsandVoluntaryCredits
canbeusedduringdesignanddevelopmenttohelpshapedecisionsontheproject.
13
Background Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
University of Washington © 2011
How Does Greenroads Address Upstream Supply-Chain Processes?
Currently,nocreditsintheratingsystemexplicitlyaddressdirectimprovementsinupstreamsupplyͲchain
processes.Thisisbecausetheseupstreamprocessespresentaquantificationproblemthatisfundamentally
difficulttoassignspecificallyenoughtoaroadwayproject.However,ahandfulofGreenroadscreditsdo
captureideasthatinvolvesupplyͲchainprocesses,andalsointerconnectwitheachothertomakeasmall
contributiontowardbroadersupplyͲchaingoals.
AnupstreamsupplyͲchainprocessisanactivitythatcontributesonlypartlytoaroadwayproject,suchas
petroleumrefiningorcementmanufacturing.ThereasonthisisdifficulttoquantifyonaperͲprojectbasisis
becausetheseprocessesaremultifunctionalandhavemorethanoneproductorresult.Petroleumisusedfora
numberofthingsbeyondthegasthatfuelsvehicles,includingtheproductionofasphalt,whichisactuallya
byproduct(waste)oftherefiningprocess.Also,cementandcementproductsareusedinmanyapplications
beyondroadways,suchasinbuildings.Shouldaprojectbeheldresponsibleforalloftheasphaltorcementin
thebatch,orjustaportionofit?
Addressingtheallocationofsustainabilityimpactstosuchindustriesorothersthatcontributetoroadway
designandconstructionwouldbeadauntingtaskandwethinkitmayalsointroduceunnecessarysubjectivity
totheratingsystem.Manyupstreamchoicesinvolvetradeoffsthatareoutsidethecontrolofaratingsystem
toollikeGreenroads.Forthisreason,multifunctionalprocessesareasubjectofhotdebateanduntilthereis
establishedconsensusonhowtoallocateresponsibility,aprojectͲlevelcreditforsuchactivitiesisnotlikely.
Ultimately,itisnottheprimarygoalorutilityofapointͲbasedratingsystemforroadwayprojectstoaddress
thesustainabilityofsupplyͲchainmanagementandthismaybebestlefttoexpertsinthosefields.
Wedotrytoimproveawarenessoftheseupstreamactivitiesandtheirimpactsandtradeoffsthrough
integrationoflifecycleinventories(LCI)andassessments(LCA)throughprovidingincentivestoinformproject
decisionͲmaking.However,iftherearesuggestionsonhowtoresolvesomeoftheseissuesandintegratebetter
withupstreamgoals,wewouldbegladtoentertainthemforfuturecredits.
How Does Greenroads Address Structures?
Bridges,tunnels,wallsandotherstructuresarenotexplicitlyconsideredinGreenroads,buttheyarenot
explicitlyexcludedeither.Infact,severalexamplesintheGreenroadsManualfeaturethesetypesofstructures.
Atthistimethough,nostructurallyͲspecificcreditshavebeenidentifiedoutsidethepavementstructureand
bridges,butcouldeasilybeincorporatedintofutureversionsofGreenroads(i.e.viatheCustomCredits).We
thinkmanyoftheexistingProjectRequirementsandVoluntaryCreditsareappropriatetobridgeandtunnel
projects,becausethecreditsaredesignedtobebroadlyapplicable.
YoumaynoticethatinthiseditionoftheManualwehaveupdatedsomeofthepavementͲspecificcreditsto
includealternativesfordifferenttypesofstructures.Manyoftheseupdatescameoutofourcasestudyand
pilotprojectresearchonahandfulofbridgeprojects.
NonͲpavement,nonͲbridgeroadwaystructures,suchaswalls,luminairesandbarriers,canbeincludedinsome
creditsconceptuallyasalumpofmaterials,buttherearenocreditsexclusivelyfortheseroadͲrelateditems.As
always,commentsarewelcomeregardingadjustmentsthatwouldneedtobemadetobemorereflectiveof
sustainableactivitiesforbridges,tunnelsandotherstructures.
What about Operations & Maintenance Projects?
WhatIsIncluded.Overlays,rehabilitations,2R,3R,4R,younameit.Ifpavementisbeingmovedina
meaningfulway,itisincluded(i.e.toandfromsite,aroundasite,etc.).Amaintenanceprojectintendedto
preservethelifeofaroadwayisaconstructionprojectforthepurposesofGreenroads.
14
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Introduction
University of Washington © 2011
WhatIsNotIncluded.ActivitiesthatareperformedaspartoftheSiteMaintenancePlan(seePRͲ10),usuallyby
PublicWorksAgenciesandtheircontractors.
MaintenanceandpreservationactivitiesareakeypartinthelongͲtermsustainabilityofaroadway,sothere
areanumberofProjectRequirementsandVoluntaryCreditsthatreflecttheseactivitiesandrequirethataplan
isinplaceforthesetobeperformedsometimeinthefuture.However,aratingsystemlikeGreenroadscannot
beusedtomonitortheseactivitiesoverthelongͲtermeffectively.ThismeansthatoncetheGreenroadsscore
iscalculated,essentiallythesemaintenanceandpreservationplansbecomepromisestoperform.
Thecurrentreviewprocessforcertificationdoesnotallowforensuringthatthesepromisesarekept.Ideally,
onceaprojectbecomesaGreenroad,themaintenanceandpreservationactivitieswillalsocontinuetofollow
thisframeworkwhethercertificationfortheseactivitiesispursuedornot.Werealizethisisaweaknessofthe
ratingsystemingeneralandwouldappreciatefeedbackonhowtoincorporatetheseideasinameaningful,
effectiveway.Wehavebeenthinkingaboutthisideabuthavenotbeenabletodetermineoridentifya
standardized,acceptedwaythatcurrentlymeetsalltherequirementsofourratingsystemphilosophy.Ifyou
haveideasonhowwecandothisataroadwayprojectͲlevel,weencourageyoutosubmitforaCustomCredit
onyourproject.
Does Greenroads Fit Pathway and Trail Projects?
PathsandtrailsmaybeabletouseGreenroadstoo.Wethinkthatthereisroomforincludingthesedesignand
constructionprojectsandthatmanyoftheideasinGreenroadswouldworkwell.Someofthecreditsmay
requiremodificationtobeapplicablethough,andearningenoughpointstobecomeCertifiedmightbedifficult
dependingonthesizeandscaleoftheproject.However,ifthereisapathwayortraildirectlyassociatedwitha
roadwayproject,itisdefinitelyincluded.Ifyouhaveapathwayprojectthatyouwanttotestoutwith
Greenroads,youcanalwayscontactGreenroadsFoundationtoinquireaboutpilotprojectopportunities.

15
GREENROADS RATING SYSTEM
LIST OF CREDITS (v1.5)
No.  Title  Pts.  Description 
Project Requirements (PR) – Mandatory for all projects 
PR‐1  Environmental Review Process  Req Complete a comprehensive environmental review  
PR‐2  Lifecycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)  Req Perform LCCA for pavement section 
PR‐3  Lifecycle Inventory (LCI)  Req Perform LCI of pavement section  
PR‐4  Quality Control Plan  Req Have a formal contractor quality control plan 
PR‐5  Noise Mitigation Plan  Req Have a construction noise mitigation plan 
PR‐6  Waste Management Plan  Req Have a plan to divert C&D waste from landfill 
PR‐7  Pollution Prevention Plan  Req Have a TESC/SWPPP 
PR‐8  Low Impact Development (LID)  Req Complete a LID feasibility study 
PR‐9  Pavement Management System  Req Have a pavement management system 
PR‐10  Site Maintenance Plan  Req Have a roadside maintenance plan 
PR‐11  Educational Outreach  Req Publicize sustainability information for project 
Environment & Water (EW) – Up to 21 Points   
EW‐1  Environmental Management System  2 ISO 14001 certification for general contractor 
EW‐2  Runff Flow Control  1‐3 Reduce runoff quantity 
EW‐3  Runoff Quality  1‐3 Treat stormwater to a higher level of quality 
EW‐4  Stormwater Cost Analysis  1 Conduct an LCCA for stormwater elements 
EW‐5  Site Vegetation  1‐3 Use native low/no water vegetation 
EW‐6  Habitat Restoration  3 Restore habitat beyond what is required 
EW‐7  Ecological Connectivity  1‐3 Connect habitat across roadways  
EW‐8  Light Pollution  3 Discourage light pollution 
Access & Equity (AE) – Up to 30 Points       
AE‐1  Safety Audit  1‐2 Perform roadway safety audit 
AE‐2  Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)  2‐5 Implement ITS solutions 
AE‐3  Context Sensitive Solutions  5 Plan for context sensitive solutions  
AE‐4  Traffic Emissions Reduction  5 Reduce emissions with quantifiable methods 
AE‐5  Pedestrian Access  1‐2 Provide/improve pedestrian accessibility 
AE‐6  Bicycle Access  1‐2 Provide/improve bicycle accessibility 
AE‐7  Transit Access  1‐5 Provide/improve transit accessibility 
AE‐8  Scenic Views  1‐2 Provide views of scenery or vistas 
AE‐9  Cultural Outreach  1‐2 Promote art/culture/community values  
Construction Activities (CA) – Up to 14 Points      
CA‐1  Quality Management System  2 ISO 9001 certification for general contractor 
CA‐2  Environmental Training  1 Provide environmental training 
CA‐3  Site Recycling Plan  1 Have a plan to divert waste from landfill 
CA‐4  Fossil Fuel Reduction  1‐2 Use alternative fuels in construction equipment 
CA‐5  Equipment Emissions Reduction  1‐2 Meet EPA Tier 4 standards for non‐road equip. 
CA‐6  Paving Emissions Reduction  1 Use pavers that meet NIOSH requirements 
CA‐7  Water Tracking  2 Develop data on water use in construction 
CA‐8  Contractor Warranty  3 Warranty on the constructed pavement 
Materials & Resources (MR) – Up to 23 Points      
MR‐1  Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)  2 Conduct a detailed LCA of the entire project 
MR‐2  Pavement Reuse  1‐5 Reuse existing pavement sections 
MR‐3  Earthwork Balance  1 Use native soil rather than import fill 
MR‐4  Recycled Materials  1‐5 Use recycled materials for new pavement 
MR‐5  Regional Materials  1‐5 Use regional materials to reduce transportation 
MR‐6  Energy Efficiency  1‐5 Improve energy efficiency of operational systems 
Pavement Technologies (PT) – Up to 20 Points      
PT‐1  Long‐Life Pavement  5 Design pavements for long‐life 
PT‐2  Permeable Pavement  3 Use permeable pavement as a LID technique 
PT‐3  Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA)  3 Use WMA in place of HMA 
PT‐4  Cool Pavement  5 Contribute less to urban heat island effect (UHI) 
PT‐5  Quiet Pavement  2‐3 Use a quiet pavement to reduce noise 
PT‐6  Pavement Performance Tracking  1 Relate construction to performance data 
Custom Credits (CC) – Available for all projects based on context and innovation, subject to approval 
CC‐1  Custom Credit 1  1‐5 Design a new voluntary credit 
CC‐2  Custom Credit 2  1‐5 Design a new voluntary credit 
   Greenroads Total Points:   118   
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Background
University of Washington © 2011
BACKGROUND
WHAT WE MEAN BY “SUSTAINABILITY”
While many of the definitions offered by other authors or political groups address the three central and well‐
recognized themes of sustainability (ecology, economy and equity, a.k.a. the “triple bottom line”), none of these 
definitions are directly actionable at a project level and are of little utility when considering sustainability from the 
perspective of a transportation designer or contractor. This is for two particular reasons: 1) lack of project‐level 
context and specific tangible constraints, and 2) lack of incentive or drivers to progress sustainability in a 
meaningful way. 
However, three key broader ideas are consistent in most of the definitions: physical constraints or laws of Nature 
(natural laws), satisfaction of basic human needs and desires (human values), and the idea that roadway projects 
are best perceived as systems of varying degrees of complexity, interdependence, scale and context. These three 
terms are clarified in detail below. 
A useful, implementable definition of sustainability for roadway projects must feature these three terms because 
these ideas are simple to understand and explain to project stakeholders. Importantly, how well a particular 
project fits these project‐specific natural law and human value constraints is 
a characteristic or trait of that system that is measurable (in terms of 
quantity and/or quality). This means sustainability on one roadway project 
can be compared to other roadway projects, and ultimately, sustainability 
becomes manageable on both short‐ and long‐term time scales. Therefore, 
sustainability is a characteristic of a system that reflects its capacity to 
support natural laws and human values.
1
 
This definition is essentially compatible with other definitions of sustainability or sustainable development, such as 
that provided by the Brundtland Commission
2
 and ideas featured in reports and international policy documents 
such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
3
 and “Agenda 21”
4
. Note that processes (practices) are part of 
systems as well; that they are inclusive in the above definition of sustainability, but are not explicitly included in 
the definition for brevity and simplicity. 
NATURAL LAWS
“Natural laws” encompass the essential idea of Ecology, which is the study of ecosystems. These concepts are 
illustrated by the simple, but oxymoronic idea that ecosystems are too complex to be fully controlled or 
understood by humans, and that our best control and understanding comes from basic sciences like physics, 
chemistry and biology. Effectively, mathematics and sciences are the tools by which we measure the limits and 
current status of our environment. These natural laws form the physical constraints within which all projects must 
fit, regardless of how much control we think we may have over our own environment as humans or how complete 
or certain the science is perceived to be. 
                                                                
1
 Anderson, J. L. (2008). Sustainability in civil engineering. Thesis (M.S.C.E.)‐‐University of Washington, 2008. 
2
 United Nations General Assembly, 42nd Session. (1987, August 4). Report of the World Commission on 
Environment and Development (WCED): “Our Common Future.” (A/42/427). Annex to Official Record. Geneva, 
Switzerland, 1987. (Masthead). 
3
 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well‐being: Synthesis. Island Press, 
Washington, DC. 
4
 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, 3‐14 June 1992. (1993, 
January 1). Report on the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: “Agenda 21.” 
(A/CONF.151/26/REV.1[VOL.I] and Corrigendum). Vol. I., Annex II to Resolutions Adopted by the Conference. New 
York, 1993. (Masthead). 
WHAT IS SUSTAINABILITY?
Sustainability is a characteristic 
of a system that reflects its 
capacity to support natural laws 
and human values. 
17
Background Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
University of Washington © 2011
Wemustunderstandthatourconventionalunderstandingofnaturallawsisatbestincompleteandatworstcould
betotallywrong.Humansliveandoperatewithinthecontextofecosystems,notviceversa(asindicatedby
currenttrendsincivildevelopment).Theparadigminwhichwelive,operateandbehavemustthereforeshifttoa
moresustainableoneunderourbestpossibleandmostcurrentunderstandingofecology,suchasthatproposed
byTheNaturalStepframework,whichoffersasystemͲbasedapproachtosustainabilityguidedbythreebasic
principles
5,6
asfollows:
x SubstancesshouldnotbeextractedfromtheEarthataratefasterthantheycanberegeneratedbynatural
processes.
x Substances(waste)shouldnotbeproducedatratefasterthantheycanbedecomposedandreintegratedinto
anecosystem.
x Ecosystemsshouldnotbesystematicallydegradedorotherwisedisruptedfromequilibriumbyhuman
activities.
Conventionalroadwaydesignandconstructionpracticesandsystemsdonotsupportthesethreeaboveprinciples
consistently;however,asignificantamountofacademicandindustryresearchinavarietyoffieldsindicatesthat
theycan.
HUMAN VALUES
Similarly,“humanvalues”(basicallyRobèrt’sfourthprinciple)includebothequityandeconomy.Equitycanbe
broadlyunderstoodasseekingqualityoflifeforall:ultimatelythismeanssatisfactionofbasichumanneedswithin
aspecificculturalcontext.Humanneedshavebeenwellstudiedinpsychologyandsocialsciences.Themost
prevalentideasregardinghumanneedscanbedefinedbyeitherahierarchicalmodel,suchasthatproposedby
Maslow
7
orataxonomicmodel.Maslowidentifiedphysiologicalneeds,safety,belonging,esteemandselfͲ
actualizationastiersofneeds.MaxͲNeefetal.
8
identifiednineuniqueneedsthatvaryaccordingtotheprocessby
whichtheyaresatisfied(being,having,doing,andinteracting):subsistence,protection,affectionunderstanding,
participation,leisure,creation,identity,andfreedom.Forthesustainabilitypurposes,eitherpsychologicalmodelis
fittingtobestillustratetheideaofhumanvalues.Thebasicideaisthatallhumanshavethesameneeds,thevalue
oftheseneedscanchangewithtime,andthereisawidevarietyandvaryingdegreetowhichneedsaresatisfied
andmanagedindifferentcommunitiesandcultures.
9

Thereareanumberoftradeoffsthatoccurwhenmeetingmorethanoneneedsimultaneously.Thesesocietal
constraints,includingregulationsandpolicy,governtheideaofEconomy,whichmeans,simply,managementof
financial,natural,manufactured,andhumancapitalresources.
10,11
Theconceptofeconomycanbescaleddownto
applytoprojectͲlevelfinancialchoicesorscaleduptomorebroadpracticesofresourcemanagementsuchas
sustainableforestry,wastemanagementorcarboncapͲandͲtradearrangements.Again,however,conventional
roadwaydesignandconstructionpracticedoesnotsupporttheseneeds,oraddresstheirdynamicsand
management,consistentlyonallprojects.

5
Robèrt,K.ͲH.(2000).Toolsandconceptsforsustainabledevelopment,howdotheyrelatetoageneral
frameworkforsustainabledevelopment,andtoeachother?JournalofCleanerProduction.8(3),243Ͳ254.
6
Robèrt,K.ͲH.(2002).Thenaturalstepstory:seedingaquietrevolution.GabriolaIsland,BC:NewSociety
Publishers.
7
Maslow,A.H.(1943).Atheoryofhumanmotivations.PsychologicalReview.50(4),370Ͳ396.
8
MaxͲNeef.M.A.;Elizalde,A.andHopenhayn,H.(1991).Humanscaledevelopment:conception,applicationand
furtherreflections.NewYork:TheApexPress.
9
Fisher,K.J.(2000).Awealthofnotions:reflectiveengagementintheemancipatorteachingandlearningof
economics.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversityofWesternSydney,Richmond.
10
Hawken,P.;Lovins,A.B.andLovins,L.H.(1999).Naturalcapitalism:creatingthenextindustrialrevolution(1st
ed.).Boston,MA:LittleBrownandCo.
11
Goodland,R.(1993).InternationalAssociationofImpactAssessment(IAIA)Newsletter5(2).
18
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Background
University of Washington © 2011
SYSTEMS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Clearly,asystemsͲbasedapproachtosustainabilityrendersadefinitionthatincludesonlyEcology,Equity,and
Economyincomplete.Inadditiontothesecomponents,sustainabilityiscontextͲsensitive.Specifically,aroadway
projectsystem’scontextissensitivetowhateverhumanneedsandvalues
aredefinedbythemanagementteamandstakeholdersandits
environmentalsetting.Thesearetheconstraints,orboundaries,within
whichprojectdecisionsmustbemade.Therefore,twomorecritical
sustainabilitycomponents,extentandexpectations,areidentified.
12
These
twocomponentsactasthesystemboundaries,providingscopeandcontext
tosustainability.
ExtentrepresentstheideathataprojectsystemhaswellͲdefinedconstraints
andlimitswithinwhichsustainabilitycanbemeasured.Extentrefersto
spatialandtemporalconstraintsofcivilprojects(suchascenterlinelength,
rightofwaydimensions,footprint,andservicelife,respectively)oftenexplicitlydefinedbynaturallaws(suchas
howgravityultimatelydefinesloadlimits).Someotherpracticalexamplesofextentareheightrestrictionsand
constructionworkinghours.
Performancecriteria,orExpectations,arethekeyhumanvalueconstraintsidentifiedfortheproject.Expectations
providetheequityandeconomiccontextwithinwhichtheoverallperformanceofthesystemismosteffectively
judged.Expectationsvarybyprojectandmayincludepracticalperformanceoftheindividualdesignelements,
overallqualityoftheconstructionprocessesofaproject,orsystemͲwideoutcomeslikereducedaccidentsor
improvedworkerproductivity.
WhiletheideasofExtentandExpectationsmaybeimplicit(orpresumedtobeunderstood)inthepreceding
descriptionsofnaturallawsandhumanvalues,thereisnoreasonforthemnottobeexplicitlystatedinworking
definitionofsustainability.Infact,withoutexplicitlystatingthesecomponents,itismorelikelythat
misunderstandingsofthesecriticallimits,boundaries,andconstraintswouldoccur,orthattheirimpactsand
importancewouldbeignoredordownplayed.
Furthermore,itisnotenoughtobelievethattheideaofsustainabilitywillselfͲpropagateandimplementitsown
paradigmshifttowardmoresustainablesystemsandpractices.Thus,thefinaltwoimportantcomponentsof
sustainability,ExperienceandExposure,translatethephilosophicalconceptofsustainabilityintoimplementable
practices.Experiencerepresentsbothwhathasbeenlearnedandthelearningprocessitself,whichisongoing.So,
experienceincludestechnicalexpertise,innovation,andknowledgeofapplicablehistoricalinformation,whichis
criticalindecisionͲmakingprocesses.Forexample,mostsuccessfulprojectteamsarecomprisedofinterdisciplinary
expertsthatcanbringspecializedexperiencetodesignorconstruction.
Finally,iftheconceptofsustainabilityistocauseaparadigmshiftinindividual,communityandsocietalbehavior
thenitmustincludeanactiveeducationalcomponent;ormorespecifically,ateachingoroutreachcomponent.
Exposurerepresentstheideathatimplementingsustainabilityinpracticerequiresongoingeducationaland
awarenessprogramsforthegeneralpublic,professionals,agencies,andstakeholders.Therefore,experienceand
exposuredrivetheprogressandimplementationofsustainabilitywithinaprojectsystem.Withoutthesetwo
drivingcomponents,civilengineeringsystemswouldremainstatic,andsustainabilitywouldbeabsent,
unmanageableorsimplyunrecognized.

12
Anderson,J.L.(2008).Sustainabilityincivilengineering.Thesis(M.S.C.E.)ͲͲUniversityofWashington,2008.
7 E’S OF SUSTAINABILITY
Ecology
Equity
Economy
Extent
Expectations
Experience
Exposure
19
Background Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
University of Washington © 2011
GREENROADS BENEFITS
ThereareparticularsustainabilityͲrelatedbenefitsassociatedwithProjectRequirementsandVoluntaryCredits.
Theseroughlycorrelatewiththeideasof“naturallaws”and“humanvalues”thatwereoutlinedinthepreceding
sections.GreenroadsidentifiesthesebenefitsforeachProjectRequirementsandVoluntaryCreditmakingiteasier
toatleastlist,ifnotexactlyquantify,thebenefitsassociatedwithGreenroadscertification.Thesebenefitsare:
PrimarilyEcoͲcentricBenefits
9 ReducesRawMaterialsUse
9 ReducesFossilFuelUse
9 CreatesEnergy
9 ReducesWaterUse
9 ReducesAirEmissions
9 ReducesGreenhouseGases
9 ReducesWaterPollution
9 ReducesSolidWaste
9 RestoresHabitat
9 CreatesHabitat
9 ReducesManmadeFootprint
Primarily AnthropocentricBenefits
9 ImprovesAccess
9 ImprovesMobility
9 IncreasesServiceLife
9 ImprovesHumanHealth&Safety
9 ImprovesLocalEconomies
9 ReducesFirstCosts
9 ReducesLifecycleCosts
9 ImprovesAccountability
9 IncreasesAwareness
9 IncreasesAesthetics
9 CreatesNewInformation
Wehavelistedthese,alongwitheachofthesustainabilitycomponentsaddressed,onthefrontpageofeachPR
andVC,sothatitiseasytoidentifywhatisbeingaddressedbyactingonthatPRorVC.ThisfeatureoftheManual
maybeparticularlyhelpfulforagenciesorprojectteamsthathavepredefinedsustainabilitygoals,valuesor
internalbenchmarkstomeet.
NotethatinthepreviousversionoftheGreenroadsManualwehadmade16benefitsexplicit:nowthereare22.
BasedonfeedbackfromusersandalsoourstudentsattheUniversityofWashington,webrokeapartthese16
benefitssomewhatandchangedthewordingusedtobetterreflectwhatwemeanby“sustainabilitybenefit”in
termsthataremorecommonlyunderstoodtotransportationprofessionals.Wealsohavetriedtoidentifythemas
beingprimarilyecoͲcentricoranthropocentricbutwerecognizethismaybedebatableinsome,ifnotall,
instances.(SeeOtherNotesonthefollowingpagesformorecommentary.)
TRACING GREENROADS PRACTICES TO SUSTAINABILITY AND BENEFITS
EachGreenroadsProjectRequirementandVoluntaryCreditcanbetracedbacktoatleastonerelevant
sustainabilitycomponentandonerelevantbenefit;mostcanbetracedtoseveral.Wecallthis“mapping”,and
believeitisimportantbecauseitprovidesthebasisbywhichaGreenroadsProjectRequirementorVoluntary
Creditcanbeconsideredtocontributeto“sustainability”andprovidebenefitsasGreenroadsdefinesthem.This
mappinginvolvessubjectivejudgmentastowhichcomponentsandwhichbenefitsmaptowhichitems.While
eliminationofthissubjectivitywouldbeideal,morecomplexsystemsformappingwouldlikelyjustconcealrather
thaneliminatethissubjectivity.
Mappingofanitembacktosustainabilityandbenefitsisdone,wherepractical,usingempiricalevidencewith
propercitations.ThegoalistocreateametricwhereeachProjectRequirementandVoluntaryCreditis,tothe
extentpossible,shownthroughexistingresearchtohaveanimpactonsustainability.
ThismappingcanassistinselectingVoluntaryCreditstopursuebasedonuservaluesordesiredbenefits.
Importantly,thenatureofsustainabilityrequiresuserstomaketradeͲoffsbetweendifferentaspectsof
sustainability.Forinstance,onemighthavetoselectbetweenusingrecycledmaterialthatmustbetruckedovera
longdistanceorusinglocallyprovidedvirginmaterial.Bothconcepts(recycledmaterial,localmaterial)relateto
sustainability(e.g.,ecologyandeconomy)howeveronlyonecanbechosen.
20
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Background
University of Washington © 2011
DecisionsregardingthesetypesoftradeͲoffsarelikelytobeatleastpartly,ifnotwholly,basedonthevaluesheld
byaproject,whichisaconglomerationofvaluesheldbyitsstakeholders,owners,designersandconstructors.
Sincethesevaluesarenotlikelytobeidenticalbetweenprojects,overtimeorbetweenstakeholders,one
predeterminedsetofvaluesincludedinaperformancemetricisprobablynotwise.Rather,Greenroadsallows
userstochoosefromalonglistofVoluntaryCreditsbasedontheirvalues.Mappingtosustainabilitycomponents
isdonebecauseusersmayfinditmorestraightforwardtochoosebetweenresourcesratherthanGreenroads
VoluntaryCredits.Forinstance,itmaybedifficulttochoosebetweenwarmmixasphaltandporouspavement
unlessatechnicalexpertisconsultedtofullyexplaineachitem.However,itmaybeeasiertochoosebetweenthe
benefitstheyoffer.
OTHER NOTES
1. Additionally,itisusefultonotethatseveralbenefitsmaybedirectlyquantifiablewhileothersaremorelikely
tobeindirectbenefits.Wherepossible,thisisdiscussedinthesupportingresearchforeachcreditinthe
Manual.Werecognizethatthisstillpresentsanincompletepictureofthebenefitsofsustainability,butour
intentistoprovideassistanceinunderstandingarelativelynewandsometimescomplexidea.
2. Also,itwouldberemissofusnottonotethatanyecologicalbenefitisalsoahumanbenefitsinceour
environmentisfundamentallywhatsupportsusaslivingbeingsandimpactsourqualityoflife.Similarly,
sometimesthereisbeneficialinteractionbetweenthesebenefitswherehumanscanimpactthequalityofnonͲ
humanlifeinapositiveway.Forexample,pursuingCreditEWͲ7EcologicalConnectivitycanimprovemobility
andaccessforbothhumansandwildlifesimultaneously,whileachievinganumberoftheotherbenefitsalso
listedabove.
3. Finally,werecognizethatreductionofgreenhousegasesisakeygoalofmanyagencies.Thislevelofspecificity,
sincetheyareatypeofairpollution,correlatesdirectlywiththebenefitof“reducedairemissions”and
“reducedfossilfueluse.”Wefeltitwasusefultoprovidethisaddedspecificityinlightofcurrentstateand
federalpolicygoals.

21
Background Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
University of Washington © 2011
HOW GREENROADS IS WEIGHTED
TheoverallgoalofweightingistomakeeachVoluntaryCredit’spointvaluecommensuratewithitsimpacton
sustainability.Thiscannotbeachievedbyastrictlyobjectiveorempiricalapproachbecause:
x Somesustainabilitycomponentsaredifficulttodirectlycomparebecausethereisnogenerallyacceptedmetric
ofcomparison(e.g.,comparingscenicviewstostormwatertreatment).
x Traditionallyacceptedquantitativemethods,e.g.,lifecycleassessment(LCA),lifecyclecostanalysis(LCCA),
benefitͲcostanalysis,donotadequatelyaddressallsustainabilitycomponents.
x GreenroadsisdesignedtofunctionasasupplementtocurrentU.S.regulations.Therefore,someareasthat
mightotherwisehavebeenheavilyweightedreceivelessemphasisinGreenroadsbecausecurrentU.S.
regulationalreadyrequiresmanymandatoryactionsleavinglittleroomforsupplementalvoluntaryactions.
x Therearesomeactionsforwhichthedirectimpactonsustainabilitymaybedifficultorimpossibletomeasure,
howevertheirexecutionmayprovidevaluableinformationonwhichtobasefuturedecisions.
Weightingfollowsthegeneralframeworkdescribedhere.Asabeginningpoint,weestablishedaminimumvalueof
onepointandamaximumvalueoffivepoints.Thisrangeallowsweightstoreflectarangeofsustainabilityimpact
butlimitstheimpactofpotentialmissteps.Individualconstructionactivitiesduringinitialconstructionhavethe
lowestimpact(seediscussionlater)onsustainabilitysowestartbyassigningtheseVoluntaryCreditsonepoint
each.FromhereVoluntaryCreditpointvaluesaremodifiedbasedonthelogicpresentednext.Importantly,
weightsarebasedontherelationshipoftheirassociatedprevailingbroadconceptswhiletheactuallevelof
achievementnecessarytoqualifyforaVoluntaryCreditisbasedonanassessmentofwhatispracticallyachievable
givencurrenttechnologyandpractice.Thegoalistomakethelevelofachievementbeyondcurrentpracticebut
enticinglyattainableusingcurrenttechnology.Usingthislogic,itfollowsthatastheindustry’ssustainabilitysavvy
growsandtechnologyadvancesVoluntaryCreditrequirementsmustchange.Thefollowingsectionsdiscuss
weightingdetailsforthesystem.Thefigurebelowshowstheweightsofthecategories(withoutCustomCredits).

FigureI.5:GraphshowingthedistributionofVoluntaryCreditpoints(bypercentageofthetotal)
ineachofthe5categories.
22
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Background
University of Washington © 2011
ECOLOGY WEIGHTING
Whileitisdifficulttoplaceavalueonecosystemservices,someresearchershavetried.Oneeffort
13
valuedthem
atUS$16Ͳ54trillion/yrwithameanofUS$33trillion/yrfor17ecosystemservices(in1994USdollars).This
comparestoaworldgrossnationalproduct(GNP)ofUS$18trillion(1994USdollars)makingecosystemservices
about1.8timestheglobalGNPifthemeanvalueisassumed.Thiseffortacknowledgesthattheestimateisonthe
lowside,incompleteandflawedbutreasonthatsomeestimateisbetterthannone.Basedonthis,weestimate
thevalueofecosystemsasaboutthreetimesthevalueofhumaneconomicsystems(representedbythebaseline
valueofonepoint)forthepurposesofweightingVoluntaryCredits.Thisusesthehighendestimate(US$54
trillion)toatleastpartiallyaccountfortheiradmittedunderestimation.Fromthis,weassignEWͲ2,EWͲ3,EWͲ5,
EWͲ6,EWͲ7,EWͲ8andPTͲ2threepointseachbecausetheyareprimarilyconcernedwithecosystemservices.
EQUITY WEIGHTING
Equity,asitisreflectedinGreenroadscanprimarilybeaddressedbyportionsofwhatiscommonlycalledcontext
sensitivedesign(CSD)orcontextsensitivesolutions(CSS).Toourknowledge,nobodyhasattemptedtoplacea
monetaryvalueonCSD/CSShowever,thereissubstantialevidencesuggestingthatithascometobeviewedasan
importantifnottheessentialcomponentinU.S.roadwaydesignoverthelastdecade.WhileCSD/CSSalsoincludes
ecologicalelements,itsstrengthliesinitsapproachtoidentifyingandinvolvingstakeholdersandreflecting
communityvaluesinaproject(theequitycomponentofsustainability).WhileCSD/CSSprovidesevidenceof
equity’simportanceitdoesnotprovideanyinsightregardingitslevelofimportanceinrelationtoother
sustainabilitycomponents.Infact,itarguesthatsuchvalueiscontextsensitive.WebelievethattheU.S.move
towardsCSD/CSSanditsemphasisonacollaborativecommunityͲbasedapproachtodesign(versusastrictlylowͲ
coststandardsͲbasedapproach)showsthatequityissuesoughttobevaluedmorethantheminimumofonepoint.
AsafirstͲorderapproximation,weassignequityVoluntaryCreditstwopoints.BasedonthisweassignAEͲ1,AEͲ5,
AEͲ6,AEͲ8,AEͲ9twopointseachbecausetheyareprimarilyconcernedwithequityissues.WeassignAEͲ3the
maximumoffivepointsbecauseitactuallygivescreditforaCSD/CSSapproach,whiletheotherAEVoluntary
CreditsaddressoutcomesofaCSD/CSSapproach.
LIFECYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA) BASED WEIGHTING
ForVoluntaryCreditsdealingwithmaterialsproduction,construction,transportationassociatedwiththe
constructionprocessandtrafficuse,weightingisbasedonlifecycleassessment(LCA)resultstothegreatest
possibleextent.SinceGreenroadsismeanttoapplytoanyroadwayproject,LCAresultsspecifictoaparticular
projectcannotbeusedalonebecausetheyareprojectͲspecificandnotentirelytransferrable.However,examining
arangeofspecificLCAsmayprovideinsightintosomegeneraltrendsthatcouldbeusedtoweightVoluntary
Credits.Weidentified12roadwayLCApeerͲreviewedjournalpapersconsistingof43assessmentsofeitheractual
orhypotheticalroadways.
14
FivepapersaddressedPCCpavements(10assessments),whileall12addressHMA
pavements(34assessments).Somegeneraltrendsobservedwere:

13
Costanza,R.,d’Arge,R.,deGroot,R.,Farber,S.,Grasso,M.,Hannon,B.,Limburg,K.,Naeem,S.,O’Neill,R.V.,
Paruelo,J.,Raskin,R.G.,Sutton,P.,vandenBelt,M.,(1997).Thevalueoftheworld’secosystemservicesand
naturalcapital.Nat.,387,253Ͳ260.
14
Thesepapersare:
Stripple,H.LifeCycleInventoryofAsphaltPavements.IVLSwedishEnvironmentalresearchInstituteLtdreportfor
theEuropeanAsphaltPavementAssociation(EAPA)andEurobitume,2000.
Stripple,H.LifeCycleAssessmentofRoad:APilotStudyforInventoryAnalysis,SecondRevisedEdition.IVLSwedish
EnvironmentalResearchInstituteLtdreportfortheSwedishNationalRoadAdministration,2001.
Mroueh,UͲM,Eskola,P.,LaineͲYlijoki,J.,LifeͲcycleimpactsoftheuseofindustrialbyproductsinroadandearth
construction.WasteManagement21,2001,pp.271Ͳ277.
Treloar,G.J.;Love,P.E.D.andCrawford,R.H.HybridLifeͲCycleInventoryforRoadConstructionandUse,J.ofConst.
Engr.andMgmt.130(1),2004,pp.43Ͳ49.
23
Background Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
University of Washington © 2011
x Energyuseandemissionsforconstructionfollowedthesamebasictrendsinmoststudies.Somegeneral
rulesofthumbwefoundwere:
9 Materialsproductionhas20timestheimpactofconstruction.
9 Transportation(ofmaterials)has5timestheimpactofconstruction.
9 Maintenancehas1/3theimpactofinitialconstruction.
x Fortheonestudythatquantifiedthem,roadwayoperations(e.g.,lighting,signals,etc.)over40yearshad
aboutthesameenergyuseasallconstructionactivities(initialconstructionplusmaintenance).
x Forthetwostudiesthatrelatedthem,theenergyexpendedininitialconstructionofanewroadwayis
roughlyequivalenttotheenergyusedbytrafficonthefacilityover1Ͳ2years.
Basedontheseideas,thefollowingweightingisused:
x Operationsvs.construction:MRͲ6isassigned5points.
x Trafficusevs.initialconstruction:AEͲ2,AEͲ4,andAEͲ7areassigned5pointseach.
x Transportationassociatedwithconstruction:MRͲ5isassigned5points.
x Materialsproduction:MRͲ2andMRͲ4areassignedupto5pointseach.MRͲ3isassigned1pointandPTͲ3
isassigned3points.
INCENTIVE-BASED WEIGHTING
SomeVoluntaryCreditsareassignedadditionalpointstoprovideincentivetocollectdata,undertakeorganizationͲ
wideeffortsandobtainhighachievementlevels.Generally,higherlevelsofachievementwillcorrelateto
incorporatinganumberofothervoluntaryactivitiesthatmaybereflectedinothercreditstoo.Thefollowing
VoluntaryCreditsuseincentiveͲbasedweighting:EWͲ1,EWͲ2,EWͲ3,EWͲ5,AEͲ1,AEͲ2,AEͲ5,AEͲ6,AEͲ7,CAͲ1,CAͲ
4,CAͲ5,CAͲ7,MRͲ1,MRͲ2,MRͲ4,MRͲ5andPTͲ5.
DEVELOPED AREA WEIGHTING
TheUrbanHeatIsland(UHI)effectis“…ameasurableincreaseinambienturbanairtemperaturesresulting
primarilyfromthereplacementofvegetationwithbuildings,roads,andotherheatͲabsorbinginfrastructure.”
15

UHIcanimpactsustainabilitybyincreasingenergyconsumption,andrelatedemissionsandaffectinghumanhealth

13
(cont.)
Zapata,P.,Gambatese,J.A.,EnergyConsumptionofAsphaltandReinforcedConcretePavementMaterialsand
Construction.J.ofInfrastructureSystems11(1),2005,pp.9Ͳ20.
Rajendran,S.,Gambatese,J.A.SolidWasteGenerationinAsphaltandReinforcedConcreteRoadwayLifeCycles.J.
ofInfrastructureSystems13(2),2005,pp.88Ͳ96.
AthenaInstitute.ALifeͲCyclePerspectiveonConcreteandAsphaltRoadways:EmbodiedPrimaryEnergyandGlobal
WarmingPotential.ReporttotheCementAssociationofCanada,2006.
TramoreHouseRegionalDesignOffice.IntegrationoftheMeasurementofEnergyUsageintoRoadDesign.Rept.to
theCommissionoftheEuropeanDͲGforEnergyandTransport.ProjectNumber4.1031/Z/02Ͳ091/2002,2006.
Weiland,C.D.LifeCycleAssessmentofPortlandCementConcreteInterstateHighwayRehabilitationand
Replacement.Master’sThesis,UniversityofWashington,Seattle,WA,2008.
Chui,CͲT.,Hsu,TͲH.,Yang,WͲF.Lifecycleassessmentonusingrecycledmaterialsforrehabilitatingasphalt
pavements.Resources,ConservationandRecycling52,2008,pp.545Ͳ556.
Huang,Y.,Bird,R.,Bell,M.Acomparativestudyoftheemissionsbyroadmaintenanceworksandthedisrupted
trafficusinglifecycleassessmentandmicroͲsimulation.TransportationResearchPartD14,2009,pp.197Ͳ204.
Huang,Y.,Bird,R.,Heidrich,O.Developmentofalifecycleassessmenttoolforconstructionandmaintenanceof
asphaltpavements.J.ofCleanerProduction17,2009,pp.283Ͳ296.
15
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).HeatIslandEffectwebsite.[http://www.epa.gov/hiri]Accessed9
June2009.
24
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Background
University of Washington © 2011
andwaterquality.BasedonresearchfromtheLawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory
16
agrossapproximationis
thatroadpavementsconstituteaboutoneͲquarterthetotalsurfaceareacontributingtotheUHI.FromthisPTͲ4is
assigned5points.Thisweightingisalsoconsistentwithotherconcernsthatarerelevantinurbanareas:AEͲ4and
MRͲ6.
DURABILITY WEIGHTING
Longlifepavementgenerallyresultsinlowerlifecyclecosts,lessmaterialandfewertrafficinterruptionsoverthe
lifecycleofapavement.Whilemoreworkneedstobedoneinquantifyingthesereductions,avalueforPTͲ1canbe
attemptedbydrawingthelinkbetweenlessmaterialandfewertrafficinterruptionstolessenergyandlower
emissions.PTͲ1isassigned5points.
AESTHETIC WEIGHTING
Onestudy
17
investigateddifferentmonetizationapproachesforthehealthimpactsfromroadnoise.Fromtheir
workweassignnoiseoneͲthirdtheimpactoftrafficͲrelatedemissions.SincetireͲpavementnoiseisthe
predominantsourceorroadnoiseaboveabout50km/hr(forautomobiles)achangeintireͲpavementnoise
resultingfromsoͲcalled“quieterpavement”useisaboutoneͲthirdasimpactfulasactionsresultingintrafficͲ
relatedemissionsreduction.Noisereductioncharacteristicsofquieterpavementstendtodiminishovertime.PTͲ5
isassigned2to3points.ThiscorrelateswithEWͲ8,whichisalsoassigned3pointsandaddressesglareother
unwantedlightemissions.

16
Rose,L.S.,H.Akbari,andH.Taha.2003.CharacterizingtheFabricoftheUrbanEnvironment:ACaseStudyof
GreaterHouston,Texas.PaperLBNLͲ51448.LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory,Berkeley,CA.
17
Hofstetter,P.,MüllerͲWenk,R.,2005.Monetizationofhealthdamagesfromroadnoisewithimplicationsfor
monetizinghealthimpactsinlifecycleassessment.J.ofClean.Production13,1235Ͳ1245.
25
Background Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
University of Washington © 2011

26

Greenroads Manual v1.5 © 2011

PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

27

Greenroads Manual v1.5 © 2011

28
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-1 Environmental Review Process
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
GOAL
EvaluateimpactsofroadwayprojectsthroughaninformeddecisionͲmakingprocess.
REQUIREMENTS
Performanddocumentacomprehensiveenvironmentalreviewoftheroadway
project.Thisreviewshouldclearlyandconciselydocument:
1. Projectnameandlocation.
2. Namesandcontactinformationofkeyplayersinthedecisionmakingprocess,
including(butnotlimitedto):theowneragency,agencyrepresentatives
responsibleforcompletingtheenvironmentalreviewprocess,otherstakeholders,
andrelevantprofessionalsinvolved.
3. Intentandpurposeoftheroadwayproject.
4. Descriptionsofpotentialenvironmental,economicandsocialimpactsofthe
intendedroadwayproject.
5. Detaileddescriptionsoftheextentofthesignificanceoftheseimpactswithrespect
tothedecisionͲmakingprocessandfeasibleperformanceexpectations.
6. Descriptionofthepublicinvolvementopportunityintheenvironmentalreview
process;documentthisopportunityandtheresultsofinputinthefinaldecisions.
7. Anyjurisdictionalrequirementsformoredetailedenvironmentalreviewdocuments
suchasenvironmentalimpactstatements(EIS)orenvironmentalassessments(EA)
todeterminethesignificanceofenvironmentalimpacts.
8. Descriptionofthefinalenvironmentaldecisionsmade.
Details
AnenvironmentalreviewprocessisamethodofdecisionͲmakingusedinproject
development.ThebasicintentoftheprocessistopromoteinformeddecisionͲ
makingbyexplainingtheprojectinacomprehensive,conciseandunderstandable
way.Thisexplanationinvolvesanevaluationofenvironmental,socialandeconomic
impactsinordertomeetexistingregulationsandpublicstakeholderneeds.These
impacts,regulations,andneedsshapebasicdecisioncriteria,varysignificantlyin
complexitybetweenprojects,anddictatetheeffortrequiredduringthereview
processandprojectimplementation.TheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)
providesformalguidelinesforfederallyfundedroadwayprojects,andmanystates
haveenvironmentalreviewprocessessimilartoNEPA.
DOCUMENTATION
x Copyofthefinaldecisiondocumentthatdemonstratesanenvironmentalreview
processhasbeencompletedfortheproject,withallappropriateagencyor
jurisdictionrepresentativesignatures.Anyofthefollowingdocumentswillsuffice:
x ExecutivesummaryoftheEAorEIS,theRecordofDecision(ROD)orFindingof
NoSignificantImpact(FONSI),orjurisdictionequivalentofthesedocuments.
x CompletedcopyoftheWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcologyState
EnvironmentalPolicyAct(SEPA)Checklist(orlocalequivalent).Note:Dothisif
theprojectisexemptfromaformalenvironmentalrevieworisclassifiedasa
“categoricalexclusion”(CE).
PR-1
REQUIRED
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ2LifecycleCost
Analysis
9 PRͲ3Lifecycle
Inventory
9 AEͲ3Context
SensitiveSolutions
9 MRͲ1Lifecycle
Assessment
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Expectations
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesWater
Pollution
9 ReducesSolidWaste
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
9 Improves
Accountability
9 IncreasesAwareness
9 IncreasesAesthetics
29
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Environmental Review Process PR-1
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Checkifyourstatehasexistingproceduresthatstreamlinetheenvironmentalreviewprocessspecificallyfor
roadwayprojects.TheCouncilonEnvironmentalQuality(CEQ)maintainsanupdatedlistofstatesthatare
complianthere:http://nepa.gov/nepa/regs/states/states.cfm
x Identifyopportunitiestoinvolvethepublicearlyintheenvironmentalreviewprocess.Usuallythisstepismost
effectiveduringprojectplanning.
x Recognizethattheenvironmentalreviewprocesscanoftenbeiterative,especiallyduringplanninganddesign
stageswhenalternativesarestillsubjecttochange.
x Conductadetailed,multiͲdisciplinaryliteraturereviewatthestartofaproject.Thisreviewcanhelpidentify
existingextraordinarycircumstances,suchasspecialwildlifeandplantconcernsandsocioͲeconomicissues.
x UsethechecklistprovidedbytheWashingtonstateDepartmentofEcologyStateEnvironmentalPolicyAct
(SEPA)asaguidelineforanenvironmentalreviewprocessinjurisdictionsnotsubjecttoNEPAorsimilarlocalor
staterequirements.Thischecklistiseasyandstraightforwardandmaybecompletedtomeettheintentofthis
ProjectRequirement.NotethatmanystatesalsooffercheckliststhatcoverthesametopicsastheWashington
SEPAchecklist,andwillalsomeettheintentofthisProjectRequirement.TheWashingtonstatechecklistis
readilyavailableanddownloadableforimmediateusehere:http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/ecy05045.html.
x Maketheenvironmentalreviewdocumentationasconciseandcomprehensiveaspossible,whilealsolimiting
useofprofessionaljargon.Thiswillcreateaneasytoreadandunderstandableenvironmentalreview
documentfordecisionmakers.ThereareanumberofguidancedocumentsavailablefromtheCEQforNEPA
documents,andindividualstatesmayalsohavehelpfulresourcesavailable.TheseareavailablefromtheCEQ
here:http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/guidance.html
x Forprojectstypicallyconsideredcategoricallyexempt,wherejurisdictionalprecedenthasbeenestablishedfor
similarroadwayprojectsinpreviousenvironmentalreviewprocesses,completetheWashingtonstateSEPA
checklistforpurposesofthisrequirement.Thisprocesswillalsodemonstrate1)thatthereviewprocesshas
beencompletedandallimpactshavebeenaddressed,and2)whyyourprojecthasbeendetermineda
categoricalexclusion.
x FollowFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)andFederalTransitAuthority(FTA)guidelinesforcomplex,
detailedandlargerprojectsthatneedtoproduceEISreports.Theseguidelinesarecompiledina
straightforwardguidancedocumentlocatedhere:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/section6002/.Thisdocument
includesstepsrequiredfortheNEPAprocessandalsoexemplaryprojectcasestudiesthatmeetthe
requirementsfortheenvironmentalreviewprocess.
Example: SEPA Checklists
ProjectsnotsubjecttoNEPAoranequivalentlocalorstatepolicyforenvironmentalreviewwillneedtosubmit
acompletedenvironmentalreviewprocesschecklistforpurposesofthisrequirement.Therearemany
availablefromvariousstateagenciesorDepartmentsofTransportation(DOT),checkwithyourowner/agency.
SeveralexamplesofcompletedchecklistsareprovidedinTablePRͲ1.1.
TablePRͲ1.1:SampleCompletedSEPAChecklists
ProjectName Owner Type WheretoFindChecklist
SR509/SR518Interchange
SafetyImprovementProject
Washington
StateDOT
Highway
improvement
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/62
4594ACͲ5B81Ͳ4D62ͲBA04Ͳ2D926347628C/
0/SR518SafetySEPAChecklist.pdf
2009AACProgram–
FauntleroyWaySWbetween
SWAlaskaStandSWHollySt
SeattleDOT
(SDOT)
Resurfacing http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs
/SEPAFAUNTLEROY.pdf
RevisedAuroraAvenueNorth
Transit,PedestrianandSafety
Improvements
SDOT,
WSDOT,
FHWA
MultiͲpurpose
urbanarterial
improvements
http://www.seattle.gov/Transportation/doc
s/aurora/RevAurora_SEPAchecklist_
SigOnFile.pdf
EagleCreekRoadImprovement
Project
Chelan
County
Ruralroad
improvements
http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/pw/data/sepa_
checklist.pdf
30
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-1 Environmental Review Process

Example: Federally Funded Projects and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
FederallyfundedroadwayprojectsarerequiredtousetheNEPA(NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct)
environmentalreviewprocess(CEQ,2007).ThisincludesallroadwayprojectsmanagedbytheFederalHighway
Administration(FHWA).
NOTE:NEPAclearlystatesthattheenvironmentalreviewprocessdoesnotrequirethatagenciesorproject
teamsmakefinalprojectdecisionsbasedonanyoftheenvironmentalimpactsthatarestudiedordiscovered.
Rather,theintentoftheNEPAprocessistoinformdecisionͲmakersofthepotentialeffectsoftheiractions
(Caldwell,1999;CEQ,2007).
TheFHWA,AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)andtheAmericanCouncil
ofEngineeringCompanies(ACEC)havecompiledaguidancedocumentcalledImprovingtheQualityof
EnvironmentalDocumentsthathighlightsseveralcasestudiesofexemplary,easyͲtoͲreadandcomprehensive
NEPAdocuments.Afewofthoseprojectsarelistedbelow:
x AlaskanWayViaductandSeawallReplacementProject(WashingtonStateDOT)
x Mon/FayetteTransportationProject,PARoute51toIͲ376(PennsylvaniaTurnpikeCommission)
x RoutePost13(IͲ15)Interchange(UtahDOT)
x SouthernCorridor(IͲ15)(UtahDOT)
x US93SomerstoWhitefish(MontanaDOT)
x IͲ69EvansvilletoIndianapolis(IndianaDOT)
x MidͲCurrituckSoundBridge(NorthCarolinaDOT)
Detailedinformationoneachproject(andothernonͲroadwaytransportationprojects)isincludedinthe
completedreportfortheNationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram(NCHRP)25Ͳ25Task1(2005).This
NCHRPreportalsocontainsdescriptionsofwhythesereportsareexemplaryofasuccessfulNEPAprocess.
Accordingtoregulationsupdatedin2001fromtheFHWA,manytransportationprojectsforbothroadwaysand
bridges,specificallyrehabilitationactivities,areconsideredtobecategoricallyexempt(CEs)becausetheyhave
beendeemedtomeet40CFR§1508.4basedonpastprecedent.Accordingly,thesecertainprojecttypes:
x Donothavesignificantenvironmental,plannedgrowthorlanduseimpacts
x Donotneedrelocationofmanypeople
x Donothaveimpactonnatural,cultural,recreational,orhistoricresources
x Donothaveair,noise,orwaterqualityimpacts
x Donothavesignificantimpactsontravelpatterns
x Donot,eitherindividuallyorcumulatively,haveanysignificantenvironmentalimpacts
See40CFR§1508.4and23CFR§771.117.Forpurposesofthisrequirement,projectsthatqualifyasNEPACEs
mustcompleteachecklistequivalenttothoseshowninTablePRͲ1.1.
Example: States with Environmental Review Processes
Somestates,regionsandterritoriesoftheUnitedStatesrequireanenvironmentalreviewprocessthatis
similartoNEPA.TheselocationsarelistedinTablePRͲ1.2.Additionally,somelocalandregionaldepartmentsof
transportation(DOT),orprojectsfundedbythoseagencies,mayalsorequireanenvironmentalreviewprocess
thatisgenerallybasedontheNEPA.Completingsuchanowner/agencyprocessmeetsthisrequirement,
providedthatitaddressesallthestepsnoted.Notethatsomeowners/agenciesmayhavestrictercriteriathan
NEPA.Also,guidancedocumentsandexamplesatthefederallevelcanoftenprovideahelpfulresourceor
templateforstateleveldocumentation.
31
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Environmental Review Process PR-1
TablePRͲ1.2:U.S.LocationswithExistingEnvironmentalReviewProcesses
1

California Montana
Connecticut Nevada/California–Tahoe
DistrictofColumbia NewJersey
Georgia NewYork
Guam NorthCarolina
Hawaii PuertoRico
Indiana SouthDakota
Maryland Virginia
Massachusetts Washington
Minnesota Wisconsin
1
http://nepa.gov/nepa/regs/states/states.cfm
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Projectsthataretypicallyclassifiedas“categoricalexclusions”underNEPA(orequivalent)mayneedtoexpend
extraefforttoachievetheintentofthisrequirement.
2. Inadequateorineffectivepublic,stakeholder,andagencyinvolvementduringprojectscoping,leadingtoa
poorlydefinedorincompletesolution.
3. Leadagenciesareresponsibleforthescopeoftheenvironmentalreview,butconsultantsordevelopersare
oftenrequiredtopayforandperformtheworkinvolved(CEQ,2007).
4. Climatechangeisnotoftenadequatelyaddressedbytheenvironmentalreviewprocess,whichhasoccasionally
resultedinlitigation(Clark,1994;Lemons,1998).
5. Inadequatemitigationofindirectandcumulativeeffectsbecauseofjurisdictionallimitationsorlackofscientific
data(Clark,1994;Lemons,1998).
RESEARCH
Anenvironmentalreviewprocesshastwomainpurposes:providinganavenueformoreinformeddecisionͲmaking
andallowingpublicinvolvementinagencyprojectsthatmayhaveadverseimpactsontheenvironment(CEQ,
2007).Generallyspeaking,itisthefirststeptowardachievingageneralmarkofroadwaysustainability;thisstep,
whentakenattheoutsetofdesignandconstruction,allowscomprehensiveconsiderationofelementsthat
contributetooverallsustainabilityatthemostbasiclevelofprojectdecisionmaking.
Completionofanenvironmentalreviewprocessensuresthattheprojecthasreceivedearlyscrutinyandguidance
fromthepublic,stakeholders,andappropriateagenciesandjurisdictionsbeforeitisdesignedandbuilt.However,
importantly,theprocessdoesnotdictatethefinaldecisionsmade.Inotherwords,someimpactsthatare
consideredadversemayactuallybeimplementedbasedonweighinganumberoftradeoffs.Thisway,stakeholder
valuesandlocalregulationsprovidetheenvironmental,social,economicandotherpoliticalparameterswithin
whichaprojectmustfit.
WhyistheenvironmentalreviewprocessarequirementinGreenroads?
Nomatterhowsmalltheroadwayprojectis,itstillhasanimpact,evenifitisconsideredatsomeregulatorylevel
tobean“insignificant”one.Greenroadsseekstorecognizethoseprojectsthathavebeensubjecttotherobust
publicandregulatoryagencyreviewprocessimposedbytheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)orastateͲ
levelequivalentprocedure.Toclarify,inparticular,manyroadwayprojectshavebeenclassifiedasCategorical
Exclusions.Suchregularexclusionofthisprocessrequirementdetachestheimpactsthatareperceivedas
insignificantonaprojectbasisandatapracticallevelactuallyhasapotentiallylargeaggregateenvironmental
impact.PassingoffinsignificantimpactsdoesnotprecludethevalueoftheprocessinadecisionͲmakingsituation,
especiallyforthebroadrangeofimpactthatroadwayprojectshave.Also,byconsideringusingametriclike
GreenroadsinprojectͲlevelplanning,wefeelthattheenvironmentalreviewprocessmaybeaugmentedby
considerationofsomeoftheideasattheprojectconception.
32
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-1 Environmental Review Process
Whyisenvironmentalreviewimportantforroadways?
Roadwayconstructionandmaintenanceactivitiesplaceanincredibledemandonnationalenvironmentaland
financialresources.However,currentroadwaydesignandconstructionpracticedoesnotalwayssystematicallyor
holisticallyaddressenvironmentalimpactsorenvironmentalquality.Formanyprojects,oftenitisdifficultto
conceptualizetheenvironmentalimpactsorinfluencethataroadwayhasonitssurroundings.Thiscouldbedueto
threegeneralproblems:1)decisionͲmakersareunabletounderstandthecomplexityofecosystemsandhow
manmaderoadwaysfitwithinthiscontext;2)thedecisionrequiresthoughtfulnessthatgoesbeyondconventional
wisdomortraditionalassumptions3)decisionͲmakersfailtounderstandthelimitsofcontrolthathumanshaveon
ecosystemmanagement(Caldwell,1999).Also,notallprojectsarecoveredbyNEPAoranequivalentstateorlocal
policy;sometimesexistingpoliciesrequirenomorethanacursoryevaluationofenvironmental,socialand
economicimpacts.Inthesecases,manycriticalimpactsareunintentionallyoverlookedorignoredandthese
impactsmayhavelongͲtermconsequencesfortheenvironmentandlocalcommunities.Approachesthatdonot
addressdirect,indirectandcumulativeeffectsofroadwaydesignandconstructiondemonstrate,atbest,weak
stewardshipefforts,andareinadequatetowardachievingsustainabilityduetotheirlackofcomprehensiveness.
Forexample,evaluationofprojectairemissions,totalenergyuse,orsurroundingecosystemsisrarelyextended
outsideofregulatorycompliance,suchasmeetingrequirementsforacumulativeeffectsassessmentinNational
EnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)documents.TheBureauofTransportationStatistics(2007)reportsthat
approximately$54billionwasspentonpavementmaterialsalonein2006.Production,transportandplacement
ofcommonpavementmaterials,suchashotͲmixasphalt(HMA)andportlandcementconcrete(PCC),represent
themajorityoflifecyclegreenhousegasemissionsandenergyusageassociatedwithroadways(Zapataand
Gambatese,2005).Additionally,theU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)hasattributedseveraldirect,
cumulativeandlongͲtermenvironmentalimpacts,suchasecosystemdegradation,fragmentationandhabitatloss,
duetothelinearanddecentralizednatureofthefourmillionmilenetworkofroadwaysintheU.S.(1994)
Performinganenvironmentalreviewonaroadwayprojectprovidesameansofinvestigatingthesespecial
environmentalimpactsinamoredetailedmannerinordertomakebetterenvironmentaldecisionsforroadway
development.
Whatarethestepsintheenvironmentalreviewprocess?
Generally,therearethreegenericstepsintheenvironmentalreviewprocess.Forprojectswithnoenvironmental
reviewprocesswithintheirjurisdiction,theseareguidelinesprovideageneralideaoftheprocess.
1. Completetheinitialpermittingprocessforthegoverningjurisdiction.Usuallythisinvolvessomereviewof
historicaldocumentationfortheareawheretheprojectwillbelocated.
2. Determineifanenvironmentalreviewisneeded.Usually,aprojectfallsintoacertainclassificationwhichhas
specificenvironmentalreviewrequirements.
3. Ifneeded,performanenvironmentalreviewandsubmitforapprovalbythegoverningagency.
Thesethreestepsmaybeiterativedependingonthecomplexityoftheproject.TheeightstepsofthisProject
Requirementmatchthisgeneralframework,inslightlymoredetail,andwithouttheagencypermits.
HowistheenvironmentalreviewprocessusedfordecisionͲmaking?
Roadwaydesignandconstructionisacomplexprocessthatrequiresexperiencedprofessionalsandclearly
definedexpectationsandvalues.TheenvironmentalreviewprocessisanimportantpartofdecisionͲmakingin
roadwayprojectsbecauseultimately,ithelpstellthewholeprojectstoryinaneffectivemanner.Determining
stakeholderexpectationsandneeds,spatialandtemporalbounds(Clark,1994),feasibleoptionsandtheir
environmentalimpacts,andwhichchoicesaremostsensiblebasedonallknowncostsandbenefitsarecritical
stepsinapproachingtheprojectinameaningfulandcomprehensiveway.Further,withoutdefiningthesesame
values,effortstowardprojectsustainabilitywouldbeineffective.
Whatisthepublicinvolvementrole?
Publicinvolvementplaysakeyroleinacomprehensiveenvironmentalreviewprocessbecausethepublicisone
ofthelargeststakeholdersinmostroadwayandtransportationͲrelatedprojects.Itplaysacomplementaryrole
33
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Environmental Review Process PR-1
tothetechnicalknowledgeandexperienceoftheinterdisciplinaryprofessionalsinvolvedinthedesignand
constructionoftheroadway.OpenconsensusͲbasedpublicparticipationstrategiesprovideacriticalavenuefor
exchangeofimportantinformationaboutneeds,opinions,expectationsandlocalvaluesbetweenthepublic
andprojectdecisionͲmakers.Essentially,thispartoftheenvironmentalreviewprocessengagesthepeople
whowillbemostlikelytobeimpactedbythedecisionsmade.
TheFHWAprovidesseveralpublicationsandguidancematerialsoncreatingandimplementingsuccessful
publicinvolvementcampaignsforroadwayprojects.http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/pi_pubs.htm
Whatisconsideredinanenvironmentalreviewprocess?
TheWashingtonstateDepartmentofEcology(DOE)SEPAchecklistprovidesacomprehensiveexampleofwhatis
typicallyincludedinanenvironmentalreviewprocess.BasictopicscoveredincludethoseshowninTablePRͲ1.3.
TablePRͲ1.3:TopicsAddressedbyanEnvironmentalReviewProcess
Earthenmaterials Sitetopography,soilconditions,gradingquantities,erosionpotential,impervioussurfaces
Air ExpectedonͲsiteandrelevant offͲsiteairemissions
Water Waterbodiesinvicinity,inͲwatergradingquantities,surfaceandgroundwaterconditions,
floodplainstatus,expectedpointandnonͲpointdischarges,stormwatermanagement
Plants Nativevegetation,vegetationmanagement,landscapingplan,endangeredspecies
Animals Nativewildlife,migratoryhabits,endangeredspecies
Energy Energytypesneededandused,renewableenergysources,conservationefforts(ifany)
Humanhealth
andsafety
Exposuretotoxicchemicals,riskoffireandexplosion,spill,or hazardouswaste,emergency
servicesneeded,hazardcontrolsinplace,safetyissuesandneedsbeingaddressed.
Noise Traffic,equipment,operation (shortͲterm,longͲterm),timesofexpectednoise,
Landand
shorelineuse
Currentuse,existingstructures(anyplanneddemolition),agriculturalstatus,zoningand
masterplan,currentanddisplacedpopulations,environmentalsensitivity,
Housing Additionorlossofhousingunits
Aesthetics Structureheight,viewsinarea
Lightandglare Timeofdayforexpectedglare,safetyconsiderations,offͲsiteglare,
Recreational,
historic,cultural
resources
Typesofopportunitiesinvicinity,existingregistrations(ifany),anydisplacementof
recreational,historical,orculturalopportunitiesasaresultofproject
Transportation Accessfromotherpublicstreetsandhighways,transitfacilities,parking,typeofconstruction
expected,nearnesstoairandrailmodes,peaktrafficvolumes,tripgeneration
Publicservices
andutilities
Typesofpublicservicesandutilitiesneededorimpacted,newservicesorutilitiesproposed

Generally,documentationoftheenvironmentalreviewprocessforroadwayprojectsrequiresthatsourcesofall
potentialenvironmental,economicandsocialimpacts,expectednatureandextentoftheseimpacts,andthefinal
decisionsmadeinlightoftheseimpactsarestatedconciselyandclearly.
WhatisNEPA?
TheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)isabroaddeclarationofenvironmentalvaluesintendedto
encouragechangesinattitudesandsocialbehaviorsatanationallevel(Caldwell,1999).NEPAwasinstitutedas
federallawintheUnitedStatesin1969andpublishedintheFederalRegisterinJanuary1970.(CFR42§4321)The
fulltextoftheactisavailableonlineathttp://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm.CompliancewithNEPAis
managedbytheCouncilofEnvironmentalQuality(CEQ,2007).Asalaw,NEPAmandatesthataninterdisciplinary
andtransparentapproachistakenduringalternativeselectioninthedecisionͲmakingprocess.Projectsare
requiredtostateallknowndirect,indirect,andcumulativeenvironmental,socialandeconomicimpactsthatmight
resultfromimplementingtheproject(CEQ,2007).
34
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-1 Environmental Review Process
NEPAappliestoallfederallyfundedprojects,whichcommonlyincludesprojectssuchasroadwaysmanagedbythe
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA),environmentalremediationeffortsthroughtheEPA,government
buildingsandotherinfrastructureprojectsreceivingfederalfunding.Becausemanyroadwayprojectsareatleast
partlyfundedbyfederalmoney,manyagenciesandconsultantsarelikelytobeexperiencedwiththelevelofdetail
expectedduringtheNEPAprocess.Additionally,manystatesmayhaveregulationsthatmapdirectlybacktoNEPA
orhavemorestringentenvironmentalreviewexpectationsduetolocalorstatewidepolicyorotherspecial
environmentalconditions.
Ingeneral,therearefiveclassificationsofprojectsthataresubjecttoenvironmentalreviewunderNEPA.Theseare
shownwithabriefdescriptionofthedocumentationneededandproducedtomeettherequirementsofNEPA
processinTablePRͲ1.4.SignificantlymoredetailregardingeachtypeofreportinthetextoftheActitselfandfrom
CEQathttp://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm.
TablePRͲ1.4:TypesofNEPAEnvironmentalReviews
NEPAClassification DocumentationNeeds HowtoMeetNeeds
SignificantEffects
Identified
EnvironmentalImpactStatement (EIS)
RecordofDecision(ROD)
FollowNEPAProcessguidelinesforgenerating
anEIS.EPAreviewsEIS.
EffectsUncertain EnvironmentalAssessment(EA)
FindingofNoSignificantImpact
(FONSI)orfollowEISprocedure
FollowNEPAProcessguidelinesforgenerating
anEA.ResultsofEAmaydictateamoredetailed
EISisrequiredfortheroadwayproject.
ListedCategorical
Exclusion(CE)
Letterfromthegoverningjurisdiction
statingtheexistingCEforproject.
FHWAlistsCEsin23CFR§771.117
Providecopyofexistingstatementof
CategoricalExclusion(CE)
NoCElistedbyAgency EnvironmentalAssessment(EA)
FindingofNoSignificantImpact
(FONSI)orEISandROD
FollowNEPAProcessguidelinesforgenerating
anEA.ResultsofEAmaydictateamoredetailed
EISisrequiredfortheroadwayproject.
Extraordinary
circumstancefora
listedCE
EnvironmentalAssessment(EA)
FindingofNoSignificantImpact
(FONSI)orEISandROD
FollowNEPAProcessguidelinesforgenerating
anEA.ResultsofEAmaydictateamoredetailed
EISisrequiredfortheroadwayproject.
CriticismsofNEPA
SomeofthecommoncriticismsofNEPAareoutlinedbyNCHRPReport25Ͳ25(01)(TransTechetal.,2005).Most
complaintsarisefromlossofmeaningfulnessintheenvironmentalreviewprocessduetotwocoupledissues,
thevaguenessofthelanguageusedintheActandthebureaucraticapprovalprocessrequiredoftheNEPA
documentation.
ThelanguageintheActisverybroadcomparedtootherU.S.regulations,andoftentherequirementsforNEPA
areconsideredunclearbycomparison.IntervieweesintheNCHRP25Ͳ25initialsurveycitedtheneedforclearer
language,lessjargon,consistentstylesandformats,andtheneedtobesuccinct(TransTechetal.,2005).
However,themeaningoftheprocessisnotlikelylostintheprocessitself,butratherintheunnecessarily
verbosedocumentsthataregenerated.Manysectionsoftencontainduplicateinformation.Thisproblemhas
spurredtheguidancedocumentsavailablefromFHWA,AASHTO,andACEC(notedintheprecedingExamples
section)whichstressbrevityandclarityinfinalNEPAdocuments.
Historically,documentationoftheNEPAprocesshasalsobeenconsideredunwieldyandarduousbecause
projectteamsoftentrytopresentasmuchinformationinasbroadoflanguageaspossible,inordertoaddress
thelackofspecificityintheActandavoidpossiblelitigationforerrorsandomissions(Clark,1994;Lemons,
1998).Intervieweesfrequentlymentionedthatdemonstratinglegalsufficiencyisthemainreasondocuments
byDOTsaresolong(TransTechetal.,2005).Consequently,theselengthydocumentsrequirelengthyreviews.
ThereviewprocessiscomplicatedfurtherifaprojectdoesnotbegintheNEPAenvironmentalreviewinearly
stagesofdecisionͲmakingorifdocumentationisnotproperlytracked.
35
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Environmental Review Process PR-1
Athirdcomplaintthathasactuallyresultedinrecent(andcomplicated)litigationistheNEPArequirementfor
cumulativeenvironmentaleffectassessment,specificallyrelatedtoglobalclimatechange.Smith(2008)notes
thattheNEPAhastraditionallynotincludedanyclimatechangeanalysesintheenvironmentalimpact
assessmentprocess.Recentlythough,climatechangehasappearedasacommentfromtheleadagencyon
reviewsofenvironmentalimpactstatementsandenvironmentalassessments.However,Lemons(1998,p.89)
states“Becauseofthesignificantamountofscientificuncertaintyinpredictiontheenvironmentalimpactsof
humanactivities[suchasclimatechange],opponentsofagencydecisionshaveoftenbeensuccessfulin
challengingagencydecisionsiftheycandemonstratethattheagencydidnotrigorouslyconsidercertain
impactsoriftheycandemonstratethatanagencydidnotfollowprescribedstepsindealingwithscientific
uncertainty.Alternatively,ifanagencyhasfollowedtheseprescribedsteps,thenopponentsofanagency’s
decisionwillhaveadifficulttimefulfillingtheburdenofproofrequirementstooverturnthatdecision.”For
example,Smith(2008,p.76)identifiesthelandmarkcase,CenterforBiologicalDiversityv.NationalHighway
TrafficSafetyAdministration,asthe“mostsignificantNEPAclimatechangecourtdecisiontodate”relatedto
NEPAandtransportation.Inthisdecision,theNationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministrationfailedtoidentify
thecumulativeeffectofincrementalemissionsonclimatechangeintheEAprocess.However,inthisand
similarcases,eventhebestscientificknowledgeforecosystemͲrelatedconsequencescanbetoovariableand
uncertaintobeconsideredsignificantevidenceinacourtoflaw.Statisticalsignificanceinscienceand
engineering,unfortunately,doesnottranslatetobeyondareasonabledoubtinlaw.
Clark(1994,p.322)echoesthisdifficultyandstatesthatthe“lackofconsensusconcerningtheapplicationof
cumulativeimpactanalysismethodologyisprimarilyassociatedwithissuesoftemporalandspatialboundsand
thedifficultyofreachingagreementuponthegeographicalboundariesofthestudyareaandhowfarintothe
futureandhowfarintothepastonemustlooktoadequatelyassessthecumulativeimpacts.”Inessence,the
realissueisthatmostprojectteamsareunabletodefineregionalandglobalproblemsinacontextrelevantto
projectͲleveldecisions.Mostofthecumulativeeffectassessmentsfortransportationprojectsmissthepoint(if
completedatall),andmoredata(easytocollect)isoftenprovidedwithoutcompletelysynthesizingthe
informationinameaningfulway(becauseanalysisismoredifficult)(TransTechetal.,2005).Guidelinesforthe
levelofdetailrequiredandprocesssuggestionsforcumulativeeffectsstudiesoftransportationprojectsare
providedinNCHRP25Ͳ25(01).
AmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009andNEPA
TheNEPAprocessisrequiredforanytransportationinfrastructureimprovementprojectapplyingforor
grantedfundsundertheAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009(ARRA).AccordingtotheCEQ
(2009c),NEPAreviewsarerepresentativeofthesustainabilityandenvironmentalstewardshipgoalsembedded
inARRA.AsofSeptember2009,infrastructureprojectsthroughtheUnitedStatesDOTamountedto9%ofthe
totalfundedprojectsinARRA.NEPAwasnotapplicableforonlytwooftheseprojectsfundedforUSDOTin
2009(CEQ,2009c).
ResourcesforProjectEnvironmentalReviews
x BlankcopiesoftheWashingtonstateDepartmentofEcologySEPAchecklistareavailableanddownloadablefor
usehere:http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/ecy05045.html.
x InformationforhighwayproposalsandSAFETEAͲLUrequirementsisavailablefromtheFHWAat
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu.
x A“Citizen’sGuidetoTransportationDecisionͲMaking”and“TheMetropolitanTransportationPlanningProcess:
KeyIssues.ABriefingNotebookforTransportationDecisionmakers,Officials,andStaff”areavailablefromthe
FHWAathttp://www.fhwa.gov/planning/citizen/index.htm.
x TheFHWAprovidesanEnvironmentalReviewToolkitthatisausefulresourceformanyprojects:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/metro/index.htm
x DetailedquestionsandanswersforenvironmentalreviewprocessesarespelledoutintheSAFETEAͲLUFinal
Guidance,availablehere:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/section6002/
36
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-1 Environmental Review Process
x TheFHWAalsohasguidanceforcreatingeffectivepublicInvolvementprograms.AusefulresourceisPublic
InvolvementTechniquesforTransportationDecisionͲmaking,availableonthewebat:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/REPORTS/PITTD/cover.htm
x TheTransportationResearchBoard(TRB)hasacommitteefocusedonpublicinvolvementwithseveraluseful
resources:http://www.trbpi.com/
x TheAASHTOCenterforEnvironmentalExcellencehasmanyguidelinesandresourcesforaddressingNEPA
compliance,includingaguidebookforSAFETEAͲLUEnvironmentalReviewProcesses.
http://environment.transportation.org/center/products_programs/practitioners_handbooks.aspx
GLOSSARY
ACEC AmericanCouncilofEngineeringCompanies
AASHTO AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials
ARRA AmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009
CategoricalExclusion(CE) Adecision,project,oractivitythathasnosignificantsingleorcumulative
outcomethatunderminesthequalityoftheenvironmentandrequiresno
environmentalassessmentorenvironmentalimpactstatement.(40CFR
§1508.4and23CFR§771.117)
Categoricallyexempt SeeCategoricalExclusion(CE)
CEQ CouncilonEnvironmentalQuality
EA EnvironmentalAssessment(40CFR§1508.9)
EIS EnvironmentalImpactStatement(40CFR§1508.11)
Environmentalreviewprocess AmethodofinformeddecisionͲmakingusedinprojectdevelopment
Extraordinarycircumstance Anyspecialsituationthatmayindicateaneedforamoredetailed
environmentalassessment(EA),including(butnotlimitedto):impactsto
habitatforendangeredspecies,archaeologicallyͲsensitiveareas,wetlands,
lowincomecommunities,etc.
FHWA FederalHighwayAdministration
FONSI FindingofNoSignificantImpact(40CFR§1508.13)
Leadagency TheagencyheldresponsibleforNEPAcompliance (40CFR§1508.16)
NCHRP NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram
NEPA NationalEnvironmentalPolicyActof1969
NHTSA NationalHighwayTransportationSafetyAgency
ROD RecordofDecision
SEPA StateEnvironmentalPolicyAct.Notethatsomestateshavedifferent
acronymsfortheirenvironmentalpolicies.

REFERENCES
AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials.(2006,May)ImprovingtheQualityof
EnvironmentalDocuments:AReportoftheJointAASHTO/ACECCommitteeinCooperationwiththeFederal
HighwayAdministration.RetrievedAugust24,2009from
http://environment.transportation.org/pdf/nepa_process/QUALITY_NEPA_DOCS.pdf
BureauofTransportationStatistics.U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,ResearchandInnovativeTechnology
Administration.(2007).FIGUREGͲ8PublicExpendituresonConstructionofHighwaysandStreets:1995Ͳ2007.
TransportationStatisticsAnnualReport,2007.RetrievedOctober21,2009from
http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2007/html/chapter_02/table_g_08.
html
Caldwell,L.K.(1999).TheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct:anagendaforthefuture.Bloomington:IndianaUniv.
Press.209pp.
37
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Environmental Review Process PR-1
Clark,R.(1994.)Cumulativeeffectsassessment:atoolforsustainabledevelopment.ImpactAssessment.12(3):
319Ͳ331.
CouncilonEnvironmentalQuality,OfficeofthePresident.(2007,December).ACitizen’sGuidetotheNEPA:Having
YourVoiceHeard.RetrievedAugust24,2009fromhttp://nepa.gov/nepa/Citizens_Guide_Dec07.pdf.
CouncilonEnvironmentalQuality,OfficeofthePresident.(2009a,March19).StateEnvironmentalPlanning
Information.RetrievedAugust24,2009.Availableathttp://nepa.gov/nepa/regs/states/states.cfm
CouncilonEnvironmentalQuality,OfficeofthePresident.(2009b,November1)NEPAnetCEQTaskForce.Available
athttp://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm
CouncilonEnvironmentalQuality,OfficeofthePresident.(2009c,November2)TheThirdReportontheNational
EnvironmentalPolicyActandProgressforAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009Activitiesand
Projects.Availableat:http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/reports_congress_Nov2009.htm
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.OfficeofFederalActivities.(1994,April)Evaluationofimpactsfromhighway
development.(EPAPublicationNo.300ͲBͲ94Ͳ006.)Washington,DC:EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2008).EnvironmentalReviewToolkit.FHWA,USDepartmentof
Transportation.AccessedJuly25,2008.Availableathttp://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2005).Safe,Accountable,Flexible,EfficientTransportationEquityAct:A
LegacyforUsers.FHWA,USDepartmentofTransportation.AccessedAugust24,2009.Availableat
http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov.
Lemons,J.(1998.)BurdenofProofRequirementandEnvironmentalSustainability.Chap.6,pp.75Ͳ103,in:J.
Lemons,L.Westra,andR.Goodland.EcologicalSustainabilityandIntegrity:ConceptsandApproaches.Boston:
KluwerAcademicPublishers.315pp.
Smith,M.D.(2008).NEPAandClimateChange.EnvironmentalPractice.10(2),75Ͳ77.
TransTechManagement,Inc.&Parsons,BrinckerhoffwithAkin,Gump,Strauss,Hauer&FeldLLP.(2005,January).
SynthesisofDataNeedsforEAandEISDocumentation–ABlueprintforNEPADocumentContentRequestedby:
AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)StandingCommitteeonthe
Environment.NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram25Ͳ25/Task01.Availableat:
http://www.trb.org/NotesDocs/25Ͳ25%281%29_FR.pdf
UnitedNationsGeneralAssembly,42ndSession.(1987,August4).ReportoftheWorldCommissionon
EnvironmentandDevelopment(WCED):“OurCommonFuture.”(A/42/427).AnnextoOfficialRecord.Geneva,
Switzerland,1987.(Masthead).Availableathttp://www.worldinbalance.net/agreements/1987Ͳbrundtland.php
Zapata,P.&Gambatese,J.A.(2005).EnergyConsumptionofAsphaltandReinforcedConcretePavementMaterials
andConstruction.JournalofInfrastructureSystems.11(1),9Ͳ20.
38
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-2 Lifecycle Cost Analysis
LIFECYCLE COST ANALYSIS
GOAL
DeterminethelifecyclecostfortheroadwayprojecttoaidindecisionͲmaking.
REQUIREMENTS
Performalifecyclecostanalysis(LCCA)oftheroadwayproject.LCCAmustcontainat
leastagencycosts(listedbelow)andworkzoneusercosts.
LCCAcanbeperformedwithmanualcalculationsorbyusingrecommendedsoftware
(notedbelowforpavementsandbridges).Initialvaluesforcalculationsshouldbe
consistentwithexistingowneragencypoliciesandsoftwareshouldreport
probabilisticratherthandeterministicresults.Wherenoowneragencypolicyexists
forLCCA,dooneormoreofthefollowingtodetermineinputvaluesforsoftware:
x Justifytheuseofanydefaultinputs
x Usehistoricaldataasrepresentativevalueswhereavailable
x Useengineeringestimates
x Usevaluesrecommendedforselectsoftwarewherenotedbelow
Forprojectswithpavements:
PerformaLCCAoftheproject’spavementstructure(comparisonofmultipledesign
alternativesisencouragedbutnotrequired)inaccordancewiththemethoddescribed
intheFHWA’sInterimTechnicalbulletin,LifeͲCycleCostAnalysisinPavementDesign
(1998,currentlybeingrevised).Thismaybecompletedmanuallyorbyusingthe
FHWA’sRealCostsoftwareavailableforfreeat:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/lccasoft.cfm
UseparametersfortheLCCAthatareconsistentwithexistingowneragencypolicies.If
noowneragencypolicyexists,userecommendedvaluesshowninTablePRͲ2.1forthe
FHWA’sRealCostsoftware.
Forprojectswithbridges:
PerformaLCCAoftheproject’sbridges(comparisonofmultipledesignalternativesis
encouragedbutnotrequired)accordingtotheguidanceintheNationalCooperative
HighwayResearchProgram(NCHRP)Report483(Hawk,2003)andthesoftware(called
BLCCA)developedforthisstudy.Thereportprovidesstandardinputvaluesforawide
rangeofpotentialbridgeprojectsandreferencedsourcesforotherinputdata.Other
lifecyclecostanalysissoftwaremayalsobeusedatthediscretionoftheproject
manager,includingRealCost,withsomeminoradjustmentstothespreadsheet.A
BLCCAmayalsobecompletedbyhand.TablePRͲ2.1mayprovidesomeusefulinputs
forusercostsandtrafficdata.
x Useagencyandusercostparametersthatareconsistentwithagencypolicy,ifone
exists(thoughaccordingtothebodyofresearchsuchpoliciesforbridgesarerare.)
x Usethesamenumberofyearsforservicelifethatisusedfordesignofstructural
memberssubjecttolongtermloadingeffects.

PR-2
REQUIRED
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ3Lifecycle
Inventory
9 EWͲ4Stormwater
CostAnalysis
9 MRͲ1Lifecycle
Assessment
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Economy
9 Extent
9 Expectations
BENEFITS
9 ReducesLifecycle
Cost
9 Improves
Accountability

39
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Cost Analysis PR-2
Forprojectswithadditionalfeatures:
PerformaLCCAoftheproject’smajorfeatures(comparisonofmultipledesignalternativesisencouragedbutnot
required)inaccordancewithgenerallyacceptedengineeringeconomicspractices.Majorfeaturesmayinclude
tunnels,retainingwallsandotheritems.
Details
TypicalLCCAsandBLCCAsincludeagencyandusercosts,definedbelow.Occasionally,thirdͲpartycosts(suchas
monetizedenvironmentaldamagesorhazards)areincluded,butarenotrequiredforthisProjectRequirement.
AcostͲbenefitanalysis(CBA)thatincludestheminimumcomponentsbelowisacceptable.Assumptionsused
foragencyandusercostsshouldbeconsistentineachanalysisforprojectswithmultiplemajorfeatures.
AgencyCosts.Costsfromtheplanning,constructionandoperationoftheroadwayandstructures.
x PreliminaryEngineering.Planninganddesigncosts.
x ContractAdministration.Biddingandcontractoversight.
x Initialconstruction.Costsincurredduringtheinitialconstruction.
x ConstructionSupervision.Constructionmanagement,inspections,and
x Maintenance.Potholepatching,cracksealing,restriping,etc.
x Rehabilitation.Coststomaintainandrehabilitateorretrofitanassetthroughoutitsservicelife.
x AdministrativeCosts.Costofpavementmanagementandotheradministrativecosts.
x Salvagevalue.Expectedvalueofmaterialsandequipmentatendofservicelife.
UserCosts.Thosewhousethefacilityincurcostsduringnormaloperationandduringconstructionperiods
(e.g.,time,safety,fuelandothervehicleoperatingcosts).
x NormalOperation.OftenignoredinLCCA,astheymaybethesamebetweenalternatives.
x WorkZone.Costsincurredbytheuserfromworkzonedelays.
TheFederalgovernmentmandatedLCCAintheNationalHighwaySystemDesignationActof1995butthen
changedittoavoluntarystandardinTEAͲ21.Section1305(c)statesthatLCCAisnotrequiredbuttasksthe
“…SecretaryshalldeveloprecommendationsfortheStatestoconductlifeͲcyclecostanalyses.”Mostrecently,
theSafe,Accountable,Flexible,EfficientTransportationEquityAct:ALegacyforUsers(SAFETEAͲLU)seta
fundingthresholdthatmandatestheuseofLCCAorothervalueengineeringtoolsforbridgeprojectsUS$20
millionormore.AnothermandatethresholdissetatUS$25millionforanyfederalaidproject(FederalHighway
Administration,n.d).
Manyroadwayprojectshavebothpavementsandstructuresincludedinthescopeofwork.Forsuchprojects,
thelifecyclecostanalysispreparedforthiscreditmustreflecteachsubstantialprojectfeatureforitsentire
servicelife.ItmayalsobedesirabletoperformaLCCAontheentireroadwayproject(e.g.,includeall
earthwork,traffichardware,structures,etc.)butcurrentlynostraightforwardmeansofdoingthisexists.
Manystatedepartmentsoftransportations(DOTs)alreadyincorporateLCCAintoaformalpavementtype
selectionprocessorprojectalternativeselectionprocess,andthusalreadyhaveaformalLCCAprocessinplace
forpavements.However,aformalizedalternativeselectionprocessusingBLCCAdoesnotappeartobein
widespreaduseforbridgeorotherstructuralprojects(Özbayetal.2004;Thompson,2004).
DOCUMENTATION
x AcopyoftheLCCAand/orBLCCAcalculations(ifdonebyhand)orthereportproducedbytheanalysis
software,includingasummaryofinputsandoutputs.
x AlinktoorcopyofagencypolicyonLCCAand/orBLCCAifoneexists.
x Ashort1Ͳparagraphnarrativedescribingwhichalternativewasselectedandtheprincipalreasonsforselection.
40
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-2 Lifecycle Cost Analysis
TablePRͲ2.1:RecommendedLCCAInputValuesforRealCostifNoStandardAgencyPolicyExists
AnalysisOptions Probability Distribution Value
Analysisperiod NA ш40years
DiscountRate† Triangular min=1.7%,mostlikely=2.7%,max=3.7%
Includeagencycostresidualvalue NA Yes
Includeusercostsinanalysis NA Yes
Usercostcomparisonmethod NA Calculated
Trafficdirection NA BothorInboundorOutbound
Includeusercostresidualvalue NA Yes
TrafficData
AADT NA Bestestimate
Singleunittrucksas%ofAADT NA Bestestimate
Combounittrucksas%ofAADT NA Bestestimate
Annualgrowthrateoftraffic Normal Bestestimate
Speedlimitundernormalconditions NA Predominatespeedlimitinproject
Lanesopenineachdirectionunder
normaloperation
NA Bestestimate
Freeflowcapacity NA Calculatedbysoftware
Queuedissipationcapacity Normal average=1818vphpl,st.dev.=144vphpl
MaximumAADTbothdirections NA Bestestimate
Maximumqueuelength NA Bestestimate
Rural/Urban NA Bestestimate
ValueofUserTime††
Valueoftimeforpassengercars Triangular min=$10,mostlikely=$11.50,max=$13
Valueoftimeforsingleunittrucks Triangular min=$17,mostlikely=$18.50,max=$20
Valueoftimeforcombinationtrucks Triangular min=$21,mostlikely=$22.50,max=$24
HourlyTrafficDistribution
Usedefaultvaluesifnoregionorprojectspecificinformationavailable.
AddedVehicleTimeandCost
Usedefaultvaluesifnoregionorprojectspecificinformationavailable.
Alternatives
Alternativedescription NA Fillin
Activitydescription NA Fillin
Agencyconstructioncost Normal average=bestestimateofcost
st.dev.=10%oftheaverage
Activityservicelife Triangular Bestestimate
Maintenancefrequency Triangular Bestestimate
Workzonelength NA Bestestimate
Workzonecapacity NA Bestestimate,ifnodataconsiderusingFigure
3.4inWallsandSmith(1998)
Workzoneduration NA Bestestimate
Workzonespeedlimit NA Postedvalue
Numberoflanesopenineachdirection
duringworkzone
NA Best estimate
Workzonehours NA Plannedhours
†DiscountrateshouldbedeterminedfrommostrecentOMBCircularAͲ94.AppendixCcontainsrealinterestratesfortreasurynotesand
bondsofvariouslengths.Treasurynotematuritythatmostcloselymatchestheprojectanalysisperiodshouldbeused.Useminimumand
maximumvaluesof±1%.
††DollarvaluesinthistablearetakendirectlyfromWallsandSmith(1998)andaregiveninAugust1996dollars.ThesevaluesMUSTbeinflated
todollarvaluesintheyearthatconstructionisscheduledtostartusingtheU.S.BureauofLaborStatistics(BLS)ConsumerPriceIndex(CPI)U.S.
cityaverageforallurbanconsumers(notseasonallyadjusted).Thevalueforthisindexin1996was156.9.TheBLSCPIInflationCalculator
(http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)canbeusedtodothisconversionquickly.
41
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Cost Analysis PR-2
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x CompletetheLCCAearlyenoughintheprojectsothatitsresultscanbeconsideredinselectingbetween
projectalternatives.Thisgenerallymeansitshouldhappenduringtheplanningstageandnotthedesignor
constructionstage.
x NotethatRealCostandBLCCAsoftwarearenotrequiredforthiscredit;howeveranyothermethodusedmust
conformtotheFHWA’sInterimTechnicalbulletinforpavements,LifeͲCycleCostAnalysisinPavementDesign
(Walls&Smith,1998)andNCHRP483forbridges.
x IncludeLCCAconsiderationsinthetechnicalscoreofbiddersforpavementprojectsinorderforittobe
consideredinselectingadesignalternativeforDesignͲBuildcontractdeliverymethods.Thisisbecausethe
actualpavementdesignisoftenusedaspartofadesignͲbuildteam’stechnicalscoreindeterminingcontract
award,aLCCAofalternativedesignscannotbeperformedbytheagencyuntilafterthebidcompetitionis
complete.Whilethiscanbedone,LCCAresultsshouldbeproperlyweightedsothattheyinfluencecontract
awardinamannerconsistentwithownerwishes.Unfortunately,GransbergandMolenaar(2004)showedthat
designͲbuildawardalgorithmsoftendonotweightLCCAconcernsheavilyenoughforthemtobeasignificant
factorincontractaward.
x IncorporateresultsofotherRelatedCredits,suchasProjectDevelopment:EconomyandCostBenefitAnalysis,
intotheLCCAforconsistencyacrossthewholeproject.
Example: Case Studies of LCCA
Rangarajuetal.(2008)reportonLCCAeffortsoftheSouthCarolinaDOTandlistseveralcasestudiesin
AppendixE(page117)thatdealwiththeinfluenceofdiscountrateandanalysisperiodonLCCAoutcomes.
Theentirereport,LifeCycleCostAnalysisforPavement(Rangarajuetal.2008)canbedownloadedat:
http://www.clemson.edu/t3s/scdot/pdf/projects/SPR656Final.pdf.
Example: Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) LCCA Protocol
WSDOTfollowsastandardLCCAprotocolwhenselectingpavementtypefornewfacilities.Thisprotocolis
basedontheFHWA’sLifeͲCycleCostAnalysisinPavementDesign(WallsandSmith,1998)andusesRealCost
softwareforcalculations.ItincludesspecifiedinputsforWSDOTanalysisandhowtoconsiderresults.Ofnote,
costdifferencebetweencompetingalternativesthatarelessthan15percentareconsideredequalbasedon
theuncertaintyofinputvalues.
TheWSDOTPavementTypeSelectionProtocol(2005)isavailablefordownloadhere:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/mats/Pavement/Technotes/PTSP_Jan2005.pdf.
Example: Caltrans LCCA Procedures Manual
Caltranshasdevelopedamanual(Caltrans2007)thatdescribesLCCAproceduresforuseinCaltrans.The
manualisbasedonRealCostsoftwareandprovidesstandardinputvaluesforawiderangeofpotential
projects.CaltranshasadoptedanaggressivepolicytowardsusingLCCAmandatingthatitbeused“…forall
projectswithincludepavementworkontheStateHighwaySystemregardlessoffundingsource…”(Land2007)
Themanualcanbedownloadedat:http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ope/LCCA.html.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. WhileLCCAisafairlystandardeconomicanalysistool,thepotentialexiststoinputincorrectorirrelevant
numbersandmisuseitsresults.UsersshouldbefamiliarwiththeFHWA’sLifeͲCycleCostAnalysisinPavement
DesignInterimTechnicalBulletin(WallsandSmith1998,currentlybeingrevised)beforeconductinganLCCA
withRealCostorBLCCA.
2. ALCCAassumesthatthebenefitsassociatedwithprojectalternativesareequal.Thus,itonlyanalyzescosts.
ProjectswithdifferentbenefitsbetweenalternativesmaydesireamorecomprehensivecostͲbenefitanalysis.
42
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-2 Lifecycle Cost Analysis
3. ThemeaningfulnessofLCCAoutputsreliesheavilyongoodestimatesoffuturepavementlife,rehabilitation
costsandtheintervalbetweenfuturerehabilitationefforts.Theseallrelyongoodengineeringjudgmentand
pasthistoryratherthaneconomictheoryorprincipals.
4. LCCAisbasedonestimatedoftotalcostandcanbeeasilymanipulatedbychangingassumptionsandinput
values.Forthisreasontheresultsshouldnotbeweightedtooheavilyinthechoiceofdesignalternatives.
5. ThiscreditdoesnotcontainarequirementtouseorimplementthelowestlifeͲcyclecostprojectalternative.
Therefore,itshouldbeviewedasacreditthatcreatesinformationthatisusefulindecisionͲmakingrather
thanadecisionͲmakingtool.ItdoesnotguaranteealowestlifeͲcyclecostdecision.
6. ThiscreditdoesnotrequiretheLCCAtobedoneduringtheplanningstagewhereitwouldbemostlikelyto
influenceprojectdecisions.Therefore,itcouldbedonelateindesign,orevenduringconstruction,meaningit
wouldbeundertakenfornootherreasonthantomeetthiscredit,whichmissesthepoint.
7. Somerehabilitationeffortsandevenothereffortsthattakeasystematicapproachtochoosingtheproper
projectfeatures(e.g.,apavementmanagementsystem),theremaynotbeachoicebetweentwoormore
alternatives.ThismaybebecausesuchasystemalreadyincorporatesaformofLCCA,oritmaybebecauseno
otheralternativeisreasonablyfeasible.
8. Otherprototypesoftwareprogramsforbridgelifecyclecostanalyseshavebeendevelopedbutdonotappear
tobeinwidespreaduse,suchastheNationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology’sBridgeLCCsoftware
whichwaslastupdatedin2003(availableathttp://www.bfrl.nist.gov/bridgelcc/welcome.html).Forpurposes
ofthiscredit,anysoftwarecanbeusedsolongastheinputsandresultsarejustifiable,reasonable,and
validatedbytheprofessionalsworkingontheproject.
RESEARCH
Lifecyclecostanalysis(LCCA)isaprocessforevaluatingthetotalcostofaproject,facilityorproductoveritsuseful
lifetime.Forroadwayprojects,thismeansaccountingforinitialconstructioncosts,maintenanceandrehabilitation
costs,roadwayusercostsandthirdͲpartycosts.LCCAcancontributetothesustainabilityofaroadwayprojectby
allowingprojectpersonneltoaccountfortotallifecyclecostswhenmakingkeyprojectdecisions.
AnimportantdistinctionmustbemadebetweenLCCAandlifecycleassessment(LCA)asthesetermsuse
confusinglysimilaracronyms.BothhavesimilarutilityinthedecisionͲmakingprocess,buttheunderlyingpurpose,
scopeandmathematicalmodelforeacharedifferent.Forthisreason,LCAisdiscussedindetailinothercreditsin
theGreenroadsManual(seePRͲ3LifecycleInventoryandMRͲ1LifecycleAssessment)whileLCCAisdiscussedhere.
LifecycleCostAnalysisMethod
LCCAissimplyamathematicalaccountingtoolthatcanbeusedtocomparethevalueofmoneyatdifferenttimes.
UnderlyingtheLCCAprocessarebasicprinciplesofbusinessfinance,whichusescompoundinterestformulas(and
tables)andreasonableassumptionsaboutthefuturetotranslatedifferenteconomicvaluestoanequalreference
pointintime.LCCAmaybequitefamiliartomanytransportationprofessionalsintheformofcostͲbenefitanalysis
(CBA)orcommonlyjust“engineeringeconomics.”ThehowͲtoofbusinessfinanceandengineeringeconomicscan
befoundinaplethoraoftextbooksandwillnotbediscussedindepthhere.
LCCAisausefulprocessinroadwaydesignbecausetheresultsquantifythetotallongͲtermvalueofproject
alternatives.Thisprocessallowsforstraightforwardcomparisons,usuallyintermsofatotallifetimecostoratotal
lifetimebenefits.ThekeyroleofthedecisionͲmakerinLCCAisdeterminingappropriateassumptionsandscopefor
thecomparison,aswellasinterpretingandactingonthequantifiedresults.
Forabasicexample,consideraroadwayprojectwithtwodesignalternatives;oneisathinpavementsectionand
theotherhasthickersection.Theinitialconstructioncostofthefirstalternativeislowerthanthesecond,butthe
firstalternativerequiresadditional,morefrequentexpendituresformaintenancethroughoutitslifetime.The
projectmanagercompletesanLCCAoneachalternative.Theresultsshowthatwhilefirstalternativeisless
expensiveforinitialconstruction,thesecondalternativeactuallyhasamuchlowerlongͲtermcost.Thesecond
alternativehasahigherupfrontcostforinitialconstruction,butsavestheprojectownermoremoneyovertime.
43
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Cost Analysis PR-2
Becausethiscomparisonisnotlimitedtoupfrontcostsalone,aprojectmanagercanbetterunderstandhowtheir
designandconstructionchoicescontributetotheoveralleconomicimpactoftheproject.
LifecycleCosting,RoadwaysandSustainability
ThereissubstantialwritingtosuggestthatLCCAcontributestosustainability.Mosteffortsarecenteredon
buildings;however,theFHWAdoescontributesomeusefulinformation.Consideringbuildings,theFederal
FacilitiesCouncilrecognizedtherelationshipbetweenlifeͲcyclecostingandsustainabledevelopmentbystating:
“GuidancerelatedtolifeͲcyclecostingandvalueengineeringwasrecognizedasbeingsupportiveof
sustainabledevelopment,inparticularwhenusedintheconceptualplanninganddesignphasesof
acquisition,wheredecisionsaremadethatsubstantiallyaffecttheultimateperformanceofa
buildingoveritslifecycle(FederalFacilitiesCouncil,2001).”
Inessence,theywereconcernedthatfeaturesthatenhancedsustainabilitywouldbeexcludedtosaveoninitial
costswithoutconsideringlifeͲcyclecoststhatcouldshowsuchfeaturestobewarranted.TheFHWAbelievesLCCA
shouldbeusedbecause“…transportationinvestmentdecisionsshouldconsiderallofthecostsincurredduringthe
periodoverwhichalternativesarecompared(FHWA,2002).”Thismeansconsideringthetotalcosttotheowner,
usersandexternalitiesratherthanjustthefirst,orconstruction,cost.
x Initialconstruction.Costsincurredduringtheinitialdesignandconstruction.
x Preservation.Coststomaintainandrehabilitateanasset.
x Users.Thosewhousethefacilityincurcostsduringnormaloperationandduringconstructionperiods(e.g.,
time,safety,fuelandothervehicleoperatingcosts).
x Externalities.Coststhatindirectlyimpacttheusersortheenvironmentdueto,forexample,airemissionsora
naturalhazard.
PrevalenceofLCCAandBLCCA
AccordingtothecomprehensivestateͲofͲtheͲpracticereviewoftheapplicationsoflifecyclecostinginpracticeby
Özbayetal.(2004),LCCAhasbeeninusetosomeextentforalmost40yearsforpavementselection.Theauthors
completedathreeyearstudythatsurveyedthedivisionat39statedepartmentsoftransportation(DOTs)which
usedLCCAthemost.ThemajorityofrespondentsinthesurveyindicatedthatLCCAisappliedby:
x Researchanddesigndivision(68%)
x Materialsandpavementsdivision(37.5%)
x Bridgeoffices(12.5%)
Additionally,theauthorsfoundthatallagenciessurveyeduseLCCAonsomeformofpavementprojects.Infact,
60%oftherespondingagencieshaveadoptedformalguidelinesforpavementLCCA.However,only25%ofthose
surveyedbyOzbayetal.(2004)indicatedthatBLCCAmightbeusedonbridgeprojectsattheirstateagencieswhile
100%indicatedthatitmightbeusedonpavementprojects.
StateofthePracticeͲPavements
AmorerecentstudyfortheSouthCarolinaDepartmentofTransportation(Rangarajuetal.,2008)foundthat
moststates(i.e.statedepartmentsoftransportation)conductLCCAbuttovaryingdegrees.Theirsurvey,
completedin2005,hadresponsesfrom33statesand2CanadianProvincesandfound:
x 94%(33of35)oftheagenciesuseLCCAaspartoftheirdecisionͲmakingprocess.Thisappearstobean
increaseinpercentageoveranearlierlimited2001surveythatfound8of16respondingstatesusedLCCA.
x 69%(24of35)ofrespondentsincludeorareplanningtoincludeusercostsinLCCA.Typicallythisisdoneby
quantifyinguserdelaycostsduringconstructiononly.
x Few(only2outof32)usedafullyprobabilisticapproachtocalculatinglifecyclecostswhileothersdid
conductsensitivityanalysestodeterminehowchangesinassumedparametersaffectedanalysisoutcome.
44
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-2 Lifecycle Cost Analysis
StateofthePracticeͲBridges
Ehlen(1997)providesastrong,practicalargumentfortheutilityofsystematicapplicationofBLCCAand
Thompson(2004)alsoprovidesagoodsummaryofthestateofBLCCAinbridgepractice.Henotesthat
streamlinedtoolswillexpandapplicationopportunitiesforBLCCA,especiallyintermsofnetworklevelbridge
managementsystems,butmuchmorerefinementmaybenecessaryforuncertaintiesandassumptionstobe
unifiedfromprojecttoproject.Muchofthelifecycleliteratureforbridgesappearstoberelevantto
optimizationoftheprojectandnetworklevelbridgemanagementsystems.Thesereferencesarediscussedin
moredetailinPRͲ9PavementManagementSystem.
However,todate,themostcomprehensiveworkonBLCCAwascompletedaspartoftheNationalCooperative
HighwayResearchProgramReport483:BridgeLifeͲcycleCostAnalysis(Hawk,2003).Thisreportcontains
detailsonspecificmethodologiesthatmayberelevanttobridgedesigners,aswellaslimitations,assumptions,
examples,andasoftwaretoolcalledBLCCA.
SomeofthemostrecentworkthatisrelevanttosustainabilityincludesearlyBLCCAworkbyEhlen(1999),who
attemptstoaccountforthirdͲpartycosts(whichhedefinesascostsofenvironmentaldamages)duetothe
lifecycleofbridgeprojects.However,valuesofzerowereusedforthesecostsinhismodel.Lately,BLCCA
literaturehasfocusedmoreonreliabilitystudiesforcatastrophicandlongͲtermenvironmentalstressors
includingworkbyLee,Cho,andCha(2006),Hosseretal.(2008)andPadgett,Dennemann,andGhosh(2010).
ThelatterauthorsappliedLCCAprinciplesusingariskͲbasedanalysisofseveralbridgeretrofitoptionssubject
toseismichazards.Thestudymaybeparticularlyrelevanttopractitionerstryingtomodeltheirbridgeto
determineanappropriateretrofitsolutionandmaintenanceschedule.
ImpactofLCCA
GiventhatmoststatesuseLCCAinsomeformalreadythiscreditmayhavethelargesteffectinthreeareas:
1. LocalagenciesorotherownerswhodonottypicallyconductLCCAs.RealCostandBLCCAarefairly
straightforwardfreesoftwaretoolsthatshouldbeabletoprovideanswerswithreasonableeffort.
2. StateorfederalprojectsconsideredtoosmallforLCCA.Someprojects(e.g.,overlaysorotherpreservation
efforts)aregenerallydeemedtoosmallforLCCAandhavehistoricallyomittedthisprocessindecisionͲmaking.
3. NonͲpavementprojects.ThiscreditmayencouragethewideradoptionoflifecyclecostingonnonͲpavement
projectssuchasbridgesandothermajorstructures,intelligenttransportationsystems,orothertypesofassets
whereLCCAapplicationsarenotcommonpractice.
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation(Caltrans).(2007).LifeͲCycleCostAnalysisProceduresManual.Stateof
CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation,PavementStandardsTeam&DivisionofDesign.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ope/LCCA.html.Accessed11November2008.
Agencycost Acostincurredbytheagencyofaroadwaysuchasmaintenance,repair,
rehabilitation,improvement,andreplacement(Thompson,2004)
BLCCA BridgeLifeCycleCostAnalysis
Externality Anindirectcostincurredbyanypartyduetotheproject,suchasdamageto
theenvironment,whichishardtoquantifyusingtraditionalaccounting.
LCCA LifeCycleCostAnalysis
Salvagevalue Theestimatedmonetaryvalueofanassetattheendofitsusefullife.
ThirdͲpartycost SeeExternality.
Usercost Acostincurredbytheusersofaroadwaysuchascollisionrisk,detours,and
timedelay(Thompson,2004)
45
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Cost Analysis PR-2
Ehlen,M.A.(1997).LifeͲCycleCostsofNewConstructionMaterials.JournalofInfrastructureSystems.3(4),129Ͳ
133.
Ehlen,M.A.(1999).“LifeͲcyclecostsoffiberͲreinforcedͲpolymerbridgedecks.”J.Mater.Civ.Eng.113,224–230.
FederalFacilitiesCouncil.(2001).SustainableFederalFacilities:AGuidetoIntegratingValueEngineering,LifeͲCycle
Costing,andSustainableDevelopment.FederalFacilitiesCouncilTechnicalReportNo.142,NationalAcademy
Press,Washington,D.C.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2002).LifeͲCycleCostAnalysisPrimer.OfficeofAssetManagement,
FHWA,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,WashingtonD.C.
FederalHighwayAdmnistration(n.d).“FactSheetsonHighwayProvisions,”SAFETEAͲLUFactSheets–Stewardship
andOversight.Availableathttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/stewardover.htmAccessed31
December31,2010.
Gransberg,D.D.&Molenaar,K.R.(2004).LifeͲCycleCostAwardAlgorithmsforDesign/BuildHighwayPavement
Projects.JournalofInfrastructureSystems,Vol.10,Issue4,pp.167Ͳ175.
Hawk,H.(2003).BridgelifeͲcyclecostanalysis.NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgramReport483.
Washington,D.C:TransportationResearchBoard,NationalResearchCouncil.
Hosser,D.,Klinzmann,C.,&Schnetgoke,R.(2008).AframeworkforreliabilityͲbasedsystemassessmentbasedon
structuralhealthmonitoring.StructureandInfrastructureEngineering,4,4,271Ͳ285.
Land,R.D.(2007).UseofLifeͲCycleCostAnalysisforPavements.MemorandumtoDistrictDirectorsfromtheState
ofCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportationChiefEngineer.Availableat
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ope/UseͲofͲLCCAͲforͲPavements.pdf.Accessed11November2008.
Lee,K.M.,Cho,H.N.,&Cha,C.J.(2006).LifeͲcyclecostͲeffectiveoptimumdesignofsteelbridgesconsidering
environmentalstressors.EngineeringStructures,28,9,1252Ͳ1265.
Özbay,K.etal.(2004).LifeͲcyclecostanalysis:Stateofthepracticeversusstateoftheart.TransportationResearch
Record,1864,62Ͳ70.
Padgett,J.E.,Dennemann,K.,&Ghosh,J.(2010).RiskͲbasedseismiclifeͲcyclecostbenefit(LCCͲB)analysisfor
bridgeretrofitassessment.StructuralSafety.32(3),165.
Rangaraju,P.R.;Amirkhanian,S.&Zeynep,G.(2008).LifeCycleCostAnalysisforPavement.ReportbyClemson
UniversityfortheSouthCarolinaDepartmentofTransportation,Columbia,SC.Availableat
http://www.clemson.edu/t3s/scdot/pdf/projects/SPR656Final.pdf.Accessed17October2008.
Thompson,P.D.(2004).BridgelifecyclecostinginIntegratedEnvironmentofDesign,RatingandManagement.
TransportationResearchRecord.
Walls,J.&Smith,M.R.(1998).LifeͲCycleCostAnalysisinPavementDesign.InterimTechnicalBulletin.ReportNo.
FHWAͲSAͲ98Ͳ079.FHWA,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,Washington,D.C.
WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT).(2005).PavementTypeSelectionProtocol.
EnvironmentalandEngineeringProgramsDivision,MaterialsLaboratory,WSDOT,Olympia,WA.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/mats/Pavement/Technotes/PTSP_Jan2005.pdf.Accessed11November2008.

46
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-3 Lifecycle Inventory
LIFECYCLE INVENTORY
GOAL
IncorporateenergyandemissionsinformationintothedecisionͲmakingprocessfor
pavementdesignalternatives.
REQUIREMENTS
Completealifecycleinventoryforthefinalpavementdesignalternativefortheproject
usingthesoftwaretool,PaLATEv2.2asmodifiedforGreenroads,orapprovedequal.
Reportonlyresultsfortotalenergyuseandglobalwarmingpotential(GWP)(incarbon
dioxideequivalentemissions,CO
2
e)forthefinalpavementdesignalternative.The
followinginputvaluesarerequiredforPaLATEv2.2:
x Totalweightandtypesofvirginmaterials.Thisincludesaggregates,binders,base
materials,andstructures.Theseamountscanbedesignestimatesorconstructed
totals.
x Totalweightandtypesofrecycledmaterials.PaLATEv2.2modelsemissionsand
energyforseveraltypesofmaterials.
x Expectedtransportationdistancesforallmaterials.Thismeansdistancesfrom
sourcetoproductionaswellasfromproductiontosite.Transportationofwasteto
disposalisalsoincluded.
x Expectedconstructionvehicletypes.Theseinclude,butarenotlimitedto,pavers,
mixers,haulingvehicles,excavators,rollers,andfinishingequipment.
x Estimateddesignlife.UsethesameinputdataasusedinthePRͲ2LifecycleCost
Analysis.
x Scheduledyearsandexpectedtypeofmaintenance.Usethesameinputdataas
usedinthePRͲ2LifecycleCostAnalysis.Thisinformationshouldalsomatchthe
projectspecificationsprovidedtomeettherequirementsforPRͲ9Pavement
MaintenancePlanandPRͲ10SiteMaintenancePlan.
Details
ThereareseveralbuiltͲinlimitationstothePaLATEtool,whicharediscussedin
detailinthemodifiedtooldocumentation.Werecommenduseofthistoolbecause
weareawareoftheselimitations,wehavechecked(ormodified)thedatasources,
weknowthatthesoftwarereportsthetworequestedpiecesofinformationreliably
forbothasphaltandconcretepavements(evenwithavarietyofrecycled
materials),wefinditrelativelyeasytouse,andwehavemodifiedthetooltomeet
Greenroadsinformationalneeds.ThetoolisavailableontheGreenroadswebsite
(http://www.greenroads.us)fordownload.
Thereareafewothersoftwaretoolsthatareavailablefordevelopinglifecycle
inventories,bothfreeandproprietary.Thesetoolsarealsoacceptableiftheyare
abletoproduceenergyuseandGWPoutputsanduseatransparentinterfacethat
clearlyreferencesdatasourcesusedtocomputethesevalues.
DOCUMENTATION
x Acopyoftheinput/outputpageforPaLATEv2.2forGreenroads.Ifothersoftware
isused,providealistofdatasourcesinadditiontotheinputlistandoutputvalues
fortotalenergyuseandGWP.
PR-3
REQUIRED
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ2LifecycleCost
Analysis
9 PRͲ9Pavement
ManagementSystem
9 PRͲ10Site
MaintenancePlan
9 MRͲ1Lifecycle
Assessment
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Equity
9 Extent
9 Expectations
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 Improves
Accountability
9 IncreasesAwareness
9 CreatesNew
Information
47
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Inventory PR-3
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x UsePaLATEv2.2forGreenroadsasmodifiedbytheUniversityofWashington.ThetoolisavailableinMicrosoft
Excel2003and2007formatontheGreenroadswebsiteat:http://www.greenroads.us.Alllimitationsand
modificationsmadebyGreenroadshavebeendetailedinthesupportingworksheetswithinthetoolitself.
x ProvidealistofdatasourcesifnotusingPaLATEv2.2asmodifiedforGreenroads.
x DownloadacopyoftheoriginalversionofPaLATEandmodifyitforuseonyourprojectandfutureprojects.
TheoriginalPaLATEtool,createdin2003bytheConsortiumofGreenDesignattheUniversityofCalifornia,
Berkeley,isavailableinMicrosoft2003formatfromtheRecycledMaterialsResourceCenterattheUniversity
ofNewHampshirehere:http://www.recycledmaterials.org/Resources/CD/PaLATE/PaLATE.xls.Weknowthe
limitationsofthistoolandknowhowitworks,andmaybeabletoassistyouinmodifyingthetooltocorrect
someoftheknownerrorsthatcouldimpacttheoutcomeofyourprojectLCI(suchasdoubleͲcountingand
materialdensities).
x UseprocessͲbaseddatafromthefreeNationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory(NREL)LCIdatabase,emissions
factorandfuelusedatafromtheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)andtheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE),
andfollowtheLCIprocessmethodologyoutlinedbytheInternationalStandardsOrganization(ISO)14040and
14044tocompleteaprocessͲbasedLCIforthefinalpavementsection.
x UseeconomicinputͲoutputdatainthecustomizable,freetoolforEconomicInput/OutputLifeCycle
Assessment(EIOͲLCA)fromtheGreenDesignInstituteatCarnegieMellonUniversity.However,thistooldoes
notallowforinclusionofprojectͲspecificprocessdata.TheEIOͲLCAtool,includingguidanceonhowtousethe
tool,isavailableathttp://www.eiolca.net.EIOͲLCAisthebasisofthePaLATEtool,sotheguidancedocument
maybehelpfulindevelopinganinitialunderstandingofhowthemodelworks.
x UsenewsoftwaretoolCHANGER(CalculatorforHarmonisedAssessmentandNormalisationofGreenhouseͲgas
EmissionsforRoads),whichhasbeenspecificallydesignedforroadwaysbytheInternationalRoadFederation
(IRF).Thissoftwareisnotfree,butisavailablefordownloadfromtheIRFat:http://www.irfnet.org/.
x DonotuselifecycleassessmenttoolsthatareavailableforbuildingstoconstructtheprojectLCImodelforthe
roadwayproject.Thereareseveralofthesetoolsavailable,howevertheydonotincludeenoughprocessdata
aboutroadwaymaterialsorassociatedconstructionequipmenttopresentresultsthataremeaningfulto
roadwaysandareoftenofquestionablevalidityandrelevance.
x Considerhiringaconsultantwithexperienceinlifecycleassessment(LCA)andinvolvetheminproject
development.ThisapproachmaybeusefulinsimultaneouslymeetingthecreditrequirementsforCreditMRͲ1
LifecycleAssessment.Thebenefitsofthisapproachincludeafull,projectͲspecificreviewofenvironmental
emissionsimpactsthatextendsthescopepastreportingCO2eandenergy,allofwhichmaybeusedtomakea
moreinformeddecisionaboutprojectdesignalternatives.LCAexpertsorfirmsmayalsohaveaccessto
proprietarydataandsoftwarewhichmayproduceamoreaccurate,comprehensive,andprojectͲbasedmodels
duetohigheroveralldataqualityandfewerdatagaps.Additionally,thereislesslikelihoodofdoubleͲcounting.
Example: Sample PaLATE v2.2 Results
Thisexamplerepresentsafictitious12Ͳinch,12Ͳfootwidelaneofasphaltpavementsectionwitha12Ͳinchdeep
and14footwidegravelsubbase,comprised(byvolume)of80%graveland20%sandwithanassumeddesign
lifeof15years.Thisexampleusestypicalproductionprocessandconstructionequipmentandthedefault
densitiesforallmaterials.Itisalsoassumedthatasphaltis5%byweightofthefinalHMAmixture.Notethat
thisisanunrealisticexampleofanLCIbecauseitdoesnotincludetransportation,maintenanceordemolition
forsimplicity.Itisonlyrepresentativeoftheconstructionphaseoftheroadway.
TablePRͲ3.1showstheinputvaluesusedforPaLATEv2.2onthe“Construction”worksheetpage.Output
values,fromthe“Results”worksheetpage,areshowninTablePRͲ3.2.
48
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-3 Lifecycle Inventory
TablePRͲ3.1:PaLATEv2.2forGreenroadsinputfrom"Construction"worksheetpage.

TablePRͲ3.2:PaLATEv2.2outputtablefrom"Results"worksheetpage.Zerovaluesmeannotcomputed.

NotesonthePaLATEv2.2DataSources
PaLATEv2.2forGreenroadsusesdatafrom2002EIOͲLCAproducerdatasetandupdatedenergydatafor
transportationmodesfromthe2009TransportationEnergyDataBook,availablefromtheU.S.Departmentof
Energy.However,thisexampleishighlyoversimplifiedandonlyintendedtodemonstratetheamountof
informationneededtodocumentthisProjectRequirement.Thetransportationinputdataandmaintenance
datahasbeenleftoutofthisexamplemodel,andtheinputcellsandrowsformanyofthematerialoptionsand
transportationmodeshavebeenhiddenforsimplicityandtolimitimagesize.Theoutputresultsshow0for
thesephasesandmaterials,anddoesnotrepresentanyemissionfromvehicleemissionsintransportation,
exceptasbuiltintothesectordataused.
PaLATEv2.2usestheEIOͲLCAdata(http://www.eiolca.net)tomakeanasphaltpavementmodel.Themodelis
builtassumingthefollowingmaterialsarerequiredtomakeasphalt:bitumen,virginaggregate,gravel,and
sand.ThefirstisrepresentedbytheEIOͲLCAsectorcalled“asphaltpavingmixtureandblockmanufacture,”
whilethelastthreearefromthe“sand,gravelandclayrefractorymining”sector.Thedifferencesbetweenthe
lastthreearethedensities.Basicemissionsdataforthesethreeparticulartypesofmaterialisassumedtobe
49
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Inventory PR-3
thesameeventhoughtheamountofprocessing(andthusenergyandemissions)requiredtomakethese
materialsisrealisticallyslightlydifferent.Also,HMAplantproductionprocessdatahasbeenmodifiedfromthe
originalPaLATEtobeprocessbasedondatafromtheEPAAPͲ42.
TheEIOͲLCAdatabaseappearstousetheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)2
nd
Assessment
Report(SAR)in1996tocomputetheindexforGlobalWarmingPotentialbasedonCO
2
e,thoughthisisnot
explicitlystated.NotethattheIPCCpublishedrevisedvaluesforgreenhousegasemissionsin2007(see
Solomonetal.).ItisunclearifandwhenthesenewvalueswillbeincorporatedintotheEIOͲLCAdatabase;
however,thisdetailisirrelevanttotheintentofthisProjectRequirementandislikelytobeonlyslightlyhigher
orlowerthanthevaluecomputed.
Additionally,thereareseverallimitationsbuiltintoamodelthatusesapreͲexistingframework.Ofparticular
importanceisthepotentialformissingdatawhereCO
2
eorenergyuseisnotrecordedorotherwisemeasured,
especiallywhentakenasrepresentativeofanentireeconomicsector,becausethesemissingdataarehiddenin
theaggregatedtotalsandaredifficulttoidentifyonaprocesslevel.TheEIOͲLCAassumptionsandlimitations
regardingtheeconomicsectorenergyandemissionsmodelarecitedindetailat:
x EIOͲLCAAssumptionsandUncertainty:http://www.eiolca.net/Method/assumptionsͲandͲuncertainty.html
x EIOͲLCAModelLimitations:http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html
ReferencesusedfortheoriginalPaLATEdatasources,aswellasthedataandmodificationsthathavebeen
madetothetoolbytheUniversityofWashington,aredocumentedinthetoolitself.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. AsimplifiedLCI,suchastheonerequiredhere,isnotintendedtodictatefinalprojectdecisionsmade.Instead,
itisintendedtoinformthedecisionͲmakingprocessthroughuseofbasicenvironmentalaccounting.
2. ThisProjectRequirementrequiresreportingonlytwovaluesforonlyonedesignalternative.Thereasonforthis
isthatthesetwovaluesarenotgenerallyconsideredintraditionalroadwayprojectplanningordecisionͲ
making.However,ingeneral,morethanonealternativemaybeconsidered(andcompared),andseveraltypes
ofemissionsmayalsobepertinenttothedecisionͲmakingprocess.Wefeelthatrequiringonlythefinaldesign
optionisasasmallsteptowardthiscomparisonprocess,butcouldleadtomorethoughtfulaccountingfor
multipledecisionoptionsinthefuture.
3. PaLATEinvestigationsarelimitedtothepavementsectionandstructuresonly.Thisincludesbaseandsubbase
materials,andalsorecycledmaterialoptions,butdoesnotincludeotherelementsoftheroadway
environment.
4. OperationalemissionsduetovehiculartrafficarealsonotconsideredineitherversionofPaLATE.Theseare,
however,addressedelsewhereinGreenroads,becauseadifferentsoftwaretoolisrecommendedforthis
modeling.SeeCreditAEͲ4TrafficEmissionsReduction.
5. WebelievethattheEIOͲLCAsectormodelusedinthemodifiedPaLATEv2.2forGreenroadsreportsGWPbased
onoutdatedvaluesassignedbytheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)in1996,insteadofthe
morecurrent2007values.Documentationregardingthisissueisunclear.Thismeansvaluesoutputfrom
PaLATEv2.2canonlybecomparedtoothervaluesoutputfromPaLATEv2.2.Directcomparisonstoother
softwaretools,withoutathoroughinvestigationorreviewoftheirunderlyingassumptionsoruncertainties,are
thereforenotvalid.
6. SectoremissionsandenergyreportedfortheEIOͲLCAdatausedinthemodifiedversionofPaLATEinclude
feedstockemissionsandenergyfromtheextractionprocessofpetroleumproductsandcementproducts
(representedasapercentageofthetotalcontributiontothecostforthestreamlinedprocessesmodeled).
7. Technically,afulllifecycleassessment(LCA)isamuchmoreinvolvedanddetailedprocessthanasimple
softwareͲbasedlifecycleinventory(LCI)modelcaninclude.LCAinvolvesadditionalconsiderationsoutsidethe
pavementsectionaloneandishighlydependentonquality,availabilityandrelevanceofdata.Additionally,an
impactassessmentstepisincludedinLCAwhichisnotnecessaryforLCI.Impactassessmentinvolvesassigning
50
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-3 Lifecycle Inventory
valuationsandweightstocertainoutputsfromtheLCI.Forthisreason,creditisawardedforafullLCAinCredit
MRͲ1LifecycleAssessment.
8. Economiclifecycleassessmentmodelsbasedoncapitalandlifetimemaintenancecostsdonottypicallyinclude
considerationsofenergyoremissions.However,lifecyclecostmodelsareequallyimportantandarecovered
underProjectRequirementPRͲ2LifecycleCostAnalysis.
9. Similarly,socialimpactscanbemeasuredusingcertaincommonmetricsandindicesthatareintendedto
representqualityoflife,health,orotherequityͲrelated,humanͲcentricissues(suchasbirthanddeathratesor
productivityrates).ThesearenotwellͲresearchedandfewsystematicapproacheshavebeenrefinedwell
enoughforincorporationintothelifecycledecisionͲmakingprocessrequirementsforGreenroadsprojects.The
utilityofapplyingtheseglobalmetricsandindicesonaprojectlevelarealsonotwellunderstoodor
documented.However,theenvironmentalreviewprocess(seePRͲ1EnvironmentalReviewProcess)addresses
socialimpactsonaprojectͲlevel.
10. Theexampleleavesouttransportationandmaintenanceonpurpose.Itshouldbeunderstoodthatitssimplicity
ismeanttodemonstrateaprocesstask;itisclearlynotmeanttobescaledbysimplemultiplicationbythetotal
mileageoftheproject.Eachprojectwill,andshouldbe,differentandnonewillmatchthisexample.Thisisalso
whyboththeinputandoutputvaluesarerequiredforreview.
RESEARCH
Lifecycleassessment(LCA)canbeausefuldecisionͲmakingtoolforbenchmarkingroadwayenvironmental
performance(Schenck,2000;Keoleian&Spitzley,2006;Cooper&Fava,2006)andasamethodofenvironmental
accountingforroadwaysystems.ThisparticularrequirementisthelastpartofaseriesofthreerelatedProject
Requirements,whichalsoincludePRͲ1EnvironmentalReviewProcessandPRͲ2LifecycleCostAnalysis.This
requirementfocusesondevelopingaprojectͲspecificenvironmentalaccountinginventory(alifecycleinventory:
LCI)toaidinthedecisionͲmakingprocessandalsoestablishesbaselineenvironmentalperformance(specifically
energyuseandcarbondioxideemissions)fortheroadwaypavementsection.Projectcostsandsocialimplications
areaddressedinpriorrequirementsPRͲ1andPRͲ2.Adiagramofthemainprocessesinagenericpavement
lifecycleisprovidedinFigurePRͲ3.1(nextpage).
AmoredetaileddiscussionofsomeofthefinerdetailsandtypesofLCAmethodologyisprovidedintheResearch
sectionofCreditMRͲ1LifecycleAssessment.ThissectionintroducesLCAandLCIandprovidesareviewofexisting
literatureforroads.
WhatisLifecycleAssessment?
Lifecycleassessment(LCA)isastandardized,comprehensivetoolthatcanbeusedforanalyzingandquantifying
theenvironmentalimpactsandsustainabilityofaproduct,system,and/orprocess.TheInternationalStandards
Organization(ISO:2006a)statesthatLCAisaprocessthat“addressestheenvironmentalaspectsandpotential
environmentalimpacts(e.g.useofresourcesandtheenvironmentalconsequencesofreleases)throughouta
product’slifecyclefromrawmaterialacquisition,throughproduction,use,endͲofͲlifetreatment,recyclingand
finaldisposal(i.e.cradleͲtoͲgrave).”Effectively,the“product”forthisGreenroadsrequirementistheentire
roadwayprojectsystem.
LCAisatoolthatcanprovideperspectiveonmanyelementsofasystem,effectivelylinkingtheproductionofa
materialtoitsuse(Keoleian&Spitzley,2006).Inengineeringapplications,LCAoffersaholistic,systemsͲbased
approachtoprojectdevelopmentandprojectmanagement.Itisoftenemployedasamethodofdeveloping
processalternatives.Alifecycleperspectivenecessitatesaunique,andoftenunconventional,management
strategytooptimizeperformanceofmaterials,supplyͲchains,andtominimizeoreliminatepollutingactivities.
51
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Inventory PR-3

FigurePRͲ3.1:Basiclifecycleactivitiesandsystemdiagramfortypicalpavements.(Weiland,2008)

Lifecycleassessmentshavefourstages(orphases)whichareofteniterative.TheseareshowngraphicallyinFigure
PRͲ3.2anddescribedbelow.

FigurePRͲ3.2:StagesofLifecycleAssessment(AdaptedfromISO,2006a;ISO,2006b)

x GoalandScope.SpecifyingthegoaloftheprojectLCAdocumentstheintendedapplication,referenced
literaturefortheproject,intendedaudience(heretheGreenroadsreviewteam),andproprietarystatusoffinal
results.Italsodefineswhatthingorprocesswillbestudiedandhowmuchwillbeproducedbythemodel.The
mostimportantpartofthisstepcomeswithdefiningthesystemboundariesandidentifyingtheprocessesand
emissionstobeincludedinthefinaloutcome.Additionally,thissectionidentifiessomekeylimitationsand
assumptionsofthemodel(specifically,whatwasscopedout,whatprocessesweresimplifiedandhowthey
wereestimated).SincetheLCAprocessisiterative,itiscrucialfortheprojectteamtodevelopawellͲdefined
goalandscopeinordertohaveameaningfulendproduct.
x LifecycleInventoryAnalysis(LCI).The2006ISO14044StandardSection4.3providesthebasicbackgroundand
proceduresrequiredforlifeͲcycleinventoryanalysesbasedonthefunctionalunitsandreferenceflowsdefined
intheGoalandScope.Afunctionalunitisdefinedasthe“quantifiedperformanceofaproductsystemforuse
asareferenceunit.”Areferenceflowisthe“measureoftheoutputsfromprocessesinagivenproductsystem
52
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-3 Lifecycle Inventory
requiredtofulfil[sic]thefunctionexpressedbythefunctionalunit.”Thealternativesundercomparisonforthe
inventoryanalysesarethendescribedwithreferencetotheirspecificunitprocessesandfunctionalunits.Each
alternativewilllikelybecomprisedofslightlydifferentprocesses.Thepurposeoftheinventoryanalysisisto
producebothqualitativeandquantitativeinformationandrefineddefinitionsoftheunitprocesseswithinthe
systemboundaries.Theinventoryanalysisprocedureconsistsofdatacollection,dataprocessingand
calculations,andallocationofenvironmentalflowsandreleases,suchasemissions,energyuse,water,fuels,
andothermaterialsorbyproductsthatwerespecifiedintheGoal&Scopefortheproject.
x LifecycleImpactAssessment(LCIA).The2006ISO14044StandardSection4.4providesthebasicbackground
andproceduresrequiredforlifecycleimpactassessments(LCIA)basedonthefunctionalunitsandreference
flowsdefinedintheGoalandScope.Impactassessmentusestheresultsoftheinventoryanalysistoidentify
impactsassociatedwiththeemissionsandmaterialflows.Impactsmustbeclassifiedandcharacterized
accordingtotheISO14044Standard(2006b).Usuallythisinvolvesassigningequivalencyfactorstothe
inventorydata(e.g.aconversionfactor)toproduceanaggregateindicatorvaluethatcanbecomparedto
anotherimpactindex,knownmetricorindustryaverage.LCIAistypicallyusedforcomparingtwoormore
productswiththesamefunctionalunit.
x Interpretation.ThelastphaseoftheLCAisinterpretationandpresentationoftheresults.“Thefirststepin
decisionanalysisistoidentifyallimportantobjectivesandattributes.Whilethisstepmayseemobvious,itis
necessarytoensurethatthevaluationfocusesontherightproblem.”(EPA,2000)TheFREDdocumentation
providesadditionalguidanceandsuggestionsfordecisionͲmakingbasedonLCIandLCIAresults,suchas:
x AdoptinganexistingdecisionͲmakingweightingscheme.
x UsingtheAnalyticalHierarchyProcess(AHP).
x UsingtheModifiedDelphiTechnique.
x UsingaMultiͲAttributeUtilityTheory.
However,forthisProjectRequirement,neithertheLCIAnortheinterpretationstepsarerequired.ThisProject
RequirementfocusesononecomponentoftheLCA,thelifecycleinventory(LCI)analysis.Thepurposeofthe
inventoryanalysisistocollectvariousdataoninputsandoutputsofthesystemrelevanttothegoalsofthestudy
andwithinthedefinedboundariesofthestudy(ISO,2006a)Thusbydefault,theLCIwillalsorequireawellͲrefined
andcleargoalstatementandscopeofassessment.Approachestorefiningthegoalandscopearenotdiscussed
here.PleaseseetheresearchsectionofCreditMRͲ1LifecycleAssessment.BothLCIandLCAcanbeusedinamore
informeddecisionͲmakingprocess(ISO,2006a;Schenck,2000).
LCIandLCAstudiesaresimilar,butcannotbecomparedunlessthecontextofassessmentisthesame.ISO(2006a)
states,“LCIstudiesarenottobeconfusedwiththeLCIphaseofanLCAstudy.”Similarly,LCAandLCIarenottobe
confusedwithconventionallifecyclecostanalysis(LCCA).LCCAsarefrequentlymistakenfortheprocessͲbasedand
streamlinedmethodsoflifecycleassessment.LCCAisactuallyanapproachusedinwhatistypicallytermed
“engineeringeconomics”(amisnomer,forthereisverylittleofeitherengineeringoreconomicsinvolved)which
allowsdeterminationofpast,presentandfuturevaluesofavarietyofinitialcapitalandlongͲterminputsand
outputsbasedoncostalone,compoundedovertime.Additionally,LCCAsrarelysystematicallyaccountforendͲofͲ
lifecosts,suchasdisposalfeesorrecyclingcosts,becausethesearedifficulttoestimate.Whileallmethodsare
basedonasimilartimelines(thewholelifecycle),theyeachhavefundamentallydifferentoutputsandresulting
implicationsforthedesignprocess,andthereforedifferentutilityindecisionͲmaking.PRͲ2discussesLCCAindetail.
LCAandSustainabilityBenefits
Keoleian&Spitzley(2006)suggestthat“Lifecyclebasedsustainabilitymodelsandmetricsplayakeyrolein
guidingthetransformationoftechnology,consumptionpatterns,andcorporateandgovernmentalpoliciesfor
achievingamoresustainablesociety.”AnLCAapproachcanbeusedinmanyapplications.Someofthemost
oftencitedarenotedbelow:
x Lifecyclemodelspromoteanawarenessofproductioneffectsandconnectthemtouseorconsumptionofa
systemorprocess.
53
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Inventory PR-3
x Settinglifecycleboundariesatasystemlevelallowsforcomprehensiveenvironmental,socialandeconomic
accountingmetricstobeusedinameaningfulwaytomeasureandmonitorperformance.
x LifecyclemetricsinformdecisionͲmakersandcanbeusedbystakeholderstomanageandassessthesystem
orproduct(Keoleian&Spitzey,2006).
x LCAcanhelpidentify“opportunitiestoimproveenvironmentalperformanceofproductsatvariouspoints
intheirlifecycle.”(ISO,2006a)
x LCAcanhelpinformtheindustrydecisionͲmakers,governmentagenciesandpolicyͲmakersforstrategic
planning,performancebenchmarking,orproductdevelopmentandredesign.(ISO,2006a)
x LCAcanhelpevaluatetherelevanceofvariousindicatorsforenvironmentalperformance(ISO,2006a).
x LCAprovidesamarketingopportunitysuchasecoͲlabelinganddeclarationsofenvironmentalperformance
(ISO,2006a).
AsurveycompletedbyCooperandFavain2006showsthatLCAiswidelyusedforanumberofapplications.
TablePRͲ3.3summarizestheresults,bypercentageofrespondents.
TablePRͲ3.3:PrevalenceLCAUsebyPractioners(AdaptedfromCooper&Fava,2006)
UseofLCA Response
Businessstrategyandplanning 63%
Productandsystemresearchanddevelopment 62%
Inputsfordesign(productsorprocesses) 52%
Education 46%
Policydevelopment 43%
Marketingschemes(labeling,environmentaldeclarations) 37%
Sales 26%
Procurement 20%
Other(includingbiddingortenderpackages) 8%
TypesofLCAs
Ingeneral,therearethreeorfourtypesofLCAmodelsdependingonthesourceofinformation.Onetypeisthe
EconomicInputͲOutputmodel(EIO)forLifeCycleAssessment(EIOͲLCA).Forexample,thisProjectRequirement
isbasedonanEIOͲLCAmodel(http://www.eiolca.net).SecondisaprocessͲbasedLCA,whichfollowsa
standardmethodologysetforthbytheInternationalStandardsOrganization(ISO)14040and14044for
LifecycleAssessment.Thismethod,alsocalledISOͲLCA(Cooper&Fava,2006),oftenproducesmoredetailed
resultsthantheEIOͲLCAmodel(Hendrickson,Lave&Matthews,2006).ProcessͲbasedLCAsinvolveprojectͲ
specificprocessdataandgenerallyuseacomputationaltoolormatrixanalysistoformamodelandcomplete
theassessmentofdata,suchthemethodoutlinedbyHeijungsandSuh(2002).Therealsoisathirdmethodof
lifecycleassessment,whichisrecentlybecomingmoreprevalentcalledHybridLCA,whereanEIOmodelis
supplementedbyorintegratedwithprocessͲbaseddatatoproduceamorecomprehensiverepresentationof
theenvironmentaleffectsofthesystemprocesses.ThesearediscussedinfurtherdetailinCreditMRͲ1
LifecycleAssessment.
ModifyinganyofthesethreeLCAmethodologiesmayresultinwhatiscalleda“streamlinedLCA;”whilenota
specificclassortypeofLCA,astreamlinedLCAstrategicallyomitsorsimplifiestheLCAmethodtomakeitless
computationallyintensive,suchasthroughthecreationofasoftwaretool(Weitz,Todd,Curran&Malkin,
1996)thatdeliberatelyleavesoutcollectionofsometypesofdataoraparticularimpactassessment.The
PaLATEv2.0forGreenroadsisanexampleofastreamlinedEIOͲLCAtool.Thereareanumberofdifferent
streamlinedtoolsavailableforroadswhichvaryinLCAmethodology(i.e.streamlinedISOͲLCAtools).In
additiontothePaLATEtoolsoriginallydevelopedbyHorvathetal.(2003):
x Huangetal.(2008,2009)hasdevelopedaMicrosoftExceltoolforstreamliningpavementLCAsandsystem
modeling(basedintheUnitedKingdom)
54
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-3 Lifecycle Inventory
x Birgisdóƫr(2005),ChristensenandBirgisdóƫr(2006),Birgisdóƫretal.(2007)describethedevelopmentof
theDanishROADͲRESsoftwaretoolforthatincorporatesmunicipalsolidwasteincineratorresiduesin
pavementLCAs.
x Apuletal.(n.d.;Apul,2007)attheUniversityofToledodevelopedawebͲbasedtoolforLCAcalled
BenReModͲLCA(BeneficialReuseModules).Anextensionofthistool,asamultiͲcriteriadecisionͲmaking
tool,BenReModͲMCDA,iscurrentlyunderdevelopmentbythesameauthors.Bothtoolsareavailableat:
http://benremod.eng.utoledo.edu/BenReMod/
x CHANGER(theCalculatorforHarmonisedAssessmentandNormalisationofGreenhouseͲgasEmissionsfor
Roads),apaidsoftwaretool,recentlybecameavailableformodelinggreenhousegasemissionsfrom
pavementsforfromtheInternationalRoadFederation(IRF,2010).CHANGERincludesdatasourcesfor188
countriesandglobalandregionalincomegroups(IRF,2010).
EachofthesestreamlinedtoolshasdrawbacksduetovariousbuiltͲinassumptionsandlimitations.Most
commonlythesetoolssufferfromdoubleͲcountingerrors,poororverypoordataquality,lackoftransparency,
dataomissionsandgeneraluserͲunfriendliness.Thismeanstheymaynotproducereliableormeaningful
resultsthataccuratelyorpreciselyreflectroadwaylifecycleimpacts.
ItisunlikelyaprocessͲbasedLCIwillproduceresultsthatmatchofastreamlinedLCImodeloranEIOͲLCA
model.ThisisduetoissueswithdataqualityandthescopeoftheEIOmodelsandtheirgenerallackofprocessͲ
specificitytoparticularprocesseswithinasystem.Thus,itisalsounlikelythattheinventorydataproducedfor
PRͲ3willmatchtheresultsoftheProcessͲBasedLCAorHybridLCArequiredfortheCreditMRͲ1.
ExistingRoadwayLCAs
TheweightofanyVoluntaryCreditinGreenroadsv1.5thatinvolvesmaterials,construction,transportationfrom
constructionandtrafficuse,wasdeterminedbyathoroughreviewofexistinglifecycleassessmentliteraturefor
roads.WeusedtheliteraturereviewprocessinattempttoidentifypatternsfortypicalLCAresultsforLCAsthat
usedatransparent,systematicapproachtoevaluatethepavementsectionandreportedthetotalenergyuseor
totalCO
2
(orCO
2
e).Eachdocumentreviewed(thereare,todate13paperswith45differentrealorhypothetical
roadtypes).(AthenaInstitute,2006;Carpenteretal.,2007;Chuietal.,2008;Horvath,2003;Huangetal.,2009a;
Huangetal.,2009b;Mrouehetal.,2001;Rajendran&Gambatese,2007;Schenck,2000;Stripple,2000;Stripple,
2001;Weiland,2008;Zapata&Gambatese,2005)Formoreinformationonhowtheweightingdecisionswere
made,pleaserefertotheintroductionofthismanualortoMuench&Anderson(submittedforpublication).We
usedasystematic,lifecycleͲbasedapproachtodeterminetheiroverallcreditweightonafivepointscale,with
someconcessions,whichareexplainedinMuench&Anderson.
TypesofInvestigations
FivepapersaddressedPCCpavements(10assessments),whileall13addressHMApavements(36
assessments).NotethatSchenck(2000)addressedresurfacingmaintenanceonly,andherresultsarenot
includedinthefollowingfiguresortables.FigurePRͲ3.3(nextpage)showsthedescribedpavementstructure
foreachstudiedassessment(12papers,43total).Eachauthoruseddifferentdatasourcesanddefinedtheir
systemboundariesdifferently.However,abasicstatisticalanalysisshowsthattherearesomenoticeable
generaltrendsonaperlaneͲkilometerbasisofthe43LCAstudies.Thesetrendsincludesimilaritiesinthescope
ofthestudy(pavementsectiononly),resultsonenergyuseandCO
2
production,andacontributionanalysisof
theenergyandCO
2
attributableaccordingtoeachlifecyclephaseoftheroadway.Weusedmedianvaluesto
limitinfluenceofextremeoutliersinthedata.
Thescopeandboundariesofmostpapers(10assessments)examineonlythepavementstructureandexclude
otherelementsoftheroadway.Stripple(2001),however,completedtheonlyfulllifecycleinventorythat
includedotherroadwayactivitiesandmaterialneeds,likelandͲclearing,electricutilities,andsigns.Thispaper
isdiscussedinfurtherdetailinCreditMRͲ1.Thephasestypicallyconsideredinthescopeoftheassessments
areinitialconstructionandpavementͲrelatedmaintenanceactivitiesoverageneralrangeofassumeddesign
livesbetween40to50years.Twopapersalsoincludedvehicleemissionsfromtrafficduringtheoperationand
useofthecompletedroadway(Stripple,2001;Kennedy,2006).
55
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Inventory PR-3

FigurePRͲ3.3:LCAassessmentsandtheirstudiedpavementstructures.(Muench&Anderson,Submitted)

56
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-3 Lifecycle Inventory
EnergyUse
Totalenergyusewasreportedby35assessments,andthedistributionin
rangesofterajoules(TJ)isshowninFigurePRͲ3.4.Themedianresultis
approximately3.17TJperlaneͲkm.ThestudybyHorvath(2003)
representedtheextremeoutlier,reportinganenergyuseof17.25TJper
laneͲkm(10.72TJperlaneͲmile).ThisistheonlystudythatusestheEIOͲ
LCAmodelandtheoriginalversionofthePaLATEsoftware,whichis
recommendedinmodifiedformforcompletingthisGreenroadsProject
Requirement.AreviewoftheoriginalPaLATEsoftwareindicatedthat
thereareseveralerrorsinkeycostandemissionsvalues,whichinour
opinionrendersthisnumber(butnotthemethod)suspect.Areasonable
approximationofthetotalenergyexpenditureattributabletoonetypical
laneͲkmofpavementis2Ͳ4TJ,whichvariesslightlydependinguponthe
pavementstructureandmaterial.In2005,theaverageannualAmerican
residentialhouseholdenergyusewas0.1TJ(94.9millionBTU:Energy
InformationAdministration,2009).ThismeansonelaneͲkmofroadwayusesthesameenergyas20Ͳ40
householdsdoinoneyear.ToputthisinmorefamiliarU.S.measuresofroads:themedianenergyuseofone
mileofroadrepresentstheaverageenergyuseof51homesinoneyear,withtherangeofenergyconsumption
representingthatusedbybetween32Ͳ64homesayear.

FigurePRͲ3.4.Distributionofenergyuseinpavementsfor34assessmentsin9pavementLCApapers.
Eachsymbolrepresentsoneassessment.(Muench,Anderson,Submitted)

CarbonDioxide(CO
2
)Emissions
SixpapersreportedtotalCO
2
emissionsfromatotalof19assessmentsandonepaperreportedglobalwarming
potential(expressedinCO
2
e)ratherthanCO
2
onlyemissionsonanother12assessments(31total).Itisunclear
ifthefirstsixpaperswerereportingCO
2
eoronlyCO
2
;however,thiswouldnotsignificantlyinfluencethe
statisticalresultseitherway.Theresultsshowamedianvalueof243metrictons(MT)perlaneͲkm,thoughthe
distributionhadhighervariabilitythantheresultsforenergyuse.ThehistogramisshowninFigurePRͲ3.5.The
highestvalueswerecitedinthepapersbyStripple(2000and2001)whichincludedaspectsofroad

DID YOU KNOW?
Themedianenergyusebyone
lane,onemilelong,ofroad
pavementrepresentsthesame
energyusethatabout51
averageU.S.householdsusein
onewholeyear.

Howmanyhouseholdsdoesit
takeyoutodrivetowork?

57
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Inventory PR-3
constructionoutsidetheprimaryroadstructuralmaterialsandconstructionactivities.Therefore,areasonable
approximaterangeofthetotalCO
2
emissionsthatisattributabletoonetypicallaneͲkmofpavementis100Ͳ
500MT,whichvariesslightlydependinguponthepavementstructureandmaterial,andalsothescopeofthe
LCA.OnemetrictonneofCO
2
,atstandardtemperatureandpressure,hasavolumeofabout729cubicmeters
(FigurePRͲ3.6).

FigurePRͲ3.5.DistributionofCO
2
emissionsinpavementfor32assessmentsin7pavementLCApapers.Each
symbolrepresentsoneassessment.(Muench,Anderson,Submitted)

FigurePRͲ3.6:Onemetricton(MT)ofCO
2
asmodeledbyaMassachusettshighschoolphysicsclass.Thecube
is27feetperside.(http://www.energyrace.com/images/uploads/commentary/co2cube4.jpg)
58
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-3 Lifecycle Inventory
ContributionAnalysisofLifecycleStages
Severalpapers,asshowninTablePRͲ3.4andTablePRͲ3.5,analyzedenergyuseandCO
2
emissionsaccordingto
fourmajorlifecyclestagesoractivities:materialsproduction,pavementconstruction(initialandmaintenance),
andtransportationassociatedwithconstruction.Therelativecontributionsofeachstageoractivityare
reasonablyconsistentacrossthesmallnumberofstudies.Ingeneral,materialsproductionaccountsforabout
75%ofenergyuseand60Ͳ70%ofCO
2
emissions;constructionaccountsforlessthan5%ofbothenergyuseand
CO
2
emissions;andtransportofmaterialsforproductionandduringconstructionaccountsforabout20%of
energyuseandabout10%ofCO
2
emissions.Maintenanceactivitiesseemtoaccountforabout25%ofenergy
useandabout10Ͳ20%ofCO
2
emissionswhencomparedtoinitialconstruction.
TablePRͲ3.4:RelativeEnergyContributionsofRoadConstructionLifecycleStages
(AdaptedfromMuench&Anderson,Submitted)
LifecycleStage No.Papers No. LCAs Average(%) Median (%) St.Dev(%) Range(%)
MaterialsProduction 5 14 74 73 13 60Ͳ98
Construction 5 14 3 2 2 2Ͳ10
Transportation 4 12 21 21 11 7Ͳ38
InitialConstruction 4 8 74 73 21 45Ͳ97
Maintenance 4 8 26 27 21 3Ͳ55

TablePRͲ3.5:RelativeCO
2
EmissionContributionsofRoadConstructionLifecycleStages(ibid.)
LifecycleStage No.Papers No.LCAs Average(%) Median(%) St.Dev(%) Range(%)
MaterialsProduction 1 3 69 61 15 60Ͳ87
Construction 1 3 4 4 2 1Ͳ6
Transportation 1 3 8 9 3 4Ͳ10
InitialConstruction 3 16 78 86 20 45Ͳ100
Maintenance 3 16 22 14 20 0Ͳ55

Basedontheseresults,therearesomegeneralrulesofthumbwhichareshowninTablePRͲ3.6.
TablePRͲ3.6:Generalrulesofthumbforpavementenergyandemissions(ibid.)
Comparison EnergyUse CO
2
Emissions
MaterialsProductiontoConstructionProcesses 25to1 16to1
TransportationtoConstruction 8 to1 3to1
MaintenanceActivitiestoInitialConstruction 1to3 1to4

ANoteonDisposal,Use,andOperationsLifecycleStages
Notincludedinthefiguresortablesabovearethreeverycriticallifecyclestagesoractivities:use(vehiculartraffic),
operations(suchaslightingandsignals),andthewastedisposalprocessfromdemolishedpavements.Rajendran
andGambatese(2007)attemptedtoquantifywasteproductionprocessesthroughouttheroadwaylifecycle,
especiallyinconstruction.However,thisistheonlystudythathasdoneso.AsnotedinPRͲ6ConstructionWaste
ManagementPlanandbyRajendranandGambetese(2007),thereisverylittleinformationavailableaboutthe
generationordisposalofroadwaywasteproducts.Also,severalauthorsinvestigatedeitherabyͲweightorbyͲ
volumeapproachtoreplacingpavementmaterialsinͲkindwithdifferentrecycledmaterials(suchascoalflyash
insteadofcement)inordertoreducethelifecycleenergyuseorCO
2
emissions.Theseassessments,ingeneral,are
complicatedtomodelbecauserecycledmaterialsgenerallycamefromanothersystemthatisoutsidethescopeor
theboundariesoftheassessment.Introducingrecycledmaterialsintoanewroadwayprojectsystemoreven
reusingwastematerialsgeneratedfromtheprojectitselfrepresentsafeedbackloop,becausethematerialsare
reintroducedsomewhereintoapreviouslifecyclestagealongthesystemsupplychain.Itisthereforeoftendifficult
todisaggregatetheenvironmentalaccountabilityandassignittoaresponsiblepartywhenusingrecycledmaterial.
Thereareavarietyofmethodsused,andagain,eachhasitsownassumptions,limitations,uncertainties,
advantagesanddisadvantages.
59
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Inventory PR-3
Further,onlyonestudy(Stripple,2001)investigatedoperations.Ingeneral,electricalequipmentsuchasthatused
forsignalsandlightingcontributedthemosttoenergyuseandCO2emissionsofalltheoperationalcomponents
studied,(1)forruralenvironments,operationscontributedalmostnegligiblyforbothenergyandCO2,and(2)the
energymixusedwasbasedonSwedishpowersources,whicharemostlyhydropowerandnuclearenergy.
TrafficuseisrarelyconsideredinpavementͲbasedlifecycleassessments.However,twostudies(Stripple,2001and
Kennedy,2006)modeltheimpactsduetotrafficuse.IftrafficisconsideredinthescopeoftheLCA,thenvehicular
emissionsdominatethetotalenergyconsumptionandcarbondioxideemissions.However,thisiswidelyvariable
anddependsanumberoffactorsincluding(butnotlimitedto)vehiclemix,modalaccess,fuelefficiencyandtype
offuel.Generally,theenergyexpendedinconstructionisaboutthesameasthatexpendedbyroadwayusersin
thefirsttwoyearsofservice.Typicalpavementmaintenanceactivities(overlays)generallyuselowervolumesof
materialsandthiswouldrepresentashortertimelinethanonetotwoyears.
CaveatsofLCIs
Clearly,existingroadwayLCIsandLCAsvaryinmethod.Sometimesthisvarietylendstoreportingcontradictoryor
mixedresults,whichcanbeconfusing,especiallyinadecisionͲmakingcontext.TheeffectivenessofLCIorLCA
studiesarehighlydependentonthegoalandscopedefinition,datasourcesandquality,modellimitationsand
uncertainties.Additionally,manypubliclyavailabledatabasesorcompletedLCIsoftenuseorcontainaverage
informationthatcannotbeeasilyappliedinprojectͲspecificcontexts.Theconverseisalsotrue;projectͲspecific
LCIsshouldnotnecessarilybecomebaselinemodelsforotherprojectswithoutthoroughreviewofthevariables
thatwereconsidered.Thusresultsoftheinventoryarebestusedasatoolorabenchmarkingmethod,butnotasa
baselinevalue.Anotherpointthatmustbemadeexpresslyclear:completingalifecycleinventoryoralifecycle
assessmentofyourprojectdoesnot,byvirtueoftheprocessormethodalone,makeaprojectmoreorless
sustainablethananotherproject.
AdditionalResources
x TheCarnegieMellonGreenDesignInstitutedatabaseispubliclyavailableandfreetousenonͲcommercially.It
alsoprovidesaverythoroughexplanationofthefinerpointsoftheEIOͲLCAmethodologyaswellasdiscussion
andexamplesofthemethodology.EIOͲLCAisavailableathttp://www.eiolca.net.
x TheSocietyofEnvironmentalToxicologyandChemistry(SETAC)providesathoroughandconcisedescriptionof
theISOͲLCAmethodologyaswellaslinkstootherprofessionalLCAresourcesandorganizations.More
informationisavailableathttp://www.setac.org/.
GLOSSARY
BenReMod BeneficialReuseModule
CHANGER CalculatorforHarmonisedAssessmentandNormalisationofGreenhouseͲgas
EmissionsforRoads
CO2 Carbondioxide
CO2e Carbondioxideequivalentemission
EIO EconomicInputͲOutput
EIOͲLCA EconomicInputͲOutputforLifeCycleAssessment
EOL EndͲofͲlife
Feedbackloop Aprocesswithinasystemwhereoutputsofaprocessarereintroducedas
inputsintoapreviouslifecyclestagesomewherealongthesamesystem
supplychain
Functionalunit Thequantifiedperformanceofaproductsystemforuseasareferenceunit
(ISO,2006a)
ISO InternationalStandardsOrganization
ISOͲLCA ProcessͲbasedLCA
LCA Lifecycleassessment
LCCA Lifecyclecostanalysis
60
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-3 Lifecycle Inventory
LCI Lifecycleinventoryanalysis
LCIA Lifecycleimpactassessment
Lifecycle consecutiveandinterlinkedstagesofaproduct[orproject]system,fromraw
materialacquisitionorgenerationfromnaturalresourcestofinaldisposalor
[endͲoflife:EOL](ISO,2006a)
Lifecycleassessment Compilationandevaluationoftheinputs,outputsandthepotential
environmentalimpactsofaproductsystemthroughoutitslifecycle(ISO,
2006a)
Maintenance Routineconstructionactivitieswhicharepreservativeinnature,suchas
patchingandrepair.Typicallymaintenanceinvolvesadditionalproductionof
materialaswellasadditionaltransportandconstructionactivities.Seealso
operations.
MCDA MultiͲCriteriaDecisionAnalysis
Operations Equipment,componentsoractivitiesthatareneededonaroutinebasisto
ensurepropersafetyduringuseofaroad,e.g.luminaires,signals,deͲicing,
striping,sanding,drawbridgemechanicalequipment,tollbooths,etc.
(Muench&Anderson,submitted)Seealsomaintenance.
PaLATE PavementLifecycleAssessmentToolforEnvironmentalandEconomicEffects
Referenceflow Themeasureoftheoutputsfromprocessesinagivenproductsystem
requiredtofulfil[sic]thefunctionexpressedbythefunctionalunit(ISO,
2006a)
SETAC SocietyofEnviornmentalToxicologyandChemistry
Systemboundary Setofcriteriadefiningwhichunitprocessesarepartofasystem(ISO,2006a)
Unitprocess Smallestunitconsideredinthelifecycleinventoryanalysisforwhichinput
andoutputdataarequantified(ISO,2006a)

REFERENCES
Apul,D.S.etal.(n.d.).MCDAͲBenReMod.AccessedJanuary6,2010.Availableat
http://benremod.eng.utoledo.edu/BenReMod/
Apul,D.S.(2007)DevelopmentofaBeneficialReuseToolforManagingIndustrialByproducts:BenReModͲLCAand
BenReModͲMCDAWebBasedTools,FinalreportsubmittedtoUSEPA'sOfficeofSolidWasteandEmergency
Response(OSWER).
AthenaInstitute.(2006)ALifeͲCyclePerspectiveonConcreteandAsphaltRoadways:EmbodiedPrimaryEnergyand
GlobalWarmingPotential.ReporttotheCementAssociationofCanada.Availableat
http://www.cement.ca/index.php/en/Newsroom/A_Life_Cycle_Perspective_on_Concrete_and_Asphalt_Road
ways.html
Birgisdóƫr,H.(2005).Lifecycleassessmentmodelforroadconstructionanduseofresiduesfromwaste
incineration.Dissertation.TechnicalUniversityofDenmark.InstituteofEnvironment&Resources.Kongens
Lyngby,Denmark.
Birgisdóƫr,H.,Bhander,G.,Hauschild,M.Z.,&Christensen,T.H.(2007).Lifecycleassessmentofdisposalof
residuesfrommunicipalsolidwasteincineration:recyclingofbottomashinroadconstructionorlandfillingin
DenmarkevaluatedintheROADͲRESmodel.WasteManagement.27(8),75Ͳ84.
CarnegieMellonGreenDesignInstitute.(2008).EconomicInputͲOutputLifeCycleAssessmentͲCarnegieMellon
University(EIOͲLCA).US2002IndustryBenchmarkmodel[Internet].AccessedJanuary2,2010.Availableat
http://www.eiolca.net/.
61
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Inventory PR-3
Carpenter,A.C.,Gardner,K.H.,Fopiano,J.,Benson,C.H.,&Edil,T.B.(2007).LifeCyclebasedriskassessmentof
recycledmaterialsinroadwayconstruction.WasteManagement27,1458Ͳ1464.
Christensen,T.H.&Birgisdottir,H.(2006).Lifecycleassessmentofresidueuseinroadconstruction(ROADͲRES).In
Ilic,M.(2006).Environmentalandtechnicalimplicationsofconstructionwithalternativematerials.
[Proceedings].6
th
AnnualWASCONConference:Scienceandengineeringofrecyclingforenvironmental
protection.May,2006.Belgrade.
Cooper,J.S.&Fava,J.A.(2006).LifeͲCycleAssessmentPractitionerSurvey:SummaryofResults.Journalof
IndustrialEcology.10(4),12Ͳ14.
Chui,CͲT.,Hsu,TͲH.,&Yang,WͲF.(2008).Lifecycleassessmentonusingrecycledmaterialsforrehabilitating
asphaltpavements.Resources,ConservationandRecycling52,545Ͳ556.
EnergyInformationAdministration.(2009,January).2005ResidentialEnergyConsumptionSurveyͲͲDetailed
Tables.SummaryStatistics(revisedJanuary2009).TotalEnergyConsumption,Expenditures,andIntensities.
HousingUnitCharacteristicsandEnergyUsageIndicators(US1:Part1).AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableat
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/c&e/detailed_tables2005c&e.html
Heijungs,R.&Suh,S.(2002).Thecomputationalstructureoflifecycleassessment.Dordrecht;Boston:Kluwer
AcademicPublishers.
Hendrickson,C.T.,Lave,L.B.,&Matthews,H.S.(2006).EnvironmentalLifeCycleAssessmentofGoodsand
Services:AnInputͲOutputApproach.ResourcesfortheFuturePress.
Horvath,A.&UniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley.(2007,5June)PaLATE:PavementLifeͲCycleTool.RetrievedMay
20,2008fromhttp://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~horvath/palate.html.
Horvath,A.(2003).LifeͲcycleenvironmentalandeconomicassessmentofusingrecycledmaterialsforasphalt
pavements.Berkeley,Calif:UniversityofCaliforniaTransportationCenter.http://www.uctc.net/papers/683.pdf
Huang,Y.,Bird,R.,&Bell,M.(2009a).Acomparativestudyoftheemissionsbyroadmaintenanceworksandthe
disruptedtrafficusinglifecycleassessmentandmicroͲsimulation.TransportationResearch.PartD,Transport
andEnvironment.14(3),197.
Huang,Y.,Bird,R.,&Heidrich,O.(2009b).Developmentofalifecycleassessmenttoolforconstructionand
maintenanceofasphaltpavements.JournalofCleanerProduction.17(2),283Ͳ296.
InternationalOrganizationforStandardization.(2006a).ISO14040:2006(E)EnvironmentalManagement—Life
CycleAssessment—PrinciplesandFramework.2nded.2006:IHS.
InternationalOrganizationforStandardization.(2006b).ISO14044:2006(E)EnvironmentalManagement—Life
CycleAssessment—RequirementsandGuidelines.1sted.2006:IHS.
InternationalRoadFederation.(2010).FeaturesofCHANGERGreenHouseGasCalculator–InternationalRoad
Federation.AccessedDecember15,2009.Availableathttp://www.irfghg.org/features.php
Kennedy,E.(2006).IntegrationoftheMeasurementofEnergyUsageintoRoadDesign,FinalReport.Commission
oftheEuropeanCommunitiesDirectorateͲGeneralforEnergyandTransport.(ContractNo.:4.1031/Z/02Ͳ
091/2002).
Keoleian,G.A.&Spitzley,D.V.(2006).LifeCycleBasedSustainabilityMetrics.InAbraham,M.A.(2006).
SustainabilityScienceandEngineering:DefiningPrinciples.pp.127Ͳ159.
62
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-3 Lifecycle Inventory
Mroueh,U.ͲM.,Eskola,P.,&LaineͲYlijoki,J.(2001).LifeͲcycleimpactsoftheuseofindustrialbyͲproductsinroad
andearthconstruction.WasteManagement.21(3),271.
Muench,S.T.&Anderson,J.L.(n.d).Weightingasustainabilityperformancemetricforroadways:Greenroads.
JournalofGreenBuilding.Submittedforpublication.
Rajendran,S.&Gambatese,J.A.(2007).SolidWasteGenerationinAsphaltandReinforcedConcreteRoadwayLife
Cycles.JournalofInfrastructureSystems.13(2),88.
Schenck,R.(2000).UsingLCAforProcurementDecisions:ACaseStudyPerformedfortheU.S.Environmental
ProtectionAgency.EnvironmentalProgress.19,110Ͳ116.
Solomon,S.etal.(2007)SynthesisReport.ClimateChange2007:SynthesisReport.FourthAssessmentReportof
theIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Stripple,H.(2000).LifeCycleInventoryofAsphaltPavements.IVLSwedishEnvironmentalResearchInstituteLtd.
ReportfortheEuropeanAsphaltPavementAssociation(EAPA)andEurobitume.
Stripple,H.,(2001).LifeCycleAssessmentofRoad:APilotStudyforInventoryAnalysis,SecondRevisedEdition.IVL
SwedishEnvironmentalResearchInstituteLtd.ReportfortheSwedishNationalRoadAdministration.
Weiland,C.D.(2008).LifecycleassessmentofPortlandcementconcreteinterstatehighwayrehabilitationand
replacement.Thesis(M.S.C.E.)ͲͲUniversityofWashington,2008.
Weitz,K.,Todd,J.A.,Curran,M.A.,&Malkin,M.(1996).StreamliningLifeCycleAssessmentͲConsiderationsanda
reportontheStateofthePractice.InternationalJournalofLifeCycleAssessment.1(2):79Ͳ85.
Zapata,P.&Gambatese,J.A.(2005).EnergyConsumptionofAsphaltandReinforcedConcretePavementMaterials
andConstruction.JournalofInfrastructureSystems.11(1),9Ͳ20.

63
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Inventory PR-3

64
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-4 Quality Control Plan
QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
GOAL
Haveaprocessinplacetomonitorandimproveconstructionquality.
REQUIREMENTS
Theprimecontractorshallestablish,implement,andmaintainaformalconstruction
QualityControlPlan(QCP).TheQCPmustaddressthefollowingqualitycontrol
elements:
1. Keyqualitycontrolpersonnel,theirresponsibilitiesandtheirqualifications
(résumés,certifications,etc.).
2. Proceduresusedtocontrolqualityduringconstructionincluding(asaminimum):
a. Itemstobemonitored(includingpavementmixdesigns)
b. Testingtobedone(includingtestingstandardsandfrequency)
c. Whencorrectiveactionisrequired(actionlimits)
d. Procedurestoimplementcorrectiveaction
e. ProcedurestomodifyQCPifineffectiveorwhenmodificationsarenecessary
Details
Somestateandlocalowneragenciesalreadyhaverequirementsforsuchplans
writtenintotheirstandardspecifications.Suchexistingrequirementsshouldbe
abletomeettherequirementsabove,howeversomeonlyaddressconstruction
qualityforhotmixasphalt(HMA)orPortlandcementconcrete(PCC)pavingand
notconstructionoftheoverallproject.Testingfrequencyandtestprocedures
shouldnotbebasedonminimumownerrequirementsforacceptance.
Somestatehighwayagenciesusecontractortestingintheiracceptanceprocess.In
thesecasestheindependentassurancetestsmustbeperformedonsamplesthat
aretakenindependentlyofqualitycontrolsamples.Qualitycontrolplansare
requiredinthesecases,asdefinedinCFR637,Title23.
TheQualityControlPlanshouldcoverallprojectconstruction;notjustthe
pavement.Subcontractorsneedtobeincludedinthisplan,whichtypicallymeans
identifyingaresponsiblepartyandobtainingaqualitycontrolprocedurefromthe
subcontractor.
Alargedocumentthatrepeatslanguagefromthecontractspecificationsshouldnot
begeneratedforthisProjectRequirement.Rather,thedocumentshouldclearly
identifythemajoraspectsoftheprimecontractor’splantocontrolproject
constructionqualityandwhoisresponsibleforimplementingthoseaspects.A
reasonableQualityControlPlanforatypicalroadwayproject(i.e.,lessthan$10
millioncontractprice)canbewritteninabout6to12pages(FLHD,1998).AQuality
ControlPlanshouldbeapprovedbytheownerbeforeconstructionbegins.
DOCUMENTATION
x CopyofthecontractorQualityControlPlan.
PR-4
REQUIRED
RELATED CREDITS
9 CAͲ1Quality
ManagementSystem
9 CAͲ8Contractor
Warranty
9 PTͲ1LongͲLife
Pavement
9 PTͲ6Pavement
Performance
Tracking
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Economy
9 Extent
9 Expectations
BENEFITS
9 IncreasesServiceLife
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
9 ReducesLifecycle
Costs
9 Improves
Accountability

65
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Quality Control Plan PR-4
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x WriteaQualityControlPlan.Oftenthiscanbeaccomplishedbyhavingaprimecontractorwithanestablished
qualitycontrolmanualandthenwritingaplanthatreferstothatmanualforproceduresandidentifieskey
personnel,materialsandprocessesassociatedwiththeparticularprojectinquestion.
Example: Agencies with Quality Control Plans
ManyownersalreadyrequireQCPsintheirstandardspecifications.Followingareexamplesofboth
comprehensiveQCPsthatcoverallofconstructionandsomethatjustrefertopavingoperations.
QCPsCoveringAllofConstruction
TheseplansdomeettherequirementsforPRͲ4.
x FederalLandsHighwayDivision.ThisdocumentdiscussesaQCPthatcoversallconstructionaspectsand
providesafictitiousexample:http://www.wfl.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/construction/fieldͲ
notes/documents/dͲ02Ͳ15.pdf.
x FloridaDepartmentofTransportation(FDOT).FDOT’sConstructionProjectAdministrationManual(2007)
describesFDOTrequirementsandhowtouseacontractor’squalitycontrolmanualtosupplementaQCPin
Section3.3.Section6Ͳ8oftheFDOT2007StandardSpecificationsforRoadandBridgeConstructionrequires
acontractorqualitycontrolprogram:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/manuals/cpam/CPAMManual.shtm
x SaskatchewanHighwaysandTransportation:TheStandardTestProcedureManual(1994)StandardTest
400(lastupdatedin1994)describeswhataqualitycontrolplandoesanditsminimumelements:
http://www.highways.gov.sk.ca/standardͲtest
QCPsCoveringPavingOperationsOnly
TheseplansdonotmeettherequirementsforPRͲ4.
x AlabamaDOT(ALDOT)ALDOTͲ375Ͳ91:http://www.dot.state.al.us/NR/rdonlyres/A1E8B299ͲF518Ͳ41BFͲ
B0A9Ͳ2326C1177C91/0/ALDOT375ApprovedFHWAOctober202008_.pdf
x IllinoisDOTHMAQCPtemplate:
http://www.dot.state.il.us/aero/PDF/HMA%20QC%20plan%20template.pdf
x NorthCarolinaDOTSection609oftheStandardSpecifications:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/ps/specifications/english/s609.html
x UnifiedFacilitiesGuideSpecifications,Section3.10:
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFGS/UFGS%2032%2012%2016.pdf
ManyotherorganizationsalsohaveguidesandspecificationsforcontractorQualityControlPlans.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. ItisnotpossibletodeterminefromthecontentoftheQCPwhetherqualityconstructionwillresult.Therefore,
thiscreditdoesnotguaranteequalityconstructioninanyway.
2. AcontractorQualityControlPlanthatonlyaddressespavingoperationsisnotsufficienttomeettheintentof
thiscredit.Forsomeowners,standardspecificationlanguagemayonlyrequireaQualityControlPlanforthe
pavingoperation.WhilepavingneedstobecoveredintheQualityControlPlan,allothermajorcomponentsof
construction(e.g.,structures,earthwork,drainage,trafficcontrolitems,etc.)mustalsobecovered.
3. TheQualityControlPlanshouldnotbearepeatofthetechnicalspecifications.Rather,theplanshouldaddress
whoisresponsibleforqualitycontrolforaparticularitemorprocess,whenkeyinspectionsaremade,when
correctiveactionsaretobetakenandhowtheyaretobetaken.
4. Aformalprocessformonitoringandimprovingconstructionqualityshouldnotconflictwithminimumquality
standardsthataremaintainedbytheroadwayowner.
66
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-4 Quality Control Plan
RESEARCH
Constructionqualitycansignificantlyinfluencefinalprojectqualityandperformance.Poorconstructioncanleadto
earlyandexcessivemaintenanceand/orearlyreplacement.Thiscostsmoremoneyandusesmoreresources
leadingtoalesssustainableproject.Unfortunately,thereisagenerallackofempiricalevidencetodocument
theseitemsastheyareoftentakentobeintuitivelyobvious.Thissection,therefore,presentsadiscussionof
severalpavementitemssincefortheseitemsthereissubstantialevidencethatconstructionqualityimpacts
performanceandcost.
SubgradeandBaseCompaction
Subgradeorbasematerialthatisnotadequatelycompactedmaysettleovertime,whichinturncausesthe
overlyingpavementtosettleandcrack.Thiscanleadtoroughnessandearlypavementfailure.Oftenadequate
subgradedensityisdescribedintermsofrelativedensity(e.g.,90or95percentofmaximumdensity).
HotMixAsphalt(HMA)Density
CompactionisthegreatestdeterminingfactorindenseͲgradedhotmixasphaltperformance(Scherocman&
Martenson,1984;Scherocman,1984;Geller,1984;Brown,1984;Bellet.al.,1984;Hughes,1984;Hughes,1989).
Inadequatecompactionresultsinapavementwithdecreasedstiffness,reducedfatiguelife,accelerated
aging/decreaseddurability,rutting,raveling,andmoisturedamage(Hughes,1984;Hughes,1989).
HMAAggregateSegregation
Basedonseveralarticles(Kennedyetal.,1987;Brown&Brownfield,1988;Williamsetal.,1996aand1996b;
Khedaywi&White,1996;AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials:AASHTO,1997)the
commonlyacceptedqualitativedefinitionofaggregatesegregationis“thenonͲuniformdistributionofcoarseand
fineaggregatecomponentswithintheasphaltmixture.”ThechiefdetrimentaleffectsofsegregationonHMA
performanceare:reducedfatiguelife,rutting,raveling,andmoisturedamage.Theseeffectscancauseasevere
reductioninpavementlife.MoreinformationonsegregationcausesandcurescanbefoundinSegregationCauses
andCuresforHotMixAsphalt(QIPͲ110)byAASHTOandtheNationalAsphaltPavementAssociation(NAPA).
HMATemperatureDifferentials
HMAtemperaturedifferentialsarelargemattemperaturedifferencesresultingfromplacementofasignificantly
coolerportionofHMAmassintothemat.Thiscoolermasscomesfromthesurfacelayer(orcrust)typically
developedduringHMAtransportfromthemixingplanttothejobsite.Thesecoolerareaswillreachcessation
temperaturemorequicklythanthesurroundingmat.Rollerpatternsdevelopedbasedongeneralmat
temperaturesmaynotbeadequatetocompactthesecoolerareasbeforetheycooltocessationtemperature
resultinginisolatedspotsofinadequatecompaction.Thus,temperaturedifferentialscancauseisolatedareasof
inadequatecompactionresultingindecreasedstrength,reducedfatiguelife,acceleratedaging/decreased
durability,rutting,raveling,andmoisturedamage(Hughes,1984;Hughes,1989).
PortlandCementConcrete(PCC)Consolidation
ConsolidationistheprocessofmakingthefreshlyplacedPCCintoamoreuniformandcompactmassby
eliminatingundesirableairvoidsandcausingittomovearoundpotentialobstructions(suchasreinforcingsteel).
Thisisusuallyaccomplishedusingvibrators.Inadequateconsolidationcanleadtoundesirableairvoidsthatcan
weakenPCCorbeunsightly.
PavementRoughness
Pavementroughnessisanexpressionofirregularitiesinthepavementsurfacethatadverselyaffecttheride
qualityofavehicle(andthustheuser).Roughnessaffectsnotonlyridequalitybutalsovehicledelaycosts,fuel
consumptionandmaintenancecosts.TheWorldBankfoundroadroughnesstobeaprimaryfactorintheanalyses
andtradeͲoffsinvolvingroadqualityvs.usercost(UMTRI,1998).Otherstudies(e.g.,Papagiannakis&Delwar,
2001;Barnes&Langworthy,2003)haveattemptedtoquantifythecostofvehicleoperationinrelationto
pavementroughness.
67
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Quality Control Plan PR-4
GLOSSARY
AASHTO AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials
Aggregatesegregation thenonͲuniformdistributionofcoarseandfineaggregatecomponentswithin
theasphaltmixture(Kennedyet.al.,1987;BrownandBrownfield,1988;
Williamset.al.,1996aand1996b;KhedaywiandWhite,1996;American
AssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials:AASHTO,1997)
Consolidation theprocessofmakingthefreshlyplacedportlandcementconcreteintoa
moreuniformandcompactmassbyeliminatingundesirableairvoids
HMA Hotmixasphalt
NAPA NationalAsphalt PavingAssociation
Pavementroughness anexpressionofirregularitiesinthepavementsurfacethatadverselyaffect
theridequalityofavehicle(andthustheuser)
PCC Portlandcementconcrete

REFERENCES
AlabamaDepartmentofTransportation(ALDOT).(2008).ALDOTͲ375Ͳ91:ContractorQualityControlSystemfor
HotͲMixAsphalt.Revision10/20/2008.FromtheALDOTBureauofMaterialsandTestsTestingManual.
Accessed11November2008.Availableathttp://www.dot.state.al.us/NR/rdonlyres/A1E8B299ͲF518Ͳ41BFͲ
B0A9Ͳ2326C1177C91/0/ALDOT375ApprovedFHWAOctober202008_.pdf.
FederalLandsHighwayDivision(FLHD).(1998).ContractorQualityControlPlans:ContractorGuidelinesand
ExampleQualityControlPlan.FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA),FederalLandsHighwayOffice,
EngineeringandOperationsDivision(HFLͲ20),Washington,D.C.Accessed11November2008.Availableat
http://www.cflhd.gov/resources/construction/documents/qc_plans.pdf.
FloridaDepartmentofTransportation(FDOT).(2007).ConstructionProjectAdministrationManual(CPAM).700Ͳ
000Ͳ000.OfficeofConstruction,FDOT.Accessed11November2008.Availableat
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/manuals/cpam/CPAMManual.shtm.
FloridaDepartmentofTransportation(FDOT).(2007).StandardSpecificationsforRoadandBridgeConstruction
2007.Accessed11November2008.Availableat
http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/SpecificationsEstimates/Implemented/CurrentBK/Default.aspx.
IllinoisDepartmentofTransportation(IDOT).(nodate).HotMixAsphalt(HMA)QualityControlPlantemplate.
IDOTDivisionofAeronautics.Accessed11November2008.Availableat
http://www.dot.state.il.us/aero/PDF/HMA%20QC%20plan%20template.pdf.
SaskatchewanHighwaysandTransportation.(1994).ContractorQualityControlPlan.StandardTestProcedure400
fromtheStandardTestProceduresManual,QualityAssurancesection.Accessed11November2008.Available
athttp://www.highways.gov.sk.ca/standardͲtest.
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE).(2008).UnifiedFacilitiesGuideSpecifications.UFGSͲ321216.Accessed11
November2008.Availableathttp://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFGS/UFGS%2032%2012%2016.pdf.
68
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-5 Noise Mitigation Plan
NOISE MITIGATION PLAN
GOAL
Reduceoreliminateannoyanceordisturbancetosurroundingneighborhoodsand
environmentsfromroadconstructionnoise.
REQUIREMENTS
Establish,implement,andmaintainaformalNoiseMitigationPlan(NMP)during
constructionfortheprimecontractor.TheNMPmustaddress,atminimum,the
followingelements:
1. Responsiblepartyfornoisemitigationactivities,contactinformation,their
responsibilitiesandtheirqualifications.IncludeinformationforNMPpreparer,if
applicableorcompletedbyanoutsideparty.
2. Projectlocationanddistancetoclosestreceptorofnoise.Includeadescriptionof
thesurroundingzoningandparcelinformation(i.e.,commercial,residential,
hospitals,schools,parks,sensitivehabitat).
3. Alistofproposedconstructionactivities(e.g.demolition,excavation,paving,bridge
foundations,finishing).
4. Datesandworkinghoursofproposedconstructionactivities.
5. AlistofnoiseͲgeneratingdevicesusedduringeachconstructionactivitylistedin#3.
6. AlistofnoiseͲmitigatingdevicesusedduringeachconstructionactivitylistedin#3,
includingpersonalsafetyequipmentrequirementsforallsiteemployees.
7. Noisepermitnumbers,agencyorlocalauthoritypoliciesassociatedwith
constructionwork,asapplicable.
8. Descriptionofnoisemonitoringstandards,methods,andacceptablelevels.
9. DescriptionofcorrectionproceduresfornonͲcompliantnoiselevels.
10. Signatureofresponsibleparty.
Details
TheNMPshouldcoverallofconstruction,includingsubcontractorworkactivities.
Somestateandlocalowneragenciesalreadyhaverequirementsforsuchplans
writtenintheirstandardspecifications.However,awrittenspecificationrequiring
theprimecontractortohaveaNoiseMitigationPlanisinsufficient,especially
becausemanylocalauthoritiesandowneragenciesoffercertainexemptionsto
theirpolicies,suchasdaylightworkschedulesorprojectswithminimalareasof
landͲdisturbingactivities.
Alargedocumentneednotbegeneratedforthisrequirement.Forprojectsthatare
deemedlocallyexempt(asnotedabove),showthattheprimecontractorhas
completedareviewofnoiseaspartofprojectplanning.TheNewYorkDepartment
ofEnvironmentalProtection(NYDEP2008)offersa4ͲpagechecklistͲstyleNMPthat
addressesalloftheelementsabove,exceptforitems9and10,whichcanbeeasily
addressedin1page:http://nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/noise_mitigation.pdf.
DOCUMENTATION
x CopyoftheNoiseMitigationPlan.
x Acopyofanyapplicablenoisepermits,oragencyorlocalauthoritynoisepolicies(a
livehyperlinktoanylargepolicydocumentsissufficient).
PR-5
REQUIRED
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ1Environmental
ReviewProcess
9 PTͲ5QuietPavement
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Equity
9 Expectations
9 Experience
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
9 Improves
Accountability
9 IncreasesAwareness
9 IncreasesAesthetics
69
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Noise Mitigation Plan PR-5
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x ReadtheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)HighwayConstructionNoiseHandbook(Knaueretal.,2006)
tounderstandtheaspectsofconstructionnoisethatcouldberelevanttoyourproject.TheHighway
ConstructionNoiseHandbookisavailableasawebdocumentat:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/handbook/index.htm.TheHandbookisarelativelyshortread—
Chapters5Ͳ8maybeespeciallyhelpfulforprimecontractorsorprojectleadsnotfamiliarwithNMPs.
x CompletetheNMPduringtheenvironmentalreviewprocess,whentheenvironmentaldocumentationisbeing
generated.Mostenvironmentalreviewregulationsatfederalandstatelevels,includingtheNational
EnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA),includeaninvestigationofnoiseͲrelatedprojectimpactstosurrounding
communities,andtheseimpactsoftencanbeaddressedinshortnarrativeform(Knaueretal.,2006).
x UsethechecklistͲstyleNMPavailablefromtheNYDEPasatemplatetocreateandassemblecustomowner
agencyNMPsforuseonfutureprojects.TheNYDEPchecklistisavailablehere:
http://nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/noise_mitigation.pdf
x EstimatenoiselevelsfromyourconstructionprojectbyusingtheRoadwayConstructionNoiseModel(RCNM)
softwareavailablefromtheFHWA(Rehemanetal.,2006).Auser’sguideforthesoftwareprogramisalso
availableaspartoftheHighwayConstructionNoiseHandbookasanAppendix.Mostprojectswillnotneed
comprehensiveordetailednoisemodelingandsimplifiedmanualnoiseanalysiswillbeadequate(Knaueretal.,
2006).However,localnoiseordinancesmaybemorestringentthanwhatiscalledforintheenvironmental
reviewrequirementsandmayneedmoredetailedanalysis.(Knaueretal.,2006)TheRCNMsoftwaretoolis
availableforfreedownloadhere:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/cnstr_ns.htm.
x Communicatetostakeholdersthatnoisemitigationisactivelybeinginvestigatedonyourprojectandthata
planisbeingdeveloped.Thismayhelpquellthepotential“politicalnoise”thatoftenstemsfromtoomuch
“constructionnoise”(Thalheimer,2000),especiallyforhighimpact,highdollar,orsensitivepublicprojects.
x HireanacousticalengineeringfirmorotherqualifiedprofessionaltocompletetheNMP.
x Delivernoiseawarenesstrainingregardingthenoisemitigationstrategiesandnoisesafetyeffortsemployedon
theprojecttoallconstructionprojectemployees,includingsubcontractoremployees.Thistrainingwillhelp
ensurethattheNMPisimplementedeffectively.
x Reviewindividualstateandlocaljurisdictionnoiseordinancesandanypermitsoragencycoordinationefforts
duringtheprojectdevelopmentprocess.Sometimestheseordinancescontainrestrictionsassociatedwith
constructionnoiselevels,eventhoughtherearecurrentlynofederalregulationsfornoiselevels.
x Identifynoiseabatementopportunitiesduringprojectdesign.Suchthingsaslocatingstorageareas,stationary
equipment,haulroadsanddetoursawayfromsensitivereceivers,planningforconcurrentconstruction,
maintainingexistingnoisebarriersforuseduringconstructionandschedulingtheconstructionofnewnoise
barriersearlyonintheproject,canreducenoiseimpacts.
x Achievemitigationofnoiseatthesourcebyspecifyinguseoflessnoisyequipment,requiringmufflersystems
onequipment,employingshieldsandmodifyingvehiclesandequipmenttoreducenoiselevels.
x Achievepathmitigationbybuildingnoisebarriers,usingtieredorlayeredvegetativebarriers(Anderson,
Mulligan&Goodman,1984),orusingexistingbarrierswhereappropriate.
x Achievereceivermitigationbysealingintakesofsensitivereceivers,acousticwindowtreatments(Thalheimer,
2000)or,wherefeasible,bytemporarilyrelocatingresidents.
Example: Noise Mitigation Plan Sample Forms – City of New York, NY
TheNewYorkCityDepartmentoftheEnvironmentalProtection(NYDEP,2008)enactednewnoiserulesin2007
forconstructionactivitiesrequiringthatuniquenoisemitigationplansareadopted,posted,applied,and
monitoredonconstructionprojectswhenspecificdevicesareusedorcertainactivitiesareperformedwithin
citylimits.Theirmunicipalcoderuleslisttypicalequipment,activities,andotherdevicesthatproducenoise,
andalsoestablishminimumnoiselevelsallowedforconstructionactivities.Theintentofthenoise
requirementsis“toinformtheuseroftherequiredplanelementsthataresponsiblepartymustincludewhen
thelisteddevicesarebeingusedonsite,andthemitigationstrategiesandbestmanagementpracticesthatare
beingemployed”(NYDEP,2008).Alternativenoisemitigationplans(ANMPs)mayalsobefilediftheproject
70
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-5 Noise Mitigation Plan
cannotcomplywiththesoundlevelcriteriawithoutunduehardshipandcanreduceorexemptcertainactivities
fromnonͲcompliancepenalties.
x TheNYDEPSampleNoiseMitigationPlanisavailablehere:http://nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/noise_mitigation.pdf
x TheNYDEPSampleAlternativeNoiseMitigationPlanisavailablehere:
http://nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/noise_alternative_mitigation.pdf
AdditionalinformationaboutNYDEP’snoisecodeandnoisemitigationplanningrulesforconstructionprojectsare
availableat:http://nyc.gov/html/dep/html/noise/index.shtml
Example: Case Study — Central Artery/Tunnel (“The Big Dig”) in Boston, MA
ThiscasestudysummarizesthearticlebyThalheimer(2000),whichdescribesthenoisecontrolprogramforthe
CentralArtery/Tunnel(CA/T)projectinBoston,Massachusetts.TheCA/Tmaybemorecommonlyrecognized
bythepublicasthe“BigDig,”anditwasanengineeringmegaͲprojectwith“themostcomprehensiveand
stringentconstructionnoisecontrolspecificationofanypublicworksprojectinthecountry.”Thesheersize
anddurationofitsconstructionimpactsontheBoston’sresidentsandbusinessesmadenoisemitigationa
crucialaspectoftheproject.Notethatmostprojectswillnotneedtoprovidenearlythelevelofdetailasthat
requiredfornoisemitigationontheCentralArtery/Tunnel(CA/T),howevertheapproachesandstrategiesused
forthisprojecthelpeddevelopmanyoftheguidancedocumentsthatareavailableonconstructionnoise,such
astheFHWAHighwayConstructionNoiseHandbook(Knaueretal.,2006).
TheprojectwaschampionedbytheformerMassachusettsTurnpikeAuthority(MTA),whichiscurrently
managedbytheMassachusettsDepartmentofTransportation(MassDOT)HighwayDivision.Construction
beganin1991andwasconsideredcompletein2006,withamultibilliondollarpricetag.Moreinformation
abouttheBigDigprojectcanbefoundatthefollowingsite:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/bigdig/bigdigmain.aspx.
Theproject’snoisecontrolprogramhadtwomaingoals:1)meetthecommitmentsformitigating
environmentalnoiseasstatedintheenvironmentalimpactreportand2)controlconstructionnoisewithout
posinghardshiptolocalcommunities,projectbudgetorconstructionscheduletothemaximumextent
feasible.Meetingthesegoalsposedasignificantchallengebecauseconstructionactivityoccurredatalltimes
ofdayinmanyareasofBoston,andsometimesinverycloseproximity(with10feet)ofresidencesand
sensitivelocations.Additionally,theprojectwascriticalpolitically:functionofBoston’scoreinfrastructure
dependedontheoutcomeandthelevelofstakeholderinvolvementwasextraordinarilyhigh.
TheNoiseMitigationProgramfortheCA/TinvolvedestablishinglotͲlineandequipmentemissionnoisecriteria
limits,definingoperationaland/orequipmentrestrictionsandalsorequiredthesubmissionofnoisecontrol
andmonitoringplans,baselineandcompliancenoisedata,equipmentnoisecertificationtests,anddesignsfor
proposednoisemitigationmeasures.“Mitigationmeasureswereimplementedonlywhenjustifiedbasedon
carefulconsiderationofallrelevanttechnical,costandpolicyissues.”
TheNMPprioritizedmitigationmeasuresasfollows:sourcecontrol,pathcontrol,andfinallyreceptorcontrol.
Sourcecontrolwasmosteffectiveandeasiesttomonitor,butwherethiswasnotpossible,pathcontrol
measureswereimplementedtoblocksounddirectedatreceptors.PathcontroloptionswereconsideredcostͲ
effectiveonlyiftheycouldpreventnoiseatmultiplereceptors.Receptorcontrolwasalsousedinsomecases,
suchaswindowtreatmentsonbuildings,andthesuccessofthisprogramwasduelargelytoaneffectivepublic
involvementprocessaswellaspartnershipsdevelopedduringprojectdesignandplanning.
NoisecontrollessonslearnedfromtheCA/Tprojectthatmaybeapplicabletoprojectsdevelopingtheirown
noisemitigationplansinclude:
71
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Noise Mitigation Plan PR-5
x Upholdingnoisepolicycommitmentsandgoals.Tobeeffective,itiscrucialthatnoisepoliciesare
communicatedfromthetoplayersoftheprojectteamandappliedprojectͲwide.
x Engagingthepublicforactivefeedback.Informingthepubliciscriticaltotheoverallsuccessoftheproject
noisemitigationplan,anda24ͲhourhotlineforcommunicationwasusedsuccessfullyontheCA/Tproject.
x Establishinganambientlevelandmonitoringconstructionnoise.Equitablenoisepoliciescannotbe
createdwithoutfirstestablishingabaselinenoiselevel.Noisecontrolsarenotaseffectiveifnotmonitored
onacontinuousbasis.
x Engagingprofessionals.Noisetechnicianscanoftenpreemptnoiseproblemsandcanquicklyrespondto
complaintsgivenproperauthority.
x Addressingthebiggestcomplaints.Thebiggestpubliccomplaintwasvehiclebackupalarmsduringnight
work,whichwasaddressedbymandatinginstallationofinͲvehiclecontrolsthatweremanuallyadjustable
orambientsensitiveandprohibitingalarmuseinespeciallysensitiveareasatnightwithadditional
supervisionfromsafetypersonnel.
x Implementingcomprehensiveandconcisespecifications.Contractspecificationlanguageforcontractors
thatisclearandunambiguousisessentialformanagementofcontractorsandforimplementationofa
noisecontrolplan.
x Usingmultiplecontrols.Noisemitigationmeasuresmustbeflexibleandincludemanyalternativesand
combinationsofmethodstomeetnoisepolicygoals.
x Targetingreceptorcontrols.Preventionofnoiseatthereceptor,suchasacousticaltreatmentsfor
windows,canbecostͲeffectivesolutions.
x Usingsoundbarriersasvisualbarriers.Publicperceptionsofconstructionnoiseandlevelofnuisanceor
annoyancedependonsoundlevelsoftheactivityaswellasvisibilityoftheactivity.Thalheimer(2000)
statesthatnoisebarrierswereeffectiveinreducingthelevelofannoyanceperceivedontheCA/Tproject.
However,AylorandMarks(1976)andAnderson,MulliganandGoodman(1984)demonstratethatthis
perceptionisextremelyvariablewithlocale,typicalambientnoiselevels,typeofbarrier,howmuchofthe
activityisobscuredbythebarrier,familiarityofsound,andpublicexpectations.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Itisnotfeasibletoeliminateallconstructionnoise,butitisoftenfeasibletocontrolmostorallofit.
2. Multipleworksitesmayrequireavarietyorcombinationofdifferentcontrols.Somespecialareasofworksites
mayrequirecloseranalysisormodeling,whichmaybecostandtimeintensive.
3. Noisemitigationplansandprojectpoliciesapplytoallcontractorsandsubcontractorsonaconstructionsite.
Trainingmaybenecessaryforsomepartieswhoareotherwiseunfamiliarwithnoisemitigationorpolicies.
4. Thesubjectivityinvolvedwithperceptionsofsoundandnoisepresentsanissueformanagingpublicopinion
andexpectations.
5. Mostjurisdictionsprovideanexemptionfromnoiseassociatedwithdaytimeconstructionactivities.For
GreenroadsallprojectsmustcreateanNMP,evenifexemptfromnoisepoliciesandlocalordinances.
RESEARCH
Noiseissuesonmostroadwayprojectsareinitiallyaddressedduringtheprojectenvironmentalreview(seePRͲ1
EnvironmentalReviewProcess).ThisProjectRequirement(PR)focusesonplanningforandmanagementofnoise
generatedbytheroadwayprojectthroughoutitsconstructionandoperationphases.
WhatisNoise?
Noiseisdefinedasunwantedsound(EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,1973).Soundispartofthescienceof
acoustics,whichisacomplexfielddealingwithsoundgeneration,propagationandreception.Thiscreditdoesnot
gointodetailonsoundphysics.However,someterminologyisusefulforabasicunderstandingofnoise.
Asourceisthepointwhereasoundisgenerated.Sourcescanbemobileorstationary.Forexample,trafficnoise
sourcesaremobile,whileconstructionnoiseisgenerallyamixtureofstationaryandmobilesources.Thereceptor
(also,receiver)istheendpointwheresoundisobserved.Theroutealongwhichsoundpassesfromthesourceto
72
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-5 Noise Mitigation Plan
thereceptorisknownasthepath.Thelengthofthepathisimportant,asistherateofchangeinlengthofthe
path.Generally,perceptionofsoundchangesalongapathaccordingtothe“inversesquarelaw”:asthedistance
betweensourceandreceiverincreases,thesounddecreasesinproportiontotheinversesquareofthepath
length.(NewYorkDivisionofEnvironmentalPermits,2001)Thepathlengthofsoundfrommobilesourceschanges
withtime(thisisperceivedbythehumanearaswhatiscommonlyknownastheDopplerEffect).
Thefollowingsoundtermsarebrieflydescribed(Sandberg&Ejsmont,2002):
x Soundpressure.Soundtravelsthroughthesurroundingmedium(oftenair)aspressurewaves.Measuring
soundinvolvesmeasuringthepressureofthesewaves.Thusacommonmeasureofsoundisinunitsof
pressure.Theperceivedloudnessofsoundvarieswithpressure.Higherpressuresaregenerallyassociatedwith
soundsweperceiveofaslouder.
x Soundpressurelevelandthedecibel(dB).Soundpressurevariesoversuchawiderangethatitiscommonly
measuredinalogarithmicunitcalledthedecibel(dB)soreportednumbersareeasiertoworkwith.Usingthe
dBscale,adifferencein10dBroughlycorrespondstoadoublingorhalvingofourhearingperceptionofthat
sound.Also,1dBisaboutthesmallestdifferenceinsoundpressurethathumanscanperceive.Finally,iftwo
incoherentsoundsofequalsoundpressurelevel(e.g.,70dB)areaddedtogether,theresultingoverallsoundis
3dBgreater.Thus,70dB+70dB=73dB.
x Frequencyweighting.Soundcanoccuroverawiderangeoffrequencies.Thehumaneardoesnotperceiveall
ofthesefrequenciesequally.Generally,forsoundatagivenpressurelevel,lowandveryhighfrequenciesare
interpretedasquieterthanmidͲrangefrequencies.Therefore,forsoundmeasurementstobemostmeaningful
tohumanhearing,thefrequenciesofsoundneedtobefilteredsuchthatthesoundpressurelevelsoflowand
veryhighfrequenciescountlessthanthesoundpressurelevelsofmidͲrangefrequencies.Agood
approximationtohumanhearingisthe“Afilter,”thussoundisoftenreportedasan“Aweightedsound
pressurelevel,”dB(A)ordBA.
Itisimportanttoemphasizethecomplexityinanalyzingsoundandthedifferenceofsoundperceptioninhumans
tothephysicalmeasurementsofsoundpressure.Theresponsetoanysoundisasubjectiveexperienceandcan
dependonage,health,familiarity,timeofdayandmoreinadditiontothecharacteristicofthesounditself.This
complexitymakesitsomewhatdifficulttoexpressandcomparesoundlevelsusingsimplifiednumbersoraverages
suchastheAͲweighteddecibelscale(dBA)thatistypicallyusedtodescribetransportationnoise.
UndesirableConsequencesofNoise
Noisecanhaveaneffectonhumanhealthandalsoonthegeneraldesirabilityofalocationbasedonitsexposure
tonoise.NoiseimpactshumanhealthandwellͲbeingbyincreasingstress,causinghearingloss(inthecaseofloud
noise),disruptingsleep,causingfatigue,hindersworkefficiency,interruptingactivities,andinterferingwith
speechcommunication(PasschierͲVermeer&Passchier,2000;EPA,1978).Noisecanalsoproduceunwanted
vibrationsthatmaycausehumandiscomfort(sonicfatigue)ordisturbactivities(EPA,1973).Inadditiontothe
physiologicalandemotionalresponsesofnoise,transportationnoiseinparticularcanalsoimpactrealestate
valueshenceimpactingacommunity’ssocial,economicalanddevelopmentstatus.
Noiseimpactsfromhumanactivitiesdonotonlyaffecthumanpopulations.KaselooandTyson(2004)synthesized
theecologicalinformationonnoiseimpactstowildlifepopulationslivingnearroadwaysanddeterminedthereis
sufficientevidencethatnoiseeffectspopulations,breedinghabits,andbiodiversity.However,thereisverylittle
conclusivedatarelativetoroadnoiseandpopulationsoffish,amphibians,reptiles,andinvertebrates.Burrowing
speciesmaybeimpactedduetoroadnoiseandnoisevibrations,butthisareaalsorequiresfurtherstudy.Bird
populationsappeartobethemostnegativelyimpacted,withimpactsproportionaltothelevelsoftrafficnoiseand
volume.Inmanylocationsthereisclearevidenceofdecreasedbirdbreedingactivityandpopulationdeclinesnear
rightsͲofͲway(however,thismayberelatedtodisplacementofpreyorvegetationchange).Largeandsmall
mammalsmayalsoberepelledbyroadwaynoise.
Wildlifecanexperiencesimilaradversehealtheffectsandstressesbecausethestructureandfunctionofmost
animalearsissimilartothehumanear(EPA,1978).Notonlydosoundlevelrangesheardbyanimalsdifferfrom
73
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Noise Mitigation Plan PR-5
whatisheardbyhumans(EPA,1978),buttheirsensitivitytoandcorrespondinghealthimpactsfromsoundalso
vary.Physiologicaleffectsofnoiseonwildlifeincludestressestoendocrine,digestive,cardiovascular,andimmune
systemsaswellasreproductivefunction(Kaseloo&Tyson,2004).Roadwaynoisecanalsoimpactvocalizationand
communicationbetweenwildlifespecies,especiallywhereroadwaynoisemaycausebackgroundnoiseacross
distances(Kaseloo&Tyson,2004).
ConstructionNoise
Constructionnoiseistemporarybutmayadverselyaffectnearbypropertyowners,residentsandwildlife.The
FHWAprovidesguidanceinitsHighwayConstructionNoiseHandbook(Knaueretal.,2006).Manyofthe
recommendationsforthisguidancedocumentweregeneratedbytheCentralArtery/TunnelprojectinBoston
(featuredintheExamplessectionabove),andweredocumentedbyThalheimer(2000)priortobeingpublishedby
theFHWA.
Roadconstructionnoiseistypicallygeneratedbythreesourcetypes:mobileequipment,stationaryequipmentand
blastingactivity.Noiselevelsforindividualequipmenttypicallyusedonroadconstructionprojectsarepresentedin
TablePRͲ5.1.
TablePRͲ5.1:MaximumSoundLevelofConstructionEquipmentActivityMeasuredat50feet.(Adaptedfrom
Thalheimer,2000;Knaueretal.,2006)
Equipment dBA Equipment dBA Equipment dBA
AugerDrillRig 85 FlatBedTruck 84 Rivetbuster/Chippinggun 85
Backhoe 80 FrontEndLoader 80 RockDrill 85
BarBender 80 Generator 82 Roller 85
Blasting 94 Gradall 85 SandBlasting(SingleNozzle) 85
BoringJackPowerUnit 80 Grader 85 Scraper 85
ChainSaw 85 Grapple(onbackhoe) 85 Shears(onbackhoe) 85
ClamShovel(dropping) 93 HorizontalBoringHydraulicJack 80 SlurryPlant 78
Compactor(ground) 80 HydraBreakRam 90 SlurryTrenchingMachine 82
Compressor(air) 80 ImpactPileDriver 95 SoilMixDrillRig 80
ConcreteBatchPlant 83 Jackhammer 85 Tractor 84
ConcreteMixerTruck 85 ManLift 85 VacuumExcavator 85
ConcreteSaw 90 MountedImpactHammer(hoeram) 90 VacuumStreetSweeper 80
Crane 85 PavementScarifier 85 VentilationFan 85
Dozer 85 Paver 85 VibratingHopper 85
DrillRigTruck 84 PickupTruck 55 VibratoryConcreteMixer 80
DrumMixer 80 PneumaticTools 85 VibratoryPileDriver 95
DumpTruck 84 Pumps 77 WarningHorn 85
Excavator 85 RefrigeratorUnit 82 Welder/Torch 73

TherelativeAͲweightednoiselevelsofcommonsoundsmeasuredintheenvironmentandindustryforvarious
qualitativesoundlevelsareprovidedinFigurePRͲ5.1.
74
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-5 Noise Mitigation Plan
NoiseSource(GivenDistance) SoundLevel(dbA) Qualitative Response Description
Carrierdeckjetoperation
Jettakeoff(200feet)
Danceclub
Autohorn(3feet)
Rivetingmachine
Jettakeoff(2000feet)
Shout(0.5feet)
NewYorksubwaystation
Heavytruck(50feet)
Pneumaticdrill(50feet)
Freighttrain(50feet)
Freewaytraffic(50feet)
Airconditioningunit(20feet)
Lightautotraffic(50feet)
Livingroom
Bedroom
Library
Softwhisper(5feet)
Recordingstudio
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Painfullyloud
Limitofamplifiedspeech
Maximumvocaleffort
Veryannoying
Hearingdamage(8Ͳhr,continuousexposure)
Annoying
Telephoneusedifficult
Intrusive
Quiet
Veryquiet
Justaudible
Hearingthreshold
FigurePRͲ5.1:TypicalSoundLevelsMeasuredintheEnvironmentandIndustry
(AdaptedfromBarksdale,1991).
TrafficNoise
AdiscussionontrafficnoisesourcesisprovidedinCreditPTͲ5QuietPavement.
RegulationofNoise
In1981,theEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)OfficeofNoiseAbatementandControl(ONAC)wasabolished
andnoisemanagementauthoritywasgrantedtoindividualstatesandmunicipalities.However,the1972NoiseAct
andthe1978QuietCommunitiesActarestillvalidbutunfunded(EPA,2009).PriortothedisintegrationofONAC,
EPAdidestablishbaselineguidancedBAlevelsforbothindoorandoutdoorreceiversandexposuretimecriteria
forpreventingorlimitinghearingloss(EPA,2009).TheselawswereprimarilyputinplacetoprotectnoiseͲsensitive
receivers.AnoiseͲsensitivereceiverisalocationwherepeopleorendangeredwildliferesideorwherethe
75
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Noise Mitigation Plan PR-5
presenceofunwantedsoundcouldadverselyaffectthedesignateduseofthelandorhabitat(Knaueretal.,2006).
Typically,noiseͲsensitivereceiversincluderesidences,hospitals,placesofworship,libraries,schools,andmay
includenatureandwildlifepreservesandparks.Forexample,“Levelsof45decibelsareassociatedwithindoor
residentialareas,hospitalsandschools,whereas55decibelsisidentifiedforcertainoutdoorareaswherehuman
activitytakesplace.Thelevelof70decibelsisidentifiedforallareasinordertopreventhearingloss.”(EPA,2009).
Roadwayprojectsneartheselocationsmayberestrictedbymorestringentnoisepoliciesduringbothconstruction
andoperation(Knaueretal.,2006).
Therearecurrentlynofederallyregulatedlevelsofconstructionnoise;howevertheFHWAhassetsomestandards
fortrafficnoiselevels.“Theregulations[23CFR§772]containnoiseabatementcriteriawhichrepresenttheupper
limitofacceptablehighwaytrafficnoisefordifferenttypesoflandusesandhumanactivities.Theregulationsdo
notrequirethattheabatementcriteriabemetineveryinstance.Rather,theyrequirethateveryreasonableand
feasibleeffortbemadetoprovidenoisemitigationwhenthecriteriaareapproachedorexceeded.”(2006).In
general,federallyfundedhighwayprojectsarerequiredtofollowathreestepprocessduringprojectdevelopment
fornoiseabatementinvolvingidentificationandmitigationofnoiseimpacts,aswellaslanduseplanning
coordinationwithlocalofficials.LongͲtermnoisecontrolandmitigationmeasuresfortrafficnoisearecurrently
assessedviatheenvironmentalreviewprocessandassociateddocumentationfortheNationalEnvironmental
PolicyAct(NEPA)of1969under23CFR§772.However,inSeptember2009,theFHWApublishedaNoticeof
ProposedRulemaking(NPRM)toamendthecurrentfederalnoisepolicycontainedin23CFR§772whichcould
meanhighwayagencieswillneedtoreviewtheirexistingnoisepolicies,revisethem,andobtainapprovalbythe
FHWA.(USDOT&FHWA,2009)
OccupationalexposurestonoiseforconstructionworkersarecloselyregulatedbytheOccupationalHealthand
SafetyAdministration(OSHA).FormoreinformationonOSHAnoiseandhearingsafetystandards,visit:
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/noisehearingconservation/
ConsiderationsforMitigatingNoise
Manydesignandprojectplanningmethodscanreduceengineorblastrelatednoisefromconstructionprojects.
Also,certaintechniquesandroadwaysurfacingmaterialscanbeusedtoreducetireͲpavementnoise.TheFHWA
HighwayConstructionNoiseHandbook(Knaueretal.,2006)describesthefollowingelementsforeffectivecontrol
ofhighwayconstructionandoperationalnoisewhichareapplicabletoallroadwayprojects.
x Alternativedesignoptions.Avoidgenerationofnoisealtogether.Examplesaredesignatedconstructiontraffic
routes,speciallylocatingstorageareas,orpossiblyevenselectionofanentirelydifferentroadwayalignment.
Anotherdesignoptionwouldbeconsideringalternativeconstructionapproaches,suchasvibratorypiledriving
insteadofimpactpiledriving.Alternativedesignsareusuallyveryeffectiveapproaches,buttheyarenotalways
costͲeffectiveorpractical.
x Mitigationatthesource.Reduce,minimizeoreliminateinitialnoisegeneration.Anexamplewouldbe
installingmufflersorbafflesonconstructionequipmentoronamotorvehicleusingtheroadway.Contract
specificationsandspecialprovisionsareanexcellentmeansofsourcemitigation,suchasrequiringcontractors
tousequieterequipmentorsettingstrictnoiselimitsforspecifictypesofequipment.Additionally,
constructionemployeetrainingisconsideredasourcemitigationtechnique.Quietpavements,wheretireͲ
pavementnoiseisreducedatthesource,maybeaviablestrategyformitigatingoperationaltrafficnoise(see
CreditPTͲ5QuietPavement).SourcereductionisthemosteffectiveandoftenalsomostcostͲeffectivetypeof
mitigationstrategy,becauseitiseasiesttoobserveandinspect(Thalheimer,2000).
x Mitigationalongthepath.Reduceorminimizenoisepropagation.Noisebarriersandshieldscanbenatural
suchasgradechangesorpermanentsuchassoundwalls.Pathmitigationistheleasteffectivemitigation
strategy,andhasanumberofdisadvantages,especiallyifmanmade.Pathmitigationmethods,suchassound
barrierstructures,areonlyeffectiveatcertaindistancesandgeometriesinrelationtotheroadway.Commonly,
thesearepermanentmanmadestructuresthattendtoreducevisualquality,arehighcost,energyͲintensive,
materialsͲintensive,andmaypotentiallyfragmentorobstructnaturalhabitatsdependingontheirplacementin
therightͲofͲway.
76
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-5 Noise Mitigation Plan
x Mitigationatthereceiver.Reduce,minimizeoravoidnoisereception.Someexamplesarenoise“masking”
whereunpleasantsoundiscovereduporinterferedbyamorepleasantsound,buildingenvelope
improvements,andtemporaryrelocationofresidents.Dependingonthescaleandlocationoftheproject,as
wellasthelevelofpublicandstakeholderinvolvementandprojectacceptability,receivermitigationmethods
varyincost.However,thesemethodsaremoreeffectiveatreducingnoisereceivedbythehumanearthan
pathmitigation,especiallyintargetedsensitivereceptors(Thalheimer,2000).
Mostnoisemitigationplanscreatedforroadwayprojectswillincludeacombinationofmanyofthesestrategies.
GLOSSARY
ANMP AlternativeNoiseMitigationPlan
CA/T CentralArtery/Tunnelproject.AlsoknownastheBigDig.
CFR CodeofFederalRegulations
dB Decibel
dBA AͲweighteddecibels
EPA EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
FHWA FederalHighwayAdministration
HMA Hotmixasphalt
Masking usingacousticaltechniquestocoveruporinterferewithunpleasantsound
MassDOT MassachusettsDepartmentofTransportation
MTA MassachusettsTurnpikeAuthority
NMP NoiseMitigationPlan
Noise Unwantedsound,undesirablesound
NoiseͲsensitivereceiver Alocationwherepeople orendangeredwildlife resideorwherethepresence
ofunwantedsoundcouldadverselyaffectthedesignateduseofthelandor
habitat(Knaueretal.,2006)
NYDEP NewYorkCityDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection
Path Theroutealongwhichsoundpassesfromthesourcetothereceptor
PCC Portlandcementconcrete
Receptor(receiver) Anendpointwheresoundisobserved
Source Apointwhereasoundisgenerated
USDOT UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation

REFERENCES
Anderson,L.M.,Mulligan,B.E.,&Goodman,L.S.(1984).Effectsofvegetationonhumanresponsetosound.Journal
ofArboriculture.10(2),45Ͳ49.
AylorDE,&MarksLE.(1976).Perceptionofnoisetransmittedthroughbarriers.TheJournaloftheAcoustical
SocietyofAmerica.59(2),397Ͳ400.
Barksdale,R.D.(1991).TheAggregateHandbook.Washington,D.C.:NationalStoneAssociation.
CityofNewYork,DepartmentofEnvironment.(2009)DEPͲAir,Noise&Asbestos.AccessedDecember22,2009.
Availableathttp://nyc.gov/html/dep/html/air/index.shtml
CommonwealthofMassachusetts,DepartmentofTransportation(MassDOT),HighwayDivision.(2009).MassDOT
HighwayDivision:TheCentralArtery/TunnelProjectͲTheBigDig.AccessedDecember23,2009.Availableat
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/bigdig/bigdigmain.aspx
77
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Noise Mitigation Plan PR-5
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).(1973,July)PublicHealthandWelfareCriteriaforNoise.(550/9Ͳ73Ͳ002).
OfficeofNoiseAbatementandControl(ONAC).Washington,D.C.:EPA,ONAC.AccessedJanuary1,2010.
Availableathttp://www.nonoise.org/epa/Roll1/roll1doc3.pdf
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).(1978).Noise:AHealthProblem.EPA,OfficeofNoiseAbatementand
Control,Washington,DC.OfficeofNoiseAbatementandControl(ONAC).Washington,D.C.:EPA,ONAC.
AccessedJanuary1,2010.Availableathttp://www.nonoise.org/epa/Roll15/roll15doc152.pdf
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).(2009,August12).EPAIdentifiesNoiseLevelsAffectingHealthand
Welfare|EPAHistory|USEPA.[PressRelease:April2,1974].AccessedJanuary1,2010.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/noise/01.htm
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2006,April).HighwayTrafficNoiseintheUnitedStates:Problemand
Response.(FHWAͲHEPͲ06Ͳ020).Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighway
Administration.AccessedJanuary2,2010.Availableathttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/probresp.htm
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2008,December16).FHWARoadwayConstructionNoise.Accessed
December22,2009.Availableathttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/cnstr_ns.htm
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2009,October1).NoiseRegulations,Policy,andGuidance.Accessed
January2,2010.Availableathttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/mem_nois.htm
Kaseloo,P.A.&Tyson,K.O.(2004)SynthesisofNoiseEffectsonWildlifePopulations.(FHWAͲHEPͲ06Ͳ016)
Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.AccessedNovember25,
2008.Availableathttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/effects/index.htm
Knauer,H.S.etal.(2006).FHWAhighwayconstructionnoisehandbook.(FHWAͲHEPͲ06Ͳ015)Washington,DC:U.S.
DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.AccessedNovember25,2008.Availableat
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/handbook/index.htm
PasschierͲVermeer,W.&Passchier,W.F.(2000).Noiseexposureandpublichealth.EnvironmentalHealth
Perspectives.108,123Ͳ31.
Reherman,C.N.etal.(2006).FHWARoadwayConstructionNoiseModel,Version1.0User’sGuide.(FHWAͲHEPͲ05Ͳ
054)Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.Accessed
November25,2008.Availableathttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf
Sandberg,U.andEjsmont,J.A.(2002).Tyre/RoadNoiseReferenceBook.InformexEjsmont&Sandberg
Handelsbolag,Sweden.
Thalheimer,E.(2000).ConstructionnoisecontrolprogramandmitigationstrategyattheCentralArtery/Tunnel
Project.NoiseControlEngineeringJournal.48(5),157Ͳ165.
78
Greenroads
PR-6
WAST
GOAL
Create an a
REQUI
Establish, i
Manageme
included in
• Type of
• Expecte
• Costs a
• Contac
• Destina
• Contac
• Manag
person
Detai
The CW
agency
“Const
must b
within 
(e.g. pa
leave t
becaus
details 
Types o
• Pav
• Mil
• Me
alum
• Plas
• Exc
• Sed
• Lan
• Haz
• Wo
• Gla
DOCUM
• Copy o
s™ Manual v1.5
TE MAN
accounting and
REMENTS
implement, an
ent Plan (CWM
n the project co
f construction 
ed (or actual) t
and fees for lan
t information o
ation of waste 
t information o
ement strateg
al worker (hou
ls
WMP is typicall
y for approval, 
ruction and de
e hauled off‐si
the project Rig
avements, emb
he ROW for re
se they are not
under Credits 
of C&D for road
ving process wa
ling waste, con
tals (e.g. waste
minum, and va
stic (e.g. waste
avated soil cut
diment remove
d clearing deb
zardous materi
ood and paper 
ss 
MENTATIO
f the project C
NAGEME
d management
S
d maintain a fo
MP) during road
ontract docum
waste 
tonnage 
ndfills,  recover
of responsible 
(e.g. recycling 
of responsible 
y for waste ge
usehold) waste
y completed b
and implemen
emolition wast
ite for disposal
ght‐of‐Way (RO
bankments, sh
processing (re
 used in their p
MR‐2 Paveme
dway construc
aste (e.g. asph
ncrete slough a
e steel rebar, m
arious househo
e plastic pipes) 
ttings and bou
ed from tempo
bris or excess to
ials, including l
products (e.g. 
ON
CWMP 
Waste M
ENT PLA
t plan for road
ormal Constru
dway construc
ments and ident
ry facilities, an
party for haul
facility, landfi
party for dispo
nerated from m

y the prime co
nted by all part
e” (C&D waste
l or reprocessin
OW) is not inte
oulders, base m
cycling) activit
pre‐constructio
ent Reuse and M
ction projects m
alt, concrete)
and grindings, 
metal guardrai
old metals) 
lders 
orary construct
opsoil 
liquids 
packaging mat

Management Pl
AN
d construction w
ction and Dem
tion. The CWM
tify, at minimu
d hauling 
ing 
ll, contractor’s
osal site 
mobile office a
ontractor, subm
ties on the con
e) constitutes a
ng, or, if dispo
ended for use a
materials, and 
ties are conside
on form at the
MR‐4 Recycled
may include (b
cobble 
ls, pipes, lumin
ion settling po
terials, cardbo
an
waste materia
molition Waste 
MP should be 
um, these item
s backyard) 
activities and 
mitted to the o
struction site. 
any material th
sed (stockpiled
as structural m
fill). Materials
ered C&D wast
 site. See more
d Materials. 
ut is not limite
naires, signs, 
onds 
ard and pallets
als. 
ms: 
owner 
 
hat 
d) 
material 
s that 
te 

ed to): 
s) 
REL
9 P
P
9 P
M
9 M
R
9 M
B
9 M
M
9 C
P
SUS
COM
9 E
9 E
BEN
9 R
9 R
F
9 R
9 R
C
9 Im
A
9 C
In
Project Require
PR
REQUIRED
ATED CRED
PR‐7 Pollution 
Prevention Plan
PR‐10 Site 
Maintenance P
MR‐2 Pavemen
Reuse 
MR‐3 Earthwor
Balance 
MR‐4 Recycled 
Materials 
CA‐3 Site Recyc
Plan 
STAINABILIT
MPONENTS
Expectations 
Exposure 
NEFITS
Reduces Solid W
Reduces Manm
Footprint 
Reduces First C
Reduces Lifecyc
Costs 
mproves 
Accountability
Creates New 
nformation 
ements

R-6
D
ITS

Plan 
nt 
rk 
cling 
TY
Waste
made 
Costs 
cle 
79
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Waste Management Plan PR-6
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
• Integrate the CWMP with a Site Recycling Plan to earn credit CA‐3 Site Recycling Plan. 
• Modify, as appropriate for roads, versions of waste management plan specifications developed for building 
contractors by the Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA). The California Integrated Waste 
Management Board (CIWMB) provides Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) MasterFormat templates for 
Sections 01151 (New Construction) and 02060 (Demolition) for buildings construction debris. These tools were 
developed by the CMRA with funding from the Environmental Protection Agency and are available for free 
download and project‐specific use at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/conDemo/specs/CMRA.htm.  
• Keep accurate records and retain all waste handling invoices and receipts. The site listed above also includes 
spreadsheet templates that contractors may use for tracking waste during construction. 
• Specify a project diversion rate goal that may help establish appropriate waste handling procedures.  
• The Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) provides links to a variety of localities that offer 
construction and demolition waste recycling services. The list can be accessed at http://www.cdrecycling.org/. 
• Include the Waste Management Plan in agency contract documents, bid packages, and/or specifications. 
• Set waste reduction goals and explicitly state them in the Waste Management Plan 
• Locate receptacles in easily accessible or highly frequented locations on the jobsite. Receptacles should not be 
placed in areas where they may cause harm to workers or the local environment. See Pollution Prevention Plan 
for more information. 
• Hire a contractor with an Environmental Management System (EMS) in place. See Credit EW‐1 Environmental 
Management System. These employers already have internal office procedures established to reduce office‐
related pollution and may be familiar with local agency waste management efforts. 
• Develop and deliver training to workers to educate them on waste recovery efforts being implemented onsite 
and compliance with the general CWMP. This step will be critical to all projects. See Credit CA‐2 Environmental 
Awareness Training for more approaches and strategies for education programs. 
• Hire an experienced waste transport company to manage site waste and monitor waste streams for 
unacceptable materials. 
• Identify local facilities that accept recyclables or salvaged materials. This is important in designating type of 
waste to separate, and in making arrangements for drop‐off or delivery of materials. 
• The 2007 Contractor’s Guide by the King County Solid Waste Division and Seattle Public Utilities provides many 
helpful waste management and reduction strategies for the entire project. A sample waste management plan 
adapted from this guide is provided in the examples below. 
Example: Sample CWMP Template with Materials Recovery
The following example content has been adapted from the 2007 Seattle/King County Contractor’s Guide, which 
is available here: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/greenbuilding/documents/ConGuide.pdf. Project 
teams should consider customizing the CWMP information based on project goals and owner expectations.   
80
Greenroads
PR-6
Genera
Project
Site Wa
Phone:
Debris 
 
Waste 
 
Steps t
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
 
The fo
Materi
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
Materi
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
Figure 
Utilties
 
Examp
In 2005
agency
sewer d
exceed
Vancou
s™ Manual v1.5
al Contractor:  
t Name: 
aste Coordinat

Collection Age
Management 
to inform cont
ollowing charts
ial 
       
       
       
       
       
       
ial 
       
       
       
       
       
       
PR‐6.1 Sample
s, 2007) 
ple: Case St
5, the City of V
y strictly for ma
development (
ded 400,000 to
uver Landfill, ta
 
tor: 
ency: 
Goals: 
ractors/subco
C
 identify mate
handlin
D
Quant
       
       
       
       
       
       
 
Quant
       
       
       
       
       
       
 
e CWMP Temp
tudy - City
ancouver, Brit
anagement of i
(see Figures PR
nnes (MT: abo
aking up massi
Waste M
WASTE MA
ntractors of W
C&D Materials 
rials expected 
ng these mater
ECONSTRUCTI
tity (units)
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONST
tity (units)
 
 
 
 
 
 
plate. (Adapted
of Vancouv
ish Columbia c
infrastructure 
R‐6.2 and PR‐6.
out 441,000 ton
ve and preciou

Management Pl

ANAGEMEN
Waste Managem
Expected to b
to be generate
rials for disposa
ION & DEMOL
Haul Method
TRUCTION PHA
Haul Method
d from King Co
ver, British
created a new 
waste, such as
.3). The estima
ns) annually. T
us volume in th
an
NT PLAN
ment Plan pol
be Generated
ed by this proj
al and/or recyc
LITION PHASE
d & End Locatio
ASE
d  & End Locatio
ounty Solid Wa
Columbia R
engineering br
s waste genera
ated amount o
This waste had 
his limited loca
icies. 
ect and the pla
cling. 
ion Handli
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
ion Handli
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
aste Division &
Recycling In
ranch in their g
ated from road
of this infrastru
been previous
al resource.  
Project Require
anned method
ing Procedure
     
     
     
     
     
     
ing Procedure
     
     
     
     
     
     
& Seattle Publi
nitiative
governmental 
dway, water an
cture waste 
sly been dispos
ements

d for 
ic 
nd 
sed in 
81
Project Req

The inf
pavem
subbas
After th
implem
• 100
• 100
• Sto
extr
Figure 
waste. 
 
• Tra
cos
• Tot
$41
The inf
(2006).
Associa
includin
http://
POTENTI
1. Specify
and de
data av
may m
or wast
2. Potent
done o
any ma
conside
source,
the pro
3. If distu
measur
stockpi
quirements
frastructure wa
ent grindings, 
se material for 
his initiative, so
mented during 
0% of annual h
0% of annual co
ckpiles of soil, 
raction of new
PR‐6.2: Typica
(Bremner & C
nsportation of
t savings, emis
al cost savings
13,000 in 2005 
formation in th
. The City of Va
ation of Canada
ng reprocessin
www.tac‐atc.c
AL ISSUES
ying and creatin
cision‐makers 
vailable to offe
ean that addit
te divisions) ne
ial exists for tr
r where in the
aterial that leav
ered “waste.” T
, and before it 
oject. 
rbed or cut/fil
rement may be
ile and left in p
aste included a
and 90,000 MT
46 kilometers 
ome remarkab
the constructio
ot mix asphalt 
oncrete curb, s
asphalt, and c
w aggregate is o
al pile of roadw
City of Vancouv
f waste materia
ssions reductio
s for all measur
U.S. dollars). 
his case study c
ancouver recyc
a for their 200
ng and storage 
ca/english/reso
ng documents 
who do not no
er examples on
ional people fr
eed to be inclu
acked data to 
 waste stream
ves the bounda
Therefore, pro
leaves the site
l material is sto
e more difficul
place). Volume
Waste M
approximately 
T of concrete e
(almost 29 mi
ble results were
on of roadway
milling waste 
sidewalk and ro
oncrete are no
often avoided.
way constructi
ver, 2006) 
als was reduce
on, and paveme
res has an estim
comes from the
cling initiative w
5 Environment
activities that 
ourcecentre/re
for waste man
ormally manag
 how to monit
rom outside ag
ded on the pro
be measured i
 it is measured
aries of the roa
obably a good p
e. This way, qu
ockpiled on‐sit
t if not monito
 measurement

Management Pl
300,000 MT of
excavations. Th
les) of road. 
e achieved thro
ys and infrastru
is now recycle
oadway slab m
ow available fo
  
on 
Figur
utility
ed by over 22,5
ent wear. 
mated value of
e report produ
was considered
tal Achieveme
are also part o
eadingroom/co
nagement prac
ge waste. There
tor and measur
gency engineer
oject team to i
nconsistently, 
d. In order to a
adway project 
place to measu
antities are mo
te and not inte
ored by trucklo
ts, such as exp
an
f excavated so
he latter amou
ough waste m
ucture: 
ed. 
material is now
or more projec
re PR‐6.3: Boul
y work. (Brem
500 dump truc
f over CN$500
uced by Bremn
d for nominati
nt Award. Mor
of this initiative
onference/con
ctices may be u
e may be a ste
re road‐related
ring departme
implement a C
either becaus
ddress this, th
 site, even if in
ure the waste g
ore likely to be
ended for use o
oads (e.g. mate
ected cut volu
Gre
oil, 35,000 MT o
unt is estimated
anagement ac
w recycled. 
cts after reproc
lders excavate
mner & City of V
k trips, resultin
0,000 annually 
ner and the City
ion by the Tran
re information
e, can be found
f2006/docs/s0
unfamiliar to ro
eep learning cu
d waste stream
nts (such as en
CWMP effective
e of how the m
his requiremen
ntended for reu
generated is ac
e captured and
on the roadway
erial is excavate
umes, may be m
enroads™ Manu
of hot mix asph
d to provide en
tivities that we
cessing and 
ed during road
Vancouver, 20
ng in substanti
(approximatel
y of Vancouver
nsportation 
n about the pro
d at: 
007/bremner.p
oadway design
rve, as there is
ms. This require
nvironment, ec
ely. 
measurement i
t clearly notes
use later, is 
ctually at the 
d representativ
y project, 
ed in a large 
more appropria
ual v1.5
PR-6
halt 
nough 
ere 
way 
006) 
al fuel 


oject, 
pdf  
ners 
s little 
ement 
cology 
is 
 that 
ve of 
ate 
82
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-6 Waste Management Plan
units of measure than mass. Some ingenuity may be required to determine an appropriate solution to account 
for on‐site solid waste. 
4. Careless behavior or lack of stewardship may be an issue that can result in recyclables being disposed in waste‐
only receptacles, or vice versa, especially if objectives of a WMP are not meaningful or communicated well to 
workers. This behavior can contaminate the recyclables stream and make an entire receptacle unsuitable for 
reprocessing or salvage, or accidentally send recyclables to a landfill. 
5. Proper handling of recyclable materials is a key safety issue for new and unfamiliar recycling activities. 
Communication and training is critical to minimize risk and preserve safety. 
6. Safety and security considerations should be taken into account relative to storage on‐site of recoverable 
materials of high value. Opportunities for theft may be increased, especially for some types of metals that are 
commonly used in infrastructure or electrical utilities like copper wire. 
7. At this time, points are not available for achieving waste reduction based on percentage of total waste. This is 
due to lack of data regarding waste management for roadway construction activities. 
RESEARCH
“Solid material waste generation is one of the many environmental burdens associated with the roadway life 
cycle.” (Rajendran & Gambatese, 2007, p. 88). Waste management, especially as recycling, minimization or reuse, 
is one of the cornerstone principles of sustainable development and pollution prevention programs. Both 
municipal solid waste (MSW) and building industry construction and demolition (C&D) waste are well‐
characterized. These types of waste are monitored and measured by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
and many state agencies. Remarkably little is known about quantities and types of solid waste generated by the 
transportation industry during road and bridge construction and rehabilitation activities (EPA, 2009a; Rajendran & 
Gambetese, 2007; Rajendran & Gambetese, 2005; Aquino, 2003; Northeast Waste Management Officials’ 
Association, 2009). A key component is also very unclear: where the waste actually ends up. 
This may be partly due to the relative ease with which hot mix asphalt, concrete, soil and cobble waste is 
recovered and reprocessed. Facilities that manage C&D waste are relatively unregulated parts of the waste 
management industry, even though they may receive a very large volume of materials from road and bridge 
construction. Bloomquist et al. (1993; cited in Rajendran & Gambatese, 2007) state in their report to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that approximately 75% 
of highway pavement materials are recovered. Note that this data is nearly 20 years old (or more) and no 
significant progress on characterizing road construction waste has been made, except at very few local agencies 
(see Examples noted above) where the focus is on cost‐reduction and the savings associated with incorporating 
recycled materials into design standards. 
What is Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste? 
The definition of what is considered construction and demolition (C&D) waste varies by state and local jurisdiction. 
The EPA definition is just as broad: materials that consist of “debris generated during the construction, renovation, 
and demolition of buildings, roads, and bridges” (EPA, 2009e). Construction debris is considered to be a specific 
type of solid waste, which is clearly defined under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to 
the United States 1972 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Title 40 CFR § 261.2 (EPA, 2009d; ICF, 
1995b). It is also considered industrial waste to differentiate its origin in the commercial and institutional sectors 
from MSW, which is mostly residential in origin (EPA, 2009b). Most of the waste is perceived as inert, however, 
some can be considered hazardous, such as structural elements with lead‐based paint. 
C&D waste is generated from “construction, renovation, repair, and demolition of structures such as residential 
and commercial buildings, roads, and bridges” and in general is comprised of a variety of materials (ICF, 1995b). 
The most common material in building C&D landfilled waste streams is waste wood, hot mix asphalt (from parking 
lots), drywall and masonry (ICF, 1995b); clearly the waste stream from roads and bridges has a different 
composition. For example, in Vancouver, British Columbia, earthen materials composed over half of the 
infrastructure demolition of the waste stream, followed by concrete and hot mix asphalt pavement materials in 
lesser quantities (Bremner, 2006). Franklin Associates (1998) justifies omitting roadway construction and 
83
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Waste Management Plan PR-6
demolition debris from their report to the EPA on C&D waste because it was not easily characterized and no point‐
source data was available for their study. Generally, data for percent composition of roadway waste stream 
materials is not available from any reliable source and it is clearly rarely tracked in a meaningful way. The waste 
stream for every roadway project will be unique in both volume and composition and end point, due to many 
factors such as: project size, location, material type, construction or demolition means, schedule, contractor site 
waste management practices (ICF, 1995b). 
How Much C&D Waste Is There? 
In March 2009, the EPA released 2003 data on construction and demolition waste from the building industry, 
which generated an estimated 170 million tons (EPA, 2009a), up from 136 million tons stated in 1996 (Franklin 
Associates, 1998; EPA, 2008b) The EPA notes that “Significant additional quantities of C&D materials are generated 
from the construction of roads and bridges, from land clearing at construction sites, and at military installations” 
(EPA, 2008b). The most recent waste stream characterization study funded by the EPA and conducted by the 
Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA, 2009) characterized the 2006 C&D waste stream 
for several New England states. Interestingly, this study specifically excluded aggregated data relevant to the hot 
mix asphalt, brick and concrete (ABC) waste generated from road, bridge and land clearing projects because “the 
quantity of ABC material generated by road and bridge projects often dwarfs the quantity generated from other 
sources and can significantly bias the data on overall management of C&D wastes.” (p. 2). This is, in part, due to 
the variations between C&D facilities relative to waste handling practices and types and quantities of materials 
that they receive, and the tendency to classify road ABC waste as “aggregate” in the waste stream reports. In 
addition, the report justifies its exclusion of transportation waste because roadway project material is often 
recycled into new aggregate for road base or pavement sections and processing often occurs on‐site or at 
specialized facility (NEWMOA, 2009). 
Gambetese and Rajendran (2005) note that little research is available on lifecycle impacts of roadway waste 
material, especially at end‐of‐life of the pavement sections, and have attempted to model this road waste. These 
same authors (2007) provide a good summary of road C&D waste estimates from various agencies and authors, 
and include what is known about waste quantities and percentages throughout the world for roadways. However, 
importantly, they note that “no exact estimates of C&D waste from the transportation industry are available” and 
that existing literature indicates road and bridge waste contributes significantly to the waste stream, more so than 
the building industry. William Turley, Executive Director of the Construction Materials Recycling Association 
(CMRA) estimated in 2003 that the annual C&D waste generated in the United States was roughly 320 million tons 
(Aquino, 2003). Following the publishing of the EPA 2009 report on 2003 building industry waste, Turley noted 
(Johnson, 2009) that the total waste stream is more realistically estimated at 325 to 350 million tons (for 2003) 
after infrastructure waste is accounted in the total. This would mean transportation‐related construction, 
demolition, and rehabilitation activities generate and dispose of C&D waste at approximately the same rate as the 
building industry. 
Based on available lifecycle process data and their collected end‐of‐life waste statistics for road waste, Rajendran 
and Gambetese (2007) conducted a quantitative lifecycle inventory (LCI) model of typical hot mix asphalt and 
concrete pavement sections from extraction of materials to end‐of‐life to estimate the waste contributions from 
each pavement type. Their model showed that over 50% of the lifecycle waste was generated from end‐of‐life 
waste disposal practices for both pavement models. However, their models did not include any recycling or 
reprocessing activities because these processes are not well‐characterized. Waste generation rates at end‐of‐life, 
and during construction (scraps and refuse) are shown in Table PR‐6.1. 
   
84
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-6 Waste Management Plan
Table PR‐6.1: Roadway Material Waste Rates at End‐of‐Life and Construction 
(Adapted from Rajendran & Gambetese, 2007) 
Pavement Material Type 
Waste Rate at End‐of‐Life
(% of Material) 
Waste Rate during Placement of New Road
(% of Material) 
Concrete Pavement  25 2.5 
Concrete  Pavement – Cement  ‐ 2.45 
Concrete  Pavement – Aggregates  ‐ 3.0 
Steel Rebar  55 1.79 
Asphalt Pavement  18 0.102 
Asphalt Pavement – Asphalt  ‐ 0.86 
Crushed Stone Base  17.1 0.88 
Crushed Gravel Base  18.5 0.88 
Granular Subbase  23 0.80 
Subgrade  12.8 ‐ 
 
The EPA (2009c) notes that Industrial processes contributed to a total of 7.6 billion tons of non‐hazardous solid 
waste generated in the U.S. in 2006. These processes include pavement material production such as asphalt and 
cement manufacturing. These wastes are outside the scope of Greenroads (at this time) because they occur earlier 
in the supply chain than materials produced (mixed) after ground‐breaking for the roadway project. However, 
agencies and contractors are encouraged to work with industries that demonstrate responsible waste 
management practices.  
Where Does It Go? 
Most roadway, bridge and land clearing debris is managed by the same C&D landfills and reprocessing facilities as 
the building industry and represent a very large portion of the total C&D waste received by these facilities (Franklin 
Associates, 1998). Approximately 1,500 C&D landfills were operational in the United States in 2004 (EPA, 2009a). 
However, while building C&D waste composition and volume is monitored, the EPA admits that commercially 
generated C&D waste, such as from transportation and industry, is not because it is typically collected and 
disposed by the private sector. This makes managing these processes more difficult for municipalities, who have 
been slow to target this waste stream (EPA, 2009b). Also, the EPA reports that “Unknown amounts of C&D 
materials are also believed to go to combustion facilities or unpermitted landfills.” (2008c). 
Many states also accept exported wastes from other states, which complicates tracking recovery activities 
(NEWMOA, 2009). States also differ in waste management practices: in some cases the majority of C&D waste is 
sent directly to landfill while other states will pre‐process the waste before it gets landfilled. “There is no common 
standard as to how C&D wastes are processed at facilities in different states or even within a single state.” 
(NEWMOA, 2009). The type of receiving facility varies and can be C&D only landfills, C&D recovery facilities (which 
still dispose unrecoverable materials into landfills eventually), municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, or combined 
C&D and MSW facilities (EPA, 2008a; EPA, 2008c). The type of landfill where C&D waste might be received for your 
project depends on local opportunity, and no federal regulation specifically dictates where it must go. Facilities in 
the U.S. that accept C&D waste, sorted by EPA Regions, are provided by the Construction Industry Compliance 
Assistance Center (CICA): http://www.cicacenter.org/.  
Costs of Roadway Waste 
Generally, road waste materials, like aggregate, asphalt and concrete, are heavy and, therefore, costly to 
transport. Reprocessed inert waste products are often cost‐competitive with virgin aggregate because many waste 
recovery facilities will crush and resell these wastes to avoid transport to landfill  (NEWMOA, 2009), but this may 
not be the case where there is open landfill space, low tipping fees, or other low‐cost or virtually‐free disposal 
options available (William Turley qtd. in Aquino, 2003).  Essentially, this likely makes waste management 
commonplace in the transportation industry, because it is a cost‐effective best practice. 
85
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Waste Management Plan PR-6
In 1995, the EPA issued a report (ICF, 1995a) on environmental damages associated with C&D landfills, specifically 
to collect available data on groundwater or surface water pollution and ecosystem or habitat impacts, and to 
determine if these impacts can be attributed to specific types of C&D waste, landfill operations and environmental 
location. The study found that minimal data was available, many sites lacked basic environmental controls (like 
liners), and focused on only 11 C&D landfill sites. On‐site groundwater contamination was present at several of 
these sites that exceeded acceptable levels of inorganic contaminants for state secondary groundwater quality 
standards (i.e. taste). Additionally, several sites were found to have inorganic surface water contamination that 
exceeded either state levels or EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for freshwater aquatic life. Some of these 
impacts were attributed to characteristics of the landfill location such as shallow groundwater or permeable soils 
(ICF, 1995a). Notably, there are many other impacts associated with long‐term environmental degradation, using 
open space or habitat for landfills, and social and economic impacts that are not easily quantifiable. Current data 
on existing C&D landfill capacity in the United States is not available from any reliable source. Also, due to the high 
variability of size, location, capacities, and facility types lumped in industry census statistics for waste management 
does not adequately characterize the costs of landfilling large volumes of roadway waste. 
How is C&D Waste Regulated? 
While MSW regulations are a core part of the RCRA and governed at a federal level by the EPA, most of the 
regulations regarding C&D waste are generally non‐specific and managed by states and local jurisdictions. 
However, the 1995 draft report created for the EPA Office of Solid Waste, indicates that all 50 states have some 
regulations for the C&D landfill facilities not located on private property, though many are not as strict as those for 
MSW facilities, which are covered under RCRA Title 40 CFR § 257 and 258. Additionally, “Executive Order 13423 
requires all federal construction, renovation, and demolition projects to achieve a 50% recycling rate where 
markets or on‐site recycling opportunities exist.” (EPA, 2009a). The most detailed review for the EPA regarding the 
variability of landfill regulatory requirements is given in the 1995 draft report from ICF Incorporated. 
In Departments of Transportation across the U.S., the story is similar: regulations are varied and often vague or 
non‐existent. In fact, most Departments of Transportation (DOTs) do not have any management control over the 
waste and typically, road‐related waste is handled by a different state agency (environmental or ecology, for 
example). The lack of consistency in characterizing and regulating this massive waste stream fundamentally 
demonstrates a large opportunity for both source reduction and waste minimization management protocols for 
roadway C&D waste. 
Waste Management Planning 
Waste management planning may be an unfamiliar consideration for roadway design agencies, engineers or 
contractors because traditionally this is not one of their professional responsibilities. However, Kibert (2005) notes 
that proper planning and quality assurance plans are imperative to the successful construction and continued 
performance of building industry projects, and the same may be said for roadway projects. Poorly defined 
parameters for C&D waste, including what it is and what it is not, are necessary for an effective waste 
management plan. Another key part of waste management is measurement. Consistency in any measurement 
program should include clear identification of where the waste is to be measured (i.e. leaving the construction 
site) and by what unit of measure (volume or mass) (ICF, 1995b). Responsible treatment of waste materials, if the 
wasteful practices themselves cannot be eliminated, is a necessity for reducing the long‐term need for landfill 
space filled with inert, reusable materials. 
Kibert (2005) also notes that with thoughtful planning and engineering, final contract documents can often 
anticipate sources of construction waste and generally generate less of it (as well as having fewer errors and 
change orders throughout the process). Specifications will also require a clear definition of what C&D waste means 
for the project. He states that source reduction (reduced need for materials) is most effective in minimizing waste, 
especially for new projects. Such success was demonstrated by the Examples from TxDOT and the City of 
Vancouver (Bremner, 2006), which were achieved largely through contract language (including specific instructions 
for recyclability, salvagability and special handling) and assignment of waste management responsibilities to 
various parties. Since the pavement engineer is responsible for the main material components project, i.e. the 
86
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-6 Waste Management Plan
largest portion of the mass, there is an indirect responsibility to handle the selection process for these materials by 
keeping the end of the design life in mind. 
Additional Resources 
• The report from the EPA called RCRA in Focus: Construction, Demolition and Renovation is a freely available 
report that provides suggested strategies for inclusion in a waste management plan without violating 
regulatory requirements and discusses special materials‐handling issues in C&D waste. It is available here: 
http://www.epa.gov/waste/inforesources/pubs/infocus/rif‐c&d.pdf 
• Two organizations that compile information for waste management activities relevant to roadway design and 
construction are the Construction Materials Recycling Association (http://www.cdrecycling.org) and the Green 
Highways Partnership (http://www.greenhighwayspartnership.org/). 
GLOSSARY
C&D  Construction and demolition
CFR  Code of Federal Regulations
CMRA  Construction Materials Recycling Association
Construction & demolition waste  Material that must be hauled off‐site for disposal or reprocessing, or, if 
disposed within the project ROW, is not intended for engineered use on‐site 
EPA  Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA  Federal Highway Administration
HSWA  Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 to RCRA 
MSW  Municipal solid waste
MT  Metric ton (tonne)
NEWMOA  Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association 
RCRA  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1972)
ROW  Right‐of‐Way
TxDOT  Texas Department of Transportation
USDOT  United States Department of Transportation
 
REFERENCES
Aquino, J.T. (2003). C&D Waste: A Sometimes Bumpy Road to More Attention. MSW Management. July‐August 
2003. Accessed December 16, 2009. Available at http://www.mswmanagement.com/july‐august‐2003/cd‐
waste‐recycle.aspx 
Bloomquist, D., Diamond, G., Oden, M., Ruth, B., & Tia, M. (1993). Engineering and Environmental Aspects of 
Recycled Materials for Highway Construction. FHWA‐RD‐93‐088, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA 
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 
Bremner, P. & City of Vancouver Engineering Services. (2006) Road construction waste: to landfill or recycle? There 
is no question. In proceedings of Transportation Association of Canada 2006 Annual Conference and Exhibition. 
Session: 2005 TAC Environmental Achievement Award Nominations. Accessed October 22, 2008. Available at  
http://www.tac‐atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2006/docs/s007/bremner.pdf  
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). (2009, October 27). Recycle: CIWMB. Accessed 
December 21, 2009. Available at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Recycle/  
California Integrated Waste Management Board. (2009, June 22) C&D Recycling: CMRA Master Specifications. 
Accessed December 16, 2009. Available at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/conDemo/specs/CMRA.htm. 
87
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Waste Management Plan PR-6
Construction Industry Research and Information Association. (2004, April 28). CIRIA: Construction Waste and 
Resources. Design and Construction Good Practice Pointers. Accessed December 21, 2009. Available at:  
http://www.ciria.org.uk/cwr/good_practice_pointers.htm 
Construction Materials Recycling Association. (2009a). CMRA: Home. Accessed December 16, 2009. Available at 
http://www.cdrecycling.org/ 
Construction Materials Recycling Association. (2009b). 2009 C&D Recycling Excellence Honored By CMRA [Press 
Release]. April 6, 2009. Accessed December 16, 2009. Available at http://www.cdrecycling.org/news 
Davio, R. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2000) Lessons Learned: 
TxDOT’s Efforts to Increase the Use of Recycled Materials. Public Roads. 64(1). Accessed December 16, 2009. 
Available at http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/julaug00/recyctx.htm  
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2008, October 2) Landfills | C&D Materials | Wastes | US EPA. Accessed 
December 16, 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/cd/cdlandfill.htm 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2008a, September 11) Landfills | Municipal Solid Waste | Wastes | US 
EPA. Accessed December 16, 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2008b, October 2) Basic Information | C&D Materials | Wastes | US EPA. 
Accessed December 16, 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/cd/basic.htm 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009b, March 13) Industrial Wastes | Wastes | US EPA. Accessed 
December 16, 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/index.htm 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009c, March 13) Non‐Hazardous Wastes | Wastes | US EPA. Accessed 
December 16, 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/index.htm 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009d, July 1) Definition of Solid Waste | Wastes | US EPA. Accessed 
December 16, 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/dsw/index.htm 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009e, November 16) C&D Materials | Wastes | US EPA. Accessed 
December 16, 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/imr/cdm/index.htm 
Environmental Protection Agency. (2004, September) RCRA in Focus: Construction, Demolition, and Renovation. 
(EPA530‐K‐04‐005). Accessed December 16, 2009. Available at: 
http://www.epa.gov/waste/inforesources/pubs/infocus/rif‐c&d.pdf 
Environmental Protection Agency. (2008b, September 30). Climate Change and Municipal Solid Waste Fact Sheet | 
Pay‐As‐You‐Throw | US EPA.  Accessed December 21, 2009. Available at 
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt/tools/factfin.htm  
Environmental Protection Agency. (2008c, November 13). Municipal Solid Waste | Wastes | US EPA.  Accessed 
December 21, 2009. Available at  http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm  
Environmental Protection Agency. (2008e, December 3). P2 Resource Exchange | Pollution Prevention | US EPA.  
Accessed December 21, 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/p2rx.html.  
Environmental Protection Agency. (2009a, March) Estimating 2003 Building‐Related Construction and Demolition 
Materials Amounts. (EPA530‐R‐09‐002). Accessed December 16, 2009. Available at: 
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/rrr/imr/cdm/pubs/cd‐meas.pdf 
88
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-6 Waste Management Plan
Environmental Protection Agency. (2009a, September 14). Waste Home | General Information on the Link 
Between Solid Waste and Climate Change | Climate Change ‐ What You Can Do | US EPA.  Accessed December 
21, 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climate/climatechange/wycd/waste/generalinfo.html  
Environmental Protection Agency. (2009c, November) Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal 
in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008. (EPA‐530‐F‐009‐021) Available at 
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf 
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. (2009b, November). Municipal 
Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Detailed Tables and Figures for 2008. 
Available at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008data.pdf 
Franklin Associates, Inc. (1998, June). Characterization of Building‐Related Construction and Demolition Debris in 
the United States. Report prepared for Environmental Protection Agency Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste 
Division, Office of Solid Waste. (EPA530‐R‐98‐010). Prairie Village, KS: TechLaw, Inc.  Available at 
http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/generation/sqg/c&d‐rpt.pdf   
Gambatese, J. A., & Rajendran, S. (2005). Sustainable Roadway Construction: Energy Consumption and Material 
Waste Generation of Roadways. In Proceedings of the ASCE Construction Research Congress 2005: Broadening 
perspectives, April 5‐7, 2005 (San Diego, Ca). Reston, Va: American Society of Civil Engineers. 
Green Highways Partnership, Global Environment & Technology Fund. (2008). Green Highways Partnership. 
Accessed December 16, 2009. Available at http://www.greenhighwayspartnership.org/ 
ICF Incorporated. (1995a, May 18).  Environmental Damages Cases from Construction and Demolition Waste 
Landfills [DRAFT]. Report prepared for Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 
http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/generation/sqg/damages/dam‐pdf/damage.pdf 
ICF Incorporated. (1995b, May 18). Report on Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills [DRAFT]. Report 
prepared for Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 
http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/generation/sqg/const/cdrpt.pdf  
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007) Pachauri, R.K & Reisinger, A. eds.  Climate Change 2007: 
Synthesis Report. “Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment. Report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” IPCC: Switzerland, 2007. 104 pp. 
Johnson, J. (2009, March 30). EPA estimates C&D debris up 25%. Waste Recycling News. Accessed December 16, 
2009. Available at http://wastenews.texterity.com/wastenews/20090330//Print_su#pg1  
Kibert, C. (2005). Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery (1st ed.). Hoboken N.J.: John Wiley & 
Sons.  
King County Solid Waste Division & Seattle Public Utilties. (2007). 2007 Contractors Guide ‐ King County Solid 
Waste Division. Available at: http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/greenbuilding/documents/ConGuide.pdf 
King County Solid Waste Division. (2008, October 2). Design specifications and waste management plans for green 
building projects in King County, WA. Accessed December 20, 2009. Available at: 
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/greenbuilding/construction‐recycling/specifications‐plans.asp 
King County Solid Waste Division. (2009, October 20) Green Building ‐ King County Solid Waste Division. Accessed 
December 20, 2009. Available at: http://www.greentools.us  
89
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Waste Management Plan PR-6
Kourmpanis, B., Papadopoulos, A., Moustakas, K., Stylianou, M., Haralambous, K., & Loizidou, M. (2008). 
Preliminary study for the management of construction and demolition waste. Waste Management & Research. 
26 (3), 267‐275. 
McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York: North 
Point Press.  
Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA). (2009, June 30). Construction & Demolition 
WasteManagement in the Northeast in 2006. Boston, Ma: NEWMOA. Available at 
http://www.newmoa.org/solidwaste/CDReport2006DataFinalJune302009.pdf  
Poon, C. S., Yu, A. T. W. & Ng, L. H. (2001). On‐site sorting of construction and demolition waste in Hong Kong. 
Resources, Conservation, and Recycling. 32 (2), 157.   
Rajendran, S. & Gambatese, J. A. (2007). Solid Waste Generation in Asphalt and Reinforced Concrete Roadway Life 
Cycles. Journal of Infrastructure Systems. 13 (2), 88.  
Schultmann, F. & Sunke, N. (2007). Energy‐oriented deconstruction and recovery planning. Building Research &; 
Information. 35 (6), 602‐615. 
Seydel, A., Wilson, O. D. & Skitmore, R. M. (2002). Financial Evaluation of Waste Management Methods. Journal of 
Construction Research. 3 (1), 167‐179. 
Sustainable Sites Initiative. (2009) The Sustainable Sites Initiative: Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks 2009. 
Available at http://www.sustainablesites.org/report/ 
United States Green Building Council (USGBC). (2009) LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations 
Rating System. Available at http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=220  
WasteCap Resource Solutions. WasteCap Resource Solutions ‐ Construction & Demolition. Accessed December 21, 
2009. Available at http://www.wastecapwi.org/resources/construction‐demolition/ 
90
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-7 Pollution Prevention Plan
POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
GOAL
Reducepollutionandassociatedeffectsfromconstructionactivities.
REQUIREMENTS
CreateandimplementacomprehensiveStormwaterPollutionPreventionPlan
(SWPPP)orTemporaryErosionandSedimentationControl(TESC)planthatconforms
totherequirementsofthecurrentEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)
ConstructionGeneralPermitORthelocalorstateConstructionGeneralPermitinareas
thatmanagetheirownpermittingplan,whicheverismorestringent.TheSWPPP/TESC
mustaddresswaterqualitycontrolanddustcontrolactivitiesusedduringconstruction
oftheroadwayproject.
Details
Note:ASWPPPforconstructionactivitiesisalsosometimescalledaTemporary
ErosionandSedimentationControl(TESC)PlanorPollutionPreventionPlan(PPP)
dependingonlocaljurisdictions.
ThisrequirementappliestoALLGreenroadsprojects,regardlessofsize.
DOCUMENTATION
x CopyoftheStormwaterPollutionPreventionPlan(SWPPP)orTemporaryErosion
andSedimentationControlPlan(TESC)signedbythecertifiedErosionand
SedimentControlinspectororauthorizedspecialistfortheprojectupon
completionofconstruction.
PR-7
REQUIRED
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ4QualityControl
Plan
9 PRͲ6Waste
ManagementPlan
9 PRͲ8LowImpact
Development
9 EWͲ1Environmental
ManagementSystem
9 EWͲ2RunoffFlow
Control
9 EWͲ3RunoffQuality
9 CAͲ1Quality
ManagementSystem
9 CAͲ2Environmental
Training
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Expectations
BENEFITS
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesWater
Pollution
9 ReducesSolidWaste

91
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Pollution Prevention Plan PR-7
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Evaluatefederal,stateandlocalrequirementsformoststringentpollutionpreventionstandards
x IdentifyanyhighriskpollutionͲrelatedelementsoftheprojectearlyindesign.
x Usedesignandconstructionstaffproperlytrainedinpollutionprevention.
x Considersitetopographycarefullyduringplanningforconstructionstagingareasandstorageareasfor
aggregates,wastesandothermaterials.
x Createthepollutionpreventionplanduringprojectdevelopment.(USGBC,2009)
x Usemorethanonestrategytopreventpollutiononyourprojectsuchas(SustainableSitesInitiative,2009;
USGBC,2009):
x Temporaryandpermanentseeding
x Mulching
x Earthdikes
x Sedimenttraps
x Sedimentbasins
x Filtersocks
x Compostbermsandblankets
x Secondarycontainment
x Spillcontrolequipment
x Hazardouswastemanifests,and
x Overfillalarms.
x Siltfencing
x Sealpavementonlywhenweatherisnotrainy.(SustainableSitesInitiative,2009).
x Donotconductmassgradingoperationsbeforelargestormsareforecast(SustainableSitesInitiative,2009).
x Coordinatestagingactivitieswithacontractorduringdesignwherepossible.
x Usecarewhensequencingconstructionactivities,especiallyforinstallationoflowͲimpactdevelopment(LID)
infiltrationsystems(SustainableSitesInitiative,2009).
x HaveanenvironmentalmonitoronsitetomakesurethattherequirementsoftheSWPPParebeingfollowed.
Example: EPA SWPPP Templates and Guidance
TheEPAprovidesasignificantamountofguidancetoaidindevelopingstormwaterpollutionpreventionplan
forconstructionactivities.Anumberoftoolsareavailable,suchas:
x SWPPPTemplateforstatesauthorizedtoimplementNPDES:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_swppp_template_authstates.doc
x SWPPPTemplateforjurisdictionsnotauthorizedtoimplementNPDES(Alaska,Massachusetts,Idaho,New
Mexico,NewHampshire,theDistrictofColumbia,U.S.Territories,andIndianland):
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_swppp_template_unauthstates.doc
x HelpfulguidanceondevelopingSWPPPsforyourconstructionsite,DevelopingYourStormwaterPollution
PreventionPlan:aGuideforConstructionSites:http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_swppp_guide.pdf.
Moretools,sampleplans,inspectiontemplatesandotherhelpfulinformationareavailableat
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/Stormwater/swppp.cfm.(EPA,2008)
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. TheEPAonlyrequiresConstructionGeneralPermitsforlanddisturbingactivitiesgreaterthanoneacreinsize.
However,everyGreenroadsprojectmusthaveaplanforcontrollingconstructionstormwaterrunoff,
regardlessofsize,becausesizedoesnotdictategoodpracticeorinsignificanceofpollutiongeneratedbythese
constructionactivities.Theprecedenceforthisrequirementhasbeenestablishedbyothersustainabilityrating
92
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-7 Pollution Prevention Plan
systems,suchasthe2009SustainableSitesInitiative(see“Prerequisite7.1Controlandretainconstruction
pollutants”)andtheLEED™2009GreenBuildingRatingSystem(see“Prerequisite1ConstructionActivity
PollutionPrevention”inthe“SustainableSites”creditcategory).
2. ForsmallprojectsthatdonotnormallyneedtocompleteaSWPPP,aSWPPPwillneedtobegenerated.This
couldrequireadditionalmanhoursfortheproject,especiallyiftheSWPPPdevelopmentprocessisunfamiliar.
3. SomejurisdictionsmayhavestormwaterrequirementsinplacethataresimilarbutnotidenticaltotheNPDES
requirements.Insuchcases,additionalsupportingdocumentationmayberequestedtodemonstratethatthe
projectSWPPPinplaceisequaltoormorestringenttherequirementsfortheEPAConstructionGeneral
Permit.However,thisrequirementdoesnotintendtogenerateextrapaperwork,sowherepossible,linksto
currentagencypoliciesmaybeprovidedinsupportofthisProjectRequirement.
RESEARCH
Providinganerosionandsedimentcontrolplanduringtheconstructionofinfrastructureholdsbothcontractors
andownersaccountabletoprotectthesurroundingenvironmentfromnegativeeffectsofexcesssedimentand
pollutioninstormwater.
Providingerosionandsedimentationcontrolduringconstructionofroadwayinfrastructureprevents:
x Degradationofaquatichabitatsoffishandinsects(EPA,1999)aswellasotherwildlifecommunities.
x Increasedsedimentloadinginnearbystreamsandoutfalls(EPA,1999).
Theincreaseinsedimentfoundinrunoffonconstructionsitescanbeattributedtolandthathasbeenclearedof
vegetationleavingexposedsoil.Increasedsedimentloadinginriversandstreamsisthemostcommonproblemfor
waterquality(EPA,2009b).Ifraineventsoccur,thiscancauseerosion,andiferosionisnotcontainedusingthe
stormwaterbestmanagementpracticesoutlinedintheNPDES,sedimentcanthenbemixedwithstormwater.At
constructionsites,thesehaveoftenbeenfoundtocontainmetalsandorganicmaterial,whichcancausedamage
towetlandhabitats(EPA,1999).Furthermore,excessivesedimentationdegradeshabitatsandcausesignificant
decreasestothefishandinsectpopulationsofawatershed.
TheUnitedStatesEPArecommendskeepingcurrentwaterhabitatstothesamequalityastheywerebefore
constructiontakesplace.Theintentofthisistoensurethewaterqualitypreconstructionisthesameasthewater
qualitypostconstruction,meaningitisimportanttoensurethesamevolumesofwaterarebeingdischarged
naturallybeforeandafterdevelopment(EPA,1999).IntheEPA’sreporttocongressin1999theagencyshowsa
clearmessagethattheintentofthesepermitsistopreventanyandallnegativeimpactstostreams:
”Inmanycases,considerationoftheincreasedflowrate,velocityandenergyofstormwater
dischargesfollowingdevelopmentunavoidablymustbetakenintoconsiderationinordertoreduce
thedischargeofpollutants,tomeetwaterqualitystandardsandtopreventdegradationofreceiving
streams.”(EPA,1999)
TheNPDESconstructiongeneralpermitisthegoverningpermitsetforthbytheUnitedStatesEPAforthe
dischargeofconstructionstormwater.Thispermitregulatestheeffluentlimitsforbothsedimentandpollution
andisavailableathttp://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cgp2008_finalpermit.pdf.However,localorstateregulations
mayincludemorestringentrequirements.MoststatesareauthorizedbytheEPAtomanagetheirownstormwater
pollutioncontrolactivities(allbutfiveandtheDistrictofColumbia:Massachusetts,NewHampshire,NewMexico,
AlaskaandIdaho).TheEPAalsogovernstheseactivitiesinterritoriesandIndianCountry(EPA,2009a).
TheUnitedStatesEPAoutlinestheprovisionsnecessarytocomplywithPhaseIandPhaseIIoftheNational
PollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)program.Themajordifferencebetweenthetwophasesisinthe
sizeofthefootprint.ThePhaseIIpermitappliestoallsitesinwhichbetweenoneandfiveacresoflanddisturbing
activityoccur(IllinoisEPA).WhilePhaseIencompassesallconstructionsitesdisturbingfiveacresormore(Illinois
93
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Pollution Prevention Plan PR-7
EPA).InformationontheEPA’sNPDESprogramisavailableathttp://cfpub2.epa.gov/npdes/index.cfm(EPA,
2009b).
GLOSSARY
Effluent Outflowingwater
EPA EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
Erosion Aphysicalprocessthatremovessolidmaterialsfromtheirsourceand
transportsthemtoanotherlocation
NPDES NationalPollutionDischargeEliminationSystem
Sedimentation Theaccumulationofsoilparticlesinwaterbodies
Stormwater Waterfromrainfallevents
SWPPP StormwaterPollutionPreventionPlan
TESC TemporaryErosionandSedimentationControlPlan

REFERENCES
IllinoisEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,(2002).WhatisPhaseIIoftheNPDESstormwatermanagement
program?Springfield,IL.Availableathttp://www.epa.state.il.us/smallͲbusiness/phaseͲtwo/
SustainableSitesInitiative.(2009)TheSustainableSitesInitiative:GuidelinesandPerformanceBenchmarks2009.
Availableathttp://www.sustainablesites.org/report/
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,(2008,November4).EPA|StormwaterPollutionPreventionfor
ConstructionActivities.Availableathttp://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/Stormwater/swppp.cfm
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,(2009a,February26).EPA|AuthorizationStatusforEPA’s
StormwaterConstructionProgram.Availableat
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/authorizationstatus.cfm
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,(2009b,November4).EPA|GeneralConstructionPermit.
Availableathttp://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp.cfm
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,(1999).Nationalpollutantdischargeeliminationsystem—
regulationsforrevisionofthewaterpollutioncontrolprogramaddressingstormwaterdischarges(FRLͲ6470Ͳ
8).Washington,DC:FederalRegister.Availableat
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OPEI/Sbrefa.nsf/0728e3a1cc2339df85256cf4005020db/9762f1aedc3fbe4585256cef0
07b0599/$FILE/pnl03f.pdf
UnitedStatesGreenBuildingCouncil(USGBC).(2009)LEED2009forNewConstructionandMajorRenovations
RatingSystem.Availableathttp://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=220
94
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-8 Low Impact Development
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
GOAL
UselowͲimpactdevelopment(LID)stormwatermanagementsolutionswhere
appropriatetobettermimicpreͲdevelopmenthydrologicalconditions.
REQUIREMENTS
DeterminethefeasibilityofLIDbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)forstormwater
managementintherightͲofͲway(ROW).CompleteabasicLIDhydrologicevaluation
accordingtothestepsoutlinedinChapter3,“LIDHydrologicAnalysis,”ofthe1999
LowͲImpactDevelopmentDesignStrategies:AnIntegratedApproach(“LIDManual”)by
thePrinceGeorge’sCounty,Maryland,DepartmentofEnvironmentalResources,
ProgramsandPlanningDivision(PGC).Ifanalternativeapproachisusedtoinvestigate
LID,showthatitmeetsthegeneralstepsprovidedinthereferencedguideline.The
PGCguidelineisavailablehere:
http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/pubs/LID_Hydrology_National_Manual.pdf.
Details
Lowimpactdevelopment(LID)isatermthatdescribesabroadcollectionof
engineeredcontrols,stormwatermanagementfacilities,andotherland
developmentBMPsthatattempttomimicpreͲdevelopmenthydrologicconditions
byemphasizinginfiltration,evapotranspiration,orstormwaterreuseforlongͲterm
flowcontrolandrunofftreatment.Hydrologicanalysisisasystematicwayto
evaluateexistingstormwatercontrolsandnewstormwatermanagementor
improvementopportunities.TheLIDManualstates:
Thepurposeofthehydrologicevaluationistodeterminethelevelofcontrol
requiredtoachievethestormwatermanagementgoalsforLIDsites.The
requiredlevelofcontrolmaybeachievedthroughapplicationofthevarious
hydrologictoolsduringthesiteplanningprocess,theuseofIMPs,and
supplementalcontrols.Thehydrologicevaluationisperformedusinghydrologic
modelingandanalysistechniques.Theoutputofthehydrologicanalysis
providesthebasisforcomparisonwiththefourevaluationmeasures(i.e.,runoff
volume,peakrunoff,frequency,andwaterqualitycontrol).(PGC,1999)
Note:ThisProjectRequirementdoesnotmandatetheuseofLIDtechniquesonthe
roadwayproject.Instead,itisintendedtoinformthedecisionͲmakingprocess.
Therefore,anypreͲexistingprocedurethatmeetsthestatedobjectiveswillsuffice.
Projectsthatarenotchangingthetotalexistingsurfaceareaoftheroadwayfacility
(i.e.mostrehabilitationorresurfacingprojects)mustalsocompletethis
requirement.ThisisdiscussedinfurtherdetailinlatersectionsofthisProject
Requirement.Also,forprojectswithonlyminorstormwaterimprovements,the
hydrologicanalysisorLIDevaluationmaybescaledaccordingly(i.e.simplified).
DOCUMENTATION
x CopyofthecompletedLIDhydrologicevaluation.Scopesofstandarddrainageor
geotechnicalreportsmayalreadymeettheseevaluationrequirementsorneedonly
minorchangestoincludeLID.AseparatedocumentisNOTrequiredinthiscase.
PR-8
REQUIRED
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ7Pollution
PreventionPlan
9 EWͲ2RunoffFlow
Control
9 EWͲ3RunoffQuality
9 EWͲ4Stormwater
CostAnalysis
9 EWͲ5SiteVegetation
9 EWͲ6Habitat
Restoration
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Expectations
9 Experience
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 ReducesWater
Pollution
9 ReducesSolidWaste
9 ReducesManmade
Footprint
9 IncreasesAwareness
95
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Low Impact Development PR-8
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
MeetingthisProjectRequirement
x EvaluatetheopportunitiesonsiteforusingLIDtechniques.Chancesarethattherearemanyopportunities
availableforeveryproject.Thisingeneralmeansthatfourstepsarecompletedaspartoftheevaluation:
a. Topographicalassessment(i.e.forests,floodplains,etc.)
b. Soilsassessment
c. Hydrologyassessment
d. Existingvegetationandwaterfeatures(i.e.wetlands,riparianareas,etc.)
x Followthestatedguideline,orfollowanyotherguidelinethatusesasystematicsiteassessmenttoevaluate
geologicalandhydrologicalconditionsandmeetsthegoalofthisProjectRequirement.Forexample,thePrince
George’sCountyrecommendationshavebeenspecifiedinmoretechnicaldetailforthePugetSoundregionof
WashingtoninthePugetSoundPartnership’sLowImpactDevelopmentTechnicalGuidanceManualforPuget
Sound(Hinman,2005).ThisProjectRequirementreliesontheformerbecauseLIDwaspioneeredinpracticeby
PrinceGeorge’sCountyandtheirLIDManualisthedefaultguideformanyorganizations(EPA,2000).
x Evaluatethesiteforpotentialstormwaterimprovementseveniftheprojectinvolvesbasicsurface
maintenanceactivitiesorisotherwiseconsideredtobecategoricallyexcludedfromstormwaterconsiderations.
Itmaybethataparticularprojectcannotfeasiblyimplementanystormwaterimprovements,eitherbycost,
existingregulations,etc.Theintenthereisthat(1)stormwaterimprovementsareconsideredsystematicallyas
anopportunityforallroadwayprojectsand(2)thatanydecisionsmadenottoimplementstormwater
managementaredocumented.Allprojectshavesomeimpact,eveniftheyaredeterminedtobeinsignificant
orcategoricallyexcludedfromenvironmentalreview,orlocalpoliciesareconsidered“notapplicable”to
certainprojecttypes.ItmaybecostͲeffectiveforowneragenciestoimproveexistinginfrastructurein
conjunctionwiththeroadwayproject,evenifstormwatermanagementisnotintheinitialscope.
x UsedesignandconstructionstaffproperlytrainedinstormwaterLIDdesign.
x IdentifyopportunitiesforstormwaterrelatedBMPselementsearlyinprojectdevelopment.
SomePotentialLIDOpportunities
x Minimizeimpacttoexistingundisturbedsoilandvegetationthroughavoidance,reducedprojectfootprints
elements(e.g.lanewidths,shoulderwidths,slopes).
x Usepermeablehardsurfaces(e.g.porousasphalt,porouspavers,porousconcrete)insteadofconventional
impervioussurfaces.
x Useamendedorengineeredsoilsinsteadofconventionalcompactedsoils.
x Incorporatedispersed,evapotranspiration(ET)andinfiltrationͲbasedpractices(e.g.dispersion,bioretention)
insteadofencloseddrainagesystems.
x TheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA),EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),theAmerican
AssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)CenterforEnvironmentalExcellence,and
theNationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram(NCHRP)aswellasmanystateagenciesoutlineavariety
ofprovisionsincorporatingLIDmeasuresintoroadways.Avarietyofresourcesarelistedattheendofthis
creditforreference.
Example: Case Study — High Point Subdivision, Seattle, WA
TheHighPointsubdivisionintheWestSeattleneighborhoodofSeattle,Washingtonisoneofthefirst
comprehensiveinstallationsofaNaturalDrainageSystemsschemeforstormwatermanagementinalarge
scaleurbanenvironment.(InSeattle,streetsideLIDisreferredtoas“NaturalDrainageSystems”todistinguish
thesefacilitiesfrominͲlotinstallations.)HighPointwasajointeffortofSeattlePublicUtilitiesandtheSeattle
HousingAuthority(SPU,2009)andwasalargeͲscalelowͲincomedevelopmentcommunitythatredeveloped
landfromaformermilitarybase.
96
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-8 Low Impact Development
HighPointincorporatesasuiteofLIDtechniquesincludingbioswales,infiltrationbasinsandpermeable
pavements(sidewalksandheavilytraveledresidentialstreets).SeeFigurePRͲ8.1.TheseLIDtechniqueshelped
theCityofSeattleachievesomeofitsstormwatermanagementgoals.Somehighlightsoftheprojectinclude:
x 10percentofthewatershedforLongfellowCreek(aprioritywatershedforCohosalmon)isaccommodated
bycontrolsinHighPoint.
x Predevelopmentconditionsweremimickedthroughbioswalesandlandscapedpondsthatbecame
amenitiestothecommunity.
x Whilestandarddetentionbasinswerestillrequiredforemergencyandfirepurposesforthesubdivision,the
sizeofthedetentionfacilitywasscaleddownto25%ofwhatwouldhavebeenneededbyconventionally
designedcontrols.
x HighPointstormwaterfunctionssimilartothepredevelopedconditionsofaforestmeadow.

FigurePRͲ8.1:ThreeLIDtechniquesarefeaturedinthisphototakenatHighPointSubdivisioninSeattle,WA.
Thegrassyarea(farleft)isactuallyturfplacedoveralargeinfiltrationbasin.Abioswale(center)isfeatured,
andstillinearlygrowth.Also,thesidewalk(left)andthestreet(right)arepavedwithpermeableconcrete.
(PhotobyJ.Anderson)

MoreinformationaboutHighPointLIDtechniquesareavailableat:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/GreenStormwaterInfrastructure/Natural
DrainageProjects/HighPointNaturalDrainageSystem/index.htm
Example: Case Study — SEA Street, Seattle, Washington
AnotherexamplefromSeattle,“SEAStreet,”wasactuallyoneofthefirstpilotprojectsforlowͲimpact
developmentinfrastructureinSeattle.(Here,SEAstandsforStreetEdgeAlternatives)(SPU,2009).TheSEA
streetprogramfocusedonimprovingnaturaldrainageofexistingresidentialstreetareasthroughthreemain
LIDtechniques:
x Narrowerstreets(whichalsoprovideatrafficcalmingeffect).SeeFigurePRͲ8.2.(Notethatnarrowstreets
aretypicallyconsideredtobeanapproachin“conservationdesign”)(EPA,2000).
97
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Low Impact Development PR-8
x Addedvegetation(forincreasedinfiltrationandpublicamenities).
x Vegetatedfilterstrips.Comparetheconventionalasphaltlinedchannel(FigurePRͲ8.3)withthenew
vegetatedfiltersstripsinstalledalongthesidewalks(FigurePRͲ8.4).

FigurePRͲ8.2:Thisstreetwasdesignedtobenarrowerinordertoproduceatrafficcalmingeffectforthis
residentialarea.(PhotobyJ.Anderson)

FigurePRͲ8.3:Aconventionalasphaltlinedchannel
nearSEAStreet.(PhotobyJ.Anderson)

FigurePRͲ8.4:AbioswaleonSEAStreetbetweenthe
sidewalkandstreet.(PhotobyJ.Anderson)

98
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-8 Low Impact Development

MoreinformationaboutSEAStreetisavailablefromSeattlePublicUtilitiesat:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/GreenStormwaterInfrastructure/Natural
DrainageProjects/StreetEdgeAlternatives/index.htm
Example: City of Kirkland, Washington Surface Water Low Impact Development
TheCityofKirklandrequirestheuseofsurfacewaterlowimpactdevelopment(LID)techniquesasfeasibleon
newdevelopment.TheCityhasadoptedtheKingCountySurfaceWaterDesignManual(KCSWDM),which
requiresthatdevelopmentprojectsperformasurfacewaterLIDfeasibilitystudyandinstallstormwaterLIDto
themaximumextentfeasibleandtoinstallatleastoneelementforsurfacewaterrunoffinallsituations(City
ofKirkland,2010).TheKCSWDMcanbefoundhere:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/stormwater/documents/surfaceͲwaterͲdesignͲ
manual.aspx.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. MostsiteswillbeabletoincorporatesomeLIDtechniques;however,soilconditionsineveryprojectwillbe
different.Ingeneral,therewillbeatradeoffbetweenfunctionandcostforimplementingLID.
2. Somesiteshaveexistingsoilorwaterpollutionissueswhereinfiltrationthroughsoilsandintogroundwater
tablesorotheraquifersmaynotbeallowedorisnotadvisable.
3. Someregulationsorurbanplanningpoliciesmaybeinplaceinsomeareasthatdictateanumberofurban
improvements,suchaswideningsidewalksoraddingwidthtolanes.Theseaddimpervioussurface,anddonot
allowmuchroomforLIDintherightͲofͲway.Oftentheseregulatoryimplicationswillbedifficulttoovercome
(EPA,2000).Ingeneral,areviewofexistingpolicyshouldbepartoftheLIDevaluation.
4. TheLIDManualreferencedinthiscreditreferstothe“HydrologicAnalysis”byPrinceGeorge’sCounty,
Maryland.Asitturnsout,thisparticularprocessisoutlinedintwodifferentdocumentsbyPGC.Eitheris
acceptableforthisProjectRequirementbecausetheyareequivalent.TheLowImpactDevelopmentHydrologic
AnalysisisanabridgedversionoftheonespecifiedhereanditisavailablefromtheAASHTOviatheEPAat:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lid_hydr.pdf.
5. ThisProjectRequirementappliestoallprojects,eventhosethattypicallydonotconsiderstormwaterasoneof
theirmainprojectobjectives.Thereisdocumentedevidencethatshowsconsiderationofstormwaterinproject
planningforurbanroadscanoftenresultinstrategicbenefitsforurbanenvironmentswherestormwater
managementisincreasinglyaproblem(CityofSeattle,2009).Additionally,whereroadwaysarelocatedin
watershedswithtotalmaximumdailyload(TMDL)requirements,LIDtechniquesarebecomingonewaythata
roadwaystormwatermanagementsystemcanhelpreducethenonͲpointsourcewaterpollutionimpactonthe
receivingwatersfromstormwatergeneratedontheimpervioussurface(EPA,2008).Inessence,thisProject
RequirementisnotrequiringthatLIDisimplemented;instead,itisrequiringthatitisconsidered.Some
projectswillspecificallyavoidstormwaterissuesjusttosavecost,butthispracticedoesnotultimatelyagree
withthegoalsandintentsofGreenroads.
RESEARCH
LowͲimpactdevelopment(LID)isawellͲdocumentedapproachtostormwatermanagement.Thebestwayto
describeLIDisasacollectionofdecentralized,smallͲscale,engineeredstormwatercontrolsthatcollectandtreat
stormwateratthesourceasitisgenerated(EPA,2000;Huberetal.,2006;Hinman,2005;CityofSeattle,2009).A
numberofhydrologicalobjectivesareachievedbythisapproach,becauseitreliesheavilyonthenatural
ecosystemprocessesinfiltration(IF)andevapotranspiration(ET).Surfaceflowsarereducedandalsoattenuated,
somelevelofwaterqualitytreatmentisoftenprovided,andgroundwatertablescanberecharged,whichhelp
maintainstreamflows:allofthesethingshelpan“unnatural”(i.e.manmade)systemsuchasabuildingora
roadwaymoreeffectivelymimicthenaturalecosystem’spreexistinghydrology(relativetoitsundeveloped
condition).LIDstrategiesthuscombinetobecomeaneffectiveandefficientstormwatermanagementschemethat
resultsinanoverallsmallerecosystemfootprint.
99
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Low Impact Development PR-8
Generally,thisiscontrarytothephilosophybehindmostconventionalstructuralstormwatersystems,which
collectandconveystormwatertomeetonlyanefficiencyobjective,i.e.removeitfromthesiteandtreatit
elsewhere(anendͲofͲpipeapproach)oftenusingalotofmaterialalongthewaytoconstructtheneeded
infrastructuretoperformthesetasks(EPA,2000).
Sometimes,LIDisalsocalled“greeninfrastructure”orGI(EPA,2009),oralso“NaturalDrainageSystems”(SPU,
2009)andalsousuallyincludessomeelementsofanotherdevelopmentapproachknownas“ConservationDesign”
orCD(EPA,2000).
HowDoLIDTechniquesWork?
Putsimply,LIDworksbyminimizingtheamountofimperviousareaonasite,sometimescalledthe“effective
imperviousarea”(EIA)thoughthisnomenclaturevaries(EPA,2000).Animpervioussurfaceis“ahardsurfacearea
thateitherpreventsorretardstheentryofwaterintothesoilmantleorcauseswatertorunoffthesurfacein
greaterquantitiesoratanincreasedrate”(Tilley&Slonecker,2006).Developedareashavehighlevelsof
impervioussurfacescomparedtotheirotherwiseundevelopedconditions(i.e.“predevelopment”).Accordingtoa
recentstudyforFederalHighwayAdministrationbytheUnitedStatesGeologicalService(Tilley&Slonecker,2006),
roadsandsidewalksaccountedforanaverageofabout31.5percentofthetotalimpervioussurfaceinsixstudied
urbanandsuburbanwatersheds.
Becauseincreasedimpervioussurfacesleadtohighervolumesofsurfacerunoff(athighervelocitiesandfaster
timestopeakflows),streamsandwatershedscanbedamagedwitherosionͲproducingflows.Erosiveflowsare
characterizedbyhighersedimentloadsthatdegradeaquatichabitats.Conventionalstormwatercontrol
techniquestendtodecoupletherainfalleventfromoneofitsmainhydrologicalfunctions:groundwaterrecharge
(EPA,2000).FigurePRͲ8.5showsthisphenomenongraphically.

FigurePRͲ8.5:Comparisonofpredevelopmenthydrologyanddevelopedhydrology.(FromSchuler,1987)

Stormwatermanagement,then,inanyenvironment(ruralandurban),playsanenormousroleinsustainabilityor
maintainingexistinghydrology.LIDtechniquescanhelprestorethepredevelopmenthydrologicalbalanceinareas
thathavebeenultraͲurbanized(CityofSeattle,2009;EPA,2009)andcanalsohelpmaintainaclosematchfor
existinghydrologicalfunctioninareasthathavenotbeendeveloped.
Ingeneral,LIDtechniqueshavethefollowingcommonfeatures(Hinman,2005):
x Infiltrationandevapotranspirationaretheprimarymodesofrunoffcontrols
(Schueler, 1992) (Schueler, 1992)
100
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-8 Low Impact Development
x Impermeablesurfacesareavoidedorsignificantlydecreased
x Naturalsoilsareused,oftenwithorganiccompositions(organics)insteadofengineeredoroffͲsitefill
x Nativevegetationisused(forsomeselecttechniques)
x Usuallytheyareusedincombination.
x Usuallynotallofthemareappropriateforeverysite.
Dependingonflowcontrolobjectives,thereareavarietyofLIDdesigntechniquestoincreaseretention,increase
timeofconcentrationandreducetotalvolume(primarilythroughIFandET).Consequently,beforeLIDisusedon
anysite,thatsitemustbeassessedforsuchthingsassoilproperties,existinghydrologicalInordertodetermineif
LIDisappropriate(PGC,1999).
WhatarethebenefitsofLID?
ThereisalaundrylistofbenefitsassociatedwithLID,includinghumanhealthandaestheticbenefitsthatgohand
inhandwithanumberofenvironmentalbenefits.
x Flowcontrolforvolumeandtimeofconcentration(reducederosiveflows,andreducedloadonmunicipal
stormwaterfacilitiestoo)(EPA,2009)
x Groundwaterrechargethroughinfiltration(ibid.)
x Improvedwaterquality(ibid.)
x Reducedseweroverflow(ibid.)
x Increasedcarbonsequestrationthroughincreasedvegetation(ibid.)
x UrbanHeatIslandmitigationandreducedenergydemandsincitiesanddevelopedareas(ibid.)
x Improvedairqualityprimarilythroughincreaseduseofvegetation,alsoincludesacoolingeffect(ibid.)
x Creationofhabitatandrecreationalspace(ibid.)
x Improvedhumanhealththroughconnectiontoplaceandthenaturalenvironment(ibid.)
x Increasedpropertyvaluesduetoaddedaestheticsandperformance(ibid.)
x Reducedcostandsizeforsupplementalconventionalstormwaterinfrastructure(EPA,2000)
x Easilyincorporatedintoanumberofurbanizedfeatures,suchasparkingspacesandstreetsides(EPA,2000)
LIDLimitations
WhileLIDisabestmanagementpractice,itisthemeanstoanendforeverystormwatermanagementissue.Like
anypracticeortechnology,therearecertainlimitationstoLIDtechniquesthatmustbeunderstoodpriorto
implementingthemonaroadwayproject.
1. SomeespeciallyͲsensitivewatershedsmayhaveobjectives(i.e.qualityandflowcontrol)thatcannotbe
achievedviaLIDalone.Somelargerstructuralmeasuresmaybenecessaryforsomeprojects(EPA,2000).
2. TheoverallperformanceofLIDelementsonaprojectisverysiteͲspecific(EPA,2000).Thismeansthata
comprehensivesiteevaluationisanextremelyimportantstepinaneffectivestormwatermanagementscheme.
3. LongͲtermmaintenanceofLIDelementscanbeanissue,usuallybecauseofcontractorunfamiliarity.Also
frequencyofmaintenanceactivitiesusuallyishigherthanforconventionalcontrols,whichcancauselongͲterm
fundingissues(EPA,2000).
4. LackofmaintenancecanoftenbeverydetrimentaltoLIDperformanceandfunction(Hinman,2005).
5. ConstructionofLIDelementsrequiresspecialcareforsomefacilities.Forexample,overcompactionof
infiltrationbasinsoilsoramendedsoilscanleadtopoorperformanceforflowcontrol(Hinman,2005).
6. SomesitesmaybeidealcandidatesforLIDBMPs,butregulatorystandardsdisallowthemandrequirethat
impervioussurfacesareinstalledinstead.Thesecouldbesubdivisioncodes,zoningrules,parkingandstreet
widthsandsidewalkrequirements,andotherdevelopmentstandardsthatcanessentiallytrumpgood
stormwaterdesignopportunities(EPA,2000;Hinman,2005).
7. LIDtechniquesarenotthebestforhandlinglargestormevents.Usually,theybehavemuchthesameasnatural
hydrologicalfeaturesinthesesituations.Sometimes,LIDmeasureswillneedtobesupplementedby
conventionalconveyanceasacontingency(Hinman,2005).
101
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Low Impact Development PR-8
8. Huberetal.(2006)notethattheroadrightͲofͲwaycanrestricttheabilityoftheengineertoincorporateLID
practicesdue,simply,tolackofspace.
WhyisaLIDevaluationarequirementforGreenroads?
Theenvironmentalimpactsofstormwatergeneratedfromroadwayfacilitiesarenottobeignored.The
decentralizednatureofLIDtechniquesfitswellwiththeenvironmentofmanyroads,eveninurbanenvironments.
However,manyroadwayfacilitiesdonottakeadvantageofthehydrologicalbenefitsofIFandETinstandard
designpractice.ItistheintentofthisProjectRequirementtoprovideanopportunitytoevaluatethesedesign
approaches,whichrepresentahigherlevelofpracticeformanagingstormwater.
WhatHappensIfInfiltrationIsNotAppropriateForMyProject?
ForthisProjectRequirement(PGC,1999),themainstepsrequiredinthisstudyare:
a. Identifytheprojectwatershedandmicrowatershedareas
b. DefinedesignstormsorlongͲtermperformancerequirements
c. Definemodelingtechniquestobeemployed
d. Compileinformationforpredevelopmentconditions
e. Evaluatepredevelopmentconditionsanddevelopbaselinemeasures
f. Evaluatesiteplanningbenefitsandcomparewithbaseline
g. EvaluateBMPs
h. Evaluatesupplementalneeds
IfinfiltrationandETarenotappropriatefortheproject,orcannotbeusedinaneffectivecomprehensive
manner,thenclearlyconventionalstructuralstormwatercontrolswilllikelyrequireconsiderationfor
stormwatermanagement.ThisrequirementdoesnotdictatethatLIDmustbeused.However,othercreditsin
Greenroadsmaybecomemoredifficulttoearn,suchasEWͲ2RunoffFlowControl,EWͲ3RunoffQualityand
EWͲ4StormwaterCostAnalysis.
HowMuchDoesLIDCost?
Ingeneral,costscanvaryforLIDstormwatercontrols.SeethediscussionincludedinCreditEWͲ4StormwaterCost
Analysis.Manyprojectshavebeenshowntobecheaperconventionalconveyanceandtreatmentsystems.
However,thereislittlereliablecostinformationregardingperformanceofsuchLIDsystemsinahighway
environment.WhiletheideaofusingLIDiswellͲdocumentedforhighwayenvironments(seeHuberetal.,2006),
thelongͲtermperformanceofLIDonhighways,ifpracticed,isnot.However,manylocalagenciesinurbanareas
havefoundthatroadmaintenanceandrehabilitationprojectsofferauniqueopportunitytoimprovestormwater
infrastructureinthesecities(e.g.Seattle,Washington;PrinceGeorge’sCountyMaryland).
SomeExamplesofLIDTechniques
ThereareanumberofLIDTechniquesthatarebecomingmorecommonplace.Manyofthem,however,aremore
appropriateforbuildingsoronparcelsinsteadofinroadways(i.e.greenroofsandrainwatercisterns).Thereare
stillseveraltechnologiesthatcaneasilybeimplementedinmostrightͲofͲwaysforroads.Also,theselectionof
BMPultimatelymustalignwithprojectobjectives,i.e.flowcontrol,waterqualitytreatment,aesthetics,thermal
effects,orairquality(Hinman,2005).Ashortlistisprovidedbelowwithabriefdescription(thislistisnot
exhaustive).
x Bioretentionswalesorponds.Thesefacilitiescanalsobeknownas“raingardens”(smallͲscale)or
“constructedwetlands”(verylargescale);sometimes“bioinfiltration”or“bioswale”isalsoused.Generally,the
purposeofbioretentionfacilitiesistoincorporateanumberofrunoffcontrolsintooneengineeredfacilityby
providingamixofvegetation,amendedsoils,anddifferentdrainageconfigurationstoachieveflowcontroland
qualityperformance(CityofSeattle,2009).
x Vegetatedorgrassedwetanddryswales.Wetanddryswalesarebasicallylinearizedbioretentionfacilities,
commonly“bioswales”asnotedaboveor“filterstrips”(EPA,1995b).The“wet”or“dry”notationindicatesthe
typeofplantlifethatisincorporated(CityofSeattle,2009).Theyarenotquitethesameasaroadsideditch,as
102
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-8 Low Impact Development
theyareusuallycomposedofamendedsoilsandaselectvarietyofplantstoachieveaspecificlevelof
infiltration.Theycanalsobedesignedtohaveweirsforaddedretentiononsomesteepergradesandslopes.
SeeEWͲ2foraphoto.
x Permeablepavements.Thereareanumberofdifferentkindsofpermeablepavements.Thesearediscussedin
detailinCreditPTͲ2PermeablePavement.
x Infiltrationbasins.Thesecanbefoundinanumberofforms,includingtrenches,fields,ordepressions.In
generaltheruleofthumbisthatthelargerthearea,themoreinfiltrationcantakeplace.InfiltrationͲbasedLID
BMPsoftensufferfromconstructabilityissuessuchasovercompaction(CityofSeattle,2009).
x Trees.Treesfunctionasastormwatercontrolbyincreasinginfiltrationdemand.Theyalsoprovidetranspiration
andparticipateactivelyinthehydrologiccycle.Theymayalsobeanaestheticamenity,especiallyinurban
environments.Generally,preservationoftreedareasisagoodpractice(CityofSeattle,2009).
x Dispersion.Someexamplesaresplashblocksorgraveltrenches.Generally,theseareameansofdistributing
theenergyinrunoffflowintoavegetatedinfiltrationarea(CityofSeattle,2009).Dependingontheirdesign
andlevelofattenuation,checkdamsandterracingeffortsalsofithere(EPA,1995b).
BriefReviewofExistingRegulatoryRequirements
WhiletherearenospecificmandatesforusingLIDinroads,highwaysandbridges,thereareanumberoffederal
regulationsandpoliciesinplacetoaddressthenonͲpointsourcepollutiongeneratedbytheseentities(mostly
waterqualityrelated).Theseare,inbrief,theCoastalZoneManagementActof1972,theSafe,Accountable,
Flexible,EfficientTransportationEquityAct:ALegacyforUsers(SAFETEAͲLU,currentlyexpiredandnotreplaced
legislativelyasofthiswriting),andseveralsectionsoftheCleanWaterAct.Additionally,boththeFederalHighway
Administration(FHWA)andtheAmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)have
policiesinplaceformanagingstormwaterrunoffandprovideguidancedocuments(EPA,1995b;Strecker,Mayo,
Quigley&Howell,2001;AASHTO,2009).TheAASHTOguidancedocumentprovidesabriefreviewofstateswith
existingBMPmanualsforstormwaterrunoffandrecommendstheLIDhydrologicalevaluationfromPrince
George’sCountythatisspecifiedinthisProjectRequirement(AASHTO,2009).
AdditionalResources
ThereisawidebodyofliteratureonLIDforstormwatermanagement.Afewselectdocumentsarehighlighted
here.MorespecifictechniquesforstormwatermanagementareaddressedinCreditsEWͲ2RunoffFlowControl
andEWͲ3RunoffQuality.
x FHWA(Shoemaker,Lahlou,Doll&Cazenas,2002)providesguidanceonultraͲurbanBMPselectionand
monitoringavailableat:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ultraurb/3fs10.htm
x AASHTOCenterforEnvironmentalExcellence’sEnvironmentalIssueConstructionandMaintenancePractices
Compendium,Chapter3,Section7providessomedesignguidanceonLIDavailableat:
http://environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/construct_maint_prac/compendium/manual/3_
7.aspx
x Huberetal.(2006)compiledacomprehensivereviewofhighwayrunoffcontrolprogramsaspartofthe
NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram(NCHRP)Report565:EvaluationofBestPracticesforHighway
RunoffControl.ThisreportisavailableinPDFformat,withsupplementalappendices,at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_565.pdf
x TheCityofSeattlerecentlypublishedaBAS(BestAvailableScience)Reviewaspartoftheupdatestotheir
stormwatercode.ThisisavailableinWordFormatat
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/static/BAS%20Review_FINAL_30JUN09_LatestReleased_DPDP017711.doc
x TheLowImpactDevelopmentTechnicalGuidanceManual(Hinman,2005)forPugetSoundisavailableand
offersasomewhatmorestructuredapproachtohydrologicanalysisthanthePrinceGeorge’sCountyLID
Manual,andincludesmanydifferentsiteconsiderations,primarilyusefulinurbanareasandforlot
development:www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/LID/LID_manual2005.pdf
103
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Low Impact Development PR-8
GLOSSARY
BMP Bestmanagementpractice
CD Conservationdesign
EIA Effectiveimperviousarea
Evapotranspiration thecombinedeffectsofevaporationandtranspirationinreducingthe
volumeofwaterinavegetatedareaduringaspecificperiodoftime(Huber
etal.2006)
GI Greeninfrastructure
Impervioussurface ahardsurfaceareathateitherpreventsorretardstheentryofwaterintothe
soilmantleorcauseswatertorunoffthesurfaceingreaterquantitiesorat
anincreasedrate(TilleyandSlonecker,2006)
Infiltration thedownwardmovementofwaterintothesoilaftersurficialentryand
percolationthroughporespaces(Huberetal.2006)
Lowimpactdevelopment abroadcollectionofengineeredcontrols,stormwatermanagementfacilities,
andotherlanddevelopmentBMPsthatattempttomimicpreͲdevelopment
hydrologicconditionsbyemphasizinginfiltration,evapotranspiration,or
stormwaterreuseforlongͲtermflowcontrolandrunofftreatment
NDS Naturaldrainagesystems
SEA StreetEdgeAlternatives

REFERENCES
AASHTOCenterforEnvironmentalExcellence.(2009).CenterforEnvironmentalExcellencebyAASHTOͲ
EnvironmentalIssueConstructionandMaintenancePracticesCompendium.AccessedJanuary13,2010.
Availableat
http://environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/construct_maint_prac/compendium/manual/
CityofKirkland,Washington.(2010).SurfaceWaterLowImpactDevelopment.Availableat
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/depart/Public_Works/Storm___Surface_Water/Surface_Water_Low_Impact_De
velopment.htm
CityofSeattle,SeattlePublicUtilities,DepartmentofPlanningandDevelopment.(2009,June30).Environmentally
CriticalAreas:BestAvailableScienceReview.AccessedNovember14,2009.Availableat
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/static/BAS%20Review_FINAL_30JUN09_LatestReleased_DPDP017711.doc
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(1995,November).Erosion,SedimentandRunoffControlforRoadsand
Highways.(EPAͲ841ͲFͲ95Ͳ008d).OfficeofWater.Washington,DC:EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Available
athttp://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/education/runoff.html
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(1995,November).PollutionControlProgramsforRoads,Highwaysand
Bridges.(EPAͲ841ͲFͲ95Ͳ008c).OfficeofWater.Washington,DC:EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/education/control.html
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2000,October).LowImpactDevelopment(LID):ALiteratureReview.(EPAͲ841Ͳ
BͲ00Ͳ005).OfficeofWater.Washington,DC:EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2008,March7).NPSCategories|Roads,HighwaysandBridges|Polluted
Runoff(NonpointSourcePollution)|USEPA.AccessedJanuary13,2010.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/roadshwys.html
104
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-8 Low Impact Development
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2009,April1).ManagingWetWeatherwithGreenInfrastructure|NPDES|US
EPA.AccessedJanuary13,2010.Availableathttp://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=298
Hinman,C.(2005).Lowimpactdevelopment:TechnicalguidancemanualforPugetSound.Olympia,WA:Puget
SoundActionTeam.Availableat
http://www.psparchives.com/publications/our_work/stormwater/lid/LID_manual2005.pdf
Huberetal.(2006).NCHRPSynthesis565:Evaluationofbestmanagementpracticesforhighwayrunoffcontrol.
NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram(NCHRP).Washington,D.C.:TransportationResearchBoard.
Availableathttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_565.pdf
KingCounty.(2010).2009KingCountyStormWaterDesignManual(SWDM).Availableat
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/stormwater/documents/surfaceͲwaterͲdesignͲ
manual.aspx
PrinceGeorge’sCounty,Maryland,DepartmentofEnvironmentalResources.(1999,July).LowImpact
DevelopmentHydrologicAnalysis.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lid_hydr.pdf
PrinceGeorge’sCounty,Maryland,DepartmentofEnvironmentalResources.(1999,June).LowImpact
DevelopmentDesignStrategies:AnIntegratedApproach.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lidnatl.pdf
Schueler,T.R.1987.ControllingUrbanRunoff:APracticalManualforPlanningandDesigningUrbanBest
ManagementPractices.MetropolitanWashingtonCouncilofGovernments,WashingtonD.C.
SeattlePublicUtilities.(2009).SeattlePublicUtilities–NaturalDrainageProjects.AccessedJanuary13,2010.
Availableat
http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/GreenStormwaterInfrastructure/
Shoemaker,L.,Lahlou,M.,Doll,A.&Cazenas,P.USDepartmentofTransportation.FederalHighway
Administration.(2002).StormwaterBestManagementPracticesinanUltraͲUrbanSetting:Selectionand
Monitoring.AccessedNovember30,2009.Availableat
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ultraurb/3fs10.htm
Strecker,E.,Mayo,L.,Quigley,M.&Howell,J.(2001,June).GuidanceManualforMonitoringWaterQuality.
(FHWAͲEPͲ01Ͳ022).UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.Officeof
NaturalEnvironment.Washington,DC:UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation.
Tilley,J.S.&Slonecker,E.T.(2006).Quantifyingthecomponentsofimpervioussurfaces.Reston,Va:U.S.
GeologicalSurvey.

105
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Low Impact Development PR-8

106
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-9 Pavement Management System
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
GOAL
Makeroadwaycapitalassetslastlongerandperformbetterbypreservingand
maintainingthem.
REQUIREMENTS
Haveassetmanagementsystemsineffectthatincludethepavementandcritical
structuralfeaturesonaproject,suchasbridges.Assetmanagementsystem(s)must
servetheroadwayprojectandinclude,atminimum,theseactivities:
1. Measureconditionsofpavementstructureandbridgestructuresatleastonce
everytwoyears.
2. Possessdocumenteddecisioncriteriafortimingpreservationactions.
3. Recordwhenpreservationeffortsoccur.
4. Storeinformationfrom#1Ͳ3inaretrievableformat.
5. Displayinformationfrom#1Ͳ3totheroadwayuser.
Generally,thismeanstheownerͲagencyoftheroadwayshouldhavepavement
managementsystems(PMS)andbridgemanagementsystems(BMS)inplaceforthe
extentoftheirroadwaynetwork.Projectswithbothpavementsandmajorstructures
mustdemonstratethatbothtypesofassetmanagementsystemsareinplaceand
operationalforallsuchfeatures.
Details
An“assetmanagementsystem”isaformalsystematicprocessofmaintaining,
upgradingandoperatingaparticularstructureornetworkofstructures.Asset
managementsystemstypicallyinvolvetheuseofoneormoredecisionsupport
tools(oftencomputerͲbased)toorganizethefiveactivitiesdetailedabove.For
purposesofthiscredit,wereferprimarilytopavementmanagementsystems(PMS)
andbridgemanagementsystems(BMS).“Preservation”referstoasetof
maintenanceandrehabilitationpracticesusedtoimproveroadwayconditionand
extendroadwaylifeandalsoappliestobothpavementsandbridges.
Theoretically,any“asset”onaroadwayprojectcanbemanagedusingthe
principlesoutlinedhere.Whiletherearealsoseparateassetmanagementsystems
andtoolsforsiteinfrastructure,trafficcontrols,standaloneretainingwallsand
vegetation,forpurposesofthisProjectRequirementsuchmanagementsystems
arenotrequired.Projectsthathavesuchsystemsinplaceshoulddetermineifthe
systemsmeetthefivecriteriaaboveandapplyforaGreenroadsCustomCredit.
DOCUMENTATION
x Asignedletterfromanowner’srepresentativestatingthefollowing:
1. APMSandBMS(whereappropriate)iseitherinͲplaceorwillbeputinplaceforthe
projectpavementand/orbridges.
2. Theagencywillmanagetheprojectpavement(s)and/orbridge(s).
3. Theproposedmeansofaccomplishingthefiveactivities(e.g.thenamesofthe
consultantorsoftwaresysteminuse).
PR-9
REQUIRED
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ2LifecycleCost
Analysis
9 PRͲ10Site
MaintenancePlan
9 MRͲ2Pavement
Reuse
9 PTͲ1LongLife
Pavement
9 PTͲ6Pavement
Performance
Tracking
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Extent
9 Expectations
9 Experience
BENEFITS
9 IncreasesServiceLife
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
9 ReducesLifecycle
Costs
9 Improves
Accountability
9 IncreasesAesthetics
107
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Pavement Management System PR-9
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Ensurethattheprojectroadwayispartofaneworexistingmanagementsystem.Itislikelythatthereis
alreadyasysteminusebytheroadwayowner,whichmeansthatprovisionsfortheprojectpavementtobe
includedneedtobemade.
x Forpavements,adoptapavementmanagementsystemthatincorporatestheprojectpavement.Thisis
generallynotpracticalunlessthepavementmanagementsystemincorporatesotherpavementsalsomanaged
bytheowner.
Example: Pavement Management Systems
All50stateshavesomeformofpavementmanagementprograminplace(Finn,1998).Manylocalpavement
owneragenciesalsohavepavementmanagementsystemsthatvaryincomplexity.Whilethereisno
requirementthattheybecomputerͲbased,mostcurrentsystemsare.Afewexamplesfollow.
x DynatestPavementManagementSystem.Anexampleofacommerciallyavailableproduct(thereare
many),thissystemisintegratedwiththeconditionassessmentequipmentthatDynatestalso
manufactures.
x StreetSaver.AnewonlineprogramdevelopedbytheBayAreaMetropolitanTransportationCommission
(MTC)forusebylocalgovernments.Itisusedbyanumberofowneragencies,manyofwhicharein
CaliforniaandOregon.TheinterfaceiswebͲbasedandhasbeenintegratedwithArcGISbyFarallon
Geographics,Inc.AnexampleisChulaVista,CA:
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/city_Services/Development_Services/engineering/pavementmgmtsystem.asp
x MicroPAVER.AdesktoppavementmanagementsystemfromtheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers.Itis
availableforfreeandiswidelyusedbytheU.S.militaryandotheragencyowners.Informationat:
http://owww.cecer.army.mil/paver/Paver.htm.
Example: Case Study – Washington State Pavement Management System (WSPMS)
TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)pavementmanagementsystem(WSPMS)isan
exampleofaninternallybuiltsystemandisoneoftheoldestsystemsintheU.S.WSDOTbegancollectingdata
in1963(Muenchetal.,2004)anddevelopedamanagementsystemin1982(FHWA,2008).Moredetailsare
giveninthecasestudyexamplebelow.Adescriptionofthesystemcanbefoundat:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Research/Reports/300/315.2.htm.
ArecentFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)casestudy(2008)highlightedtheWashingtonState
PavementManagementSystem(WSPMS)anditscontributiontooverallconditionandlifecyclecostsof
pavementsmanagedbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT).Whilethecasestudy
doesnotseparatetheleveloffundingfromtheuseofWSPMS,itmakesacasethatWSPMShascontributedto
amarkedshifttowardspavementsingoodconditionsince1971(FigurePRͲ9.1).
108
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-9 Pavement Management System
WSDOTusesWSPMStonotonlytrackpavementconditionbutalsotochoosewhenandbywhatmeansthe
pavementshouldbepreservedand/orrehabilitated.WSPMShassimplebuiltͲinmodelsthatpredictfuture
pavementconditionbasedoncurrentandpastcondition.Thisway,WSDOTisabletopredictwithreasonable
accuracywhenpreservation/rehabilitationneedtooccur.In1993WSDOTreceivedlegislativemandatethat
theirprojectselectioncriteriashouldbebasedonlowestlifeͲcyclecost,whichfurtherreinforcedtheir
pavementmanagementapproach.Overall,FigurePTͲ9.2showstheconditionofWSDOTpavementsfrom1969Ͳ
2005andgivesclearevidencethatpavementconditionhasimprovedmarkedlyoverthis36yearstretch.

FigurePRͲ9.1:TrendsinpoorandgoodpavementconditionofWashingtonStatehighways,
1971–2005,followingadoptionofapavementconditionsurveyin1969andapavement
managementsystemin1982(FHWA,2008).

FigurePRͲ9.2:TrendsinWashingtonStatepavementstructuralcondition,1969–2006(FHWA,2008).
Datasource:WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationMaterialsLaboratory.
109
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Pavement Management System PR-9
Example: Michigan DOT Bridge Management System
MichiganDOT(MDOT)hasdevelopedaBridgeManagementSystem(BMS),oneofsixcomponentsoftheir
TransportationManagementSystem.TheBMSisthedecisionͲsupporttoolresponsibleformanagingthe
inspection,analysisandmaintenanceofthenumerouscomponentsthatmakeupabridge.MDOTutilizes
softwareAmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)hasdevelopedcalled
“Pontis”toaidtheirBMS.Adescriptionofthesystemcanbefoundat:
http://michigan.gov/documents/bridge_16549_7.pdf
Example: Virtis and Opis – Bridge Management System Tools
AASHTO’sBRIDGEWare,asoftwaredesignsystem,developedcomprehensivebridgeratinganddesigntools
calledVirtisandOpis.“TheOpisbridgedesignpackageandtheVirtisbridgeload–ratingpackagesharea
detaileddatabaseofstructuredescriptionsthatisintegratedwiththedatabaseofthePontisbridge
managementdata”(Thompson,2004).Moreinformationisavailableat:
http://aashto.bakerprojects.com/virtis/VirtisOpisBrochure0303.pdf
POTENTIAL ISSUES
ThisProjectRequirementasksforassetmanagementsystemsbutdoesnotverifyexecutionofthatmanagement
system.Therefore,thepossibilityexiststhatamanagementsystemcouldbepresentedandthennotexecuted.
RESEARCH
PavementManagementSystems
TheAmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)definespavementmanagement
as“…theeffectiveandefficientdirectingofthevariousactivitiesinvolvedinprovidingandsustainingpavementsin
aconditionacceptabletothetravelingpublicattheleastlifecyclecost”(AASHTO,1985).Pavementmanagement
consistsof3majorcomponents(PavementManagement,2007):
1. PavementlifeͲcycle.Thisincludeshowpavementsarebuilt,howtheirconditionchangesovertime,andhow
thisprocesscanbeaffectedbydifferentformsofmaintenance,rehabilitationandreconstruction.
2. CostsassociatedwiththepavementlifeͲcycle.Thisincludesthecostsofinitialconstruction,maintenanceand
rehabilitation,assessingendͲofͲlifepavementsalvagevalue,anddeterminingusercostsincurredthroughout
thelifeͲcycle.
3. Pavementmanagementsystems.Thisincludesallthedifferentsystemsusedtodeterminethemost
appropriatetimetorehabilitatepavement,whatthemostcostͲeffectivemethodis,andhowmanydollarsit
willtaketomaintainaroadwaysystematadesirableconditionlevel(WSDOT,1994).
Thefundamentalideaisthatpavementmanagementwillleadtoloweroveralllifecyclecostsforapavementor
networkofpavementsandthusbeamoresustainableapproach.Thisideahasbeentheoreticallyshownmany
times(e.g.,Scrivneretal.,1968;Hudsonetal.,1979;MAPC,1986;Kayetal.,1993;Pierceetal.,2001)buthasnot
beenshownbydirectcomparisonofamanagedsystemandonethatisnot.Acorollary,thatsomebelieveistrue
buthasyettobeshownbyempiricalevidence,isthatpavementmanagementwillalsoleadtoloweruseofnatural
resources,lessenergyinputandfeweremissionsassociatedwithapavementnetwork.
Abasicassetmanagementsystemshouldincludethefollowing5components(Peterson,1987):
1. Roadwayconditionsurveys.Asurveyoftheroadwaystructuretoassesscurrentconditionandstrength
2. Databasecontainingallrelatedroadwaystructureinformation.Informationaboutotheraspectsofeach
roadwaysectionincludingthingslikelocation,pavementthickness,ownership,datelastconstructed,etc.
3. Analysisscheme.Algorithmsusedtointerpretroadwayconditionandotherdatainameaningfulwayand
produceinformationsuchascostanddeteriorationmodelsthatassistinprogrammingroadway
preservation/rehabilitation/maintenanceefforts.Recentsoftwarecancombinethedatabase,analysisscheme
110
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-9 Pavement Management System
anddecisioncriteriainonepackage.RecentresearchhasfocusedonadvancingorrefininglifeͲcyclecosting
analysis,optimizationalgorithmsandperformanceprediction.
4. Decisioncriteria.Rulesdevelopedtoguideassetmanagementdecisions.Asassetmanagementsystemshave
evolved,decisioncriteriahavebecomemorecomplexandnowaccountforitemssuchasuserdelay,vehicle
operatingcostsand,inlimitedcases,environmentaleffects.Forbridges,thiswouldincludeoptimizationand
analysismodels.
5. Implementationprocedures.Methodsusedtoapplymanagementdecisionstoroadwaysections.
Implementationisapolitical,budgetaryorproceduralissue.
PavementManagementLeadstoLowerLifeCycleCosts
Choosingtheoptimaltimingofpreservationeffortscanleadtolowerlifecyclecosts.Inturn,lowerlifecyclecosts
canbeoneoftheoutputsofamoresustainableroadway.Thus,thereisanindirectrelationshipbetweena
pavementmanagementsystem,whichcanhelpindeterminingthebesttimingofpreservationefforts,and
sustainability.
Ingeneral,pavementdeterioratesaspicturedinFigurePRͲ9.3.Deteriorationisslowatfirstandthenincreasesat
anincreasingrate.Preservationeffortsprovideastepincreaseinpavementconditionandessentiallyresetthe
deteriorationprocess.Preservationeffortsappliedtoosoondonotachievemuchimprovementinconditionfor
theircostwhilethoseappliedtoolate(FigurePRͲ9.4)achieveanimprovementinconditionatsubstantialcost
(Stevens,1985;FHWA,2008).

FigurePRͲ9.3:Pavementconditionillustration.

FigurePRͲ9.4:Rehabilitationtimevs.cost(basedonanillustrationinStevens,1985).
111
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Pavement Management System PR-9
BridgeManagementSystems
TheFederalHighwayAdministrationrecognizestheimportanceofmaintenanceandpreservationofbridge
sturcturestoo.Forroadways,bridgesareconsideredcriticalpointsor“nodes”alonganotherwisecontinuous
networkofpavements.However,similartopavementmanagementsystems,agenciesusuallydevelopaBMSthat
istailoredtotheirorganizational,financial,managerial,political,andtechnicalmodesofoperation.
Currently,allstateDOTshaveabridgemanagementsystem(Özbayetal.,2004).EachBMSmayvarydueto
(Markow&Hyman,2009):
1. Differentphilosophiesofbridgemanagement;
2. Differentapproachestoplanning,programming,andbudgeting;
3. thecharacteristicsofeachagency’stransportationsystemanditsinfrastructures;and
4. Thepolicy,financial,technical,andinstitutionalenvironmentinwhicheachagencyoperates.
AstudybytheTransportationResearchBoard(TRB)in1994,foundthatonly6of33statesrespondingtoasurvey
saidtheyweresatisfiedwiththecostdatatheyhadavailabletoprovidetotheirbridgemanagementsystems
(Thompson,2004).Thismaysuggestthatagenciesconsidertheaccuracyandavailabilityofcostandmanagement
dataandotherinformationrequiredtodevelopacomprehensiveassetmanagementsystemtobeinadequate.
In1994,a20Ͳpagequestionnairewasdistributedto52departmentsoftransportation(DOT)inthe50states,the
DistrictofColumbia,andPuertoRico(Thompson&Markow,1996).Atotalof33stateDOTsprovidedusable
responses.
x 76%(25of33)oftheagenciesusePontisaspartoftheirbridgemanagementsystem;
x 12%(4of33)aredevelopingtheirownsystem;and
x 10%(3of33)areundecided.
ThepercentageofthoseusingPontisisdecreasingasnewtechnologiesemergeandbecomemoreaccurateand
reliable.Morerecentstudiesshowthatanincreasingnumberofagenciesareresortingtodevelopingtheirown
systeminconjunctionwithcurrentdesignsoftware.
In2009,MarkowandHymanpreparedadetailedsynthesisreportonBMSfortheNationalCooperativeHighway
ResearchProgram(NCHRP),Report397.Currently,thisisthemostuptodateandcomprehensiveinformationon
thestateofthepracticeofbridgemanagementsystemsandtheneed,utility,levelofimplementationandcost
implicationsatvariousstateagencies.ItalsoincludesasurveyofDOTsforprevalenceofuseofBMS,butthere
weresimilarresultstothe1994studymentionedaboveandfewerrespondentstothesurvey.
BridgeManagementSoftware
Duringtheearly1990s,FHWAandCambridgeSystematicsandOptima,Inc.developedabridgemanagement
systemcalledPontis.CambridgeSystematicsandOptima,Inc.(2010)describePontisasadecisionͲsupport
softwaretoolthatincludesastructuralinventoryforuseinpreservationandmaintenanceactivities.Pontis
providesawayforbridgemanagerstodocumentinspectionsbystructuralelementanddevelopcostͲeffective
plansformaintenanceactivitiesinanexistingbridgenetwork.NewersoftwaresuiteslikeAASHTO’s
BridgeWARElineofproductsincorporateadditionaltoolslikeVirtisandOpiswhichcanassistinloadͲratingand
designthatutilizethePontisdatabase(TransportationResearchBoard,CommitteeonBridgeManagement
Systems,2003;Thompson,2004).
BridgeManagementSystemsandLifecycleCostAnalysis
Bridgemanagementsystemsandlifecyclecostanalysis(seePRͲ2LifecycleCostAnalysis)arecomplementary
toolsforlongtermdecisionͲmakinginbridgemaintenance,preservationandoperation.Muchofthecurrent
literatureoverlapsatoptimizationmodelsforintegratinglifecyclecostingintonetworklevelBMSaswellasat
theprojectlevel(Morcous,2007;Frangopol&Liu,2007;Estes&Frangopol,2001;Frangopol,2004;Hegazy,
Elbeltagi,&ElͲBehairy,2004;Okasha&Frangopol,2009)aswellasforpreservationandmaintenancedecisions
112
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-9 Pavement Management System
(List,2007;Straussetal.2007;Naus&Johnston,2001).Morerecentresearchhasbeenintheareaofreliability
andriskanalysisforlifetimeweatheringandotherhazards,(Lee,Cho,&Cha,2006;Hosseretal.2008;Padgett,
Dennemann,&Ghosh,2010).Foracomprehensivereviewofbridgelifecyclecostanalysis(BLCCA)andits
potentialapplicationsatprojectandnetworkͲlevelBMS,thereaderisreferredtoNCHRPReport483(Hawk,
2003),whichprovidesthemostcomprehensiveinformationonintegrativelifecyclethinkingforbridges.
OtherTypesofAssetManagementSystems
Ancillarystructures.Currently,theFederalHighwayAdministrationisinvestigatingdevelopmentofdecisionͲ
supporttoolsfordatamanagementandpreservationeffortsforancillarystructuressuchasluminares,sign
trusses,andothernonͲbridgeandnonͲpavementfeatures.ThecurrentprogrameffortisledbytheOfficeofBridge
Technology,whichprovidesafreehelpfulguidancemanualforthesefeaturescalledGuidelinesfortheInstallation,
Inspection,MaintenanceandRepairofStructuralSupportsforHighwaySigns,Luminaires,andTrafficSignals
(FHWA,2005).
Tunnelsandretainingwallstructures.Tunnelandwallstructuresareaverysmallpercentageofstructural
roadwayfeatures.Muchoftheresearchontunnelmaintenanceandpreservationismanagedunderthepurview
oftheFederalHighwayAdministration’sOfficeofBridgeTechnologyandintegrateswithhighwayandrailtransitin
theirwebͲbasedguidancedocumentfromthe2005Highway&RailTransitTunnelMaintenance&Rehabilitation
Manual(FHWA,2007).
Vegetation.Additionally,thereisawealthofinformationavailableonvegetationmanagementpracticessuchas
streettrees,nativevegetation,pesticideandherbicideuse,andmaintenanceofotherlandscapingfeatures,
especiallywithregardtomanagementofaboveandbelowgroundutilities.However,aconsensusdoesnotappear
toexistoncomputerizedtoolsforsystematicimplementationofsuchvegetationmanagementstrategiesand
practices.AASHTO’sCenteronEnvironmentalExcellenceprovidessomeguidanceonmanagementofthesetypes
oflivingassetsonroadsidesatthislinkunder“IntegratedRoadsideVegetationManagement:”
http://environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/invasive_species(AASHTO,2011).
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO).(1985).GuidelinesonPavement
Management,AASHTOJointTaskForceonPavements,AASHTO,Washington,D.C.,1985.
AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO).(2011).CenterforEnvironmental
ExcellencebyAASHTO:InvasiveSpecies/VegetationManagement.Availableat:
http://environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/invasive_species/AccessedJanuary31,2011.
CambridgeSystematics,Inc.(2010).PontisBridgeManagementSystemVersion4.4.Availableat
http://www.camsys.com/pro_inframan_pontis.htm.AccessedMay26,2010.
Estes,A.C.,andFrangopol,D.M.2001.“Minimumexpectedcostorientedoptimalmaintenanceplanningfor
deterioratingstructures:Applicationtoconcretebridgedecks.”Reliab.Eng.Syst.Saf.,73,281–291.
FederalHighwayAdministration.(2008).PavementManagementSystems:TheWashingtonStateExperience.
TransportationAssetManagementCaseStudies.FHWA,U.S.DOT.Availableat
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/if08010/index.cfm.
Assetmanagementsystem aformalsystematicprocessofmaintaining,upgradingandoperatinga
particularassetornetworkofassets,suchaspavementsandbridges
Preservation asetofmaintenanceandrehabilitationpracticesusedtoimprovecondition
andextendlifeofastructure(s)
113
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Pavement Management System PR-9
FederalHighwayAdministration.(2010).MoreAboutPontis.Availableat
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/pontmore.cfm.AccessedMay26,2010.
FederalHighwayAdministration.(2005).GuidelinesfortheInstallation,Inspection,MaintenanceandRepairof
StructuralSupportsforHighwaySigns,Luminaires,andTrafficSignals.[FHWAͲNHIͲ05Ͳ036].FederalHighway
Administration.U.S.DOT.Availableathttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/signinspection.pdf
FederalHighwayAdministration.(2007,June7).HighwayandRailTransitTunnelMaintenanceandRehabilitation
Manual:2005Edition.U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.Availableat
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/tunnel/maintman00.cfm.AccessedJune5,2010.
Finn,F.(1998).PavementManagementSystems–Past,Present,andFuture.PublicRoads,Vol.62,No.1.Available
athttp://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/julaug98/pavement.htm.
Frangopol,D.M.,&AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers.(2004).LifeͲcycleperformanceofdeterioratingstructures:
Assessment,design,andmanagement.Reston,VA:AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers.
Frangopol,D.M.,&Liu,M.(January01,2007).Maintenanceandmanagementofcivilinfrastructurebasedon
condition,safety,optimization,andlifeͲcyclecost.Structure&InfrastructureEngineering:Maintenance,
Management,LifeͲCycleDesign&Performance,3,1,29Ͳ41.
Hawk,H.(2003).NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram.NCHRPReport483:BridgelifeͲcyclecost
analysis.Washington,D.C:TransportationResearchBoard,NationalResearchCouncil.
Hegazy,T.,Elbeltagi,E.andElͲBehairy,H.(2004).BridgeDeckManagementSystemwithIntegratedLifeͲCycleCost
Optimization.TransportationResearchRecord,1866,TransportationResearchBoard,NationalResearch
Council,44–50.
Hosser,D.,Klinzmann,C.,&Schnetgoke,R.(2008).AframeworkforreliabilityͲbasedsystemassessmentbasedon
structuralhealthmonitoring.StructureandInfrastructureEngineering,4,4,271Ͳ285.
Hudson,W.R.;Haas,R.andPedigo,R.D.(1979).NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgramReport215:
PavementManagementSystemDevelopment.TRB,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,D.C.
Kay,R.K.;Mahoney,J.P.andJackson,N.C.(1993).TheWSDOTPavementManagementSystem–A1993Update.
ReportNo.WAͲRD274.1.WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation,Olympia,WA.
Lee,K.M.,Cho,H.N.,&Cha,C.J.(July01,2006).LifeͲcyclecostͲeffectiveoptimumdesignofsteelbridges
consideringenvironmentalstressors.EngineeringStructures,28,9,1252Ͳ1265.
List,G.(2007).Amodelforlifecycleevaluationofhighwayinvestments.Structure&InfrastructureEngineering:
Maintenance,Management,LifeͲCycleDesign&Performance,3,2,95Ͳ101.
Markow,M.J.&Hyman,W.A.(2009).BridgeManagementSystemsforTransportationAgencyDecisionMaking.
NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram.NCHRPSynthesis397.TransportationResearchBoard,
NationalAcademyofSciences,WashingtonD.C.
MetropolitanAreaPlanningCouncil(MAPC).(1986).PavementManagement:AManualforCommunities.Contract
numberMDPW23892.FederalHighwayAdministrationandtheMassachusettsDepartmentofPublicWorks.
Availableathttp://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/pave.html.
114
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-9 Pavement Management System
Morcous,G.(2007)ParetoAnalysisforMulticriteriaOptimizationofBridgePreservationDecisionsTransportation
ResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,1991,TransportationResearchBoardofthe
NationalAcademies,Washington,D.C.,62–68
Naus,D.J.andJohnston,M.W.(2001,October).InternationalRILEMWorkshoponLifePredictionandAging
ManagementofConcreteStructures.ProceedingsoftheInternationalRILEMWorkshopTechnicalCommittees,
Cannes,France,16Ͳ17,October2000.MaterialsandStructures,RILEM,34,458Ͳ466.
Okasha,N.M.,&Frangopol,D.M.(January01,2009).LifetimeͲorientedmultiͲobjectiveoptimizationofstructural
maintenanceconsideringsystemreliability,redundancyandlifeͲcyclecostusingGA.StructuralSafety,31,6,
460.
Ozbay,K.(2004).LifeͲcyclecostanalysis:Stateofthepracticeversusstateoftheart.TransportationResearch
Record,1864,62Ͳ70.
Padgett,J.E.,Dennemann,K.,&Ghosh,J.(2010).RiskͲbasedseismiclifeͲcyclecostbenefit(LCCͲB)analysisfor
bridgeretrofitassessment.StructuralSafety,32,3,165.
PavementManagement.(2007,August16).PavementInteractive.Availableat
http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=Pavement_Management&oldid=11444.
Peterson,D.E.(1987).NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgramSynthesisofHighwayPractice135:
PavementManagementPractices.NCHRP,TRB,NationalResearchCouncil.Washington,D.C.
Pierce,L.M.,Mahoney,J.P.,&Sivaneswaran,N.(2001).AnAssessmentoftheBenefitsoftheWashingtonState
PavementManagementSystem.PaperpresentedattheFifthInternationalConferenceonManaging
Pavements,Seattle,Washington,August11–14,2001.
Scrivner,F.H.;McFarland,W.F.andCarey,G.R.(1968).ASystemsApproachtotheFlexiblePavementDesign
Problem.ResearchReport132Ͳ11.TexasTransportationInstitute,TexasA&MUniversity.
Stevens,L.B.(1985).RoadSurfaceManagementforLocalGovernmentsͲResourceNotebook.PublicationNo.DOTͲ
IͲ85Ͳ37.FederalHighwayAdministration.Washington,D.C.
Strauss,A.,Bergmeister,K.,Hoffmann,S.,Pukl,R.,&Novak,D.(January01,2008).AdvancedLifeͲCycleAnalysisof
ExistingConcreteBridges.JournalofMaterialsinCivilEngineering,20,1,9.
Thompson,P.D.&Markow,M.J.(1996).CollectingandManagingCostDataforBridgeManagementSystems.
NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram,NationalResearchCouncil(U.S.).TransportationResearch
Board,AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials.
Thompson,P.D.(2004).BridgeLifeͲCycleCostinginIntegratedEnvironmentofDesign,Rating,andManagement.
TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,No.1866,51–58.
TransportationResearchBoard,CommitteeonBridgeManagementSystems.(2003).IntegrationofAASHTO’S
BridgeWAREProducts.TransportationResearchCircularNumberEͲC049.9thInternationalBridgeManagement
Conference,OrlandoAirportMarriottOrlando,FloridaApril28–30,2003.Availableat
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec049.pdf.

115
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Pavement Management System PR-9

116
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-10 Site Maintenance Plan
SITE MAINTENANCE PLAN
GOAL
Maintainenvironmentalqualityandaestheticsoftheroadwayprojectduringuse.
REQUIREMENTS
Haveandimplementacomprehensiveongoingsitemaintenanceplanthataddresses
(ataminimum)responsibleparties/organizations,standards,schedule,methodstobe
usedandfundingsource(s)forthefollowingitems(listedbymajortopics):
x Roadwaymaintenance
x Pavementpatching,repairandcracksealing
x Shoulder/sidewalkmaintenanceandrepair
x Stormwatersystemcleaningandrepair
x Roadsidevegetation
x Landscaping
x Controlofnoxiousweedsandnuisanceplants
x Snowandicecontrol
x Trafficcontrolinfrastructure
x Pavementmarkingmaintenanceandrepair
x Signmaintenanceandrepair
x Safetydevicemaintenanceandrepair
x Trafficsignalmaintenanceandrepair
x Roadwaylightingmaintenanceandrepair
x Intelligenttransportationsystemmaintenanceandrepair
x Cleaning
x Pavementsweepingandcleaning
x Littercontrol
x Trashcollection
Ifanyitemsarenotapplicabletheyshouldbelistedassuchandaccompaniedwitha
shortreasonforthe“notapplicable”listing.Thesitemaintenanceplanshouldcover
theexpectedlifetimeoftheroadwayfacility.
Details
Itislikelythatsomeoralloftherequiredactivitiesareaddressedbydifferent
documentsorbydifferentorganizations.AseparatestandͲalonesitemaintenance
planisnotrequired;referencestorelevantexistingdocumentsaresufficient.
DOCUMENTATION
x AcopyofthestandͲalonesitemaintenanceplanorcopiesofexisting
documentationorplansthataddresstheitemsnotedabove.
OR
x Alistofeachitemthataddressesresponsibleparties/organizations,schedule,
methodsandfundingsource(s).
PR-10
REQUIRED
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ9Pavement
ManagementSystem
9 EWͲ2RunoffQuality
9 EWͲ3RunoffFlow
Control
9 EWͲ4Stormwater
CostAnalysis
9 EWͲ5SiteVegetation
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Extent
9 Expectations
9 Experience
BENEFITS
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
9 ReducesLifecycle
Cost
9 Improves
Accountability
9 IncreasesAesthetics

117
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Site Maintenance Plan PR-10
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Usestandardagencymaintenanceguidelinesandspecifications.
x SeekalongͲtermmaintenancecontractorpartnership.LongͲtermmaintenanceagreementscanbeaneffective
maintenancesolutionandimprovecostefficiencyoverthelifetimeofthefacility.
x Initiatediscussionsanddocumentthepublicinvolvementprocessofoutliningdesignelementsinrelationto
maintenancerequirementsduringprojectplanning.Discusshowmaintenancepartnershipsareformedand
explorethebenefitsofsuccessfulmaintenanceguidelines.(Thismayincludeinitiationofapublic
involvement/volunteerprogram.)
x Establishapublicinvolvementprogramandmarketingstrategy.Forexample,communityͲsupportedand
volunteerprogramslikeAdoptͲaͲHighwaycanbeaneffectiveapproachtolitterandgraffiticontroland
increasecommunityownershipoftheinfrastructure.
Example: Documentation
Thisisanexampleofdocumentationthatmeetstheintentofthisrequirement.Theexampleisforafictional2Ͳ
laneroadbeingexpandedintoamultimodalfacility(e.g.,bicycles,pedestrians,newtwoͲwayleftturnlane)in
thegreaterSeattle,WAareafortheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT).Thissite
maintenancerequirementismetbyexistingprogramswithinWSDOT.Therefore,documentationneedonlycite
theseprogramsandtheirrelevantmanualsandprocedures.NotethatFiguresPRͲ10.1andPRͲ10.2showmore
thantherequiredinformationof“fundingsource(s)”becausetheybreakdownallfundingsourcesforthe
entireWashingtonStateTransportationbudget(notjustthefundingsourceforsitemaintenance)andthe
entiredistributionofstatecollectedtransportationrevenuesandfunds(notrequired).
Documentation
Forthisparticularproject,WSDOTistheowneragencyandisresponsibleforsitemaintenance(asdefinedby
thisrequirement).Thisistrueinmanyjurisdictionsbutnotall.Insomejurisdictions,theowneragency
contractsouttoprivatecompaniesforportionsofsitemaintenance.Theoverarchingdocumentthatdescribes
WSDOTsitemaintenanceresponsibleparties,scheduleandmethodsistheWSDOTMaintenanceManual(M
51Ͳ01)(http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M51Ͳ01.htm).TheWSDOTMaintenancePerformance
Measureswebsite(http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Maintenance/Accountability/default.htm)describesthe
standardsandtargetsforcurrentandpastyears.Additionalguidanceonroadsidevegetationisgiveninthe
NorthwestRegion,Area5:IntegratedRoadsideVegetationManagementPlan
(http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Maintenance/Roadside/mgmt_plans.htm).Additionalguidanceonsnowandice
controlisgivenintheStatewideSnowandIcePlan:2009Ͳ2010
(http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/winter/SnowIcePlan.htm).InWSDOT’s2009Ͳ2011transportationbudget,“Highway
Maintenance”isfundedat$355.4million(about6.1%ofthetotalWSDOTbudget).FiguresPRͲ10.1andPRͲ10.2
describethecollectionanddistributionoffunds.
118
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-10 Site Maintenance Plan

FigurePRͲ10.1:TransportationRevenuesandFundsCollectedbytheState(WSDOT,2009).

FigurePRͲ10.2:DistributionofStateCollectedTransportationRevenuesandFunds(WSDOT,2009).

119
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Site Maintenance Plan PR-10
MoreabouttheWSDOTMaintenanceAccountabilityProgram(MAP)
TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)hasdevelopedaMaintenanceAccountability
Program(MAP)designedtotrack,measure,andcommunicatetheresultsofmaintenanceactivitiesonstate
roadways(http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Maintenance/Accountability).Theprogramwasdevelopedin1996out
ofnecessityasaresponsetoimpendingbudgetcutsbytheWashingtonStatelegislatureforroadmaintenance.
TheMAPexiststocomprehensivelymeasuretheperformanceofroadmaintenancewithinthestateby
providingtoolsthatlinkstrategicplanning,thebudgetanddeliveryofservice,andanalyzingtheresults
quantitatively.TodothistheMAPisdividedinto33distinctcategoriesthataimtocomprehensivelycoverthe
scopeofroadmaintenance.Analysisisderivedfromdatacollectedbyrandomlysamplingroadwaystwicea
yearviacomprehensivesamplingprocedures,andfromrecordsofaccomplishedwork.Thedataisthen
comparedwiththeestablishedstandardstoarriveatalevelofservice(LOS)designationforeachcategory.
TheseLOSdesignationsarethencomparedwithWSDOTgoalsandtargetstoresponsiblytrackprogressand
maintainaccountabilityinallfacetsofmaintenanceoperations.
ThesuccessoftheMAPhasbeentothebenefitofWSDOTandtheirmaintenancedivisionasthemaintenance
budgetisnowperformancebased.ThoroughanalysisofprogramsuccessesandfailuresallowsWSDOTto
analyzebudgetproposalsandaccuratelyprojecttheconsequencesofbudgetdecisionsonroadmaintenance
performance,fromwhichtheycanlobbythelegislaturetosecureadequatefunding.Thus,bybeingcareful,
logical,anddoingtheirresearch,WSDOTisabletosecurethemoneynecessarytokeeptheirroadway
investmentsingoodworkingcondition,obviouslytothebenefitofallresidentsofthestate.Furthermore,ifthe
finalbudgetfallsshortoffundingeverythingthatWSDOTdesires,theycaneffectivelyscalebacktheirgoals
andtargetstoproduceonesthatmaximizetheproductivityoftheroadinfrastructureandaccuratelyevaluate
theperformanceofmaintenancebasedonthefundingprovided.
TheMAPisconsideredtobeasuccessfulprogram.Ithasbeenheavilyborrowedforuseinotherstates,andits
measurementtechniquesweresosuccessfulthatpartoftheprogramwasusedasthepilotforperformance
basedbudgetinginWashingtonState.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Someresponsibilities,standards,schedules,methodsandfundingsourcesmaynotbeknownorarenot
documented.Suchdocumentationmayneedtobecreatedabovetheindividualprojectlevel.
2. FundingforsitemaintenancemaynotbesecuredlongͲterm.Whilethisiscertainlyrecommended,listingthe
currentfundingsourceisadequateforthisrequirement.
3. Thisrequirementonlyspecifiesthatasitemaintenanceplanexist.Itdoesnotensurethatsitemaintenanceis
actuallydone.
4. Thisrequirementonlyspecifiesbroadcategoriesofsitemaintenance.Itdoesnotspecifyeffectiveness,costsor
utilityofindividualefforts.
RESEARCH
Maintenancecanincreasetheusefullifeofmostinfrastructurecomponents,promotespublicsafety,andbenefits
bothpublicandecosystemhealth.Thefollowingisaseriesofbriefdiscussionsonthevalueandnatureof
infrastructuremaintenancebrokendownbygeneralcategory.
StreetCleaning&LitterRemoval
Streetcleaningandlitterremovalretainthevalueoftheroadwaybysustainingtheenvironmentalandaesthetic
benefitsoveritslifespan.Duringitsoperatingcycletheroadwaywill,duetouseandnature,necessarily
accumulatevariousdebristhat,leftalone,willnegativelyimpacttheroadway’srelationshipwithitsenvironment.
Bothdirtanddangerouspollutants(e.g.phosphorus,nitrogen,lead)willcollectontheroadwayovertimeand
posealegitimatethreattovegetationandwaterqualityinthearea(Hyman,1999).Streetsweepinghas
traditionallybeenviewedaseffectiveagainstdirtanddustcontrolonly,butadvancementsinsweepertechnology
120
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-10 Site Maintenance Plan
haveshownittobeveryeffectiveinremovingsmallpollutantsaswell(James,1997).Removalofdirtanddust
fromtheroadwayalsoimprovessafetybymaximizingthesurfaceareaoftiresthemeettheroadsurfaceand
enhancestheaestheticsofthesiteforitsusers(Hyman,1999).Similarly,litteronthesitecanbeaneyesoreanda
gatewaytopollutionofearthandwater.Volunteerlitterremovalprograms,suchasAdoptͲaͲhighway,havebeen
showntobethemosteffectivemethodofcombatinglitteraccumulation(Hyman,1999).
VegetationMaintenance
Nativevegetationgrowthneartheroadwayisnecessaryfortheroadwaytomaintainagoodrelationshipwithits
environment,butuncheckedvegetationgrowthcannegativelyaffecttheperformanceandsafetyoftheroadway.
Maintainingvegetationlimitsimprovesafetyandtrafficflowbymaximizingsightdistancefordrivers,providing
moreaccessibleshouldersforemergencies,andpreventingdamagetoandinterferencewithroadsidestructures
andsigns(WSDOT,2009;MassTran,2003).Furthermore,keepingvegetationgrowthclearoftheedgeofthe
roadwayhelpspreventthepoolingofwater,prolongingthelifeofthepavement(WSDOT,2009).Thekeyisto
maintainvegetation,sincerootsystemscanprovidenecessarysupportandstabilizationofembankments
supportingtheroad(MassTran,2003).Foranexamplediscussionofthemethodsofvegetationmaintenance
includingimportantsustainabilityaspects,seetheIntegratedRoadsideVegetationManagementProgramof
MassHighway(2003).
PavementRepair
Despiteourbestefforts,useoftheroadwayoveritslifetimewillcauseittobegintobreakdown,resultinginsmall
pavementfailuresthatcannegativelyimpacttheperformanceofaroadway.Maintenanceontheroadwayhas
twomaineffects:itimmediatelyimprovestheconditionofthepavementandslowstherateoffuture
deterioration(Deighton,1997).Theseeffectsmaintainlifeoftheroadforalongerperiodoftime,maximizingthe
capitalinvestment.
Asidefromeconomicconcerns,unmaintainedpavedsurfacescanalsobecomeverydangeroussafetyrisksto
drivers,passengers,andpedestriansbydamagingvehiclesandrequiringadditionaldriverattention.Whilebest
managementpracticesforpavementmaintenancearewidespread,comprehensivesupportingresearchisnot.
However,theprocessofretainingthevalueandfunctionoftheroadwayovertimerepresentsasignificantportion
ofthatroadway’ssustainabilitybenefit,sowelldesignedmaintenanceproceduresmustbeconsidered(Wei,
2004).Foracomprehensivediscussionofpavementmaintenancebenefits,definitions,costs,methods,and
referencesseePavementInteractiveathttp://www.pavementinteractive.org.
StormDrainMaintenanceandCleaning
Drainagestructures,essentialforanenvironmentallysensitiveandfunctioningroadway,requireperiodic
maintenancetomaintainefficiency.Withoutmaintenance,significantdeclinesinperformanceandflowrateshave
beenwelldocumented(Hyman,1999).Bestmanagementpracticesarealsowelldocumented,andincluderoutine
maintenance(especiallyrightbeforearainyseason)anddatacollectiontotrackwhenandwherestormdrains
tendtofailinanefforttocleanand/orfixthembeforefailureoccurs.Hyman(1999)hasagoodbaselinesampling
ofsomeeffectivebestmanagementpractices.
CostAnalysis
WhilethebenefitsofsitemaintenanceonaroadwayhavebeenrelativelywellͲdocumented,costanalysesofthese
proceduresaremuchlessso.Sinceroadmaintenancecostsvaryconsiderablybyroadwaytype,roadusepatterns,
regionalweatherfactors,andchosenbestmanagementpracticesbylocalagencies,thereisnoeasydefinitionfor
themaintenancecostofanyspecificroadway.However,therearesomecommonlycitedcostsofsitemaintenance
thatcanprovideanunderstandingoftheresourcesrequiredtomaintaintheasset.
TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)has$355.4millionallocatedinthe2009Ͳ2011
budgetforhighwaymaintenanceofroughly7,000centerlinemilesofroadway.Furthermore,theirMaintenance
AccountabilityProgramdividesthatmoneyinto33distinctactivitieswithinsitemaintenancetomeasureresource
distributionmoreaccurately.SubͲbudgetsinclude$137millionforroadwaymaintenance,includingpavement
patching&repair,shoulderrepair,andcleaning&sweeping;$27millionfordrainagemaintenanceandslope
121
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Site Maintenance Plan PR-10
repair;and$35millionforroadsideandvegetationmanagement,includinglitterpickupandcontrolofintrusive
andinterferingvegetation(WSDOT,2008).
REFERENCES
Deighton.(1997).PavementCondition,vol.3.VideotapefromthedTV(DeightonTelevision)Libraryvideoserieson
pavementmanagementsystemtopics.DeightonAssociated,Ltd.Bowmanville,Ontario.
Hyman,W.A.&Vary,D.(1999).NCHRPSynthesis272:BestManagementPracticesforEnvironmentalIssues
RelatedtoHighwayandStreetMaintenance.TransportationResearchBoard,Washington,D.C.
James,W.(Ed.).(1997).AdvancesinModelingtheManagementofStormwaterImpacts,Volume5.CRCPress.
MassachusettsHighwayDepartment(MassTran).(2003).VegetationManagementPlan2003Ͳ2007.Accessed15
December2009.Availableathttp://www.mhd.state.ma.us/downloads/vmp/appendixE.pdf.
WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT).(2008).MaintenanceManual.M51Ͳ01.WSDOT,
Olympia,WA.
WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT).(2008).WSDOTMaintenancePerformanceMeasures.
Accessed30December2009.Availableathttp://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Maintenance/Accountability/default.htm.
WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT).(2009).NorthwestRegion,Area5:IntegratedRoadside
VegetationManagementPlan.Accessed30December2009.Availableat
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Maintenance/Roadside/mgmt_plans.htm.
WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT).(2009).Washington’s09Ͳ11TransportationBudget.
Accessed30December2009.Availableathttp://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Finance/budget/BudgetPieCharts.htm.
WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT).(2009).WSDOTMaintenanceOperations.Accessed30
December2009.Availableathttp://www.wsdot.wa.gov/maintenance.
Wei,C.andTighe,S.(2004).DevelopmentofPreventativeMaintenanceDecisionTreesbasedonCostͲEffectiveness
Analysis:AnOntarioCaseStudy.TransportationResearchBoard,Washington,D.C.
122
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-11 Educational Outreach
EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH
GOAL
Increasepublic,agencyandstakeholderawarenessofroadwaysustainabilityactivities.
REQUIREMENTS
Incorporateacomprehensivepubliceducationaloutreachprogramintothe
operationalphaseoftheroadwayfacilityproject.
Aminimumofthreeoutofthefollowingeighteducationalelements,tobeinstalled
withintheroadwayprojectlimitsorwithinthepurviewoftheleadagency,mustbe
completedtomeettheintentofthisprojectrequirement:
1. InstallandmaintainapermanentprojectͲorientedsignageprogramalongthe
roadwayrightͲofͲway.Duringconstructionregisteredprojectsmayusetemporary
signstodisplayfactualinformationabouttheGreenroads™certificationlevelbeing
pursued,asnotedintheGreenroadstrademarkpolicy(availableonthewebsite).
2. Installandmaintainatleastoneoffroad,permanentpointͲofͲinterestkioskthat
displaystheGreenroadscertificationlevelpursued,projectinformation,andthe
certificationlevelactuallyachieved.
3. Provideapubliclyavailableandmaintainedinformationalprojectwebsitewith
capacityforsubmittingfeedbackandcomments.
4. Developanagencyand/orstakeholderguide,specification,orpolicythat
incorporatesorotherwiseclearlyreferencesandreflectstheidealsandintentsof
Greenroads.
5. Instituteaninternalagencycontinuingprofessionaleducationandtrainingprogram
relatedtoGreenroads.
6. Performatleasttwopresentationsabouttheprojectforprimaryandsecondary
schools.
7. Performoneprofessionaltechnicalpresentation.
8. DocumenttheprojectexperienceusingGreenroads(i.e.conductadetailedcase
studyfortheroadwayproject).
Details
NotethattheofficialGreenroadslogomayonlybeusedonprojectsigns,public
installationsorprojectdocumentsbypermissionofGreenroads.
DOCUMENTATION
Thefollowingcorrespondtothenumberedsequenceintheprecedingsection.
1. ProvidephotosoftemporaryandpermanentsignsinstalledintherightͲofͲway.
2. Provideatextorprintedcopyoftheinformationofferedatthekiosk(i.e.brochure
orstaticinstallation)ANDaphotoofthekioskstructureandlocationasinstalled.
3. Providethewebsiteaddress.(Note:hyperlinksmustbelive.)
4. Provideacopyoftheagencyguide,manualorspecification.
5. Provideacopyofthelearningobjectivesandscheduleforthetrainingprogram.
6. Provideacopyofeachpresentationandthetimeanddateofthepresentation.
7. Provideacopyoftheabstractalongwiththetechnicalpaperand/orpresentation.
8. Provideacopyofthecompletedcasestudy.
PR-11
REQUIRED
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ1Environmental
ReviewProcess
9 CAͲ2Environmental
Training
9 AEͲ8ScenicViews
9 AEͲ9Cultural
Outreach
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Equity
9 Expectations
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 IncreasesAwareness
123
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Educational Outreach PR-11
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Usetheenvironmentalreviewprocess(seePRͲ1)asastartingpointforestablishingpublicawarenessneeds.
x Involvebusinessdevelopmentpersonnel,marketingprofessionals,andpublicrelationsofficersearlyinthe
projectplanningprocess.
x ExpandconstructionteamhealthandsafetytrainingmeetingstoincorporateGreenroadsgoalsfortheproject
(seeCAͲ2).
x Identifypeoplewithintheprojectteam,agencyorcompanywhomaybeinterestedinleadingexternaland
internaleducationaleffortsrelativetoincorporatingGreenroadsandsustainabilityintheorganization.
x Considercollaborationwithprofessionalwebsitedevelopers.
x ContacttheGreenroadsTeamifinterestedinparticipatinginacasestudy.Resources,suchasreporttemplates
andscorecards,areavailablebyrequest.
x Followtheguidelinesforactiveoutreach(andrelatedpublicinteractiontopics)outlinedinthe“Public
InvolvementTechniquesforTransportationDecisionͲmaking”(FHWAͲPDͲ96Ͳ031).Thisdocumentcontainsa
numberofpotentialactivitiesthatcouldbeusedaloneorincombinationtomeettheintentofthisProject
Requirement,aswellasseveraladditionalusefulreferencesandresources.
Example: Kickinghorse Canyon Project — British Columbia Ministry of Transportation
TheKickinghorseCanyonProjectontheTransͲCanadaHighway(Highway1)bytheBritishColumbiaMinistryof
Transportationoffersanexcellentexampleofacomprehensivepubliceducationaloutreachprogram.
Thisprojecthasadetailedwebsite(http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/kickinghorse/index.htm),aprintablefactsheet
(availablehttp://www.th.gov.bc.ca/kickinghorse/updates/KHCP_Fact_Sheet.pdf),andhascompletedacase
study(availablebywrittenrequest).Additionally,thecompletedprojectincludesimprovementstoarestarea
whichwillincorporateprojectandhistoricalinformationforthesite.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Graffitioninstalledsignsorpublicinformationkiosks.
2. Potentiallyinflammatoryoroffensivecommentsorspamonprojectwebsites.
RESEARCH
AttheheartoftheGreenroadsprogramisencouragementofbroadsustainabilityeducationforpeoplewhouse,
design,andbuildtransportationinfrastructure.Publicoutreachprogramsareencouragedatmosttransportation
agenciesandoftenrequiredonmanyprojectsaspartoftheinitialplanningprocess(suchasduringenvironmental
review).However,mostoftheseopenͲcommunicationͲorientedinitiativesarerelevantonlyduringthedecisionͲ
makingprocessandarenotdeliberatelyeducationaloverthelongͲtermlifeoftheproject.Greenroadsseeksto
supportroadwayprojectsthatofferbuiltͲineducationalresourcesforthebenefitofpublicinterestand
professionallearninganddevelopment.
Need&Opportunity
TheBrundtlandReportnotes“…thechangesinattitudes,insocialvalues,andinaspirations….willdependonvast
campaignsofeducation,debateandpublicparticipation”(WCED,1987,p.16).Sustainabilityhascertainlybecome
apopularliteraturetopic,butthevolumeofresearchoneducationistoovasttosummarizehere.Manyauthors
onsustainabilityaswellasotherenvironmentalorganizationssuggestorexplicitlystresstheimportanceof
sustainabilityeducation(Edwards,2005;Benyus,2002;WCED,1987;USGBC,2009;Wilson,2002;Daly,2005;
Robèrt,1997,2002;Kibert,2005),butfewofferactionablesolutionsorimplementation.Inmostcases,current
educationaleffortsoccurinternallywithincompaniesoragencies,oraredirectedtowardchildrenandyoung
adultsinelementaryschoolsthroughcollege.Specificacademicresearchoneitherthesuccessorfailureof
implementingroadwayͲbasedpublicoutreachprogramsforsustainabilityeducationisdifficulttofind(or,more
likely,itsimplydoesnotexistyet).
124
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Project Requirements
PR-11 Educational Outreach
Roadwayspresentauniqueopportunitytointeractwiththeirmainstakeholder,thepublic,throughoutthelifeof
theproject.Over100hoursperpersonperyeararespentcommutingtoworkintheUnitedStates(Buckner&
Gonzales,2005).Thisexceedstheamountofpersonalvacationtimeformosttraditionalsalariedpositions,istwice
aslongasspringbreaksformostschools,andistwotofivetimestheamountoftimethatmoststatesrequirefor
ContinuingEducationUnits(CEU)forlicensedprofessionalslikeengineers,doctors,andlawyers.Clearly,time
spentonaroadwayprovidesampleopportunityforExposuretodifferentsustainabilitytopics,aswellastimefor
reflection,repetitionandreinforcementonanearlydailybasisformostcommuters.However,whentheproject
ownershipchangesintothepublichands,oftenanylearningopportunitiespertainingtotheproject(suchashowa
newpavementtechnologywasimplemented,howenergyusewasreducedinthelighting,orwhattypesof
stormwatertreatmentswereused)arelost.
Inadditiontoinstitutionallearning,professionalandtechnicalorganizationsalsoplayavitalroleinfurthering
knowledgeofsustainabilitythroughouttheirmembership.OrganizationsliketheTransportationResearchBoard
(TRB),whosemissionstatementisorientedtowardpromotinginformationexchangeandinterdisciplinaryresearch
(TRB,2009),andothergovernmentbodiespromotecontinuingeducationofthetransportationprofessional
community.Conferencepresentations,technicalpapers,andpresentationstolocalschoolsareallconsideredtobe
worthwhileeffortsmadetoforwardsustainabilityeducationthroughoutreach.
Finally,ratingsystemslikeGreenroadsofferuniqueopportunitiesforagenciesandorganizationstotrackand
measureinternalprocesses.Usingasustainabilityratingsystemisasimplewaytomeasureprogressand
improvementsoverthelongͲtermandstimulateinnovationwithinanagency.Casestudiescanprovidevaluable
snapshotsofoverallperformanceontheprojectandbeusedtodevelopagencyͲspecificbenchmarksfor
sustainabilityforfutureprojects.
PrecedenceinBuildings
TheLEED®GreenBuildingRatingSystemawardsonepointinallofitsratingsystemprogramsforinstitutinga
projectͲorientedEducationalOutreachprogramthatmeetstheintentofthecreditcategorycalledInnovationin
Design,whichrewardssuperiorperformanceandcreativeimplementationofideasortechnologies(USGBC,2008).
Thiscreditawardedforthebuiltenvironmentestablishesprecedencefortheneed,validityandacceptanceofsuch
educationalprogramsandpublicawarenessprograms.Transportationandinfrastructurehaveasimilarneedfor
suchprecedence.
Further,thoughusingabuildingasamodelforcostofroadwaysisnotideal,theavailabilityofaneducational
opportunitysuchasaroadsidepointͲofͲinterestorsignsliningthestreetmaybeperceivedasalargevalueͲadded
benefitforthepublicataveryminimaladdedcosttothedesignbudget.Acostanalysisofsucheducational
programs,signageand/ordisplaysincorporatedinLEEDͲratedbuildings(usingagenericbuildingmodel)showed
onlyminoraddedcostsforimplementationtotheprojectbottomline(StevenWinterAssociates,2004).
Additionally,thisstudyshowedthatmostofthesecostsare“softcosts”thataretypicallyadministrativeinnature.
Theprimarymodeofestablishingandcommunicatingpublicvaluesintransportationandinfrastructureis
consensusͲbasedpoliticalmandateorotherregulatoryrulings.Also,afederalmandatewasrecentlyinstitutedfor
highperformanceandgreenbuildingsasExecutiveOrder(EO)13423:StrengtheningFederalEnvironmental,
Energy,andTransportationManagement(2007).EOSection3(c)makesfederalagencyleadsaccountablefor
establishmentofinternalagencyprogramsforenvironmentaltraining,includingmanagement,complianceand
audit,andleadershiprecognition.Thiscouldbeconsideredapremonitionformandatedsustainabilitytrainingand
educationinroadwaysystemprojectsandforinternalprogramsintransportationagenciesandorganizations.
Ongoingsustainabilityeducationprogramscanteachpeopletounderstandtheconsequencesoftheiractions,
suchastheimpactofpersonalresourceuse,andtorelatetheirvaluesandbehaviorstocurrentpoliticaland
environmentalconditions(Palmer,1998).Roadsarehighlyaccessibletothepublic;thus,roadscanofferacreative
meansofexposuretosustainabilityconceptswhichcanhelpusersmakemoreinformeddecisionsregarding
sustainabilityintheirdailylives,communitiesandcultures.Greenroadsaddseducationasanothersteptoward
establishingaconnectionbetweenpeopleandtheplacesthattheylive,travel,workandrecreate.
125
Project Requirements Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Educational Outreach PR-11
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
Buckner,S.&Gonzales,J.UnitedStatesCensusBureauPublicInformationOffice.(2005,March30).Americans
spendmorethan100hourscommutingtoworkeachyear,CensusBureaureports.U.S.CensusNews[Press
Release].RetrievedSeptember29,2010from
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/cb05Ͳac02.html
Daly,H.E.(2005).Economicsinafullworld.ScientificAmerican.293(3),100Ͳ7.
Edwards,A.R.(2005).Thesustainabilityrevolution:Portraitofaparadigmshift.Gabriola,BC:NewSociety.
Exec.OrderNo.13,42372Fed.Reg.(2007).(tobecodifiedat3C.F.R.§102)
Howard/SteinͲHudsonAssociates,Inc.andParsonsBrinckerhoffQuadeandDouglas.(1996,September).Public
involvementfortransportationdecisionͲmaking.(FHWAͲPDͲ96Ͳ031)Washington,DC:U.S.Dept.of
Transportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.PostedDecember1996.RetrievedOctober12,2009from
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/REPORTS/PITTD/contents.htm.
Kibert,C.(2005).Sustainableconstruction:greenbuildingdesignanddelivery(1sted.).HobokenN.J.:JohnWiley&
Sons.
Palmer,J.(1998).Environmentaleducationinthe21stcentury:theory,practice,progressandpromise.London,UK;
NewYork,NY:Routledge.
Robèrt,K.ͲH.(2002).Thenaturalstepstory:seedingaquietrevolution.GabriolaIsland,BC:NewSociety
Publishers.
StevenWinterAssociates,Inc.(2004,October).GSALEEDCostStudy:FinalReport.U.S.GeneralServices
AdministrationDoc.No.GSͲ11PͲ99ͲMADͲ0565/PͲ00Ͳ02ͲCYͲ0065.Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrinting
Office.RetrievedOctober12,2009fromhttp://www.wbdg.org/ccb/GSAMAN/gsaleed.pdf
TransportationResearchBoard.(2009).EducationandTrainingResearchatTRB.EducationandTraining.Retrieved
October15,2009fromhttp://www.trb.org/EducationTraining/Public/EducationandTraining1.aspx
U.S.GreenBuildingCouncil.(2008b,March21).USGBC:LEEDReferenceDocuments.LEEDIDCreditCatalog.
RetrievedDecember11,2008,fromhttp://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3569
UnitedNationsGeneralAssembly,42ndSession.(1987,August4).ReportoftheWorldCommissionon
EnvironmentandDevelopment(WCED):“OurCommonFuture.”(A/42/427).AnnextoOfficialRecord.Geneva,
Switzerland,1987.(Masthead).RetrievedNovember2,2008,from
http://www.worldinbalance.net/agreements/1987Ͳbrundtland.php
Wilson,E.O.(2002).Thefutureoflife(1sted.).NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf.
EO UnitedStatesExecutiveOrder
Kiosk Asmallstructurethatcanbeusedtoaccessinformation,suchasanewsstand
orcomputerterminal
LEED LeadershipinEnergy&EnvironmentalDesign,aratingsystemforgreen
buildingsbytheUnitedStatesGreenBuildingCouncil
TRB TransportationResearchBoard
USGBC UnitedStatesGreenBuildingCouncil
126

Greenroads Manual v1.5 © 2011

ENVIRONMENT & WATER


127

Greenroads Manual v1.5 © 2011

128
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-1 Environmental Management System
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
GOAL
Improveenvironmentalstewardshipbyusingacontractorthathasaformal
environmentalmanagementprocess.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Theprimecontractor,designͲbuilderorconstructionmanagementfirmshallhavea
documentedenvironmentalmanagementsystem(EMS)fortheentirecompanyorat
leasttheportion(s)ofthecompanyparticipatingintheproject.TheEMSmustbein
placeforthedurationofprojectconstruction.Asaminimum,theEMSandits
documentationshallmeettherequirementsofInternationalStandardsOrganization
(ISO)14001:2004.
Details
Theprimecontractor,designͲbuilderorconstructionmanagementfirmis
consideredtohaveadocumentedEMSifithas:
x ISO14001:2004certification.
x AnEMSthatmeetsISO14001:2004requirementsbutisnotformallycertified.
DOCUMENTATION
Submitone(1)ofthefollowingitems:
1. DocumentationoftheISO14001:2004certificationfortheprimecontractor,
designͲbuilderorconstructionmanagementfirm.
2. Acopyoftheprimecontractor,designͲbuilderorconstructionmanagementfirm’s
EMSdocumentationtoinclude:
x Environmentalpolicy
x Environmentalobjectivesandtargets
x Identifiedregulatoryrequirementsandcompliancewithrequirements
x Definedrolesandresponsibilities
x Employeetrainingplan
x Listingofdocumentedprocesses
x Preventiveactions
x Correctiveactions
x Emergencyprocedures
EW-1
2 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ1Environmental
ReviewProcess
9 PRͲ10Site
MaintenancePlan
9 CAͲ1Quality
ManagementSystem
9 CAͲ2Environmental
Training
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Extent
9 Expectations
9 Experience
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 ReducesWaterUse
9 ReducesFossilFuel
Use
9 ReducesRaw
Materials
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesGreenhouse
Gases
9 ReducesWater
Pollution
9 ReducesSolidWaste
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
9 Improves
Accountability
9 IncreasesAwareness

129
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Environmental Management System EW-1
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x HaveaprimecontractorwithISO14001:2004.
x HaveaprimecontractorwithadocumentedEMSthatmeetstherequirementsofISO14001:2004.
Example: Environmental Management System (EMS) Manuals
WhileitisnotpossibletopresentanentireEMS,therearemanyexamplesofkeyEMSdocumentsavailableon
theWebincludingthefollowingEMSmanuals:
x U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,PhiladelphiaOffice:
http://www.epa.gov/region03/ems/philly_manual.htm
x RobinsAirForceBase:http://205.153.241.230/ems/basics/emsrobins.pdf
x TheCityofSanDiego(containsPowerPointpresentationsonkeyISO14001facets):
http://www.sandiego.gov/environmentalͲservices/ems/emp_manual.shtml
x MassHighway:http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/downloads/projdev/emsmanual.pdf
x NorthCarolinaDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(theyhaveagenericguideEMSmanual
forusebythosewishingtocreateone):http://www.p2pays.org/ref/08/07378/0737829.pdf
x TheAmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)maintainsanEMS
implementationguidewebsiteat:
http://environment.transportation.org/documents/ems_implementation_guide.asp.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. SmallerfirmsmaynotbeabletoaffordtheISOcertificationprocess.
2. DocumentationofanEMSisnotthesamehashavinganeffectiveEMS;howevercollectionofdocumentation
(inlieuofanactualaudit)isanefficientwayofgatheringevidenceofaneffectiveEMS.
RESEARCH
AccordingtoISO(2009)anEMSisamanagementtoolthat“…providesaframeworkforaholistic,strategic
approachtotheorganization'senvironmentalpolicy,plansandactions.”Oneofthemorecomprehensive
descriptionsofsuchasystemcomesfromISOintheir14000familyofstandards.
ISO14000
TheISO14000familyofdocumentsaddressesvariousaspectsofenvironmentalmanagement.ISO14001andISO
14004specificallyaddressEMSrequirementsandguidelinesrespectively.Essentially,itisaformaldescriptionof
anEMSandallthatisinvolvedinitscreation,implementationanduse.TheISOisastandardpublishingbody
similartoASTMInternationalortheAmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO).
Certification:ISO14001
TherequirementsforcertificationarecontainedinISO14001.Therefore,organizationsarecertifiedin
accordancewithISO14001;thenumberisappendedwiththeyearofthestandardthatappliedwhenthe
organizationwascertified.ThemostcurrentversionisISO14001:2004.
ISOdoesnotcertifyorganizationsitself.Mostcountrieshaveformedformalgroupsor“certificationbodies,”
whichauditorganizationsapplyingforISO14001certification.Throughmutualagreementsthesebodies
ensurethatcertificationauditstandardsarerelativelythesameworldwide.Certification,oncegranted,must
berenewedatstandardintervals,oftenthreeyears.
ISOdoesnotrequirecertificationandmanyorganizationsjustchoosetofollowISO14000requirementsbut
foregocertification.However,itiscommonpracticeinmanypartsoftheworld(e.g.,WesternEurope,China,
India,etc.)torequireISOcertificationasaprerequisitefordoingbusiness.Therefore,countriesthatrequire
thisusuallyseethehighestcertificationrates.
130
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-1 Environmental Management System
ArgumentsforCertification
Argumentsforcertificationtypicallycitethegeneralideathatproperandactivemanagementofacompany’s
impactontheenvironmentcanresultinbetterregulatorycompliance,betterbusinessopportunities,less
impactontheenvironmentandimprovedsafety.Typicallytheseitemsaremeasuredbycountingregulatory
violations,marketshare,salesgrowth,reducedinjuriesandothermetrics.
ArgumentsagainstCertification
Opponentsofcertificationarguethattheactualactofcertificationandexistenceofdocumentationdonot,in
andofthemselves,guaranteeimprovedenvironmentalimpacts.Further,theypointoutthatISO14001
certificationcanbeanexpensiveandburdensomeprocessthatdoesnotnecessarilyproduceresults.
CertificationCost
AccordingtoChristinietal.(2004),itcostonemajorU.S.constructionfirmabout$1milliontoachieve
certification.Mostresearch(e.g.,Zengetal.2003;Oforietal.;2000)tendstoinvestigatereasonsforISO14000
adoptionandnottheactualcost.
WorldwideISO14001Certification
Datafrom2006showworldwideISO14001certificationsat129,199in140differentcountriesandgrowing(Figure
EWͲ1.1).InDecember2006theU.S.had5,585certifications,whichrankedseventhworldwide(FigureEWͲ1.2).ISO
14001certificationisfarmorecommoninEuropeandEasternAsiawith44%and41%ofworldwidecertifications
respectively.NorthAmerica(consistingofonlytheU.S.,CanadaandMexico)comprisedalmost6%ofthe
worldwidetotal.

FigureEWͲ1.1:ISO14001certificationworldwidegrowth2005Ͳ2006(datafromISO2006).

111,162
129,199
100,000
105,000
110,000
115,000
120,000
125,000
130,000
135,000
2005 2006
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

I
S
O

1
4
0
0
1

C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

W
o
r
l
d
w
i
d
e
Year
131
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Environmental Management System EW-1

FigureEWͲ1.2:Top10countriesintermsofnumberofISO14001certificationsin2006(datafromISO2006).

ISO14001CertificationintheU.S.ConstructionIndustry
ISO14000enjoysgrowingworldwidepopularity,howeverrelativelyfewU.S.constructionfirmsarecertified
(Christinietal.2004).ReasonsforthelowpopularityintheU.S.aresomewhatnonͲspecificbutperhapscanbe
attributedtoalackofanygovernmentrequirement,noinsistencebyclients,implementationcosts,anda
subcontractingsystemthatmakesitdifficulttouseanEMSonaparticularjob(Tse2001).
EvidencetosupportthepositiveoutcomesofISO14001certificationgenerallycomesfromsurveysorcasestudies
ofcontractorsthatarelargelyalreadyISOcertified(e.g.,Christinietal.2004;ValdezandChini2002;Oforietal.
2000)orsegregatethecertifiedfirmsandthenaskthemwhatthebenefitsweretheywereseekingincertification
(Zengetal.2003).ItisnotsurprisingthatresultsindicateageneralbenefittoISO14001certification.Evenso,
thereisevidencetosuggestthatISO14000canreducelandfilledwasteandproducefinancialsavings(Christiniet
al.2004).
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
Christini,G.,Fetsko,M.,andHendrickson,C.(2004).EnvironmentalManagementSystemsandISO14001
CertificationforConstructionFirms.JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement,130(3),330Ͳ336.
InternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO).(2004).ISO14001:2004EnvironmentalmanagementsystemsͲ
Requirementswithguidanceforuse.ISO,Geneva,Switzerland.
InternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO).(2009).ISO14000essentials.ISOwebsite.
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_14000_essentials.Accessed11January2010.
22,593
18,842
11,125
9,825
6,070
5,893
5,585
5,415
4,411
3,047
Ͳ 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Japan
China
Spain
Italy
UK
SouthKorea
USA
Germany
Sweden
France
NumberofISO14001Certifications inDecember2006
ISO InternationalStandardsOrganization
EMS environmental managementsystem
132
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-1 Environmental Management System
Ofori,G.,Briffett,C.,Gang,G.,andRanasinghe,M.(2000).ImpactofISO14000onconstructionenterprisesin
Singapore.ConstructionManagementandEconomics,18,935–947.
Tse,R.Y.C.(2001).TheimplementationofEMSinconstructionfirms:casestudyinHongKong.J.Environ.
AssessmentPolicyManagement,3(2),177Ͳ194.
Valdez,H.E.andChini,A.R.(2002).ISO14000StandardsandtheUSConstructionIndustry.Commentary.
EnvironmentalPractice,4,10–219.
Zeng,S.X.,Tam,C.M.,Deng,Z.M.andTam,V.W.Y.(2003).ISO14000andtheConstructionIndustry:Surveyin
China.JournalofManagementinEngineering,19(3),107Ͳ115.

133
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Environmental Management System EW-1

134
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-2 Runoff Flow Control
RUNOFF FLOW CONTROL
GOAL
Mimicpredevelopmenthydrologicalconditionsintherightofway(ROW)andminimize
offsitestormwatercontrols.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
1. Developastormwatermanagementplanforthesiteusingstormwaterbest
managementpractices(BMPs)forflowcontrol.Explicitlystatethegoalsofthisplan
andhowperformancewillbemeasured.
2. UselowͲimpactdevelopment(LID)BMPstothemaximumextentfeasibleas
determinedinProjectRequirementPRͲ8byalicensedprofessional.
3. Computethe90
th
percentileaverageannualrainfalleventvaluesforthefollowing
predevelopmentandpostͲconstructionconditions:
x V
preROW
=insideROWpredevelopmentvolumeofrunoff
x V
preͲout
=outsideROWpredevelopmentvolumeofrunͲon
x V
totalͲpre
=V
preROW
+V
preͲout
=totalpredevelopmentvolume
x Q
pre
=predevelopmentflowratemeasuredatwaterbodyreceivingeffluent
fromthesite,basedonV
totalͲpre

x V
postROW
=insideROWpostͲconstructionvolumeofrunoff
x V
postͲout
=outsideROWpostͲconstructionvolumeofrunͲon
x V
totalͲpost
=V
postROW
+V
postͲout
=totalpostͲconstructionvolume
x Q
post
=postͲconstructionflowratemeasuredatthesamelocationasQ
pre,
based
onV
totalͲpost

4. ProvideBMPsforstormwaterflowcontrol.Listthetypes,manufacturers,total
volumesandflowratescontrolledbyBMPswithintheROWoroutsideoftheROW.
5. DemonstratethattheplannedBMPsmeetthefollowingflowcontrolcriteria:
x BMPsconformtoallapplicableminimumflowcontrolstandardsforall
effluentleavingtheROWsetbythegoverningjurisdictionforvolume,flow
controlandtimeofconcentration.Statetheminimumrequirements,including
criticalerosiveflowcriteria,andprovidereferenceddocumentorpolicy.
x R
V
=RatioofVolumeAchieved=V
totalͲpost/
V
totalͲpre
ч1.20
x R
F
=RatioofFlowRateAchieved=Q
post
/Q
pre
ч1.20
x PointsareawardedperTableEWͲ2.1basedontypeofalignment,locationof
BMPsandlevelofcontrolachieved.UseR
V
andR
F
,whicheverishigher,to
determineifpointshavebeenearned.
TableEWͲ2.1:PointsforFlowControlAchievement
Typeof
Alignment
Locationof
BMPs
V
totalͲpost
Includes
RunͲon?
HigherofR
V
orR
F
1.20 – 1.10 1.10 – 1.00 ч1.00
New WithinROW No 0 0 2
Yes 0 0 3
OutofROW No 0 0 1
Yes 0 0 2
Existing WithinROW No 0 1 2
Yes 1 2 3
OutofROW No 0 0 1
Yes 0 1 2

EW-2
1-3 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ8LowImpact
Development
9 PRͲ10Site
MaintenancePlan
9 EWͲ3RunoffQuality
9 EWͲ4Stormwater
CostAnalysis
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Extent
BENEFITS
9 ReducesWater
Pollution
9 ReducesSolidWaste
9 ReducesManmade
Footprint
135
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Flow Control EW-2
Details
Stormwaterflowsaremeasuredbyflowrate,timeofconcentration,andvolume.“Predevelopmentconditions”
aretheestimatedvaluesofthesethreevariablesthatexistedintheROWatapriortimerelativetoregional
historic,naturalorundevelopedconditionsasdefinedbythegoverninglocalwatershedauthority.Ifnolocal
authorityornoexistingdefinition,usethedefinitionforgreenͲ,grayͲandbrownfieldsprovidedinthe2009
SustainableSitesInitiative(SSI)Credit3.5“Managestormwateronsite.”Whilecontinuousstormwater
simulationmodelsaremostappropriateforthiscredit,themodifiedcurvenumbersprovidedinSSICredit3.5
maybeusedtosimplifycalculations.“PostͲconstruction”meanstheexpectedperformanceofthedesigned
BMPsinthestormwatermanagementplan.
DOCUMENTATION
Acopyoftheexecutivesummaryoftheprojectdrainagedesignreportthatincludes,atminimum,thefollowing:
x Shortnarrativethataddresseseachofthecreditrequirements.
Asneeded,supportingcalculationsforrunoffareas,runoffvolume(outputfromanyrainfallmodelingsoftware
usedisadequate),andtreatmentlevelsmayberequested.
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x TheSustainableSitesInitiative(2009)modifiedcurvenumber(CN)approachisacceptableandmaybeusedto
achievethiscredit.Newalignmentsandrehabilitation(orwidening)ofruralroadswillfallunder“greenfield"
CNswhilealmostallotherprojectswilluse“grayfield”CNs.(Seeadditionalnotesinthe“PotentialIssues”
section.)TheguidelinesforSustainableSitesareavailablehere:http://www.sustainablesites.org/report/
x Preservenativevegetation.
x Protectsoilswithgoodinfiltrationcapacity.
x Minimizecompactionofsoilstopreservenaturalinfiltrationcapacity.
x Distributestormwatercontrolsthroughouttheprojectareainsteadofusingafewrelativelylargecentralized
facilities.
x Assessthefeasibilityofinfiltrationandevapotranspirationtoreducetheneedfordetentionpondsoutsidethe
rightofway.
x Reducelandareaimpactsbyavoidingtheuseoftraditionaldetentionponds.
Example: Northshore Drive, Bellingham, WA - Case Study
TheNorthshoreDriveprojectislocatedintheSilverBeachareaoftheCityofBellingham,Washingtononthe
northshoreofLakeWhatcom.TheprojectincludesallofNorthshoreDrivefromtheDakinStreetintersection
totheBrittonRoadintersection.ThedesignwaslooselybasedonarecentprojectbytheCityofOlympiacalled
RWJohnsonBoulevardthatusedporousbikelanesandsidewalksalongatraditionalroadway.Northshore
Drivereceivedanasphaltoverlayaftersurfacegrindingtheexistingroadwayandmakingminoralignment
modifications.Lanewidthswerereducedto11feettoaccommodatenewbikelanesandsidewalks.Anew
stormwaterdrainagesystemwasalsoinstalled.
1. CalculatePerviousandImperviousArea
AlabamaAvetoSilverBeachStore
Totalsegmentlength=2450ft
Totalwidthofcrosssection=37.5ft
Existing: 29ftimpervioushotmixasphalt(HMA) Area1=29ftx2,450ft=71,050sf
8.5ftofperviousgrass/gravel Area2=8.5ftx2,450ft=20,825sf

136
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-2 Runoff Flow Control
Proposed: 22.5ftimperviousHMA,intersections,aprons,curb Area3=22.5ftx2,450ft=55,125sf
15ftperviousHMA Area4=15ftx2,450ft=36,750sf

Totalnewandreplacedimpervioussurfaceforsegment=Area3=55,125sf
Decreaseinimpervioussurfaceforsegment=Area1–Area3=15,925sf
SilverBeachStoretoBrittonRoad
Totalsegmentlength=1,550ft
Totalwidthofcrosssection=29ft(excludesexistinggutterpan)
Existing: 27ftimperviousHMA Area5=29ftx1,550ft=41,850sf
2ftofperviousgrass/gravel Area6=2ftx1,550ft=3,100sf

Proposed: 29ftimperviousHMA Area7=29ftx1,550ft=44,950sf

Totalnewandreplacedimpervioussurfaceforsegment=Area7=44,950sf
Increaseinimpervioussurfaceforsegment=Area7–Area5=Area6=3,100sf
ProjectTotals
TotalExistingImperviousSurface=Area1+Area5=112,900sf
TotalNewandReplacedImperviousSurface=Area3+Area7=100,075sf
9 NetChangeinImperviousSurface=112,900sf–100,075sf=12,825sf(Decrease)
TotalExistingPerviousSurface=23,925sf
TotalNewPerviousSurface=36,750sf
9 NetChangeinPerviousSurface=36,750sf–23,925sf=12,825sf(Increase)
2. MinimumRequirementsfrom2008WSDOTHighwayRunoffManual(HRM)
Figures3.1,3.2,and3.3oftheHRMareusedtodeterminetheminimumrequirementsapplicablefora
project.*Section3Ͳ2.2oftheHRMlistspossibleexceptionsforthisproject.**Nospecialexceptionsapplybut
theprojectdischargesdirectlyintoanexemptwaterbody(LakeWhatcom)whichdoesnothaveflowcontrol
requirements.However,WSDOTrequiresthatregardlessofanexemption,onͲsiteBMPsneedtobeusedto
infiltrateasmuchrunoffasreasonablypossible.
3. DetermineFlowControlValues
Timeofconcentration,flowratesandrunoffvolumeswerenotrequiredtobecomputedforexemptprojects
forflowcontrol,norweretheycomputedforqualitytreatmentpurposesbecauseanetdecreaseinimpervious
surfaceoccurred.
4. ApplyStormwaterBestManagementPractices
Thisprojectusedpermeablepavementswithunderdrainsforbikelanesandsidewalks.Infiltrationratesare
showninTableEWͲ2.2fromtheprojectgeotechnicalreport.
TableEWͲ2.2:EstimatedlongͲtermdesigninfiltrationrates(NorthshoreGeotechnicalreport)
SampleDepth
USDATextural
Classification
InfiltrationRate
(in/hr)***
T.P.1@2.0’Ͳ3.0’ Loam 0.13
T.P.4@1.5’Ͳ2.5’ SandyLoam 0.25
5. DetermineFlowControlAchieved
SincetotalimpervioussurfaceontheprojectwasreducedfromexistingsurfaceareasandBMPs,greaterthan
137
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Flow Control EW-2
100%ofpredevelopmentflowcontrolratesandvolumeswereachieved.Theprojectearns3points.
Notes:
*Thesefiguresmakeupadecisiontreeusedtoguidetheengineerintheapplicableminimumrequirementswhendesigningastormwater
managementfacilitybasedonknownsurfaceareas,relativeperviousness,andpollutiongeneratingcapacity.
**Generally,iftheamountofimpervioussurfacesisgreaterthanaspecifiedminimumvalue,certainrequirementsmustbeappliedtothat
impervioussurface.Thesevaluesarecalled“minimumrequirements.”
***IncludestherecommendedcorrectionfactorspresentedintheSWMM.

Figure1:NorthshoreDriveinBellingham,Washington.Cyclistsusingpermeablepavementbikelanesadjacentto
permeablesidewalk.PhotobyC.Weiland

138
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-2 Runoff Flow Control
Example: Bioswale with Flow Control Weirs
FigureEWͲ2.2showsasetofstreetsideflowcontrolweirsinabioswaleBMP.Thisswaleprovidesflowcontrol
benefitsofincreasedinfiltration,increasedretention,andflowattenuation.

FigureEWͲ2.2:Abioswalewithflowcontrolweirs.(PhotobyJ.Anderson)

Example: Continuous Modeling Scenarios
Theeffectoflowimpactdevelopment(LID)stormwatercontrolstowardrestoringtheoriginalhydrologycanbe
illustratedanalyzingtheerosivepotentialofflowsundervariousscenarios.Streamerosioniscausedby
excessiveshearstressappliedbytheflowonthestreambanksandbed.Forthisexample,asuiteofLID
methodsweremodeledaspartofanalternativesstudyforroadwayrealignmentandassociatedstormwater
managementoptionsfortheInterstate70expansionproject.
FigureEWͲ2.3onthefollowingpageshowstheaveragedistributionofshearstressinastreamnearColumbia,
Missouri.Ideally,thedistributionafterdevelopmentshouldremainclosetothepreͲdevelopmentcurve.The
graphicshowsseveralkeythings:
x Detentionbasinsdesignedtocontrolextremeevents(e.g.,thosewithreturnperiodsof2to100years)do
littletorestoretheshearstressdistributionwhencomparedwiththepostͲdevelopedscenario.
x Basinsdesignedtocontrolwaterqualityandprotectchannels(i.e.,designedforthe1Ͳyearstorm)dolower
theshearstressbutnotablychangethedistributionovertime.
x Inthisspecificcase,LIDcontrols,althoughstillnotexactlyreplicatingthepreͲdevelopmentcondition,
affordtheclosestmatch.
FigureEWͲ2.3wascreatedwithCH2MHILL’sLIFE™continuousmodelingsoftwareforLIDrunoffcontrols.
139
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Flow Control EW-2 140
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-2 Runoff Flow Control
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Therearenumerousmethodstocalculaterunoffvolume.Manyareapplicabletostormsoflargemagnitude
andunderestimatetherunoffgeneratedbysmallstorms,whichoccurmorefrequentlyandrepresentmostof
theannualrunoffvolume.Averageannualrunoffvolumeshavebeenspecifiedforuseinallofthestormwater
relatedcreditsinGreenroadstoprovideconsistencybetweencredits.
2. TheLIDevaluationprocessthatisrequiredtomeetProjectRequirementPRͲ8doesnotrequireanaverage
annualrunoffmodel.Infact,itrecommendstheuseofdesignstormstomodelpeakflow.Thispracticeisnow
outdatedandthepreferredapproachtorunoffquantitymanagementisthroughflowcontrolmethods.(Cityof
Seattle,2009)
3. Continuousmodelingcanbetimeintensiveandcostlyandthiscanvarygreatlybetweenprojectsandbysizeof
project.The2009SustainableSitesInitiative(SSI)providesanalternativemodelthatcanbeusedtomeetthe
intentofthiscredit.ItisbasedontheoldTRͲ55softwaremodelfromtheNationalResourceConservation
Service(NRCS)incombinationwithacontinuousmodelingprogrambasedontheStormwaterManagement
Model(SWMM)softwarebytheEPA.The2009SSIcreditprovideschartsandtargetcurvenumbersfor
achievingcertainpointsinthatratingsystem.(Ingeneral,probablyagoodruleofthumbisthatpointsforthe
SSIcreditareworth5,7,and10pointswhichprobablycorrespondto1,2,and3pointsinGreenroads,
respectively.However,Greenroadsalsorequiressupportingcalculationstoshowthatflowcontrol
performanceguidelineshavebeenmetaccordingtothiscreditandtodatenoprojectshaveattemptedthis
creditortheSSIapproach.)
4. Anymodelsthatareusedinherentlyhavesomelimitationsandassumptions.Somearebetterthanothers
dependingonprojectlocation.Thiscreditdefaultstotheintegrityofthedesignertochoosetheappropriate
modelingsoftware.
RESEARCH
Alteringtheimperviousnessofthelandtomakewayforroadscanhavemajorimpactsonthephysicaland
chemicalintegrityofawatershed(Southerland,1994;FormanandAlexander,1998;EnvironmentalProtection
Agency:EPA,2007).ThisGreenroadscreditprimarilyaddresseschangestophysicalintegrityofwatershedsbased
onphysicalquantitiesofrunoffgeneratedbyaroadway;however,manyofthetopicsareinherentlytiedtowater
qualityissuesbecauseallbestmanagementpracticesthataddressflowcontrolalsoaddresswaterquality(Quigley
etal.,2009).CreditEWͲ3RunoffQualityaddresseschemicalrunoffcharacteristics(waterquality)whileanoften
ignoredcomponentofwatershedhealth,biologicalintegrity,isaddressedbyCreditEWͲ6HabitatRestoration.
PhysicalImpactsfromStormwaterRunoff
Thegeneralrelationshipbetweenvolumeofwaterandvelocityofflowsonstreambedsseemsintuitive—more
waterandfasterflowsmeansmoreerosionandthushighersedimentloads—however,therelationshipbetween
volume,pollutant(sediment)transport,andaquaticbiologicalintegrityisactuallyquitecomplex.Muchofthis
complexitystemsfromthescaleoftheproblem.Toillustratethisissue,in2007,therewereactuallymoremilesof
roadwayintheUnitedStates(almost4.1million)thanthereweredocumentedriverandcoastalandlakeshoreline
miles(about3.6million)(FederalHighwayAdministration:FHWA,2008;EPA,2010).TheEPAnotes(2007):
“Theeffectthataroadnetworkhasonstreamnetworkslargelydependsontheextenttowhichthe
networksareinterconnected.Roadnetworkscanbehydrologicallyconnectedtostreamnetworks
whereroadsurfacerunoffisdelivereddirectlytostreamchannels(atstreamcrossingsorviaditches
orgulliesthatdirectflowofftheroadintoastream)andwhereroadcutstransformsubsurfaceflow
intosurfaceflow(inroadditchesoronroadsurfacesthatdeliversedimentandwatertostreams
muchmorequicklythanwithoutaroadpresent).Thecombinedeffectsofthesedrainagenetwork
connectionsareincreasedsedimentationandpeakflowsthatarehigherandarrivemorequickly
afterstorms.Thiscanleadtoincreasedinstreamerosionandstreamchannelchanges,especiallyin
smallwatersheds.”
141
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Flow Control EW-2
FigureEWͲ2.3belowshowshowinterconnectedbothofthesesystemsactuallyareintheUnitedStates.Notethat
thescaleofthisimageonlyallowsalevelofdetailthatshowsmajorInterstatesandmajorwatershedstreams;
localorarterialroadsandsmallerwatershedsarenotshown:thesesmallerwatershedsaremostsensitiveto
nearbyroadwayprojectimpacts.

FigureEWͲ2.3:UnitedStatesstreams(blue)andtheInterstatehighwaysystem(lightred).(Enviromapper,n.d.)

FigureEWͲ2.3suggeststhatasignificantamountofhydromodificationisattributabletoroadways.
HydromodificationisatermusedbytheEPAtomean“alterationofthehydrologiccharacteristicsofcoastaland
nonͲcoastalwaters,whichinturncouldcausedegradationofwaterresources.”(EPA,2007)Hydromodification
encompassesriverengineeringactivitiesforimprovingriverchannels(i.e.dredging)andalsobuildingdams.Italso
includesforestrypractices,recreationandindustrialuse,constructionsitesandotherpointsourceactivities,anda
plethoraofurbanrunoffissuesincludingstreamrestorationpractices(EPA,2010).Roadsareinnatelytiedtoeach
oftheseactivities.
Theprimaryconcernswithhydromodificationare:
x Pollutantgenerationandtransport
x Habitatdegradationandlossofhabitat
x Speciesloss
x Streambankslopestability
x Erosionofchannelsorchangesinflowpathofstreams
x Flooding
Amajorityoftheliteratureregardingstormwatermanagementandroadsandbridgesaddressestheissuesof
waterpollution(waterquality)andcontrollingpollutanttransport.Importantly,sedimentisconsideredtobeone
oftheprimarypollutantsforwaterbodiesthatthreatenaquatichabitatsandspecies(EPA,2008).Together,these
issuescanbroadlybetermed“watershedhealth."(Pollutantsandimpactsassociatedwithpollutionarediscussed
furtherinCreditEWͲ3.ItisimportanttonotethataneffectiveflowcontrolmeasurealsohasthecoͲbenefitof
reducingpollutantloadsduetothehierarchicalnatureofphysicalprocesses.Additionally,notethatsomebest
managementpracticesappliedforflowcontroloffermoreeffectivemitigationofpollutantsthanothers.)
Watershedhealthisdirectlyrelatedtonearbyeffectiveimpervioussurface.(EPA,2008;TilleyandSlonecker,2007;
CityofSeattle,2009;EPA,2010)Itfollowsthatwatershedhealthisdirectlyrelatedtomanagementofstormwater
runoffquantitiesgeneratedbythoseimpervioussurfaces.
142
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-2 Runoff Flow Control
Bankstability,erosionandflooding,however,areprimarilyflowcontrolconcernsassociatedwithphysicalimpacts
ofrunoff,notquality.Theseareoftenconsidered“drainageissues”andhavehistoricallybeentheprimary
applicationofstormwatermanagementgovernedbyEPApermitsupuntil1987,whenrunoffqualitycametobe
addressedaswell.(PittandMaestre,2005)Thesephysicalattributesofrunoffcanimpactsensitivewatershed
habitatsandaquaticlifeinbothurbanandruralenvironments(Southerland,1994;CityofSeattle,2009).For
example,“Whenastreamchangesitsphysicalconfigurationandsubstrateduetoincreasedflows,habitatsare
altered….Thebiologicalcommunitiesinwetlandsarealsoseverelyimpactedandalteredbythehydrological
changes.Relativelysmallchangesinthenaturalwaterelevationfluctuationscancausedramaticshiftsin
vegetativeandanimalspeciescomposition”(CityofSeattle,2009).Furthermore,in2007,approximately73%of
theroadsintheUnitedStatesweredesignatedas“rural”bytheFHWA(2008);43%ofruralroadsareunpaved.
TheEPA(2007)states:
“Roadsbuiltinruralareas,suchasforestandrecreationalroads,alterthenaturallandscapeandcan
destroyriparianhabitat.Ifnotproperlyinstalledandmaintained,thesetypesofroadserodeand
supplyincreasedsedimentandpollutantstoadjacentstreams.Additionally,roadsmayincrease
imperviousness,whichleadstoflashierrunoffevents.Streamcrossingsassociatedwithruralroads
canblockfishpassage,trapdebrisduringstorms,andleadtoincreasedstreambankerosionin
nearbyareas.”
Inurbanenvironments,theproblemissometimesworse.Morewaterandfasterflowsinthiscasemeanthatan
aginginfrastructuresysteminanalreadydegradedwatershedcaneasilybecomeoverloadedwithincreasing
developmentinsurroundingareas.Muchofthestormwaterinfrastructureincitiesisbuiltintandemwithroadsin
thepublicrightͲofͲway.Thismeansthat(1)manystormwaterinfrastructureprojectsalsobecomeroadway
projects,andmoreimportantlyforGreenroads,(2)flowcontrolclearlypresentsbothachallengeanda
stormwatermanagementopportunitytoroadwayprojects.
HydromodificationandRoads:TheSmokingGun
TheEPA’sdefinitionofhydromodificationisquitebroad—whileitisimpossibletoisolatehydromodification
impactswithroadwaysaloneforanumberofreasons,itisalsodifficulttoarguethattheydonotcause
hydromodification.Whichiscorrectseemstobeamatterofphilosophicaldebate(FHWA,1990;EPA,2008).
Watercoursesaredynamicbynatureandrespondtostressors,changingpathsanderoding“naturally.”
(Wilcock,PitlickandCui,2009)Thebehaviorofriversandstreamsisultimatelygovernedbyprinciplesof
geomorphologyandhydraulics,notbyhumans.Itappearsthatthecoreissueisoneofvaluesandhowone
definessomethingas“natural.”Forexample,itistruethatmorewaterandfasterflowsaregeneratedfrom
higherlevelsofimpervioussurfaces(MaestreandPitt,2005),whichcanpreventorimpede“natural”
groundwaterrechargeandhaveanumberofthus“unnatural”effectsonstreamflowsinlocalizedareasof
watersheds(EPA,2007;EPA,2008).Itisalsotruehowever,thatevenstreamrestorationactivitiesare
accountedforinthelistofhydromodificationimpactsassociatedwithdegradationofwatersheds(EPA,2008).
So,streampreservationviamanmadecontrolsintendedtorepairastreamtowhatisconsidered“natural”may
actuallyhaveunintendedconsequencesoffurtherdegradation.Thereislittleevidencetoshowthatthestream
wouldnothaveactedthatwayonitsown,buttheconverseisalsotrue.
Thestressorsofconcern,then,arereallyhumanactivitiesthemselves.Inparticular,thestressiscausedby
urbanizationordevelopment(twomoreverybroadterms).Theinteractionbetweenhumanactivitiesandthe
hydrologiccycleisalsocomplex.Itisimportanttonotethatmanyimportantrelationshipsarenotwellenough
understoodtobeabletoquantifythetotalaccountabilityforroadsandbridgesforhydromodificationbeyond
indirectassociation.Manyuncertaintiesandvariabilityarise,forexample,duetolackofunderstandingof:
x Theamountofstreambankerodability(Morrissey,Rizzo,Ross,andYoung,2009)thatoccursdueto
upstreamchanges
x Thelevelofchangebetweensurfaceandbaseflowsassociatedwithdifferenthydrauliccontrols(i.e.storm
Sewers,catchbasinsandponds)(TilleyandSlonecker,2007)
143
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Flow Control EW-2
x Amountsofsedimentandsedimenttransportcapacityofdifferenttypesofriverandstreamflows(Wilcock,
PitlickandCui,2009)
x Inconsistenciesandvariabilityinmonitoringandassessmentofwatersheds(Strecker,Mayo,Quigley,and
Howell,2001)
x Thebiologicalintegrityofreceivingwatersheds(CityofSeattle,2009)
Urbanization,HydromodificationandRoads
Development,includingroads,changesthehydrologicprofileofasiteorareausuallybyincreasingthetotal
impervioussurfacearea.ThiscorrelationwasconfirmedinarecentstudybyMaestreandPitt(2005)anda
graphisshowninFigureEWͲ2.4thatillustratestheclearrelationshipbetweenvolumetricrunoffcoefficients
andpercentimperviousnessofasurface.
TheUnitedStatesis5%developedwithrangesofimperviousbetween20Ͳ80%insomeareas.(EPA,2008)
Thoughpreviouslyestimatedatmuchhigherpercentages,roadsandsidewalksmakeupabout33%ofthetotal
impervioussurfaceinaverageurbanandsuburbanareas(TilleyandSlonecker,2007).Inruralenvironments,up
to100%ofthetotalimpervioussurfaceareacanbeattributedtoroadsandhighwaysdependingonthescale
ofthewatershedbeingstudied.
Therefore,hydromodification(bankstability,erosion,flooding,andrelatedwaterqualityissues)canbedirectly
attributedtoincreasesinrunoffdischargesfromimpervioussurfacesduetourbanization.GregoryandChin
(2002)composedabrieflistthatprovidesagoodsummaryofhowquantitiesofstormwaterdischargeare
relatedtourbanizationandavarietyofhydromodificationhazards.Awarenessoftheseeffectscanassistin
developmentofappropriatestormwatermanagementplans.TheseareshowninFigureEWͲ2.5.

FigureEWͲ2.4:Dischargequantitiesaredirectlyproportionaltoimpervioussurfaces.(Maestre&Pitt,2005)

144
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-2 Runoff Flow Control

FigureEWͲ2.5:Urbanchannelhazardsrelatedtourbanizations.(Gregory&Chin,2002)
DesignAlternativesforRoadwayFlowControl
Hydrologicconditionsateachroadwaysitearehighlyvariable,evenwithinthesamesite.Granato,Zenone,and
Cazenas(2003)note“Stormwaterflowsresponddifferentlytodifferenttypesofstormsandmayrespond
differentlytothesametypeofstormindifferentseasonsoftheyear.”Justliketheinterconnectednessof
roadwaysandwatersheds,stormwaterflowcontroldesigncanbecomplexandeasilylendsitselfto
oversimplification.Thisisperhapsexemplifiedwiththefluctuationsforflowcontrolstandardsinthepastthirty
years(CityofSeattle,2009).Avarietyofapproacheshavebeenused,includingpeakͲflowdesignsthatlimitedflow
ratestocontrolerosiveflows,settingcertainpercentagesofthoseratestothosesupposedtobemore
representativeofpredevelopmentpeaks,andfinallyflowdurationstandards.Thisshiftinpracticerepresenteda
shiftfromeventͲbasedmethodsatamicroscaleleveltocontinuoussimulationmodelingatawatershedscale.
Typically,allowableregulatorylevelsforcertainflowsandcertaintypesofroadwayprojectsaresetand“flow
control”reallymeansapredeterminedsuiteorrangeofallowableflowvolumes,ratesandtimestoconcentration
thatareconsideredtoposeanacceptableriskoferosionreceivingwaters.(CityofSeattle,2009)Thesethreshold
levelsareprimarilydetermined“basedontheamountofnewandreplacedimpervioussurfaces,…whichcanalso
bedependentonthetypeofproject,sizeofproject,andthedrainagebasininwhichtheprojectislocated.”(City
ofSeattle,2009)ThereisamountingbodyofevidencehowevertosuggestthatsingleͲeventdesignapproaches
areinsufficienttomaintainstreambankandchannelintegrityandstructure.(CityofSeattle,2009;Bledsoe,2002;
Huberetal.2006).Bledsoe(2002)notes:
145
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Flow Control EW-2
Tofullyaddressthepotentialforchannelresponse,itisnecessarytoexpandstandarddesign
approachestoaddressthetemporaldistributionoferosiveforcesrelativetobothbedmaterialsand
bankconditions.SingleͲeventtechniquesformaintainingthecumulativebedloadtransportvolume,
unlessmodifiedtoaccountfordifferentialtransportbysizefractionsacrossabroaderrangeofflow
events,mayalterpredevelopmentfluvialprocessesandaffectchannelmorphologyandthequalityof
instreamhabitat.GiventhesensitivityoffineͲgrainedstreamstoinflowingbedmaterialload,
reproducingthepredevelopmenthydrographwillnotnecessarilyensurestabilityifthereisa
sufficientlongͲtermreductioninsedimentdelivery.Thus,stormwatermanagementstrategiesshould
becarefullyweighedintermsoftheirlongͲtermgeomorphicimplicationsinadditiontofloodcontrol
andpollutantremovalfunctions.
EventͲbasedmethodsoftenresultinoverlyͲconservativedrainagedesigns(Huberetal.2006)andingeneraldonot
meetstreamchannelprotectionobjectives(Booth,1991;BoothandJackson,2007).Huberetal.(2006)notesthat
thoughmostofthehyetographs(graphsofrainfalldistributionsovertime)fromeventͲbaseddesignscanbe
appliedtomonitoredrainfalldata,theyaregenerallynot;andtheyarealsosensitivetoinitialconditionsand
assumptionsaswellasstoragecapacityandinfiltrationcapabilitiesofthesite.Theseimperfecttraitsand
limitationsthengetadoptedintowaterqualitydesigns,whichareconsequentlyalsooverlyconservative,orworse,
ineffective.Despitethedisadvantagestoeachoftheseapproachesandtheresearchtojustifythatsyntheticstorm
eventͲbasedmethodsareinefficienttomodelactualrainfallevents(CityofSeattle,2009;Huberetal;2006),
“thesemethodsareembeddedinseveralversionsofcommercialsoftwareandareroutinelyacceptedbythe
hydrologicengineeringprofessioninspiteoftheissuesjustmentioned.”(Huberetal.2006).FHWAandthe
AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)andmoststatedepartmentsof
transportationstillrecommenduseofthetraditionaldesignstormsforhydrologicandhydraulicdesignof
roadways,presumablyduetothesingleͲevent,catastrophicnatureoffloodevents.(FHWA,2009;AASHTO,2005)
Someregulatoryagenciesnowrequire2,10and100yearsinsteadofoneorother(FHWA,2009;WSDOT,2008).
Currently,lowimpactdevelopment(LID)methodshavebecomethepreferredstandardofpracticeforthebuilt
environmentandforsitedevelopment(CityofSeattle,2009).Themostappropriatewaytoemulatethe
performanceofLIDmethodsisthroughcontinuousmodeling(CityofSeattle,2009;Huberetal.,2006).Continuous
hydrologicalmodelinghasitsowndisadvantages,primarilyintimeintensiveness(andthuscost)andunavailability
ofdata(Huberetal.,2006;CityofSeattle,2009).Ingeneral,theseLIDmethodsarebeingpushedmostlyinurban
areastohelpmanagetheincreasingimperviousnessandtheassociatedwaterqualityissuesincitiesas
populationsinthesecommunitiesgrowtorelievestressonexistinginfrastructureandattempttoachieve
“natural”conditionsasabaselineforperformance.However,duetothehighconcernoffloodingimpactson
roadways,itmaybemostappropriatetouseacombinedapproach,whichmayrequireacombinationofbothLID
andconventionalmethodsinordertomeetfloodcontroldemandsandalsomaintainwaterqualitystandards.
(WashingtonDepartmentofTransportation:WSDOT,2008)
LowimpactDevelopmentforFlowControl
AbriefintroductiontoLIDtechniqueswasprovidedinProjectRequirementPRͲ8.TherelevantconceptsforLID
methodsinflowcontrol(allofferqualitybenefitsunlessotherwisenoted)arebrieflydescribedbelow.(Cityof
Seattle,2009)MostLIDtechniquesincorporatemorethanone.
x Infiltration.Runoffispercolatedintoreceivingsoils.Theinfiltrationcapacityiscloselyrelatedtothehydraulic
conductivityandcapacityofthesoils.Evaporationisoftenalsopresentaswellastranspirationasthese
facilitiesareoftenvegetated.
x Evaporation.Runoffisvaporizedandabsorbedintotheair.
x Transpiration.Runoffisabsorbedbyplantsandthenreleasedasvapor.
x Dispersion.Runoffareaisincreasedtodelaytheflow.
x Interception.Rainfallistrappedbytheleavesofplants.
x Storageandrelease(retentionanddetention).Runoffiscollectedtemporarilyandreleasedviaacontrolled
outflow.(Trueretentionfacilitiesrelyoninfiltrationandevaporationandnooutflow.)
146
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-2 Runoff Flow Control
x Storageandreuse.Runoffiscollectedandstoredforstoredforotheruses(commonly“harvestingrainwater”).
Oftenstoragefacilitiesarevaultsbeneathroadwaysandtheirflowcontrolutilityisbasedontheirtotalvolume
andopeningsizes.
ThePrinceGeorge’sCountyLIDManual(1999)presentsamoredetaileddescriptionoftheLIDmethods:the
readerisreferredtotheManualformoredetailedinformation.Asummaryoftheflowcontrolattributesofsome
commonLIDtechniquesisshowninFigureEWͲ2.6.(Formostroadwayfacilities,storagewillbeunderground.)

FigureEWͲ2.6ThesuiteofflowcontrolattributesforLIDmethods.(PrinceGeorge’sCounty,1999)

FlowControlbyAvoidance
TheEPA(2007)suggeststhatthegeometricdesignofaroadcandomuchtoaidinflowcontrol,howeverthe
primaryobjectiveoftheir“nonͲerodingroadway”designconceptistostabilizeandorienttheroadbedto
minimizeproductionofsedimentduetoerosionofslopes,basematerialsandsurfacecoursesandavoid
uncontrolleddrainageofpollutantsintosensitiveareas.Furtherdesignconsiderationsincludenotslopingthe
roadwaytowardwetlandareas(unlessthewetlandsarepartofthetreatmentscheme)orplanningalignments
tofallasfaraspossibleawayfromexistingwatercourses.Nevertheless,theshapeandsurfacecoursematerial
designisclearlytiedtotheamountofrunoffgeneratedbytheroadway.Thedesignapproachisespecially
criticalforunpavedroadswhereerosionandsedimentationoftheroaditselfisanimportantissue.(EPA,2007)
FlowControlbySoilAmendment
“Soilamendment”isaprocessthatdescribesaddingorganiccontentsuchascompostormulchtonativeand
fillsoils.Theorganiccontentaidsinflowcontrolbyprovidingadditionalstoragethroughabsorption,higher
infiltrationandevapotranspirationfromincreasedsurfaceareaoffinersoilparticles,improvedgroundwater
rechargeandalsoimprovedaffinityforvegetation.ItalsooffersseveralpollutantͲreducingbenefitsandcan
offerurbanbenefitssuchasreducedirrigationandfertilizerneeds.(CityofSeattle,2009)Timeof
concentrationisincreasedandpeakflowsareattenuatedandreducedthroughthismethod.Manyofthe
compostͲamendedsoilapproachesareoutlinedinsitedevelopmentguidancedocumentsforbuildings;
however,SwissengineersPiguet,ParriauxandBensimon(2008)offeraroadͲspecificdesignapproachcalled
“infiltrationslopes”thatallowsimplementationofsoilamendmentthatmaintaintheoverallimpermeabilityof
theroadwayforfastrunoffremovalwithoutpromotingwaterintrusioninroadwaysubbasematerials.Their
modelsofinfiltrationslopesareshowninFigureEWͲ2.7withvariousslopeandmaterialconfigurationsusing
147
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Flow Control EW-2
differentsoilsandgeotechnicalreinforcments.Theauthorsfoundincreasedinfiltrationcapacity,improved
groundwaterrecharge,increasedevapotranspirationandimprovedflowcontrol.

FigureEWͲ2.7:InfiltrationslopecrossͲsections.(Piguet,Parriaux&Bensimon2008)
ControversyofDetentionFacilities
Detentionfacilitiesusedasflowcontroldevicesareamatterofsomecontroversy.Toreceivethiscredit,landmay
notbeprocuredoutsideoftherightͲofͲwaytoserveasconventionaldetentionorstoragefacilities.Thiscriterion
attemptstomitigatetheoveralllandͲareaimpactofconventionaldetentionfacilitiesbyrestrictingconstructionof
suchfacilitieswithinROWlimitswithoutrestrictingtheuseofthiscommonBMP.However,thethoroughliterature
reviewfromtheCityofSeattle(2009)indicatesthatdetentionpondsmaynotbeeffectiveflowcontrolmeasures
formitigatinghydromodificationimpacts,otherflowcontrolmethodsoffermuchhigherpollutantremovalthan
detentionponds,andthepondshavelimitedhydrologicalbenefitsespeciallywhenmorethanoneispresentinthe
samewatershed.
Therearesomedocumentedbenefitsofdetentionandretentionfacilitiesofreducinglargedebrisdeliveredto
streamsandbedscour.Also,theyareeasilyunderstoodbyhydraulicdesignersandoffermuchcontroloverrunoff
releases.(FHWA,2009)CompletelydisallowingdetentionpondsinGreenroadswouldeffectivelyeliminatethe
mostcommonlyusedmethodofstormwatercontrolsavailabletomosthighway,streetandroadwayprojects
(FHWA,2009).However,LIDtechniqueshavebeenshowntobeabletoreducetheneededsizeofdetentionponds
oreliminatethemandconventionalconveyancealtogetherinsomecases(Hinman,2005;CityofSeattle,2009).
148
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-2 Runoff Flow Control
ThepreferredalternativetoconventionaldetentionpondsinGreenroadsaremultiͲfunctionalBMPssuchas
bioretentionorstormwaterstorageandreuse.
WhenLIDIsNotAppropriate
Ingeneral,LIDflowcontrolBMPsmaynotbeappropriateandshouldbeavoidedinareas(WSDOT,2008)
x Withhighorseasonallyhighwatertables
x Belowthe100Ͳyearfloodplain
x Withdistressedgroundwater
x Inintertidalareas
x Insensitivewatershedsorforests(thesehaveahighernetbenefitthanLID.)
However,asiteͲspecificdesignbuiltonwatershedparametersandtopographywillbemosteffectivefor
controllingrunoffflowsandsomeofflowcontroltechniquesmaybeviableevenintheseconditions.
AdditionalResources
x Forfurtherdiscussiononthemeritsofdetentionfacilities,seetheEnvironmentallyCriticalAreas:Best
AvailableSciencereportbytheCityofSeattle(2009),availableat:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/static/BAS%20Review_FINAL_30JUN09_LatestReleased_DPDP017711.doc
x CurrentperformancedataonflowcontrolforLIDBMPsisavailableattheInternationalBMPDatabase:
http://www.bmpdatabase.org.Theyalsotrackcostdataasitisvolunteeredalongwithsubmissions.
FormoreinformationandadditionalresourcesonspecificLIDtechniques,seethediscussioninProject
RequirementPRͲ8LowImpactDevelopment.
GLOSSARY
AASHTO AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials
Biodiversity Totalnumberofspeciespresent
Biologicalintegrity Theabilitytosupportandmaintainabalanced,integratedadaptive
assemblageoforganismshavingspeciescomposition,diversity,and
functionalorganizationcomparabletothatofnaturalhabitatoftheregion
(KarrandDudley,1981).
BMP Bestmanagementpractice
BMPDB InternationalBMPDatabase(http://www.bmpdatabase.org)
Channel Astreambed
Detention Theprocessofholdinganddelayingrunoffwithacontrolledrelease
EIA Effectiveimperviousarea
EPA EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
Erosion Surfacewearingduetophysicalprocessessuchaswater,windandheat
Evaporation Theprocessofwaterbecomingwatervapor
Evapotranspiration thecombinedeffectsofevaporationandtranspirationinreducingthe
volumeofwaterinavegetatedareaduringaspecificperiodoftime(Huber
etal.2006)
FHWA FederalHighwayAdministration
Flowcontrol Managementofrunoffvolumephysicalcharacteristicsincludingpeakflows
andtimeofconcentration
Hydromodification alterationofthehydrologiccharacteristicsofcoastalandnonͲcoastalwaters,
whichinturncouldcausedegradationofwaterresources(EPA,2007)
149
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Flow Control EW-2
Impervioussurface ahardsurfaceareathateitherpreventsorretardstheentryofwaterintothe
soilmantleorcauseswatertorunoffthesurfaceingreaterquantitiesorat
anincreasedrate(TilleyandSlonecker,2006)
Infiltration thedownwardmovementofwaterintothesoilaftersurficialentryand
percolationthroughporespaces(Huberetal.2006)
Interception Theprocessofleavesofplantspreventingrainfallfromhittingasurface
Lowimpactdevelopment abroadcollectionofengineeredcontrols,stormwatermanagementfacilities,
andotherlanddevelopmentBMPsthatattempttomimicpreͲdevelopment
hydrologicconditionsbyemphasizinginfiltration,evapotranspiration,or
stormwaterreuseforlongͲtermflowcontrolandrunofftreatment
Reach Thelengthofariverorstreambetweenriverbends
Retention Theprocessofholdingrunoff,ideallynoreleaseoccursandallrunoffis
infiltratedorevaporated
TIA Totalimperviousarea
Transpiration Theprocessofwateruptakeinplants
Urbanization Theprocessofandactivitiesassociatedwithhumandevelopment

REFERENCES
AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials.(1999).Highwaydrainageguidelines.
Washington,D.C.:AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials.
Bledsoe,B.P.(2002).StreamErosionPotentialandStormwaterManagementStrategies.JournalofWater
ResourcesPlanningandManagement.128(6),451.
Booth,D.B.(1991).Urbanizationandthenaturaldrainagesystem:Impacts,solutions,andprognoses.The
NorthwestEnvironmentalJournal.7(1).
Booth,D.B.andJackson,C.R.(1997).Urbanizationofaquaticsystems:degradationthresholds,stormwater
detention,andthelimitsofmitigation.JournalAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation.35(5),1077Ͳ1090.
CityofSeattle,SeattlePublicUtilities,DepartmentofPlanningandDevelopment.(2009,June30).Environmentally
CriticalAreas:BestAvailableScienceReview.AccessedNovember14,2009.Availableat
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/static/BAS%20Review_FINAL_30JUN09_LatestReleased_DPDP017711.doc
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2007).Nationalmanagementmeasurestocontrolnonpointsourcepollution
fromhydromodification.[EPAͲ841ͲBͲ07Ͳ002]Washington,DC:NonpointSourceControlBranch,Officeof
Wetlands,Oceans,andWatersheds,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofWater.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/hydromod/pdf/Hydromod_all_web.pdf
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2008,May).EPA’sReportontheEnvironment.[EPA/600/RͲ07/045F]
Washington,DC:EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2010,January15).NationalSummaryofStateInformation|WATERS|USEPA.
AccessedJanuary15,2010.Availableathttp://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(n.d.)EnviromapperforWater.AccessedJanuary13,2010.Availableat
http://map24.epa.gov/emr/
FederalHighwayAdministration.(1990).HighwaysintheRiverEnvironment.[FHWAͲHIͲ90Ͳ016].Washington,DC:
FederalHighwayAdministration,HydraulicsEngineering.Availableat
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hire1990.pdf
150
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-2 Runoff Flow Control
FederalHighwayAdministration.(2008,December15).TableHMͲ12–HighwayStatistics2007ͲHighwayStatistic
Series–PolicyInformationͲFHWA.OfficeofHighwayPolicyInformation.AccessedJanuary13,2010.Available
athttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hm12.cfm
FederalHighwayAdministration.(2009).UrbanDrainageDesignManual.3
rd
ed.[NHIͲ10Ͳ009].Washington,DC:
FederalHighwayAdministration,HydraulicsEngineering.Availableat
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/10009/index.cfm
Forman,R.T.T.,&Alexander,L.E.(1998).Roadsandtheirmajorecologicaleffects.AnnualReviewofEcologyand
Systematics.29,207.
Granato,G.E.,Zenone,C.&Cazenas,P.A.(2003).TheNationalhighwayrunoffdataandmethodologysynthesis.
[FHWAEPͲ03Ͳ054]U.S.GeologicalSurveyfortheFederalHighwayAdministration.Washington,D.C.:U.S.Dept.
ofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration,OfficeofNaturalandHumanEnvironment.
Gregory,K.J.,&Chin,A.(2002).UrbanStreamChannelHazards.Area.34(3).
Hinman,C.(2005).Lowimpactdevelopment:TechnicalguidancemanualforPugetSound.Olympia,WA:Puget
SoundActionTeam.Availableat
http://www.psparchives.com/publications/our_work/stormwater/lid/LID_manual2005.pdf
Huberetal.(2006).NCHRPSynthesis565:Evaluationofbestmanagementpracticesforhighwayrunoffcontrol.
NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram(NCHRP).Washington,D.C.:TransportationResearchBoard.
Availableathttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_565.pdf
Karr,J.R.andDudley,D.R.(1981).Ecologicalperspectiveonwaterqualitygoals.EnvironmentalManagement,5:55Ͳ
68.
Maestre,A,&Pitt,R.(2005).TheNationalStormwaterQualityDatabase,Version1.1:ACompilationandAnalysis
ofNPDESStormwaterMonitoringInformation.PreparedbyUniversityofAlabamaandCenterforWatershed
Protection.Washington,DC:EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofWater.
Morrissey,L.,Rizzo,D.,Ross,D.&Young,E.(2009,September30)QuantifyingSedimentLoadingdueto
StreambankErosion.U.S.GeologicalSurveyStateWaterResourcesResearchInstituteProgram.Accessed
January13,2010.Availableathttp://water.usgs.gov/wrri/09grants/2009VT44B.html
PiguetP,ParriauxA,&BensimonM.(2008).Thediffuseinfiltrationofroadrunoff:anenvironmentalimprovement.
TheScienceoftheTotalEnvironment.397(1Ͳ3),1Ͳ3.
PrinceGeorge’sCounty,Maryland,DepartmentofEnvironmentalResources.(1999,June).LowImpact
DevelopmentDesignStrategies:AnIntegratedApproach.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lidnatl.pdf
Quigley,M.etal.(2009,October).UrbanStormwaterBMPPerformanceMonitoring.ReporttotheEnvironmental
ProtectionAgencyandtheFederalHighwayAdministrationbyGeosyntecConsultantsandWrightWater
Engineers.AvailableattheInternationalStormwaterBMPDatabase(BMPDB):http://www.bmpdatabase.org.
Southerland,M.(1994).Evaluationofecologicalimpactsfromhighwaydevelopment.[EPAͲ300ͲBͲ94Ͳ006]
DynamacCorporationfortheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Washington,DC:UnitedStatesEnvironmental
ProtectionAgency,OfficeofFederalActivities.
151
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Flow Control EW-2
Strecker,E.,Mayo,L.,Quigley,M.andHowell,J.(2001,June).GuidanceManualforMonitoringWaterQuality.
(FHWAͲEPͲ01Ͳ022).UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.Officeof
NaturalEnvironment.Washington,DC:UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation.
SustainableSitesInitiative.(2009).GuidelinesandPerformanceBenchmarks.AmericanSocietyofLandscape
Architects,LadyBirdJohnsonWildflowerCenterattheUniversityofTexasatAustin,UnitedStatesBotanic
Garden.
Tilley,J.S.,&Slonecker,E.T.(2006).Quantifyingthecomponentsofimpervioussurfaces.Reston,Va:U.S.
GeologicalSurvey.
WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT).(2008).HighwayRunoffManual.[MͲ31Ͳ16.01]
WashingtonDepartmentofTransportationEnvironmentalandEngineeringPrograms,DesignOffice.Olympia,
WA:WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation.Availableat
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/WaterQuality/Runoff/HighwayRunoffManual.htm
Wilcock,P.R.,Pitlick,J.,&Cui,Y.(2009).SedimenttransportprimerEstimatingbedͲmaterialtransportingravelͲ
bedrivers.FortCollins,CO:U.S.Dept.ofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation.

152
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-3 Runoff Quality
RUNOFF QUALITY
GOAL
ImprovewaterqualityofstormwaterrunoffleavingtheroadwayRightͲofͲWay(ROW)
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
1. Developastormwatermanagementplanforthesiteusingstormwaterbest
managementpractices(BMPs)forwaterqualitytreatment.Explicitlystatethegoals
ofthisplanandhowperformancewillbemeasured.
2. UselowͲimpactdevelopment(LID)BMPstothemaximumextentfeasibleas
determinedinProjectRequirementPRͲ8byalicensedprofessional.
3. Computethe90
th
percentileaverageannualrainfalleventpostͲconstructionrunoff
volumes(V
total
)fortwoareasasfollows:
x V
runoff
:thetotalpollutiongeneratingsurface(PGS)areaoftheprojectROW
x V
runͲon
:ThetotalPGSareaoutsidetheROWthatmaygenerateuntreated
stormwaterwhichrunsintotheROWBMPs,ifany.
x V
total
=V
runoff
+V
runͲon

x V
treated
=V
runoffͲtreated
+V
runͲonͲtreated

x %ofTotalPostͲConstructionRunoffVolumeTreated=V
treated
/V
total
x100%
x Computeaweightedaverageofvolumestreatedforthetotalvolumemanaged
intheprojectwheremorethanoneBMPisused.
4. Providetreatmentforadesiredpercentageofthetotalcomputedrunoffvolume
foreitheroftheareasnotedinTableEWͲ3.1.Listthetypes,manufacturers,
treatmentlevels,andtotalvolumestreatedinBMPs.
5. DemonstratethattheplannedBMPsmeetthefollowingqualitycriteria:
x BMPsreducesedimentloadstototalsuspendedsolids(TSS)concentrationsof
25mg/Lorless,asanindicatorofoveralltreatmentlevel.SeeTableEWͲ3.2.
x BMPsconformtoallapplicableminimumwaterqualitystandardsforall
effluentleavingtheROWsetbythegoverningjurisdictionforcontaminants,
suchasheavymetals,hydrocarbons,pathogens,watertemperatureand
turbidity.Statetheminimumrequirements,includingcriticalerosiveflow
criteria,andprovidereferenceddocumentorpolicy.
TableEWͲ3.1:Greenroadspointsfor%volumesoftreatedrunoff
TypeofRunoffVolume
VolumeTreated TreatmentLevel
Points
Pollutiongenerating
surfaces(PGS)from
withintheprojectROW
only(runoff)
80% Basic
Ͳ
Basic&Enhanced
Ͳ
Basic,Enhanced&Oil
1
90% Basic
Ͳ
Basic&Enhanced
1
Basic,Enhanced&Oil
2
Pollutiongenerating
surfaces(PGS)from
withintheprojectROW
andfromoutsideareas
(runͲonandrunoff)
80% Basic
Ͳ
Basic&Enhanced
1
Basic,Enhanced&Oil
2
90% Basic
1
Basic&Enhanced
2
Basic,Enhanced&Oil
3
EW-3
1-3 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ8LowImpact
Development
9 PRͲ10Site
MaintenancePlan
9 EWͲ2RunoffFlow
Control
9 EWͲ4Stormwater
CostAnalysis
9 EWͲ5SiteVegetation
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Extent
BENEFITS
9 ReducesWater
Pollution
9 ReducesSolidWaste
9 ReducesManmade
Footprint
153
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Quality EW-3
Details
Thiscreditisanadaptationofthe2009SustainableSitesInitiativeCredit3.6:“Protectandenhancewater
quality”andtheLEED™GreenBuildingRatingSystemSustainableSitesCreditSSͲ6.2“StormwaterDesign:
QualityControl.”ItalsodrawsheavilyonconceptsfromtheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation
HighwayRunoffManual.Continuousmodelingapproachesarerecommended(seeCreditEWͲ2).
IfmorethanoneBMPisusedintheproject,calculateaweightedaverageofthe%totalvolumetreatedby
eachBMPanditsqualityachieved.NotethatBMPsshouldbesizedappropriatelyifconsideringanyrunoff
volumesgeneratedfromoutsidetheprojectROW.“Basic,”“Enhanced”and“Oil”treatmentcriteriaaredefined
bylocalgoverningagenciesorbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)Highway
RunoffManual,inabsenceofalocaldefinition.
DOCUMENTATION
Acopyoftheexecutivesummaryoftheprojectdrainagedesignreportthatincludes,atminimum,thefollowing:
x Shortnarrativethataddresseseachofthecreditrequirements.
Asneeded,supportingcalculationsforrunoffareas,runoffvolume(outputfromanyrainfallmodelingsoftware
usedisadequate),andtreatmentlevelsmayberequested.

TableEWͲ3.2:Medianofaverageinfluentandeffluentconcentrations.(ReproducedfromtableinGeosyntec&
WrightWater,2008)
Constituents
Sample
Location
Detention
Pond
(n=25)
1
WetPond
(n=46)
1
Wetland
Basin
(n=19)
1
Biofilter
(n=57)
1
Media
Filter
(n=38)
1
Hydrodynamic
Device
(n=32)
1
Porous
Pavement
(n=6)
1
Suspended
Solids(mg/L)
Influent
72.65
(41.70Ͳ
103.59)
34.13
(19.16Ͳ
49.10)
37.76
(18.10Ͳ
53.39)
52.15
(41.41Ͳ
62.88)
43.27
(27.25Ͳ
59.58)
39.61
(21.95Ͳ76.27)
ͲͲ
Effluent
31.04
(16.07Ͳ
46.01)
13.37
(7.29Ͳ
19.45)
17.77
(9.26Ͳ
26.29)
23.92
(15.07Ͳ
32.78)
15.86
(9.74Ͳ
21.98)
37.67
(21.28Ͳ54.02)
16.96
(5.90Ͳ
48.72)
Total
Calcium
(ȝg/L)
Influent
0.71(0.45Ͳ
1.28)
0.49
(0.20Ͳ0.79)
0.36
(0.11Ͳ0.60)
0.54
(0.40Ͳ0.67)
0.25
(0.12Ͳ
0.49)
0.74
(0.37Ͳ1.11)
ͲͲ
Effluent
0.47(0.25Ͳ
0.87)
0.27
(0.12Ͳ0.61)
0.24
(0.11Ͳ0.55)
0.30
(0.26Ͳ0.35)
0.19
(0.1Ͳ0.37)
0.57
(0.25Ͳ1.33)
ͲͲ
Dissolved
Calcium
(ȝg/L)
Influent
0.24(0.15Ͳ
0.33)
0.19
(0.10Ͳ0.28)
ͲͲ
0.25
(0.21Ͳ0.28)
0.16
(0.11Ͳ
0.21)
0.33
(0.11Ͳ0.55)
ͲͲ
Effluent
0.25(0.17Ͳ
0.36)
0.11
(0.08Ͳ0.15)
ͲͲ
0.21
(0.19Ͳ0.23)
0.13
(0.10Ͳ
0.18)
0.31
(0.13Ͳ0.71)
ͲͲ
TotalCopper
(ȝg/L)
Influent
20.14
(8.41Ͳ31.79)
8.91
(5.29Ͳ
12.52)
5.65
(2.67Ͳ
38.61)
31.93
(25.25Ͳ
38.61)
14.57
(10.87Ͳ
18.27)
15.42
(9.20Ͳ21.63)
ͲͲ
Effluent
12.10
(5.41Ͳ18.80)
6.36
(4.70Ͳ8.01)
4.23
(0.62Ͳ7.83)
10.66
(7.68Ͳ
13.68)
10.25
(8.21Ͳ
12.29)
14.17
(8.33Ͳ20.01)
2.78
(0.88Ͳ8.78)
Dissolved
Copper
(ȝg/L)
Influent
6.66(0.73Ͳ
12.59)
7.33
(5.40Ͳ9.26)
ͲͲ
14.15
(10.14Ͳ
18.16)
7.75
(4.55Ͳ
10.96)
13.59
(9.82Ͳ17.36)
ͲͲ
Effluent
7.37
(3.28Ͳ11.45)
4.37
(3.73Ͳ5.73)
ͲͲ
8.40
(5.65Ͳ
11.45)
9.00
(7.28Ͳ
10.72)
13.92
(4.40Ͳ23.44)
ͲͲ
Total
Chromium
(ȝg/L)
Influent
7.36
(5.49Ͳ9.88)
6.00
(3.58Ͳ
10.08)
ͲͲ
5.63
(4.49Ͳ7.05)
2.18
(1.66Ͳ
2.86)
4.07
(2.39Ͳ6.91)
ͲͲ
154
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-3 Runoff Quality
Constituents
Sample
Location
Detention
Pond
(n=25)
1
WetPond
(n=46)
1
Wetland
Basin
(n=19)
1
Biofilter
(n=57)
1
Media
Filter
(n=38)
1
Hydrodynamic
Device
(n=32)
1
Porous
Pavement
(n=6)
1
Effluent
3.18
(2.10Ͳ4.84)
1.44
(0.79Ͳ2.66)
ͲͲ
4.64
(3.08Ͳ6.98)
1.48
(0.82Ͳ
2.70)
3.52
(2.14Ͳ5.80)
ͲͲ
TotalLead
(ȝg/L)
Influent
25.01
(12.06Ͳ
37.95)
14.36
(8.32Ͳ
20.40)
4.62
(1.43Ͳ
11.89)
19.53
(10.11Ͳ
28.95)
11.32
(6.09Ͳ
16.55)
18.12
(5.70Ͳ30.53)
ͲͲ
Effluent
15.77
(4.67Ͳ26.87)
5.32
(1.63Ͳ9.01)
3.26
(2.31Ͳ4.22)
6.70
(2.81Ͳ
10.59)
3.76
(1.08Ͳ
6.44)
10.56
(4.27Ͳ16.85)
7.88
(1.64Ͳ
37.96)
Dissolved
Lead(ȝg/L)
Influent
1.25
(0.33Ͳ2.17)
3.40
(1.12Ͳ5.68)
0.50
(0.33Ͳ0.67)
2.25
(0.77Ͳ3.74)
1.44
(1.05Ͳ
1.82)
1.89
(0.83Ͳ2.95)
ͲͲ
Effluent
2.06
(0.93Ͳ3.19)
2.48
(0.98Ͳ5.36)
0.87
(0.85Ͳ0.89)
1.96
(1.26Ͳ2.67)
1.18
(0.77Ͳ
1.60)
3.34
(2.22Ͳ4.47)
ͲͲ
TotalZinc
(ȝg/L)
Influent
111.56
(51.50Ͳ
171.63)
60.75
(45.23Ͳ
76.27)
47.07
(24.47Ͳ
90.51)
176.71
(128.28Ͳ
225.15)
92.34
(52.29Ͳ
132.40)
119.08(73.50Ͳ
164.67)
ͲͲ
Effluent
60.20
(20.70Ͳ
99.70)
29.35
(21.13Ͳ
37.66)
30.71
(12.80Ͳ
66.69)
39.83
(28.01Ͳ
51.56)
37.63
(16.80Ͳ
58.46)
80.17
(52.72Ͳ107.61)
16.60
(5.91Ͳ
16.61)
Dissolved
Zinc(ȝg/L)
Influent
26.11
(5.20Ͳ75.10)
47.46
(37.65Ͳ
57.27)
ͲͲ
58.31
(32.46Ͳ
79.16)
69.27
(37.97Ͳ
100.58)
35.93
(4.96Ͳ66.90)
ͲͲ
Effluent
25.84
(10.75Ͳ
40.93)
32.86
(17.70Ͳ
48.01)
ͲͲ
25.40
(18.71Ͳ
32.09)
51.25
(29.04Ͳ
73.46)
42.46
(10.38Ͳ74.55)
ͲͲ
Total
Phoshporus
(mg/L)
Influent
0.19
(0.17Ͳ0.22)
0.21
(0.13Ͳ0.29)
0.27
(0.11Ͳ0.43)
0.25
(0.22Ͳ0.28)
0.20
(0.15Ͳ
0.26)
0.24
(0.01Ͳ0.46)
ͲͲ
Effluent
0.19
(0.12Ͳ0.27)
0.12
(0.09Ͳ0.16)
0.14
(0.04Ͳ0.24)
0.34
(0.26Ͳ0.41)
0.14
(0.11Ͳ
0.16)
0.26
(0.12Ͳ0.48)
0.09
(0.05Ͳ0.15)
Dissolved
Phosphorus
(mg/L)
Influent
0.09
(0.06Ͳ0.13)
0.09
(0.06Ͳ0.13)
0.10
(0.04Ͳ0.22)
0.09
(0.07Ͳ0.11)
0.09
(0.03Ͳ
0.11)
0.06
(0.01Ͳ0.11)
ͲͲ
Effluent
0.12
(0.07Ͳ0.18)
0.08
(0.04Ͳ0.11)
0.17
(0.03Ͳ0.31)
0.44
(0.21Ͳ0.67)
0.09
(0.07Ͳ
0.11)
0.09
(0.04Ͳ0.13)
ͲͲ
Total
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Influent
1.25
(0.83Ͳ1.66)
1.64
(1.39Ͳ1.94)
2.12
(1.58Ͳ2.66)
0.94
(0.94Ͳ1.69)
1.31
(1.19Ͳ
1.42)
1.25
(0.33Ͳ2.16)
ͲͲ
Effluent
2.72
(1.81Ͳ3.63)
1.43
(1.17Ͳ1.68)
1.15
(0.82Ͳ1.62)
0.78
(0.53Ͳ1.03)
0.76
(0.62Ͳ
0.89)
2.01
(1.37Ͳ2.65)
ͲͲ
NitrateͲ
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Influent
0.70
(0.35Ͳ1.05)
0.36
(0.21Ͳ0.51)
0.22
(0.01Ͳ0.47)
0.59
(0.44Ͳ0.73)
0.41
(0.30Ͳ
0.51)
0.40
(0.06Ͳ0.73)
ͲͲ
Effluent
0.58
(0.25Ͳ0.91)
0.23
(0.13Ͳ0.37)
0.13
(0.07Ͳ0.26)
0.60
(0.41Ͳ0.79)
0.82
(0.60Ͳ
1.05)
0.51
(0.08Ͳ1.34)
ͲͲ
TKN(mg/L)
Influent
1.45
(0.97Ͳ1.94)
1.26
(1.03Ͳ1.49)
1.15
(0.81Ͳ1.48)
1.80
(1.62Ͳ1.99)
1.52
(1.07Ͳ
1.96)
1.09
(0.52Ͳ1.57)
ͲͲ
Effluent
1.89
(1.58Ͳ2.19)
1.09
(0.87Ͳ1.31)
1.05
(0.82Ͳ1.34)
1.51
(1.24Ͳ1.78)
1.55
(1.22Ͳ
1.83)
1.48
(0.87Ͳ2.47)
1.23
(0.44Ͳ3.44)

155
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Quality EW-3
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Reduceordisconnectimperviouscover,suchasbetweenlaneswithavegetatedmedianorsidewalkswitha
bufferstrip.(SustainableSitesInitiative:SSI,2009)
x Providedepressionstorageinthelandscape(SSI,2009)
x Conveystormwaterinswalestopromoteinfiltration(SSI,2009)
x Usebiofiltrationtoprovidevegetatedandsoilfiltering(SSI,2009)
x Evapotranspire(e.g.,useengineeredsoilsandvegetationinbiofiltrationareas/landscapingtomaximize
evapotranspirationpotential)(SSI,2009)
x Infiltratestormwater(infiltrationbasinsandtrenches,permeablepavement,etc.)(SSI,2009)
x Developandimplementaspillresponseplan(SSI,2009)
x Minimizetheuseofsaltfordeicingandconsiderorganicdeicersorsandinstead(SSI,2009)
x Usea“treatmenttrain”ofmanyBMPsinseries.(SSI,2009)
x UseastormwatertreatmentsystemorBMPsthathavebeendemonstratedtoachievethe25milligrams/liter
TSSdischarge.Someoftheseare(SSI,2009):
x Waterqualitywetponds
x Constructedstormwaterwetlands
x Bioretention
x Biofiltration(e.g.,raingardens)
x Vegetatedbufferstrips
x Sandfilters
x Bioswales(usuallymosteffectiveasthefirstinlineofatreatmenttrain)
x OtherBMPslikevaultsandpretreatmentormechanicalseparatorsmaynotbeabletoearnthiscreditalone
butcouldbeusedinatreatmenttraineffectively.
x PerformregularinspectionsandmonitoringactivitiestoensurelongͲtermperformance.Thisincludesvisual
inspectionofcontrols.(EPA,1995)
x Cleanoutaccumulatedsedimentregularly.(EPA,1995)
x Replaceoldfabrics,filtersandothermaterialsastheydeterioratetomaintainBMPeffectiveness.(EPA,1995)
x RemovetemporaryBMPsusedinconstructionandreplacethemwithpermanentcontrols.(EPA,1995)
x Seedwithgrassandcompostamendedmulchorsoiltodevelopvegetationandprovidestabilizedslopes.(EPA,
1995)
x Usewildflowercovertoprovideerosioncontrolandaestheticbenefits.(EPA,1995)
x Useestablishedgrasssodblanketsonpreparedsoils.(EPA,1995)
x Designtheroadwayfacilityfortreatmentusinggrassedswales,checkdams,filterstrips,terracing,infiltration
trenchesand/orbasins.(EPA,1995)
x Considerconstructedwetlandsforincreasedqualityandnewprovisionofhabitat.(EPA,1995)
x Setperformancegoalsforbasictreatment(i.e.80%removalofTSS),enhancedtreatment(i.e.metalsremoval)
andoilorphosphorouscontrol.(WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation:WSDOT,2008)
x Considerinfiltrationslopes(Piguet,Parriaux&Bensimon2008)and“Ecologyditches”(CityofSeattle,2009)
(thesearesimilarapproachesusingcompostamendedsoilsforpromotinginfiltrationandpollutantremoval).
x Considergeometricdesignforerosioncontrolandflowmoderation(EPA,2007)
Example: City of Kirkland 120
t h
Street Extension
TheCityofKirklandproposestoextendNE120thStreetonecityblockbetween124thAvenueNEtoSlater
AvenueNE.Improvementsincludetheapproximate0.16ͲmileextensionofNE120thStreet,completewith
5Ͳfootsidewalks,5Ͳfootbicyclelanesineachdirection,4.5Ͳfootplanterstrips,andcontinuoustwoͲwayleft
turnlanesateachintersection.
156
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-3 Runoff Quality
Theextendedroadwaywillhaveamaximum44Ͳfootcurbtocurbsection.Anewtrafficsignalwillalsobe
constructedattheintersectionofNE120thStreetand124thAvenueNE.Partialacquisitionsofuptofour
commerciallyzonedpropertieswillberequiredtocompletetheproject.Associatedimprovementsinclude
utilitiesandstormwaterstructureinstallation.Theproposedmeasureswillenhancetrafficcirculationand
safetyinKirkland’sTotemLakearea.Thedesignteamusedacontinuoushydrologicmodelingtooltocalculate
theirflowratesandrunoffvolumes.
TableEWͲ3.3:SummaryofWaterQualityCalculations
TotalInflowtoProjectBMPs 5548.96acͲft
TotalAreaTreated 1.188ac
ProposedPGISAreaforProject 0.99ac
AmountofAdditionalTreatmentArea +0.198ac
TotalVolumeTreatedAsPercentofProjectPGS 120%
WeightedAverageAnnualTreatmentVolumeAchievedbyBMPs 93.1%
BasicTreatment(80%TSSremoval,<25mg/L) Yes
EnhancedTreatment(dissolvedmetals) Yes
EnhancedTreatment(oil) NotPursued
EnhancedTreatment(other) NotPursued
TotalPoints 2
SummaryofCreditCalculations
1. PostͲconstructionrunoffvolume:5548.96acreͲfeet.LIDtechniqueswereusedtotreataminimumof90%
oftheaverageannualpostͲconstructionrunoffvolume.
a. TheprojecttreatedrunͲonandrunoffintheROWBMPs.
b. Calculation:1.118acrestreated>0.99acresacresofpollutiongeneratingsurfacesintheROWonly
(120%treated).
c. NodetentionfacilitieswereusedoutsideoftheROW.
2. Calculation:93.1%averagevolumefiltered(seeDetailedCalculationsbelow).
3. Treatmentdefinitionsandprojectwaterqualitygoals:
a. BasicTreatment:80%TSSremoval(WSDOT,2008)
b. Enhancedtreatment:BMPsprovideahigherrateofremovalthanbasictreatmentfacilitiesfor
dissolvedcopperanddissolvedzinc(WSDOT,2008)
4. ConcentrationtestinginformationforthetreeboxfiltersusedwasprovidedbytheWashington
DepartmentofEcology(2010).Noexpectedeffluentvaluesexceedthestated25mg/LTSSlimit
(SustainableSites,2009)orspecialWashingtonStatestandardsforremovalofheavymetalsoroils
(enhancedtreatment).
5. ProductapprovalbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcologyisavailablehere:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/newtech/use_designations/filterrauld111306.pdf
6. BasedonTable1,2pointsareearnedbythisprojectfortreatmentof93.1%ofthetotalrunͲonandrunoff
accordingtostatedstandardsforenhancedtreatment.
DetailedCalculations
1. ThresholdAnalysis
x Thethresholdanalysiscalculationsarerequiredtodeterminetheapplicableminimumrequirementsfor
theprojectandthresholddischargearea.
x Withintheprojectlimit,thereisonethresholddischargearea(TDA).Twodownstreampathsthatexitthe
projectlimitjointogetheratadistancethatisalittlemorethanaquartermiledownstreamfromthe
157
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Quality EW-3
projectsite,atawetland.ThisflowdischargesintoaculverttoTotemLake. Thesetwosystemsare
hydraulicallyconnectedbecausethewaterlevelatthequarterͲmilepointisthatthelevelofTotemLake.
2. Assumptions
x AllroadwayareasareconsideredpollutantͲgeneratingimpervioussurface(PGIS),sidewalksasnonͲ
pollutionͲgeneratingimpervioussurface(NPGIS),andplanterstripandotherlandscapeasnonͲpollutionͲ
generatingpervioussurface(NPGPS).
x Rubblizedpavementleftinplaceandpavedoverisnotconsideredreplacedpavement.
3. Definitions(fromTable3Ͳ1ofthe2008WSDOTHighwayRunoffManual)
BasicTreatment
x Appliestoallprojectthresholddischargeareas(TDAs)whererunofftreatmentthresholdismet
(projectadds5000sformoreofPGIS)
PerformanceGoal:80%removaloftotalsuspendedsolids(TSS)
EnhancedTreatment(dissolvedmetals)
x Appliestoallprojectthresholddischargeareas(TDAs)whererunofftreatmentthresholdismet
(projectadds5000sformoreofPGIS)
x DoesnotdischargetoBasicTreatmentreceivingwaterbody
x AppliestoroadwayswithinUrbanGrowthAreas(UGAs)withAverageDailyTrip(ADT)ш7,500(Forthis
projectarea,ADTis8700)
PerformanceGoal:ProvideahigherrateofremovalofdissolvedmetalsthanBasicTreatmentfacilitiesfor
influentconcentrationsrangingfrom0.003to0.02mg/Lfordissolvedcopperand0.02Ͳ0.3mg/Lfor
dissolvedzinc.
4. PerviousandImperviousAreaCalculations
x TabulatedcalculationsareshowninTablesEWͲ3.4andEWͲ3.5.
TableEWͲ3.4:Imperviousareasummary
Category Area(sf) Area(Acres)
ExistingImpervious 35,240 0.81
NewImpervious 22,140 0.51
ReplacedImpervious 9,735 0.22
RemovedImpervious 1,647 0.04
ProposedImpervious 55,733 1.28
EffectiveImpervious 31,875 0.73

TableEWͲ3.5:PGISsummary
Category Area(sf) Area(Acres)
ExistingPGIS 34,201 0.79
NewPGIS 16,404 0.38
ReplacedPGIS 4,321 0.10
RemovedPGIS 7,646 0.18
ProposedPGIS 42,959 0.99
EffectivePGIS 16,404 0.38

158
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-3 Runoff Quality
5. MinimumRequirementsfrom2008WSDOTHighwayRunoffManual(HRM)
Figures3.1,3.2,and3.3oftheHRMareusedtodeterminetheminimumrequirementsapplicablefora
project.*Section3Ͳ2.2oftheHRMlistspossibleexceptionsforthisproject.**Nospecialexceptionsapply,so
minimumrequirements1Ͳ9oftheHRMstatesthatnewpollutionͲgeneratingimpervioussurfacemustprovide
waterqualitytreatmentmeetingthestatedperformancegoalsforbasicandenhancedtreatment.
6. CalculatethePredevelopedandDevelopedRunoffAreas***
Acontinuousmodelingsoftwaretoolwasusedtocalculatethetotalareaintherightofway(ROW)andthe
tributaryareasprovidingrunͲonintoprojectstormwatertreatmentfacilities.SeeTableEWͲ3.6.
TableEWͲ3.6:Totalpredevelopedanddevelopedrunoffarea
SubbasinNumber TotalArea(Acres)
Predeveloped Developed
Subbasin1 0.770 23.850
Subbasin2 0.770 0.770

7. CalculatePredevelopmentFlowrate
Predevelopmentflowratewascomputedusinga2Ͳyearrecurrenceintervalforonsite(0.016cfs)andoffsite
flows(2.640cfs).
8. CalculatePostͲConstructionRunoffVolume
ThetotalinflowvolumetoprojectstormwatertreatmentfacilitiesfromSubbasin1wascomputedtobe5549
acreͲfeet.TherewasnochangeinrunoffareafromSubbasin2.
9. IdentifyTypesofStormwaterBestManagementPractices(BMPs)ToBeUsed
Fivesubsurfacebiorentionsystems(treeboxfilters)****wereselectedbytheprojectteamfortreating
stormwaterrunoffandrunͲon.SeeFigureEWͲ3.1.
10. SelectLocationsBMPsandComputeTreatmentLevelsforStormwaterVolumes
Theweightedaverageannualtreatmentforwaterqualityontheprojectwas93.1%forrunoffandrunͲon.See
TableEWͲ3.7forcomputations.
TableEWͲ3.7:Runoffareatreatedbythetreeboxfilters
AreaExtents Area(ac) Infiltration*(%)
Station160+50to102+73(northhalf) 0.244 91.4
Station160+50to102+73(southhalf) 0.284 91.1
Station108+50to160+50(south) 0.183 94.9
Station102+73toStation100+00(south) 0.236 95.4
Station102+73toStation100+00(north) 0.241 93.5
WeightedAverage 93.1
Notes:
*Thesefiguresmakeupadecisiontreeusedtoguidetheengineerintheapplicableminimumrequirementswhendesigninga
stormwatermanagementfacilitybasedonknownsurfaceareas,relativeperviousness,andpollutiongeneratingcapacity.
**Generally,iftheamountofimpervioussurfacesisgreaterthanaspecifiedminimumvalue,certainrequirementsmustbeappliedto
thatimpervioussurface.Thesevaluesarecalled“minimumrequirements.”
***ThiscalculationandthefollowingcalculationswerecompletedusingtheWesternWashingtonHydrologyModel(WWHM),a
continuousmodelingsoftwaretool.
****Thesetreatmentsystemshaveunderdrainsinplacethatbypassexcessrunoffintoadetentionvaultduringhigherintensityevents.
159
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Quality EW-3

FigureEWͲ3.1:Treeboxfilterschematic
(http://www.ladstudios.com/LADsites/Sustainability/Strategies/images/treeboxͲModel.jpg)

Example: Streetside Bioswale
InstalledaspartoftheStreetEdgeAlternatives(SEAStreet)ProjectbytheCityofSeattle,thebioswalepictured
belowinFigureEWͲ3.2isanexampleofastructuralstormwatercontrolforwaterqualitytreatment.The
bioswalesonSEAStreetsuccessfullymitigate98%oftherainyseasonstormwaterand100%ofthedryseason
water.Thisdetentionbasedapproachachievesqualitytreatmentprimarilythroughcontrolofflowvolumes
andinfiltration.Additionally,therearesixdetentionfacilitieswhichallowforatreatmenttrainforany
stormwaterthatenterstheconventionalinfrastructure.Qualitytreatmentisprovidedbyplantuptakeand
compostamendedsoilsthathelptreatstreetrunoffandremoveheavymetals.AvirtualtourofSEAStreetis
availableathttp://www2.cityofseattle.net/util/tours/seastreet/slide1.htm.MoreinformationaboutSeattle’s
NaturalDrainageSystemprogram(includingotherprojects)isalsoavailableat:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/GreenStormwaterInfrastructure/Natural
DrainageProjects/index.htm
160
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-3 Runoff Quality

FigureEWͲ3.2:AwellͲestablishedvegetatedswale(“bioswale”)thatusescompostamendedsoilandnoflow
controldevicesorstructures.Residentialstreettoright.Seattle,WA.(PhotobyJ.Anderson)

POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Actualwaterqualitymaybedifficulttomodelandmaybedifferentthandesigned.Thiscreditdoesnotrequire
monitoringtobeinplacetoverifypollutantremovalsareachievedatthistime.
2. LongͲtermperformancedataformanylowͲimpactdevelopmentmethodsusedforqualitycontrolarenot
availableforroadwayprojectsorlackconsistency.Forexample,casestudiesofgrassedswalesinthelate1990s
performedbytheFederalHighwayAdministrationshowedqualityandquantitybenefitsbutdatawerenot
collectedconsistently.(EPA,2000)
3. DetentionpondsarenotallowedexceptwithintherightͲofͲway.Adiscussionofthereasoningforthisis
providedinCreditEWͲ2.
4. Infiltrationpracticesarenotrecommendedwheregroundwatercontaminationisaconcern.
5. Heavyprecipitationandhighpeakfloweventscanwashpollutantsoutofsometreatmentsystems.
6. Maintenanceandmonitoringareimperativeforthesuccessofawaterqualitytreatmentprogram.
7. Continuousmodelingcanbetimeintensiveandexpensive.However,thereareavarietyofsoftwareprograms
availabletomodelpollutantloadings.
RESEARCH
ThisGreenroadscreditprimarilyaddresseschangestochemicalconcentrationsofwaterofwatershedsbasedon
chemicalscollectedonroadwaysandpassedintoreceivingwaterbodiesbystormwaterrunoff.Allbest
managementpracticesthataddressflowcontrolalsoaddresswaterquality(Quigleyetal.,2009);however,Credit
EWͲ2RunoffFlowControladdressesphysicalrunoffmanagementpractices.Biologicalintegrityofreceivingwaters
isaddressedbyCreditEWͲ6HabitatRestoration.
ExistingLiteratureforRoadwayStormwaterQuality
TherelationshipbetweenstormwaterrunoffqualityandroadwaysasapollutantgeneratoriswellͲdocumented
(MaestreandPitt,2005;Strecker,Mayo,Quigley,andHowell,2001;Clarkeetal.,2007;Huberet.al.,2006;
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency:EPA,2007;Shoemaker,Lahlou,DollandCazenas,2002;EPA,2000).Clarkeetal.
(2007)providesanannotatedbibliographyofallstormwaterliteraturebetween1996and2006foralltypesof
urbanrunoffpractices,includingabrief(fivepages)reviewofliteraturefor“highwaysandotherroads.”The
161
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Quality EW-3
NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram(NCHRP)Report565(Huberetal.2006)providesanother
excellentreferencespecificallyrelevantforroadwaysusinglowimpactdevelopmentapproachesforstormwater
qualitymanagement(andflowcontrol)inahighwayenvironment.Thereaderisreferredtothesedocumentsfor
moredetailedinformation.Abriefintroductionofroadwaywaterqualityissuesispresentedbelow,includingan
overviewofstormwatertreatmentobjectives,terminology,impactsandtypesofpollutantsandsome
recommendedLIDcontrolsforrunofftreatment.
WhatisNonͲPointSourcePollution?
TheEPAidentifiesroadways,intheiroperationalphases,asnonͲpointsourcepollutiongenerators,whichmeans
thatthesourceofthepollutantsisdiffuse(EPA,2010a).NonͲpointsourcerunoffcomesfromrainorsnowmelt
thatwashesoversurfaces,collectingandtransportingparticles,whichvaryinhumanandenvironmentaltoxicity,
intoreceivingbodiesofwater.Pollutantsarecollectedonimpervioussurfacesthroughavarietyofprocessessuch
astirewear,erosionofpavementsurfacesandembankments,atmosphericdepositionandroutinemaintenanceof
roadways.TheregulatoryframeworkthatgovernsnonͲpointsourcepollutionintheU.S.includes(Shoemaker,
Lahlou,Doll,andCazenas,2002):
x NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)
x CleanWaterAct:NationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)
x CleanWaterAct:NonpointSourcePollutionControlProgram
x CoastalZoneActReauthorizationAmendments(CZARA)
x Otherstateandlocalregulatoryrequirements.
WaterQualityTreatmentObjectives
TheprimaryconcernswithnonͲpointsourcerunoffaregenerationandtransportofpollutants,habitat
degradation,habitatloss,lossofbiodiversity,andpreservationofbeneficialuse(suchasdrinkingwatersupplies)
(EPA,2010a;Southerland,1994)Federalguidanceisintendedtomeetthefollowingobjectives(EPA,2005)
x Protectsensitiveecosystems,includingwetlandsandestuaries,byminimizingroadͲandbridgeͲrelated
impactsandwatercrossings,andbyestablishingprotectivemeasuresincludingsetbacksduring
construction
x Reducetherunoffofpollutantsthroughtheuseandpropermaintenanceofstructuralcontrols
x Reducethegenerationofpollutantsfrommaintenanceoperationsbyminimizingtheuseofpesticides,
herbicides,fertilizers,anddeicingsaltsandchemicals
x Reducethegenerationandrunoffofpollutantsduringhighwayandbridgerepairoperationsbydecreasing
theuseofhazardousmaterialsandincorporatingpracticestopreventspillageintosensitiveareas.
ManystateshavewaterqualityobjectivesthatalignwithfederalregulatorycompliancewiththeCleanWaterAct
andintendtoprotectstatewaterresources.SomeexamplesfromtheWashingtonStateDepartment(WSDOT)
HighwayRunoffManual(2008)are:
x Preventpollutionofstatewatersandprotectwaterquality,includingcompliancewithstatewaterquality
standards.
x Satisfystaterequirementsforallknownavailableandreasonablemethodsofprevention,control,and
treatmentofwastespriortodischargetowatersofthestate.
x SatisfythefederaltechnologyͲbasedtreatmentrequirementsunder40CFRPart125.3.
WaterQualityTreatmentTerminology
NonͲpointsourcepollutioncanbemanagedthroughavarietyof“structural”and“nonͲstructural”controls.These
aretypicallyreferredtoas“bestmanagementpractices”(BMPs)or“integratedmanagementpractices”(IMPs),
andsometimessimplyas“stormwatercontrols”or“stormwatercontrolmeasures”(SCM)(Quigleyetal.2009).For
thepurposesofGreenroads,thetermBMPisused,asarethedefinitionsofstructuralandnonͲstructuralcontrols
providedbytheInternationalStormwaterBestManagementPracticesDatabase(ibid.)AstormwaterqualityBMP
162
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-3 Runoff Quality
isa“device,practiceormethodforremoving,reducing,retardingorpreventingtargetedstormwaterrunoff
constituents,pollutantsandcontaminantsfromreachingreceivingwaters”(ibid.)Therearefivetypesofstructural
controlsthataredefinedbasedontheirinflowandoutflowcharacteristics.Theyare(ibid.):
x TypeI.BMPswithwellͲdefinedinletsandoutlets(e.g.,detentionbasins,vegetatedswales,catchbasin
inserts).Thesearethe“easy”BMPstomonitorwhereinflowandoutflowcantypicallybepairedtoassess
performance.Inthecaseofsystemssuchaswetpondswithsubstantialresidencetimesorstoragevolumes,
datamaybestraightforwardtocollect,butchallengingtoevaluateforindividualstorms.Insuchcases,a
seasonalmassbalanceapproachisoftenmoreappropriatethanastormͲbased,pairedinfluentͲeffluent
approachbecauseitislikelythattheeffluentsampleforsmallstormsisdisplacedwateroriginatingfrom
priorevents.
x TypeII.BMPswithwellͲdefinedinlets,butnotoutlets(e.g.,infiltrationbasins,infiltrationtrenches,
bioretentioncells).MonitoringstrategiesfortheseBMPsaremorecomplexandmayinvolvesamplingof
underdrains,vadose(unsaturated)zonemonitoring,groundwatermonitoring,measuringinfiltrationrates
andsurfaceoverflow.Ataminimum,theinfluentandsurfaceoverflowmustbequantified,sincethe
differencebetweenthetwoshouldrepresentthevolumeinfiltrated.Ifanunderdrainisusedtodirect
partiallytreatedwaterbacktothesurfacedrainage,thenitshouldalsobemonitored.Evaluationofdata
fromthesetypesofstudiesshouldfocusonmassbalanceapproaches.
x TypeIII.BMPswithwellͲdefinedoutlets,butnotinlets(e.g.,grassswaleswhereinflowisoverlandflow
alongthelengthoftheswale,bufferstrips,greenroofs).
x TypeIV.BMPswithoutanywellͲdefinedinletsoroutletsand/orinstitutionalBMPs(e.g.,bufferstrips,basinͲ
widecatchbasinretrofits,educationprograms,sourcecontrolprograms,disconnectedimperviousarea
practices).
x TypeV.LowͲImpactDevelopment(LID)/DistributedControls/OverallSiteDesignswheresomedefined
monitoringlocationsareavailablethatmayincludemonitoringofindividualpracticeswithinadevelopment,
incombinationwithanoverallsitemonitoringmechanism.
Effectivecommunicationisnecessarytomeetstormwatermanagementqualityobjectives,soitisusefulto
compareotherdefinitionsofsometermsthatareavailableinsomerelatedguidancedocumentsandwithin
Greenroads.ThetermBMPisusedmorebroadlyinGreenroadsinreferencetomanyoftheactivitiesinvolvedin
meetingtheProjectRequirementsandVoluntaryCredits,anddoesnotnecessarilyalwaysrefertoawaterquality
objective.BMPscanbetemporary(suchaserosioncontrolduringconstruction)orpermanent,suchasthoseBMPs
addressedinthiscredit.Thiscreditaddressesstructuralcontrolsforqualitytreatment.NonͲstructuralcontrolsfor
operationsandmaintenanceandtemporaryBMPsforconstructionarecoveredintheProjectRequirementsand
ConstructionActivitiescategories.
TableEWͲ3.8comparesthedefinitionsusedinsomecurrentstormwatermanagementguidanceandother
sustainabilityratingsystemsthataresometimesappliedtoroadwaysandinfrastructure.Itisparticularlyimportant
tonotethediscrepanciesbetweenthe2009LEED™RatingSystem(LEED),twoseparatedocumentsfromthesame
agency(theFHWA),andtheguidancereferencedbyGreenroadsintheBMPDB(alsousedinHuberetal.2006).
Notably,LEEDappearstousetheterm“nonͲstructural”tomean“biological”or“vegetated,”whichmatchesthe
mostrecentguidancefromtheFHWA.However,theFHWAappearstousetheterm“structural”controlto
describeBMPsthatprovidewhatisnormallycalled“enhancedtreatment”filtersor“oilcontrol”facilitieswhich
areusuallysmallormoderatelysizedmechanicalfiltersorseparatorsthatparsesurfaceoilsandgreasefrom
settledsediments(CityofSeattle,2009).Furthermore,theFHWAconfusinglyusestheterm“ultraͲurban”torefer
towhatisequivalentinmostsitedevelopmentguidancedocumentstomeanLIDtechniques.(SeeProject
RequirementPRͲ8LowImpactDevelopment).Thisisprobablyanattempttodistinguishstandardhighway
drainagepracticessuchas,forexample,“grassedswales”(whichgenerallymeanslong,vegetated,generallynonͲ
engineeredoutsideofflowcontrolsizing,nonͲmaintenanceͲintensiveroadsideditches)from“bioswales”(which
generallymeanssmall,decentralized,engineeredanddeliberatelyvegetatedforwaterqualitytreatmentandflow
control,notnecessarilymaintenanceͲintensiveroadsideditches).GreenroadsusesthetermLIDforconsistency
acrosscreditsandrequirements.
163
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Quality EW-3
TableEWͲ3.8:VaryingDefinitionsofStormwaterTreatmentControlsinSelectGuidanceDocuments
Source StructuralControl NonͲStructuralControl
2009LEED™Rating
System(USGBC,2009)
“Structuralmeasures,suchasrainwater
cisterns,manholetreatmentdevicesand
pondscanbeusedtoremovepollutants
fromrunofffromimperviousareasand
sometimesreusethewaterforirrigation
orbuildingflushfixtures….Structural
measuresarepreferredonurbanor
constrainedsitesandmakeitpossibleto
effectivelycleantherunoffwithminimal
spaceallocationandlanduse.For
existingsiteswithgreaterthan50%
imperviousness,structuraltechniques
mayincluderestorationandrepairof
deterioratedstormsewers,orseparation
ofcombinedsewers.”
“NonͲstructuralstrategies,suchas
vegetatedswales,disconnectionof
imperviousareas,andpervious
pavement,canbeusedtoinfiltrateand
limitrunoff.Inthesecasesyouare
‘capturingandtreating’runoffby
allowingittonaturallyfilterintothesoil
andvegetation.Pollutantsarebroken
downbymicroorganismsinthesoiland
theplants….NonͲstructuralmethodsare
oftenpreferredbecausetheymaybeless
costlytoconstructandmaintainandthey
helprechargegroundwatersupplies.”
2009SustainableSites
Initiative
Notexplicitlydefined Not explicitly defined
2009NationalHighway
Institute/FederalHighway
AdministrationUrban
DrainageManual
“…theseengineereddevicesaretypically
structuralandaremadeonaproduction
lineinafactory.”
Vegetativepracticessuchasgrassed
swales,filterstripsandwetlands“are
nonͲstructuralBMPsandaresignificantly
lesscostlythanstructuralcontrols”
2002FederalHighway
Administration
StormwaterBest
ManagementPracticesin
anUltraͲUrbanSetting
(Shoemaker,Lahlou,Doll
andCazenas)
Infiltrationtechnologies,including
bioretention,pondsandpond/wetland
combinations,enhancedtreatment
systems,filteringsystems,vegetated
swalesandfilterstrips,waterquality
inlets,porouspavements
Streetsweeping,sourcecontrols
2009StormwaterBMP
MonitoringManual
(Quigleyetal.2009),
Greenroads
“StructuralBMPsincludeavarietyof
practicesthatrelyonawiderangeof
hydrologic,physical,biological,and
chemicalprocessestoimprovewater
qualityandmanagerunoff.
“NonͲstructuralBMPssuchaseducation
andsourcecontrolordinancestypically
dependonacombinationofbehavioral
changeandenforcement.”
ImpactsofPollutantsinRoadwayRunoff
Fewstormwaterqualitymanagementapproachesconsidertheaggregateandsystemicimpactstothefullreachof
awatercourse,letalonethewatershed(Wilcock,PitlickandCui,2009).AsdiscussedinCreditEWͲ2RunoffFlow
Control,impervioussurfacesaredirectlyrelatedtorunoffvolumes.Thesevolumesofrunoffcarrypollutantsinto
receivingwaterbodies,suchasriversandstreams,bays,wetlandsandoceanenvironments.TilleyandSlonecker
(2006)determinedthatimperviousnessaslowasonepercentcancauseanaquaticecosystemareatobelabeled
as“stressed”andupto25%imperviousnesscancause“irreversibleenvironmentaldegradation.”Theyalsoshow
thatroadsandsidewalkscompriseupto33%oftheimperviousareainaveragesuburbanandurbanenvironments,
whileinruralenvironments,nearlyalloftheimperviousareaisduetoroadways(MaestreandPitt,2005).The
pollutantsgeneratedfromroadwaysinareasofexistingwatershedimpairmentaremonitoredandmanagedby
waterqualityprogramsthroughtheEPAorauthorizedstateorlocalagencies.
TotalMaximumDailyLoadsandRoads
TheEPAgathersstatisticsonwaterqualityforavarietyofwaterbodiesaspartoftheongoingwaterquality
programcalledAssessmentTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)TrackingandImplementationSystem(ATTAINS),
whichisregulatedthroughsections305(b)and303(d)oftheCleanWaterAct(EPA,2009b).Reportingis
requiredfromstateswithnonͲattainmentwaterbodies(thoseexceedingtheirTMDLs)everytwoyearsuntil
164
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-3 Runoff Quality
attainmentisreachedforeachassessedpollutant(EPA,2009a).RoadwaysarepartofTMDLcomputationsas
theyareconsideredtobenonͲpointcontributorsofpollution(theyarecountedaspartofthetotalload
allocationforeffluent)–thecontributionisbasedontotalcontributingareaorlengthinawatershed.Table
EWͲ3.9wasconstructedfromthecurrentTMDLstatisticslistedintheATTAINSdatabase.Forexample,ofthe
26%oftheassessedmileageofU.S.riversandstreamsreceivingroadwayrunoff,over50%areconsidered
impairedandthreatened.Impairedwaterbodiesarethosethathavenotmetthequalitycriteriaforoneor
moreofitsassessedbeneficialuses,whereasthreatenedwaterbodiesmeetallassessedbeneficialusesbut
demonstrateanapparentdeclineinwaterquality(EPA,2008).
AccordingtoATTAINS,somestateshavereportedroadwaysasadirectprobablecauseofimpairment(not
includingthreatenedwaters)forreceivingstreamsandrivers.Roadsandroadconstructionactivitiesare
probablydirectlyresponsibleforabout3.4%oftheassessedimpairedwaters.However,theimpactof
roadwaysismuchgreaterthanthisfigureindicates.Asdiscussedinthepreviouscredit(EWͲ2RunoffFlow
Control),runoffgeneratedonimpervioussurfacessuchasroadwaysandbridgescancausedegradationof
habitat,lossofwetlandhabitat,clearingofvegetationandmanyotheractivitiesassociatedwith
hydromodification.Manyoftheseimpactsresultfromorareotherwiseindirectlyrelatedtoroadway
constructionanduse.WhilenotallriversandstreammilesintheU.S.wereassessed,theseindirecthabitatand
ecosystemchangesassociatedwithroadwaypotentiallyrepresentanadditional20%ofthetotalimpairments
inassessedriversandstreams.Thediffuseimpactsduetoroadwaydevelopmentcouldbeupto56%forbays
andestuaries.TheseTMDLstatisticslikelyincludeseveraldifferentnonͲpointsources;however,manydata
werealsonotreported(denotedas“NA”inTableEWͲ3.9).Forexample,ATTAINSincludesadditional
informationoncoastalandnearcoastalwatersandshorelines,butthereisextremelylimiteddatafor
roadwaysandtheindirectactivitiesnoted;thesewereomittedfromthetable.
WhenPollutionisWorst
MaestreandPitt(2005)showedthatstreetsinurbanareasgenerateapproximately20Ͳ50%oftheinitialrunoffup
tohalfaninch,whichisoftencalledthe“firstflush”event.PrinceGeorge’sCounty(PGC:1999)explainsthe
conceptofthe“firstflush,”whichis“thefirsthalfinchofrunofffromanimpervioussurface[thatis]expectedto
carrywithmostofthepollutantloadassociatedwithstormwater.Intermsofatypicalstormhydrograph,the“first
flush”representsasmallportionofastorm’stotaldischarge,butalargerpercentageofthetotalloadingfora
particularcontaminant.”ThishypothesiswasinvestigatedbystatisticalanalysisoftheNationalStormwaterQuality
DatabasebyMaestreandPitt(2005),whoshowedthatwhilepeakpollutantconcentrationsoccuroftenwithpeak
flows,onsmallareasofpavementwithsmallorlocalizeddrainagefacilitiesitislikelythattherewillbeafirstflush
whereconcentrationspeakearlyduetothewashingawayofmostpollutantswithinitialrainfall.However,at
largerscalesandhigherrainfall,andwithmorecomplexdrainagesystems,thepollutantloadislesslikelytobe
detectedintermsofstatisticallysignificantconcentrationdifferences.ThissuggeststhatLIDmethods,whichare
small,decentralizedandefficientattreatingthefirsthalfinchofrunoff,maybeappropriateforroadsandmay
alsohelpagenciesmeetrequirementsforTMDLattainmentlevels(Huberetal.,2006,PGC,1999).

165
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Quality EW-3
TableEWͲ3.9:NationalProbableSourceGroupsContributingtoWaterBodyImpairmentsDuetoRoadsand
BridgesBasedonwaterbodyassessmentdatafromtheNationalSummaryofStateInformation.(EPA,2010b)
WaterBody
Rivers&
Streams
Lakes,Reservoirs
&Ponds
Bays&
Estuaries
Wetlands
(unit) (mi) (ac) (mi
2
) (ac)
TotalU.S.Waters 3,533,205 41,666,049 87,791 107,700,000
TotalAssessedWaters 933,384 17,576,176 18,444 2,051,861
PercentofU.S.WatersAssessed 26.4% 42.2% 21.0% 1.9%
PercentofImpairedAssessedWaters 49.6% 66.0% 63.7% 36.4%
GoodWaters 464,428 5,928,815 6,687 1,304,892
ThreatenedWaters 6,355 47,330 17 805
ImpairedWaters 462,601 11,600,032 11,740 746,163
TotalAssessedImpairedWatersDirectlyor
IndirectlyAttributabletoRoads/Bridges/Highways
23.3% 5.8% 55.8% 14.6%
DIRECT CAUSESOFIMPAIRMENT
UrbanͲrelatedrunoffprobablesourcegroup
Highway/road/bridgerunoff(nonͲconstruction) 7,712 18,705 2 NA
Constructionprobablesourcegroup
Highway/road/bridgeinfrastructure 6,591 100,796 NA NA
Forestryprobablesourcegroup
Forest&loggingroads(constructionanduse) 1,273 NA NA NA
DirectlyAssessedProbableImpairmentfrom
Roads/Bridges/Highways
3.4% 1.0% 0% 0%
INDIRECT CAUSESOFIMPAIRMENT
Habitatalterations(notdirectlyrelatedtohydromodification)probablesourcegroup
Lossofriparianhabitat 11,028 4,506 2,091 NA
Removalofvegetation 389 NA NA NA
Hydromodificationprobablesourcegroup
Channelerosion/incisionfromupstream
hydromodifications
723 NA NA NA
Channelization(includinglinedchannels) 19,380 31,925 NA 220
Cleansediments 1,132 NA 1,916 NA
Erosion&siltation 12,520 2,300 2 NA
Flowalterationsfromwaterdiversions 3,038 27,510 NA 1,000
Flowregulation/modification 199 NA NA NA
Hydromodification 17,660 302,373 607 98,412
PostͲdevelopmenterosion&sedimentation 1,369 16,185 NA NA
Sedimentresuspension 563 101,420 1,918 965
Streambankmodifications/destabilization 10,227 63,721 NA 8,491
Transferofwaterfromanoutsidewatershed 252 73 NA NA
Upstreamimpoundment 8,122 7,647 13 NA
Waterdiversions 5,537 NA NA 75
IndirectlyAssessedProbableImpairmentfrom
Roads/Bridges/Highways
19.9% 4.8% 55.8% 14.6%
Notes:NAmeansNotAssessed,NotAvailableorNotApplicable.
NotallwatersinU.S.havebeenassessed.Coastalwaters,nearshorelines,andoceanshadnodataforroadwaysorlistedindirectcauses.
ForestͲclearing,wetlandalterations,andminingandresourceextractionactivitiesarenotincludedinthistable.
Someentrieshavebeenaggregatedwheremultipleentriesusedsametitleindatabaseundersameprobablesourcegroupheadings.
Indirectcausesofimpairmentrepresentaggregateddataforallpotentialsourcegroups.
Statisticsbasedonaggregateddatacollectedfromallreportingstates.
166
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-3 Runoff Quality
CommonPollutantsandSources
Themostcommontypesofpollutantsfoundinroadwayrunoffaresediment(totalsuspendedsolids:TSSandtotal
dissolvedsolids:TDS),heavymetals,hydrocarbons(oilsandgrease),andpathogens.Concentrationsofthese
pollutantsvarywidelydependingontrafficloads,environmentalsettingandlanduse.Forexample,Huberetal.
(2006)showedthatTSSisgenerallygreaterforhigheraveragedailytraffic(ADT)loads.TSSconcentrations
averagedabout172mg/Landhadawidespreadrangefromaslowas2mg/L(Interstate205inVancouver,
Washington:17x10
3
ADT)toashighas8735mg/L(Interstate10inBatonRouge,Louisiana:78x10
3
ADT).
SomecommonroadwaypollutantsareshowninTableEWͲ3.10andtheirpotentialconcentrationsinTableEWͲ
3.11below.
TableEWͲ3.10:Commonconstituentsandsourcesofroadrunoff(Shoemaker,Lahlou,Doll,andCazenas,2002)
Constituent Source
Particulates Pavementwear,vehicles,atmosphericdeposition,maintenanceactivities
Nitrogen,Phosphorus Atmosphericdepositionandfertilizerapplication
Lead Leadedgasolinefromautoexhaustsandtirewear
Zinc Tirewear,motoroil,andgrease
Iron Autobodyrust,steelhighwaystructuressuchasbridgesandguardrails,andmoving
engineparts
Copper Metalplating,bearingandbrushingwear,movingengineparts,brakeliningwear,
fungicidesandinsecticides
Cadmium Tirewearandinsecticideapplication
Chromium Metalplating,movingengineparts,andbrakeliningwear
Nickel Dieselfuelandgasoline,lubricatingoil,metalplating,bushingwear,brakelining
wear,andasphaltpaving
Manganese Movingengineparts
Cyanide AntiͲcakingcompoundsusedtokeepdeicingsaltsgranular
Sodium,Calcium,Chloride Deicingsalts
Sulphates Roadwaybeds,fuel,anddeicingsalts
Petroleum Spill,leaks,antifreezeandhydraulicfluids,andasphaltsurfaceleachate

TableEWͲ3.11:Commonconstituentsandsourcesofroadrunoff(Shoemaker,Lahlou,Doll,andCazenas,2002;
EPA,2005;adaptedinthesesourcesfromBarrettetal.1995)
Parameter Concentration(mg/L,unlessnoted)
TotalSuspendedSolids(TSS) 45Ͳ798
VolatileSuspendedSolids(VSS) 4.3Ͳ79
TotalOrganicCarbon(TOC) 24Ͳ77
ChemicalOxygenDemand(COD) 14.7Ͳ272
BiochemicalOxygenDemand(BOD) 12.7Ͳ37
Nitrate+Nitrite(NO3+NO2) 0.15Ͳ1.636
TotalKjeldahlNitrogen(TKN) 0.335Ͳ55.0
TotalPhosphorusasP 0.113Ͳ0.998
Copper(Cu) 0.022Ͳ7.033
Lead(Pb) 0.073Ͳ1.78
Zinc(Zn) 0.056Ͳ0.929
Fecalcoliform 50Ͳ590 (organisms/100ml)

OtherQualityConcerns:TemperatureandTurbidity
Temperatureandturbidityaretwoothercommonmeasuresofwaterquality.Temperature,whichis
technicallyaphysicalcharacteristicofwater,isusuallyincludedinqualitymeasurementsasanindicatorof
biologicalimpacts,especiallyinsensitiveaquatichabitatssuchasriparianareas(Hinman,2005).Turbidity,or
167
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Quality EW-3
relativeclarityofthewater,isanotherphysicalmeasurethatisusedasanindicatorofsuspendedsediment
loads(EPA,2006).Differentjurisdictionsandmonitoringcriteriawilldictatewhetherthesewaterquality
parametersaremeasuredforawaterbody.
LowImpactDevelopmentforRunoffQualityControl
AbriefintroductiontoLIDtechniqueswasprovidedinProjectRequirementPRͲ8.Therelevantmechanismsat
workthatprovidequalitytreatmentwithLIDmethodsbrieflydescribedbelow(Shoemaker,Lahlou,Dolland
Cazenas,2002;CityofSeattle,2009).MostLIDtechniquesincorporatemorethanoneofthesemethods.
Additionally,allflowcontrolmethodsprovidesomedegreeofmitigatingtreatmentorpreventionforpollutant
transportintoreceivingwaters(Huberetal.2006;Shoemaker,Lahlou,DollandCazenas,2002).
x Detention/Sedimentation.Runoffiscollectedtemporarilyandreleasedviaacontrolledoutflow.Theslow
releaseallowsforparticlestosettleoutbasedondensity.
x Flotation.Pollutantsarepulledoutofrunoffbyphysicalprocessesthatseparatethembasedondensity(e.g.
oil/waterseparators).
x Biologicalremovalmechanisms.Thisincludesvegetativeandbacterialprocessessuchasnutrientuptakeor
metabolizationoforganicorinorganiccompounds.
x Filtration/Sorption.Pollutantsaretrappedandstrainedthroughdifferentmaterials,suchasfinesand.
x Chemicaltreatment.Chemicalsareaddedtorunofftoremovepollutants.
x Proprietarytreatmentmethods.Mechanicalorotherwisefabricatedpollutantremovalequipment.
Huberetal.(2006)presentsamoredetaileddescriptionoftheLIDprocesses.TableEWͲ3.2presentsthepollutant
removalperformanceforseveraldifferenttypesofLIDBMPsthathavebeenstatisticallyanalyzedandshownin
termsofinfluentandeffluentconcentrations(GeosyntecConsultantsandWrightWaterEngineers,2008).In
general,amixofallofthesemethodswillbemosteffectiveonasite.“Treatmenttrains”orLIDBMPsarrangedin
seriescanalsobeusedtotreatparticularlypollutedeffluentinmanycases(Quigleyetal.2009;SSI,2009).
Concentration,ratherthanpercentremoval,isthepreferredreportingmethodforrunoffqualityperformancefor
anumberofreasons.AconcisediscussionofthisreasoningisgivenattheBMPDBbyWrightWaterEngineersand
GeosyntecConsultants(2007):http://www.bmpdatabase.org/Docs/FAQPercentRemoval.pdf.
Additionally,twoofthemethodsdescribedinCreditEWͲ2RunoffFlowControl,compostamendedsoils(suchas
infiltrationslopes)anddesignbyavoidance(suchasnonͲerodingroadwaysorplanningalignmentsawayfrom
sensitivewatersheds)alsopresentsignificantwaterqualitybenefits.
AdditionalResources
x Foragood,briefsummaryofrecentwaterqualityliteratureforroadwaysthrough2006,seeClarkeet.al
(2007).Thediscussionofroadsandhighwaysbeginsonpage39andisavailableforfreeat:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.87.9494&rep=rep1&type=pdf
x EPA’s2005NationalManagementMeasurestoControlNonpointSourcePollutionfromUrbanAreascovers
highwaysandbridgesinManagementMeasure7(Chapter7)andisavailablefordownloadhere:
http://www.epa.gov/nps/urbanmm/
x Huberet.al(2006)compiledacomprehensivereviewofhighwayrunoffcontrolprogramsaspartofthe
NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram(NCHRP)Report565:EvaluationofBestPracticesforHighway
RunoffControl.ThisreportisavailableinPDFformat,withsupplementalappendices,at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_565.pdf
x AvarietyofguidancefromtheFHWAonwaterqualityandstormwatermanagementpublicationsareavailable
at:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/h2o_abs.htm
x FHWA(Shoemaker,Lahlou,DollandCazenas,2002)providesguidanceonultraͲurbanBMPselectionand
monitoringavailableat:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ultraurb/3fs10.htm
x AASHTOCenterforEnvironmentalExcellenceprovidesanoverviewofwaterqualityissuesandwetlands
availableat:http://environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/water_wetlands/
168
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-3 Runoff Quality
x CurrentperformancedataonqualitycontrolforLIDBMPsisavailableattheInternationalBMPDatabase:
http://www.bmpdatabase.org.Theyalsotrackcostdataasitisvolunteeredalongwithsubmissions.
GLOSSARY
AASHTO AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials
ADT Averagedailytraffic
Biodiversity Totalnumberofspeciespresent
Biologicalintegrity Theabilitytosupportandmaintainabalanced,integratedadaptive
assemblageoforganismshavingspeciescomposition,diversity,and
functionalorganizationcomparabletothatofnaturalhabitatoftheregion
(KarrandDudley,1981).
BMP Bestmanagementpractice
BMPDB InternationalBMPDatabase(http://www.bmpdatabase.org)
Detention Theprocessofholdinganddelayingrunoffwithacontrolledrelease
EPA EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
Erosion Surfacewearingduetophysicalprocessessuchaswater,windandheat
FHWA FederalHighwayAdministration
Flowcontrol Managementofrunoffvolumephysicalcharacteristicsincludingpeakflows
andtimeofconcentration
Hydromodification alterationofthehydrologiccharacteristicsofcoastalandnonͲcoastalwaters,
whichinturncouldcausedegradationofwaterresources(EPA,2007)
IMP Integratedmanagementpractice
Impairedwaterbody Bodiesofwaterthathavenotmetthewaterqualitycriteriaforoneormore
ofitsassessedbeneficialusesbasedonTMDL(EPA,2008)
Impervioussurface ahardsurfaceareathateitherpreventsorretardstheentryofwaterintothe
soilmantleorcauseswatertorunoffthesurfaceingreaterquantitiesorat
anincreasedrate(TilleyandSlonecker,2006)
Infiltration thedownwardmovementofwaterintothesoilaftersurficialentryand
percolationthroughporespaces(Huberetal.2006)
LA Loadallocation(usedtocomputeTMDL),nonͲpointsources
LEED LeadershipinEnergyandEnvironmentalDesign™
Lowimpactdevelopment abroadcollectionofengineeredcontrols,stormwatermanagementfacilities,
andotherlanddevelopmentBMPsthatattempttomimicpreͲdevelopment
hydrologicconditionsbyemphasizinginfiltration,evapotranspiration,or
stormwaterreuseforlongͲtermflowcontrolandrunofftreatment
NonͲpointsource Adiffusegeneratorofpollutionorcontaminants
NonͲstructuralcontrol BMPsthatdependonbehavioralchangeandenforcement(Quigleyetal.,
2009)
Reach Thelengthofariverorstreambetweenriverbends
Retention Theprocessofholdingrunoff,ideallynoreleaseoccursandallrunoffis
infiltratedorevaporated
SSI SustainableSitesInitiative
Structuralcontrol BMPsthatuseawiderangeofhydrologic,physical,biological,andchemical
processestoimprovewaterqualityandmanagerunoff.
TDS Totaldissolvedsolids
Threatenedwaterbody Bodiesofwaterthathavemetallrelevantwaterqualitycriteriaforits
assessedbeneficialusesbasedonTMDLbutdemonstrateanapparent
declineinwaterquality(EPA,2008)
TMDL Totalmaximumdailyload
169
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Quality EW-3
TSS Totalsuspendedsolids
Turbidity Relativeclarityofwater
WLA Wasteloadallocation(usedtocomputeTMDL),pointsources

REFERENCES
AASHTOCenterforEnvironmentalExcellence(2009).CenterforEnvironmentalExcellencebyAASHTO:Water
Quality/Wetlands.AccessedJanuary18,2010.Availableat:
http://environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/water_wetlands/
CityofSeattle,SeattlePublicUtilities,DepartmentofPlanningandDevelopment.(2009,June30).Environmentally
CriticalAreas:BestAvailableScienceReview.AccessedNovember14,2009.Availableat
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/static/BAS%20Review_FINAL_30JUN09_LatestReleased_DPDP017711.doc
Clarket.al.(2007).AnnotatedBibliographyofUrbanWetWeatherFlowLiteraturefrom1996through2006
Middleton,PA:PennsylvaniaStateUniversity–Harrisburg.Availableat:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.87.9494&rep=rep1&type=pdf
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(1995,November).Erosion,SedimentandRunoffControlforRoadsand
Highways.(EPAͲ841ͲFͲ95Ͳ008d).OfficeofWater.Washington,DC:EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Available
athttp://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/education/runoff.html
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2000,October).LowImpactDevelopment(LID):ALiteratureReview.(EPAͲ841Ͳ
BͲ00Ͳ005).OfficeofWater.Washington,DC:EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2005,November).Nationalmanagementmeasurestocontrolnonpointsource
pollutionfromurbanareas.[EPAͲ841ͲBͲ05Ͳ004].Washington,DC:EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Officeof
Water.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2006,November30).EPA>OWOW>MonitoringandAssessingWaterQuality
>VolunteerStreamMonitoring:AMethodsManual>Chapter5>5.5Turbidity.AccessedJanuary18,2010.
Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/volunteer/stream/vms55.html
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2007).Nationalmanagementmeasurestocontrolnonpointsourcepollution
fromhydromodification.[EPAͲ841ͲBͲ07Ͳ002]Washington,DC:NonpointSourceControlBranch,Officeof
Wetlands,Oceans,andWatersheds,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofWater.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/hydromod/pdf/Hydromod_all_web.pdf
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2008,October16).Overview|ImpairedWatersandTMDL|USEPA.Accessed
January18,2010.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/intro.html
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2009a,April29).WaterQualityAssessmentandTMDLInformation(ATTAINS).
AccessedJanuary18,2010.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2009b,September24).CleanWatersActSection319|PollutedRunoff
(NonpointSourcePollution)|EPA.AccessedJanuary18,2010.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2010a,January13).WhatisNPSPollution?–QuestionsandAnswers|Polluted
Runoff(NonpointSourcePollution)|USEPA.AccessedJanuary18,2010.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/qa.html
170
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-3 Runoff Quality
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2010b,January15).NationalSummaryofStateInformation|WATERS|US
EPA.AccessedJanuary15,2010.Availableathttp://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control
FederalHighwayAdministration.(2009).UrbanDrainageDesignManual.3
rd
ed.[NHIͲ10Ͳ009].Washington,DC:
FederalHighwayAdministration,HydraulicsEngineering.Availableat
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/10009/index.cfm
Hinman,C.(2005).Lowimpactdevelopment:TechnicalguidancemanualforPugetSound.Olympia,WA:Puget
SoundActionTeam.Availableat
http://www.psparchives.com/publications/our_work/stormwater/lid/LID_manual2005.pdf
Huberetal.(2006).NCHRPSynthesis565:Evaluationofbestmanagementpracticesforhighwayrunoffcontrol.
NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram(NCHRP).Washington,D.C.:TransportationResearchBoard.
Availableathttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_565.pdf
GeosyntecConsultantsandWrightWaterEngineers,Inc.(2008)OverviewofPerformancebyBMPCategoryand
CommonPollutantType:InternationalStormwaterBestManagementPractices(BMP)Database[1999Ͳ2008].
Availableat
http://www.bmpdatabase.org/Docs/Performance%20Summary%20Cut%20Sheet%20June%202008.pdf
InternationalBMPDatabase.(BMPDB)BMPDB–Home.Availableathttp://www.bmpdatabase.org
Maestre,A,&Pitt,R.(2005).TheNationalStormwaterQualityDatabase,Version1.1:ACompilationandAnalysis
ofNPDESStormwaterMonitoringInformation.PreparedbyUniversityofAlabamaandCenterforWatershed
Protection.Washington,DC:EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofWater.
PiguetP,ParriauxA,&BensimonM.(2008).Thediffuseinfiltrationofroadrunoff:anenvironmentalimprovement.
TheScienceoftheTotalEnvironment.397(1Ͳ3),1Ͳ3.
PrinceGeorge’sCounty,Maryland,DepartmentofEnvironmentalResources.(1999,June).LowImpact
DevelopmentDesignStrategies:AnIntegratedApproach.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lidnatl.pdf
Quigley,M.etal.(2009,October).UrbanStormwaterBMPPerformanceMonitoring.ReporttotheEnvironmental
ProtectionAgencyandtheFederalHighwayAdministrationbyGeosyntecConsultantsandWrightWater
Engineers.AvailableattheInternationalStormwaterBMPDatabase(BMPDB):http://www.bmpdatabase.org.
SeattlePublicUtilities.(2009)SeattlePublicUtilities–NaturalDrainageProjects.AccessedJanuary13,2010.
Availableat:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/GreenStormwaterInfrastructure/
Shoemaker,L.,Lahlou,M.,Doll,A.andCazenas,P.USDepartmentofTransportation.FederalHighway
Administration.(2002).StormwaterBestManagementPracticesinanUltraͲUrbanSetting:Selectionand
Monitoring.AccessedNovember30,2009.Availableat
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ultraurb/3fs10.htm
Southerland,M.(1994).Evaluationofecologicalimpactsfromhighwaydevelopment.[EPAͲ300ͲBͲ94Ͳ006]
DynamacCorporationfortheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Washington,DC:UnitedStatesEnvironmental
ProtectionAgency,OfficeofFederalActivities.
Strecker,E.,Mayo,L.,Quigley,M.andHowell,J.(2001,June).GuidanceManualforMonitoringWaterQuality.
(FHWAͲEPͲ01Ͳ022).UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.Officeof
NaturalEnvironment.Washington,DC:UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation.
171
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Runoff Quality EW-3
SustainableSitesInitiative.(2009).GuidelinesandPerformanceBenchmarks.AmericanSocietyofLandscape
Architects,LadyBirdJohnsonWildflowerCenterattheUniversityofTexasatAustin,UnitedStatesBotanic
Garden.
Tilley,J.S.,&Slonecker,E.T.(2006).Quantifyingthecomponentsofimpervioussurfaces.Reston,Va:U.S.
GeologicalSurvey.
UnitedStatesGreenBuildingCouncil(USGBC).(2009)LEED2009forNewConstructionandMajorRenovations
RatingSystem.Availableathttp://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2202009
WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT).(2008).HighwayRunoffManual.[MͲ31Ͳ16.01]
WashingtonDepartmentofTransportationEnvironmentalandEngineeringPrograms,DesignOffice.Olympia,
WA:WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation.Availableat
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/WaterQuality/Runoff/HighwayRunoffManual.htm
Wilcock,P.R.,Pitlick,J.,&Cui,Y.(2009).SedimenttransportprimerEstimatingbedͲmaterialtransportingravelͲ
bedrivers.FortCollins,CO:U.S.Dept.ofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation.
WrightWaterEngineersandGeosyntecConsultants(2007).FrequentlyAskedQuestionsFactSheetforthe
InternationalStormwaterBMPDatabase:WhydoestheInternationalStormwaterBMPDatabaseProjectomit
percentremovalasameasureofBMPperformance?AccessedJanuary15,2010.Availableat
http://www.bmpdatabase.org

172
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-4 Stormwater Cost Analysis
STORMWATER COST ANALYSIS
GOAL
Determinelifecyclecostsandsavingsassociatedwithlowimpactdevelopment
techniquesandbestmanagementpracticesforstormwaterutilities.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Conductalifecyclecostanalysis(LCCA)forstormwaterutilitiesaccordingtothe
NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram(NCHRP)Report565:Evaluationof
BestManagementPracticesforHighwayRunoffControlGuidelinesManual.
NCHRPReport565canbeaccessedatthefollowinglink:
http://144.171.11.107/Main/Blurbs/Evaluation_of_Best_Management_Practices_for_
Highwa_158397.aspx
TheGuidelinesManualisavailabletodownloadasaCDimagefile(*.iso).Thisfilecan
beburnedtoaCDandthenviewedasaPDF.
Details
Note:ThiscreditisapplicableonlyforprojectswherePRͲ8hasidentifiedthatlow
impactdevelopmenttechnologiesareappropriateforimplementationfor
stormwatermanagement.
DOCUMENTATION
ProvideacopyoftheLCCAspreadsheetshowingthefinalresultsofthecostanalysis
andhighlightingthefinalalternativechosen.Theresultsmustshow,atminimum,that
thefollowingcriteriahavebeenaddressed:
x Expectedservicelife
x Constructioncosts
x Maintenancecosts
x Interestrate
x Salvagevalue
x Estimatedannualcostofthestormwatermanagementsystem

EW-4
1 POINT
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ2LifecycleCost
Analysis
9 PRͲ7Pollution
PreventionPlan
9 PRͲ8LowImpact
Development
9 PRͲ10Site
MaintenancePlan
9 EWͲ2RunoffFlow
Control
9 EWͲ3RunoffQuality
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Economy
9 Extent
9 Expectations
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 Improves
Accountability
9 ReducesLifecycle
Costs
9 CreatesNew
Information
173
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Stormwater Cost Analysis EW-4
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Useafinancialapproach(strictlymonetarycostsandbenefits)fortheLCCA.
x Evaluatedesignalternativesbasedonthegoalsofthestormwatermanagementplan.
x Setupaspreadsheettocomputecostsbasedonbudgetinputs.
x UseestimatedcostsforLIDBMPsavailablefromtheBMPDatabase(BMPDB)availableat:
http://www.bmpdatabase.org.
x ConsideravoidedcostsofstormwatertreatmentatoffͲsitelocations,oravoidedpermittingcosts.
x Includeseveraldifferentmethodsandalternativesintheevaluationofthestormwatersystemwhen
performingtheLCCA.InvestigatebothstructuralandnonͲstructuralcontrols,includingconventionalcontrols
suchasdetentionorinfiltration(Huberet.al.,2006).
Example: LCCA Calculation
ThefollowingexampleusestheNCHRPReportoutlinetoperformanLCCAforapotentialstormwatersystem.
Thesystembeinganalyzedconsistsof150linearfeetof12Ͳinchportlandcementconcretepipeconnectedto
two48”manholes.
TableEWͲ4.1showstheinitialconstructioncostsassociatedwiththepotentialstormwatersystem.
TableEWͲ4.1:Initialconstructioncosts.
Costof150LFof12"ConcretePipe $1,200.00
Costof248"Manholes $4,800.00
RightofWayCost $100.00
TotalInitialConstructionCost $6,100.00

TableEWͲ4.2showssomeoftheothercostsassociatedwiththestormwatersystem,includingsalvagevalue,
interestrate,anddesignlife.
TableEWͲ4.2:IncidentalCosts
AnnualMaintenanceCost $300.00
SalvageValue $750.00
InterestRate 4.00%
DesignLife(Years) 30

Tobeginthelifecyclecostanalysis,allofthefutureandannualcostsassociatedwiththesystemmustbe
convertedintoapresentworthvalue.
First,theannualmaintenancecostisconvertedintoapresentworthusingEquationEWͲ4.1:
EquationEWͲ4.1:
ܲ ൌ ܣሺ
ሺͳ ൅݅ሻ

െ ͳ
݅ሺͳ ൅݅ሻ

ൌ ͵ͲͲሺ
ሺͳ ൅ǤͲͶሻ
ଷ଴
െ ͳ
Ǥ ͲͶሺͳ ൅ǤͲͶሻ
ଷ଴
ൌ ̈́ͷͳͺ͹Ǥ͸ͳ
Secondly,thesalvagevalueisconvertedintoapresentworthusingEquationEWͲ4.2:
EquationEWͲ4.2:
ܲ ൌ
ܨ
ሺͳ ൅݅ሻ


͹ͷͲ
ሺͳ ൅ǤͲͶሻ
ଷ଴
ൌ ̈́ʹ͵ͳǤʹͶ
Thetotalinitialcostisthenfoundbyaddingthetotalconstructioncoststothetwocalculatedpresentworth
values.Thismakesthetotalcostassociatedwiththisstormwatersystem$11,518.85.
174
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-4 Stormwater Cost Analysis
Next,byannualizingthisvalueusingEquationEWͲ4.3,itcanbeshownthattheannualcostforthenew
stormwatersystemwillbe$666.14peryearfora30yearlifetime.
EquationEWͲ4.3:
ܣ ൌ ܲ
݅ሺͳ ൅݅ሻ

ሺͳ ൅ ݅ሻ

െͳ
ൌ ͳͳǡͷͳͺǤͺͷ
Ǥ ͲͶሺͳ ൅ ǤͲͶሻ
ଷ଴
ሺͳ ൅ ǤͲͶሻ
ଷ଴
െͳ
ൌ ̈́͸͸͸ǤͳͶ
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Complexityofthecostanalysiswillbeproportionaltotheextentandlaborinvolvedininstallingthe
stormwaterutilitiessystem.
2. LCCAdoesnotnecessarilyreflecttheactualcostorfunctionalityofthefinishedstormwatersystem.
RESEARCH
Manyagencies’projectevaluationprocessconsidersonlytheinitialcapitalcostsofprojectswithoutconsidering
longͲtermoperationsandmaintenance.Focusingonlyoncapitalcostsmakesitlesslikelythatprojectswilladopt
stormwatercontrolsthatmayhavehigherinitialcosts,butarelessexpensivetooperateandmaintaininthelong
term.TherearealsononͲmonetaryrisksandcostsassociatedwithstormwatersystemsthatarerelevantto
decisionͲmakingsuchaspermanentlandusechangesassociatedwithdetentionponds,acommonfeatureof
conventionalstormwaterinfrastructure.
Overallcapitalandmaintenancecostsarenottheonlycoststhatshouldbeinvolvedinthelifecyclecost
assessment.Thecostofactuallytreatingthestormwatershouldbeincludedaswell.Preliminaryestimatesin
NCHRPReport565showthatthecostoftreatingstormwatercanvaryfrom$0.10to$3.00pergallonbasedonthe
treatmentmethodology(Huberet.al,2006).
Drasticchangestostormwatersystemscanaffectbothwaterqualityandflowrates.Evaluatingbothinalifecycle
costanalysisaswellasawaterqualityanalysiscanbeaneffectivemethodofdesignevaluation.Thedesignteam
shouldensurethattheoverallgoalsofthestormwatersystemarenotgeneratedspecificallyoncost,but
functionalityaswell(Huberet.al.,2006).Otherpossiblefactorstoconsiderindesignevaluationincludeexisting
infrastructure,propertyownership,healthandsafety,andvolumereduction(Huberet.al,2006).
Casestudiesof17lowͲimpactdevelopmentinstallationsforstormwaterflowcontrolandqualitymanagement
werecompletedbytheEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyin2007.ResultsofthestudyshowedthatapplyingLID
techniquesusuallyreducedprojectcostsandhadtheaddedbenefitofimprovedenvironmentalperformance(for
bothflowcontrolandqualityofdischarge).Insomecases,LIDwasmoreexpensivethanconventionalbest
managementpractices,dueinparttocontractorunfamiliarity.Inmostcases,significantcapitalcostswere
reducedbyavoidinggrading,stormwaterinfrastructure,additionalpavingandvegetation.Savingsrangedfrom15Ͳ
80percentwiththefewexceptionsmentioned(EPA,2007).
GLOSSARY
LCCA Lifecycle costanalysis

REFERENCES
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(2007).ReducingStormwaterCoststhroughLowImpactDevelopment(LID)
StrategiesandPractices.[PublicationNumberEPA841ͲFͲ07Ͳ006,December2007
HuberW.C.,Strecker,E.W.,Heaney,J.P.,&Weinstein,N.(2006).EvaluationofBestManagementPracticesand
LowImpactDevelopmentforHighwayRunoffControlUser’sGuideforBMP/LIDSelectionGuidelinesManual.
NationalCooperativeResearchProgram.
175
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Stormwater Cost Analysis EW-4

176
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-5 Site Vegetation
SITE VEGETATION
GOAL
Promotesustainablesitevegetationthatdoesnotrequireirrigation.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Sitevegetationshallbesubjecttothefollowingrequirementsinordertoreceivethe
pointslisted:
x 1point:UsenonͲinvasiveplantspeciesonly
x 1point:Donotusewater(noirrigation)aftertheplantestablishmentperiod
x 1point:Usenativeplantspeciesonly
Details
“Sitevegetation”isdefinedasallvegetationassociatedwithaparticularroadway
projectandshallincludeallvegetationwithintheroadway’srightͲofͲway.Thiscan
includeroadsidevegetation,decorativeplanting(e.g.,planterboxesorpotted
plantsinurbanareas)andvegetationcontainedinstormwaterfacilities(e.g.,
bioswalesandraingardens).
Thefollowingitemsmustbeperformedtoensurethataplantspeciesisconsidered
“nonͲinvasive”:
1. Consultexistinglocal(e.g.city,county,state,parkservice)vegetationpolicy
andprocedurethatisapplicabletotheroadwayprojectandisspecifically
formulatedtopreventtheuseofinvasiveplantspeciesandnoxiousweeds.
2. Uselocaland/orregionalliststoidentifyinvasiveplantspecies.
3. Complywithlocaland/ornationalnoxiousweedlaws.
“Nowateruse”meansthatthesitevegetationwillnotrequireanyirrigationafter
theplantestablishmentperiod.The“plantestablishmentperiod”shallbestatedin
theprojectspecifications.Typicalplantestablishmentperiodsare1Ͳ3years.This
requirementmeansthatvegetationrequiringirrigationsuchasseasonalplanter
boxescannotreceivetheassociatedpointevenifitisfullycomprisedofnonͲ
invasiveornativespecies.
“Nativeplantspecies”areplantsnativetotheEPALevelIIIecoregionthatcontains
theroadwayprojectsiteorknowntonaturallyoccurwithin200milesofthe
roadwayconstructionsite(TheSustainableSitesInitiative,2009a).
DOCUMENTATION
x Avegetationorlandscapeplanshowingtypeandlocationofallplantspecies.This
canoftenbefoundinthestandardprojectplans.
x Thespecificationsectionsrelatingtositevegetationincludingplantingbed
requirements.Thesearetypicallyfoundinthetechnicalspecifications.
x Acopyoforreferenceto(e.g.,webaddress)thepolicyorprocedureusedtoselect
plantspecies.
EW-5
1-3 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ10Site
MaintenancePlan
9 EWͲ3RunoffQuality
9 EWͲ6Habitat
Restoration
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Economy
9 Equity
9 Extent
BENEFITS
9 ReducesWaterUse
9 ReducesWater
Pollution
9 ReducesGreenhouse
Gases
9 ReducesSolidWaste
9 IncreasesAesthetics
177
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Site Vegetation EW-5
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
UseaPreͲDefinedListofApprovedPlants
Inmanycasesthelocalroadowner(e.g.,City,County,Stateorotherauthority)alreadyhasapreͲdefinedlistof
acceptableplantspeciesforsitevegetation.Usually,theselistshavebeencarefullydevelopedtoexcludeinvasive
plantsandnoxiousweeds;howevertheyshouldstillbecheckedagainstlocal/regionallistsandlaws.Oftentimes,
thesepreͲdefinedlistsalsoidentifynativeplantsanddroughttolerantplants(e.g.,nowateruse).Followingsuch
listscanoftenachievethenonͲinvasivespeciespointandzerowaterusepoint.Selectingnativeplantsspecies
(whichmayalsobeidentifiedontheselists)canthenearnthethirdpoint.
PreͲdefinedlistsareadvantageousbecausetheyarestraightforwardandeasytofollow;plantsareeitheronthe
listornot.However,whenusedalonetheymaynotprovideadequateguidanceonestablishinglongͲterm
ecosystemgoals,managementofsitevegetationafterplanting,appropriatelocationanddensityofvegetationand
othermoreadvancedconcepts.
FollowaPreͲDefinedProcess
Itmaybepossibletoidentifyasitevegetationprocessthathasbeenapprovedoradoptedbythelocalauthority.
Theseprocessestypicallyidentifythesitevegetationstrategyanddescribetheactionsandmajorstepsneededto
establishsitevegetation.Theseplanscanbecomplex,suchasWesternFederalLandsHighwayDivision’sRoadside
Revegetation:AnIntegratedApproachtoEstablishingNativePlants(Steinfeldetal.2007)ormoregeneralin
naturelikeXeriscapeColorado(ColoradoWaterwise2009).
SustainableSitesInitiative
OnerobustpreͲdefinedprocessisassociatedwiththeSustainableSitesInitiative(www.sustainablesites.org).
Thisis“aninterdisciplinaryeffort…tocreatevoluntarynationalguidelinesandperformancebenchmarksfor
sustainablelanddesign,constructionandmaintenancepractices.”(TheSustainableSiteInitiative2009c).A
roadwayprojectparticipatingintheSustainableSitesInitiativeprogramandrecognizedasa“sustainablesite”
wouldlikelyqualityforatleast1pointinthisVoluntaryCreditand,dependinguponwhichSustainableSites
creditbenchmarksareachieved,couldachieveall3points.Overall,theSustainableSitesInitiativeisamore
robustsetofbenchmarksforsitevegetationthanGreenroadsbecauseitsscopeislimitedtositedevelopment
anddoesnotincluderoadways,mobility,accessorothermetricsassociatedwithtransportation.
HaveanExpertDevelopaSiteͲSpecificVegetationStrategy
Intheabsenceofexistingguidance,itmaybenecessarytohaveanexpertdevelopanentirelynewsiteͲspecific
vegetationplan.Whilethisisanacceptableoption,theexpertiseandtimetodeveloptheplancanbeexpensivein
relationtotheamountofsitevegetation;especiallyonsmallprojectswherevegetationislimited.Inadditionto
carefulselectionofappropriateplants,plandevelopmentrequiresconsiderationofplantingbedspecifications,
topsoilneeds,andplantingtechniques.Finally,longtermmaintenanceplansandgoalsmustbeestablishedforthe
plantcommunity.
Example: City of Portland, OR
TheCityofPortland’sBureauofPlanningandSustainabilityhasmaintainedaPortlandPlantListsince1991.
Thislistincludes:
x Nativeplants.PlantshistoricallyfoundintheCityofPortland.Theyaregroupedbytype(tree,arborescent
shrubs,shrubsandgroundcovers)andincludethescientificname,commonname,andwetlandindicator
statusandhabitattype.
x Nuisanceplants.Plantsthatcanberemovedmanuallywithoutrequiringanenvironmentalreviewor
greenwayreview.Plantsareconsideredanuisancebecausetheyhaveatendencytodominateplant
communitiesorareharmfultohumans.Nuisanceplantsmaybenative,exoticornaturalized.
x Prohibitedplants.Plantsprohibitedfromuseinallreviewedlandscapingsituations.Theseplantsposea
seriousthreattonativeplantandanimalhealth/vitality.
178
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-5 Site Vegetation
Example: City of Seattle, WA
TheCityofSeattleprovidesguidanceforprojectsitevegetationusing:
x DepartmentofTransportationsuggestedplantlistforstreetuse.
x Linkstoplantselectiondatabases.
x Treeprotectionordinance,specificationsandstandardplans.
x Heritagetreeprogram.
x Recommendedstreettreelist.
x Landscapestandardplans.
Thesuggestedplantlistforstreetuseiscalledthe“SeattleGreenFactorPlantList”
(http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/static/Green%20Factor%20Plant%20List_LatestReleased_DPDP015968.pdf).
Example: Western Federal Lands Highway Division
In2007,WesternFederalLandsHighwayDivision(WFLHD)publishedanativerevegetationmanual(Steinfeld
etal.2007)thattheynowuseastheirstandardprocessforrevegetatingdisturbedlandonroadwayprojects.
Thismanualdoesnotprovideaspecificplantlistbutratherdescribesacomprehensiveprocessforroadside
revegetationandcreationofasustainableplantcommunity.Thisprocessincludes(1)necessaryintegration,(2)
initiation,(3)planning,(4)implementationand(5)monitoring,andisillustratedonthewebat:
www.nativerevegetation.org.
Example: Sustainable Sites Initiative Case Studies
TheSustainableSitesInitiativewebsitecontainsanumberofcasestudiesdemonstratingsustainablelandscape
practicesat:http://www.sustainablesites.org/cases
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Siteplantingwithoutproperintegrationwithotherroadwayactivities(e.g.,maintenance,roadsidesafety).
2. Inadequateplantestablishment.
3. Notconsideringthesuitabilityofaplantspeciesspecificforsiteconditionsincludingcold/heattolerance,salt
toleranceandsoilpH,sun/shaderequirements,pestsusceptibility,andmaintenancerequirements(The
SustainableSitesInitiative2009).Theroadwayenvironmentmightbesignificantlydifferentfromthe
surroundingarea,andmaynotnecessarilysupportitsindigenousplantspecies.
4. Sitevegetationmustbeconsideredinthecontextofsoils,compaction,slopes,andhydrologyinordertobe
successfulonroadprojects.
5. Disturbedsoilconditionsmustbemodifiedtocreateconditionsthatwillsustainnativeplantgrowth.Planting
bedsshouldbepreparedbasedondisturbedconditionsandspecifiedinprojectdocuements.
6. ThisGreenroadscreditdoesnotcurrentlytrackprojectsbeyondconstructiontoensurecontinuedmaintenance
andnowateruse.

RESEARCH
Sitevegetationcanimpactfourprimaryroadwaysustainabilitycomponents:ecology,economic,equityandextent.
Inthebroadsense,argumentsforsustainablesitevegetationcenterontheircontributiontothelocalecosystem,
whichleadstobroadargumentsforhowecosystemsandecosystemservicesaffecttheseareasofsustainability.In
amorenarrowsense,argumentsforsustainablesitevegetationcenteronhowtheymayinfluenceprojectspecific
ecologicalissues,costs,safety,culture,anddurability.WhiletheseissuesareoftenthoughtofasselfͲevident,it
canbedifficulttofindquantifiableempiricalevidencetouseasproof.Thefollowingsectionsaddresssite
vegetationimpactsbycategory.
179
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Site Vegetation EW-5
Ecological
Sitevegetationispartofthelocalecosystem.TheMillenniumEcosystemAssessment(2005)definesanecosystem
as“…adynamiccomplexofplant,animal,andmicroorganismcommunitiesandthenonlivingenvironment
interactingasafunctionalunit.”Thesecanbesystemsrelativelyuntouchedbyhumans(e.g.,naturalforests)or
thosethathavebeensignificantlymodified(e.g.,urbanareasandagriculturallands)(MEA2005).Inlookingat
ecosystemsoverthelast50yearstheMillenniumEcosystemAssessment(2005)arrivedatfourmajorfindings:
x Overthepast50yearshumanshavechangedecosystemsmorerapidlyandextensivelythaninanycomparable
periodofhumanhistory.
x EcosystemchangeshavecontributedtosubstantialnetgainsinhumanwellͲbeingandeconomicdevelopment,
butthesegainsareattheexpenseofsubstantiallydiminishingthebenefitsthatfuturegenerationsobtainfrom
ecosystems.
x ThedegradationofecosystemservicescouldgrowsignificantlyworseduringthefirsthalfofthetwentyͲfirst
century.
x Reversingecosystemdegradationcanbedonebutinvolvessignificantchangesinpolicies,institutionsand
practicesthatarenotcurrentlyunderway.
Thus,totheextentthatsitevegetationhelpsmanageecosystemsmoresustainably,itcancontributepositively,
thoughperhapsonlyslightly,tothereversalofsomeofthedegradationseenoverthelast50years.Benefits
attributedtomoresustainablesitevegetationincludetheregionalandlocalimpactsoutlinedbelow(MEA2005):
Regional:
x Betterairquality
x Climateregulation
x Waterregulation
x Erosionregulation
x Waterquality
x Pestregulation
x Pollination
x Naturalhazardregulation

Local:
x Lowerwateruse
x Reducederosion
x PreventionofexoticplantspeciesfromoutͲcompetenativespecies
x BettersurvivabilityofsitevegetationbecauseitisbetterͲadaptedtothelocalenvironment(thoughplants
indigenoustothelocalecosystemarenotnecessarilysuitableforthealteredroadwayenvironment).
Economic
Aspartofthelocalecosystem,sitevegetationcan,inabroadsense,provideeconomicbenefitssuchascleanair,
cleanwater,food,renewableresourcesandwastedecomposition(TheSustainableSitesInitiative,2009b).Itis
difficulttovalueecosystemservicesproperlybecause(1)ourattemptstovaluethemaregenerallybasedon
humanvaluesandnotwhatmightbeconsideredobjectivevaluesets,and(2)theyarenotfullyvaluedor
quantifiedincommercialmarketsorpolicydecisions(Costanzaetal.1997).Nonetheless,attemptshavebeen
madetovalueecosystemservicesthatcanprovideinsight.Costanzaetal.(1997)provideacomprehensive
overviewonthevalueoftheworld’secosystemservicesbasedonasynthesisofpreviouswork.Inshort,they
foundarangeofpotentialvaluesofUS$16Ͳ54trillion/yrwithameanofUS$33trillion/yrfor17ecosystem
services(in1994USdollars).Thiscomparestoaworldgrossnationalproduct(GNP)ofUS$18trillion(1994US
dollars)makingecosystemservicesabout1.8timestheglobalGNPifthemeanvalueisassumed.Thisestimateis
basedonmarginalcostby“…determiningthedifferencesthatrelativelysmallchangesintheseservicesmaketo
humanwelfare.”(Costanzaetal.1997).Theyacknowledgethattheirestimatesareonthelowside,incomplete
andflawedbutreasonthatsomeestimateisbetterthannone(Costanzaetal.1997).
180
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-5 Site Vegetation
Inanarrowsense,sitevegetationcontributestoindividualprojectcostoveritslifecycleifcostssuchassite
maintenance,waterdemand,erosioncontrolandproblematicvegetationcontrolareconsidered(Steinfeldetal.
2007a).OneexampleofthiscomesfromtheCityofSantaMonicaintheirgarden\gardendemonstrationproject.In
thisprojecttheCityandWaterDistrictcomparedtwolandscapestrategies:sustainablevs.traditional(Santa
MonicaOfficeofSustainabilityandEnvironment2009).TableEWͲ5.1summarizessomefindingsfromthe
comparison.
TableEWͲ5.1:LandscapeComparisoninSantaMonica,CAfortheentireyearof2007
Category SustainableLandscape TraditionalLandscape
InitialConstructionCost $16,700 $12,400
WaterUse 14,300gallons 76,700gallons
AnnualWaterCost $14 $74
YardWaste 250lbs 670lbs
Maintenance 15hours 80hours
AnnualMaintenanceCost $800 $3,000

Itshouldbenotedthatdirectcomparisonsbetweensustainableandtraditionalvegetationwithactualvaluesfor
cost,wateruse,waste,etc.suchasthatdonebytheCityofSantaMonicaaredifficulttofind.
Equity
Aspartofthelocalecosystem,sitevegetationcanprovidehumanequitybenefitssuchasimprovedhumanhealth
(e.g.,betterwaterquality)andculturalserviceslikespiritualandreligiousvalues,recreationandaesthetics(MEA
2005).Onalocalscale,sitevegetationcancontributetoimprovedroadwaysafetybyimprovingvisibilityandcan
createnaturalbeautythatisappreciatedandvaluedbymotorists.
Extent
Sitevegetationcanalsohaveanimpactonthedurabilityofaparticularproject,whichaffectsprojectlifeoratleast
thelevelofnecessarymaintenancetoachieveaspecificprojectlife.Forinstance,nativerevegetationofahighway
roadsidecanbebetterthantraditionalnonͲnativeturfcoveragebecauseitcanhaveahigherprobabilityof
surviving,lastlonger,requirelessmaintenanceandbetterpreventsoilerosionbasedonadeeperandmorehearty
rootstructure(seecomparisonbetweenFiguresEWͲ5.1andEWͲ5.2).

FigureEWͲ5.1:Afailingrevegetationeffortonasteep
slopethatdidnotuseanativerevegetationapproach
(fromSteinfeldetal.2007a).
FigureEWͲ5.2:Anativeroadsiderevegetationin
GlacierNationalPark(fromSteinfeldetal.2007a,
photobyTaraLuna).

181
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Site Vegetation EW-5
GLOSSARY
Nativeplant PlantthatisnativetotheEPALevelIIIecoregionthatcontainstheroadway
projectsiteorknowntonaturallyoccurwithin200milesoftheroadway
constructionsite(SustainableSitesInitiative,2009a).
Plantestablishmentperiod Durationoftimethatallowsnewlyinstalledvegetationtoreachastateof
maturitythatrequiresminimalongoingmaintenanceforsurvival.
Activitiesduringtheplantestablishmentperiodcaninclude:removalof
litterandtrash,weeding,waterapplication(evenfornonͲirrigated
vegetation),replacementofdeadplantsandpestcontrol(includingthe
useofapprovedpesticides).
Xeriscape Asetofgardeningprinciplesdesignedtosavewaterwhilecreatingalushand
colorfullandscape.

REFERENCES
ColoradoWaterwise.(2009).XeriscapeColorado.Website.AccessedNovember25,2009.
http://coloradowaterwise.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=88&Itemid=145.
Costanza,R.,d’Arge,R.,deGroot,R.,Farber,S.,Grasso,M.,Hannon,B.,Limburg,K.,Naeem,S.,O’Neill,R.V.,
Paruelo,J.,Raskin,R.G.,Sutton,P.,vandenBelt,M.,(1997).Thevalueoftheworld’secosystemservicesand
naturalcapital.Nat.,387,253Ͳ260.
MillenniumEcosystemAssessment(MEA),(2005).EcosystemsandHumanWellͲbeing:Synthesis.IslandPress,
Washington,DC.
SantaMonicaOfficeofSustainabilityandEnvironment.(2009).Landscape:DemonstrationGardens.Website.City
ofSantaMonica,CA.AccessedNovember30,2009
http://www.smgov.net/Departments/OSE/Categories/Landscape/Demonstration_Gardens.aspx
Steinfeld,D.E.,Riley,S.A.,Wilkinson,K.M.,Landis,T.D.andRiley,L.E.(2007a).RoadsideRevegetation:An
IntegratedApproachtoEstablishingNativePlants.FHWAͲWFL/TDͲ07Ͳ005.FederalHighwayAdministration,
WesternFederalLandsHighwayDivision,Vancouver,WA.
Steinfeld,D.E.,Riley,S.A.,Wilkinson,K.M.,Landis,T.D.andRiley,L.E.(2007b).AManager’sGuidetoRoadside
RevegetationUsingNativePlants.FHWAͲWFL/TDͲ07Ͳ006.FederalHighwayAdministration,WesternFederal
LandsHighwayDivision,Vancouver,WA.
TheSustainableSitesInitiative.(2009a).GuidelinesandPerformanceBenchmarks.AmericanSocietyofLandscape
Architects,LadyBirdJohnsonWildflowerCenterattheUniversityofTexasatAustin,UnitedStatesBotanic
Garden.
TheSustainableSitesInitiative.(2009b).TheCaseforSustainableLandscapes.AmericanSocietyofLandscape
Architects,LadyBirdJohnsonWildflowerCenterattheUniversityofTexasatAustin,UnitedStatesBotanic
Garden.

182
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-6 Habitat Restoration
HABITAT RESTORATION
GOAL
Offsetthedestructionanddeteriorationofnaturalhabitatcausedbyroad
construction.Restoreandprotectnaturalhabitatbeyondregulatoryrequirements.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
CompleteOptionAorB.
OptionA–Forprojectsrequiredtomitigatehabitatimpactsthroughrestorative
practices(3points)
Implementarestoration/preservationplanthatrestoresand/orpreservesmorearea
by5%beyondwhatisrequiredsuchthatoneofthefollowingmetricsbelowismet:
1. Totalareaofrestoredand/orpreservedhabitatequalsorexceeds105%oftotal
requiredmitigationarea
2. Totalrestorationand/orrestorationcostequalsorexceeds105%oftotalcost
requiredforrestoration/preservationduetotheroadwayproject
OptionBͲForprojectsnotrequiredtomitigatehabitatimpactsthroughrestorative
practices(3points)
ConductabiologicalassessmentofthepreͲdevelopmentconditionoftheprojectsite
andsurroundingecosystemorwatershedandimplementarestorationplanthat
includesallsevenitemsbelow:
1. Restoresanareaequaltothetotaldisturbedsurfaceareaoftheroadwayproject.
2. Statesquantifiablegoalsregardingatleastoneoftheperformancemetricsoutlined
below.
3. Describesecologicaldesignorengineeringelementsthatareexpected,with
reasonableprofessionalcertainty,tomeetthegoalsstatedabove.
4. Listsresponsiblepartiesforrestorationactivitiesandsubsequentmonitoring
efforts.
5. Listssourcesoffundingforrestorationactivitiesandsubsequentmonitoring
efforts.
6. Completesrestorationactivitiespriortotheroadwayfacilityopenstotraffic,ideally
duringprojectplanning.
7. Issignedandapprovedbytheresponsiblepartiesortheprojectecologist.
Details
Disturbedsurfaceareaincludesallcutandfillsoilsforpavementareas,shoulders,
embankments,bridgeabutmentsandconstructionstagingareas.Inotherwords,
anyearthworkareathatisrequiredfortheroaditselfisincluded,butthearea
designatedforhabitatcreationorrestorationisnot.
Thetotalrequiredsurfaceareacanbemadeupofmultipletypesofrestorationand
preservationefforts,solongastheprojectteamcanshowthatthetotalrestored
andpreservedareasmeettheaboverequirements.
Preservedhabitatareasmaynotbepreviouslydesignatedopenspace.Preservation
designationsmustbedirectlyassociatedwiththeprojectandbeinplaceby40
EW-6
3 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 EWͲ2RunoffFlow
Control
9 EWͲ3RunoffQuality
9 EWͲ5SiteVegetation
9 EWͲ7Ecological
Connectivity
9 EWͲ8LightPollution
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Equity
9 Extent
9 Experience
BENEFITS
9 RestoresHabitat
9 CreatesHabitat
9 ReducesManmade
Footprint
9 IncreasesAesthetics
183
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Habitat Restoration EW-6
yearsaftertheendofconstruction,theexpecteddesignlifetimeoftheproject,orlocalregulations,whichever
islongest.Preservationareasmustalsobe:
x Formallydesignatedpermanentasopenspaceaccordingtothedefinitionsofthegoverningagencyor
zoningauthority.
x Clearlyandpubliclyattributedtotheworkdonefortheroadwayproject.
x Compliantwithallapplicablezoningrequirementsofthejurisdiction.
x Appropriatelyvegetatedforthelocationandcontext.
Thefollowingperformancemetricsareconsideredsuitableforachievingcreditwherearestorationplanis
developed:
x Forroadwayswithwatershedsreceivingstormwaterrunofffromtheroadway,determinethe
predevelopmentIndexofBiologicalIntegrity(IBI)aspartofthebiologicalassessment.PredevelopmentIBI
(forpurposesofthiscreditonly)meansthereferenceconditionforthismetricthatisestablished
exclusivelyforrestorationworkfortheroadwayproject,measuredwithinareasonableamountoftime
priortogroundbreakingofconstruction.SetatargetIBIthatmeetsorexceedspredevelopmentconditions.
x Forroadwayprojectsincludingstreamrestoration,setatargetlimitonunstableslopes.Thistargetshould
notexceedpredevelopmentconditions.Inaddition,establishaminimumriparianbufferwidthforthe
stream.
x Forforestrestoration,maintainareasofinteriorhabitatequaltopredevelopmentconditions.Interior
habitatrequirements(distancetoforestedge)shouldbedefinedinthebiologicalassessment.
x RestorationofBrownfieldsitesmustresultinremovalofBrownfieldstatus.Thisshouldresultinlandthatis
suitablefordevelopment.NotethatthisincludesBrownfieldlandusedfortheroadwaycorridor.
x Ifaspecificspeciesisthetargetofarestorationplan,setpopulationgoalsforthetargetspecies.Plantand
animalspeciesarebothacceptable,butmustbenativetotheprojectregion.
x Otherrestorationgoalsasrecommendedbytheprojectecologist,biologist,orotherrestorationexpert.
Justificationofthisgoalshouldbeincludedintherestorationplan.
Whilethesemetricsrepresentimportantperformanceindicators,theoverallgoaloftherestorationproject
shouldbepromotionofbiodiversityandcreationofdynamic,functioninghabitat.
DOCUMENTATION
x Copyoftheexecutivesummaryfromthebiologicalassessment.
x Copyoftherestoration/preservationplan,highlightingtheboundariesoftherestoredareasandtheroadway
project.Ifoffsite,provideseparateplansshowingbothareas.
x Copyofthescheduleofrestorationactivitiesorpreservationeffortsdemonstratingthatthecompletionofall
restorationactivitiesandpreservationeffortscoincideswithoroccurspriortoopeningtotraffic.
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x FollowtheguidelinesforhabitatrestorationoutlinedintheFederalHighwayAdministrationEcoͲlogical:An
EcosystemApproachtoDevelopingInfrastructureProjects(Brown,2006).EcoͲlogicalcanalsobeusedfor
guidanceindevelopmentofregionalecologicalframeworks.Thisdocumentisavailableat:
http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_index.asp
x Involveanecologistorotherbiologicalprofessionalearlyintheplanningphaseoftheprojecttodetermine
feasibilityofrestorationwork.
x Coordinatewithlandusemanagementagenciesearlyintheplanningphaseoftheprojecttodeterminescope
andsignificanceofpotentialrestorationactivities.
x CoordinatewithwatermanagementagenciesearlyintheplanningphaseoftheprojecttodetermineIBIforthe
biologicalassessment,especiallyinthecaseswherestormwaterrunofffromroadwaysisnottreated.
184
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-6 Habitat Restoration
x Usegeographicinformationsystems(GIS)mappingsoftwaretodeterminecalculationsfordisturbedand
restoredsurfaceareas.
x Anticipatethatrestorationactivitiestakeasignificantamountofthoughtfulplanning,andarebeststartedprior
totheconstructionoftheroadwayproject.
x Startacommunitystreammonitoringeffort.Mostbioindicatorspeciescanbeidentifiedbyamateursandthose
willingtolearnwellenoughtoestablishatleastafamilytaxonomiclevel.(UniversityofWashington,2001)
x Collaboratewithadjacentgoverningagenciestocreatemutuallybeneficial(andpotentiallymutuallyfunded)
restorationprojectsinconjunctionwiththeroadway.
x Coordinatewithwaterresourcesprofessionalsearlyintheplanningphaseoftheprojecttodevelopand
implementawatershedmanagementplanintandemwithahabitatconservationplan(Brown,2006).Roadway
projectscanbeintegratedintobothtypesofplans,includingestablishingminimumgoalsfortreatmentof
stormwaterimpactsonwaterqualityforreceivingwaterbodiesandpreservationofaquatichabitat.
x Avoidintroductionofinvasivespeciesthroughlandscapingactivities.SeealsoCreditEWͲ5SiteVegetation.
Example: Off-Site Mitigation - Springbrook Creek Wetland & Habitat Mitigation Bank
TheSpringbrookCreekWetland&HabitatMitigationBankwasacombinationofwetlandenhancementand
restorationcovering130acresinRenton,Washington.Theseeffortswereaimedatmitigatingtheincreased
runoffcausedbyconstructionofadditionallanesonInterstate405andfutureregionaltransportationprojects,
aswellascreatingwildlifehabitat.Theprojectsiteislocatedinanareasurroundedbyheavydevelopmentand
twomajorfreeways.Anemphasiswasplacedontheplantingofalargevarietyandnumberofnativeplants,
enhancingtheattractivenessofthesitetolocalfauna.Inaddition,aboardwalkwasconstructedthroughthe
sitetoraisepublicawarenessoftheimportanceofwetlandhabitat.ConstructionwascompletedinJune,2009.
FiguresEWͲ6.2andEWͲ6.3showtherestoredwetlandandboardwalk,aswellaslocalwildlife.
Moreinformationonthisprojectisavailableat:http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/i405/Springbrook/

FigureEWͲ6.2:GeesefamilyintheSpringbrookCreekwetland(PhotobyWSDOT)

185
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Habitat Restoration EW-6

FigureEWͲ6.3:Greatblueheronperchedonboardwalk(PhotobyWSDOT)

Example: Management Tools for Habitat Restoration
Thereareseveralguidancedocumentsavailableforroadwayprojectsonwatershedassessmentandhabitat
restorationfrommanypublicagencies.
x StateWildlifeActionPlans.Comprehensivewildlifeconservationstrategiesaremandatedbythefederal
governmentandmanagedbythestates.Thesestrategiesofferbroadreachingwildlifegoalstailoredto
eachstate.Helpfulresources,includingsampleplans,areavailablethroughtheAssociationofFish&
WildlifeAgencies:http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org
x EPA’sHandbookforDevelopingWatershedPlanstoProtectandRestoreOurWaters.EPAprovidesawealth
ofinformationalresourcesonwatershedplanning:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm
x TheNationalActionPlantoImplementtheHydrogeomorphicApproachtoAssessingWetlandFunctions.
Thisactionplanprovideswaystomeasurewatershedfunctions:
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/hgm.cfm

Example: Indiana Department of Transportation and Indiana Bat Habitat
TheneedforhighwayimprovementsneartheIndianapolisInternationalAirportbroughttogetherseveral
agencies,includingtheIndianaDepartmentofTransportationandthelocalFederalHighwayAdministration,to
developaplantoprotectandconservelocalhabitatfortheIndianabat,anendangeredspecies.Theplan,
calledtheHCP(HabitatConservationPlan)hasthefollowingfeaturesthatwouldhelpmeetthiscredit:
x 3,600acresprotected(approximately10%existingbathabitat)
x 346acresofnewlyplantedhabitat
x Apublicoutreachprogram
x A15Ͳyearmonitoringprogram

TheHCPwascompletedinconjunctionwithapproximately$1.5billioninhighwayimprovementsinanarea
forecastedforhighurbangrowth.MoreinformationabouttheHCPcanbefoundinEcoͲLogical(Brown,2006).

POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Ecologistsandenvironmentalengineersarenotalwaysawareofallbiologicalorhabitatneedsofallspecies
thatmaybetargetedforahabitat,norcanalloftheresourcestomeettheseneedsbeacquiredinallcases.
Thus,thereisalargeamountofuncertaintyunderlyingmanyecologicalassumptionsmade.
186
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-6 Habitat Restoration
2. Restoredorengineeredwetlandandhabitatareasmayfunctionwell,butplacementwithinalargelydeveloped
areacanseverelylimitinteractionofspecieswithinthesite.
3. Adjacenthabitatcaninfluencewhetheratargetspeciescanuseasitebecausemanyspeciesusemultiple
habitatsaspartoftheirlifecycle.Inparticular,mostlargespeciesalsodonotliveinonehabitatduringtheir
entirelife.
4. Habitatagecaninfluencethedegreetowhichspeciesuseanarea.Createdsitesarealwaysecologicallyyoung.
5. Completingrestorationactivitiesintandemwithroadwayconstructionmaynotbeoptimal.Mitigating
activitiessuchasrestorationsoftenfunctionbestwhencompletedpriortothestartofconstructionsothatthe
newlymitigatedhabitatcanstabilizeandbefullyfunctional.Specificityofdesigndoesnotnecessarilydictate
successfulusebyparticularspeciesofwildlife.Detailedtargetingeffortsdonotalwayswork,evenifspeciesͲ
specificdesignfeaturesofahabitatareincorporated.
6. Duringthelifetimeofahabitat,alltargetedspeciesmayusethesite,butnotnecessarilyallatthesametime.
Monitoringexpectationsshouldthereforebesetaccordingly.
7. Somehabitatscannotbefullyrestoredtopredevelopmentconditions.
8. Lossofbiodiversityorspeciesdiversityisdifficult,ifnotimpossible,toreplace.
9. Manynewlyrestoredhabitats,especiallysensitiveorcriticalones,maynotfunctionasefficientlyoreffectively
asplannedandintended.Onlysomeofthefunctionsmaybesuccessfullyreplacedorimprovedartificially.
10. Plannersanddesignersshouldbetakentoavoidlocatingorcreatingpotentiallysensitivehabitatnearedges
andboundariesofroadwayprojects.Wherepossible,theroadwayclearzoneshouldbemaintainedtopreserve
safetyandvisibility.
11. Monitoringanddatacollectioneffortsshouldbetiedtoperformancemetricsdeterminedduringtheplanning
stageofrestorationprojectstomakethemmeaningful.
RESEARCH
NaturalecosystemsprovideavarietyofimportantservicestobothhumanandnonͲhumanlife,andrelyonawide
arrayofcomplexinteractionstofunction.Inevitably,thechangeoflandusebyhumandevelopmentcandisrupt
thesedelicateprocesses,oreliminateimportantareasofecosystemaltogether.Habitatrestorationistheprocess
ofretainingthenaturalfunctionalityofagivenimpactedecosystem,throughlocalimprovementorthecreationof
analogousecosystemelsewhere.Inpractice,manyrestorationprojectsareaimedatrestoringwatershed
managementactivities,knownas“wetlandrestoration”.However,restorationcanapplytodamagednonͲaqueous
ecosystemsaswell,whicharenotalwaysregulatedtosimilarstandards.Whilerestorationeffortsareoften
orientedtowardsaparticularecosystemfunction,itisrecognizedthatecosystemsfunctionmosteffectivelyunder
naturalconditions(EPA,1994).Restorationisadelicateprocessrequiringsignificantknowledgeofthespecific
ecosystemathand,andmonitoringeffortsareusuallyrequiredtoensurethecontinuingsuccessofarestored
habitat.Legalmandates(primarilytheCleanWaterAct)andorpoliticaldirectivesgenerallydictatethetypeand
methodofmostwatershedrestorationprocesses,aswellasmonitoringrequirements.
RoadsandHabitatLoss
Roadsandhighwayscannegativelyimpactnaturalhabitatinanumberofways.Theseimpactshavetraditionally
beendividedintodestruction,fragmentation,anddegradationofhabitat(EPA,1994;Amentetal,2008).
Destructionreferstotheactualreplacementofhabitatbyroadwayplacement.Thisincludestheroadwayitselfas
wellasanysubstantiallyalteredcorridor.Fragmentationisthebreakingupofremaininghabitatandeliminationof
criticalmigrationpathways.Inaddition,fragmentationofhabitatareaincreasestheproportionof“edge”habitat
exposedtotheoutsideenvironment,whichcanhavesignificantlydifferentcharacteristicsfrominteriorhabitat
(FuentesͲMontemayoretAl,2009).Degradationinvolvesdisturbancestosurroundinghabitatduetofactorssuch
asnoise,pollutantcontamination,andothersecondaryimpacts.Roadconstruction,forexample,canintroduce
invasivespecies,altersoilproperties,increaseerosion,etc.(FormanandAlexander,1998).
Aparticularlyimportantdegradationeffectofroadsisthecreationofpollutedrunoff.Asaresultoftherangeof
thesevariousimpacts,roadconstructiondisturbshabitatinanareamuchgreaterthantheactualroadway
corridor.BecauseroadscoverapproximatelyonepercentoftheUnitedStates,theirecologicaleffectshave
widespreadimpacts(FormanandAlexander,1998).
187
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Habitat Restoration EW-6
TheImportanceofHabitatLoss
NaturalecosystemsprovideavarietyofimportantservicestobothhumanandnonͲhumanlife,andrelyonthe
presenceofsuitablehabitattofunction.Lossofhabitatdisruptstheimportantbenefitsoftheseecosystems.
Naturalprocesseshaveimportantfunctions:maintainingairandwaterquality,regulatingclimate,productionof
goods,andotherimportantprocesses(Wilson,2002).Theglobalvalueoftheseserviceshasbeenestimatedtobe
between16and54trilliondollarsannually(Constanzaetal,1997).
Inaroadwaysetting,preservationofsurroundinghabitatcanaidinstormwatercontrol,afunctionmade
increasinglyimportantbytheextrarunoffcreatedbytheroadwayitself(NCHRP,2006).Inaddition,habitat
destructionleadstothereductionofbiodiversity(Wilson,2002).Societalacceptanceofthevalueofbiodiversityin
theU.S.hasbeenexemplifiedexplicitlyinlegislationsuchastheEndangeredSpeciesAct(1973),whichstatesthat
“speciesoffish,wildlife,andplantsareofesthetic,ecological,educational,historical,recreational,andscientific
valuetotheNationanditspeople“.Inaddition,biodiversityisoftenconsideredaneconomicgoodbasedonits
importanceinscience,industry,andmedicine.Therefore,preservationofbiodiversityisvitaltobothtoecosystem
healthandhumanhealth(Wilson,2002).
PrecedentforRestoration
MostoftherequiredhabitatrestorationintheUnitedStatesismandatedbySection404oftheCleanWaterAct,
whichregulatesactivityinU.S.watersincludingwetlands.Toobtainapermitunderthisact,thedevelopermust
showthatmeasureshavebeentakentoavoidandreducewetlandimpacts,andthatanynecessaryimpactshave
beencompensatedfor(EPA,2009a).Habitatrestorationcanbeconsideredaformofcompensationthroughthe
creationofnewwetlandenvironments.Constructionofwetlandshasalsotraditionallybeenusedasa“bestͲ
managementpractice”foracquisitionofapermitundertheNationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem
(NPDES),whichisgenerallyrequiredbytheCleanWaterActwhenconstructionwillcausepollutantdischargeto
surfacewaters(NCHRP,2006).
Inaddition,habitatrestorationcanbeemployedtomeettherequirementsoftheEndangeredSpeciesAct.Actions
whichwouldcauseincidentalharmtoaconservedspecies(includinghabitatloss)requiresubmittalofaHabitat
ConservationPlan(HCP).TheseHCP’smustshowthat“theapplicantwill,tothemaximumextentpracticable,
minimizeandmitigatetheimpactsofthetaking”.Similartotheprovisionsofthecleanwateract,restorationof
previouslydisturbedhabitatcansatisfyrequirementsformitigationefforts.(U.S.FWS,2009)
BrownfieldRestoration
Thetermbrownfieldreferstoanareainwhichdevelopmentorusehasbeencomplicatedbyathreatof
contamination.Thisiscommonlyaresultofpreviousindustrialusebutiscausedbyotheractivitiesaswell.
Remediationoftheseareas,whichusuallyinvolvessoilandgroundwatercleanup,canconvertthelandbackto
usablecondition.Thisincreasesthevalueofthepropertyandcanhelppreserveundevelopedland.Private
developersareoftenreluctanttoremediatebrownfieldsduetofinancialrisksandliabilityissues,howevermany
differentgovernmentagenciesincentivizetheseactivities(Opp,2009).TheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)
hascreatedaBrownfieldsProgramthatprovidesfundingtobrownfieldrevitalizationprojects,whichhasinturn
contributedtohigherlevelsofownerinvestment,creationofjobs,andincreasesinnearbypropertyvalues(EPA,
2009).Inaddition,eachstatehastheirownbrownfieldprogram,providingvaryinglevelsoffundingandliability
protectionforcleanupefforts(Opp,2009).
Anumberoftreatmentmethodsexistfortheremovalofhazardouspollutantsfromsoilandgroundwater.These
canbebrokendownintotechniquesthatremovecontaminantsthroughbiological,chemical,orphysicalprocesses
(Hamby,1996).Bioremediationreferstotheuseofmicroorganismsthatcanbreakdownortransformdangerous
chemicalcompoundsthroughtheirownmetabolicpathways.Whenappropriate,thiscanbealowͲcostalternative
tootherremediationoptions(Hamby,1996,EPA,1991).Phytoremediation,anotherexampleofabiological
approach,usesplantstocleansoilandgroundwaterthroughsorptionandwateruptake.Chemicalmethodsrelyon
theintroductionofcompoundsthatcandestroy,transform,bindto,orotherwiserendercontaminantsharmless.
Finally,physicaltechniquesincludetreatmentssuchasstripping,pumping,andwashingofthesoilorwaterin
question(Hamby,1996).Bothofthesecategoriesaretonumerousandvariedtobediscussedindetailhere.
188
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-6 Habitat Restoration
IndexofBiologicalIntegrity
TheIndexofBiologicalIntegrity(IBI)isamultiͲmetricassessmenttoolthatcharacterizesthebiological
functionalityofawaterbodybasedonanumberofsensitivebiologicalmeasures.Specifically,IBI(andother
derivativesofthismetric)measurestheimpactsofhumanactivitiesonbiologicalcommunities.Integrityofliving
systemswithinawaterbodyisrequiredtoperformnecessaryecosystemservices(KarrandChu,1997).Thus,
“biologicalintegrity”isthe“abilitytosupportandmaintainabalanced,integratedadaptiveassemblageof
organismshavingspeciescomposition,diversity,andfunctionalorganizationcomparabletothatofnaturalhabitat
oftheregion"(KarrandDudley,1981).Asaresult,theIBIprovidesimportantinformationabouttheconditionofa
waterbodyrelativetosurroundinglevelsofhumaninfluence.AkeypointisthatdeterminationoftheIBIrequires
trainedbiologistsfamiliarwiththespecificaquaticecosystem.
Additionally,sinceitisarelativemeasure,useoftheIBIrequiresdeterminingareferenceconditionforthearea.
TheEPA(2006)describesthereferenceconditionforbiologicalintegrity,RC(BI),as“thenaturalbiological
conditionofawaterbody,undisturbedbyhumanactivity.Asaconceptualaid,itisusefultothinkofanabsolute
‘natural’orpristineconditionthatcouldexistintheabsenceofallhistoricalandcurrenthumandisturbances.This
definitionrecognizestheneedforareferenceconditiontermreservedfor‘naturalness’or’biologicalintegrity’
eventhoughwemightonlyapproximateitinmostpartsoftheworld.”Italsorequiressomelevelofdata
collection,someofwhichmayalreadybeestablishedviacontinuousmonitoring.DataforcomputingIBIscoresis
basedonthe“lowestpracticaltaxonomiclevel”whichmeanstothefurthesttaxonomicextentallowedbycurrent
science(UniversityofWashington,2001)forlocal“bioindicatorspecies”(EPA,2009b)forpurposesofthiscredit.
Examplesofcommonbioindicatorspeciesaremacroinvertebrates,whichareaquaticinsects(“benthos,”hence,
theBenthicͲIBI).
GLOSSARY
Benthos Greekformacroinvertebrates
BͲIBI BenthicIndexofBiologicalIntegrity
Biodiversity Totalnumberofspeciespresent
Bioindicator See“indicatorspecies”
BiologicalIntegrity Theabilitytosupportandmaintainabalanced,integratedadaptive
assemblageoforganismshavingspeciescomposition,diversity,and
functionalorganizationcomparabletothatofnaturalhabitatoftheregion
(KarrandDudley,1981).
Brownfield Anareamadeunsuitablefordevelopmentbyprevioususe,commonly
industrial.
EcosystemServices Naturalprocessesthatprovidebenefitsforhumankind
Fragmentation Divisionofasinglepopulationordisruptionofmigrationroutesbetween
smallerpopulations
IBI IndexofBiologicalIntegrity
Indicatorspecies Aspecieswhichrespondspredictablytostressorsfromhumandisturbance
(EPA,2009b)
RC(BI) Referenceconditionforbiologicalintegrity
Referencecondition Thenaturalbiological conditionofawaterbody,undisturbedbyhuman
activity.Asaconceptualaid,itisusefultothinkofanabsolute‘natural’or
pristineconditionthatcouldexistintheabsenceofallhistoricalandcurrent
humandisturbances(EPA,2006)
Totaldisturbedarea Anyareadisturbedforconstructionactivitiesincludingconstructionstaging
areasandclearedorstrippedplantlife,butnotincludinganyareas
designatedforrestorationorhabitatcreationpurposes

189
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Habitat Restoration EW-6
REFERENCES
AssociationofFish&WildlifeAgencies.(2007).StateWildlifeActionPlans:About.AccessedOctober7,2010.
Availableathttp://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/about/index.html.
Brown,J.andU.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration,ResearchandInnovative
TechnologyAdministration,VolpeTransportationResearchCenter.(2006,April).EcoͲlogical:AnEcosystem
ApproachtoDevelopingInfrastructureProjects.[FHWAͲHEPͲ06Ͳ011].Washington,DC:OfficeofProject
DevelopmentandEnvironmentalReview,FederalHighwayAdministration,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.
Costanza,R.,d’Arge,R.,deGroot,R.,Farber,S.,Grasso,M.,Hannon,B.,Limburg,K.,Naeem,S.,O’Neill,R.V.,
Paruelo,J.,Raskin,R.G.,Sutton,P.,vandenBelt,M.(1997).Thevalueoftheworld’secosystemservicesand
naturalcapital.Nature,387,253Ͳ260.
EndangeredSpeciesActof1973§16U.S.C.§1531
FederalInteragencyStreamRestorationWorkingGroup(2001).StreamCorridorRestoration:Principles,Processes,
andPractices.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/newtofc.htm
Forman,R.andAlexander,L.(1998).Roadsandtheirmajorecologicaleffects.AnnualReviewofEcologyand
Systematics,29,207Ͳ231.
Forman,R.T.T.andDeblingerR.D.(2000).TheEcologicalRoadͲEffectZoneofaMassachusettsSuburbanHighway.
ConservationBiology.14,1,36Ͳ46.
Hackney,C.T.(1998).HabitatRestoration:"GoalSettingandSuccessCriteriaforCoastalHabitatRestoration"
Dept.BiologicalSciences,UniversityofNorthCarolinaatWilmington.
Hamby,D.M.(1996).SiteremediationtechniquessupportingenvironmentalrestorationactivitiesͲareview.The
ScienceoftheTotalEnvironment.191,203Ͳ224.
Karr,J.R.,Chu,E.W.(1997).BiologicalMonitoringandAssessment:UsingMultimetricIndexesEffectively.(EPA235Ͳ
R97Ͳ001)
Karr,J.R.andDudley,D.R.(1981).Ecologicalperspectiveonwaterqualitygoals.EnvironmentalManagement,5:55Ͳ
68.
Kentula,M.E.(1998).PerspectivesonSettingSuccessCriteriaforWetlandRestorationin:HabitatRestoration:
"GoalSettingandSuccessCriteriaforCoastalHabitatRestoration"Dept.BiologicalSciences,Universityof
NorthCarolinaatWilmington.http://www.csc.noaa.gov/lcr/text/confsumm.html
Keim,R.F.,A.B.Price,T.S.Hardin,A.E.Skaugset,D.S.Bateman,R.E.Gresswell,andS.D.Tesch.(2003).An
AnnotatedBibliographyofSelectedGuidesforStreamHabitatImprovementinthePacificNorthwest.
ResearchContribution44,ForestResearchLaboratory,OregonStateUniversity,Corvallis.
Miller,J.R.,Hobbs,R.J.(2007).HabitatRestoration:DoWeKnowWhatWe’reDoing?RestorationEcology.15,3,
382Ͳ390
MontemayorͲFuentes,E.,Cuaron,A.D.,VasquezDominguezE.,MalvidoͲBenitez,J.,ValenzuelaͲGalvan,D.,
Andresen,E.(2009).Livingontheedge:roadsandedgeeffectsonsmallmammalpopulations.Journalof
AnimalEcology,78,857Ͳ865.
190
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-6 Habitat Restoration
NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram,NationalResearchCouncil(U.S.),AmericanAssociationofState
HighwayandTransportationOfficials,OregonStateUniversity,UniversityofFlorida,GeoSyntecConsultants,
etal.(2006).Evaluationofbestmanagementpracticesforhighwayrunoffcontrol.(Report565)Washington,
D.C.:TransportationResearchBoard.Washington,DC:TransportationResearchBoard.
NorthCarolinaDepartmentofTransportation.(2003).Awards:LengyelMitigationSiteinNewBern.
http://www.ncdot.org/programs/environment/awards/Lengyel.htmland
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/NEU/Monitoring/2003Monitoring/LengyelReport2003.pdf
Opp,S.M.(2009).ExperiencesoftheStatesinBrownfieldRedevelopment.EnvironmentalPractice.11,270Ͳ284.
UniversityofWashington.ColumbiaBasinResearch.SchoolofFisheriesandAquaticSciences.(2001,June29).
Salmonweb:CommunityBasedMonitoringforBiologicalIntegrityofStreams.AccessedDecember1,2009.
Availableathttp://www.cbr.washington.edu/salmonweb/
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(1991).UnderstandingBioremediation:AGuidebookforCitizens.[EPAͲ540Ͳ
2Ͳ91Ͳ00].WashingtonD.C.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(1994).EvaluationofEcologicalImpactsfromHighwayDevelopment.[EPA
300ͲBͲ94Ͳ006].Washington,DC:OfficeofFederalActivities.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2006).BestPracticesforIdentifyingReferenceConditionsinMidͲAtlantic
Streams.[EPAͲ260ͲFͲ06Ͳ002].Washington,DC:OfficeofEnvironmentalInformation.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2009).WetlandRegulatoryAuthorityfrom:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/reg_authority_pr.pdf
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2010)BrownfieldsandLandRevitalization.RetrievedSeptember30
th
,2010
from:http://epa.gov/brownfields/
Rumps,J.M.,S.L.Katz,K.Barnas,M.D.Morehead,R.Jenkinson,S.R.Clayton,P.Goodwin.(2007).Stream
RestorationinthePacificNorthwest:AnalysisofInterviewswithProjectManagers.RestorationEcology15,3,
506Ͳ515.
Sudduth,E.B.,Meyer,J.L.,Berhardt,E.S.(2007).StreamRestorationPracticesintheSoutheasternUnitedStates.
RestorationEcology.15,3,573Ͳ583
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2009b,December31).EPA|AboutBiologicalIndicators.AccessedJanuary
9,2010.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/about.html
U.S.FishandWildlifeService.(2009).HabitatConservationPlansUndertheEndangeredSpeciesAct.Arlington,VA:
EndangeredSpeciesProgram.
Wilson,E.O.(2002).Thefutureoflife.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf.

191
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Habitat Restoration EW-6

192
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-7 Ecological Connectivity
ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIVITY
GOAL
Provideorimprovewildlifeaccessandmobilityacrossroadwayfacilityboundariesand
reducevehicleͲwildlifecollisionsandrelatedaccidents.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
CompleteasiteͲspecificwildlifeassessmentfortheroadwayproject.Reportthe
resultingimpactsthattheroadwayhasonsurroundingmajorecosystems,identifying
allnonͲhumanlifethatisimpactedbytheroadwayfacilityaccordingtothebest
scientificknowledgeavailablefortheecosystem.Bothpointscenariosbelowrequire
approvaloftheprojectecologist.
AND
Completeoneofthetwoofthefollowingoptions:
OPTIONAͲExistingAlignmentsONLY(1point)
ReplaceinͲkind,retrofit,orupgradeanyandallexistingculvertsandwildlifefencing
structuresdeemedstructurallydeficient,damaged,obsolete,insufficientlysized,or
otherwiseinadequate.
OR
OPTIONBͲNewandExistingAlignments(3points)
Installnewdedicatedwildlifecrossingstructuresandprotectivefencing(ifneeded)as
recommendedbythewildlifeassessment.Inaddition,existingalignmentsmustalso
replaceinͲkind,retrofit,orupgradeallexistingculvertsandfencingstructuresdeemed
structurallydeficient,damaged,obsolete,insufficientlysized,orotherwiseinadequate.
Details
Dedicatedwildlifecrossingsarestructuralfeaturesoftheroadwaythatarenot
usedbymotorizedvehicles.Wheredeemedappropriatebyanecologist,crossings
maybesharedbynonͲmotorizedmodesoftransport.Nopointswillbeawardedin
thefollowingconditions:
1. ForprojectsthatmaintainorrehabilitateexistingecologicalconnectionstooutͲ
ofͲdateorcurrentstandards(i.e.routinemaintenanceofdrainageculvertsdoes
notqualify).
2. PreͲexistingecologicalconnectivityfeatures:allnewfeaturesorupgradesmust
beduetoandcompletedaspartoftheroadwayproject.
3. Projectsthataddwildlifeconnectivityfeatureswheresuchfeaturesareclearly
outsideoftheprojectcontext.
4. Projectslocatedinanetworkthatissystematicallyinadequate.However,points
couldbeawardedforsuchprojectswhereitisdemonstratedthataprogramis
inplaceattheownerͲagencyforsystematicimprovementsonthatnetwork,
andthatthisprojectfitsthisprogram.

EW-7
1-3 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ1Environmental
ReviewProcess
9 PRͲ10Site
MaintenancePlan
9 EWͲ6Habitat
Restoration
9 AEͲ1SafetyAudit
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Experience
BENEFITS
9 RestoresHabitat
9 ReducesManmade
Footprint
9 ImprovesAccess
9 ImprovesMobility
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
193
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Ecological Connectivity EW-7
DOCUMENTATION
1. Copyoftheexecutivesummaryoftheecologicalstudyperformedfortheproject.Atminimum,thissummary
shouldcontain:
a. Sitelocationmapandsiteplan.Highlightlocations,typesandsizesofecologicalconnectionsinthefacility.
b. AlistofnonͲhumanspeciesidentified.Includecommonname,Latinname,size,photosofthespecies,and
highlightthelargestspecies.
c. Thesizeoftheconnectionrequiredinordertoaccommodatethelargestspeciesidentifiedabove
d. Alistofplannednewdedicatedconnections,newculvertsandfencingtobeinstalled,andanyupgraded
culvertsandfencinginstallations.
e. Signatureoftheprojectecologist.
2. Photosofallculvertsandfencing(newandupgraded,ifany)anddedicatedcrossingsafterconstruction.Usea
familiarobjectinthephotoforscalingpurposes(hammer,measuringtape,shovel,etc.)orprovidescaleonthe
image.
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Forexistingprojects,useroadkilldatatoidentifykeyspeciesintheprojectarea.Inaddition,ifunderpassesor
othersimilarstructuresexistforotherpurposesthanecologicalconnectivity,monitoranimaloraquatic
organismmovementthroughthesepassages.
x Fornewandexistingprojects,determinethemakeupofanimalpopulationsintheareaandmigrationpatterns.
Animalpopulationdatacanbeobtainedfromexistingecologicalrecordsorbymoretraditionalmethodssuch
astheanalysisoftracksorotheridentifyinganimalfeatures.MigrationpatternscanbepredictedusingGIS
landscapedata,GPStrackingcollars,analysisofanimaltracks,andmostcommonlythroughuseofcameras
alongtheproposedorexistingroadway.
Example: Case Study - Banff National Park of Canada
BanffNationalParkinCanadaHighwayFencingandWildlifeCrossingsisanexampleofoneofthefirstand
mostsuccessfulprojectstoaccommodateterrestrialhabitatconnectivity.Inresponsetohighandrisingtraffic
volumes,sectionsoftheTransͲCanadaHighway(TCH)havebeenupgradedfromatwoͲlanetoafourͲlane
dividedhighwayinBanffNationalPark.
ToreducethenegativeimpactsofalargerhighwayonwildlifepopulationsinBanffNationalPark:
x Fencinghasbeeninstalledonbothsidesofthetwinnedhighwaysectionstopreventlargeanimalsfrom
gettingontothehighway.VehicleͲwildlifecollisionshavebeensignificantlyreduced.
x Wildlifeunderpassesandoverpasseshavebeeninstalledtoconnectvitalhabitatsandhelpsustain
biodiversity.
x In1996,thehighwaymitigationresearchprojectbeganstudyingtheimpactsofroadsonwildlifeintermsof
roadmortality,wildlifemovementsandhabitatconnectivityintheBowValley.Researchresultsarebeing
appliedinhighwayupgradeprojectsinthemountainparksandbeyond,includingothercountries.

ExamplesofconnectivitystructuresareshowninfiguresEWͲ7.1andEWͲ7.2below.
194
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-7 Ecological Connectivity
FigureEWͲ7.1:Wolverineoverpass FigureEWͲ7.2:Deerusingabridgecrossing
(http://www.pc.gc.ca/pnͲnp/ab/banff/docs/routes/sec3/page42_e.asp#redearth3)

Formoreinformation,visit:http://www.pc.gc.ca/pnͲnp/ab/banff/index_e.asp.
Example: Case Study – Interstate 90 Snoqualmie Pass East Mitigation Project
Interstate90,whichstretchesacrossthenorthernUnitedStates,iscurrentlyundergoinganumberof
improvementsalongafivemilestretchbetweenHyakandKeechelusDamincludingtheadditionoftwolanes
andanumberofconnectivityfeatures.Thisstretchofhighwayisavitalcorridorconnectingeasternand
westernWashingtonState.Tomeettheecologicalneedsofthearea,WashingtonStateDepartmentof
TransportationhasidentifiedanumberofConnectivityEmphasisAreas(CEAs)thatlinkvitalpatchesofaquatic
orterrestrialhabitat.
Tofacilitateconnectivityacrosstheroadway,theseCEA’swillfeature:
x Bridgesrangingfrom120to900feetinlengthaswellasanumberofculvertstopreserveaquaticmigratory
abilityandhydrologicfunction.
x ThreeoverͲroadwildlifecrossingscombinedwithfencestodirectanimalstotheselocations.
Formoreinformation,visit:http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I90/SnoqualmiePassEast/Default.htm.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. IdentifyingecologicalconnectivityrequirementsneedswellͲdesignedlongͲtermstudies.Inmanycasesthese
mayneedtobeconductedovermultipleyears.
2. Lackofecologicalorspeciesdata.
3. Developmentconflictswithecologicallysensitiveareas.
4. Designofconnectivitystructuresthatwillbeacceptedandusedbytargetorganismscanbedifficult.
5. Fornewprojects,priormigrationpatternsandotheranimalandaquaticorganismbehaviorsmaybealteredby
thepresenceoftheroadway.Thisshouldbecarefullyconsideredasalongtermimpact,especiallyduring
environmentalreview.
6. Ingeneral,caseswherethiscreditmaynotbeappropriatearerare,eveninurbanenvironments,butare
heavilydependentonavailableecosystemdata.Thisdatamaynotbeavailableinurbanizedecosystemsthat
arenotcloselymonitored.
7. Inrarecases,projectsthathaveconductedanecologicalstudymaydeterminethatecologicalconnectionswill
underminethesafetyofhumanusers.
195
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Ecological Connectivity EW-7
RESEARCH
Whatisecologicalconnectivity?
Ecologicalconnectivityistherelativeeasewithwhichdispersiveanddynamicecologicalprocesses(suchasspecies
migration,watermovement,soiltransmission,pollination,etc.)occuracrossvariousecosystemboundaries
(Interstate90SnoqualmiePassDevelopmentTeam2006).InGreenroads,specifically,ecologicalconnectivityrefers
tothemovementofnonͲhumanorganisms(wildlifeandplantspecies)acrossvariousmanmadeecosystem
boundaries,suchasroadways.Anecologicalconnectionisadeliberateattempttoprovideapathwayfor
transmissionofnonͲhumanlifeacross,under,above,orthrougharoadwayprojectfootprintwithoutimpacting
thesafetyofhumanusers.
Considerationofandcompensationforadverseeffectsonecologicalconnectivityarenotspecificrequirementsof
theNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)orstateenvironmentallaws.Instead,considerationofecological
connectivityisdrivenbystakeholders,regulatoryandnaturalresourceagenciessuchastheU.S.ArmyCorpsof
Engineers(USACE),EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(throughSection404oftheCleanWaterAct),theU.S.Fish
andWildlifeService,federallandmanagementagencies,orthestatenaturalresourcesmanagementagency.
Whyisecologicalconnectivityimportant?
Migrationabilityisnecessarytothesurvivalofmanyspecies,androadsthatdisruptvitalhabitatcorridorshavethe
potentialtoseriouslydebilitateanecosystem.Animalcrossingoftraditionalroadshashugecostsintheformof
humanandanimallifeinadditiontomonetarylosses.However,withcarefulplanning,wildlifecrossingcanbe
effectivelyfacilitatedinasafeandnonͲdisruptivemanner.Itisimportanttonotethatthereisnosinglesolutionto
everyconnectivityproblem,andthereisnotnecessarilyasolutionforeveryspeciesthatmightbeencounteredon
aproject.Whenwellresearchedandtailoredtoaspecificproject,connectivityfeatureshavethepotentialto
createsaferroads,improvehabitat,andsavemoney.Establishingormaintainingecologicalconnectivityfor
existingandnewprojects,respectively,willreducethelongͲtermecologicalimpactsofroads,helptosustain
populations,andpossiblyreducetheneedforlegalprotectionforspecies.
Access&MobilityforWildlife
Amongtheanimalkingdom,therearefewspeciesthatliveinsingle,staticrangesthroughouttheirlifetimes.
Suitablehabitatforaspecificspeciesmightonlybefoundinsmallparcelsthroughoutaregion,whichoften
forcesaspeciestoinhabitsmallisolatedchunksofland.Thispopulationstructureisdefinedasa
metapopulation,oragroupofsmallpopulationswhichmakeupthetotalpopulation.Becauseoflowgenetic
variabilitywithinthesesmallerpopulations,thethreatofindividualgroupextinctionandtheneedfora
constantfoodsource,connectivitybetweendifferenthabitatpatchesisvitalforthesurvivalofmanyspecies
(Freemanetal.2005).IlkaHansi,whoextensivelystudiedGlanvillebutterflypopulationsinoneofthedefining
studiesofpopulationdynamics,concludedthattheabilityofsmallerpopulationstobereplacedbyindividuals
fromothergroupsisnecessarytoavoidextinction(Hanski,1995).
Roadwaysandhighwaysarelonglinearstructureswhichcanoftenseparateanimalsfromimportant
destinations,resultinginalossofecosystemfunctionalityforthosethatdonotattempttocrossandamore
directhazardintheformofautomobilecollisionforthosethatdo.IntheAppalachians,areasinwhichblack
bearscommonlyattempttocrossroadshavesignificantmortalityrates,whilehighertrafficroadsdeterbear
crossingandforcesmall,isolatedpopulationsthreatenedbylowgeneticvariability(Donaldson2007).In
additiontoterrestrialanimals,population,geneticdiversity,andlongͲtermsurvivalofmanyfishspeciescanbe
significantlyreducedbylossofmigrationability,whichcanbehinderedorpreventedbytypicalculvertsfound
atstreamandrivercrossings.(Mirati1999,Fitch1995)
HumanSafety
Thecrossingofroadwaysbyanimalshasaverydirecthumancostaswell.In2002,anestimated1.5million
collisionsbetweenautomobilesanddeeroccurredintheUnitedStates,killingabout150peopleandcausing
over$1.1billioninvehicledamage.(Hedlundet.Al2003)Inthiscase,thereislittlethreattothesurvivalofthe
species.Infact,therapidgrowthrateofdeerpopulationindicatesthatthistrendwillworsenovertime.
196
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-7 Ecological Connectivity
Inmostcases,theinstallationofwildlifepassagestructureshasledtoincreasedanimalcrossingandreduced
collisions,andfederalfundinghasbeenmadeavailableforsuchprojectsundertheTransportationEquityActof
1998.(Hartmann2003)Formammalcrossingthemosteffectivecrossingsystemshavebeenunderpasses
coupledwithfencingtofunnelanimalstotheappropriatepoint(Hedlundet.al2003;Doddet.al2007).
Importantfactorsinfluencingtheuseofsuchunderpassesincludetheheightoftheunderpass,surrounding
vegetation,andtypeofgroundsurfacevisible(Donaldson2007;Doddet.Al2007).Underpassuseisreported
fordeeraloneinsevendifferentstates,andbothunderpassesandoverpasseshavebeenusedtoallowpassage
ofelk,bear,panther,mountaingoats,andsalamanders(Hartmann2003;RominandBissonette1996).Aseries
ofunderpassesandfencingonthenewlyreconstructedArizonaSR260isestimatedtosave$1milliondollars
peryearbypreventingcollisions(primarilywithelk),whichhavebeenreduced56%from1992Ͳ1997levels
despiteincreasedtrafficvolume.(Doddet.Al2007,BrownandLaird1999)InVirginia,underpasseswere
effectivelyusedbydeer,raccoons,groundhogs,andawiderangeofothermammals,birds,amphibiansand
reptiles,butwereunabletoallowthepassageofblackbears,oneofthetargetsoftheproject.(Donaldson
2007)Whenproperlyresearchedandconstructed,underpassescanprovidecriticalpassagewaysforanimals,
butthereisnoguaranteethatagivenpopulationwillbewillingtousesuchstructureswithoutpriorevidence.
AquaticConnectivity
Culvertdesignforstreamandrivercrossingscanhaveanimportantimpactontheabilityoffishtosuccessfully
crossaroadway.Highwatervelocitiescausedbysteepslopesandnarrowedflowareoftenimpassableto
certainfishspecies(BelfordandGould1989).Becauseofthisandotherfactors,theslopeofaculvertplaysa
keyroleintheeffectivenessofacrossing.Ideally,culvertswillbeplacedatgradewiththestream.Culvertsat
lowergraderiskcausingdangeroushydraulicjumpsoroutletdrops,whilesteepgradestypicallymeanhigher
velocityflows(Fitch1995).Whilebridgesarethemosteffectivewaytoeliminateimpedimentoffishtravel,this
isoftenaprohibitivelyexpensiveoption.WellͲdesignedculvertswithcontrolledflowvelocityplacedatgrade
cansuccessfullyaccommodatefishpassageandaregenerallyamorefeasiblealternative(Fitch1995).
AdditionalResources&Tools
x Themostcomprehensivereviewofrelativelyrecentworkforecologicalconnectionsandsocietalbenefitsis
presentedinabookcalledRoadEcology:ScienceandSolutionsbyR.T.T.Formanetal.(2003).
x TheFederalHighwayAdministration’swebsitecalled“WildlifeProtectionandHabitatConnectivity”includes
severalhundredexamplesofprojectsimplementedaroundtheUnitedStatesandEurope:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/index.htm
x Currentresearch,policyissues,andbestpracticesarepostedbyNorthCarolinaStateUniversity'sInstitutefor
TransportationResearchandEducation,CenterforTransportationandtheEnvironment“WildlifeFisheriesand
TransportationWebGateway”
http://www.cte.ncsu.edu/cte/gateway/home.asp
GLOSSARY
Ecologicalconnection AdeliberateattempttoprovideapathwayfortransmissionofnonͲhuman
lifeacross,under,above,orthrougharoadwayprojectfootprintwithout
impactingthesafetyofhumanusers
Ecologicalconnectivity themovementofnonͲhumanorganisms(wildlifeandplantspecies)across
variousmanmadeecosystemboundaries,suchasroadways
Geneticdiversity Thenumberofdifferentkindsofgenesthatexistwithinapopulationor
group.Populationswithlowgeneticdiversityarelesslikelytobeableto
adapttochangingenvironmentalpressuresandarethereforeathigherriskof
extinction.
Metapopulation Apopulationconsistingofanumberofsmallerdispersedpopulations.
Individualorganismstypicallymovebetweensmallergroupstomaintaina
healthyecosystem.
197
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Ecological Connectivity EW-7
REFERENCES
Belford,D.AandGould,W.R.(1989)AnEvaluationofTroutPassageThroughSixHighwayCulvertsinMontana.
NorthAmericanJournalofFisheriesManagement9,437Ͳ445.
Brown,Douglas,Laird,James(1999)MethodsUsedbytheArizonaDepartmentofTransportationtoReduce
WildlifeMortalityandImproveHighwaySafety.ArizonaDepartmentofTransportation.
Clevenger,Anthony.(1998).PermeabilityoftheTransͲCanadaHighwaytoWildlifeinBanffNationalPark:The
ImportanceofCrossingStructuresandFactorsInfluencingTheirEffectiveness.ProceedingsoftheInternational
ConferenceonWildlifeEcologyandTransportation.February10Ͳ12,Ft.Meyers,Florida.FLͲERͲ69Ͳ98:pp.109Ͳ
119.
DamasandSmith,Ltd.(1982).WildlifeMortalityinTransportationCorridorsinCanada'sNationalParksͲImpact
andMitigation.ParksCanada.2volumes.
Dodd,N.L.,J.W.Gagnon,S.Boe,A.Manzo,Schweinsburg(2007)EvaluationofMeasurestoMinimizeWildlifeͲ
VehicleCollisionsandMaintainPermeabilityAcrossHighways.ResearchBranch,ArizonaGameandFish
Department
Donaldson,B.(2007)UseofHighwayUnderpassesbyLargeMammalsandOtherWildlifeinVirginia.
TransportationResearchRecord2011,157Ͳ164.
FederalHighwayAdministration.(2002).WildlifeHabitatConnectivityAcrossEuropeanHighways.
http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/wildlife_web.htm
Fitch,MichaelG.(1995)NonanadromousFishPassageinHighwayCulverts.VirginiaTransportationResearch
Council
Forman,R.T.T.et.Al.(2003).RoadEcology:ScienceandSolutions.IslandPress.Washington,D.C.481pp.
Foster,M.L.andS.R.Humphrey.(1995).UseofHighwayUnderpassesbyFloridaPanthersandotherWildlife.
WildlifeSocietyBulletin.V.23(1):pp.92Ͳ94.
Freeman,Scott.(2005).BiologicalScience(3rded.).NewJersey:PearsonPrenticeHall
Graves,A.T.,S.Farley,M.I.Goldstein,C.Servheen(2007)IdentificationofFunctionalCorridorsWithMovement
CharacteristicsofBrownBearsontheKenaiPeninsula,Alaska.LandscapeEcology22,765Ͳ772
Hanski,Ilkka(1998)MetapopulationDynamics.Nature396,41Ͳ49
Hartmann,Maureen(2002)AnEvaluationofWildlifeCrossingStructures:TheirUseandEffectiveness.RoadRiͲ
porter,7.
Hedlund,J.H.,P.D.Curtis,G.A.Curtis,A.F.Williams.(2003)MethodstoReduceTrafficCrashesInvolvingDeer:
WhatWorksandWhatDoesNot.InsuranceInstituteforHighwaySafety
Holsinger,K.HabitatFragmentation.(2007).http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lectureͲ
notes/fragmentation/node1.html
Migration Eitheraonetimeorrepeatingmovementofapopulationfromonerangeof
habitattoanother.
198
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-7 Ecological Connectivity
Interstate90SnoqualmiePassEastMitigationDevelopmentTeam.(2006).RecommendationPackage.Prepared
forWashingtonDepartmentofTransportationandFederalHighwayAdministration.
Leeson,B.F.(1996).HighwayConflictsandResolutionsInBanffNationalPark,Alberta,Canada.In:Evink,G.L.;
Garrett,P.;Ziegler,D.;andJ.Berry(Eds.)TrendsInAddressingTransportationRelatedWildlifeMortality.
ProceedingsoftheTransportationRelatedWildlifeMortalitySeminar.
Maehr,D.S.(1984).Animalhabitatisolationbyroadsandagriculturalfields.BiologicalConservatio,29,81Ͳ96.
Mirati,AlbertH.Jr.(1999)AssessmentofRoadCulvertsforFishPassageProblemsonStateͲandCountyͲOwned
Roads.OregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife
ParksCanada.(2009).BanffNationalParkCanada.RetrievedSeptember25,2009,fromhttp://www.pc.gc.ca/pnͲ
np/ab/banff/index_e.asp
Reed,R.A.,JohnsonͲBarnard,J.andW.L.Baker.(1996).ContributionofRoadstoForestFragmentationinthe
RockyMountains.ConservationBiology,10(4),1098Ͳ1106.
Romin,A.L.,J.A.Bissonette(1996)DeerͲvehiclecollisions:statusofstatemonitoringactivitiesandmitigation
efforts.WildlifeSocietyBulletin24,276Ͳ283
Ruediger,B.,J.J.Claar,andJ.F.Gore.Nodate.RestorationofCarnivoreHabitatConnectivityintheNorthern
RockyMountains.
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/habitat_conservation/habitat_and_hi
ghways/reports/restoration_of_the_carnivore_habitat.pdf
Ruediger,Bill.(1996).TheRelationshipBetweenRareCarnivoresandHighways.In:Evink,G.L.;Garrett,P.;Ziegler,
D.;andJ.Berry(Eds.)TrendsIn:AddressingTransportationRelatedWildlifeMortality.Proceedingsofthe
TransportationRelatedWildlifeMortalitySeminar.
Smith,D.J.;Harris,L.D.andF.J.Mazzotti.(1996).Alandscapeapproachtoexaminingtheimpactsofroadsonthe
ecologicalfunctionassociatedwithwildlifemovementandmovementcorridors:Problemsandsolutions.In:
Evink,G.L.;Garrett,P.;Ziegler,D.;andJ.Berry(Eds.)TrendsInAddressingTransportationRelatedWildlife
Mortality.ProceedingsoftheTransportationRelatedWildlifeMortalitySeminar.
WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation.(2009).1Ͳ90ͲSnoqualmiePassEast.RetrievedSeptember24,
2009,fromhttp://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I90/SnoqualmiePassEast/Default.htm

199
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Ecological Connectivity EW-7

200
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-8 Light Pollution
LIGHT POLLUTION
GOAL
Safelyilluminateroadwayswhileminimizingunnecessaryandpotentiallyharmful
illuminationofsurroundingskyandhabitat.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
ProvidelightingfixturesthatareDarkͲSkycompliantorequivalent.AlistofDarkͲSky
approvedfixturescanbefoundathttp://www.DarkSky.org.
Details
Thiscreditaddressestwokeycomponentsofroadwaydesign,nighttimesafetyand
lighttrespassintoadjacentecosystemsandthenightsky.
TheInternationalDarkͲSkyAssociation(IDA)fixturecertificationprogramisbased
onupwardlightemission.Approvedfixturesmustemitnolightabove90degrees
(oftencalled“fullcutͲoff”).Forfixturestobecomecertified,photometricimagery
fromacertifiedtestinglabmustbesubmittedtotheIDAforexamination.
“Equivalent”standardswillmeetthecriteriaforIDAbutmaynotcarrytheDarkͲSky
seal.Equivalencecanbeshownbyprovidingdocumentationdemonstratingthat
IDAstandardsaremetorexceededbyselectedfixtures.Suchdocumentation
shouldbereviewedandapprovedbytheprojectlightingprofessionalorelectrical
engineerandalettershallbeprovidedstatingequivalence.
Projectsthatdeliberatelyreduceexistinglightingorcompletelyeliminatelighting
areeligibleforthiscreditprovidedthat:
a. Lightingiswithintheprojectscopeorotherwiseisnormallyrequiredby
standardspecifications(e.g.,apreservationhotmixasphaltpavementoverlayis
notlikelytohaveroadwaylightingwithinitsscopeandisthereforenoteligible
forthiscredit).“Withinscope”canbedemonstratedbycreditPRͲ1
EnvironmentalReviewProcessorbyAEͲ3ContextSensitiveSolutions.
b. Theprojectprovidesevidencetoshowthatlightingisnotrequiredtomeet
minimumroadwaysafetyrequirementsorthatreducingexistinglightingissafe.
Thisgenerallymeansanintentionaldecisionhasbeenmadetoreduceor
eliminatelightingwithinthealignmentbasedonafullsafetyinvestigation.(See
alsoAEͲ1SafetyAudit).
c. AnylightingusedconformstoIDAfixturestandardsorequivalent.
DOCUMENTATION
x Executivesummaryofthelightingsafetystudydemonstratingappropriatenessof
lightingconfiguredforroadway,signedbytheleadelectricalprofessional.
x Lightingorelectricalplan.HighlightALLlocationsoffixture,bulbandcover
technologyused.
x Alistofthefixtures,bulbsandcoversinstalled,includingnameoftechnologies,
wattage,areaofshade,codecompliance(ifany).
x CopyoftheDarkͲSkycertificationforanyproductspecifiedandinstalled.
EW-8
3 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 AEͲ1SafetyAudit
9 AEͲ3Context
SensitiveSolutions
9 MRͲ6Energy
Efficiency
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Experience
BENEFITS
9 ReducesFossilFuel
Use
9 ReducesGreenhouse
Gases
9 RestoresHabitat
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
9 IncreasesAesthetics
201
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Light Pollution EW-8
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x U.S.DepartmentofEnergy’sEnergyStarprogramhasbeenexpandedtoincluderoadwaylighting.The
standardsforupwardilluminationforEnergyStarcertifiedfixturesaresuchthatfixturesreceivingthis
certificationarelikelytobedarkskycompliant.Selectionoffixturesthatmeetbothspecificationscanreduce
bothenergyuseandlightpollution(seeMRͲ6EnergyEfficiency).
x Effectivelightingdesigncreatesanimpressionofelegance,comfort,andclarityontheroadwayatnight.This
canbeaccomplishedusingthelatestlightingdesignsoftwaretomodeltheappearanceoftheproject,aswell
asdesigningprojectattributessuchassignageformaximumvisibility.
Example: Dark-Sky Certified Fixture Label
FigureEWͲ8.1belowisanexampleofalabelthatcanbefoundonfixturesthatareDarkSkycompliant.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Lightingmodificationsimplementedtopromoteecosystemhealthalsomustmaintainsufficientlightlevels
necessaryforhumansafety.
2. NonͲoverheadroadwaylightsarenotcurrentlyDarkͲSkycertifiablethroughIDA.
RESEARCH
Roadwaylightingisanimportantrequirementforasafenighttimedrivingenvironment.Thoughabout25%of
drivingoccursatnight,thefatalityrateofnighttimedrivingismorethandoublethatoftheday(FHWA,1985,Sivak
etal.,2007).Theincreasedabilitytoidentifypotentialhazardsprovidedbyoverheadlightingfixturessignificantly
decreasesnighttimeaccidentrisk.Therefore,installationofroadwaylightingsystemscansavehumanlifeand
money.However,excessivelightingcanhavenegativeimpacts,andthesafetybenefitsofadditionallighting
diminishathigherintensitylevels(Fisher,1977).Inadditiontousefullightthatilluminatestheroadway,lightcan
beemittedupwarddirectlyfromlightfixtures,orreflectfromtheroadwaysurface,bothofwhichcontributetosky
glow.Inadditiontotheseformsoflightpollution,lightfromoverheadfixturescan“trespass”andilluminate
surfacesandareasotherthantheroadwayincludingprivatepropertyornaturalhabitat.Thisexcesslightcanhave
consequencesforhumancomfort,ecosystemfunction,andtheabilitytoconductastronomicalobservations.
However,inmanycases,carefullightingdesigncanprovidesafedrivingconditionswhileminimizingwastedlight
andadverselightingeffects.
EnvironmentalImpacts
Lightpollutioncannegativelyimpactawiderangeofplantandanimalspecies.Outdoorskygloweffectscanbe
significantenoughthatnighttimeconditionsmimicthosenaturallyobservedattwilight(NavaraandNelson,2007).
Estimatesindicatethat20%oflandinthecontinentalUnitedStatesislocatedwithin127metersofaroadway
(RittersandWickham,2003).Becauseofthis,theecologicalconsequencesoflightpollutionfromroadwaylighting
havehugepotentialimpacts.Intheplantkingdom,artificiallightcandisruptthenaturalmechanismsusedto
regulatefloweringandotherseasonalactions(SelectCommissiononScienceandTechnology,1997).Impactson
theanimalkingdomhoweverarefarmorediverseandcauseawidearrayofecosystemalteration.Insomecases,
lightpollutioncanbedevastating.Forinstance,seaturtlehatchlingsnavigatetheirwaytotheoceanbasedonthe

FigureEWͲ8.1:IDALabelforDarkͲSkyApprovedDevices
http://www.DarkͲSky.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=56421&orgId=idsa
202
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Environment & Water
EW-8 Light Pollution
relativedarknessoflandmass,andartificiallightscanrenderthisabilitycompletelyineffective(Salmon,2003).
Nocturnalanimalsarealsoparticularlyvulnerable.Streetlightinglimitstheflyingroutesofendangeredbatspecies
andcancausehabitatfragmentation(Stoneetal.,2009).Whennocturnalhabitatsarefragmented,populations
becomeincreasinglyatriskoflossofgeneticdiversityandlocalextinction.Increasedlightingconditionscanalter
reproductivebehaviorinanimalssuchasfrogs,whicharemorewaryintheabsenceofdarkness,orglowworms,
whichcommunicatevisuallytoattractamate(LongcoreandRich,2004;NavaraandNelson,2007).Whilethese
examplesarefarfromacomprehensivelist,theyillustratethekindsofimportantecosystemdisruptions
precipitatedfromaseeminglyminorenvironmentalchange.
Thoughlighthasobviousbenefitstohumansociety,excesslightcanhavenegativehumanimpacts.Surveyshave
indicatedpublicdispleasureinsomecaseswithfreewaylightingthatinadvertentlylightstheiryardsandhouses
duringthenight(Khan,2003).Inaddition,lightpollutionhasseriouslyreducedtheaestheticvalueofthenightsky.
MosturbanresidentsarenowunabletoviewtheonceomnipresentMilkyWaygalaxy.Inaddition,many
astronomicalobservatorieshavebecomesignificantlylessusefulasevenasmallchangeinskybrightnesscanhave
ahugeimpactontheabilitytoviewextremelydistantobjects.Inaddition,moreandmoreresearchisbeing
conductedonapossiblelinkbetweenlightpollutionandcertaintypesofcancer.
LightPollutionPrevention
Lightpollutioncanbemitigatedinanumberofways.LEDlightingsystemsaregenerallymoreefficientatdirecting
lighttodesiredareas,thereforereducingtheamountoflightescapingtonearbyenvironmentsforsafelevelsof
lighting.Whileonlyabouthalfthelightfromtraditionalroadwayluminariesreachestheroadway,asmuchas85%
ofLEDlightingcandoso(Wuetal.,2009).Direct,physicalshieldingoflampsisanothereffectivemethodof
curbingstraylight.However,becauselightisreflectedfromilluminatedsurfaces,lightpollutioncannotbe
eliminatedbydirectionandshieldingalone(Soardoetal.,2008).Therefore,itisimportanttoidentifythe
minimumlightintensityneededtoprovidesaferoadwayvisibility.Thisneedstobeconsideredcarefully,as
numerousattemptstoconserveelectricityusethroughlightdimminghavebeenshowntohaveincreased
nighttimeaccidents(FHWA,1985).Sophisticatedtestsareavailableformeasurementsofluminanceorilluminance
todeterminewhetherroadwaysaresignificantlylittoprovideasafeenvironment.Lightfixturesthatprovidemore
uniformlightingcanprovidesafeconditionsonallpointsonaroadwaywithlesstotallightoutput,andtherefore
lessreflectedlightpollution.
Scientificanalysisoftheconsequencesoflightpollutionisarelativelynewphenomenon.However,researchto
datehasalreadyuncoveredahostofimportantdetrimentstohumanhealthandecosystemfunctioninadditionto
thedegradationoftheintrinsicaestheticvalueofthecosmos.Electricallightinghasbeeninexistenceforatime
periodthatisinsignificantfromanevolutionaryperspective,meaningthathumansandotheranimalshavehadno
opportunitytoadapttothisdrasticenvironmentalshift(Pauley,2004).Whileroadwaylightingisfarfromtheonly
culprit,streetsareamajorcontributortoelevatedlightlevelsandareasignificantopportunityforreductionof
lightpollution.Roadwayilluminationisresponsibleforapproximately70%ofluminousfluxinurbanareas,and
presentstheonlymajorsourceofartificiallightincertainruralsettings(Soardoetal.,2008).Lightpollutionand
trespassarenotonlywasteful,butalsodamagetheabilityofourbuiltenvironmenttosustainhumanand
ecosystemhealth.
InternationalDarkͲSkyAssociation(IDA)
Formedin1988,theInternationalDarkͲSkyAssociation(IDA)istheauthoritativevoiceonlightpollution.IDA
educateslightingdesigners,manufacturers,technicalcommittees,andthepublicaboutlightpollutionabatement.
TheIDA’sgoalofprotectingandrestoringnaturalnightenvironmentandheritageofdarkskiesisthrough
promotionofqualityoutdoorlighting.TheyhavedevelopedtheFixtureSealofApproval(FSA)programfordark
skyfriendlyfixtures.
TheFixtureSealofApprovalprovidesobjective,thirdͲpartycertificationforluminairesthatminimizeglare,reduce
lighttrespass,anddon’tpollutethenightsky.Foramodestfee,IDAwillevaluatethephotometricdataofany
luminairesubmittedbyitsmanufacturer.Whenthefixtureisapproved,themanufacturerreceivesacertificate
203
Environment & Water Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Light Pollution EW-8
andtheFixtureSealofApproval.ManufacturersmayusetheFSAsealtopromoteandadvertisetheirIDAͲ
Approved™darkskyfriendlyproducts.
GLOSSARY
Lightpollution Theunwantedcontributionofmanmadelightingtonighttimebrightnessand
skyglow.
Lighttrespass Directshiningofelectricallightontosurfacesbesidesthosemeanttobelit.

REFERENCES
FederalHighwayAdministration.(2004).ReducedLightingonFreewaysDuringPeriodsofLowTrafficDensity.
(ReportNo.FHWA/RDͲ86/018)U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.
Fisher,A.J.,(1977).RoadLightingasanAccidentCounterͲMeasure.AustralianRoadResearch,7,2–16.
InternationDarkͲSkyAssociation.(2009).AccessedDecember20,2009fromhttp://www.DarkSky.org
Khan,A.M.(2003).Highwaylighttrespass:Humanandsocialfactors.InsituteofTransportationEngineers.ITE
Journal,73,5.
Longcore,T.,&C.Rich(2004).EcologicalEffectsofLightPollution.FrontiersinEcologyandtheEnvironment,2,
191Ͳ198.
MorganͲTaylor,Martin.(2008).RCEPConsultationonArtificialLightintheEnvironment.PresentedtotheRoyal
CommissiononEnvironmentalPollution'sstudyofArtificialLightintheEnvironment.
Navara,K.J.,&R.J.Nelson(2007).TheDarkSideofLightatNight:Physiological,Epidemiological,andEcological
Consequences.JournalofPinealResearch,43,215Ͳ224
Pauley,S.(2004).LightingfortheHumanCircadianClock.MedicalHypotheses,63,588Ͳ596
Ritters,K.H.&J.D.Wickham.(2003).HowFartotheNearestRoad?FrontiersinEcologyandtheEnvironment,3,
125Ͳ129
Salmon,M(2003).ArtificialNightLightingandSeaTurtles.Biologist:JournaloftheInstituteofBiology,50,163Ͳ168
Sivak,M.,J.Luoma,M.J.Flannagan,C.R.Bingham,D.W.Eby,&J.T.Shope(2007).TrafficsafetyintheU.S.:ReͲ
examiningmajoropportunities.JournalofSafetyResearch,38,337Ͳ355.
Soardo,P.,P.Lacomussi,G.Rossi&Fellin,L.(2008).Compatibilityofroadlightingwithstarvisibility.Lighting
ResearchandTechnology,40,307Ͳ322.
Stone,E.L.,Jones,G.,&S.Harris(2009).StreetLightingDisturbsCommutingBats.CurrentBiology,19,1123Ͳ1127
UnitedKingdomHouseofCommonsͲCommissiononScienceandTechnology.(1997).TheExtentandNatureof
LightPollution(SeventhReport)London,England.
Wu,M.S.,Huang,H.H.,Huang,B.J.,Tang,C.W.,ChengC.W.(2009)EconomicFeasibilityofSolarͲPoweredLED
RoadwayLighting.RenewableEnergy,34,1934Ͳ1938.
204

Greenroads Manual v1.5 © 2011

ACCESS & EQUITY

205

Greenroads Manual v1.5 © 2011

206
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-1 Safety Audit
SAFETY AUDIT
GOAL
Improveroadwaysafetythroughreviewbyanindependentauditteam.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Conductaroadsafetyaudit(RSA)ontheprojectroadwayinaccordancewiththe
proceduressetforthinFHWA’sRoadSafetyAuditGuidelines.TheGuidelinesdefine
threegeneralphasesofaprojectduringwhichaRSAmaybeconducted.
1pointisawardedforeachRSAconducteduptoamaximumof2points.
1. PreconstructionphaseRSA.Performedbeforeconstructionbegins.Recommended
changesaregenerallylesscostlyandresultinlessdelay.
2. ConstructionphaseRSA.Performedduringpreparationsconstruction.Theyallow
theroadwaytobeviewedasbuiltandofferalastchancetoassesssafetybeforeit
isopenedtothepublic.
3. PostͲconstructionphaseRSA.Performedonexistingroadstoidentifyroadsafety
issuesfordifferentroadusers.
Note:Foragivenroadwayproject,itislikelythatpreconstructionandconstruction
phaseRSAsareappropriate.ApostͲconstructionphaseRSAinadditiontothesetwo
RSAswouldtypicallyberedundantandisthereforenotadvisable.Seethe“Examples”
sectionforsituationswhereapostͲconstructionphaseRSAmaybeappropriate.
Details
TheFHWARSAGuidelinesareavailableat:
x http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/guidelines.
ManyowneragenciesalreadyhavesafetyauditprogramsthatmeetRSA
guidelines,buttheprogramsmaybecalledothernames.Suchaprogrammust
meettheintentofanRSAasdefinedintheFHWA’sRoadSafetyAuditGuidelines.
Specifically,theRSAmustinvolveareviewbyanindependentteamandfocus
solelyonsafety.
DOCUMENTATION
x Submitacopyofthe“RSAreport”and“formalresponse”asdefinedintheFHWA’s
RoadSafetyAuditGuidelines(2006)foreachRSA.
OR
x Foragencieswithexistingsafetyauditprograms,providealetter,signedbythe
agencyrepresentativefortheproject,statingthattheexistingagencyprogram
meetsorexceedstherequirementsdefinedintheFHWA’sRoadSafetyAudit
Guidelines(2006).Submitacopyofagencyprogramdocumentsthatmeetthe
criteriadefinedinFHWA’sguidelinesasnotedabove.

AE-1
1-2 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ1Environmental
ReviewProcess
9 AEͲ3Context
SensitiveSolutions
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Equity
9 Expectations
BENEFITS
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
207
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Safety Audit AE-1
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x FollowadvicegivenbytheFHWAPublicationNo.FHWAͲSAͲ06Ͳ06,availableat:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/guidelines/documents/FHWA_SA_06_06.pdf.
x RefertotherecommendationsintheFHWA’sRoadSafetyAuditGuidelines(Chapter2)forintroducingRSAs
intoanorganizationasaninternalprogram.TheserecommendationsnotethateffectiveandsuccessfulRSAs
requireamanagementcommitment,anagreedͲuponpolicy,informedprojectmanagers,anongoingtraining
program,andskilledauditors(FHWA,2006).
Example: Hypothetical Case Study
A2Ͳinchoverlayisscheduledfor20laneͲmilesofa2Ͳlaneruralroad.ApreͲconstructionRSAisconductedand
makesrecommendationsonmovingwarningsignstobetterlocationsandinstallingarumblestripalongthe
centerline.Theoverlayprojectadoptstheserecommendationsandincludesthemintheproject.Theproject
wouldreceive1pointforthepreͲconstructionRSA.AconstructionphaseRSAcouldbeconductedtoachieve
anotherpointhowevertheprojectteamdidnotseebenefitinthisandelectednottoconductone.
Example: When to Consider a Post-Construction RSA
ApostͲconstructionRSAcouldbeusefulinthefollowingsituations:
1. AnowneragencyundertakesaroadwayprojectonasectionofroadthatpreviouslyhadaRSAconducted
onitasanexistingfacility.ThisRSAwouldprovideinputintotheplanninganddesignphaseoftheproject
andmakethepreͲconstructionRSAredundant.
2. AnowneragencyisinventoryingallGreenroadspointsitcanobtainforagivennetworkratherthanusing
Greenroadstocertifyanindividualprojectitmightbeabletoimproveitsnetworkscorebyincludingthe
RSAsithasconductedonexistingfacilities.
3. Anowneragencydesiresalistofmodificationsthatcouldresultinfuturesafetyissuechanges.
Examples: FHWA Case Studies
Forfurtherexamples,theFHWA’sRoadSafetyAuditGuidelinescontainssixRSAcasestudies.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. RSAusewhenitisnotpartofaformalagencypolicymayseemarbitraryandRSAexecutionmaybe
cumbersome.
2. TheRSAprocessasdescribedintheFHWA’sRoadSafetyAuditGuidelines(2006)allowsadesignteamto
essentiallydisagreewithallauditrecommendations.Therefore,itispossible,ifnotlikely,thatno
recommendationsareimplementedandtheroadway’soverallsafetydoesnotbenefitfromtheRSA.
RESEARCH
Roadwaycrashesandtheirresultantinjuriesandcostshaveanimmenseimpactonsociety.Eachyearhighway
crashesintheU.S.injure3million,kill43,000andcostover$230billion(WilsonandLipinski,2004).Generally,
societyviewsthesedeaths,injuriesandcostsasavoidableandhasplacedahighpremiumonreducingtheir
numberandseverity.Threeexamplesofthisviewpointfollow:
x “…thetollofdeathsandinjuriesonourroadwaysisamongthemostcompellingpublichealthissuesofour
time.”(AASHTO,2007)
x “…roadtrafficinjuries(pose)aglobalpublichealthcrisisrequiringurgentnationalandinternationalaction.”
(UnitedNations,2008)
x “Safetyisourtoppriority…”(actingFHWAadministratorJimRayinRoadsCanbeSafer…,2008)
Mostofthissectionprovidesasummaryofroadsafetyauditsfromtwomaindocuments:
208
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-1 Safety Audit
x NCHRPSynthesis336:RoadSafetyAudits(2004),whichsummarizesRSAprocessesandtheircurrentusagein
theU.S.andworldwide.
x RoadSafetyAuditGuidelines(2006)fromtheFederalHighwayAdministration,whichprovidesguidancefor
agenciestodrawuponwhendevelopingRSApoliciesandprocedures.
RoadwaySafetyAudits
OnemethodthathasshownpromiseinimprovingroadwaysafetyiswhatiscommonlyreferredtoasaRoad
SafetyAudit(RSA).“AnRSAisaformalsafetyperformanceexaminationofanexistingorfutureroador
intersectionbyanindependentauditteam.Itqualitativelyestimatesandreportsonpotentialroadsafetyissues
andidentifiesopportunitiesforimprovementsinsafetyforallroadusers”(FHWA,2006).RSAsaregenerally
thoughtofasanadditionaltooltoimprovesafetyratherthanareplacementforotherestablishedpracticessuch
assafetyimpactstudies,modeling,safetyimpactstudiesandsafetycompliancereviews(FHWA,2006).
ApplicableProjectTypes
RSAscanbebeneficialtoalltypesofprojects.TheFHWA(2006)specificallymentionsthefollowingtypesof
projectsandbenefits:
x Capitalimprovementprojects.RSAscanprovidesignificantsafetybenefitsinthedesignprocess.
x Rehabilitationprojects.ThescopeandfundingofsuchprojectsmakesincorporatingRSArecommendations
oftenachievablewithonlyminorchangesinoveralldesign.
x Surfaceimprovementprojects.HavethegreatestpotentialtobenefitfromRSAs.OftenlowͲcost,highͲimpact
solutionscanbeidentifiedandimplemented.
x Bridgereconstructionprojects.Allprojects,butespeciallybroadlyscopedones,canbesuccessfulin
incorporatingmajorsafetyimprovementsrecommendedbyanRSA.
x Safetyprojects.Thesemayonlyusereactivetechniquesinidentifyinghazardsandcouldbenefitfromthe
proactivenatureofRSAs.
x DeveloperͲledprojects.Generally,theyarecandidatesbynospecificevidenceisoffered.
WhentoConductanRSA
RSAsaregenerallyconductedatoneormorepointsintheprojecttimeline:
x PreconstructionphaseRSA.Performedbeforeconstructionbegins.Recommendedchangesaregenerallyless
costlyandresultinlessdelay.
x ConstructionphaseRSA.Performedduringpreparationsconstruction.Theyallowtheroadwaytobeviewedas
builtandofferalastchancetoassesssafetybeforeitisopenedtothepublic.
x PostͲconstructionphaseRSA.Performedonexistingroadstoidentifyroadsafetyissuesfordifferentroad
users.PerformingaRSAatthisstagemaybethemostbeneficialforfutureprojectsaschangesafter
constructioncanbecostly.
RSAscanimpactprojectschedulebuttheimpactdependsontheirrecommendationsandhowtheyareaddressed.
SafetyBenefits
BothU.S.andinternationalevidencesuggeststhatRSAsarelowͲcostandcanprovidesubstantial,measurable
benefits.Benefitsgenerallycomefromreducingreconstructioncostsassociatedwithsafetydeficiencies,reducing
lifeͲcyclecosts,reducingsocietalcostsassociatedwithcollisionsandreducingliabilityclaims.Somespecific
examplesare(WilsonandLipinski,2004;FHWA,2006):
x AUKstudyanalyzedcrashdatafrom19auditedand19nonͲauditedsites.Itfoundacasualtysavingsof1.25
peryear(fatalcrashratesdroppedfrom2.08to0.83peryear)fortheauditedsitesandonly0.26peryear
(fatalcrashratesdroppedfrom2.6to2.34peryear)forthenonͲauditedsites.
x AUKstudyanalyzed22auditedtrunkroadsitesandplacedtheaveragesavingspersiteat£11,373persite.
209
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Safety Audit AE-1
x Austroadsdescribed9auditeddesignͲstatesitesthatreported250findingswithbenefit/costratiosbetween
3:1and242:1.
x TheNewYorkDepartmentofTransportationreportsa20Ͳ40%reductionincrashesatmorethan300highͲ
crashlocationsthathadreceivedsafetyimprovementsrecommendedbyRSAs.
x EarlySouthCarolinaDepartmentofTransportationresults(atthe1Ͳyearpoint)showeddecreasedcrashesand
economicsavings.Onesiteimplementing4of8recommendationsshoweda12.5%decreaseincrasheswitha
savingsof$40,000,asecondsitehada15.8%increaseincrasheswhenonly2of13recommendationswere
implemented,athirdsitethatimplementedall9recommendationssawa60%reductioninfatalitiesresulting
ina$3.66millionsavings,andafourthsitethatimplemented25of37recommendationshada23.4%
reductionincrashesandasavingsof$147,000.
Costs&LegalConsiderations
GenerallyRSAscostbetween$1,000and$8,000(WilsonandLipinski,2004),whichusuallyrepresentsasmall
fractionofengineeringdesigncosts.Therefore,analysesthatcalculaterateofreturngenerallygivevaluesofover
100%.ThisisespeciallytruewhenevenonelifesavedisattributedtotheRSA.Inpractice,however,itisdifficultto
attributesavingalifetoanyoneaudit,recommendationoraction.
TheFHWA(2006)mentionsthatsomeagencieshavebeenreluctanttoconductRSAsduetoafearthatreportswill
beusedagainstthemintortliabilitylawsuits.InstateswheretrainingonRSAswasconductedlocallegalstaffs
gaveacommonmessage:RSAsareapositiveapproachanddonotincreasetheagency’sliabilityand,infact,help
inthedefenseoftortliability(WilsonandLipinski,2004).
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO).(2007).Transportation:Investin
OurFuture.AASHTO,Washington,DC.Availableat
http://www.transportation1.org/tif5report/safer_america.html
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2006).RoadSafetyAuditGuidelines.PublicationNo.FHWAͲSAͲ06Ͳ06.
FHWA,U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.Availableathttp://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/index.cfm.
UnitedNations.(2008).GeneralAssemblyAdoptsResolutiononEasingGlobalRoadSafetyCrisis.GA/10694.SixtyͲ
secondGeneralAssembly,Plenary,87thmeeting(AM).
U.S.DepartmentofTransportationOfficeofPublicAffairs.Pressrelease:RoadsCanBeSafer,TopFederalHighway
OfficialSays.(2008).Availableathttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa0816.htm.
Wilson,E.M.andLipinski,M.E.(2004).NCHRPSynthesis336:RoadSafetyAudits.TransportationResearchBoard,
Washington,D.C.
FHWA FederalHighwayAdministration
RSA Roadsafetyaudit
210
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-2 Intelligent Transportation Systems
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
GOAL
Meeteconomicandsocialneedsandimprovemobilitywithoutaddingcapacity,or
improvetheefficiencyoftransportationsystems.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Includeintelligenttransportationsystem(ITS)applicationslistedintheFederal
HighwayAdministration’s(FHWA)ResearchandInnovativeTechnologyAdministration
(RITA)OfficeofIntelligentTransportationSystemsApplicationsOverviewportionof
theirITSwebsite(seeat:http://www.itsoverview.its.dot.gov).TableAEͲ2.1(opposite
page)liststhestandardITSapplicationsandRITAITSwebsitecategoriesallowablefor
thiscredit.
2points
Installatleast1applicationin2separatecategories.
3points
Installatleast1applicationin3separatecategories.
4points
Installatleast1applicationin4separatecategories.
5points
Installatleast1applicationin5separatecategories.
Details
Additionally,inorderforanITSapplicationtocountforthiscredititneedstoexist
withintheprojectlimitsinameaningfulmanner.TheFHWA’sRITAITSwebsite
separatesITSapplicationsintobroadcategories.Theintentionofthiscreditisto
haveatleasttwooftheseRITAITSwebsitecategoriesrepresentedwiththeproject
limitstoearnpoints.So,iftheprojectisanimprovementofanexistingfacilityand
thatexistingfacilityalreadyincludesoneormoreITSapplications,thoseexisting
applicationscanbecountedtowardthetotalpoints.Additionally,notethatinno
casecanmorethan5pointsbeearned.Theremustbeatleast1applicationin2
separatecategoriesinorderforanypointstobeearned.
DOCUMENTATION
x AlistoftheITSapplicationsandtheircorrespondingcategories
x EvidencethattheseITSapplicationsarephysicallyinstalledontheprojectorare
applicabletotheprojectarea.Thisevidencecanbeanyoneofthefollowing:
x Thepage(s)intheprojectplansandspecificationsthatrefertotheapplication
x Documentationthatshowsaparticularapplicationisoperationalintheproject
area(e.g.,thegeographiccoverageareaforthe511travelerinformation
service,ascreenshotofanonlinedynamicmapthatidentifiestheprojectarea
andclearlyshowstheprojectareaisincludedinthemap)
x Photo(s)ofeachapplicationinstalledifitisaphysicalentity.
AE-2
2-5 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 AEͲ3Context
SensitiveSolutions
9 AEͲ5Pedestrian
Access
9 AEͲ6BicycleAccess
9 AEͲ7Transit&HOV
Access
9 MRͲ6Energy
Efficiency
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Equity
9 Economy
9 Extent
9 Expectations
9 Experience
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 ReducesFossilFuel
Use
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesGreenhouse
Gases
9 ImprovesMobility
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
9 ReducesLifecycle
Costs
9 IncreasesAwareness
211
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Intelligent Transportation Systems AE-2
TableAEͲ2.1:AllowableITSApplicationsforAEͲ2
Category Application
Surveillance Traffic
Infrastructure
TrafficControl AdaptiveSignalControl
AdvancedSignalSystems
VariableSpeedLimits
Bicycle&Pedestrian
SpecialEvents
LaneManagement HOVFacilities
ReversibleFlowLanes
Pricing
LaneControl
Variable SpeedLimits
EmergencyEvacuation
InformationDissemination DynamicMessageSigns(DMS)
HighwayAdvisoryRadio(HAR)
Enforcement SpeedEnforcement
TrafficSignalEnforcement
RampMeterEnforcement
HOVFacilitiesEnforcement
RampControl RampMetering
PriorityAccess
WarningSystems RampRollover
CurveSpeedWarning
DownhillSpeedWarning
Overheight/OverwidthWarning
HighwayͲRailCrossingWarningSystems
IntersectionCollisionWarning
PedestrianSafety
BicycleWarning
AnimalWarning
RoadWeatherManagement PavementConditions
AtmosphericConditions
WaterLevel
TransitManagement DynamicRouting/Scheduling
InͲTerminal/WaysideInformationDissemination
TravelerInformation Internet/Wireless
511
Telephone
ElectronicPayment/Pricing TollCollection
TransitFarePayment
TrafficIncidentManagement CallBoxes
ServicePatrols
EmergencyVehicleSignalPreemption
Notes:TheapplicationnomenclatureanddefinitionscomedirectlyfromtheFHWA’sRITAITSApplications
Overviewwebpage(http://www.itsoverview.its.dot.gov).
212
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-2 Intelligent Transportation Systems
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x TheFHWA’sRITAITSwebsite(http://www.its.dot.gov)maintainsacurrentdatabaseofITSbenefits,costs,
lessonslearnedanddeploymentstatistics.Itisanexcellentresourceforapproachesandstrategies.
x ITSAmerica,anotͲforͲprofitorganization,alsomaintainsawebsite(http://www.itsa.org)withsubstantial
documentationonITSefforts.
Example: How to Calculate Points
3points
AfreewayonͲrampisbeingupgradedtoincludearampmeteringsystem.Inadditiontherearealreadyvideo
surveillancecamerasinusethatareaccessiblebythegeneralpublicthroughacommontrafficwebsite.The
areaisalsocoveredbya511trafficinformationsystemandhighwayadvisoryradio(HAR).Thisprojectwould
earn3pointsbecause3applicationcategoriesarerepresented.Notethataprojectcannotearn1pointforthis
VoluntaryCredit.Atleast2categoriesmustberepresentedtoearntheminimumof2points.
x Surveillance.Thetrafficcamerasareanapplicationinthiscategory.
x Travelerinformation:the511serviceandwebsitearebothapplicationsinthiscategory.Althoughthis
categoryisrepresentedbytwoseparatesystems,itisstillonlycountedonce.
x Informationdissemination:theHARisanapplicationinthiscategory.
5points
Anarterialisbeingupgradedtobemorecontextsensitive.Existingarterialfacilitiesthatremaininplace
includeavariablemessagesignandvideotrafficsignalenforcement.Theprojectisaddingtimedsignallights
andsensorstoincludeitintheareaͲwidenetworkshownonlineattheagency’swebsite.Trafficsurveillance
camerasarealsobeingadded.Thisprojectwouldearn5pointsbecause5applicationcategoriesare
represented.Notethataprojectcannotearn1pointforthisVoluntaryCredit.Atleast2categoriesmustbe
representedtoearntheminimumof2points.
x Surveillance.Theaddedtrafficcamerasareanapplicationinthiscategory.
x Trafficcontrol.Theaddedsignaltimingisanapplicationinthiscategory.
x Informationdissemination.Theexistingdynamicmessagesignisanapplicationinthiscategory.
x Enforcement.Theexistingtrafficsignalvideoenforcementisanapplicationinthiscategory.
x Travelerinformation:theinclusionofthisarterialintheagency’sonlinetrafficflowmapisanapplicationin
thiscategory.
Example: ITS Categories
SomeexamplesofITSusefromtheRITA’sIntelligentTransportationSystemsBenefits,Costs,andLessons
Learned:2008Updateare(thesearedirectquotesfromtheexecutivesummary,italicsaddedtodistinguish
fromothertext):
ArterialManagement
OptimizingsignaltimingisconsideredalowͲcostapproachtoreducingcongestion.Basedondata
fromsixseparatestudies,thecostsrangefrom$2,500to$3,100persignalperupdate(Sunkari2004;
TEIEngineering2005;Harris2005;NTOC2005;Luor2006;Heminger2006).Basedonaseriesof
surveysofarterialmanagementagenciesin78ofthelargestU.S.metropolitanareas,halfoftraffic
signalsinthesemetropolitanareaswereundercentralizedcontrolthroughclosedͲlooporcomputer
controlin2006.
FreewayManagement
TherearenumerousITSstrategiestoimprovefreewayoperations.Metropolitanareasthatdeploy
ITSinfrastructureincludingdynamicmessagesigns(DMS)tomanagefreewayandarterialtraffic,
213
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Intelligent Transportation Systems AE-2
andintegratetravelerinformationwithincidentmanagementsystemscanincreasepeakperiod
freewayspeedsby8to13percent(SmithandPerez1992;BirstandAyman2000),improvetravel
time,andaccordingtosimulationstudies,reducecrashratesandimprovetriptimereliabilitywith
delayreductionsrangingfrom1to22percent(SmithandPerez1992;FHWA1999a;FHWA1999b;
BristandAyman2000;FHWA2000;FHWA2001;Jeannotte2001).InMinneapolisͲSt.Paul,the
benefitͲtoͲcostratioforarampmeteringsystemwasestimatedat15:1(CambridgeSystematics
2001).
CrashPreventionandSafety
Downhillspeedwarningsystemshavedecreasedtruckcrashesbyupto13percentatproblemsitesin
OregonandColorado(Drakopoulos2006).Aspartofanevaluationofautomatedtruckrollover
warningsystems,thePennsylvaniaDOTresearchedsystemsinotherstates.Thecostofthesesystems
variedsignificantly,rangingfrom$50,000to$500,000,asdidtheirconfigurations:invasiveandnonͲ
invasivedetection,weightͲbasedversussimplifiedspeedclassalgorithms,andsystemcalibrationsfor
warnings(Pento2005).Thethreemostwidelyadoptedsystemsarecurveandrampspeed,rail
crossingwarningsystemsandpedestriansafetysystems.Nextinpopularity,andadoptedbyabout
halfasmanystates,aredownhillwarningsystems,intersectioncollisionavoidancesystems,and
animalwarningsystems.
RoadWeatherManagement
Evaluationdatashowthat80to94percentofmotoristswhousetravelerinformationWebsites
thinkroadweatherinformationenhancestheirsafetyandpreparesthemforadverseroad
weather.(FHWA2004;FHWA2006).StudieshavefoundthatantiͲicingprogramscanlowersnowand
icecontrolcostsby10to50percentandreducecrashratesby7to83percent(Breen2001;
McCormickRankinCorporationandEcoplansLtd.2004;O’KeefeandShi2005).
ElectronicPaymentandPricing
Onfreeways,variablepricingstrategiesareeffectiveatinfluencingtravelerbehavior.Althoughinitial
publicsupportforsuchtollsmaybelow,researchindicatesthatroadusersvaluetimesavingsand
arewillingtopayapricetoavoidcongestionanddelay(NorthCentralTexasCouncilofGovernments
2005;Doumaetal.2006).InCalifornia,forexample,publicsupportforvariabletollingonState
Route91wasinitiallylow;butafter18monthsofoperations,nearly75percentofthecommuting
publicexpressedapprovalofvirtuallyallaspectsoftheexpresslanesprogram(NorthCentralTexas
CouncilofGovernments2005).
TravelerInformation
StudiesshowthatdriverswhouserouteͲspecifictraveltimeinformationinsteadofareaͲwidetraffic
advisoriescanimproveonͲtimeperformanceby5to13percent(Vasudevanetal.2005).Recent
evaluationdatashowthatcustomersatisfactionwithregional511deploymentsrangefrom68to92
percent(511DeploymentCoalition2005).The511DeploymentCoalitionconductedaninͲdepthcost
analysisbasedontheexperiencefromnine511deployers.Onaverage,thestatewidesystemscost
approximately$2.5milliontodesign,implement,andoperateduringthefirstyear.Metropolitan
systemscostanaverageof$1.8milliontodesign,implement,andoperateduringthefirstyear(511
DeploymentCoalition2006).Thetwomostpopularmediafordistributingtravelerinformationinthe
78largestU.S.metropolitanareasareWebsitesandeͲmail,followedbyautomatictelephoneand
pagers.Thirty(30)ofthe78metropolitanareasusededicatedTVtodistributetravelerinformation
and18usekiosks,amediumwhichhasseennogrowthinrecentyears.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
TheITSapplicationsusedshouldprovidequantifiedbenefitsthatjustifytheircost.
214
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-2 Intelligent Transportation Systems
RESEARCH
TheFHWA’sRITAITSwebsite(http://www.its.dot.gov)maintainsacurrentdatabaseofITSbenefits,costs,lessons
learnedanddeploymentstatistics.ITSAmerica,anotͲforͲprofitorganization,alsomaintainsawebsite
(http://www.itsa.org)withsubstantialdocumentationonITSefforts.
PerceivedandMeasuredBenefitsofITS
Thegoalareadefinitionslistedbelow(whichcanbefoundatthebottomofthiswebsite:
http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/ByInfo/WhatIsBClassifications#goal)giveanoverviewofthe
perceivedandmeasuredbenefitsofITS.Themostrelevantsustainabilitycomponentsarelistedattheendofeach
goalareadescription.
Safety
Severalspecificapplicationsaimtoreduceboththenumberandseverityofcrashes.Thisbenefitisdirectly
relatedtotheequitycomponentofsustainability.Measuresofeffectivenessincludecrashrate,fatalityrate,
andinjuryrate.Equity
Mobility
Manyapplicationsaimtoreducetraveldelayandtraveltime.Thisbenefitisrelatedtotheequity(improved
mobility),economy(lowerusercostassociatedwithfacilityuseduetofastertraveltime)andecology(more
efficientusecanbutmaynotalwaysleadtolessfuelconsumptionandfeweremissions).Measuresof
effectivenessincludedelaytimeandvariabilityoftraveltime.Ecology,economy
Productivity
Someapplicationsaimtoreduceoperatingcostsandallowproductivityimprovements.Thisincludes
applicationsthatmaysavetimeincompletingbusinessorregulatoryprocesses,systemsthathavelowerlife
cyclecostscomparedtotraditionaltransportationsystems,andinformationcollection/aggregation
applicationsthatcanleadtoeconomicsavingsorperformanceimprovement.Measuresofeffectivenessare
usuallysomeformofcostsavingsachievedbyusingITS.Economy,extent,expectations.
Efficiency
Manyapplicationsaredesignedtoimprovetheefficiencyofexistingfacilitiessothatmobility,accessandother
needscanbemetwiththeexistingorlessphysicalinfrastructurethanwouldotherwisebepossible.Traditional
methodsofmeasuringcapacity(e.g.,thoseintheHighwayCapacityManual2000)oftendonotaccountforITS
applicationsthatcanimprovecapacitybeyondthatforatraditionalroadwaywithoutITS.Atypicalmeasureof
effectivenessis“effectivecapacity”,orthemaximumpotentialrateatwhichpersonsorvehiclesmaytraversea
link,node,ornetworkunderarepresentativecompositeofroadwayconditionsincludingweather,incidents,
andvariationintrafficdemandpatterns.Economy,equity,extent,expectations.
EnergyandEnvironment
Someapplicationshavethesecondaryeffectofimprovingairqualityandlesseningenergyimpactsof
transportationbecauseofimprovedefficiencyorotherimprovementmeasures.Measuresofeffectiveness
includemodeledorsimulatedreductionsinemissionsandenergyuse.Ecology,economy.
CustomerSatisfaction
Manyapplicationsprovideimprovedcustomersatisfactionbymorecloselymeetingtravelerexpectations.
Typicalmeasuresofeffectivenessaretravelersurveys,productawareness,expectation/realizationofbenefits
andassessmentofvalue.Equity.
215
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Intelligent Transportation Systems AE-2
GLOSSARY
Effectivecapacity Themaximumpotentialrateatwhichpersonsorvehiclesmaytraversealink,
node,ornetworkunderarepresentativecompositeofroadwayconditions
includingweather,incidents,andvariationintrafficdemandpatterns.
IntelligentTransportationSystem Anapplicationofintegratedinformation,telecommunicationsandcomputerͲ
basedtechnologiestoinfrastructureandvehiclesinordertoimprovesafety
andmobilityonsurfacetransportationnetworks.

REFERENCES
511DeploymentCoalition.(2005).America’sTravelInformationNumber:ImplementationandOperational
Guidelinesfor511ServicesVersion3.0,511DeploymentCoalition.
511DeploymentCoalition.(2006).511DeploymentCosts:ACaseStudy,511DeploymentCoalition.
Birst,S.andAymanS.(2000).AnEvaluationofITSforIncidentManagementinSecondͲTierCities:AFargo,NDCase
Study.PaperPresentedatITE2000AnnualMeeting.Nashville,Tennessee.6–10August2000.
Breen,B.D.(2001).AntiͲIcingSuccessFuelsExpansionofthePrograminIdaho,IdahoTransportationDepartment,
SnowandIcePooledFundCooperativeProgram.
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/weather/Publications/AntiicingIdaho.pdf.Accessed5October2001.
CambridgeSystematics.(2001).TwinCitiesRampMeterEvaluation:FinalReport.PreparedbyCambridge
SystematicsfortheMinnesotaDOT,EDLNo.13425.St.Paul,MN.
Douma,F.;Zmud,J.andPatterson,T.(2006).PricingComestoMinnesota:BaselineAttitudinalEvaluationoftheIͲ
394HOTLaneProject.PaperPresentedatthe85thTransportationResearchBoardAnnualMeeting.
Washington,DC.
Drakopoulos,A.(2006).CVO/FreightandITSSession.Presentationatthe12thannualITSForum,Wisconsin
ChapterofITSAmerica—Smartways,MarquetteUniversity.Milwaukee,WI.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(1999a).InnovativeTrafficControlTechnologyandPracticeinEurope,
U.S.DOTFederalHighwayAdministration,OfficeofInternationalPrograms.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(1999b).ITSImpactsAssessmentforSeattleMMDIEvaluation:Modeling
MethodologyandResults.U.S.DOTFederalHighwayAdministration.EDLNo.11323.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2000).MetropolitanModelDeploymentInitiative:SanAntonio
EvaluationReport(FinalDraft).U.S.DOTFederalHighwayAdministration,ReportNo.FHWAͲOPͲ00Ͳ017,EDL
No.12883.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2001).DetroitFreewayCorridorITSEvaluation,U.S.DOTFederal
HighwayAdministration.EDLNo.13586.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2004).EvaluationofRuralITSInformationSystemsalongU.S.395,
Spokane,Washington.U.S.DOTFederalHighwayAdministration,EDLNo.13955.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2006).FinalEvaluationReport:EvaluationoftheIdahoTransportation
DepartmentIntegratedRoadͲWeatherInformationSystem.U.S.DOTFederalHighwayAdministration,EDLNo.
14267.
216
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-2 Intelligent Transportation Systems
Harris,J.(2005).BenefitsofRetimingTrafficSignals:AReferenceforPractitionersandDecisionMakersaboutthe
BenefitsofTrafficSignalRetiming.PresentedattheITE2005AnnualMeetingandExhibit.Melbourne,
Australia.7–10August2005.
Heminger,S.(2006).RegionalSignalTimingProgram—2005CycleProgramPerformance.Memorandumtothe
CaliforniaMetropolitanTransportationCommission’sOperationsCommittee.Oakland,CA.
Jeannotte,K.(2001).EvaluationoftheAdvancedRegionalTrafficInteractiveManagementandInformationSystem
(ARTIMIS).PaperPresentedatthe11thAnnualITSAmericaMeeting.Miami,FL.
Luor,J.(2006).ConversationwithJerryLuor,TrafficEngineeringSupervisor,DenverRegionalCouncilof
Governments(DRCOG).October2006.
McCormickRankinCorporationandEcoplansLtd.(2004).CaseStudy#6:WinterMaintenanceInnovationsReduce
AccidentsandCosts—CityofKamloops,PreparedbytheMcCormickRankinCorporationandEcoplansLimited
fortheInsuranceCorporationofBritishColumbiaandEnvironment.Canada.
NationalTransportationOperationsCoalition(NTOC).(2005).TheNationalTrafficSignalReportCard:Technical
Report.NationalTransportationOperationsCoalition.Washington,DC.
NorthCentralTexasCouncilofGovernments.(2005).2005RegionalValuePricingCorridorEvaluationand
FeasibilityStudy:Dallas/FortWorth—ValuePricingHistoryandExperience.NorthCentralTexasCouncilof
Governments.Arlington,TX.
O’Keefe,K.andShi,X.(2005).SynthesisofInformationonAntiͲicingandPreͲwettingforWinterHighway
MaintenancePracticesinNorthAmerica:FinalReport.PreparedbytheMontanaStateUniversityforthePacific
NorthwestSnowfightersAssociationandtheWashingtonStateDOT.
Pento,R.J.(2005).EvaluationofPennDOTITSDeployments,PennDOT,BureauofHighwaySafetyandTraffic
Engineering.Presentationtothe2005TransportationEngineeringandSafetyConference.
Smith,S.andPerez,C.(1992).EvaluationofINFORM—LessonsLearnedandApplicationstoOtherSystems,Paper
Presentedatthe71
st
AnnualMeetingoftheTransportationResearchBoard.Washington,DC.
Sunkari,S.(2004).TheBenefitsofRetimingTrafficSignals,ITEJournal.April2004.
TEIEngineering.(2005).FeeEstimate—MillenniaMallRetimingandScopeandSchedule—MillenniaMallRetiming,
BidsubmittedbyTEIEngineeringtotheCityofOrlando,FL.
TransportationResearchBoard(TRB).(2000).HighwayCapacityManual2000.TRB,NationalResearchCouncil,
Washington,D.C.
Vasudevan,M.;Wunderlich,K.;Larkin,J.;andToppen.A.(2005).AComparisonofMobilityImpactsonUrban
CommutingBetweenBroadcastAdvisoriesandAdvancedTravelerInformationServices.PaperPresentedatthe
84thAnnualTransportationResearchBoardMeeting.Washington,DC.

217
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Intelligent Transportation Systems AE-2

218
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-3 Context Sensitive Solutions
CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS
GOAL
Deliverprojectsthatsynthesizetransportationrequirementsandcommunityvalues
througheffectivedecisionͲmakingandthoughtfuldesign.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
DesigntheprojectaccordingtotheprinciplesofContextSensitiveSolutions(CSS).
FilloutthesubmissionformfromtheCSSNationalDialogwebsiteforprojectdesign
andconstruction.Theformcanbefoundhere:
http://www.cssnationaldialog.org/documents/design.pdf.
OR
Createashortwhitepaper(narrative)documentdescribingthefollowing:
1. Thepurposeandneedfortheproject.
2. Theplanninghorizonandproposedtimelineorscheduleforprojectcompletion.
3. Alistororganizationalchartofthemanagementstructurefortheproject:this
includes,projectplanners,designprofessionals,consultants,agencyleads,and
otherstakeholdersinvolved.
4. Theelementsofthedecisionmakingprocessused.
5. Thelocalandregionalcontextandissuessurroundingtheproject,otherfederal
contextandissues,andapplicablejurisdictionalregulationsandpolicies.
6. ThepublicinvolvementprocessforCSDandresultsofthisprocess.
7. Thetransportationmodesconsideredandresultsofthisconsideration.
8. Thevisualandaestheticcomponentsoftheproject.
9. TheplanforlongͲtermonͲgoingmonitoringduringoperations(ifany).
10. Thefinalalternativesanddesignelementschosenforimplementation(asummary
issufficient).
Details
Note:ThiscreditmustbeearnedinordertoearncreditsAEͲ4TrafficEmissions
Reduction,AEͲ5PedestrianAccess,AEͲ6BicycleAccess,andAEͲ7TransitAccess.
ContextSensitiveSolutions(alsoContextSensitiveDesign;CSD)isdefinedasa
collaborative,interdisciplinaryapproachthatinvolvesallstakeholderstoprovidea
transportationfacilitythatfitsitssetting.Itisanapproachthatleadstopreserving
andenhancingscenic,aesthetic,historic,community,andenvironmentalresources,
whileimprovingormaintainingsafety,mobility,andinfrastructureconditions.
(FHWA,2009)
DOCUMENTATION
x CopyoftheimplementationofCSSintransportationprojectdesignand
constructionformORcopyoftheContextSensitivePlanningwhitepaper
addressingall10itemsabove.
AE-3
5 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ1Environmental
ReviewProcess
9 AEͲ4Traffic
EmissionsReduction
9 AEͲ5Pedestrian
Access
9 AEͲ6BicycleAccess
9 AEͲ7Transit&HOV
Access
9 AEͲ8ScenicViews
9 AEͲ9Cultural
Outreach
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Equity
9 Economy
9 Extent
9 Expectations
9 Experience
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 ReducesManmade
Footprint
9 ImprovesAccess
9 ImprovesMobility
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
9 Improves
Accountability
9 IncreasesAwareness
9 IncreasesAesthetics
219
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Context Sensitive Solutions AE-3
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
TheCSS/CSDFramework
x Consultexistingguidancedocumentsandresourcestounderstandtheframeworkandreviewavarietyof
examples.Seethe“AdditionalResources”listedattheendofthiscredit.
x FollowtheCSSframework(Stamatiadisetal.,2009;Neumanetal.,2002).TherearesixkeystepsintheCSS
projectdevelopmentprocess:
1. DevelopadecisionͲmakingprocessandmanagementstructure.
2. Definetheproblem.
3. Developtheprojectandtheevaluationframeworkfortheproject.
4. Determinealternatives.
5. Screenthealternatives.
6. Evaluateandselectanalternative.
InterdisciplinaryDecisionͲMaking
x CollaboratewithlocalexpertsinbothtransportationandnonͲtransportationplanninganddesignprofessions.
x Useatransparentdecisionprocesswithclearchannelsforcommunityparticipation.Thiswillensuredesignofa
projectthatmeetstheneedsofthetransportationsystemaswellasthecommunityasawhole.
x Incorporatethefollowingfiveelementsinthedecisionprocessthroughouttheprojectforthemosteffective
approach(fromNeumanetal.,2002):
1. Thedecisionpointsintheprocessorprojectmilestones.
2. Whowillmakeeachdecision.
3. Whowillmakerecommendationsforeachdecision.
4. Whowillbeconsultedoneachdecision.
5. Howrecommendationsandcommentswillbetransmittedtodecisionmakers.
x Documenteachoftheseelementsclearlyintheprojectpapertrail.ThiswillhelpensurethatprojectdecisionͲ
makersareheldaccountablefortheirresponsibilitiesandactions.
PlanningandDesignConsiderations
x Considertheappropriatenessofincludingbike,pedestrianortransitfacilitiesinthedesignoftheroadway
duringprojectplanning.Thismightbeassimpleasconstructingbikelanesandsidewalksascalledforinlocal
designstandards.
x Reviewlocalplansforroadwaydesignstandardsandfunctions.
x Consultwithlocalplannersfromappropriateagencies(parksdept.,publicworks,planning,transportationand
transit)todetermineifyourassessmentiscomplete.
x Usevisualizationtools,suchasphotographrenderingorcomputermodels.Thesecanoftencanhelpindesign
alternativeselectionprocess.
x ConsidertheprojectnoͲbuildcondition.Somelocalstandardsmayrequireelementsthatmaynotbe
appropriateforenvironmentalorengineeringreasonsandmaybeabletobegrantedanexceptionwhichcan
bepursuedduringplanning.Anexamplewouldbedesigningnarrowerstreetsthanrequiredbystandard
specificationsinaresidentialneighborhood,whichcanimprovesafetybyslowingneighborhoodtraffic.
CSDforMultimodalAccess
x Considerallmodesattheinitialstagesofplanning.Whileeachindividualroadwaydoesnothaveto
accommodatepeopleusingallmodes,asystemshouldbeaccessibletopeopleonbikes,foot,andtransit,as
wellasincarsandtrucks,wherethepurposeandneedstatementfortheprojectdefinetheseelementsas
appropriate.
220
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-3 Context Sensitive Solutions
x Consultlocalplansforexistingandfutureplannedbike,pedestrianandtransitelementstoseeiftheproject
includesorcrossesnamedelements.Manyjurisdictionshaveadoptedplansrelatedtobike,pedestrianand
transitsystems.
x Incorporatenewmodalelementssuchasbikelanes,sidewalksortrails,andtransitfacilitiesshouldbeincluded
indesignswhereapplicable.Generally,designstandardsorplanswilldictateplacementoftheseelements,or
theymayberequestedbythepublicduringprojectscoping.
x ConsideringroadwayimprovementswhichmayimpacttheexistingormasterͲplannedbike,pedestrianand
transitnetworks.Improvementstothesemodalelementsshouldbemadeasappropriatetomitigateuser
impacts.
PublicInvolvementConsiderations
x Consultwithstakeholderstounderstandcommunityissues,toenvisionsolutions,and,ultimately,to
understandhowaprojectfitsintoacommunity.Throughthisprocess,plannersanddesignersaremorelikely
todesignaprojectthatminimizesimpactstothecommunityandsupportsthecommunity’svision.
x ConductanappropriatelyͲscaledstakeholderconsultationprocessinprojectplanningforthewholeprojectand
specificissuesasneeded.Thisprocessmightbeassimpleasholdingaprojectopenhousetoidentify
communityconcerns,issuesoropportunities,oritmightbealongprocesswithmultipleopportunitiesfor
stakeholderengagementincludingpublicworkshops,committeemeetings,andotherengagement
opportunities.
x Includeinthepublicinvolvementplanthefollowingsteps:issueidentification,developmentofevaluation
criteria,developmentofpotentialsolutions,evaluationofsolutions,andselectionofasolutionthatbestmeets
theevaluationcriteria.
x Followtheguidanceavailableonstakeholderconsultation,suchastheFHWA’sPublicInvolvementTechniques
forTransportationDecisionMakingandHowtoEngageLowͲLiteracyandLimitedͲEnglishͲProficiency
PopulationsinTransportationDecisionmaking.
x Developmentaplanforstakeholderinvolvementsothatthesessionsrunsmoothlyandachieveobjectives.This
planrequiresanunderstandingofthecommunitythatcanbeinformedbyconversationswithlocalleadersor
jurisdictionalstaff,researchontheweb,orpreviousworkinthecommunity.Theplanshouldidentify
milestonesforstakeholderinvolvement,acleardecisionprocessthatillustrateshowinputwillbeused,and
toolsormethodsforinvolvingstakeholders.
x Documentandtrackpublicinputandhowthatinputisreflectedinprojectplanninganddesign.
x Setupacommentandresolutionlogthatlistscommunitycommentsandteamactions.
x Usenarrativesorminutesthatdescribeinputgatheredateachprojectmilestoneandhowthatinputwillbe
reflectedintheprocess.
x Rememberthatthestakeholderconsultationprocessdoesnotrequireacquiescencetoeverystakeholder
request.Somerequestswillbetooexpensive,willbeoutofstepwiththeprojectpurpose,orwillnotreflect
thevaluesofthecommunityasawhole.
x Developinganevaluationframeworkthatreflectscommunitygoalsandprojectgoalscreatesafilterfor
determiningwhichrequestsareintegratedintotheprojectandwhicharesetaside.
Example: Aurora Avenue North Multimodal Corridor Project — Shoreline, WA
TheCityofShorelineimplementedanewroadwaydesignforthreemilesofStateRoute99(alsoknownas
AuroraAvenueNorth)toalleviatetrafficcongestion,improvebusinessaccess,andprovidepedestrianaccess.
ContextͲSensitiveSolutions(CSS)wereusedtodesignanenvironmentallyconsciousroadwaythatprotected
salmonandprovidedmultimodalmobilityimprovementstotheNorthwest,includingpedestrians,bicyclists,
motorists,andfreighttruckers.SeeFiguresAEͲ3.1throughAEͲ3.3.
SomehighlightsoftheCSSprocessfollowedbytheprojectinclude:
x Photosimulationshelpedstakeholdersvisualizetheimpactofproposedsolutions
221
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Context Sensitive Solutions AE-3
x MultimodalconnectivitywassuccessfullyprovidedforcyclistsandpedestriansviatheInterurbanTrail,
whichsailsacrosstheroadway,givingsafeanddedicatedaccessforthesetravelers.Continuous11Ͳfoot
widesidewalkswithdisabilityaccesswerealsoinstalled,reducingpedestrianfatalitiesandinjuries.
x TransitservicewasenhancedviaBusͲRapidTransit(BRT:FigureAEͲ3.2),includingdedicatedbuslanes,inͲ
linestops,accessimprovementsatbuszonesandshelters,andsignalpriority.Theseenhancements
resultedinmajorefficiency(80%speedincrease)andschedulingimprovements(600%reliabilityincrease).

FigureAEͲ3.1:BicycleandPedestrianBridge.
PhotobyCH2MHill.

FigureAEͲ3.2:AerialviewofAuroraAvenueandBRT.
PhotobyCH2MHill.
FigureAEͲ3.3:InterurbanTrailBicycleandPedestrianBridgeoverSRͲ99.PhotobyCH2MHill.

x Stakeholdersworkedalongwithplannersanddesignerstoreachaconsensusthatbestfitgoalsandvalues,
(thoughagoodportionoftheremainingSRͲ99corridorisstillamatterofpublicdebate.)
x Trafficefficiencyimprovements,suchasintersectioncapacity,corridorͲwidetrafficmanagement,new
signalsandaccesslocations,resultedinflowimprovementsover36%overthenoͲbuildcondition.
x Accessmanagementandilluminationofthecorridorincreasedsafetybyreducingseverityofcrashesand
reducingtotalcrashesby25%.
x Aestheticimprovementswereincorporated,includinglandscaping,trees,screeningandburyingutilities,
publicartandarchitecturalfeatures.Thisresultedinincreasedpropertyvaluesandredevelopmentanda
morelivablecommunity.
x StormwatermanagementincorporatedbiofiltrationareasandinRightͲofͲWaytreatmentfacilities,
ultimatelyreducingimpervioussurfaceby15%andimprovingstormwaterqualityby100%overnoͲbuild.
MoreinformationabouttheSRͲ99ImprovementsisavailableherefromtheWashingtonStateDepartmentof
Transportation:http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/SR99/Shoreline_NCTHOV/
Example: Case Study — Whittier Access Project — Whittier, Alaska
TheAlaskaDepartmentofTransportationandPublicFacilitiesbegantheWhittierAccessProjecttoincrease
accessandmobilitytotheregionforbothtrainandhighwaytravel.Forthefirsttimein50years,Whittier
222
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-3 Context Sensitive Solutions
wouldhaveahighway,providingaccesstoemergencyservices,recreation,tourism,travelandcommercein
theenvironmentallyͲsensitivesettingofPrinceWilliamSoundandtheChugachNationalForest.
Twofundamentalobjectivesguidedtheproject:meettransportationaccessneedsforresidents,freightand
visitorsandminimizeenvironmentalimpactfromconstruction.Planningforthe4Ͳmileaccessroad,two
tunnels(one500Ͳfeetandanother2.5ͲmilecombinedͲaccessforrailandhighway),twobridges,andportal
buildingsbeganin1993.Thecompletedprojectopenedtothepublicin2000.Notethatpedestrianandbicycle
accessisnotprovidedforsafetyreasons.Additionally,thereisnopublictransitinWhittier.SeeFigureAEͲ3.4.

FigureAEͲ3.4:WhittierAccessproject.PhotobyCH2MHill.

Someprojecthighlightsinclude:
x Theroadwayalignmentsusedexistingtopographicalfeaturestominimizevisualimpactbyscreeningthe
roadwiththenew500ͲfootͲlongtunnel.
x Thealignmentsalsominimizedimpactstosensitiveplants,salmonspawninggrounds,wildlifeandprovided
drainagestructuresadequateforfishpassage.
x Blastingtechniqueswereusedasanaesthetictooltoleaveanirregularsurfacethatwassimilartothelook
ofnaturalrockformations.ThisminimizedvisualimpactsfromthenearbyPortageLake.
x ThebridgesweredesignedtobelowͲprofileandminimumfootprintwithsingleͲcolumnpierstoallow
boatingaccessandminimizeobstructionofanearbyglacialviewpoint.
x Bridgegirdersweresandblastedandtexturedtomatchsurroundings.
MoreinformationabouttheWhittierAccessprojectcanbefoundfromtheAlaskaDepartmentof
TransportationandPublicFacilitieshere:http://www.dot.state.ak.us/creg/whittiertunnel/index.shtml
223
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Context Sensitive Solutions AE-3
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Forsmallerprojectsthattypicallydonotrequireinvolvementofmanypeople,ordirectmanagementby
stakeholders,thiscreditrequiresthatanadditionaldocumentisgenerated.
2. CSSdoesnotguaranteeeffectivenessofthefinaldesignalternative.Thisisespeciallytruerelativetocostand
schedulingconcerns.
3. CSSdoesnotaddressconstructionmanagementissuesexceptbroadly.
4. Thisparticularcreditdoesnothaveanymeansoftrackingormonitoringthesuccess(orfailure)ofaproject
afteritisconstructed,i.e.todetermineiftheCSSplanningprocessresultedinapositiveornegativeoutcome.
RESEARCH
“Ifhighwaydesignersarenotawareofopportunitiestousetheircreativeabilities,thestandardorconservative
useoftheGreenBookcriteriaandrelatedStatestandards,alongwithalackoffullconsiderationofcommunity
values,cancausearoadtobeoutofcontextwithitssurroundings.Itmayalsoprecludedesignersfromavoiding
impactsonimportantnaturalandhumanresources”(FederalHighwayAdministration,1997).Contextsensitive
design(CSD),sometimescalledContextSensitiveSolutions(CSS),isawellͲdocumentedapproachtoproject
deliverythatreliesonanunderstandingofandresponsetotheproject’scontext–itsphysicalandsocialplace–in
allaspectsofdesign.ThereareseveraldefinitionsofCSS,butallofthemareconsistentwithindustrybestpractice
(ICFInternational,2009).AccordingtotheFHWA,thedefinitionofCSSis:
Acollaborative,interdisciplinaryapproachthatinvolvesallstakeholderstoprovideatransportation
facilitythatfitsitssetting.Itisanapproachthatleadstopreservingandenhancingscenic,aesthetic,
historic,community,andenvironmentalresources,whileimprovingormaintainingsafety,mobility,
andinfrastructureconditions.(FHWA,2009)
CSSsynthesizesconventionalengineering,professionalexpertiseandthoughtfulplanningwithhumanvalues
throughasystemsͲapproachforprojectdelivery.IntegratingCSSintoprojectdecisionͲmakingrequiresa
multidisciplinaryapproachtoplanninganddesignandanopendialoguewithstakeholders.CSSalsoreferstoan
overallproductoroutcome:aroadwayprojectthatisgenerallymoresuitableandvaluabletoitscommunity(ICF
International,2009).
Severalfederal,stateandlocallawsmandate(orotherwisestronglyrecommend)theuseofcontextͲsensitive
design.ThemostrecentfederalregulationthatwasrelevanttoCSSwastheSafe,Accountable,Flexible,
TransportationEfficiencyAct:ALegacyforUsers(SAFETEAͲLU),whichrecentlyexpiredandhasnotbeenreplaced
byasubsequentregulationasofthiswriting.Section6008Historically,CSSconceptshavebeenembeddedin
federallawsincetheinstitutionoftheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)atthestartof1970.(American
AssociationofStateHighwayTransportationOfficials:AASHTO,2010;ContextSensitiveSolutions.org,2010)
WhileenvironmentalreviewprocessesliketheNEPAsharesometraitswithCSSplanninganddesignapproaches,
theyarenotoneandthesame.Instead,CSSandtheenvironmentalreviewprocessarecomplementarydecisionͲ
makingprocesses.Bothprocesses(andtheirresultingimplementation)arecomprehensiveinnature,buttheir
focusisgenerallydifferent.Forexample,harmonizingenvironmentalneedsfortheprojectintheCSSprocess
couldeasilybeaddressedintheenvironmentalreviewprocess,ifrequiredbytheagencyorjurisdiction.Many
projectteamsuseCSSasanopportunitytocompletetheenvironmentalreviewprocesseveniftheprojectisnot
subjecttoNEPAorlocalrequirements.Thischoiceisgenerallyseenasawaytominimizebacktrackingfor
documentationthatwouldneedtooccurif,forinstance,theprojecthappenedtoqualifymidwaythroughthe
designprocessforfederalfunding.(Neumanetal.,2002).
CharacteristicsofCSS
Interestingly(andunlikeothercreditsinGreenroads),thereisnoclearcorollarytoCSSinthebuildingindustryor
intheLEEDGreenBuildingRatingsystem.CSSisanapproachexclusivetotransportationinplanningand
development.ThebestanalogyisthatCSSistotransportationasarchitectureandurbandesignaretothebuilt
224
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-3 Context Sensitive Solutions
environment.However,thereisonekeydifferencebetweenstandarddesignapproachesforroadwayprojectsand
CSS.Conventionaldesignprocessfollowsalinearapproach:thesemethodsusuallyinvolvebooksofstandardsand
readingfromtablestodevelopthealternativesinordertofitaroadwaytoaplace.However,thisprocessoften
resultsinaconservative,uncreativedesign,orworse,anunsustainableonethatignoresoromitsimportant
environmentalconcerns.Conversely,theCSSapproachprovidesaniterativeandinterdisciplinaryapproachto
planninganddesignthatrecognizesandimplementskeysynergiesthatwillultimatelyresultinamorefunctional,
moreappropriate,andmoreapplicableroadwayproject.ThisintegratedapproachisshowninFigureAEͲ3.5.
LinearDesignProcess
“ConventionalDesign”
IterativeDesignProcess
“ContextSensitiveDesign”

FigureAEͲ3.5:ComparisonofaconventionaldesignprocesstoaContextͲSensitivedesignprocess.
(AdaptedfromNeumanetal.,2002)

CSSPrinciples
AccordingtoStamatiadisetal.(2009)therearefifteencoreprinciplesofCSSthatareapplicableandrelevantto
transportationprofessionalsinpractice.ThediagramshowninFigureAEͲ3.6providesagoodillustrationofthe
principles,andtheirrelativeimportance.Importantly,Principles1Ͳ3formthefoundationtoasuccessfulCSS
program.Thesecondlevelofthefoundation,Principles4Ͳ7,representsthefourcommonagencygoalswhichhelp
todefinetheprojectneedsandpurpose(Stamatiadisetal.,2009;Neumanetal.,2002).Thethirdlevel(thepillars:
principles8Ͳ13)representsthesolution“enablers.”Thesearethepolicycommitmentsandagencygoals,andthe
perspectivesthatallowforaneffectivesolutiontobeapproachedandachieved.Thefourth(principle14)andfifth
(principle15)levelstandforsuccessfulprojectdeliveryandeffectivelongͲrangeplanning.EveryCSSproject
exemplifiesalloftheseprinciples,thoughthereismuchvariabilityinbothinitialdesignandfinaloutcomefrom
projecttoproject(Stamatiadiasetal.,2009).
DevelopEngineering
Alternatives
EvaluateAlternatives
CompleteEnvironmental
Documentation
Develop
Engineering
Alternatives
Evaluate
Alternatives
•Selectand
DocumentFinal
Alternative
DetermineIssues
andConstraints
•Engineering
•Environmental
•Stakeholder
225
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Context Sensitive Solutions AE-3
FigureAEͲ3.6:Graphicaldepictionof15principlesofContextͲSensitiveSolutions.(Stamatiadisetal.,2009)
BenefitsofCSS
ThereareseveralbenefitsofCSS.Stamatiadisetal.(2009)recentlyattemptedtoidentifythequantifiablebenefits
ofCSS.Hisgroupestablished22quantifiablebenefitsofapplyingCSSprinciples.TheseareshowninTableAEͲ3.1.
TableAEͲ3.1:22BenefitsofCSS(adaptedfromNCHRPReportNo.690byStamatiadisetal.,2009)
ImprovedbyCSS OptimizedbyCSS
Performancepredictabilityandprojectdelivery Maintenanceandoperations
Scopingandbudgetingprocess Designappropriateforcontext
LongͲtermdecisionsandinvestments IncreasedbyCSS
Environmentalstewardship Riskmanagementprotection
Mobilityforusers Stakeholder/publicfeedback
Walkabilityandbikeability Stakeholder/publicparticipation,ownershipandtrust
Safety(vehicles,pedestriansandbikes) Partneringopportunities
AccesstomultiͲmodaloptions(includingtransit) MinimizedbyCSS
Communitysatisfaction Overallimpacttohumanandnaturalenvironment
Qualityoflifeforcommunity ConstructionͲrelateddisruption
Speedmanagement Overallcostsforprojectdelivery
Overalltimeforprojectdelivery

Inadditiontothequantifiablebenefits,somequalitativehighlightsofCSSplanninganddesignprinciplesare:
x CSSisuniversal.AkeystrengthofCSS/CSDisitsuniversalityandapplicabilitytoallstakeholdersintheproject,
includingowneragencies,thepublicanddesignprofessionals.TheNCHRP480(Neumanetal.,2002)document
summarizesstrategiesandapproachesbasedonsixareasofpeoplewhohaveastakeintheoveralloutcomeof
theproject.Thedocumentisorganizedintosectionsbasedonprofessionalareaandthereaderisreferredto
thisdocumentinsteadofsummarizingeachofthoseapproachesherein.
226
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-3 Context Sensitive Solutions
x CSSisapplicableandeffectiveataprojectlevel.CSSprojectsrequireeffectiveandsuccessfulprojectdelivery
basedonstructureddecisionͲmaking,thoughtfulconsiderationofcommunityinputandvalues,environmental
awareness,protectionofsafety,andanunderstandingofhowtheprojectfitswithinorganizationalneedsand
constraints(Neumanetal.,2002)
x CSSpromotesenvironmentalstewardship.Environmentalresourcesareidentifiedandgoalsaresetto
managetheseresourcesatthebeginningoftheproject.Thisapproachhelpstopreventunnecessaryor
minimizeenvironmentalimpacts(ICFInternational,2009).
x CSSallowsacleardefinitionofscope.ImplementingaprojectmanagementstructurethatalignswithCSS
principlescanclearlydefinetheprojectneedsandscope.Thishelpsprioritizeproblemsthatmayariseduring
constructionorevenpreemptthemthroughthoughtfulplanning.(Stamitidiasetal.,2009)Italsoallowsfora
unifiedvisionstatement;FHWA,2007)
x CSSoffersamoreͲinformeddecisionͲmakingprocess.EffectivedecisionͲmakingrequiresinformationfromall
collaboratingparties.CSSaccomplishesthiscollaborationbyinstitutingamantraofinformedconsent,through
activestakeholderengagementandopencommunication.(Stamitidiasetal.,2009;ICFInternational,2009)
x CSSengagesstakeholders.StakeholderinvolvementisacoreprincipleofCSS.Collectionandintegrationof
stakeholdervaluestranslatesthosevaluesdirectlyintothefinalprojectoutcomes.(FHWA,2009;AASHTO,
pavementconference;Neumanetal.,2002;Stamiditidiadlas;ICFInternational,2009)CSSopenslinesof
communicationwithallstakeholdersearlyandkeepsthemopenthroughoutprojectdevelopmentanddelivery
(FWHA,2007)
x CSSisinterdisciplinary.DecisionsmadeareconsensusͲbased,anddrawfromprojectmanagers,environmental
managers,roadwaydesignersandengineers,owneragencies,andthepublic(Neumanetal.,2002).
x CSSiscostͲeffective.InastudybytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)andthe
UniversityofWashington,WSDOTfoundthatcontextͲsensitiveplanningforcommunitydesignelementsin
mainstreetareasofurbancentershelptopreemptscopeandschedulingchanges,whichresultedinpotential
overallsavingsfortheagency.(NichollsandReeves,2009)
x CSScanbeintegratedintopolicy.CSSisawellͲestablishedbestpracticethathasbeensuccessfullyintegrated
withinmanyagenciestohelpachieveinternalgoalsandobjectives,suchasatWSDOTandtheUtah
DepartmentofTransportation(UDOT)(FHWA,2007;ICFInternational,2009).
x CSSisubiquitous.TheCSS/CSDprocessforprojects(andforguidancedocuments)iswellͲsuitedtoanonline,
collaborativeandinteractiveenvironment.Manytoolsareavailableforprojectteamstocreateandmanage
theCSSelementsoftheproject,includingpublicinvolvement.Thedepthoftheinternetinfrastructurethat
supportsCSSideasandimplementation.TheonlinedatabaseofCSS,http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org
isjustoneexampleoftheresourcesavailable.Additionally,theFHWAandAASHTOCenterforEnvironmental
Excellencehavecreatedanopenforumforallpractitionersandprofessionals:
CSSandSustainability
CSSiswellͲestablishedandacceptedasabestpracticeforroadwaydesigners.However,itmaybesaidthatwhile
usingAASHTO’sGreenBookisconsideredabestpracticefordesigningmanyroads,itcertainlydoesnotguarantee
thattheroaditselfwillbe“green”ormoresustainable.Sustainabilityisasystemcharacteristicthatdescribesthat
system’scapacitytosupportnaturallawsandhumanvalues.Whatactuallymakestheroadwaymoresustainable
thoughisateamofproactiveandthoughtfulprofessionalsmakingadeliberateattempttobeconsiderateof
communityneeds,valuesandenvironmentalsurroundingswhileplanninganddesigningtheproject.ThemultiͲ
disciplinary,consensusͲbased,wholeͲsystemapproachisthekeydifferencebetweenconventionalpracticeand
CSS,anditisalsothereasonwhyCSDusuallyresultsinamoresustainableproject.Infact,CSSaddressesallseven
sustainabilitycomponentsunderitswideumbrellaofcharacteristics.TableAEͲ3.2showshowthe15principlesof
ContextSensitiveSolutionsaddressthesevencomponentsofsustainabilityandhowtheyalignwiththe
Greenroadstaxonomyofsustainabilitybenefits.

227
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Context Sensitive Solutions AE-3
TableAEͲ3.2:CSSandSustainability(AdaptedfromStamatidiasetal.,2009)
No. CSSPrinciple SustainabilityComponents PotentialBenefits
1 Useofinterdisciplinaryteams. 9 Experience 9 ImprovesBusinessPractice
2 Involvestakeholders. 9 Expectations
9 Exposure
9 IncreasesAwareness
3 SeekbroadͲbasedpublic
involvement.

9 Exposure 9 IncreasesAwareness
9 ImprovesBusinessPractice
9 CreatesNewInformation
4 Useafullrangeof
communicationstrategies
9 Exposure
9 Experience
9 ImprovesBusinessPractice
9 IncreasesAwareness
5 Achieveconsensusonpurpose
andneed
9 Expectations 9 ImprovesBusinessPractice
9 IncreasesLifecycleSavings
6 Addressalternativesandall
modes
9 Extent
9 Experience
9 ImprovesBusinessPractice
9 IncreasesLifecycleSavings
7 Considerasafefacilityforusers
andcommunity
9 Equity 9 ImprovesHumanHealth&Safety
8 Maintainenvironmentalharmony 9 Ecology
9 Experience
9 OptimizesHabitat&LandUse
9 Addresscommunityandsocial
issues
9 Equity
9 Exposure
9 ImprovesAccess&Mobility
9 ImprovesHumanHealth&Safety
9 ImprovesBusinessPractice
9 Aesthetics
10 Addressaesthetictreatmentsand
enhancements
9 Exposure 9 Aesthetics
11 Utilizeafullrangeofdesign
choices
9 Experience
9 Extent
9 OptimizesHabitat&LandUse
9 ImprovesAccess&Mobility
9 IncreasesLifecycleSavings
9 IncreasesLifecycleService
12 Documentprojectdecisions 9 Expectations 9 ImprovesBusinessPractice
13 Trackandmeetallcommitments 9 Expectations 9 ImprovesBusinessPractice
14 Useagencyresourceseffectively 9 Economy 9 IncreasesLifecycleSavings
9 ImprovesBusinessPractice
15 CreatelongͲlastingcommunity
value
9 Extent
9 Expectations
9 Equity
9 OptimizesHabitat&LandUse
9 ImprovesHumanHealth&Safety
9 ImprovesAccess&Mobility
9 IncreasesLifecycleService
9 Aesthetics

FollowingtheCSSframeworkdoesnotultimatelyguaranteeroadwaysustainabilityasanendproduct,nordoesit
implythatsustainabilitymustbenecessarilyconsideredduringprojectdevelopment.However,CSSand
sustainabilityarecomplementaryapproachestothesameendpoint.TheCSSframeworkiswellͲsuitedto
accommodatingsustainabilityconsiderations,suchasthoseoutlinedbyGreenroads,earlyinprojectdevelopment.
LimitationsofThisCredit
Generally,CSSisaplanninganddesignstepthatiscomprehensivebecauseitinvolvesconsiderationoftheentire
projectlifecycleandusessystemsͲthinkingtocreatesolutions.Thislifecycleperspectivenecessitatesanevaluation
orassessmentprocessthatoccursduringtheoperationandmaintenancephaseoftheproject(i.e.longͲterm
performancemonitoring).However,thecreditrequirementsdonotrequiredetaileddiscussionofplanning
considerationsfortheroadwaymaintenance.Thisisbecausesuchplansanddocumentationforlifetime
maintenanceandoperationsarecoveredelsewhereinGreenroads(infact,theyarerequiredundertheProject
RequirementsPRͲ9PavementMaintenanceandPRͲ10SiteMaintenance).Currentlythereisnocreditgivenfor
228
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-3 Context Sensitive Solutions
monitoringorevaluationbecausethereisnofeasiblemechanismavailableforaratingsystemtoenforceor
validatesuchactivities.
AdditionalResources
Therearemany,manyresourcesavailableforCSS,fromguidebookstowebsitestoformalresearchreports.Many
oftheideasoverlapandaresharedbetweenresources.Thereaderisreferredtothesesourcesformoredetailed
informationonCSS.Abriefdescriptionandalink(whereapplicable)areprovidedbelow:
x ThehubforallthingscontextͲsensitivecanbefoundatContextSensitiveSolutions.org:
http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org
x TheAASHTOCenterforEnvironmentalExcellenceContextͲSensitiveSolutionspageincludesabriefhistoryand
applicablefederal,stateandlocallaws,policiesandguidancedocuments.Additionally,anumberofuser
forumsareavailableforpublicuse.Thispageisavailableat:
http://environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/context_sens_sol/
x TheFlexibilityinHighwayDesignprovidesoneoftheearlierfoundationdocumentsforCSSandincludes
practicalguidanceforcreatinghighwaysthataresafe,effectiveandefficientusingCSSprinciples.
x TworeportsfromNCHRPareheavilyreferencedinthisdiscussion.TheyareNCHRP480:Aguidetobest
practicesforachievingcontextsensitivesolutionsandNCHRP642:QuantifyingthebenefitsofContextSensitive
Solutions.Thefirstoffersaveryqualitativereview,andthesecond,aquantitativeone.
x PublicinvolvementisacoreissueandtherearetwodefinitiveFHWAresourcesavailableforfacilitating
effectivestakeholdercommunicationandpublicinvolvementprocesses.TheyarePublicInvolvement
TechniquesforTransportationDecisionMakingandHowtoEngageLowͲLiteracyandLimitedͲEnglishͲ
ProficiencyPopulationsinTransportationDecisionmaking.
GLOSSARY
ContextͲsensitivedesign SeecontextͲsensitivesolutions
ContextͲsensitivesolutions Acollaborative,interdisciplinaryapproachthatinvolvesallstakeholdersto
provideatransportationfacilitythatfitsitssetting.Itisanapproachthat
leadstopreservingandenhancingscenic,aesthetic,historic,community,and
environmentalresources,whileimprovingormaintainingsafety,mobility,
andinfrastructureconditions(alsoContextSensitiveDesign)
CSD Contextsensitivedesign
CSS Contextsensitivesolutions
Multimodal Concerningmorethanonetransportationmode
FHWA FederalHighwayAdministration
NCHRP NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram
AASHTO AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials

REFERENCES
AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)CenterforEnvironmentalExcellence.
(2010).CenterforEnvironmentalExcellencebyAASHTO:ContextSensitiveSolutions.AccessedJanuary9,2010.
Availableat:http://environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/context_sens_sol
AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayTransportationOfficials(AASHTO).(2004).AASHTOGreenBookͲApolicy
ongeometricdesignofhighwaysandstreets.Washington,D.C.:AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayand
TransportationOfficials.
CityofShoreline.(2010,January8).CityofShoreline,WA:AuroraCorridorProject.AccessedJanuary9,2010.
Availableathttp://www.shorelinewa.gov/index.aspx?page=227
229
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Context Sensitive Solutions AE-3
CSSNationalDialog.(2009).SubmissionFormsAccessedSeptember16,2010.Availableat
http://www.cssnationaldialog.org/forms.asp
ContextSensitiveSolutions.org.(2010).WelcometoCSS|ContextSensitiveSolutions.orgͲACSSsupportcenter
forthetransportationcommunity.AccessedJanuary9,2010.Availableat
http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)OfficeofPlanning.(2006,February).HowtoEngageLowͲLiteracyand
LimitedͲEnglishͲProficiencyPopulationsinTransportationDecisionmaking.[FHWAͲHEPͲ06Ͳ009].Reporttothe
FHWAbyPBS&J.Availableathttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/lowlim/lowlim1.htm.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2009,April13)AGuidetoBuildingCSSKnowledgeandSkillsfor
SuccessfulProjectDelivery.AccessedJanuary9,2010.ReporttotheFHWAbytheLouisBergerGroup,Inc.,
OldhamHistoricProperties,Inc.andProjectforPublicSpaces.Availableat
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/trainingguide/
ICFInternational,CH2MHill,Inc.andTransTech.(2009,June30).IntegratingContextSensitiveSolutionsinto
TransportationPracticeGuide.AccessedJanuary9,2010.Availableat
http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/integrating_context_sensitive_s_//resources/Integ
rating_CSS_into_Transportation_Practice_Guide.pdf
Neuman,T.R.etal.(2002).Aguidetobestpracticesforachievingcontextsensitivesolutions.NationalCooperative
HighwayResearchProgram–NCHRPReport480.Washington,D.C.:TransportationResearchBoard.
Nicholls,J.andReeves,P.(2009).Statehighwaysasmainstreets:Astudyofcommunitydesignandvisioning.[WAͲ
RD733.1]Seattle,Wash:WashingtonStateTransportationCenter,UniversityofWashington.
Stamatiadis,N.etal.(2009).QuantifyingthebenefitsofContextSensitiveSolutions.NationalCooperativeHighway
ResearchProgram–NCHRPReport642.Washington,D.C.:TransportationResearchBoard.
StateofAlaska,DepartmentofTransportationandPublicFacilities.(n.d.)AntonAndersonMemorialTunnel–
Whittier,Alaska.AccessedJanuary9,2010.Availableat
http://www.dot.state.ak.us/creg/whittiertunnel/index.shtml
UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)FlexibilityinHighway
Design.[FHWAͲPDͲ97Ͳ062]ReportbytheFederalHighwayAdministration.Availableat
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/flex/index.htm
UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.(2007,March)ResultsofJoint
AASHTO/FHWAContextSensitiveSolutionsStrategicPlanningProcessSummaryReport.Preparedbythe
CenterofTransportationandtheEnvironment,NorthCarolinaUniversity.Availableat
http://environment.transportation.org/pdf/context_sens_sol/portlandsummary_final.pdf
UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministrationandFederalTransitAdministration.
(1996).PublicInvolvementTechniquesforTransportationDecisionMaking.[FHWAͲPDͲ96Ͳ031]Reporttothe
FHWAandFTA.PreparedbyHoward/SteinͲHudsonAssociates,Inc.andParsonsBrinckerhoffQuadeand
Douglas.Availableathttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/cover.htm.
230
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-4 Traffic Emissions Reduction
TRAFFIC EMISSIONS REDUCTION
GOAL
ReduceoperationalmobileͲsourceemissionstoimproveairqualityandhumanhealth.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Showthatcongestionpricingwasusedonthisproject.Thisusuallyispartofalarger
congestionpricingprogram.UsetheEPAMOVES2010softwaretocomputethetotal
greenhousegasemissionsandcriteriapollutantemissionsreducedbythetollingor
pricingprogramcomparedtothenonͲpricedalternativeforthelengthoftheproject.

Details
Emissionsmodelingwillrequireestablishingabaselinecase.Thisshouldconsistof
thelengthoftheprojectwithoutcongestionpricingandshouldusethesame
assumptionsthataremadeinthecongestionpricingcase.Congestionpricing
schemesreducethenumberofvehiclesonaroadwaybychargingmoneyforuse
duringpeakperiods,thereforereducingfueluseandtotalemissions.Congestion
pricingneednotapplytoalllanesofaroadway.
DOCUMENTATION
Copyoftheprojectdesignreportshowingtheproject’splannedcongestionpricingand
acopyoftheexecutivesummaryfortheMOVES2010trafficmodelstudycompleted
fortheprojectforboththebaselinecaseandcongestionpricingcase.Thesummary
shouldincludethesamedetailsofthemodelasnotedabove.

AE-4
5 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ1Environmental
ReviewProcess
9 AEͲ2Intelligent
Transportation
Systems
9 AEͲ3Context
SensitiveSolutions
9 AEͲ5Pedestrian
Access
9 AEͲ6BicycleAccess
9 AEͲ7Transit&HOV
Access
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Equity
9 Economy
9 Extent
9 Expectations

BENEFITS
9 ReducesFossilFuel
Use
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesGreenhouse
Gases
9 ImprovesMobility
9 IncreasesServiceLife
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
9 ReducesLifecycle
Cost
231
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Traffic Emissions Reduction AE-4
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x BecomeanearlyadopteragencyoftheMOVES2010software.
x Considerimplementingintelligenttransportationsystems(ITS)fordynamicpricingandconversionofexisting
highoccupancyvehicle(HOV)lanestohighͲoccupancytoll(HOT)lanes.
x Notethatsometolledfacilitieswerenotinstalledtomanagecongestion.Inorderfortollfacilitiestomeetthe
intentofthiscredit,roadwayprojectswithinatolledsystem,especiallyiftheusercostisstatic,reduces
congestionusingtheMOVES2010softwareandprovidingsupportinginformationasnoted.
Example: Congestion Pricing in Puget Sound – Traffic Choices Study
In2002,thePugetSoundRegionalCouncil(PSRC)receivedagranttobecomeapilotprojectwiththeValue
PricingPilot(VPP)programwiththeFederalHighwayAdministration.Theobjectofthestudywastomonitor
behavioralchanges(numberoftrips,mode,route,andtimeofvehicletrips)tovariableorcongestionͲbased
tolling.TheTrafficChoicesStudy(PSRC,2008)usedglobalpositioningsystem(GPS)tollingmeterstotrack
drivingpatternsfor275volunteerhouseholds,beforeandafterexperimentaltollswerechargedforuseof
majorfreewaysandarterialsinSeattle.Whilenocostwasincurredbythevolunteers,severalimportant
changesintraveldemandwereobservedthathavesignificantimplicationsonreducingemissions.These
resultsincluded:
x Alltrips(toursperweek)decreased7%
x Vehiclemilestraveled(milesperweek)decreased12%
x Drivetime(minutesofdrivingperweek)decreased8%
x Toursegments(segmentsoftoursperweek)decreased6%
x Milesdrivenontolledroads(tolledmilesperweek)decreased13%.
MoreinformationabouttheTrafficChoicesStudyisavailableat:http://www.psrc.org/transportation/traffic.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. NotethatthetransportationsectordesignationofmanyenergyuseorGHGemissionsstatisticsdonotinclude
processesfordesignorconstructionofroadways.Thisislikelyduetothesmalltimescaleofconstruction
activitieswhencomparedtothemuchlongerservicelifeoftheroaditself.Dependingonthelifecyclemodel
usedandwhatthesystemboundariesofthatmodelare,eithertheusephase(i.e.vehicularemissions)orthe
productionofmaterials(i.e.themanufacturingorconstructionprocess)havebeenshowntohavethehighest
overallimpactonGHGandenergyuse.Thesevaluesarehighlyvariabledependentonlocation,capacity,type
ofroadway,multiͲmodalaccess,maintenance,andamountofcongestion,tonamejustafew.
2. TheEPAMOVES2010modeliscurrentlythebestavailablequantitativeapproachtomodelinguseͲphasevehicle
emissions.(EPA,2009f)Aswithanysoftwareprogram,thismodelhasbuiltͲinassumptionsthatmaybe
counterͲindicativeofappropriatenessforaparticularroadwayproject.ThelimitationsofEPAMOVES2010
shouldbeunderstoodpriortopursuingthiscredit.
RESEARCH
ThoughGreenroadsisintendedtobemosteasilyimplementedduringthedesignandconstructionphasesofthe
roadwaylifecycle,theimpactoftheuseandoperationsphaseandtheplanningimplicationsoftheroadwayinthis
phaseareunavoidable.Ignoringtheseimplicationswouldberemiss,sinceclearlyimplementingsuchemissions
reductionprogramsresultsinaroadwaythatismoresustainableoverall.Thiscreditrewardsplanningstepsthat
havebeenimplementedinordertoreducetheoveralllifecycleemissionsimpactduetovehiculartrafficfrom
roadsinordertopromotehumanandenvironmentalhealth.Additionally,researchintheseareasalsoshowsthat
thereareexternalbenefits,suchasincreasedservicelife(andtherefore,reducedlongtermmaintenancecosts)
andhumanhealthimprovements,thatareassociatedwithsystematictollingprograms.
232
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-4 Traffic Emissions Reduction
AirEmissionsImpactsoftheTransportationSector
ThemostrecentstatisticaldataavailablefromtheEPA(2009a)andtheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE:Davis,Diegel
&Boundy,2009)showthatthetransportationsectorisoneofthebiggestcontributorsformanyoftheair
emissionsconsideredgreenhousegasesandcriteriapollutants.Thisisprimarilyduetothecombustionoffossil
fuels,mostcommonlygasolineanddiesel.Theamountsofthesegasesthatarereleasedduringcombustion
dependprimarilyonthecarboncontentofthefuel.(Davis,Diegel&Boundy,2009)
WhatareGreenhouseGases?
Greenhousegases(GHGs)areagroupof22longͲlivedchemicalcompounds(Solomonetal.,2007)thatare
foundinairemissionsfromhumanactivitiesandnaturalprocesses.Increasingconcentrationsofthesegasesin
theEarth’satmospherehavebeenidentifiedtobemajorfactorsinglobalwarmingandclimatechange
(sometimesthesearecombinedtooneterm“globalchange”).Highlevelsofthesegasesintheatmosphere
disturbtheenergybalanceofEarth’sclimatesystemsandactlikeablanketaroundtheEarth,trappingheat
fromsolarradiationwithintheEarth’satmospherewhichmightotherwiseescapevianormalclimate
processes.Thepotencyorconcentrationofthesegasesismeasuredinunitsofchangeinradiativeforcing,
whichisareflectionoftheiroverallwarming(orcooling)influence.Currently,mostGHGemissionsarenotas
strictlyregulatedorotherwisemonitoredbytheEPA.
ThefourGHGsthathavebeenidentifiedarecarbondioxide(CO
2
),methane(CH
4
),nitrousoxide(N
2
O)and
halocarbons(agroupofgaseswithfluorine,chlorineorbromine).Eachgashasadifferentinfluenceonglobal
warmingduetotheirpropertiesandlifetimes.Typically,thegasesarecomparedtoabaselineunitofCO
2
using
anindex(multiplier)calledGlobalWarmingPotential(GWP)thatreflectsthatcompoundsrelativeradiative
forcingcomparedtoCO
2
.GWPisusuallyexpressedinunitsofcarbondioxideequivalent(CO
2
e,sometimes
CO
2
Ͳeq)emissions,butdoesnotnecessarilyreflectthesameclimateresponses.(Bernsteinetal.,2007)For
example,1unitemissionofmethanehasaGWPin100yearsequivalentto25unitsofcarbondioxideaccording
totheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChangeFourthAssessmentReport,soitisexpressedas25CO
2
e.
(Solomonetal.,2007;Bernsteinetal.,2007)
The2009U.S.GreenhouseGasInventoryReport(EPA,2009a)states:
From1990to2007,transportationemissionsroseby29percentdue,inlargepart,toincreased
demandfortravelandthestagnationoffuelefficiencyacrosstheU.S.vehiclefleet.Thenumberof
vehiclemilestraveledbylightͲdutymotorvehicles(passengercarsandlightͲdutytrucks)increased40
percentfrom1990to2007,asaresultofaconfluenceoffactorsincludingpopulationgrowth,
economicgrowth,urbansprawl,andlowfuelpricesovermuchofthisperiod.Asimilarsetofsocial
andeconomictrendshasledtoasignificantincreaseinairtravelandfreighttransportationbyboth
airandroadmodesduringthetimeseries.
Accordingtothisreport,thetransportationsectorwasresponsiblefor33%ofCO
2
emissions,26%methane
(CH
4
)emissions,and67%ofnitrousoxide(N
2
O)emissionsfromfossilfuelcombustion.Thesestatisticshave
beenadjustedforendͲusesector(socontributionsduetoelectricitygenerationhavebeenincluded)anddo
notincludeairandfreightmodes.Generally,theendͲuseadjustmentincreasesoverallpercentage
contributionsanddirectemissionsareless.Thetransportationsectorisalsoaccountablefor0.9%ofthe
halocarbonemissions,mostlyintheformoftherefrigerantHFCͲ134a.(EPA,2009a).EndͲuseadjustedstatistics
werenotspecifiedforhalocarbonsinthetransportationsector.
WhatareCriteriaPollutants?
Thecriteriapollutantsaresixcommonpollutantsinairthatareknownhavedetrimentalhumanhealthimpacts
aswellaspotentialtodamageproperty.Thepollutantsareparticulatematter(PM
10
andPM
2.5
),groundͲlevel
ozone(O
3
),nitrogenoxides(NO
x
),carbonmonoxide(CO),sulfurdioxide(SO
2
),andlead(Pb).Ofthese
pollutants,particlepollutionandgroundͲlevelozonearethegreatestthreatstohumanhealthand
environmentaldamage.(EPA,2009d)Thesixpollutantsarecalled“criteria”pollutantsbecauseconcentrations
233
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Traffic Emissions Reduction AE-4
intheairareregulatedbytheEPA,whocomparestestedlevelstoallowablelevelssetinthe1990CleanAirAct
(CAA)amendments(40CFR§50)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard(NAAQS).(EPA,2009b;EPA,2009c)
Itisimportanttonotefuelcombustionalsoaccountsformostoftheindirectgreenhousegases(EPA,2009a)
whichincludeCO,NO
X
,nonͲmethanevolatileorganiccompounds(NMVOCs),andSO
2
.Indirectgreenhouse
gases“donothaveadirectglobalwarmingeffect,butindirectlyaffectterrestrialradiationabsorptionby
influencingtheformationanddestructionoftroposphericandstratosphericozone,or,inthecaseofSO
2
,by
affectingtheabsorptivecharacteristicsoftheatmosphere.Additionally,someofthesegasesmayreactwith
otherchemicalcompoundsintheatmospheretoformcompoundsthataregreenhousegases.”(EPA,2009a)
TableAEͲ4.1summarizesthepercentagecontributionsofselectedpollutantsfromthetransportationsector.
Mostoftheemissionscomefromuseofhighwayvehiclesandheavytrucks.Also,notably,transportation
accountsforthemajorityofcarbonmonoxideandnitrogenoxideemissionsintheUnitedStates(Davis,Diegel
&Boundy,2009).
TableAEͲ4.1:Transportation’sShareofU.S.EmissionsofVariousPollutants,2007
(AdaptedfromTable12.1inDavis,Diegel&Boundy,2009)
Pollutants ChemicalSymbol Percentage ofTotalU.S.Emissions(%)in2007
Carbonmonoxide CO 68.4
Nitrogenoxides NO
X
57.1
Volatileorganiccompounds(VOC) Various 33.9
Sulfurdioxide SO
2
8.9
Ammonia NH
3
5.7
Particulatematter PM
10
2.7
PM
2.5
7.2
Lead Pb Notincluded
Ozone O
3
NotIncluded

Notethatthetermtransportationsectormeanshumanuseofvehiclesonroadways,andcommonlytheair
pollutantcontributionsduetoconstructionareomittedfromstatisticalreports.TheDOEdatainTableAEͲ4.1
werealsonotspecificallyadjustedforendͲuseelectricityorenergyforthetransportationsectorandincludes
contributionsfromairandfreightmodes.Duetotheincreasedavailabilityofunleadedgasolineandrelated
regulationssincethemidͲ1980s,theprevalenceofthecriteriapollutantleadhasdecreasedsignificantly(EPA,
2009d)anditisnotincludedinthestatisticsshown.Similarly,groundͲlevelozoneisnotincludedbecauseitis
notemitteddirectly;instead,itisformedduetoachemicalreactionofnitrogenoxidesandVOCsinsunlight
(2009d).
HowareAirEmissionsfromTransportationModeled?
TheEPAisrequiredbytheCAAtocontinuallytrackandupdateairqualitydatafrommobilesourceemissions,
aswellasitssoftwaremodelsusedtomeasurevehicleemissions.PriortotheDecember2009releaseof
MOVES2010softwarefromtheOfficeofTransportationandAirQuality(OTAQ),eitherMOBILE6.2orprevious
versionsoftheMOVESprogramwererequiredtobeusedtodevelopemissionsmodelsduringcreationofstate
implementationplansforairqualityperformance.Now,theEPAstatesthatMOVES2010isthebestavailable
toolforemissionsmodelingfortransport.(EPA,2009f)Recentdata(collectedwithinthelast10yearsusingthe
bestavailabletechnologiesandimprovedmonitoringandcontrols)wasusedtodeveloptheemissions
algorithmsinMOVES2010.Currently,thereisatwoyeargraceperiodbeforetheEPAwillrequireadoptionof
theMOVES2010softwareinallregulatedagencies.(EPA,2009f)TheaddedfeaturesofMOVES2010,when
comparedtoMOBILE6.2,allowimprovedcalculationofgreenhousegasemissions(aswellascriteriapollutants)
becauseitisbaseduponuserinputsfortransportationplanning,vehicleͲmilestraveled(VMT)andspeedsand
notsolelyuponfuelconsumption.(ICFConsulting,2006)
234
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-4 Traffic Emissions Reduction
HumanHealth,AirQuality&PublicPolicy
Humanhealthimpactsduetopoorairquality,especiallyduetocriteriapollutantsfrommobilesourcesliketraffic,
arewellͲdocumented.AsystematicreviewbyWoodcocketal.(2007)foundthatthehealthimpactsoftransport
pollutionareevidencedbyincreasedtotaldeaths,increasedrespiratoryandcardiovasculardeathanddiseases,
increasedallergiesandalsopotentiallylinktocasesoflungcancer.Additionaldeathsresultfromhealthdangers
suchastrafficaccidents,andarecommonlyarguedtobeduetobehavioralchoicesandlifestyles.Anexcerptfrom
theforewordofthe2005WorldHealthOrganization(WHO)report,HealthEffectsofTransportͲRelatedAir
Pollution,framesthesituationwell:
Transportplaysafundamentalroleinthelivesofsocietiesandindividuals:howpeopleinteract,
work,play,organizeproduction,developcities,andgetaccesstoservices,amenitiesandgoodsis
inextricablylinkedwiththedevelopmentofmobilityandthechoicespeoplemakeaboutit.In
societiesthatrelyheavilyandincreasinglyonprivatemotorizedtransport,vehiclesareexpectedto
becomesafer,moreluxuriousandpowerful,andtobedrivenmorefrequently.Theseexpectations,
however,oftendonottakeaccountoftheensuingconsequences:increasedfuelconsumption,
greateremissionsofairpollutantsandgreaterexposureofpeopletohazardouspollutionthatcauses
serioushealthproblems.Theincreasedintensityofandrelianceontransportalsoincreasetheriskof
roadͲtrafficinjuries,exposuretonoiseandsedentarylifestyles.Theserisksareadisproportional
threattothemostvulnerablegroupsinthepopulation,suchaschildrenandtheelderly,andthey
raiseimportantquestionsaboutsocialinequalities.(KrzyǏanowski,KunaͲDibbert,&Schneider,2005)
WhilethehealtheffectsofcriteriapollutantsarebothwellͲdocumentedandregulated,thehealtheffectsof
greenhousegasemissionsarelesswellͲunderstood.In2009,Hainesetal.publishedasummaryforpolicymakers
attheendofacomprehensiveseriesofstudiesonthepublichealthimpactofgreenhousegases.Allscenarios
modeledbythatgroup(seeWoodcocketal.2009)demonstratedsignificantincreasesintotalhumanhealthbased
onthreeindicators(physicalactivity,outdoorairpollutionandroadtrafficinjury)whensustainabletransport
policieswereimplemented,aswellasactivetransportandmultiͲmodalsolutions.Also,allscenariosdemonstrated
decreasesinoverallCO
2
eemissions.(Woodcocketal.2009)However,Chan(2009)notesthatmanypolicymakers
havenotmadetheconnectionbetweenclimatechangeandpublichealth.ShealsonotesthatthecarbonͲ
reductionpolicycanprovidebenefitstopublichealthwhichcouldbesubstantial,andincludesreductionsin
chronichealthproblemssuchasheartdisease,cancer,obesity,diabetesandrespiratoryailments.Someregions
haverecentlybeguntochangecourseandcarbonͲreductionpolicyisbecomingmoreprevalent(Chan,2009).
Hainesetal.(2009)providesomekeymessagestopolicymakers,someofwhicharehighlightedbelow:
x Substantialhealthbenefitscanberecognizedbypoliciesandmeasuresmadetowardreducinggreenhousegas
emissionsatbothregionalandgloballevels.
x SpecifictransportationpoliciesthatcanreduceGHGemissionsandimprovepublichealthareincreasedwalking
andcyclingmodalaccessandreducedprivatevehicleuseinurbanareas.
x Somemeasuresmayhavenegativehealtheffectstoo,butthesetradeoffsmustbeweighedaccordinglyduring
decisionͲmaking(forexample,reducingthedangerofcaraccidentsbyencouragingcyclingmayincreasedanger
ofbicycleaccidents).
x Costsofthesemeasuresvarybutmaybeoffsetbythesavingsinhealthcarecosts,andinsomecasesthe
savingsmayoutweighcostsinthelongͲterm.
x Woodcocketal.(2009)alsostatethattheavoidedcostsofhealthcarearepotentiallyenormous,though
difficulttomodel.
TheRoleofCongestionPricing
Theconceptofcongestionpricingisnotnew(CongressionalBudgetOffice:CBO,2009).Pollutiondueto
congestionishigherbecausestopͲandͲgotraffictendstoincreasefueldemandandthereforecanproduce
moreemissions.Increasingroadwayphysicalcapacitytomeettrafficdemandhasbeenfoundtoencourage
additionaldemandandthereforeincreasevehicletrips,fossilfueluse,andairpollutantemissions.While
235
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Traffic Emissions Reduction AE-4
substantialimprovementsinvehiclefuelefficiencyhavebeenachievedinthepastdecades,therearesimply
moredriversontheroadatpeakhoursinmanylocationsthancanfitcomfortably.Congestionpricingoffersa
meansofapproachingthesechallengesthroughmoreeffectiveuseofroadwaycapacityandinfluencing
travelerbehaviorsthrougheconomictools.
Congestionpricingworksbyapplyingavariablecosttotheusersoftheroadwayfacilityduringpeaktravel
times,therebyloweringtraveldemand,reducingthenumberofvehiclesonaroadway,andreducingemissions
duetofeweridlingvehicles(CBO,2009;Daniel&Bekka,2000).Daniel&Bekka(2000)notethat“Travelersdo
notconsidercostsofdelayorpollutiontheyimposeonothers,butonlytheirowntravelcosts.Assessing
congestionfeesequaltotheadditionaltravelcoststhattravelersimposeonothersinternalizesthesecostsand
promotesefficientuseoflimitedroadwaycapacity.”Becausecongestionpricingimprovesefficiency(bynot
overloadingthestructuralcapacityofthepavement),thelifetimeoftheroadwayisincreased,which
correspondstolesslifetimemaintenanceneedandthereforereducedlifecyclecosts.Also,congestionpricing
hasalsobeenfoundtoproduceenormousnetsocialbenefitsvaluedbetween$19Ͳ45billion(2005dollars)
(CBO,2009),andonceimplemented,hasasurprisinglylowpublicdisapprovalratinginmostcases
(Verbruggen,2008).
ABriefNoteonEquity
Theroleofequityinthedebateoverairqualityintransportationpolicyiscomplex,aswithanyethicaldebate
regardingpolitics,economicsandcommunitiesofpeople.Woodcocketal.(2007)notesthatcurrentlevelsof
automobileuseinhighͲincomecommunitiesarenotsustainablebecausetheydonotprovideequalaccessor
mobility.ArecentstudybyDietz&Atkinson(2005)highlightsseveralofthecoreequityissues,including
disparitybetweenpollutiondistributionbecauseofphysicalprocesses(i.e.someareashavelowerairquality
thanothers),economicpolicy(wheretheeconomicortaxburdenoftransportpoliciesisoftenunevenly
distributed,andsometimeshardesthitarelowͲincomegroups),andaccountabilityforthegenerationof
transportationemissions.However,theCBO(2009)reportsthatstudiesoftheequitychallengesdueto
congestionpricinghavefoundsupportamongallincomegroupswhereithasbeenimplemented.Notably,
Dietz&Atkinson(2005)pointout“thefactthatsomeenjoycleanerairthanothersissignificant.”Fromthisit
followsthatbecausecleanerairbenefitseveryoneandtheenvironment,thehumanequitydiscussion(while
bothimportantandinevitable)issecondarytotheoverallenvironmentalqualitygoal.Also,otherimportant
equityissuescanarisebetweencommunitiesandroadwaysduetocertainplacementorlocationnearhigh
densitytrafficareas(Appatova,Ryan,LeMasters&Grinshpun,2008),orproximityanddensityofcertain
communitiestolowͲrisestructureswhichcantrappollutantsina“streetcanyon”effect(Salizzoni,Soulhac&
Mejean,2009).Equityissuesregardingaccessandmobilityneedsarefurtheraddressedinsubsequent
GreenroadscreditsformultiͲmodaltransportalternativesandsolutions.However,Greenroadsdoesnot
addresslanduse,planningandzoningorothercommunitylocationissues;itisnotknownifthisiseither
possibleorappropriateforsuchametric,andingeneraltheseissuesfalloutsidethescopeofGreenroads.
ProjectLevelImplications
TheCleanAirAct(CAA)andwellasformerfederalmandates,suchastheIntermodalSurfaceTransportation
EfficiencyAct(ISTEA),theTransportationEquityActforthe21
st
Century(TEAͲ21),andtheSafe,Accountable,
Flexible,EfficientTransportationEquityAct:ALegacyforUsers(SAFETEAͲLU)givestateagenciestheauthorityto
regulateandcontrolairpollutionthroughavarietyofmeans(Daniel&Bekka,2000)[Notethatasofthiswriting,
theSAFETEAͲLUregulationhasexpiredandnoreplacementhasbeenpassedbyCongress.Itisassumedthestate
authoritywillbepreserved.]Ingeneral,implementingbroadagencypoliciesthatprovidemitigationstrategiesfor
curbingairemissionsarelikelytobeverychallenging(Fisher&Costanza,2005)andalsounfamiliar.Congestion
pricingschemesmayalsobeunfamiliar(orworse,unwanted)bypublicstakeholders(Verbruggen,2008,CBO,
2009).But,D’Avignonetal.(2009)showthatwhileglobalairemissionsimpactsdonottranslatewellenoughtobe
measuredeasilyormeaningfullyatlocalandregionalscales,theimpactsoflocalemissionspoliciescanstillbe
effectiveatreducinglocalsectorcontributions.Similarly,congestionpricinghasbeenwellͲestablishedasan
effectivemeasureforreducingvehicleemissionsandincreasingefficiencyofroadwaycapacity.(FHWA,2009;
Hecker,2003;CBO,2009;Verbruggen,2008)
236
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-4 Traffic Emissions Reduction
D’Avignonetal.(2009)statethatthisistrueespeciallywhenemissionsinventoriesareusedtoestablishinitial
policybenchmarks,reductiontargets,andlocalactionplansformitigation.(Formoreinformationonemissions
inventories,seeProjectRequirementPRͲ3LifeCycleInventory).Whileanemissionsactionplanorpolicydoesnot
guaranteesuccessoreffectiveness,especiallyiftargetsarecontinuallyunmetorpushedfurtherintothefuture,it
doesallowforincreasedlocaladaptabilityforlongrangeclimatechangeplanningandprojectͲspecificityfor
emissions,aswellasuniformityoflocalandregionalpolicyandpractice(Fisher&Costanza,2005).The
introductionofpricingschemesintheshortͲtermmightassistinfutureacceptanceofsuchpolicies.
Pricingschemesdifferinutilityataprojectlevelcomparedtoregionalpoliciesbecausetheycanbeappliedona
projectͲbyͲprojectbasis.Basically,thisallowsacorridortobebuiltandpricingtobeimplementedinapiecewise
manner,whichismoremanageableandrealisticonaprojectscale.However,piecewisemanagementalsocomes
withtradeoffsbecauseitstillrequiresadequateandthoughtfulplanningaswellaspublicinvolvementpriorto
beingimplementedsuccessfullyandeffectively.
AdditionalResources
TheAmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)aspartofNationalCooperative
HighwayResearchProgram(NCHRP)oftheTransportationResearchBoard(TRB)Task25Ͳ25completeda
comprehensivestudyin2006ofavailableassessmenttechniquesformodelinggreenhousegasemissionsin
transportationprojects(ICFConsulting,2006).Thisreportreviewsthebestavailabletechniquesandpolicy
recommendationsfortransportationplanners,andalsohighlightsvarioustoolsforcalculation,strategicplanning,
andenergy/economicforecasting.ThedocumentdiscussestheadvantagesandlimitationsoftheEPAMOVES
softwareforemissionsmodeling.MoreinformationisavailableinNCHRP25Ͳ25(17),AssessmentofGreenhouse
GasAnalysisTechniquesforTransportationProjects.
TheEPAprovidesupͲtoͲdateanddetailedstatisticalinformationaboutGHG,indirectGHG,andcriteriapollutant
emissionsduetofossilfuelcombustionandthetransportationsector.Additionally,theEPAprovidesandmanages
distributionofthefreeMOVES2010softwareandprovidespolicyguidanceforimplementinginSIPs.More
informationonthesetopicsisavailablehere:
x 2010U.S.GreenhouseGasInventoryReport:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
x GreenBook:NonͲAttainmentAreasonCriteriaPollutants(includesNAAQSanddatalinks):
http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html
x TheMotorVehicleEmissionsSimulator(MOVES2010)andallrelevantguidanceandtechnicaldocumentation:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm
WhiletheUnitedStatesdidnotratifytheKyotoProtocol,manyindividualstateshavebecomeinvolvedatapolicy
levelinclimatechangeandemissionstargeting(Fisher&Costanza,2005;Mayors’ClimateProtectionCenter,
2009).TheMayorsClimateProtectionCenterlists1,016individualcitieswhosemayorshaveagreedtoreducelocal
emissionsfrom1990valuesby7%in2012.Therearealsomanyregionalinitiatives,suchastheRegional
GreenhouseGasInitiative(RGGI)andtheWesternClimateInitiativewhichhavestartedCO
2
budgettrading
programs.MoreinformationaboutlocalandregionalGHGinitiativescanbefoundhere:
x MayorsClimateProtectionCenter:http://usmayors.org/climateprotection/list.asp
x WesternClimateInitiative:http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/
x RegionalGreenhouseGasInitiative:http://www.rggi.org/home
TheCongressionalBudgetOffice(CBO)recently(2009)publishedacomprehensivereviewofcongestionpricingin
theUnitedStates,UsingCongestionPricingtoReduceTrafficCongestion.Thisdocumentisavailableforfreeat
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9750/03Ͳ11ͲCongestionPricing.pdf
237
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Traffic Emissions Reduction AE-4
GLOSSARY
AASHTO AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials
Baselinecase Thebenchmarkusedtocomparealternativeemissionsscenarios
CAA CleanAirAct
CBO CongressionalBudgetOffice
Congestionpricing Aneconomictransportationplanningtoolincreasestheefficiencyofthe
roadwaybychargingforuseduringpeakperiods
Criteriapollutant Oneofsixcommonpollutantsinairthatareknownhavedetrimentalhuman
healthimpactsaswellaspotentialtodamageproperty
EPA EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
FHWA FederalHighwayAdministration
GHG Greenhousegas
Greenhousegas AlongͲlivedchemicalcompoundfoundintheatmosphereasaresultof
humanandnaturalactivities
ISTEA IntermodalSurfaceTransportationEfficiencyAct
NAAQS NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard
NCHRP NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram
NonͲattainmentarea AreasoftheU.S.whereairpollutionlevelspersistentlyexceedthenational
ambientairqualitystandards
SAFETEAͲLU Safe,Accountable,Flexible,EfficientTransportationEquityAct:ALegacyfor
Users
SIP Stateimplementationplan
Stateimplementationplan AplanforastatethatshowshowitistocomplywiththeCleanAirAct
TEAͲ21 TransportationEquityActforthe21
st
Century
TRB TransportationResearchBoard
WHO WorldHealthOrganization

REFERENCES
Appatova,A.,Ryan,P.,LeMasters,G.,&Grinshpun,S.(2008).Proximalexposureofpublicschoolsandstudentsto
majorroadways:anationwideUSsurvey.JournalofEnvironmentalPlanningandManagement.51(5),631Ͳ646.
Bernstein,L.etal.(2007)TechnicalSummary.ClimateChange2007:SynthesisReport.FourthAssessmentReport
oftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Chan,M.(2009).Cuttingcarbon,improvinghealth.TheLancet.374(9705),1870Ͳ1871.
CongressionalBudgetOffice(CBO).(2009).Usingpricingtoreducetrafficcongestion.Washington,D.C.:Congress
oftheU.S.,CongressionalBudgetOffice.Availableathttp://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9750/03Ͳ11Ͳ
CongestionPricing.pdf
Daniel,J.I.&KhalidBekka.(2000).Theenvironmentalimpactofhighwaycongestionpricing.JournalofUrban
Economics.47(2),180Ͳ215.
Davis,S.C.,Diegel,S.W.,&Boundy,R.G.(2009).TransportationEnergyDataBook:Edition28.(ONRLͲ6984)U.S.
DepartmentofEnergy,EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy.Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.
Availableathttp://cta.ornl.gov/data.
Dietz,S.&Atkinson,G.(2005).Publicperceptionsofequityinenvironmentalpolicy:Trafficemissionspolicyinan
englishurbanarea.LocalEnvironment.10(4),445Ͳ459.
238
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-4 Traffic Emissions Reduction
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2009a,April15).InventoryofU.S.GreenhouseGasEmissionsandSinks:1990–
2007.(EPA430ͲRͲ09Ͳ004)OfficeofAtmosphericPrograms.Washington,DC:EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(2009b,July14)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS)|Air&
Radiation|USEPA.AccessedDecember28,2009.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(2009c,October30)DesignValues|AirTrends|Air&Radiation|EPA.
AccessedDecember28,2009.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2009d,November17)CriteriaPollutants|GreenBook|USEPA.Accessed
December30,2009.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/multipol.html
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2009e,November17)GreenBookNonͲAttainmentAreas|GreenBook|US
EPA.AccessedDecember30,2009.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2009f,December)EPAReleasesMOVES2010MobileSourceEmissionsModel:
QuestionsandAnswers.(EPAͲ420ͲFͲ09Ͳ073)OfficeofTransportationandAirQuality.Washington,D.C.
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.Availableat:http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/420f09073.pdf
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(2009g,December23)MOVES(MotorVehicleEmissionsSimulator)|Modeling&
Inventories|USEPA.AccessedDecember28,2009.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/oms/models/moves/index.htm
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2009,October8).ValuePricingPilotProgramͲTollingandPricing
ProgramͲFHWAOperations.AccessedDecember28,2009.Availableat
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/
FisherB,&CostanzaR.(2005).Environmentalpolicy:regionalcommitmenttoreducingemissions.Nature.438
(7066),301Ͳ2.
Haines,A.etal.(2009).PublichealthbenefitsofstrategiestoreducegreenhouseͲgasemissions:overviewand
implicationsforpolicymakers.Lancet.374(9707),2104Ͳ2114.
ICFConsulting.(2006).AssessmentofGreenhouseGasAnalysisTechniquesforTransportationProjects.Prepared
forAmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficialsStandingCommitteeonEnvironment
fortheNationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgramTask25Ͳ25(17).Fairfax,VA:ICFConsulting.
KrzyǏanowski,M.,KunaͲDibbert,B.,&Schneider,J.(2005).HealtheffectsoftransportͲrelatedairpollution.
Copenhagen:WorldHealthOrganizationEurope.Hecker,J.Z.(2003).ReducingcongestionCongestionpricing
haspromiseforimprovinguseoftransportationinfrastructure.(Testimony,GAOͲ03Ͳ735T).Washington,D.C.:
U.S.GeneralAccountingOffice.
MayorsClimateProtectionCenter.(2007)ListofParticipatingMayors–MayorsClimateProtectionCenter.
AccessedDecember28,2009.Availableat:http://usmayors.org/climateprotection/list.asp
PugetSoundRegionalCouncil.(2008).TrafficChoicesStudyͲSummaryReport:aglobalpositioningsystembased
pricingpilotproject:evaluatingtravelerresponsetovariableroadtollingthroughasampleofvolunteer
participants.Seattle,WA:TheCouncil.Availableathttp://www.psrc.org/transportation/traffic
RegionalGreenhouseGasInitiative.(n.d.)RegionalGreenhouseGasInitiative(RGGI)CO2BudgetTradingProgramͲ
Welcome.AccessedDecember28,2009.Availableat:http://www.rggi.org/home
239
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Traffic Emissions Reduction AE-4
Salizzoni,P.,Soulhac,L.,&Mejean,P.(2009).Streetcanyonventilationandatmosphericturbulence.Atmospheric
Environment.43(32),5056.
Solomon,S.etal.(2007)SynthesisReport.ClimateChange2007:SynthesisReport.FourthAssessmentReportof
theIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
VerBruggen,R.(2008).TollTalkͲCongestionpricingisthecureforourovercrowdedhighways.NationalReview.60
(21),28.
WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology.(2009).2020Collaboration|ClimateChange|WashingtonState
DepartmentofEcology.AccessedDecember30,2009.Availableat:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/2020collaboration.htm
WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology.(2009).2009ExecutiveOrder|ClimateChange|WashingtonState
DepartmentofEcology.AccessedDecember30,2009.Availableat:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/2009EO.htm
WesternClimateInitiative.(2009).WesternClimateInitiative.AccessedDecember28,2009.Availableat:
http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/
Woodcock,J.etal.(2007).Energyandtransport.Lancet.370(9592),1078Ͳ88.
Woodcock,J.etal.(2009).PublichealthbenefitsofstrategiestoreducegreenhouseͲgasemissions:urbanland
transport.Lancet.374(9705),1930Ͳ43.

240
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-5 Pedestrian Access
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
GOAL
Promotewalkablecommunitiesbyprovidingsidewalkfacilitieswithintheroadway
rightofway.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
AchieveCreditAEͲ3ContextSensitiveSolutions(CSS)anddescribetheneed,purpose
andappropriatenessforplanned,new,orupgradedpedestrianfacilitiesinthe
submitteddocumentationforCreditAEͲ3.TheCSSdocumentshouldclearlynote
whetherpedestrianfacilitiesorimprovementsarerequiredorhaveotherwisebeen
requestedbythepublic.TableAEͲ5.1showsthepointsavailableforthiscredit.
TableAEͲ5.1:AvailablePointsforCreditAEͲ5
Points Requirements
1 Implementnew(orimproveexisting)operationsortechnologiesfor
pedestrianfacilities.Thisincludesaddedsignageorminoraccess
improvementsforpedestrians,suchassignalizedintersectionsor
crosswalks,shelters,andwheelchairramps.
2 Implementphysicalorconstructedchangestotheroadwaystructure,
dimensionsorformthatprovidepedestrianaccesswithintheROW,suchas
asidewalk,raisedcrosswalk,bulbͲoutorpedestrianbridgestructure.
Details
Pedestrianisdefinedasapersonwhosemainmodeoftransportationiswalking,
includingdisabledindividualsthatneedassistancedevicesforpersonaltraveland
mobility.
Sidewalkisdefinedasapavedsurfaceprovidedspecificallyforpedestriantravel
thatisseparatefromtheroadwayandlocatedwithintheroadwayRightͲofͲWay.
SharedͲusepathwayisdefinedasamultiͲusepathwayforallnonmotorizedusers
includingpedestriansandbicyclists.ThismaybelocatedwithinaroadwayRightͲofͲ
Wayyetmustbeseparatedfromtheroadwayandhavewiderwidthsthan
sidewalks.
Currentfacilitiesdonotqualifyforthiscreditwithoutadditionaleffort,suchas
upgrades,improvementsorconstructionofnewfacilities.Theattempttoprovide
pedestrianaccessmustbedeliberateandasadirectresultoftheproject.
DOCUMENTATION
x CopyofthesectionthatfocusesonpedestrianfacilitiesintheCreditAEͲ3:Context
SensitiveSolutionsdocumentation.Thissectionshouldaddress:
a. Purposeandneedforpedestrianaccessontheroadwayproject,includinghow
itfitswithexistinglandusesand/orexistingGeneralandTransportationPlans
b. Regulatoryorjurisdictionalstandardsaddressed,ifany
c. Resultsofpublicinputonproposedpedestrianfacilities,ifany
d. Totalcostassociatedwithneworimprovedpedestrianfacilities
e. Copyofthecontractspecificationsandplansforproposedpedestrianfacilities.
AE-5
1-2 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 AEͲ3Context
SensitiveSolutions
9 AEͲ4Traffic
EmissionsReduction
9 AEͲ6BicycleAccess
9 AEͲ7Transit&HOV
Access
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Equity
9 Economy

BENEFITS
9 ReducesFossilFuel
Use
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesGreenhouse
Gases
9 ImprovesAccess
9 ImprovesMobility
9 ImprovesHealth&
Safety
9 ImprovesLocal
Economies
241
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Pedestrian Access AE-5
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x IncludeelementssuchassidewalksoradjacentsharedͲusepathsindesignswhenrequiredbydesignstandards,
orcommunitytransportationplans,orbycommunityrequest.
x Considerhowaneworredesignedroadwaywillimpacttheexistingorplannedpedestriannetworksand
integratedesignelementswithothermodalfacilities(e.g.bicycleandtransit)tomitigateoverallimpacts.This
maymeanprovidingconnectionsoradaptabilityforfuturepathways,sidewalks,andcrossingswithinthe
pedestriannetwork.Reviewlocalwalkingplansandmapsoftheexistingpedestriannetworkstounderstand
howtheroadwaywillinteractwiththeexistingandplannedpedestrianandbicyclesystem.Thismayinclude
sharedͲusepathsorparkplans.
x Includelocalpedestrianplannersandadvocatesinadvisorycommittees,projectdevelopmentormanagement
teams,ordecisionͲmakingcommitteesasappropriate.
x ConsultwithplannersandADAadvocatestounderstandhowtheprojectcansupportdevelopmentofthe
pedestriannetworktopromotewalkablecommunities.
x Designtheroadwaytoaccommodateexistingnewandplannedpedestrianfacilities.
x UpgradeorimproveexistingaccesspointsandsidewalkstomeettherequirementsoftheAmericanswith
DisabilitiesAct(ADA).GuidanceonADAtransitionplansisprovidedbytheFHWAhere:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/ada_sect504qa.htm#q10
x Relyontheassessmentoflocalplannersandadvocateswherenoexistingpedestrianplanexistsabouthowto
integrateexistingandfuturemultimodalfacilitiesintotheprojectdesign.AASHTOprovideshelpfulguidancein
itsAASHTOGuideforthePlanning,Design,andOperationofPedestrianFacilities.
Mulry Square – New York City
In2001MulrySquareinNewYorkCitywasimprovedtoimproveandenhancepedestrianmobilitythroughthe
area.Asshowninthefiguresbelow,thecrosswalksweremoreclearlymarkedaswellassidewalksbeing
renovatedtoprovideamoresafeinteractionbetweenpedestrianandvehicletraffic(CSS,2005).
FigureAEͲ5.1andAEͲ5.2showthecleardifferencebeforeandaftertheintersectionimprovementsweremade.
Thepedestrianfacilitiesareclearlyimprovedinordertopromotesafertraveltopedestriansandmaketraffic
moreawareofpedestriansinthevicinity.

FigureAEͲ5.1:MulrySquareBeforeConstruction(ContextSensitiveSolutions,2005)
242
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-5 Pedestrian Access

FigureAEͲ5.2ͲMulrySquareAfterConstruction(ContextSensitiveSolutions,2005)

POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Anumberofaesthetictreatmentstotheroadwayorthoroughfaremaybeconsidered“pedestrian”benefits,
butthosetreatmentsarecoveredelsewhereinGreenroadsandarenotincludedinthiscredit.SeeAEͲ8Scenic
ViewsandAEͲ9CulturalOutreach.
2. Majorintersectionscouldseeanincreaseinpedestrianvehicleaccidents.
3. Manyruralareasdonothavesurroundingpedestrianinfrastructureormasterplanstosupporttheadditionof
newpedestrianfacilities.Shorttermandlongtermgoals,objectivesandgeneralpedestrianstrategyshouldbe
consideredwhenaccommodatingpedestrianswithintheseareas.
RESEARCH
Theinclusionorimprovementofapedestrianfacilitycandrasticallyimprovenotonlythequalityandcomfortof
howpeopletravel,butcanchangethemodeoftransportationused.Severalsustainabilitycomponentscanbe
addressedbytheimprovementofpedestrianfacilities,including:ecology,equity,andeconomy.
ReducedEmissions
Improvedaccessanddedicatedpedestrianfacilitiescanconvincepeopletochangetheirmodeoftraveltowalking
insteadofdrivingtheirvehicles.Withfewercarsdriving,therewillbeanobviousdecreaseinthegreenhousegas
emissionsassociatedwithfossilͲfueldrivenvehicles.
ImprovedHealth&SafetyandImprovedMobility&Access
Aperson’stransportationmodechoicecanbebasedaroundseveraldifferentdecisions.Severalstudieslinkthe
comfortandsafetyofthetraveltotheoverallmodechoiceofatraveler(i.e.walkingonashoulderofahighway
versusasidewalk).Thereforeanimprovementofthesafetyofthecurrentpedestrianfacilitiesmeansthatpeople
willbemorelikelytotravelonfoot.
Designingfacilitiesthataresafeforpedestriansareoftheutmostimportancewhenconsideringpedestrian
mobility.Themaingoalistoensurethepedestrianshaveameansoftravelthatisseparatefromvehicletrafficto
avoidanypossiblecollisions.Typicaldesignstandardsallowfortimedcrossingsignalsatcrosswalks,sidewalksthat
areelevatedfromtheroadway,andothervariousmethods.Raisedsidewalksprovidenotonlyaslightbarrierof
separation,butalsoprovideaslightcomforttotheuserthattheyareseparatedfromtraffic(Ewing&Dumbaugh,
243
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Pedestrian Access AE-5
2009).Othermeansofsafedesigninclude,increasingthedistancebetweenthestoplineandcrosswalkatan
intersectionandputtingupsomesortofnotificationtodrivers(signs,lights,etc.)thatpedestriansarelikelytobe
presentinthearea(Ewing&Dumbaugh,2009).
BenefitsofActiveTransport
Increasedpedestriantravelcanalsoprovidehealthbenefits.Arecentstudycomparedthecurrentstateof
travelandmodeledamoresustainabletypeoftravelusingmorewalkingandbicyclesandreducingtheamount
ofcarsontheroad.Thestudyfoundthetendencyforseveralchronicdiseasescouldbereducedbyhavinga
higherpopulationoftravelerswhomusewalkingorbicyclesastheirmainmodeoftransportation(Woodcock
et.al.,2009).
ConsiderationsforDisabledUsers
Thegoalofprovidingpedestrianfacilitiesistoprovideameansforeveryonetotravel,includingpeoplewith
specialneeds.SomeimprovementstosidewalksaremandatedbytheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA)of
1990andspecificguidelinesareavailableat:http://www.accessͲboard.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm.For
transportationfacilitiesthiscouldinclude:sidewalksslopedforeasyaccessornoisemakingdevicesinstalledat
intersectioncrosswalks.
BoostLocalEconomies&ImproveMobility
Theadventofnewfacilitiesonitsowncanalsoencouragetravelthroughoutthearea.Thisissimplybasedon
increasingtheoverallpedestriannetworkthroughoutthearea.Withgapsinapedestriannetwork,itcanincrease
thedistanceapedestrianisforcedtotravel,andcandiscouragethemfromusingwalkingasaprimarymodeof
transportation(Randall&Baetz,2001).
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayTransportationOfficials.(2004).AASHTO Guide for the Planning,
Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities.1sted.Washington,DC:AASHTO.
ContextSensitiveSolutions.(2005).NewYorkCity,MulrySquare.Accessedat:
http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/mulryͲsquare
Ewing,R.,&Dumbaugh,E.(2009).TheBuiltEnvironmentandTrafficSafety:AReviewofEmpiricalEvidence.
JournalofPlanningLiterature,23(4),347Ͳ367.doi:10.1177/0885412209335553.
Randall,T.A.,&Baetz,B.W.(2001).EvaluatingPedestrianConnectivityforSuburbanSustainability.Journalof
UrbanPlanningandDevelopment,127(1),1Ͳ15.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733Ͳ9488(2001)127:1(1).
Woodcock,J.,Edwards,P.,Tonne,C.,Armstrong,B.G.,Ashiru,O.,Banister,D.,etal.(2009).Publichealthbenefits
ofstrategiestoreducegreenhouseͲgasemissions:urbanlandtransport.Lancet.374(9705),1930Ͳ1943.
Zhou,H.,Zhao,J.,Hsu,P.,&Rouse,J.(2008).IdentifyFactorsAffectingNumberofStudentsWalkingorBikingto
School.InASCEConf.Proc.(Vol.330,p.253).Chengdu,China:ASCE.doi:10.1061/40996(330)253.
ADA AmericanswithDisabilitiesAct
Pedestrian Apersonwhomistravelingwithouttheuseofamechanicaldeviceandmain
modeoftransportationiswalking.
Sidewalk Asurfaceprovidedspecificallyforpedestriantravelthatisseparatefromthe
roadway
244
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-6 Bicycle Access
BICYCLE ACCESS
GOAL
Promotebicyclingincommunitiesbyprovidingdedicatedcyclingfacilitieswithinthe
projectrightofway.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
AchieveCreditAEͲ3ContextSensitiveSolutions(CSS)anddescribetheneed,purpose
andappropriatenessforplanned,new,orupgradedbicyclefacilitiesinthesubmitted
documentforCreditAEͲ3.TheCSSdocumentshouldclearlynotewhetherbicycle
facilitiesorimprovementsarerequiredorhaveotherwisebeenrequestedbythe
public.Inordertoachievethiscredit,abicycleͲonlyfacilitymustbepresentwithinthe
ROWatthestartofconstructionorresultfromconstructionofthisproject.TableAEͲ
6.1showsthepointsavailableforthiscredit.
TableAEͲ6.1:AvailablePointsforCreditAEͲ6
Points Requirements
1 Implementnew(orimproveexisting)operationsortechnologiesforbicycle
facilities.Thisincludes(butisnotlimitedto)addedsignageorminoraccess
improvementsforbicycles,suchasinstallingbicycledetectorsindriving
lanesorgrantingsignalpriority,addingbicycleͲfriendlystormwaterdrains,
codeͲrequireddimensionupgrades,resurfacingexistingbicyclelanes,or
addingnewstreetsidebicyclestoragefacilities(lockers,racks,etc.).
2 Implementphysicalorconstructedchangestotheroadwaystructure,
dimensions,orformthatprovidebicycleͲonlyfacilitieswithdedicatedaccess
withintheROW,suchasabicyclelane,orotherbikeway.Lanessharedwith
motorizedvehiclesdonotmeetthisrequirement.

Details
Forpurposesofthiscredit,thetermbicyclereferstoapedalͲdriven,humanͲ
poweredvehiclewithatleastoneseatforanoperator.SharedͲusepathwayis
definedasamultiͲusepathwayforallnonmotorizedusersincludingpedestrians
andbicyclists.ThismaybelocatedwithinaroadwayRightͲofͲWayyetmustbe
separatedfromtheroadwayandhavewiderwidthsthansidewalks.
Currentfacilitiesdonotalonequalifyforthiscreditwithoutadditionaleffort,such
asupgrades,improvementsorconstructionofnewfacilities.Theattemptto
providepedestrianaccessmustbedeliberateandasadirectresultoftheproject.
DOCUMENTATION
x CopyofthesectionthatfocusesonbicyclefacilitiesintheCreditAEͲ3:Context
SensitiveSolutionsdocumentation.Thissectionshouldaddress:
a. Purposeandneedforbicycleaccessontheroadwayprojectdetermined
throughaprojectanalysisoraBicycleMasterplanningprocess.
b. Regulatoryorjurisdictionalstandardsaddressed,ifany
c. Resultsofpublicinputonproposedbicyclefacilities,ifany
d. Totalcostassociatedwithneworimprovedbicyclefacilities
e. Contractspecificationsandplansforproposedbicyclefacilities
AE-6
1-2 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 AEͲ3Context
SensitiveSolutions
9 AEͲ4Traffic
EmissionsReduction
9 AEͲ5Pedestrian
Access
9 AEͲ7Transit&HOV
Access
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Equity
9 Economy
BENEFITS
9 ReducesFossilFuel
Use
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesGreenhouse
Gases
9 ImprovesAccess
9 ImprovesMobility
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
9 ImprovesLocal
Economies
245
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Bicycle Access AE-6
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Includeelementssuchasbicyclelanes,separatedbicyclepathsoradjacentsharedͲusepathsindesignswhen
requiredbydesignstandards,orcommunitytransportationplans,orbycommunityrequest.
x Reviewlocalbicycleplansandmapsoftheexistingbicyclenetworkstounderstandhowtheroadwaywill
interactwiththeexistingandplanned,roadwaytransportation,andbicycleandpedestriansystems..Thismay
includesharedͲusepathwaysorparkplans.
x Includelocalbicycleplannersandadvocatesinadvisorycommittees,projectdevelopmentormanagement
teams,ordecisionͲmakingcommitteesasappropriate.Consultwithplannerstounderstandhowtheproject
cansupportthedevelopmentofthebicyclenetworkandtopromotecyclingincommunities.
x Designroadwayimprovementsandnewroadwaystoaccommodateexisting,newandplannedbicyclefacilities.
x Relyontheassessmentoflocalplannersandadvocateswherenoexistingbicycleplanexistsabouthowto
integrateexistingandfuturemultimodalfacilitiesintotheprojectdesign.
x Considerhowaneworredesignedroadwaywillimpacttheexistingorplannedbicyclenetworksandintegrate
designelementswithothermodalfacilities(e.g.bicycleandtransit)tomitigateoverallimpacts.Thismaymean
providingconnectionsoradaptabilityforfuturebicyclelanes,sharedͲusepathways,crossingsorotherfacilities
withinthebicyclenetwork.
Example: Dedicated Access on a Roadway
Below,FigureAEͲ6.1showshowadedicatedaccessforbicyclesshouldbemarkedaccordingtotheManualfor
UniformTrafficControlDevices(FHWA,2009).

1point 1point

1point
FigureAEͲ6.1:Examplesofappropriatesignagefordedicatedbicycleaccess.(FHWA,2009)

FigureAEͲ6.2isanexampleoflanemarkingsthatpromotededicatedbicycleaccess(FHWA,2009).Asshownin
thefigure,bicyclistsareprovidedtheirownseparatelaneonaroadwayfortravel.
FigureAEͲ6.3showshowaccessshouldbemarkedforbicyclesthatareutilizingthesamespaceasmotor
vehicles;howeverwhilethesignaboveearnsonepoint(ifnonepreviouslyexisted)becausethishelpsincreases
awarenessofbicycleusersonaroutewithmotorvehicles(andtheoreticallyincreasessafety),thelaneitselfby
definitiondoesnotprovideddedicatedaccessforbicyclists.
246
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-6 Bicycle Access

FigureAEͲ6.2:Examplesofdedicatedlanesforbicycleaccess.2pointsifneworimprovedtomeetor
exceedtheseminimumdimensions.(FHWA,2009)

FigureAEͲ6.3:Accessforbicyclesinamotorizedvehiclelane.Nopoints.(FHWA,2009)
247
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Bicycle Access AE-6
Example: Case Study - Bridgeport Way University Place, Washington
BridgeportWaywasimprovedin2005toaccommodateamorecontextsensitiveroadwayinUniversityPlace,
Washington.Indoingso,thecityofUniversityPlacewasabletosignificantlyreduceaccidentsontheroadway,
whileprovidinganincreasedemphasisonpedestrian,bicycleandtransituseinthroughthearea.Asshownin
thefiguresbelow,therewasadrasticchangeinthechannelizationoftheroadwaytoprovideadequate
facilitiestobroadenthemodesavailableforusethroughthecorridor.Thenewdesignoftheroadwayproved
toreducetrafficspeedswhichcanencouragemorebicycleusethroughthearea(ContextSensitiveSolutions,
2005).Simplybyaddingthefacilitiestotheroadway,thecityofUniversityPlacehasencouragedtheuseof
bicycletravelaswellaspedestriantravel.

FigureAEͲ6.4:BridgeportWayBeforeConstruction.(ContextSensitiveSolutions,2005)

FigureAEͲ6.5ͲBridgeportWayAfterConstruction(ContextSensitiveSolutions,2005)

248
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-6 Bicycle Access
POTENTIAL ISSUES
Encouragingcyclinginareaswheretherewaspreviouslynocyclingmayresultinincreasedbicyclecrashesand
collisions.Carefulplanningforbicyclesandmeetingengineeringandsafetystandardscanhelptomitigatethese
instances.
RESEARCH
Increasingthebicyclefacilitiesalongagivencorridorcanhaveabeneficialresultontheoverallsustainabilityofa
givenroadway.Thebenefitsofincludingbicyclefacilitiescanincludemakingamoreequitableroadway,
decreasingtheamountofcurrenttrafficontheroadway,andalsoprovidehealthbenefitstousersofthefacilities.
Bicyclesandpedestriansareoftengroupedtogetherbecausetheyareeasilydistinguishedfrommotorizedmodes
thatusearightͲofͲway.Also,bothwalkingandbicyclingareconsidered“activetransport”(Woodcocketal.,2009)
modes.Therefore,muchofsupportingresearchforthiscreditandCreditAEͲ5PedestrianAccessoverlap,andwill
notberepeatedhereforbrevity.Improvedmobilityandaccess,environmentalandeconomicbenefits,andhealth
improvementsoftheseactivemodesareaddressedinCreditAEͲ5.
BicycleSafety
Thesafetyconsiderationsforbicyclistsaretypicallyinvolvedindrivingonthesamesurfaceasmotorvehicles.
Severalsafetymeasuresareavailabletoincreasesthesafetyofbothmotorvehiclesandbicyclists.TheAmerican
AssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficialsrecommendsthatbikelaneshavedimensionsofatleast
fourfeetinwidthandarelocatedbetweenthelaneoftravelandsidewalkorparkinglane.Thisreducesthechance
ofaccidentsbetweenbicyclesandvehicles(AASHTO,1999).
However,EwingandDumbaugh(2009)showthatthebestmethodtoincreasesafetyforbicyclesandpedestrians
isbyincreasingawarenessthroughnotificationorsignagealongarightͲofͲway.Theyalsoshowthatincreasesin
overallnumbersofbicyclists(andpedestrians)offer“safetyinnumbers”becauseofheightenedawareness.
Furthermore,dedicatedaccessforbicyclesprovidescomfortabletravelwithoutlanesharingaswellasimproved
safety.Reynoldsetal.(2009)hasshowndedicatedaccesscanreducebicycleͲvehicleaccidentsbyupto50percent
comparedtosharedͲuselanes.
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO).(1999).Guideforthedevelopment
ofbicyclefacilities.Washington,D.C.:AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials.
ContextSensitiveSolutions.(2005).BridgeportWay–UniversityPlace,Washington.Availableat
http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/kentucky_bridgeport/
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2009).ManualforUniformTrafficControlDevices(MUTCD).
Washington,DC:FHWA.Availableathttp://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/html_index.htm
Ewing,R.,&Dumbaugh,E.(2009).TheBuiltEnvironmentandTrafficSafety:AReviewofEmpiricalEvidence.
JournalofPlanningLiterature,23(4),347Ͳ367.doi:10.1177/0885412209335553.
AASHTO AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials
Activetransport Walkingorbiking(humanͲpoweredtransport)
Bicycle ApedalͲdriven,humanͲpoweredvehiclewithatleastoneseatforan
operator
FHWA FederalHighwayAdministration
249
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Bicycle Access AE-6
Reynolds,C.C.,Harris,M.A.,Teschke,K.,Cripton,P.A.,&Winters,M.(2009).Theimpactoftransportation
infrastructureonbicyclinginjuriesandcrashes:areviewoftheliterature.EnvironmentalHealth:aGlobal
AccessScienceSource.8.
Woodcock,J.,Edwards,P.,Tonne,C.,Armstrong,B.G.,Ashiru,O.,Banister,D.,etal.(2009).Publichealthbenefits
ofstrategiestoreducegreenhouseͲgasemissions:urbanlandtransport.Lancet.374(9705),1930Ͳ1943.

250
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-7 Transit & HOV Access
TRANSIT & HOV ACCESS
GOAL
Promoteuseofpublictransitandcarpoolsincommunitiesbyprovidingnewtransit
andHOVfacilitiesorbyupgradingexistingfacilitiesintheroadwayrightͲofͲway.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
AchieveCreditAEͲ3ContextSensitiveSolutions(CSS)anddescribetheneed,purpose
andappropriatenessforplanned,new,orupgradedtransitandHOVfacilitiesinthe
submitteddocumentforCreditAEͲ3.TheCSSdocumentmustdemonstratethatat
leastonemasstransitrouteand/orHOVfacilityexists,orisplannedtoexistwithin5
yearsofthestartofconstruction,thatisaccessiblefromtheprojectROWwithin0.25
mile.TableAEͲ7.1showsthepointcriteriaforthiscredit.
TableAEͲ7.1:AvailablePointsforCreditAEͲ7
Points Requirements
Any
1
a. Enhanceatleast50%oftransitstation orstopamenities (lighting,trash
bins,benches,payphones,heatingand/orcooling,etc.)
b. Improveatleast50%ofthetransitandHOVfacilitysignage(relatedto
transit&HOV)andvehicularaccess(beyondbasicADArequirements)
c. Providetransitsheltersatmorethan50%ofthecorridorstations/stops
d. Provideaccesstonewpark&ridelotsinstrategiclocations.
2 Implementtwoormoreoftheimprovementsfromthelistabove.
3 Implementphysicalorconstructedchangestotheroadwaystructure,
dimensionsorformthatprovideHOVaccessorminordedicatedtransit
accesswithintheROW,suchasacarpoollaneforHOVvehicleorqueue
jumplanesfortransitvehicles.
4 Implementphysicalorconstructedchangestotheroadwaystructure,
dimensionsorformthatprovidededicatedtransitaccesswithintheROW,
suchasanonͲstreetbuslaneoranexpresswaybuslane.
5 Implementphysicalorconstructedchangestotheroadwaystructure,
dimensionsorformthatprovideexclusivemasstransitaccesswithinthe
ROW,suchasatͲgradeorgradeͲseparatedtransitways.

Details
ThepointcriteriaforthiscreditareroughlybasedontheFederalTransityAuthority
(FTA)criteriafromCharacteristicsofBusRapidTransitforDecisionͲMaking(CBRT)
andTCRP90,BusRapidTransitbyDiazandHinebaugh(2009).
DOCUMENTATION
x Copyofthesectionthatfocusesontransit&HOVfacilitiesintheCreditAEͲ3:
ContextSensitiveSolutionswhitepaper.Thissectionshouldaddress:
a. Purposeandneedfortransit&HOVaccessontheroadwayproject,including
howitfitswithexistinglandusesand/orexistingGeneralandTransportation
Plans
b. Regulatoryorjurisdictionalstandardsaddressed,ifany
c. Resultsofpublicinputonproposedtransit&HOV,ifany
d. Totalcostassociatedwithneworimprovedtransit&HOVfacilities
e. Contractspecificationsandbudgetitemsaddressingtransit&HOV
AE-7
1-5 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 AEͲ2Intelligent
Transportation
Systems
9 AEͲ3Context
SensitiveSolutions
9 AEͲ4Traffic
EmissionsReduction
9 AEͲ5Pedestrian
Access
9 AEͲ6BicycleAccess
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Equity
9 Economy
9 Experience
BENEFITS
9 ReducesFossilFuel
Use
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesGreenhouse
Gases
9 ImprovesAccess
9 ImprovesMobility
251
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Transit & HOV Access AE-7
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Reviewlocalplansandexistingtransitserviceplanstounderstandhowtheroadwaywillinteractwiththe
existingandplannedtransitsystem.Becauseofthestrongconnectionsbetweenthepedestrianandbike
systemandtransit,thismayoverlapwithbikeandpedestrianplanning.Seerelatedcreditsforfurtherdetails.
x Includethelocaltransitprovider(s)inadvisorycommittees,projectdevelopmentormanagementteams,or
decisionͲmakingcommitteesasappropriate.
x Consultwithlocaltransitprovider(s)tounderstandhowtheroadwayprojectcansupporttheiroperationsand
futureexpansion.
x Considerhowaneworredesignedroadwaywillimpacttheexistingorplannedpedestriannetworksand
integratedesignelementswithothermodalfacilities(e.g.bicycleandtransit)tomitigateoverallimpacts.For
example,thismightmeanincludingapedestriancrossingonamajorarterialthatcouldbeabarrierto
residentsreachingatransitfacility.
x Surveyexistingroutesandaskstakeholdersforsuggestionsonhowtoimproveaccesstoexistingtransit
facilitiesduringthepublicinvolvementprocess.
x Locateenhancementstotransitstation/stopamenitiesatmorethan50%ofthestations/stopsalongthe
corridorbasedoncost.Amenitiescouldincludeinstallingsafetylighting,trashreceptacles,benches,pay
phones,heatingand/orcoolingandothersimilarenhancements.Thisshouldbereflectedsomewhereinthe
projectbidlistorbudget.
x InstallsignageandimproveaccessthatisexclusivelyfortransitandHOVvehiclesonlytoearnthiscredit.This
distinctionisnottodiscourageacomprehensivesignageprogram;however,signageforpedestrianand
bicyclesareaddressedinCreditAEͲ5PedestrianAccessandCreditAEͲ6BicycleAccess.Acomprehensive
approachtosignageandaccessimprovementsatatransitandHOVfacilitycanultimatelyincludeallmodes
andbeeligibleforpointsinmultiplecredits.
x Identifytroublespotsfortransitandcombinetransitsignalprioritywithqueuejumplanestocreateanefficient
transitfacilityatminimalcost.ThiscanalsoearnpointswithCreditAEͲ2IntelligentTransportationSystems.
x Consideraddingacarpoollane,whichencouragesmultiplepassengersineachvehicleandcanimprovetransit
traveltimesandreliability.
x Improveaccessbeyondbasicrequirements,suchasADA.
x Improvesignagebeyondbasicrequirementswheresignagealreadyexists.Typesofsignageimprovements
couldincludeprovidingpassengerinformationamenities(maps,schedules,realͲtimesignage)atfacilitiesand
signsalongtheroadwaytodesignatetransitstations.
x Placeadditionalparkandridelotsinstrategictransitand/orcarpoolaccesslocations.
x Provideextrawidthonsidewalkstoaccommodatetransitshelters.
x Designtheroadwaytoaccommodateanexclusivetransitlane.
x AccommodateanyplannedfixedguidewaysbyconstructinggradeͲseparatedcrossings.
Example: Point Calculations
2points
Aroadwaywithseveralmajortransitroutesisbeingresurfacedandabovegroundelectricalwiresarebeing
buriedasacomponentoftheproject.Alongwiththeroadwayimprovements,all(100%)ofthemajortransit
stopsalongtheroutearebeingenhancedwithrealͲtimebusarrivalinformation,lighting,surveillancecameras,
areamapdisplaysandtrashcans.Thisprojectwouldearn2pointsbecauseitincludessignificant
improvements(over50%)toboth(a)amenitiesand(b)signage.
4points
Abusrapidtransitprojectincludesaroadwaywideningandrestripingtoaddanoutsidededicatedtransitlane
withsignalpriorityatintersections.Theprojectalsoincludesstationenhancementsatallthestationsalongthe
corridorwithnewshelters,gradeͲseparatedpedestrianaccess,realͲtimepassengerinformation,bicycle
storagelockersandseveralstationamenities.Thisprojectwouldreceive4pointsunderTransit&HOVAccess.
ThetransitsignalpriorityimprovementswouldbeeligiblefortheITScreditandpedestrianandbicycle
improvementswouldbeeligibleforthePedestrianAccessandBicycleAccesscredits.SeeFigureAEͲ7.1.
252
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-7 Transit & HOV Access

FigureAEͲ7.1:AnonͲstreetbuslaneinVancouver,Canada.4points.(PhotobyK.Watkins)
5points
SeeexamplesofagradeseparatedtransitwayinFigureAEͲ7.2andanatͲgradetransitwayinFigureAEͲ7.3.

FigureAEͲ7.2:AgradeseparatedtransitwayinOttawa,Canadaworth.5points.(PhotobyK.Watkins)
253
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Transit & HOV Access AE-7

FigureAEͲ7.3:AnatͲgradetransitwayinEugene,Oregon.5points.(PhotobyK.Watkins)

POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. ManytransitandHOVfacilities(suchasparkandridelotsandtransitcenters)willinvolveimprovementsthat
crossmultiplemodes.Inordertoawardcredithere,especiallywherenodrasticphysicalchangestothe
roadwaystructureorformareimplemented,improvementsandchangesshouldbeexclusivetoHOVand
transitusersanddistinguishable,viaabudgetitemforexample,fromotheramenitiesthatareforpedestrian
andbicyclists.Anexamplewouldbeimprovementstobusstopswherethesidewalkgradesareraisedto
accommodatebusrampsfordisablepassengers.Althoughtheintegrationoftransitwithbicyclesand
pedestriansiskeytoobtaininghigherridership,amenitieswhichareincludedinthePedestrianAccesscredit
AEͲ5andBicycleAccesscreditAEͲ6cannotbeappliedagainhere.
2. Thiscreditpresupposestheintegrityofthedesigner:appropriatesignageandsafetymustbepreservedwith
thehigherpointsavailableinthiscredit.ThismeansthatatransitorHOVfacilitysuchasadedicatedbuswayor
carpoollaneisassumedtobesignedappropriatelyandwillnotbedesignedtoincreasesafetyrisk.Additional
pointsarenotawardedforsignageandaccessimprovementsforthehighervaluecreditsforthisreason.
3. IntelligentTransportationSystems(ITS),transit&HOVoftengohandinhandbutareexplicitlynotcoveredin
thiscreditbecausetheyareincludedinCreditAEͲ2IntelligentTransportationSystems.However,manyITS
applications,suchastravelerinformation,transitmanagement,andlanemanagementpairnicelywiththe
improvementsinthiscredit.
254
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-7 Transit & HOV Access
4. AestheticimprovementstotransitandHOVfacilitiesorotherpublicart,whileconsideredamenities,arenot
includedinthiscredit.SeeCreditAEͲ9CulturalOutreach.Itispossibletoincludeallofthesethingsandearn
pointsacrossmultiplecredits.
5. Lightrailorbuswayprojectscanqualifyforthiscreditiftheymeetthecriteriaandarecompletedwithinthe
roadwayrightͲofͲway.Ingeneral,manyofthecreditsavailableinGreenroadsarebroadlyapplicableandmay
alsobeappliedtothesetypesofprojects,buttheymaylackthespecificityneededtobeeffectiveasametric
forsuchfacilities.
6. Thiscreditfocusesintwoareas,runningwaysandstations.Thisisthesupportinginfrastructurefortransitand
HOVaccess,facilitiesandsystemservices.Corridorenhancementssuchasserviceimprovements(increased
service,neworspecializedservice,routerestructuring),branding,marketingandpartnershipprograms,
informationsystems,fareinnovations,andneworenhancedvehiclesareencouragedbutareoutsidethescope
oftheGreenroadsRatingSystem.
RESEARCH
Thesocietalbenefitsofpublictransportationarenumerous.Transitprovidesmobilitytothosewhocannotor
chosenottodrive,includingaccesstojobs,educationandmedicalservices.Transitreducescongestion,gasoline
consumptionandthenation’scarbonfootprint(America’sPublicTransportationAssociation:APTA,2008).In2007,
publictransportationsaved646millionhoursoftraveldelayand398milliongallonsoffuelintheU.S.,resultingin
asavingsof$13.7billionincongestioncosts(SchrankandLomax,2009).UseofpublictransportationreducedU.S.
carbondioxide(CO
2
)emissionsby6.9millionmetrictonsin2005(DavisandHale,2007).Theincreaseduseof
transitonapercapitabasisiscriticaltothenation’seconomyandmeetingenvironmentalgoals.
Improvementstopublictransportationinfrastructurearecriticaltoanyplantoimprovethesustainabilityof
transportation.IntheUrbanLandInstitute’srecentlyproduced“MovingCooler”report(CambridgeSystematics,
2009),transitcapitalinvestmentshadtheabilitytoproducecumulativegreenhousegasreductionsof0.4to1.1
percentofbaselineemissions.Thereportidentifiespublictransportationimprovementsasoneofninekey
categoriesthatcanbebundledtoreduceemissions.Further,theWorldBank(Gwilliam,Kojima,andJohnson,
2004)identifiesmodalshiftstononͲSOVmodesasakeytoreducingtransportsectoremissions.Theypointout
however,thatmixingcars,othervehiclesandnonmotorizedtransportwithpublictransportvehicles“reducesthe
averagespeedoftrafficandmakesitdifficulttoestablishaneffectivebussystem.”
Infrastructureimprovementsshouldincludemeanstoseparatetransitvehiclesfromgeneralpurposetrafficto
makethemodecompetitive(Vuchic,2005;2007).WithoutexclusiverightͲofͲway,transitvehiclesareheldcaptive
bythecongestioncausedbylowoccupancyvehiclesandcannotimprovetheefficiencyofthetransportation
system.Forthisreason,thiscreditincludeshigherpointvaluesastheexclusivityoftransitrightͲofͲwayimproves.
AdditionalResources
Twoofthemostusefulreferencestounderstandingtheelementsforthiscreditare:
x TheFederalTransitAdministration’sCharacteristicsofBusRapidTransitforDecisionͲMaking(CBRT)guidance
documentbyDiazandHinebaugh(2009),whichisavailableat:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf
x TransportationResearchBoard’sTransitCooperativeResearchProgram(TCRP)90,BusRapidTransit:Volume2:
ImplementationGuidelines,byLevinsonetal.(2003).Thisdocumentisavailableat:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_90v2.pdf
Manyadditionalreferencesareincludedforconsiderationofotherapplicableplanninganddesignguidelines.
Althoughcreditsareobtainedforincludingelements,properdesigniscriticaltothefunctionalityofthefacilities
andtheReferencessectionattheendofthiscreditshouldbeconsideredastartingpoint.
255
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Transit & HOV Access AE-7
GLOSSARY
AtͲgradetransitway Roadsfortheexclusiveuseoftransitvehicleswithaccessallowedonlyat
designedpoints,howeverintersectionsandothercrossingsareatͲgradeand
subjecttosignalization
BRT Busrapidtransit – aflexible,highperformancerapidtransitmodethat
combinesavarietyofphysical,operatingandsystemelementsintoa
permanentlyintegratedsystemwithaqualityimageanduniqueidentity
CBRT CharacteristicsofBusRapidTransitforDecisionͲMaking,anFTAdocument
describingthemajorelementsofBRTandimpactonsystemperformance
Carpoollane Aroadwaylanedesignatedforvehicleswithmorethanoneoccupant
Dedicatedlane AlanedesignatedforonlytransitoronlyHOVuse
Expresswaybuslane Buslaneonanexpresswaydedicatedtobususeonly
FTA FederalTransitAdministration
GradeͲseparatedtransitway Roadsfortheexclusiveuseoftransitvehicleswithaccessallowedonlyat
designedpoints,includeoverpassesorothergradeͲseparateatcrossingsto
minimizeconflictswithothervehicles
HOV HighOccupancyVehicle– avehiclewithtwoormoreoccupants
HOVfacility Aphysicalentity,structureorspacethatprovidesHOVaccessorservicesto
orintheROW,suchasaparkandride,carpoollaneortransitcenter
ITS Intelligenttransportationsystems Ͳ theintegrationofinformationand
electronicstechnologyintotransportationinfrastructuretorelieve
congestion,improvesafetyandenhanceproductivity
Masstransit Seetransit
OnͲstreetbuslane Alaneonanarterialorcollectorstreetreservedforbususeonly
Publictransit Seetransit
Queuejumplane Alaneusedatabottlenecklocation(typicallyintersections)toallowtransit
vehiclestocometothefrontofwaitingtrafficandbypassthequeuesby
receivinganearlygreensignal
SingleͲOccupantVehicle Vehicleswithoneoccupantofdrivingage(thedriver)
Station TransitpassengerpickͲupanddropͲofflocationsthatserveastheentryand
exitpointfromthepublictransportationsystem
Runningway Thetrackorroadwayonwhichtransitoperates
TCRP TransitCooperativeResearchProgram Ͳ aTransportationResearchBoard
researchinitiativeforpublictransportation
Transit Amodeoftransportationthat includesvehiclesopentopublicusesuchas
buses,lightrail,subways,ferriesandtrains
Transitsignalpriority Alterssignaltimingtogiveprioritytotransitvehiclesbyextendinggreen
time,givingearlygreentimeorprovidinganexclusivetransitphase

REFERENCES
AmericanPublicTransportationAssociation(2007).PublicTransportation:Benefitsforthe21
st
Century.Availableat
http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/twenty_first_century.pdf
AmericanPublicTransportationAssociation(2008).PublicTransportationFactsataGlance.Availableat
http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/facts_at_a_glance.pdf
AmericanPublicTransportationAssociation(2009).ChangingtheWayAmericaMoves:CreatingaMoreRobust
Economy,aSmallerCarbonFootprintandEnergyIndependence.Availableat
http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/america_moves_09.pdf
256
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-7 Transit & HOV Access
CambridgeSystematics(2009).MovingCooler:AnAnalysisofTransportationStrategiesforReducingGreenhouse
GasEmissions.UrbanLandInstitute.AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableathttp://www.movingcooler.info/
Cleghorn,D.;Clavelle,A.;Boone,J.;Masliah,M.&Levinson,H.(2009).ImprovingPedestrianandMotoristSafety
AlongLightRailAlignments.TransitCooperativeResearchProgramReport137.TransportationResearchBoard.
Availableathttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_137.pdf
Davis,T.&Hale,M.(2007).PublicTransportation’sContributiontoU.S.GreenhouseGasReduction.Science
ApplicationsInternationalCorporation.AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableat
http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/climate_change.pdf
Diaz,R.&Hinebaugh,D.(2009).CharacteristicsofBusRapidTransitforDecisionͲMaking.FederalTransit
Administration.AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableat
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT_2009_Update.pdf
FederalTransitAdministration(2009).TransitGreenBuildingActionPlan.AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableat
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Transit_Green_Building_Action_Plan.pdf
Gray,G.;Kelley,N.&Larwin,T(2006).BusRapidTransit:AHandbookforPartners.MinetaTransportation
Institute.AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableat
http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/BRT2006/BRT_06_02%20book.pdf
Gwilliam,K.;Kojima,M.&Johnson,T.(2004).ReducingAirPollutionfromUrbanTransport.TheWorldBank.
AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableathttp://www.cleanairnet.org/infopool/1411/articlesͲ
60133_resource_1.pdf
Hecker,J.(2003).FederalTransitAdministration:BusRapidTransitOffersCommunitiesaFlexibleMassTransit
Option.UnitedStatesGeneralAccountingOffice.AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableat
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03729t.pdf
Hodges,T.(2009).PublicTransportation’sRoleinRespondingtoClimateChange.FederalTransitAdministration.
AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableat
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange.pdf
Kittelson&Associates;HerbertLevinsonTransportationConsultantsandDMJM+Harris(2007).BusRapidTransit
Practioner’sGuide.TransitCooperativeResearchProgramReport118.TransportationResearchBoard.
AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableathttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_118.pdf
Kittleson&Associates;KFHGroup;ParsonsBrinckerhoffQuade&DouglasandHunterͲZaworski,K.(2003).Transit
CapacityandQualityofServiceManual,2
nd
Edition.TransitCooperativeResearchProgramReport100.
TransportationResearchBoard.AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableat
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/Transit_Capacity_and_Quality_of_Service_Manual_2nd_153590.aspx
Korve,H.;Farran,J.;Mansel,D.;Levinson,H.;ChiraͲChavala,T.;&Ragland,D.(1996).IntegrationofLightRail
TransitintoCityStreets.TransitCooperativeResearchProgramReport17.TransportationResearchBoard.
AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableathttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_17Ͳa.pdf
Levinson,H.;Zimmerman,S.;Clinger,J.;Gast,J.;Rutherford,S.&Bruhn,E.(2003).BusRapidTransit:Volume2:
ImplementationGuidelines.TransitCooperativeResearchProgramReport90.TransportationResearchBoard.
AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableathttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_90v2.pdf
Nelson&Nygaard(2006).ToolkitfortheAssessmentofBusStopAccessibilityandSafety.EasterSealsProject
Action.AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableathttp://projectaction.easterseals.com
257
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Transit & HOV Access AE-7
Pucher,J.&Buehler,R.(2009).IntegratingBicyclingandPublicTransportinNorthAmerica.JournalofPublic
Transportation,Volume12,No.3.http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12Ͳ3Pucher.pdf
Schneider,R.(2005).IntegrationofBicyclesandTransit:ASynthesisofTransitPractice.TransitCooperative
ResearchProgram(TCRP)Synthesis62,TransportationResearchBoard.
Schrank,D.&Lomax,T.(2009).UrbanMobilityReport.TexasTransportationInstitute.AccessedJanuary5,2010.
Availableathttp://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2009.pdf
St.Jacques,K.&Levinson,H.(1997).OperationalAnalysisofBusLanesonArterials.TransitCooperativeResearch
ProgramReport26.TransportationResearchBoard.AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableat
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_26Ͳa.pdf
TexasTransportationInstitute(1996).GuidelinesfortheLocationandDesignofBusStops.TransitCooperative
ResearchProgramReport19.TransportationResearchBoard.AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableat
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_19Ͳa.pdf
TranSystems;PlannersCollaborativeandTomCrikelairAssociates(2007).ElementsNeededtoCreateHigh
RidershipTransitSystems.TransitCooperativeResearchProgramReport111.TransportationResearchBoard.
AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableathttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_111.pdf
UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation(USDOT).(2010).ReporttoCongress:Transportation’sRolein
ReducingU.S.GreenhouseGasEmissions.Volume1:SynthesisReportandVolume2:TechnicalReport.
Washington,DC:USDOT.605pp.Availableat
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report_Ͳ_April_2010_Ͳ
_Volume_1_and_2.pdf
UnitedStatesGeneralAccountingOffice(2001).MassTransit:BusRapidTransitShowsPromise.AccessedJanuary
5,2010.Availableathttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf
Vuchic,V.(2005).UrbanTransitOperations,PlanningandEconomics.JohnWiley&Sons.
Vuchic,V.(2007).UrbanTransitSystemsandTechnology.JohnWiley&Sons.
Wright,L.&Hook,W.(2007).BusRapidTransitPlanningGuide.InstituteforTransportation&DevelopmentPolicy.
AccessedJanuary5,2010.Availableathttp://www.itdp.org/index.php/microsite/brt_planning_guide/

258
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-8 Scenic Views
SCENIC VIEWS
GOAL
FeatureNationalScenicBywaysProgram(NSBP)valuesinaroadway.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
EITHERrequirementmaybemetforcredit.
1Point:AnyportionoftheprojectispartoftheNationalScenicBywaysProgram
(NSBP)(http://www.byways.org)meaningithasbeendesignatedasoneofAmerica’s
Byways®(NationalScenicBywayorAllͲAmericanRoad),aStateScenicByway,oran
IndianTribeScenicBywaybecauseofitsscenic,natural,and/orrecreationalqualities.
OR
2Points:Provideatleastoneaccessfromtheprojecttoadesignatedareaforvehicles
toexitthetrafficstream,stopandexperiencescenic,naturalorrecreationalfeatures
alongtheroadway.Theseareasmaybescenicviewpointsoroverlooks,welcome
centers,touristactivitiesorinformationcentersorrecreationareas.Theymustbe
identifiedwithsignageconformingto23CFR655(theManualonUniformTraffic
ControlDevices,currentrevision)Part2–Signs.
Details
TheNSBPisabroadprogramthatcapturesmanyroadwayqualities.Thesecanbest
becategorizedasscenic,historical,cultural,natural,recreationalandarcheological.
Thiscreditcoversscenic,naturalandrecreationalqualities.CreditAEͲ9Cultural
Outreachcovershistorical,culturalandarcheologicalfeatures.
DOCUMENTATION
Ifascenicroutedesignationisusedtosatisfythiscredit,providedocumentationof
national,State,orIndiantribedesignation.Alsoprovideapictureoftheroutethatbest
capturesitssceneryorotherimportantfeatures.
OR
Ifaroadsideaccesspointisusedtosatisfythiscredit,indicateinthesubmittedplans
andspecificationswheretheviewpointoroverlookisdrawnandspecified.Also
provideapictureoftheaccesspointandapictureoftherelatedattraction.
AE-8
1-2 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ11Educational
Outreach
9 AEͲ3Context
SensitiveSolutions
9 AEͲ9Cultural
Outreach
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Equity
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 IncreasesAwareness
9 IncreasesAesthetics

259
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Scenic Views AE-8
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x WorkthroughformalchannelstohavearoadwayorportionofroadwaydesignatedasaNationalScenic
Byway,anAllͲAmericanRoad,aStatescenicbyway,orandIndianTribescenicbyway..Thiscanbedone
throughtheNationalScenicBywaysProgramorthroughaStateorIndianTribeprogramthatformally
recognizesscenicroadways.
x Providelocations,suchasviewpointsorpullouts,wheredriverscanstoptoenjoyascenic,historic,cultural,
natural,recreational,orarchaeologicalfeatureoftheroadwayarea.
x ForAmerica’sByways®andStatedesignatedbyways,applyforagrantwiththeNBSPtoenhanceoneofthe
abovequalities.
Example: National Scenic Byways Program
TheNationalScenicBywaysProgram(NSBP),partoftheFederalHighwayAdministration,hasamissionto
“…provideresourcestothebywaycommunityincreatingauniquetravelexperienceandenhancedlocal
qualityoflifethrougheffortstopreserve,protect,interpret,andpromotetheintrinsicqualitiesofdesignated
byways.”(NSBP,2009).Theprogramformallyrecognizescertainroadsfortheirarchaeological,cultural,
historic,natural,recreationalandscenicqualities.Tobecomeanofficial“Byway”(theoverarchingtermthe
NSBPusestodescribetheseroads)aroadwaymustbenominated(thenominationcanoriginatefromany
personororganization)throughadetailedprocess.TheNSBPdefinessixintrinsicroadwayqualitiesthata
roadwaycanpossess.NationalScenicBywayspossess“characteristicsorregionalsignificance”inatleastoneof
theseintrinsicqualities,whileAllͲAmericanRoadspossess“characteristicsofnationalsignificance”inatleast
twooftheseintrinsicqualities(NSBP,2009).Thesixintrinsicqualitiesare(paraphrasedfromNSBP,2009):
x Archaeological.Physicalevidenceofhistoricorprehistorichumanlifeoractivitythatisvisibleandcapable
ofbeinginventoriedandinterpreted.
x Cultural.Evidenceandexpressionsofthecustomsortraditionsofadistinctgroupofpeople.
x Historic.Legaciesofthepastthataredistinctlyassociatedwithphysicalelementsofthelandscape,whether
naturalormanmade,thatareofsuchhistoricsignificancethattheyeducatetheviewerandstiran
appreciationforthepast.
x Natural.Thosefeaturesinthevisualenvironmentthatareinarelativelyundisturbedstate.Thesefeatures
predatethearrivalofhumanpopulationsandmayincludegeologicalformations,fossils,landform,water
bodies,vegetation,andwildlife.
x Recreational.Outdoorrecreationalactivitiesdirectlyassociationwithanddependentuponthenaturaland
culturalelementsofthecorridor'slandscape.Theyprovideopportunitiesforactiveandpassiverecreational
experiences.
x Scenic.Heightenedvisualexperiencederivedfromtheviewofnaturalandmanmadeelementsofthevisual
environmentofthescenicbywaycorridor.
FigureAEͲ8.1showsamapofregisteredNationalScenicBywaysandAllͲAmericanRoadsintheU.S.as
classifiedbytheNSBP.TheNSBPwebsitegivesmapsandlocationsforByways(FigureAEͲ8.2)thatcanbeused
todetermineifaparticularprojectencompassespartofone.
260
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-8 Scenic Views

FigureAEͲ8.1:UnitedStatesScenicByways.(NSBP,2009).

FigureAEͲ8.2:AnexampleofthemapsavailableattheNSBPwebsite(NSBP,2009).Thismapisforthe
ChinookScenicBywaynearMt.RainierinWashingtonState.
261
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Scenic Views AE-8

Example: Oregon Scenic Byways
OregonhasitsownScenicBywaysProgramthatincludesfederal,state,cityandcountydefinedscenicroads
andhighways.SomeareintheNSBPandsomearenot.Thisprogramlistsitsscenicbywaysat:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/SCENICBYWAYS/index.shtml.Asanexample,theSilverFallsScenicByway
isa55ͲmileroutenearSalem,ORthatgoesthroughSilverFallsStatePark.AlthoughitisnotpartoftheNSBP,it
stillqualifiesforthisVoluntaryCreditbasedonitsdesignationbythestateofOregon.
Example: Scenic Viewpoint
Roadwayscanofferopportunitiestosafelyviewscenerybyprovidingdesignatedpulloutsorviewingareasthat
allowmotoriststostopandexittheirvehiclestotakeinscenery.Theseviewingareascanbelargeconstructed
parkinglotswithvisitoramenities(FigureAEͲ8.3)orcanbesimplewidenedshoulderpullouts(FigureAEͲ8.4).
Ineithercasetheviewpointoroverlookshouldbeproperlysignedandidentified.

FigureAEͲ8.3:ScenicviewpointshowingMt.St.HelensaccessiblefromForestHighway25
intheGiffordPinchotNationalForest.

262
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-8 Scenic Views

FigureAEͲ8.4:Scenicpullout(slightlyleftandlowerfromcenter)onSR410inMt.RainierNationalPark.

POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Althougharoadwaymayprovidepleasingscenery,itcannotbeconsideredforthisVoluntaryCreditunlessitis
(1)formallydesignatedasascenicroadway,or(2)providesanareafordriverstopulloffthetravelledwayand
stoptoenjoythescenery.
2. Historicalroadwaysorthosewithaccesstospecificculturalorgeologicalfeaturesarespecificallyincludedin
CreditAEͲ9:CulturalOutreach.Insomecases,aroadwaymightqualifyforbothAEͲ8andAEͲ9.
3. Providingsignageordirectiontoascenicviewpointoroverlookthatisnotdirectlypartoftheroadwayproject
doesNOTsatisfythisVoluntaryCredit.

RESEARCH
“Sceneryisdefinedasthegeneralappearanceofaplaceandthefeaturesofitsviewsorlandscapes”(Gallioano
andLoeffler,2000).InthecontextofthisVoluntaryCredititmorespecificallyreferstopredominantlynatural
featuresratherthanmanͲmade.Alongaroadway,sceneryisthenthenaturalfeaturesandbeautifulviewsthatcan
beseenfromornearbytheroadway.Inthecontextofsustainability,humansplacevalueonwhattheycanseeand
itsqualitysotheavailabilityofscenicviewsalongroadwayscancontributetotheequitycomponentof
sustainability(i.e.,scenicviewsaresomethingwevalueashumans).Therearealsomeasurablephysicaland
psychologicalbenefitstoattractivescenery(GallioanoandLoeffler,2000citeDriveretal.,1992;Ulrich,1984)and
humanpreferencefornaturallandscapesisidentifiableandmeasurable(GallioanoandLoeffler,2000citeMagill,
1992;Lee,1976;Litton,1984;Daniel&Boster,1976).Therefore,providingaccesstoscenicviewshasvalueand
cancontributetothesustainabilityofaroadway.Theexactnatureofthevaluecanbecomplexbutsuchvalueis
basedprimarilyonhumanperceptionandeconomicworth.Thenexttwosectionsbrieflysurveytheseideas.
AssessingVisualLandscapeQuality
Inabroadsense,visuallandscapequality(atermthatimplies“scenicviews”andaratingoftheirdegreeof
excellence)istypicallyquantifiedusingexpertdesignapproachesorpublicperceptionapproaches(Daniel,2001).
Expertdesignapproachesrelyontranslatinglandscapefeaturestoformaldesignparametersthatcanthenbe
relatedtohowhumansperceivethembasedonmodelsortheory.Publicperceptionapproachesrelyonhow
263
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Scenic Views AE-8
landscapefeaturesfunctionasstimulitoevokehumanresponse.Eithermethodisfundamentallyrelatedtohow
humansperceivelandscapefeatures.Theseperceptionsare,onaverage,quiteconsistentinthatpeopletendto
prefernaturalͲappearinglandscapes(Lee,1976;McGuire,1979;Newby,1971;Noe,1988)andgenerallylikethe
samethings(Zube,1976).Therefore,inabroadsenseitispossibletopredicthumanpreferencesforvisualquality
andplanfortheminaroadway.Anoppositeapproachthatisgainingmomentumseekstodirectlyassessthe
ecologicalfunctionofthelandscapeanddeemhumanperceptionandpreferencesirrelevant(Daniel,2001).This
approachmayevenfindthatnotbuildinganyroadmaybethebestapproachtopreservingvisuallandscape
quality.
EconomicValueofScenery
Scenerycanalsobejudgedbasedonitseconomicvalue.Mostresearchinthisareainvestigateswhathumanshave
paidfortheprivilegeofenjoyingavieworwhattheywouldbewillingtopay.Forexample,inlookingatHong
KongapartmentsJimandChen(2009)foundthatpeoplearewillingtopayapremiumforattractiveviews;e.g.,a
broadharborviewofHongKongHarborcouldincreasetheapartmentvalueby2.97%orabout$15,173.In
somethingperhapsmorerelatedtoroadwayscenery,Batistanetal.(2002)lookedatthevalueofagriculturalland
inWyoming(nearYellowstoneandGrandTetonNationalParks)andfoundthat“…remoteagriculturallands,which
includewildlifehabitat,anglingopportunitiesandscenicvistas,commandhigherpricesperacrethanthosewhich
primarilypossessagriculturalproductioncapacity.”Another,perhapssimpler,waytodemonstratetheeconomic
valueofscenicviewsistolookatthepricingofhotelrooms.LangeandShaeffer(2001)lookedatroompricingin
Zurich,Switzerlandandfoundtheretobesignificantvalueinviews(asomewhatobviousconclusionbut
nonethelesssupportedbyproperstatisticalanalysis).Sucheconomicanalysisisnotentirelyneweither.An1879
articleintheNewYorkTimes(Jarves,1879)providesanearlyviewintowhatsceneryisworth.InthisarticleJarves
looksattouristvisitstoSwitzerlandandclaims1.4millionvisitorshavespentover$45million,which,heargues,
canbeviewedastheinterestat5%on$900million,“…whichmaybeconsideredtheactualmarketvalueofthe
landscapealone…”In2009dollarsthatconservativelycomestowellover$20billion.
TheNationalScenicBywayProgram(NSBP)
TheNSBPchooseslessscientificallyrigorousmethodsforselectingroadwaysfordesignationasNationalScenic
BywaysorAllͲAmericanRoads.Thedefinitionoftheirsixintrinsicqualitiesthattheseroadshave(archaeological,
cultural,historic,natural,recreational,scenic)indicatesthattheNSBPdefinitionisbroaderthantheGallioanoand
Loeffler(2000)definitionof“generalappearanceandthequalitiesofitsviewandlandscapes.”Howeverareview
ofthesesixintrinsicqualitiesshowsthateachonemustessentiallyberepresentedbyaphysicalpresencethatcan
beviewedorexperienced.ThespecificrequirementsforscenicbywaydesignationareoutlinedbytheFHWAin
theirinterimpolicyonScenicByways(NationalScenicBywaysProgram,1995).Specifically,roadwaysnominated
should:
x SafelyandconvenientlyaccommodatetwoͲwheeldriveautomobileswithstandardclearances.
x Accommodate,whereverfeasible,bicycleandpedestriantravel.
x Safelyaccommodateconventionaltourbuses.
x Haveascenicbywayscorridormanagementplan.ForAllͲAmericanRoads,theremustbeademonstration
oftheextenttowhichenforcementmechanismsarebeingimplementedbycommunitiesalongthehighway
inaccordancewiththecorridormanagementplan.
x Userfacilities(e.g.overlooks,foodservices,etc.)shouldbeavailablefortravelers.
x Havecontinuity.Roadwaysshouldhavetoomanygapsbutrathershouldbeascontinuousaspossibleand
shouldminimizeintrusionsonthevisitor’sexperience.

Also,andimportantly,anyroadnominatedfortheNationalScenicBywayorAllͲAmericanRoaddesignationis
consideredtobedesignatedaStatescenicbyway.ManyofthescenicbywaysrunningthroughtheUnitedStates
arenotjustviewedaspartofthehowpeopletravel,butcanberecognizedasculturallandmarks(Youngs,White
andWodrich,2008).

264
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-8 Scenic Views
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
Bastian,C.T.;McLeod,D.M.;Germino,M.J.;Reiners,W.A.&Blasko,B.J.(2002).Environmentalamenitiesand
agriculturallandvalues:ahedonicmodelusinggeographicinformationsystemsdata.EcologicalEconomics,
40,pp.337Ͳ349.
Daniel,T.C.&Boster,R.(1976).Measuringlandscapeesthetics:thescenicbeautyestimationmethod.Research
Paper.RMͲ167.U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainForestandRange
ExperimentStation,FortCollins,CO.
Daniel,T.C.(2001).Whitherscenicbeauty?Visuallandscapequalityassessmentinthe21
st
century.Landscapeand
UrbanPlanning,54,pp.267Ͳ281.
Driver,B.L.;Brown,P.J.&Peterson,G.(1992).Benefitsofleisure.StateCollege,PA:VenturePublishing,Inc.
Gallioano,S.J.&Loeffler,G.M.(2000).SceneryAssessment:ScenicBeautyattheEcoregionScale.InteriorColumbia
BasinEcosystemManagementProject:ScientificAssessment,Quigley,T.M.,ed.PNWͲGTRͲ472.U.S.
DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,Portland,OR.
Haefele,M.(2009).Sceneryholdseconomicvalue.TheWildernessSociety.http://wilderness.org/content/sceneryͲ
holdsͲeconomicͲvalue.Accessed8December2009.
Jarves,J.J.(18October1879).MoneyValueofScenery;RevenuefromNaturalAttractions.NewYorkTimes.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B0DEFD7103EE73BBC4C53DFB7678382669FDE.
Jim,C.Y.&Chen,W.Y.(2009).Valueofscenicviews:HedonicassessmentofprivatehousinginHongKong.
LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,91(4),pp.226Ͳ234.
Lange,E.&Schaeffer,P.V.(2001).Acommentonthemarketvalueofaroomwithaview.LandscapeandUrban
Planning,55(2),pp.113Ͳ120.
Lee,R.G.(1976).Assessingpublicconcernforvisualquality—landscapesensitivityresearchandadministrative
studies.PSWͲ19.U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificSouthwestForestandRange
ExperimentStation,Berkeley,CA.
Litton,R.B.,Jr.(1984).Visualvulnerabilityofthelandscape:controlofvisualquality.ResearchPaper.WOͲ39.U.S.
DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,Washington,DC.
AllͲAmericanRoad AroaddesignatedbytheNationalScenicBywaysProgramandpossessing
characteristicsofnationalsignificancewithinatleasttwoofthefollowing
intrinsicqualities:archaeological,cultural,historic,natural,recreationaland
scenic.
NationalScenicByway AroaddesignatedbytheNationalScenicBywaysProgramandpossessing
characteristicsofregionalsignificancewithinatleastoneofthefollowing
intrinsicqualities:archaeological,cultural,historic,natural,recreationaland
scenic.
Scenery Thegeneralappearanceofaplaceandthefeaturesofitsviewsor
landscapes.
ScenicView Apleasingsightorvistathatinvolvesalandscapepredominatedbynatural
(asopposedtomanͲmade)features.
265
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Scenic Views AE-8
Magill,A.W.(1992).Managedandnaturallandscapes:Whatdopeoplelike?ResearchPaper.PSWͲRPͲ213.U.S.
DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificSouthwestResearchStation,Albany,CA.
NationalScenicBywaysProgram(NSBP)Online.(2009).NationalScenicBywaysProgram.Website.
http://www.bywaysonline.org.Accessed3December2009.
NationalScenicBywaysProgram,60Fed.Reg.26759(1995).
Ulrich,R.S.(1984).Viewthroughawindowmayinfluencerecoveryfromsurgery.Science,224,pp.420Ͳ421.
Youngs,Y.L.(2008).TransportationSystemsasCulturalLandscapesinNationalParks:TheCaseofYosemite.
SocietyandNaturalResources,21,797Ͳ811.

266
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-9 Cultural Outreach
CULTURAL OUTREACH
GOAL
Promoteculturalawareness,communityconnectivityandart.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
1point
Anypartoftheprojectoranyitemwithin10milesoftheprojectboundaryiseither:
x ListedintheUnitedStatesNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces
x SubjectofaDeterminationofEligibility(DOE)madebyaStateHistoricPreservation
Officer.
x PartoftheNationalScenicBywaysProgram(NSBP)(http://www.byways.org)
meaningithasbeendesignatedasoneofAmerica’sByways®(NationalScenic
BywayorAllͲAmericanRoad),aStateScenicByway,oranIndianTribeScenicByway
becauseofitscultural,historical,orarcheologicalfeatures.
AND
Installinformationalinfrastructure(e.g.,viewpoint,kiosk,sign,orothersmallͲscale
installationforvisitorsdetailinghistorical,cultural,orarcheologicalsignificance)to
explainthesiteordirectroadwayuserstothesite.Anexistinginstallationmeetsthis
informationalinfrastructureportionoftherequirement.
2points
Dedicateaminimumof1%ofthetotalprojectbudget(nottoexceed$200,000)toart
orcommunitycultureinstallationsalongtheroadwayrightͲofͲway(ROW).
Details
ManyNationalParkSystem(NPS)unitsareautomaticallylistedintheNational
RegisterofHistoricPlace.AsofDecember2009thoseinclude:internationalhistoric
sites,nationalbattlefields,nationalbattlefieldparks,nationalbattlefieldsites,
nationalhistoricsites,nationalhistoricalparks,nationalmemorial,nationalmilitary
parksandnationalmonuments.
TheNSBPisabroadprogramthatcapturesmanyroadwayqualities.Thesecanbest
becategorizedasscenic,historical,cultural,natural,recreationalandarcheological.
Thiscreditcovershistorical,cultural,andarcheologicalqualities.CreditAEͲ8Scenic
Viewscoversscenic,natural,andrecreationalqualities.
ForthepurposesofGreenroads,“art”isbroadlydefinedasthebehaviorofmaking
thingsspecial.
DOCUMENTATION
1point
x AcopyoftheregistrationoftheitemorlocationintheUnitedStatesNational
RegisterofHistoricPlacesordocumentationofNSBPdesignation.Ascreenshotof
theitemlistedintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesontheofficialwebsite
(www.nps.gov/nr)isacceptable.Or,ifaDOEisused,acopyoftheofficialDOE.
AE-9
1-2 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ11Educational
Outreach
9 AEͲ3Context
SensitiveSolutions
9 AEͲ8ScenicViews
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Equity
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 IncreasesAwareness
9 IncreasesAesthetics
267
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Cultural Outreach AE-9
x Amapshowingthattheitemorlocationisintheprojectareaorwithin10milesoftheprojectboundary.
x Aphotographoftheitemorlocationandtheinformationalinfrastructure.
2points
x Copyoftheprojectbudgetshowingaminimumof1%ofthetotalbudgetor$200,000(whicheverisless)has
beendedicatedtowardart.
x Atleastonephotographoftheinstalledartwork.
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x IntegratecontextͲsensitiveaesthetictreatments,asdeterminedbyparticipatingstakeholders,intothedesign
oftransportationfacilities.Examplesmayincludetreatmentstosoundwalls,structures,streetfurniture,
screening,fences,signage,piersorlighting.
x Setaside0.5%ofthetotalprojectbudgettowardartorculturalinstallations.Allowforcommunity
contributionsandsuggestionsduringthepublicinvolvementprocessduringprojectscoping.
x Encouragepublicengagementthroughmuralpaintingorotherparticipatoryactivities.
x InvestigateplacesontheNationalRegisterofHistoricalPlacestoseeifanymayhelptheprojectqualifyforthis
VoluntaryCredit.
x InvestigateregisteringanitemorplaceontheNationalRegisterofHistoricalPlaces.
Example: National Register of Historic Places
TheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(www.nps.gov/nr)istheofficiallistofU.S.historicplacesworthyof
preservation.ItisauthorizedbytheNationalHistoricalPreservationActof1966andismaintainedbythe
NationalParkService.TheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesprogrammaintainsanominationprocess(states,
tribesandotherfederalagenciesmaynominatepropertiesforinclusioninthelist);offersguidanceandhelps
qualifiedpropertiesreceivepreservationbenefits.Roadscanbeandareincludedintheregister.Forexample,
recordnumber336109concernstheColumbiaRiverHighwayDistrict,whichaddressedanhistoricalroadway
thattravelsalongtheOregonsideoftheColumbiaRiver.
Example: Historic Roads Website
Thisresource(www.historicroads.org)providesideasforwhatconstitutesanhistoricroadandresourcesto
assistwithdocumentationanddesignation/recognition.
Example: Wisconsin’s Rustic Roads Program
Establishedin1973,theWisconsinRusticRoadsprogram
(http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/scenic/rusticroads.htm)helpscitizensandlocalgovernmenttopreserve
scenic,lightlytraveledcountryroads.Therearenow108suchroads,designatedwithan“R”infrontofthe
routenumber(e.g.,R62orR108).AccordingtotheWisconsinDepartmentofTransportationaroadmusthave
thefollowingcharacteristicstoqualifyfortheRusticRoadprogram:
x Outstandingnaturalfeaturesalongitsborderssuchasruggedterrain,nativevegetation,nativewildlife,or
includeopenareaswithagriculturalvistaswhichsinglyorincombinationuniquelysetthisroadapartfrom
otherroads.
x Lightlytraveledlocalaccessroad,onewhichservestheadjacentpropertyownersandthosewishingto
travelbyauto,bicycle,orhikingforpurposesofrecreationalenjoymentofitsrusticfeatures.
x Notschedulednoranticipatedformajorimprovementswhichwouldchangeitsrusticcharacteristics.
x Have,preferably,aminimumlengthof2milesand,wherefeasible,shouldprovideacompletedclosureor
loop,orconnecttomajorhighwaysatbothendsoftheroute.
268
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-9 Cultural Outreach
Example: Percentage for Art Programs
Incorporatingapercentageoftheprojectbudgetforartorculturalendeavorsiscommoninmanymajor
municipalities.Examplesare:
x TheCityofSeattlehasaPublicArtOrdinance(passedin1973)thatdedicates1%ofconstructioncoststo
art.Importantly,theCitydefines“constructionproject”as“…anycapitalprojectpaidforwhollyorinpart
bytheCitytoconstructorremodelanybuilding,structure,park,utility,street,sidewalk,orparkingfacility,
oranyportionthereof,withinthelimitsofTheCityofSeattle.”(CityofSeattle,2009a).
x SoundTransit(inthePugetSoundregionofWashingtonState)administerstheStartPublicArtProgram,
whichallocates1%ofprojectconstructioncoststoart(SoundTransit,2009).
x WashingtonState’sArtinPublicPlacesProgramadds0.5%fortheacquisitionofartworktonew
constructionbudgetsforstateͲownedbuildings(WashingtonStateArtsCommission,2009).
x NewYork’sCityArtProgramusesonepercentofatotalpublicprojectbudgetstofundartisticinstallations
atpublicbuildings(Heartney&NewYorkDepartmentofCulturalAffairs,2005).
x Oregon’sPercentforArtlegislation(passedin1975)guidestheacquisitionofOregon’sStateArtCollection.
Itsetsaside“…1%ofthedirectconstructionfundsofneworremodeledstatebuildingswithconstruction
budgetsof$100,000orgreaterfortheacquisitionofartworkwhichmaybeanintegralpartofthebuilding,
attachedthereto,orcapableofdisplayinotherStateBuildings"(OregonArtsCommission,2009).
x Hawaii’sArtinPublicPlacesProgram(establishedin1967)wascreatedto“…enhancetheenvironmental
qualityofstatepublicbuildingsandspacesthroughoutthestatefortheenjoymentandenrichmentofthe
public;cultivatethepublic'sawareness,understandingandappreciationofvisualartsinallmedia,styles
andtechniques;contributetowardthedevelopmentandrecognitionofaprofessionalartisticcommunity;
andacquire,interpret,preserveanddisplayworksofartexpressiveofthecharacteroftheHawaiian
Islands,themulticulturalheritageofitspeople,andthevariouscreativeinterestsofitsartists.”(Hawaii
StateFoundationonCultureandtheArts,2009).

FiguresAEͲ9.1throughAEͲ9.3areexamplesofstreetscapeartinthegreaterSeattlearea.

FigureAEͲ9.1:RichardBeyer’sPeopleWaitingfortheInterurban(1979)atthecornerofFremontAvenue
NorthandNorth34thStreet.Paidforbycommunitydonations,theSeattleArtsCommission(NowtheOffice
ofArts&CulturalAffairs)andtheWashingtonStateArtsCommission(CityofSeattle,1979).

269
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Cultural Outreach AE-9

FigureAEͲ9.2:JackMackie’sDancers'Series:Steps(1982)foundin8locationsalongBroadwayAvenueinthe
CapitolHillareaofSeattle.PaidforbytheEngineeringDepartment(nowpartofSeattlePublicUtilities)1%for
ArtandprivatebusinessesintheBroadwayLocalImprovementDistrict(CityofSeattle,2009b).

FigureAEͲ9.2:TomAskmanandLeaAnneLake’sBallardGateway(2003)onthe15thAvenueN.W.approachto
theBallardBridge.PaidforbytheSeattleDepartmentofTransportation1%forArt,SeattleCityLight1%forArt
andMillenniumLightingFunds,DepartmentofNeighborhoodsMatchingFunds(CityofSeattle,2009b).
270
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-9 Cultural Outreach
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Itmaynotalwaysbeappropriateorpossibletoincludeculturaloutreachorartonaproject.
2. Artcanbecontroversial.
3. Sometimesitisdifficulttospecifyexactlywhatartis.BeyondthegeneraldefinitionusedinthisVoluntary
Credit,somethingmorepreciseisgenerallyneededtoincludeincontractdocumentsinordertodefinewhat
qualifiesas“art.”
RESEARCH
Constructionoftransportationinfrastructurerepresentsalargepublicinvestmentinmanycommunities.Roadway
projectsnotonlyconnectplacesandeconomies,theyalsoconnectpeopletoplace.Roadwaydesignersand
contractorsareinpositiontooffermoretosocietythansimplymeetingbasicneeds,projectdeadlines,and
bottomlines.Designingaesthetictreatmentsthatreflectcommunityidentityorintegratingpublicartinto
transportationprojectsisanopportunitytoenhancecommunities,particularlythosewithoutresourcestopursue
independentpublicartorlandscapeprograms.Mostcivilengineeringworks,bydefinition,meetneedsandserve
tobetterthegreatergoodofthepublic.Inroadwayprojects,opportunitiesforpromotingthissenseofcommunity
canbeaccomplishedthroughincorporatinghistoricalandculturalinformationfacilities,connectiontonational
landmarksandcommunityͲcenteredartwork.Thisresearchsectionattemptstodefinewhatartisandwhyitmight
beviewedasimportant.
EthnologicViewofArt
ThefollowingdiscussionofArtislargelytakenfromtheworkofEllenDissanayake,anAffiliateProfessorinthe
SchoolofMusicattheUniversityofWashington.Shegenerallytakesanethologicalviewofart;thatisshe
approachesartassomethinglivingcreatures(humans)dointheireverydaylifethatsomehowhasanadaptiveor
selectivevalueinhumanevolution.
WhatisArt?
Dissanayake(1980)broadlydefinesartas“…theabilitytorecognizeorconfer‘specialness,’alevelororder
differentfromtheeveryday.”Inshort,artistheactofmakingspecial.Thisencompassesabroadrangeofitems
includingsong,dance,ritual,playandevenorganizedsports.Importantly,theideaofartdoesnotincludea
qualityjudgmentorinvolveanunderstandingofhowartmanagestoachievespecialness.
WhyisArtImportant?
Humanethologistsbelievethatcertainhumanbehaviorshavepersistedovertimebecausetheycontribute
positivelytotheevolutionandsuccessofthespecies(Dissanayake,1980).Intermsofart,thismeansthatasa
behaviorartexistsbecauseitissomehowimportanttothesuccessofthehumanspecies.Artwouldnotexist
universallyifitdidnothaveselectivevalue.Artisnot,asthemodernviewgoes“foritsownsake”(i.e.,no
practicalvalue).Artisalsonotjustforartists;itisacommonbehaviortoallhumans.
“Itisthedegreetowhichartembodiesandcommunicatesexperiencethatmakesituniqueand
irreplaceable(givesitvalue).Althoughtherearelikelymanywhoappeartodojustfinewithoutart(aswe
knowittoday)itisonlyrecently(last100orsoyears)thatarthasbecomedetachedfromtherestoflife
andregardedforitsownsake.Formostofhistory,theactivityofgivingmeaningandembellishinglifewas
notanimpracticalleisureͲtimeactivitybutratherthewaythehumanmindworked–awayof
comprehendingtheworld.”(Dissanayake,1980).
Artcontributesessentialsocialbenefitssuchasdocumentation,expression,storytelling,entertainment,display
ofwealthandpowerandrepresentationofcustomandtradition.Inotherwords,artgivesshapetoand
embellisheslife;whatmakesartuniqueandirreplaceableisthedegreetowhichartembodiesand
communicatesexperience(Dissanayake,1980).Onlyinthelast100yearsorsohasartbecomedetachedfrom
ritualandplayandbeenviewedasanindependentactivity.Formostofhumanexistence,theprimarytaskof
271
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Cultural Outreach AE-9
artistswastogiveshapetoandembellishlife;tohelpfindmeaninginlife.Artistsrecordedevents,decorated
homesandembellishedceremonialobservances(Dissanayake,1980).
Insummary,therefourkeypointstotakeawayfromtheethologicalviewpoint:
1. Artistheabilityto“makespecial.”Artrecognizesorconfers‘specialness,’alevelororderdifferentfrom
everyday.Equallyimportantisthebehaviorofappreciatingthatsomethingsarespecial.Theseideasare
fundamentalanduniversal.
2. Arthasselectivevalue,i.e.,insomewayitenhancesthesurvivalofthespecies.Artwouldnotexist
universallyifitdidnothaveselectivevalue.It’snot,asthemodernviewgoes“foritsownsake”(i.e.,no
practicalvalue).
3. Thebehaviorofartisacommonbehaviortoallhumanbeings,notjustartists.It’simportanttonotethat
“art”doesnotmean“goodart.”
4. Artisvaluablebecauseitgivesmeaningandembellisheslife.Ashumans,wesimplycannotbear
senselessnessorlackofmeaning.
HowArtisPublicallyFunded
Magie(1997)reviewedmajorsourcesofpublicfundingforthearts.Amongtheartfundingsourcesshediscussed,
thefollowingcouldapplytoroadwayconstructionartfunding:
Generalfundappropriations.Themostcommonpublicfundingmechanism.Artisoftenincludedasalineitemin
astate,city,county,etc.budget.Usually,generalfundallocationsrequirestrongadvocacyandpoliticalsupport.In
general,supportatthestateandfederallevelhasbeendeclining,howeversupportandthecity,countyandlocal
levelhasbeenincreasing.
Taxesandfees.Manypublicorganizationshavesetuptaxesorfeeswhoserevenuesupportorpartiallysupports
thearts.Specialtaxdistricts,salestaxes,propertytaxes,hotelͲmotel(transientoccupancy)taxes,entertainment
taxes(e.g.,theaters,concerts,sports),franchisefees(e.g.,fromcablecompanies),realestatetaxesandevena
portionoflottery/gamblingproceedshavebeenusedtogenerateartsfunds.
Endowments.Thisapproachcollectsmoneybysimilarpubicmechanismasthe“taxesandfees”section,however
themoneyisheldontoandonlytheinterestpaymentsareusedtosupportthearts.
Bonds.Fundingforinfrastructurecanbelargeandmanypublicorganizationshaveissuedbondsfortheexpress
purposesofsupportingartandcultureinfrastructure.Forinstance,theRockandRollHallofFameandMuseum
wasbuiltlargelywithbondfunding.
Percentforartprograms.Theseprogramsspecifythatapercentage(often1%)ofcapitalconstructioncostsfora
neworrenovatedbuildingbesetasideforartwork.Theseprogramsbeganinthe1960sbutnowtherearemore
than135stateandlocallyfundedprogramsintheU.S.
Transportationmitigationorenhancementfunds.Whilepublicartinroadwayconstructionisstilldeveloping,
publicorganizationsoftensupportartthroughmitigationorenhancementfundsthatarededicatedtoaddvalueto
propertyandareasthathavebeennegativelyimpactedbyroadwayconstruction.
Corporatesupport.Corporatesponsorshaveoftenbeeninstrumentalinartprogramsandinfrastructureto
supportsuchprograms.However,corporatesponsorshiphasnotbeenheavilyusedinroadwayͲrelatedart.
ExamplesofArtinRoadwayProjects
Thefollowingfiguresshowsomeexamplesofhowarthasbeenincorporatedintoroadwayprojects.
272
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-9 Cultural Outreach

FigureAEͲ9.3:ArtincorporatedintothefasciaforanIͲ5freewaywallassociatedwithanexpansionprojectonIͲ
5nearitsintersectionwithSR16inTacoma,WA.

FigureAEͲ9.4:SeattleͲtoͲBremertonferrytunnelinBremerton,WA.
PhotofromtheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation.
273
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Cultural Outreach AE-9

FigureAEͲ9.5:JamesAngus,EllipsoidalFreewaySculpture(2008)
Eastlinkfreeway:NunawadingtoFrankston,Melbourne.PhotofromtheRoslynOxley9Gallery
(http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/5/James_Angus/1116/41258).

GLOSSARY
Art Theactofmakingspecial.
UnitedStatesNationalRegister
ofHistoricPlaces
OfficiallistofU.S.historicplacesworthyofpreservation.Authorizedbythe
NationalHistoricalPreservationActof1966andmaintainedbytheNational
ParkService.

REFERENCES
AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers(ASCE).(2009).HistoricCivilEngineeringLandmarkProgram.
http://content.asce.org/history/ce_landmarks.html.Accessed22December2009.
CityofSeattle(2009b).PermanentlySited:Streetscapes.
http://www.seattle.gov/arts/publicart/permanent.asp?cat=3.Accessed22December2009.
CityofSeattle.(2009a).PublicArtOrdinance.http://www.seattle.gov/arts/publicart/ordinance.asp.Accessed22
December2009.
Dissanayake,E.(1980).ArtasaHumanBehavior:TowardanEthologicalViewofArt.JournalofAestheticsandArt
Criticism38(4),397Ͳ406.http://ellendissanayake.com/publications/pdf/EllenDissanayake_5624714.pdf.
HawaiiStateFoundationonCultureandtheArts.(2009).ArtinPublicPlaces.
http://hawaii.gov/sfca/grants.php?article_id=17.Accessed22December2009.
Heartney,E.,&NewYorkDept.ofCulturalAffairs.(2005).Cityart:NewYork'sPercentforArtProgram.London:
Merrell.
Magie,D.(1997).ArtsFundingintothe21
st
Century.EssaypreparedforCreativeAmerica,areportbythe
President’sCommitteeontheArtsandtheHumanities,Washington,D.C.
274
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Access & Equity
AE-9 Cultural Outreach
OregonArtsCommission.(2009).Oregon’sPercentforArtProgram:APublicLegacy.
http://www.oregonartscommission.org/pdf/oac_connections_percent.pdf.Accessed22December2009.
SoundTransit.(2009).PublicArtProjects.SoundTransit,Seattle,WA.http://www.soundtransit.org/x1250.xml.
Accessed22December2009.
WashingtonStateArtsCommission.(2009).ArtinPublicPlaces–1/2of1%.http://www.arts.wa.gov/publicͲ
art/percent.shtml.Accessed22December2009.

275
Access & Equity Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Cultural Outreach AE-9

276

Greenroads Manual v1.5 © 2011

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES


277

Greenroads Manual v1.5 © 2011

278
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-1 Quality Management System
QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
GOAL
Improveconstructionqualitybyusingacontractorthathasaformalquality
managementprocess.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Theprimecontractor,designͲbuilderorconstructionmanagementfirmshallhavea
documentedqualitymanagementsystem(QMS)fortheentirecompanyoratleastthe
portion(s)ofthecompanyparticipatingintheproject.TheQMSmustbeinplacefor
thedurationofprojectconstruction.Asaminimum,theQMSanditsdocumentation
shallmeettherequirementsofInternationalStandardsOrganization(ISO)9001:2008
orISO9001:2000.
Details
Theprimecontractor,designͲbuilderorconstructionmanagementfirmis
consideredtohaveadocumentedQMSifitis:
x IsISO9001:2008orISO9001:2000certified
x HasaQMSthatmeetsISO9001:2008orISO9001:2000requirementsbutisnot
formallycertified
x TherecipientoftheMalcolmBaldrigeNationalQualityAward(anyyear)
DOCUMENTATION
Submitone(1)ofthefollowingitems:
1. DocumentationoftheISO9001:2008orISO9001:2000certificationfortheprime
contractor,designͲbuilderorconstructionmanagementfirm
2. Acopyoftheprimecontractor,designͲbuilderorconstructionmanagementfirm’s
QMSdocumentationtoinclude:
x Qualitypolicyandobjective
x Qualitymanual
x Listingofdocumentedprocedures
x ListingofrecordsretainedinaccordancewiththeirQMS
3. DocumentationoftheMalcolmBaldrigeNationalQualityAwardawardedtothe
primecontractor,designͲbuilderorconstructionmanagementfirm
CA-1
2 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ1Environmental
ReviewProcess
9 PRͲ4QualityControl
Plan
9 PRͲ11Educational
Outreach
9 EWͲ1Environmental
ManagementSystem
9 CAͲ2Environmental
Training
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Extent
9 Expectations
9 Experience
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
9 Improves
Accountability
9 IncreasesAwareness
279
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Quality Management System CA-1
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x HaveaprimecontractorwithISO9001:2008orISO9001:2000certification.
x HaveaprimecontractorwithadocumentedQMSthatmeetstherequirementsofISO9001:2008orISO
9001:2000.
x SelectaprimecontractorthathaswontheMalcolmBaldrigeNationalQualityAward.Asof2009,noprime
contractor,designͲbuilderorconstructionmanagementfirmhaswonthisaward.
Example Quality Manuals
WhileitisnotpossibletopresentanentireQMS,therearemanyexamplesofkeyQMSdocumentsavailableon
theWebincludingthefollowingqualitymanuals:
x R&DSystems:http://www.rndsystems.com/DAM_public/5722.pdf
x ContinentalSteel&TubeCo.:http://www.continentalsteel.com/pdf/continentalͲsteelͲqualityͲmanual.pdf
x Cirruslogic:http://cirrus.com/en/pubs/misc/Quality_Manual.pdf
x PARNuclearsupplierqualitymanual:http://www.parnuclear.com/PaRNuclear/docs/SQM.pdf
x WestinghouseNuclear:
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Our_Company/Quality_Management_System/docs/E6_qms.pdf

Therearealsocompaniesthatwillsellqualitymanualtemplatestoassistingettingstarted.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. SmallerfirmsmaynotbeabletoaffordtheISOcertificationprocess.
2. DocumentationofaQMSisnotthesamehashavinganeffectiveQMS,howevercollectionofdocumentation
(inlieuofanactualaudit)isanefficientwayofgatheringevidenceofaneffectiveQMS.
RESEARCH
AccordingtoISO(2009),aQMSisreferstowhattheorganizationdoestomanageitsprocesses,oractivities,so
thatitsproductsorservicessatisfythecustomer'squalityrequirementsandcomplywithregulations.Oneofthe
morecomprehensivedescriptionsofsuchasystemcomesfromISOintheir9000familyofstandards.
ISO9000
AccordingtoISO(2009),“TheISO9000familyofstandardsrepresentsaninternationalconsensusongoodquality
managementpractices.Itconsistsofstandardsandguidelinesrelatingtoqualitymanagementsystemsandrelated
supportingstandards.”Essentially,itisaformaldescriptionofaQMSandallthatisinvolvedinitscreation,
implementationanduse.JustasASTMInternationalortheAmericanAssociationofStateHighwayand
TransportationOfficials(AASHTO)setstandards,sodoesISO.
Certification:ISO9001
WhiletheentireQMSstandardiscontainedintheISO9000familyofstandards,theactualrequirementsfor
certificationarecontainedinISO9001.Therefore,organizationsarecertifiedinaccordancewithISO9001;the
numberisappendedwiththeyearofthestandardthatappliedwhentheorganizationwascertified.Themost
currentversionisISO9001:2008,howevermanyorganizationsstillhaveISO9001:2000certifications(theprior
version).
ISOdoesnotcertifyorganizationsitself.Mostcountrieshaveformedformalgroupsor“certificationbodies,”
whichauditorganizationsapplyingforISO9001certification.Throughmutualagreementsthesebodiesensure
thatcertificationauditstandardsarerelativelythesameworldwide.Certification,oncegranted,mustbe
renewedatstandardintervals;oftenthreeyears.
280
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-1 Quality Management System
ISOdoesnotrequirecertificationandmanyorganizationsjustchoosetofollowISO9000requirementsbut
foregocertification.However,itiscommonpracticeinmanypartsoftheworld(e.g.,westernEurope,China,
India,etc.)torequireISOcertificationasaprerequisitefordoingbusiness.Therefore,countriesthatrequire
thisusuallyseethehighestcertificationrates.
ArgumentsforCertification
Argumentsforcertificationtypicallycitethegeneralideathatpropermanagementofqualityimproves
business,whichcanbemeasuredbylargermarketshare,salesgrowth,highermargins,competitiveadvantage
andothermetrics.
ArgumentsagainstCertification
Argumentsagainstcertificationclaimthattheactualactofcertificationandexistenceofdocumentationdo
not,inandofthemselves,guaranteeimprovedbusiness.Further,theypointoutthatISO9001certificationcan
beanexpensiveprocessthatdoesnotguaranteeresults.
CertificationCost
AccordingtothesurveycompletedbyYatesandAniftos(1997),thecostoftheISOcertificationprocessranged
from$0to$500,000,butcertificationcostsgenerallyrangefrom$300,000to$400,000.Thisreporteddata
rangeisunclearduetohowthesurveyquestionwasposed.Itispossiblethatsomecompaniesreported
additionalcostsincludinginternaltrainingbudgets,neglectedthecostofthecertificationitself,orthatsome
didnothaveanyadditionalcosts.CertificationthroughISOrequiresapproximately12to18months,on
average.
WorldwideISO9001Certification
Datafrom2006showworldwideISO9001certificationsat625,742in170differentcountriesandgrowing(Figure
CAͲ1.1).InDecember2006theU.S.had44,883certifications,whichrankedsixthworldwide(FigureCAͲ1.2).ISO
9001certificationisfarmorepopularinEuropeandtheFarEast(EasternAsia)with46%and34%ofworldwide
certificationsrespectively.NorthAmerica(consistingofonlytheU.S.,CanadaandMexico)comprisedalmost7%of
theworldwidetotal.AccordingtoYatesandAniftos(1996,1997),verylittleparticipationbyorganizationswithin
theUnitedStateshasbeennoted.ThemajorityoftheISOstandardstakeholdersareintheEuropeancommunity
andthebulkofinfluenceontheglobalizationofsuchstandardscomesfromagroupcalledtheEuropean
CommitteeforStandardization(CEN).
281
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Quality Management System CA-1

FigureCAͲ1.1:ISO9001certificationworldwidegrowth2002Ͳ2006(datafromISO,2006).

FigureCAͲ1.2:Top10countriesintermsofnumberofISO9001certificationsin2006(datafromISO,2006).

ISO9001CertificationintheU.S.ConstructionIndustry
ISO9000enjoyssubstantialworldwidepopularity,howeverrelativelyfewU.S.constructionfirmsarecertified.The
2006ISOSurveyofCertificationsreported80,432constructioncompaniescertifiedworldwide.Ofthe39industrial
sectorslistedconstructionrankedfirstwith12.9%ofthetotalcertifiedcompanies.However,relativelyfew
167,124
497,919
660,132
773,867
897,866
Ͳ
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

I
S
O

9
0
0
1

C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

W
o
r
l
d
w
i
d
e
Year
162,259
105,799
80,518
57,552
46,458
44,833
40,967
40,909
21,349
18,922
Ͳ 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
China
Italy
Japan
Spain
Germany
USA
India
UK
France
Netherlands
NumberofISO9001Certifications inDecember2006
282
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-1 Quality Management System
constructionfirmsintheU.S.haveadoptedISO9000standardsandbecomecertified(Chini&Valdez,2003).
ReasonsgivenforthislackofadoptiontendtofocusontheideathatISO9000isnotpromotedorrequiredbyU.S.
clientsorgovernmentlikeitiselsewhere(Ahmedetal.,2005)sothereisnoperceivedadvantageofformal
certification.ChiniandValdez(2003)showevidenceofthiswhentheyfound36%ofU.S.certifiedconstructionͲ
relatedfirmswerelocatedinMichiganandanother14%inOhio.Notcoincidentally,thesestatesarewhereU.S.
automakers,companiesthatrequireISO9001certificationfromthosetheycontractwith,arelargelylocated(at
leastin2000).
EvidencetosupportthepositiveoutcomesofISO9001certificationgenerallycomesfromsurveysoforinterviews
withcontractorsthatarealreadyISOcertified(e.g.,Ahmedetal.,2005;Chini&Valdez,2003;MoatazedͲKeivaniet
al.,1999)soitisnotsurprisingthatresultsindicateageneralbenefittoISO9001certification.Evenso,thereis
ampleevidencetosuggestthatISO9000isatleastapplicabletoconstructionandcanbeadopted(Nee,1996;
Chung,1999)andargumentshavebeenmadethatitcanhelpstandardizecorporateprocedures(Chung,1999),
reducewaste,improvequalityandprovideindependentverificationthatsuchthingsarebeingdone(Love&Li,
2000).AcomparisonoftheU.S.andHongKongconstructionindustries(Ahmedetal.,2005)foundthatpromotion
ofISO9001certificationamongstclientsandgovernmentisminimalintheU.S.whileitisprominentinHongKong.
GLOSSARY
ISO InternationalStandardsOrganization
QMS Qualityprocessmanagementsystem
Quality Degreetowhichasetofinherentcharacteristicsfulfillsrequirements.Thisis
abroaddefinition.Notethatinthiscontextisdoesnotrefertoadegreeof
excellence.

REFERENCES
Chini,A.R.andValdez,H.E.(2003).ISO9000andtheU.S.ConstructionIndustry.J.ofManagementinEngineering,
19(2),pp.69Ͳ77.
Chung,H.W.(1999).Understandingqualityassuranceinconstruction:apracticalguidetoISO9000,E&FSpon,
London,UK.
InternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO).(2006).TheISOSurveyofCertifications2006.ISO,Geneva,
Switzerland.
InternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO).(2009).ISO9000essentials.ISOwebsite.Availableat
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/iso_9000_iso_14000/iso_9000_essentials.htm
Accessed29October2009.
InternationalOrganizationforStandardization.ISO9001:2008QualitymanagementsystemsͲRequirements.1st
ed.2008:IHS.
Ketola,J.,&Roberts,K.(2008).ISO9001:2008Update:Theyear2008revisionofISO9001hasmadeitswaytoa
FinalDraftInternationalStandard.QualityDigest.20,33Ͳ36.
Love,P.E.D.&Li,H.(2000).Overcomingtheproblemsassociatedwithqualitycertification.’Construction
ManagementandEconomics,18(2),pp.139Ͳ149.
MoatazedͲKeivani,R,;GhanbariͲParsa,A.R.,&Kagaya,S.(1999).ISO9000standards:perceptionsandexperiences
intheUKconstructionindustry.ConstructionManagementandEconomics,17,pp.107Ͳ119.
Nee,P.A.(1996).ISO9000inConstruction.Wiley,NewYork,NY.
283
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Quality Management System CA-1
Yates,J.K.,&Aniftos,S.(1997).InternationalStandardsandConstruction.JournalofConstructionEngineeringand
Management.123(2),127.
Yates,J.K.,&Aniftos,S.C.(1996).InternationalStandards:TheUSConstructionIndustry'sCompetitiveness.Cost
Engineering:aPublicationoftheAmericanAssociationofCostEngineers.38(7),32.
284
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-2 Environmental Training
ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING
GOAL
Provideconstructionpersonnelwiththeknowledgetoidentifyenvironmentalissues
andbestpracticemethodstominimizeenvironmentalimpacts.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Provideanenvironmentaltrainingplanthatiscustomizedtotheproject,including:
1. Listofthetypesofprojectpersonneltobetrained.ThismaybealistbyjobͲtypeor
byemployerneednotcontainactualemployeenames.
2. Descriptionofthetypes,goalsandobjectivesoftrainingtobegiven.
3. Aprocesstotracktrainingefforts,includingdates,means(e.g.,online,classroom,
fieldtraining),topics,theidentificationofthoseparticipatingintraining,and
attendancenumbers
4. AprocesstomeasureoftrainingeffectivenesssuchasselfͲassessment,preͲtestand
postͲtest,andproductivitymeasurement.
Details
Theenvironmentalawarenesstrainingplanshalladdressthefollowingtraining
elements,orstatewhyanyareinappropriate:
a. Permitconditions,performancestandards,environmentalcommitments,and
environmentalregulationsrelatedtotheproject
b. Overallimportanceofenvironmentalissues(i.e.,ecologicalimpactofactions)
c. Identifyingworkactivitiesthatpresentthegreatestriskforcompliance(i.e.,
specificenvironmentalsensitivitiesoftheproject)
d. Requiredenvironmentalqualificationsandcertifications
e. Environmentalrecordsmanagement
f. Environmentalcompliancemonitoringandreportingprocedures
g. Unanticipatedhistoricresourceorarchaeologicaldiscoveries
h. Environmentalnotificationtriggersandemergencyresponseprocedures
i. Oilspillpreventionandresponseprocedures
j. Constructionstormwatermanagement(includingmonitoringsitesand
monitoringandreportingprocedures)
k. Erosionandsedimentcontrolprocedures(includingdustmitigation)
l. InͲwaterwork
m. Reductionofairpollution
n. Managementofknownorsuspectedcontamination
o. Wastemanagementandrecycling
p. Hazardousmaterialsmanagement
q. Managementofnoiseimpacts
r. Litteringandgoodhousekeeping
s. Planfortrainingsubcontractorsandfieldpersonnelnotimmediatelyinvolvedat
projectstartorplanning.Thesepersonnelmustalsoreceivetraining.
DOCUMENTATION
x Acopyoftheenvironmentaltrainingplanandanyupdatestothatplanthatoccur
throughouttheconstruction.
x Asignedletterfromanowner’srepresentativestatingthatthecontractor(s)
followedtheenvironmentaltrainingplanassubmittedandupdated.
CA-2
1 POINT
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ11Educational
Outreach
9 EWͲ1Environmental
ManagementSystem
9 CAͲ1Quality
ManagementSystem
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Equity
9 Expectations
9 Experience
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesWater
Pollution
9 ReducesSolidWaste
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety
9 Improves
Accountability
9 IncreasesAwareness
285
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Environmental Training CA-2
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Provideenvironmentaltrainingaspartofstandardorientationtrainingtoaconstructionproject.Donein
combinationwithconstructionhealthandsafetytrainingcanensurethatallpersonnelarereachedbefore
enteringtheworksite,andcanreducetrainingcostbyavoidingmultipletrainingsessions.
x DeliveractivityͲspecifictoolboxortailgatetalktopicsonsite,targetingthepertinentconstructionpersonnel
priortoeachnewactivity.Toolboxenvironmentaltalksmightrelyoncommerciallyavailablepresentations,
supplementedbycustomizedprojectandworklocationͲspecifictopics.
x DeliverenvironmentaltrainingonregularorasͲneededbasesviateleconferences,periodiceͲmail
environmentalalerts,environmentalawarenessmeetings,designreviewmeetings,weeklyprojectmeetings,
preͲconstructionmeetingsforeachworkphase/activity,andfielddiscussionsduringsitemonitoringand
inspection.
x Focusenvironmentaltrainingcomponentsontargetaudienceswithappropriatefrequenciesasfollows:
x EnvironmentalStewardshiptraining:DiscussstewardshipprinciplesattheconstructionkickͲoffmeeting.
x Baselineenvironmentalawarenesstraining:Provideenvironmentalorientationforallfieldpersonnel,
personallydeliveredpriortoentryintoworkphasesviaaconsistentaudiovisualpresentation;address
permitconditions,performancestandards,environmentalcommitments,environmentalregulations,and
overallimportanceofenvironmentalissues.
x Environmentaldesigntraining:Deliverthistrainingtodesignersatdesignreview/validationmeetingsduring
theconstructionphase(i.e.,designͲbuildprojects).
x Projectmanagementteamtraining:Conducttrainingduringsteeringmeetings.Discussupcoming
constructionscheduleandcorrespondingenvironmentalcompliancechallenges.Addressenvironmental
commitmentsandapplicablecontentofenvironmentalguidancemanuals.Orientdiscussiontothespecific
andappropriateworkstages,timeofyear,orworkactivity.
x Constructiontraining:Meetonsitetogiveconstructionworkerstoolbox/tailgatetraininginspecific
activitiespriortoinitiatingconstruction.HighlightpreͲconstructionandawarenessofcomplianceneedsand
howtosupportthezeroviolationsgoal.ProvidepreͲactivityenvironmentalcompliancepocketchecklists
forimprovedenvironmentalperformance.
x Environmentalstafftraining:ProvidetheenvironmentalteamwithbiͲweeklyorasͲneededspecific
instructioninmonitoringtasks,performancedocumentationandcompliance,andenvironmental
compliancesupportprocedures.
x SkillͲandneedͲspecifictraining:Ensurecompetencyamongselectedenvironmentalstaffandcrewsin
waterqualitymonitoringprocedures,erosionandsedimentcontrolinspections,inͲwaterwork,etc.
Examples
WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)
WSDOT’sEnvironmentalManagementSystemdeliversenvironmentaltrainingtoprovidetoolsandinformation
toassiststaffinensuringthatprojectsstayincompliancewithenvironmentallaws,regulations,andpolicies
(WSDOT,2008a).AkeycomponentoftheirConstructionEnvironmentalManagementProgramistrainingthe
appropriatepersonnelontheapplicableprocedurestoensurecompliancewithenvironmentalrequirements
duringconstruction.Trainingsessionstargetvariousaudiences,includingenvironmentalpractitioners,
constructionstaff,andmaintenanceandoperationsstaff.Forexample:
x Drainagedesignleadengineerswhoareresponsibleforstormwaterdesign(includingdownstreamanalysis,
bridgescouranalysis,andfloodplainfillandhydraulicimpactmitigationevaluations)mustcomplete
WSDOT'strainingcourseintheHighwayRunoffManual.
x WSDOTtrainscontractorstoensurewaterqualityismonitoredinaccordancewiththeHighwayRunoff
Manualprotocols,projectͲspecificpermitconditions,performancestandards,andenvironmental
commitments.
x Erosionandsedimentcontroldesignmustbepreparedbyanindividualwhohassuccessfullycompleted
WSDOT’sConstructionSiteErosionandSedimentControlcourse.
286
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-2 Environmental Training
Sometypesofenvironmentaltrainingarerequiredbyregulation.Forexample,spillprevention,containment,
andresponsetrainingforallspillrespondersisrequiredinWashingtoninaccordancewithWashington
AdministrativeCode(WAC)296Ͳ824.Hazardousmaterialssurveys,includingasbestoscontainingmaterials/lead
basedpaint(ACM/LBP)mustbecompletedbyanAsbestosHazardEmergencyResponseAct(AHERA)Ͳcertified
inspector.
MeasuringPerformanceofEnvironmentalTraining
Researchsuggeststhatenvironmentaltrainingasacomponentofenvironmentalmanagementsystems(e.g.,
ISO14001standards)improves:(1)employeeawareness,(2)operationalefficiency,(3)managerialawareness,
and(4)operationaleffectiveness(Rondinelli&Vastag,2000;Sroufe,2003).
DOTspreparequarterlyandannualreportsonprogramͲwideenvironmentalperformance.Forexample,
WashingtonDOT’sGrayNotebookindicatesenvironmentalperformancethroughEnvironmentalCompliance
Assurancemetrics(WSDOT,2008b).WashingtonDOTbelievesthatitsEnvironmentalComplianceAssurance
Proceduresandtheenvironmentalcomplianceforconstructioninspectorstrainingcoursehaveraisedthe
generalawarenessofnonͲcomplianceevents,witheventsbeingcitedandquicklyresolvedwithincreasing
numbers.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Constructionpersonnelmayturnoverduringtheproject.
2. Somesubcontractors,operatorsanddriversmaybeonsiteonlyonceorinfrequently.
RESEARCH
Thisresearchsectioncoverstheideaofenvironmentaltrainingintwodistinctsections.First,thevalueoftraining
ingeneralisaddressed(e.g.,whyshouldanyorganizationspendmoneyontraining?)andthenexamplesofand
reasonsforconstructionͲrelatedenvironmentaltrainingarediscussed.
TheValueofTraininginGeneral
Knowledgeisavitalorganizationalasset.Thisistheessentialunstatedassumptionassociatedwithalmostall
trainingdiscussions.WhileAmericancorporationsspendinexcessof$50billionannuallyontraining(Galvin,2002)
andnumerousauthorsespousethevirtueandnecessityoftraining,fewmakeanefforttoactuallyshowitsvalue.
Thissectionhighlightsthefundamentalpremiseforcontinuedandevenincreasedsupportfortraining:itisan
investmentinavaluablecommoditythatproduceshighreturns.
KnowledgeisValuable
Today,intheinformationage,organizationsareroutinelyvaluednotontheirphysicalbutrathertheir
intellectualcapital.EdvinssonandMalone(1997)defineintellectualcapitalas“thepossessionofthe
knowledge,appliedexperience,organizationaltechnology,customerrelationshipsandprofessionalskillsthat
provide[anorganization]withacompetitiveedgeinthemarket.”BassiandVanBuren(1999)pointoutthat
“intellectualcapitalistheonlysourceofcompetitiveadvantagewithinagrowingnumberofindustries.”For
instance,themarketvalueofMicrosoftfarexceedsthevalueofitsphysicalassets.Tobesure,muchofthis
valueisbasedonspeculation,butmuchisalsobasedonMicrosoft’sintellectualcapital–whatitknows.
Trainingisoneofthechiefmethodsofmaintainingandimprovingintellectualcapital.Becauseofthis,an
organization’strainingcanaffectitsvalue.BassiandVanBuren(1999)foundtrainingasapercentageof
payrolltobesignificantlycorrelatedwiththemarketͲtoͲbookvalueofpubliclytradedcompanies.Wherethe
averageU.S.employerspentabout0.9%ofpayrolloneducationandtraining(Bassietal.,1996),training
magazine’s2002top100trainingcompaniesaveraged4%withPfizerrankingfirstat14%.
287
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Environmental Training CA-2
TrainingisanInvestment
Generalaccountingstandardsclassifytrainingasanexpense.However,trainingisreallyaninvestment:an
organizationtypicallyinvestsupfronttotrainitsemployees(intheformofenrollmentfees,travelexpenses
andopportunitycostoftheemployees’time)and,inreturn,expectsfuturereturns(intheformofincreased
knowledge,skillsandproductivity).Aswithanyotherinvestment,ifthereturnsoutweightheinvestment,
trainingisaworthwhileendeavor.
Trainingisalsoaninvestmentfromtheemployee’sperspective.Trainingincreasesskillsandknowledge,which
canleadtobetterpayorpromotion.Sowhobenefitsmostfromthetraininginvestment:theemployeewith
increasedwagesand/orpromotionortheemployerwithincreasedproductivity?LoewensteinandSpletzer
(1998)researchedthisquestionandconcluded,“...theeffectofanhouroftrainingonproductivitygrowthis
aboutfivetimesaslargeastheeffectonwagegrowth.”Therefore,employers“reapalmostallthereturnsto
companytraining”(Bartel,2000).Thismaybeoversimplifyingbecauseemployeesgenerallyviewtrainingas
eitheragiftfromtheemployeroratleastasignofcommitmentonthepartoftheemployee,whichis
importanttojobsatisfaction(Barrett&O’Connell,2001).
Insum,boththeemployeeandemployerbenefitfromthetraininginvestment.Thequestionnowshiftstoone
ofmeasurement:dothereturnsontrainingoutweightheinvestment?
TrainingReturnonInvestment(ROI)
Whencalculatedusingsoundmethodology,traininghasbeenshowntoprovidesignificantreturnon
investment:ontheorderof5to200percent.TheproblemisthatmethodsusedtoquantifytrainingROIcan
oftenbesuspectorevenoutrightselfͲpromotion.Furthermore,itisoftenverydifficulttoquantifytheeffects
oftraining.Forinstance,oneoftraining’seffectscanbeincreasedjobsatisfaction,whichisdifficultifnot
impossibletoquantify.Intuitivelyweknowthisisimportantinretaininggoodemployees;howeveritwillnot
showuponaROIcalculation.
In2000,Bartelprovidedoneofthebestobjectivelooksatthevalueoftrainingtotheemployer.Shelookedat
10largedatasetsurveysand16individualcasestudiesinanattempttodeterminetheemployer’sreturnon
investmentforemployeetraining.Shefoundthefollowing:
x MethodsusinglargedatasetstocomparemanydifferentorganizationsestimatedtrainingROIfrom7to50
percent.
x IndividualcasestudiesestimatedtrainingROIfrom100to5900percent.BartelbelievesthehighROIsin
thiscategoryarebasedonfaultymethodology.HerinͲdepthanalysisoftwowellͲconstructedinternalcase
studiesrevealeda100to200percentROI.
Therefore,eventhemostconservativeestimateputstraining’sROIat7percent–anacceptablerateofreturn
bymoststandards.Additionally,althoughitisnotappropriatetogeneralizebasedontheresultsoftwocase
studies,itcanbesaidthatbasedonBartel’sinͲdepthanalysisoftwowellͲconstructedinternalcasestudies,
training’sROIcanbemuchhigher:approaching100to200percent.
Summary
Trainingisavaluablecommoditythat,ifviewedasaninvestmentratherthananexpense,canproducehigh
returns.Whileitistruethattrainingcostsmoneyandusesvaluableemployeetimeandresources,studies
tendtoshowtrainingprovidesapositivereturnoninvestment–sometimesintheneighborhoodofseveral
hundredpercent.Therefore,althoughtrainingmightseemlikealuxuryexpenseintightfinancialtimes,itis,in
fact,oneofthemostsureandsoundinvestmentsavailable.
EnvironmentalTraining
Environmentaltrainingis,forthemostpart,aresponsetopublicdemandforbetterenvironmentalperformancein
infrastructureconstruction.Thisisgenerallyseenintwoways:(1)publicowneragencieshavebeguntorequirenot
onlythatprojectsmeetenvironmentalregulationsbutalsothattheyincorporateemployeeenvironmentaltraining
288
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-2 Environmental Training
inordertoimproveunderstandingandcompliance,and(2)privatefirms(e.g.,constructionfirms)usingtraining
programsasawaytogaincompetitiveadvantagebasedonownerrequirementsandalsoasacomponentintheir
approachtoaddressingownerandshareholder(inthecaseofpubliccompanies)demandsforenvironmental
accounting.
OwnerͲAgencyTrainingandRequiredTrainingforContractWork
Manystatedepartmentsoftransportation(DOTs)provideenvironmentaltrainingtotheiremployeesandsome
arebeginningtorequiretrainingofcertainkeypersonnelfromcontractorsworkingonpublicprojects.Ina
2002surveyofstateDOTs(VennerConsulting&ParsonsBrinderhoff,2004),24wereperforminggeneral
natureresourcesand/orregulatorytrainingforengineersand/orconstructionpersonnel;whileabout60%
offeredgeneraltrainingintheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA),publicinvolvement,environmental
processesandbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)formaintenanceandwaterquality.
ItisalsobecomingmorecommonforownerͲagenciestorequirecontractortraininginstormwaterpollution
preventionmethods,commonlyreferredtoastemporaryerosionandsedimentcontrol(TESC)onconstruction
sites.TypicallyasupervisorNPDEStohaveatrainederosionandsedimentcontrolpersononͲsitetomanagea
project’stemporaryerosionandsedimentcontrolefforts.Forexample,forconstructioninhighqualityor
impairedwaters,Tennesseerequiresthecontractor’serosionpreventionandsedimentcontrolinspectorand
environmentalsupervisortohavecompletedaspecifiedformalcourse(orequivalent)(TDOT,2005).
ConstructionFirmTraining
Constructionfirmshavebeguntorecognizeaneedtoformallymanagetheirimpactontheenvironmentand
haveincludedtrainingprograms(bothcompanyͲwideandprojectͲspecific)tohelp.Reasonsforhavingan
environmentaltrainingprograminclude:
a. Compliancehelp.ThenumberandcomplexityofexistingU.S.environmentalregulationsandtheir
associatedcostlyfinesifviolated(seeU.S.EPA,2005)necessitatesanorganizedapproachtounderstanding
andcomplyingwiththeseregulations.InaHongKongstudy(Tametal.,2006)“managementandtraining”
wasidentifiedasthemostimportantevaluationfactorforassessingenvironmentalissuesinconstruction
projects.
b. Showingcommitmenttothepublic.Publicallyheldcompanies,especiallythoselistedinEuropean
exchanges,areunderpressuretoshowtheirsustainabilityeffortstotheirstockholders.Theseofteninclude
“environmentalmanagementsystems”(EMS)–seeEWͲ1.AfundamentalcomponentofanEMSisan
employeetrainingplan(Christinietal.,2004).Thus,thosecompanieswithEMSsorthoseprogressing
towardsthemhaveaneedforenvironmentaltraining.
c. Competitiveadvantage.Somepubliccontracts,especiallydesignͲbuildones,haveascoringsystemthat
awardsenvironmentalconsiderationsbeyondregulatorycompliance.Also,someclientsmaysoonrequire
contractorstohaveanEMS(includingthetrainingcomponent)inplace(Christinietal.,2004).
REFERENCES
Barrett,A.&O’Connell,P.J.(April2001).DoesTrainingGenerallyWork?TheReturnstoInͲCompanyTraining.
IndustrialandLaborRelationsReview,54(3).pp.647Ͳ662.
Bartel,A.P.(July2000).MeasuringtheEmployer’sReturnonInvestmentsinTraining:Evidencefromthe
Literature.IndustrialRelations,39(3).pp.502Ͳ524.
Bassi,L.J.&VanBuren,M.E.(1999).Valuinginvestmentsinintellectualcapital.InternationalJournalof
TechnologyManagement,18(5/6/7/8).pp.414Ͳ432.
Bassi,L.J.;Gallagher,A.L.&Schroer,E.(1996).TheASTDTrainingDataBook.AmericanSocietyforTrainingand
Development.Alexandria,VA.
289
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Environmental Training CA-2
Christini,G.;Fetsko,M.&Hendrickson,C.(2004).EnvironmentalManagementSystemsandISO14001Certification
forConstructionFirms.J.ofConstructionEngineeringandManagement,130(3),pp.330Ͳ336.
Edvinsson,L.&Malone,M.S.(1997).IntellectualCapital:RealizingYourCompany’sTrueValuebyFindingits
HiddenBrainpower.HarperBusiness.NewYork,NY.
Galvin,T.(October2002).2001IndustryReport.Training,38(10).pp.40Ͳ75.
Loewenstein,M.A.&Spletzer,J.R.(November1994).InformalTraining:AReviewofExistingDataandSomeNew
Evidence.NationalLongitudinalSurveysDiscussionPaper.U.S.DepartmentofLabor,BureauofLabor
Statistics.Washington,D.C.http://www.bls.gov/ore/pdf/nl940050.pdf.
Tam,V.W.Y.;Tam,C.M.;Yiu,K.T.W.&Cheung,S.O.(2006).Criticalfactorsforenvironmentalperformance
assessment(EPA)intheHongKongconstructionindustry.ConstructionManagementandEconomics,24(11),
pp.1113Ͳ1123.
TennesseeDepartmentofTransportation(TDOT).(2005).RulesofTennesseeDepartmentofTransportation
ConstructionDivision,Chapeter1680Ͳ5Ͳ2ContractorQualificationsforConstructioninHighQualityorImpaired
Waters.http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/1680/1680Ͳ05/1680Ͳ05Ͳ02.pdf.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).(2005).ManagingYourEnvironmentalResponsibilities:APlanning
GuideforConstructionandDevelopment.OfficeofCompliance,OfficeofEnforcementandCompliance
Assurance,U.S.EPA,Washington,D.C.
VennerConsulting&ParsonsBrinderhoff.(2004).EnvironmentalStewardshipPractices,Procedures,andPolicies
forHighwayConstructionandMaintenance.NCHRPProject25Ͳ25(04),TransportationResearchBoard,
Washington,D.C.
WSDOT.2008a.EnvironmentalManagementPrograms.WashingtonDepartmentofTransportation,Olympia,WA.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/EMS/ems_training.htm#enviromental.Accessed7December2008.
WSDOT.2008b.Measures,MarkersandMileposts.TheGrayNotebook28.WashingtonDepartmentof
Transportation,Olympia,WA.

290
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-3 Site Recycling Plan
SITE RECYCLING PLAN
GOAL
MinimizetheamountofconstructionͲrelatedwastedestinedforlandfillandpromote
environmentalstewardshipthroughgoodhousekeepingpracticesattheworksite.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Establish,implement,andmaintainaformalSiteRecyclingPlanaspartofthe
ConstructionandDemolitionWasteManagementPlan(CWMP)duringconstruction.
TheSiteRecyclingPlanmustclearlydescribetheplanforimplementing,
communicating,monitoringandmaintainingappropriaterecyclinganddiversion
practicesonsite.Thefollowingtopicsmustbespecificallyaddressed.
1. Expectedtypes,quantities,processingordisposalfacilities,locationsofreceptacles
andproperhandlingforrecyclable(orreusable)roadwaymaterialsgeneratedfrom
roadwayconstructionprocessessuchas(butnotlimitedto):
x Pavingprocesswaste(e.g.hotmixasphalt,concrete)
x Millingwaste,concretesloughandgrindings,cobble
x Excesssteelrebarandothermetalproductsorscraps
x Excessplasticpipesandpackaging
x Excavatedsoilcuttingsandboulders
x Landclearingdebrisandtopsoil
x Woodandpaperproducts(e.g.packagingmaterials,cardboardandpallets)
2. Expectedtypes,quantities,processingordisposalfacilities,locationsofreceptacles
andproperhandlingforrecyclable(orreusable)materialsgeneratedfrommobile
office(e.g.jobtrailer,siteoffice)activitiesandpersonalworker(household)waste
suchas(butnotlimitedto):
x Paper,copierpaper,paperproducts
x Plastic
x Aluminumandvarioushouseholdmetals
x Glass
x Householdtrashorcompostables
3. Communicationexpectationsforjobsitehousekeepingpracticesforthegeneral
contractor(alsointendedforanysubcontractors)regarding:
x Littercontrol
x ExpectedtypesofsiteͲandworkerͲgeneratedrecyclables.
x CollectionpracticesforsiteͲandworkerͲgeneratedrecyclables.
x Locationsofrecyclingreceptacles.
x Trainingrequirementsforallsiteemployeesandmeansofcorrectiveaction.
DOCUMENTATION
x CopyoftheSiteRecyclingPlan.
CA-3
1 POINT
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ6Waste
ManagementPlan
9 PRͲ10Site
MaintenancePlan
9 EWͲ1Environmental
ManagementSystem
9 MRͲ4Recycled
Materials
9 CAͲ2Environmental
Training
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Expectations
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesSolidWaste
9 ReducesManmade
Footprint
9 ReducesLifecycle
Costs
9 Improves
Accountability
9 IncreasesAwareness
291
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Site Recycling Plan CA-3
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x IncludetheSiteRecyclingPlaninagencycontractdocuments,bidpackages,and/orspecifications.
x SetwastereductiongoalsandexplicitlystatethemintheSiteRecyclingPlan.
x Locatereceptaclesineasilyaccessibleorhighlyfrequentedlocationsonthejobsite.Receptaclesshouldnotbe
placedinareaswheretheymaycauseharmtoworkersorthelocalenvironment.SeePRͲ7PollutionPrevention
Planformoreinformation.
x Clearlylabelreceptaclesandrecyclinglocations.Largecolorphotosofwhatisrecyclableandwhatisnotare
oftenveryhelpful,especially,formultiͲlingualworkenvironments.
x Providewastereceptaclesthataresmallerthantherecyclingreceptacles,slightlymoredifficulttoopen,or
slightlymoredifficulttoaccess.Thisprovidesavisualorbehavioralcueindicatingthatthetrashissupposedto
belimitedandthereareamplerecyclingalternatives.
x Includeinstructionsorwarningsonthewastebinsuchas:“AreYouSureThisIsNotRecyclable?”
x ManyrecyclingfacilitiescanacceptcoͲmingledrecyclables,whichmeansthatlesssortingandfewer
receptaclesarerequired.However,quantitiesofthesecoͲmingledmaterialsareoftenhardertotrackand
requiredetailedreceiptsfromthewastetransportagencytoassessthecompositionofcoͲmingledstreams.
x Designateaparticularpersonorafewpeopletobethesitemonitorforhelpingworkersrecycleproperly.
x Reviewlocalenvironmentalmaintenanceplansusedforlittercontrolandroadwaycleanupactivities.These
plansmaybehelpfulreferenceswhendevelopingtheSiteRecyclingPlan,oratminimum,reducepotentialfor
conflictbetweenexistingpolicyandpractice.SeealsoPRͲ10SiteMaintenancePlan.
x HireacontractorwithanEnvironmentalManagementSystem(EMS)inplace.(SeeCreditEWͲ1Environmental
ManagementSystem).TheseemployersalreadyhaveinternalofficeproceduresestablishedtoreduceofficeͲ
relatedpollutionandmaybefamiliarwithlocalagencyrecoveryeffortsandrecyclingorsalvagefacilities.
x Developanddelivertrainingtoworkerstoeducatethemonwasterecoveryeffortsbeingimplementedonsite
andcompliancewiththegeneralCWMPandtheSiteRecyclingPlan.Thisstepwillbecriticaltoallprojects.See
CreditCAͲ2EnvironmentalTrainingformoreapproachesandstrategiesforeducationprograms.
x Createanincentiveorrecognitionplanforworkerstoengageactivelyinrecyclingeffortsofpersonaltrashthat
rewardspositiveandsuccessfulbehavior.
x Hireanexperiencedwastetransportcompanytomanagesitewasteandmonitorwastestreamsfor
unacceptablematerials.
x Identifylocalfacilitiesthatacceptrecyclablesorsalvagedmaterials.Thisisimportantindesignatingtypeof
wastetoseparate,andinmakingarrangementsfordropͲoffordeliveryofmaterials.
x Identifyexistingrecyclingcollectionfacilitiesthatmaybedecentralized(i.e.recyclebinsalongacitystreet).
Manyurbanizedareaswillhaveaccessorprovisionsforlocalrecyclingprogramsandmayhaveresources
availableforuse.
x The2007Contractor’sGuidebytheKingCountySolidWasteDivisionandSeattlePublicUtilitiesprovidesmany
helpfulwastemanagementandreductionstrategiesfortheentireproject.Asamplewastemanagementplan
adaptedfromthisguideisprovidedintheexamplesbelow.
Example: Sample Specification Language for Site Recycling Plan
x TheKingCountySolidWasteDivision(KingCounty,2009)providessomehelpfultoolsforwritingclearand
manageablerecyclinganddiversionexpectationsintocontractdocumentsathttp://www.greentools.us.A
sampleof“Section01505(or1524)–ConstructionWasteManagement”isprovidedatthelinkbelowin
ConstructionSpecificationsInstitute(CSI)MasterFormat(KingCounty,2008):
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/greenbuilding/documents/Sect01505_const_wasteͲmgmt.pdf
x Communicatingtheplanexpectationswithsubcontractorsisequallyimportant.Followingisasample
clauseforsubcontractoragreements:
"ThesubcontractorwillmakeagoodͲfaithefforttoreducetheamountofwastegeneratedonthejobsiteand
recyclematerialasperthecontractor'swastemanagementplan.Thesubcontractorwillfollowthedesignated
handlingproceduresforeachtypeofwastegeneratedonsiteandprovidedocumentationtoverifymaterial
reuse,recyclinganddisposalasindicatedinthewastemanagementplan."(KingCounty,2008)
292
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-3 Site Recycling Plan
Example: Sample Construction Waste Management Plan with Materials Recovery
Thefollowingexamplecontenthasbeenadaptedfromthe2007Seattle/KingCountyContractor’sGuide,which
isavailablehere:http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/greenbuilding/documents/ConGuide.pdf.Projects
teamsshouldconsidercustomizingtheSiteRecyclingPlaninformationbasedonprojectgoalsandagencyor
clientexpectations.

SITE RECYCLING PLAN
GeneralContractor:
ProjectName:
SiteRecyclingCoordinator:
Phone:
DebrisCollectionAgency:

SiteRecycling/DiversionGoals:

Stepstoinformcontractors/subcontractorsofSiteRecyclingPlanpolicies.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

C&DMaterialsExpectedtobeGeneratedandProposedDiversionMethod
Thefollowingchartsidentifymaterialsexpectedtobegeneratedbythisprojectandtheplannedmethodfor
divertingthesematerialsfromdisposalasawaste.
DECONSTRUCTION&DEMOLITIONPHASE
Material Quantity(units) DiversionMethod&Location HandlingProcedure






CONSTRUCTIONPHASE
Material Quantity(units) DiversionMethod&Location HandlingProcedure











FigureCAͲ3.1:Samplesiterecyclingplanformat.
293
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Site Recycling Plan CA-3
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Acentrallocationforcollectingrecyclablesonaroadwayprojectmaynotbefeasibleforjobsitesthat
consistentlychangestartinglocationsonadailybasis(i.e.severalmilesdowntheroadwayawayfromthe
collectionarea).Thismayresultinunnecessaryvehicleorworkertripstoandfromaparticularlocationjustto
depositsomethinginacorrectrecyclingreceptacle.Theauthorsareunawareofanypracticesthathavebeen
usedonroadwayconstructionprojectsthatcouldsolveoravoidthisproblem.
2. ThereisatradeͲoffbetweentransportcosts(includingenvironmentalcostsfromemissions)andtheoverall
utilityorvalueoftherecycledorsalvagedmaterials.Somelocations,especiallymanyruralareas,mayhave
difficultyfindingrecoveryfacilitiesthatarelocatednearenoughtotheprojecttobefinanciallyor
environmentallycostͲeffective.
3. Technologyisquicklydevelopingforrecyclingofmaterialsintoreconstitutedbuildingmaterials(SeecreditMRͲ
4).However,newtechnologiesmaynotbeavailablelocallyorinruralareas.
4. Carelessbehaviororlackofstewardshipmaybeanissuethatcanresultinrecyclablesbeingdisposedofin
wasteͲonlyreceptacles,orviceversa,especiallyifobjectivesofaSiteRecyclingPlanarenotmeaningfulor
communicatedwelltoworkers.Thisbehaviorcancontaminatetherecyclablesstreamandmakeanentire
receptacleunsuitableforreprocessingorsalvage,oraccidentallysendrecyclablestoalandfill.
5. Properhandlingofrecyclablematerialsisakeysafetyissuefornewandunfamiliarrecyclingactivities.
Communicationandtrainingiscriticaltominimizeriskandpreservesafety.
6. SafetyandsecurityconsiderationsshouldbetakenintoaccountrelativetoonͲsitestorageofrecoverable
materialsofhighvalue.Opportunitiesfortheftmaybeincreased,especiallyforsometypesofmetalsthatare
commonlyusedininfrastructureorelectricalutilitieslikecopperwire.
7. Storageareasmustcomplywithrelevantregulationsandthepollutionpreventionplan(seeProject
RequirementPRͲ7).
8. Atthistime,pointsarenotavailableforachievingwastereductionbasedonpercentageoftotalwaste.Thisis
duetolackofdataregardingwastemanagementforroadwayconstructionactivities.
RESEARCH
Thissectiondescribesknownchallengesaboutimplementingarecyclingandrecoveryplanatroadway
constructionsitesandexploresthepotentialenvironmentalbenefitsofsuchplans.Fordetailedbackground
informationonwhatisknownaboutconstructionanddemolition(C&D)wastemanagementforroadways,the
readerisreferredtoProjectRequirementPRͲ6WasteManagementPlan.Similarly,fordetailedinformationon
planningforbulkroadwaymaterialsrecycling,recoveryorreuse(thefirstrequirementfortheSiteRecoveryPlan),
thereaderisdirectedtowardtheMaterials&ResourcesCreditsMRͲ2PavementReuse,MRͲ3EarthworkBalance,
andMRͲ4RecycledMaterials.Thesecreditscontainmanyapproachesandstrategiesthatmaybesynergisticwhen
pursuingthiscredit.
Thissectionaddressestwokeypointswhicharenotaddressedintherequirementsorcreditsnotedabove:whatis
knownaboutthestateofrecyclinghousekeepingpracticesandmunicipalsolidwaste(MSW,alsoknownas
householdorpersonalwaste)generationonconstructionsitesandthebenefitsandcostsofapplicable
constructionmaterialsrecoveryactivities.Helpfulresourcesarealsolistedattheendformoreinformation.
StateoftheRoadIndustryRecyclingPractice
Whileseveralagenciesandauthorspromoterecyclingmaterialwasteproductsusedinroadwayconstruction,
informationontherecyclablematerialwastesgeneratedbyroadwayconstructionanddemolitionprojectsishard
tolocate.Thefollowinglistidentifiesareasofconstructionactivitiesforwhichthereiscurrentlylittleorno
relevantdata:
x Wastemanagementplansfortransportationcontractors
x Sorting,segregationandprocessingactivitiesforroadwayconstructionwaste,andwheretheseactivitiesoccur
(i.e.onͲsite,offͲsite)
x Behaviorsandstewardshippracticesofroadconstructionemployees
294
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-3 Site Recycling Plan
x Generationratesandquantitiesofpersonaltrash
x GenerationratesandquantitiesofofficeͲrelatedtrashforconstructionsiteoffices
x CostsassociatedwithC&DandMSWmanagementfromconstructionworksites
Existingregulatoryrequirementsfocusmainlyonstormwater,sedimentanddustcontrolandotherstandard
pollutionpreventionactivities,suchastheNationalPollutionDischargeandEliminationSystem(seealsoProject
requirementPRͲ7PollutionPreventionPlan).SomeagenciesmayalsohaveEnvironmentalManagementSystems
(EMS)inplace(seeCreditEWͲ1EnvironmentalManagementSystem)whichofteninstitutepersonalandoffice
wastemanagementpolicies,butnoinformationisavailablerelativetowhethertheseEMSplansareimplemented
andfollowedattheconstructionsite.
Thelackofinformationislikelypartlybecauserecyclingactivitiesrepresentamaterialsfeedbackloopatmany
levelsoftheroadwaysystem,fromdesignandconstructiontostartandendofthesupplychain.Waste
managementandrecoveryofresourcesfitneartheendofthepollutionpreventionscheme,buttheseactivities
themselvescaninjectmaterialsintovariouslifecyclephasesoftheoverallproject(EPA,2009b).Thismakes
environmentalcostsandbenefitsofrecyclingdifficulttoquantify,characterizeandcomparebetweendifferent
projects.Someenvironmentalcostsofmaterialsandproductsduetoextractionandinitialproductionare
effectivelyextendedintoasecondservicelifethroughdowncyclingrecoveryactivities(wheresomeoriginalvalue
islost),generalrecyclingorupcycling(valueisgained)practices.(McDonough&Braungart,2002)Italsomeans
longͲrangeandupstreamplanningandreductionstrategiescanoftenprovidemoreevidentreductionbenefits
laterinthelifecycle(EPA,2009b).
RajendranandGambetese(2007)estimatedwasteratesforC&Dmaterialtypesbasedonliteraturereviewand
quantitativemodeling.Theirestimates,however,donotincludeMSWmaterialsgeneratedfrompersonaloroffice
activitiesorbehaviorsofsitestaff(theirestimatedratesareitemizedinTablePRͲ6.1).Solidwasterecoveryfor
constructionanddemolitiondebrisisaddressedinPRͲ6andMRͲ4.
CostEffectivenessofConstructionRecyclingPrograms
Afewauthors(Seydeletal.,2002;Kourmpanisetal.,2008;Schultmann&Sunke,2007)haveattemptedto
quantifycostsandperceivedbenefitsassociatedwithconstructionwastemanagementpractices.Thosethathave
donesosuccessfullyhaveonlyfollowedconstructionofbuildingsandbuildingsiteinfrastructurecomponents.
Becausebuildingsitesarerelativelycompactcomparedtothelinearnatureofroads,andbecauseofthevast
differenceintheexpectedtypesofmaterialquantities(e.g.hotmixasphaltandconcretematerials),therelevance
ofthesestudiesmaybeminor.However,therecyclingactivitiesandmethodsusedforbuildingsprojectsvary
widely.Manydifferentwastemanagementorwasterecoveryprocessesmayalsobeapplicabletoroadwayand
bridgedemolitionandconstruction.Additionally,noquantitativecostmodelswerebasedonU.S.data.
SchultmannandSunke(2007)usealifecycleenergyanalysismodeltoshowthatrecoveryofwasteconstruction
materialsreduceslifecyclecosts,mostlyduetoreducedenergyuseduringextractionofmaterials.Thesesavings
appeartotranslatewelltoroadwaymaterialsbasedontheenergyanalysisforroadwayconstructioncompletedby
RajendranandGambetese(2007),whichdoesuserelevantU.Sdata.SchultmannandSunke(2007),aswellasthe
ConstructionIndustryResearchandInformationAssociation(CIRIA,2004),alsonotethatclosedͲloopdesignand
planningfordeconstructionactivities,alsoknownascompleteselectivedemolition(Kourmpanisetal.,2008),
insteadofdestructionactivitiespresentsavaluableroutetopotentialcostsavingsformanymaterialproducts.
Kourmpanisetal.(2008)alsosuggestthatacombinationofconventionaldemolitionanddeconstructionactivities
(partialselectivedemolition)andcompleteselectivedemolitionofbuildingscanlowermaterialhandlingand
transportcostsandincreasedrecoveredvalueofmaterials.However,transportcostsandmachinerycostsforonͲ
siteactivitiesmustbeweighedbecausetheyarehighlyvariablebetweenprojects,especiallybylocation.
Seydel,WilsonandSkitmore’s(2002)study(whichtrackedonlythreematerialsinonebuildingprojectinAustralia)
demonstratedthatrecyclingandsortingpracticesrequireheightenedenvironmentalawareness,moresupervision
ofhandlingoperationsandmoreoverallsortingthatisperceivedtobeinadditiontonormalenvironmental
controls.Theirhighesteffortrecoveryscenario,includingsortinganddisposal,reducedtransportanddisposal
295
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Site Recycling Plan CA-3
costsofthewasteby18%fromtraditionalpracticesand9.5%fromminimallycontrolledwaste.However,the
bottomlinecostwasincreasedduetothemorecomplicatedwasteplanandmoretimespentmanagingand
monitoringcontractoremployeewasteactivities.Theauthorsstatethattheoverallpotentialforthewaste
recoveryplantobesuccessfullycostͲeffectiveandenvironmentallybeneficialwasnotrealizedduetocontractor
inexperiencewithsuchplanning.Additionally,theysuggestthataddedplanningandenvironmentalstewardship
couldincreasecostͲcompetitivenessamongconstructioncontractors.
Poonetal.(2001)statethatsourceseparation,whichtakesplaceattheconstructionsite,isheavilydependenton
anenvironmentallyͲeducatedworkͲforce,includingsubcontractors,thathasbeentrainedinpropermaterials
handlingandsortingprocedures.“Formostofthem,itisusuallyalonglearningprocesstobefamiliarandfeel
comfortablewithperformingwasteseparation.”(p.169).Propertraininghascostimplicationswhicharediscussed
furtherinCreditCAͲ2EnvironmentalTraining.Crudeseparation,however,lowerstheoverallvalueofthe
recoverablematerial,becauseitoftenreducesthesortingefficiencydownstreamandrequiresspecialized
employeestocompletetheseparationatanoffͲsitelocation(Poonetal.,2001).OffͲsitewastesortingistypically
thepreferredoptionofmostbuildingcontractorsbecauseitdoesnotrequireadditionallaborforce,supervised
workonsite,noadditionalfacilities,oraddedtrainingcosts(Poonetal.,2001).Putsimply:outof“site,”outof
mind.BecausethismanagementoptionavoidsonͲsitestewardshippracticesentirely,thismethodisnot
recommended(Poonetal.,2001).
NotableRecyclingStatisticsforMSW
NoneofthestudiesnotedaboveconsiderMSWstreamsoriginatingfromanytypeofconstructionproject.What
followsinthissectionaregeneralstatisticsthatmaybeusefulinidentifyingandcharacterizingtheMSWportionof
thewastestreamgeneratedonroadwayandbridgeconstructionsites.
Generally,intheU.S.municipalsolidwastegenerationhasincreasedoverthelastfivedecades,butrecyclingand
compostingrateshavealsoincreased(EPA,2009b;EPA,2009c).ThewastestreamforMSWlandfillshasbeenwellͲ
studiedandcharacterizedbytheEPA.DatabelowisfromtheEPA’sMunicipalSolidWasteGeneration,Recycling,
andDisposalintheUnitedStates:FactsandFiguresfor2008andincludesstatisticsforwastetypesthatmaybe
potentialencounteredatconstructionsites.
x Outof250milliontonsofMSWdisposed,about83milliontonswererecycledorcompostedin2008.Ofthe
totalwastegenerated,theEPAestimatesthatapproximately35%to45%wasfromcommercialand
institutionallocationsbutthemajoritywasresidentialorigin.
x TheU.S.wastestreamwas31%paperandpaperproducts(beforerecycling).SeeFigureCAͲ3.2.
x Approximately54%ofallMSWisdiscarded,while33%isrecoveredforrecycling,andtheremainderis
burnedatlandfillsforenergyproduction.FigureCAͲ3.3showsthetrendsanddistributionsofMSWsince
1960to2008.
x Byweight,paperandpaperproductsarethelargestsourceofwaste,withthehighestoverallrecovered
weight(55.5%recovered),thoughothermaterialshavehigherratesofrecoveryandlessrecoveredmass.
Specifically,71%percentofofficeͲrelatedpapermaterialswererecovered.
x FigureCAͲ3.4showsatableofEPA2008statisticsthatincludesallmaterialscharacterizedinthewaste
streamsmonitored.Manycouldbecommonlyfoundinsiteofficesandpersonalbelongings,includingfood
products.Infact,vegetativewastesanddebris,containers,andpackagingaccountfor44%ofthetotal
MSWstreamsenttolandfilland15%ofwoodpackagingwasrecovered(whichwasmostlypallets).
x AsnotedinPRͲ6WasteManagementPlan,somemunicipalsolidwastelandfillsalsoacceptconstruction
anddemolitiondebris(EPA,2008a;EPA,2008d).Materialssuchashotmixasphaltandconcretemakeupa
smallpercentageofthetotalMSWwastestreamandarecategorizedinFiguresCAͲ3.2andCAͲ3.4as
“Other.”
296
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-3 Site Recycling Plan

FigureCAͲ3.2:Compositionof2008U.S.MSWwastestream,
250milliontonstotal(beforerecycling)(EPA,2009c).
FigureCAͲ3.3:DisposaltrendsforMSWintheUnitedStates,1960Ͳ2008(EPA,2009b).
297
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Site Recycling Plan CA-3
FigureCAͲ3.4:GenerationandRecoveryofMaterialsinMSW,2008(inmillionsoftons
andpercentofgenerationofeachmaterial)(EPA,2009c).

BenefitsofRecyclingMSW
TheEPA(2009c)states,“Recyclinghasenvironmentalbenefitsateverystageinthelifecycleofaconsumer
product—fromtherawmaterialwithwhichit’smadetoitsfinalmethodofdisposal.Asidefromreducing
[greenhousegas]emissions,whichcontributetoglobalwarming,recyclingalsoreducesairandwaterpollution
associatedwithmakingnewproductsfromrawmaterials.”In2008,the83milliontonsofMSWthatwere
recoveredrepresent182millionmetrictonsofcarbondioxideequivalentemissionssavedannually.Thisissimilar
toremovingtheairemissionsimpactgeneratedby33millionpassengercarsinoneyear(EPA,2009c).
ForMSWproducts,paperandwoodproducts(organicmaterials)arethemostcommonmaterialsinthewaste
streamthatendupinlandfills.Diversionofthesematerialsfromlandfills,aswellasotherorganicssuchastopsoils
andlandclearingdebris,offersreducedmethaneemissionsduetofewerlandfillemissionsfromdecompositionof
theseorganicmaterials.Methaneisagreenhousegasthatcontributes21timesasmuchtoglobalwarmingand
climatechangeascarbondioxideemissions.(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange,2007)Also,paperwaste
298
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-3 Site Recycling Plan
iseasilyandcommonlyrecycled,reducingtheoverallneedforforestedmaterials.Therefore,theEPA(2008)states
thatbynotdecreasingtrees,morecarbondioxideisabletobestoredinforestresources,(EPA,2008)andpriceless
habitatispreserved.
TheEPApromotessolidwastemanagementthroughprevention(sourcereduction),recyclingandcomposting
(2008c)asthreeclearwaystoreduceclimatechangeimpactsduetogreenhousegasemissionsandenergy
consumption.“Lessenergyisneededtoextract,transport,andprocessrawmaterialsandtomanufacture
productswhenpeoplereusethingsorwhenproductsaremadewithlessmaterial.”(EPA,2009a).Asshownin
SchultmannandSunke(2001),materialsthatcanreducefossilenergyneedmeansfewerassociatedemissions
fromtheenergysectorwiththerecycledmaterialthanforanewmaterialthathasbeenextractedand
manufacturedfromvirginmaterials(EPA,2008b).Wastepreventionpractices(alsoknownaspollutionprevention
orP2:EPA,2008e),whicharesupportedbytheEPAasthemosteffectivewaytoreduceenvironmentalimpacts,
canreducelifecycleemissionsandenergyusethanconstructionanddemolitionandMSWrecycling(2008b).
FutureofthisCredit
Otherfamiliarsustainabilityratingsystems,suchasLEED(USGBC,2009)forbuildingsandtheSustainableSites
Initiative(2009),awardcreditforreductionofsolidwasteanddiversionpracticesforconstructionanddemolition
materials.Currently,nominimumrecyclingstandardordataonaveragewastegeneratedperprojectisavailable
forcommontypesofroadwayconstructionprojects.Atthistime,Greenroadscannotjustifyawardingpointsto
oneprojectoveranotherbasedonwastemanagementpracticesorgoalsettingwithoutaknownbenchmarkfor
thisbestpractice.
AdditionalResources
x CIRIA,theConstructionIndustryResearchandInformationAssociation,providessomehelpfulhintsfordesign
andconstructionbestpracticeformanagingwasteandresources(2004):
http://www.ciria.org.uk/cwr/good_practice_pointers.htm
x TheCaliforniaIntegratedWasteManagementBoard(CIWMB)offersanumberofresourcesandtools,including
videosofrecyclingbestpractices,(2009)availableat:http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Recycle/
x TheEPA’sP2(PollutionPrevention)ResourceExchangeprovidescontactinformationforregionalagenciesthat
canhelpconnectprojectleaderstotherightresourcesandopportunitiesforcreatingnewwastemanagement
programs:http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/p2rx.html
x WasteCapResourceSolutionsofferstipsandtricksusedbythebuildingindustry.Ofparticularinterestand
applicabilitytoroadwayprojectsarepreͲwrittenspecifications(free)andadditionallinksandresources.
Trainingvideosandreceptaclemagneticsignsarealsoavailableforasmallfee.WasteCapalsooffersanonline
documentationprogramforwastemanagementplanningcalledWasteCapDirect(pricenotspecified).More
informationisavailablehere:http://www.wastecapwi.org/resources/constructionͲdemolition
GLOSSARY
C&D Constructionanddemolition
CIRIA ConstructionIndustryResearchandInformationAssociation
CIWMB CaliforniaIntegratedWasteManagementBoard
ClosedͲloopdesign Anapproachthatconsiderswastemanagementinprojectplanninginorder
toavoidoreliminateprocessesthatgeneratewaste
Completeselectivedemolition See“deconstruction”
CSI ConstructionSpecificationsInstitute
CWMP ConstructionWasteManagementPlan
Deconstruction Thewholeorpartialdisassemblyofaproducttofacilitate
componentreuseandmaterialsrecycling
Demolition Conventionalmeansofdisassembly,ortakingapart,aproductorfacilitythat
istypicallydestructiveandgenerallyunͲplanned
299
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Site Recycling Plan CA-3
Diversion Avoidingplacementinalandfillthroughrecoveryprocessessuchasrecycling
orreuse
Downcycling Recoveringaportionofausedproduct ormaterialinamannerthatreduces
theoriginalvalueoftheproductormaterialafterbeingreintroducedintothe
manufacturingorconstructionprocess(McDonough&Braungart,2002)
Partialselectivedemolition Engineeredareaswherewasteisplacedintotheland(EPA,2008)
Receptacle Abinorcontainer
Recycling(recyclable) Recoveringaportionofausedproductormaterialfromthewastestream
andprocessingsuchthatthosesamematerialscanbereintroducedintothe
manufacturingorconstructionprocess(CIWMB,2009)
Reuse(reusable) Recoveringaportionofausedproductormaterialfromthewastestream
thatrequiresminimal,ifany,processingtobereintroducedintothe
manufacturingorconstructionprocess
ROW RightͲofͲway
Upcycling Recoveringaportionofausedproductormaterialinamannerthatincreases
theoriginalvalueoftheproductormaterialafterbeingreintroducedintothe
manufacturingorconstructionprocess
Waste AnymaterialthatmustbehauledoffͲsitefordisposalorreprocessing,or,if
disposedwithintheprojectROW,isnotintendedforengineereduseonͲsite

REFERENCES
CaliforniaIntegratedWasteManagementBoard(CIWMB).(2009).Recycle:CIWMB.AccessedDecember21,2009.
Availableathttp://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Recycle/
ConstructionIndustryResearchandInformationAssociation.(2004).CIRIA:ConstructionWasteandResources.
DesignandConstructionGoodPracticePointers.AccessedDecember21,2009.Availableat
http://www.ciria.org.uk/cwr/good_practice_pointers.htm
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).(2008)Landfills|MunicipalSolidWaste|Wastes|USEPA.Accessed
December16,2009.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2008b).ClimateChangeandMunicipalSolidWasteFactSheet|PayͲAsͲYouͲ
Throw|USEPA.AccessedDecember21,2009.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt/tools/factfin.htm
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2008c).MunicipalSolidWaste|Wastes|USEPA.AccessedDecember21,
2009.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).(2008)Landfills|C&DMaterials|Wastes|USEPA.AccessedDecember
16,2009.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/cd/cdlandfill.htm
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2008e).P2ResourceExchange|PollutionPrevention|USEPA.Accessed
December21,2009.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/p2rx.html.
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2009a).WasteHome|GeneralInformationontheLinkBetweenSolidWaste
andClimateChange|ClimateChangeͲWhatYouCanDo|USEPA.AccessedDecember21,2009.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/climate/climatechange/wycd/waste/generalinfo.html
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.OfficeofResourceConservationandRecovery.(2009b).MunicipalSolidWaste
Generation,Recycling,andDisposalintheUnitedStates:DetailedTablesandFiguresfor2008.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008data.pdf
300
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-3 Site Recycling Plan
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2009c).MunicipalSolidWasteGeneration,Recycling,andDisposalintheUnited
States:FactsandFiguresfor2008.(EPAͲ530ͲFͲ009Ͳ021)Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC).(2007).Pachauri,R.K&Reisinger,A.eds.ClimateChange
2007:SynthesisReport.“ContributionofWorkingGroupsI,IIandIIItotheFourthAssessment.Reportofthe
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.”IPCC:Switzerland,2007.104pp.
KingCountySolidWasteDivisionandSeattlePublicUtilties.(2007).2007ContractorsGuideͲKingCountySolid
WasteDivision.Availableathttp://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/greenbuilding/documents/ConGuide.pdf
KingCountySolidWasteDivision.(2008).Designspecificationsandwastemanagementplansforgreenbuilding
projectsinKingCounty,WA.AccessedDecember20,2009.Availableat
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/greenbuilding/constructionͲrecycling/specificationsͲplans.asp
KingCountySolidWasteDivision.(2009)GreenBuildingͲKingCountySolidWasteDivision.AccessedDecember
20,2009.Availableat:http://www.greentools.us
Kourmpanis,B.,Papadopoulos,A.,Moustakas,K.,Stylianou,M.,Haralambous,K.,&Loizidou,M.(2008).
Preliminarystudyforthemanagementofconstructionanddemolitionwaste.WasteManagement&Research.
26(3),267Ͳ275.
McDonough,W.,&Braungart,M.(2002).Cradletocradle:Remakingthewaywemakethings.NewYork:North
PointPress.
Poon,C.S.,Yu,A.T.W.,&Ng,L.H.(2001).OnͲsitesortingofconstructionanddemolitionwasteinHongKong.
Resources,Conservation,andRecycling.32(2),157.
Rajendran,S.,&Gambatese,J.A.(2007).SolidWasteGenerationinAsphaltandReinforcedConcreteRoadwayLife
Cycles.JournalofInfrastructureSystems.13(2),88.
Seydel,A.,Wilson,O.D.,&Skitmore,R.M.(2002).FinancialEvaluationofWasteManagementMethods.Journalof
ConstructionResearch.3(1),167Ͳ179.
Schultmann,F.,&Sunke,N.(2007).EnergyͲorienteddeconstructionandrecoveryplanning.BuildingResearch&;
Information.35(6),602Ͳ615.
SustainableSitesInitiative.(2009)TheSustainableSitesInitiative:GuidelinesandPerformanceBenchmarks2009.
Availableathttp://www.sustainablesites.org/report/
UnitedStatesGreenBuildingCouncil(USGBC).(2009).LEED2009forNewConstructionandMajorRenovations
RatingSystem.Availableathttp://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=220
WasteCapResourceSolutions.WasteCapResourceSolutionsͲConstruction&Demolition.AccessedDecember21,
2009.Availableathttp://www.wastecapwi.org/resources/constructionͲdemolition/

301
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Site Recycling Plan CA-3

302
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-4 Fossil Fuel Reduction
FOSSIL FUEL REDUCTION
GOAL
Reducetheoverallconsumptionoffossilfuelsbynonroadconstructionequipment.

CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Reducethefossilfuelrequirementsofnonroadconstructionequipmentbyusing
biofuelorbiofuelblendsasareplacementforfossilfuel.Pointsareawardedasfollows:
1point
Reducethefossilfuelrequirementsofthenonroadconstructionequipmentfleetby
15%throughtheuseofbiofuelorbiofuelblendsasareplacementforfossilfuel.
2points
Reducethefossilfuelrequirementsofthenonroadconstructionequipmentfleetby
25%throughtheuseofbiofuelorbiofuelblendsasareplacementforfossilfuel.
Details
Forthiscredit,atleast15%(for1point)or25%(for2points)ofthefuelconsumed
bynonroadconstructionequipmentontheprojectshouldbefromasourceother
thanfossilfuel.Inmostcases,themoststraightforwardwayofachievingthisisby
usingabiofuel(B100)orbiofuelblend(e.g.,B20,B50)asonsitefuelforthe
equipmentfleet.
DOCUMENTATION
1. Asignedletterfromtheprimecontractorthatdescribesthefossilfueluse
reductionmeasuresusedandthepercentagereductionachieved.
2. Aspreadsheetsummarizingallreceiptsforallfuelusedinnonroadequipmentfor
theproject.Thespreadsheetshouldindicate(andreceiptsshouldshow)associated
biofuelblend(e.g.,B5,B20,B100)used.

CA-4
1-2 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 CAͲ5Equipment
EmissionReduction
9 CAͲ6Paving
EmissionsReduction
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Economy
BENEFITS
9 ReducesFossilFuel
Use
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesGreenhouse
Gases

303
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Fossil Fuel Reduction CA-4
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Supporttheenvironmentalandhealthbenefitsofbiodieselbyprovidingeconomicincentivetothegeneral
contractor.Thiscanbedoneeitherbybudgetingforaddedcostsofbiodieselfuelsourcestohelpoffset
potentialcostsorthroughothercontractͲrelatedincentives.
x PurchaseandusebiodieselastheonͲsitedieselfuel.UsingB20astheexclusiveonͲsitedieselwouldbea
meanstoensureatleasta20%reductioninfossilfueluseisachieved.
Example
Someexamplescenariosareprovidedbelowbasedonahypotheticalnonroadconstructionequipmentfleet
thatconsumes1,000gallonsoffuelduringprojectconstruction.
Nopoints
x B5(afuelthatis5%biofueland95%petroleumdiesel)isusedforall1,000gallonsoffuel.Thisamountsto
a5%reductioninfossilfueluse.
x B100(afuelthatis100%biofuel)isusedfor100gallonsoffuelandpetroleumdieselisusedforthe
remaining900gallons.Thisamountstoa10%reductioninfossilfueluse.
1point
x B20(afuelthatis20%biofueland80%petroleumdiesel)isusedforall1,000gallonsoffuel.Thisamounts
toa20%reductioninfossilfueluse,whichexceeds15%butislessthan25%.
2points
x B50(afuelthatis50%biofueland50%petroleumdiesel)isusedfor200gallonsoffuelandB20isusedfor
theremaining800gallons.Thisamountstoa26%reductioninfossilfueluse.
x B50(afuelthatis50%biofueland50%petroleumdiesel)isusedfor500gallonsoffuelandB20isusedfor
theremaining500gallonsoffuel.Thisamountstoa35%reductioninfossilfueluse.
Example: Turner Construction Company Case Study
B99,a99%proportionofbiodieseltoconventionalfuel,wasusedduringtheconstructionoftheMicrosoft
WindowsLiveColumbiaOneDataCenterinQuincy,Washingtontofuelequipmentoperatedbysubcontractors
hiredbyTurnerConstructionCompany.DiscussionswiththeSafetyManagerassignedtotheprojectrevealthat
thereasonbehindtheswitchtobiodieselfortheonͲsiteconstructionequipmentwastoprovidearemedyfor
thenoxiousdieselfumesthatwereemittedbythenonroadconstructionequipment.Workersreportedno
issueswithairqualityduringthefirsthalfoftheproject,howeverthesecondhalfoftheprojectwaswhena
considerableportionoftheconstructionworkwasperformedwithinthesemiͲenclosedshellandcore
structure.Itwasduringthisstagewhentheparticulatematterandcarbonmonoxidelevelsemittedbythe
nonroadconstructionequipmentbecameaconcerntotheoperatorsandlaborersworkingalongside.The
situationwaspromptlybroughttotheattentionoftheSafetyManager.
UpontheSafetyManager’srecommendation,TurnerConstructionnegotiatedtheuseofbiodieselfuelforthe
equipmentbeingleasedfromthesubcontractorwhowasprovidingtheequipmentfortheproject.Theproject
calledforapproximately15Ͳ20piecesofconstructionequipmentwhichwasleasedfromRSCEquipment
RentalsbasedoutofEllensburg,Washington(NationalBiodieselBoard,2008).DiscussionswiththeTurner
Construction’sSafetyManagerandtheEquipmentManagerfromRSCEquipmentRentalsconfirmedthatno
retrofittingwasrequiredfortheequipmentpriortomakingtheswitchtobiodieselfuel.
Asaproactivemeanstoprovidepreventativemaintenance,andasaresultoftheanticipatedcleansingofthe
fueldeliverysystemattributedtothesolventactionofbiodiesel,fuelfiltersforeachpieceofequipmentwere
replacedafterthefirstandthirdtankfulsoffuel.Observationsfromtheequipmentoperatorsdetectedno
noticeablelossinfuelefficiencyduringtheoperationoftheequipment.Fuelusewasnotmonitoredonan
individualequipmentbasisand,asaresult,dataisunavailabletocalculateandconfirmimprovementsor
304
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-4 Fossil Fuel Reduction
reductionstothefuelefficiencyoftheequipment.Furthermore,operatorsobservednosignificantlossof
powerfortheequipmentoperatingonbiodieselalthoughtheoperatorofaCAT330excavatornoticedasmall
powerlossnearfulloperatingload.Thelackofanoticeablepowerlossforthemajorityoftheequipmentwas
likelyduetotheequipmentnotbeingutilizedtoitsfullpowerpotential.
AirqualitydatawascollectedbyTurnerConstructionCompanyandtheWashingtonStateDepartmentofLabor
&Industriesshortlyaftermakingtheswitchtobiodiesel.Unfortunately,thedatacollectedbyTurner
Construction’sSafetyManagerwaslostasaresultofdamagetotheSafetyManager’sportablecomputer.
BasedontheSafetyManager’srecollectionhowever,thefollowinginformationpertainstotheairquality
managementproceedings:
x TheairqualitywasassessedduringtheoperationofconcretepumptrucksfueledwithB99biodieseland
measuredwhileoperatingwithintheconfinesoftheshellandcorestructure.Themeasurementwastaken
atthetruckexhaustusinganairmonitor.Readingswereasfollows:

x TurnerConstruction:2ppmCOattheexhaust
x DepartmentofLabor&Industries:3Ͳ4ppmCOattheexhaust
Airqualityregulationspermitcarbonmonoxideconcentrationsattheexhausttoapproach40Ͳ45ppm.An
interestingsidecommentmadebyDepartmentofLabor&Industrytechnicians,andnotedbytheSafety
Manager,wasthattheproperfunctioningoftheirairmonitorswerecalledintoquestionbecausethecarbon
monoxidemeasurementswereunexpectedlylow.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Currently,biodieselinthemostcommonform,B20(a20percentblendofethanolandconventionaldiesel)
offersnosignificanteconomicadvantageandtheenvironmentalandsocialadvantagesareoftenoverlooked.
2. Theremaybeacostpremiumpergallonforbiodieseloverthatofconventionaldieselfuel.
3. Biodieseliscurrentlynotproducedinsufficientquantitiestomeetwidespreaddemand.
4. Enginemanufacturersmaynothonordieselenginewarrantiesifsuchenginesusebiofuels.Asof2009,most
enginemanufacturersallowB5andsomeallowuptoB20undertheircurrentwarranties.
5. Lackofindustrydataforengineperformanceleadstoskepticequipmentmanufacturers.
6. Limitedavailabilityofethanolfeedstockbecauseofthetradeoffwithintheagriculturalindustryforproduction
offoodversusproductionoffuel.
7. Therearealimitednumberofnonroadconstructionequipmentmodelsthatofferhybridelectricdriveengines.
RESEARCH
Afuelthatexhibitspropertiessimilartothatofconventionaldieselbutoffersseveralassociatedbenefitsresulting
fromitsuseisbiodiesel.Biodieselcanbeusedasadirectreplacementforconventionaldieselinitspurestor
blendedformsandisproducedfromtheestersofvegetableoilsandanimalfats(VanGerpenetal.,2007).Thisfuel
sourcecanbeusedtopowerdieselenginesandtypicallyrequiresnoequipmentmodificationsandisabletoutilize
thecurrentfuelinginfrastructurefordistribution(USDOE,1995).
Biodieselisproducedthroughthetransesterficationprocess.Thisprocessrequiresfeedstockmaterialswhich
includerapeseed,soybean,vegetableoilsandanimalfats(USDOE,1995).Theanimalfatorvegetableoilis
combinedwithalcoholinthefirststageoftheprocessinachemicalreactionwhichcombinesthefeedstock
materialwithanalcoholtoproduceanesterandglycerol(VanGerpenetal.,2007).Alcoholstypicallyusedinthe
processincludemethanolandethanolthoughmethanolismorecommonlyusedasaresultofitslowercost(You,
2007).Thisreactionisusuallycatalyzedtoimprovethereactionrateandthequantitythatcanbeproduced.The
byproductofthisreactionisglycerolwhichisremovedandseparatedfromthealcohol/estermixture.Thealcohol
isfurtherseparatedfromtheester.Itistheremainingesterswhichmakeuptherawbiodiesel(You,2007).
305
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Fossil Fuel Reduction CA-4
Biofuelssuchasethanolandbiodieselarederivedfrombiomassandofferseveraladvantages.Theyareconsidered
renewableformsoffuelbecausetheiruseinvolvesaclosedcarboncycle(Puppan,2001).Inadditiontohelping
reduceourdependencyonforeignoil,theuseofbiodieselhasshownseveralenvironmentalandhumanhealth
benefitsassociatedwithitsuseasaconstructionfuel.Forexample,theuseofbiodieselmitigatestheimpactsof
globalwarmingandclimatechangesincethereisnonetproductionofcarbondioxideduringthelifecycleof
biodieselproductionanduse(VanGerpenetal.,2007).Furthermore,sincebiodieselisanoxygenatedfuel,it
producesfewerhydrocarbons,lesscarbonmonoxideandlessparticulatematterthanthatofconventionalNo.2
dieselfuelfromthecombustionprocessinadieselengine(VanGerpenetal.,2007).Asaresult,theuseof
biodieselpromoteslocalizedimprovementtoairqualityandworkerhealthfromthedecreaseintheemissionof
compoundsthatareclassifiedashumanhealthhazardssuchascarbonmonoxide,sulfurdioxide,leadand
particulatematter(Puppan,2001).
Otheradvantagesincludethelubricitypropertiesofbiodieselthatpermitittocontributetoenhancingthe
efficiencyofanengineaswellasimprovingthelifeexpectancyoftheequipment(VanGerpenetal.,2007).
Moreover,biodieselfeaturesadetergentactionorsolventpropertywhichimprovesengineefficiencybyremoving
sedimentationanddepositsfromanengine’sfuelsystem(USDOE,2001).Thesefactorscontributetothe
possibilityofeventuallongͲtermcostsavingsasaresultofdecreasedmaintenancecostsoverthatobservedwhen
conventionaldieselisusedtofuelequipment.
Thecosttoretrofitequipmenttooperateonbiodieselistypicallynegligible.Usuallynoretrofittingofengine
componentsisrequiredtopermitequipmenttoutilizebiodieselforfuel.However,thefuelsystemfortheengine
shouldhavenorubberpartssuchasrubberhoses,sealsandgasketswhichcoulddeterioratefromanyphysical
contactwithbiodiesel(USDOE,1995).Rubbercomponentstypicallyexistinequipmentmanufacturedpriorto
1994andenginedamageasaresultoffuelsystemfailureresultingfromthedeteriorationofenginecomponents
couldresultfromthesolventactionofbiodiesel(USDOE,2001).
Animportanteconomicadvantagetotheuseofbiodieselisthatitcanbeusedinitspureform(asB100)or
blendedwithpetroleumͲderiveddiesel.Assuch,theuseofbiodieselrequireslittleͲtoͲnomodificationstothe
currentfuelinginfrastructureorvehicleengineandfueldeliverysystemsinpreparationforitsuse(USDOEClean
CitiesFactSheet).
TheresultsofalimitedͲscopelifecycleassessment(LCA)oftheconstructionofonelaneͲmileofportlandcement
concreteroadwayusingagenericsetofnonͲroadconstructionequipmentrequiredtoplacetheconcrete(i.e.a
pavingmachineandtexture/curingmachine)indicatedthattheproductionandutilizationofbiodieselconsumes
moreenergythanthatrequiredtoproduceandutilizeconventionalorultraͲlowsulfurdieselfuel.However,based
onthedatacollectedfromtheLCA,itisclearthatbiodieselisthefuelsourcethatistheleastcontributingtothe
potentialforglobalwarming.Inotherwords,conventionaldieselandultraͲlowsulfurdieselcontributemoreto
globalwarmingthanbiodiesel.ThedifferenceinthelevelofcontributionbetweenconventionalandultraͲlow
sulfurdieselwasfoundtobealmostnegligible.Ontheotherhand,biodieselwasdeterminedtobringabouta
largercontributiontosmogformationduetotheincreasedformationofNO
X
andfurtherreactionoftheNO
X
with
VOCstoformsmog.DifferenceinthecontributiontosmogformationbetweenconventionaldieselandultraͲlow
sulfurdieselwasfoundtobenegligible.
GLOSSARY
Biofuel Renewablefuelsderivedfrombiologicalmaterialsthatcanberegenerated.
Thisdistinguishesthemfromfossilfuelswhichareconsiderednonrenewable.
Examplesofbiofuelsareethanol,methanol,andbiodiesel.
HybridͲelectric Apowersystemthatcombinesaconventionalinternalcombustionengine
(e.g.,diesel)andanelectricmotorand/orstoragesystemtoprovidethe
primarypowerforthevehicle.
306
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-4 Fossil Fuel Reduction
B5,B20,B50,B100 Shortnotationtodescribeablendofbiodieselwithtraditionalpetroleum
diesel.Thenumberdescribesthepercentageofbiodiesel(e.g.,B20is20%
biodieseland80%petroleumdiesel).

REFERENCES
BioPowerLondon.(2006).“FrequentlyAskedQuestions.”Availableathttp://www.biopowerlondon.co.uk/index.htm.
EnergyInformationAdministration.(2010).“GasolineandDieselFuelUpdate.”Availableat
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp.
EuropeanBiodieselBoard.(2010).“Statistics.”Availableathttp://www.ebbͲeu.org/stats.php.
Frentress,Dave.“BiodieselandOtherGreenInitiativesatGlacierNorthwest.”Stone,Sand&GravelReview,(Jan/Feb
2008):50Ͳ53.
Heijungs,R.&Suh,S.(2002).AComputationalStructureofLifeCycleAssessment.KluwerAcademicPublishers,
Netherlands.
NationalBiodieselBoard.(2008).Availableathttp://www.biodiesel.org/.
Radich,Anthony.(2004).“BiodieselPerformance,Costs,andUse.”EnergyInformationAdministration.Availableat
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel.
Sawyer,Tom.(December3,2007).“Developer’sChallengetoConstruction:InnovateforDestiny.”EngineeringNews
Record,24Ͳ27.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.(1995).NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory.Biofacts:FuelingaStrongerEconomy.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.(2001).EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergyOfficeofTransportationTechnology.
CleanCities:AlternativeFuelInformationSeries:TechnicalAssistanceFactSheet.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.(2008).“EnvironmentalPrograms–OnsiteAirQualityAssessment.”
U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.(2007).FederalTransitAdministration.BiodieselFuelManagementBestPractices
forTransit.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2004a).OfficeofTransportationandAirQuality.EPA420PͲ04Ͳ005,Median
Life,AnnualActivity,andLoadFactorValuesforNonroadEngineEmissionsModeling.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2004b).OfficeofTransportationandAirQuality.EPA420RͲ04Ͳ007,Final
RegulatoryImpactAnalysis.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2005).OfficeofTransportationandAirQuality.EPA420RͲ05Ͳ022,Nonroad
EnginePopulationEstimates.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2007).OfficeofTransportationandAirQuality.EPA420RͲ07Ͳ005.Diesel
RetrofitTechnology:AnAnalysisoftheCostͲEffectivenessofReducingParticulateMatterandNitrogenOxides
EmissionsfromHeavyͲDutyNonroadDieselEnginesThroughRetrofits.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2008a).“AirandRadiation.”Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/oar.
307
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Fossil Fuel Reduction CA-4
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2008b).“ClimateChange.”http://www.epa.gov/climatechange.(Accessed
Sep.29,2008).
U.S.DepartmentofLabor.BureauofLaborStatistics.(2008).“ConsumerPriceIndex.”Availableat
http://www.bls.gov/cpi.
UnitedStatesGeneralAccountingOfficeReporttoCongressionalCommittee.(1999).MassTransit:UseofAlternative
FuelsinTransitBuses.
VanGerpen,J.H.,Peterson,C.L.,&Goering,C.E.(2007).“Biodiesel:AnalternativeFuelforCompressionIgnition
Engines.”AmericanSocietyofAgriculturalandBiologicalEngineers.Presentationatthe2007Agricultural
EquipmentTechnologyConferenceon11Ͳ14February2007.
You,YiiͲDer,et.al.(2008).EconomicCostAnalysisofBiodieselProduction:CaseinSoybeanOil.EnergyandFuels22,
no.1:182Ͳ9.
308
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-5 Equipment Emission Reduction
EQUIPMENT EMISSION REDUCTION
GOAL
Reduceairemissionsfromnonroadconstructionequipment.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
UseemissionreductionexhaustretrofitsandaddͲonfuelefficiencytechnologiesthat
achievetheEPATier4emissionstandardfornonroadconstructionequipment.Points
areawardedasfollows:
1point
Atleast50%ofthenonroadconstructionequipmentfleetoperatinghoursforthe
projectareaccomplishedonequipmentwithinstalledemissionreductionexhaust
retrofitsandaddͲonfuelefficiencytechnologiesthatachievetheEPATier4emission
standard.
2points
Atleast75%ofthenonroadconstructionequipmentfleetoperatinghoursforthe
projectareaccomplishedonequipmentwithinstalledemissionreductionexhaust
retrofitsandaddͲonfuelefficiencytechnologiesthatachievetheEPATier4emission
standard.
Details
Forthiscredittobeimplementedsuccessfully,workersmayrequireadditional
trainingonhowtokeeptrackofequipmentoperatinghoursaccurately.Seealso
CAͲ2EnvironmentalTraining.
DOCUMENTATION
Providealistofallnonroadconstructionequipmentusedontheprojectthatcontains
thefollowinginformationforeachpieceofequipment:
1. Makeandmodelofeachpieceofequipment.
2. Operatinghoursassociatedwiththeproject.
3. ForequipmentachievingTier4emissionsstandards,documentedevidencethatthe
equipmenteither(a)meetsEPATier4emissionsstandards,or(b)hasinstalled
emissionreductionexhaustretrofitsandaddͲonfuelefficiencytechnologiesthat
achievetheEPATier4standard.

CA-5
1-2 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 CAͲ2Environmental
Training
9 CAͲ4FossilFuel
Reduction
9 CAͲ6Paving
EmissionsReduction
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Equity
BENEFITS
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesGreenhouse
Gases
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety

309
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Equipment Emission Reduction CA-5
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Retrofitexhaustequipmentonnonroadvehicles.
x ReplaceengineswherethisoptionismorecostͲeffectivethanretrofit.
x SwitchtouseultraͲlowsulfurdiesel(ULSD)inconjunctionwiththeaddͲonfuelefficiencytechnologiesinstalled
intheequipmentfleet.
Example: Scenarios
Someexamplescenariosareprovidedbelowbasedonahypotheticalnonroadfleetoperatingforatotalof
1,000equipmenthours.
Nopoints
x 400of1,000totaloperatinghours(40%)areassociatedwithequipmentthatachievetheEPATier4
emissionsstandard.
1point
x 500of1,000totaloperatinghours(50%)areassociatedwithequipmentthatachievetheEPATier4
emissionsstandard.
2points
x 800of1,000totaloperatinghours(80%)areassociatedwithequipmentthatachievetheEPATier4
emissionsstandard.
Example: Case Studies Documented by the U.S. EPA
TheEPAdescribesseveraldieselengineemissionreductioneffortcasestudiesat:
http://www.epa.gov/diesel/construction/casestudies.htm
Example: Washington State Department of Ecology Strategy
OneexampleofanoverallstatewideapproachthatthisVoluntaryCreditisconsistentwithistheWashington
StateDepartmentofEcology’s“DieselParticulateEmissionReductionStrategy.”Thegoalsexpectedunderthis
approachare(Ecology,2006):
1. Installemissionreductionexhaustretrofitsonfiftypercentofthepubliclegacydieselfleetinfouryears.
2. InstallemissionreductionexhaustretrofitsandaddͲonfuelefficiencytechnologiesonfiftypercentofthe
privatelegacydieselfleetineightyears.
3. Evaluate,developandimplementanidlereductionprogramthataddressesandremediesunnecessary
idlingthroughonͲboardretrofits,onͲtheͲgroundinfrastructureandantiͲidlingregulations.
4. ReplacetwentyͲfivepercentofolder(preͲ1996fornonͲroad)legacyvehiclesintheprivatefleetineight
years.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Retrofitsandreplacementsofenginescanrepresentasignificantaddedcosttothecontractor.
RESEARCH
Constructionairemissionsarelargelyfromthreemainsources:(1)dustandparticlesfromtheconstruction
activities,alsocalledfugitivedust,(2)emissionsfromconstructionequipmentexhausts,or(3)emissionsfrom
310
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-5 Equipment Emission Reduction
constructionmaterials(suchasfumesandvaporsfromhotasphalt).ThisVoluntaryCreditaddressesconstruction
equipmentemissionsingeneralandspecifically,dieselexhaustemissionsfromnonroaddieselequipment.
NonroadEngineDefined
40CFRPart1068(theGeneralComplianceProvisionsforNonroadPrograms)definespreciselywhatanonroad
dieselengineisandisnot.Insummary(40CFR1068hasexactdefinitionsandexclusions),anonroadengineis
definedtobeanyinternalcombustionenginethatis:
1. InoronapieceofequipmentthatisselfͲpropelledorservesadualpurposebybothpropellingitselfand
performinganotherfunction.
2. Inoronapieceofequipmentthatisintendedtobepropelledwhileperformingitsfunction.
3. That,byitselforinoronapieceofequipment,isportableortransportable.
Ingeneral,dieselpoweredselfͲpropelledandportableconstructionequipmentwithaninternalcombustionengine
areconsideredtobenonroadengines.
HealthEffects
Dieselenginesemitacomplexmixtureofgaseouspollutantsandfineparticlesandareamajorsourceofair
pollution.Particularemissionsarenitrogenoxides(NOx),particulatematter(PM),sulfuroxidegases(SOx),and
othertoxicairpollutantswhichcontributetoseriousadversehealthandenvironmentaleffects(EPA,1995;ICF,
2005).Emissionsfromdieselengineshavebeenfoundtoincludeoverfortycancercausingsubstances,andthe
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)hasconcludedthatdieselexhaustislikelytobecarcinogenicto
humansbyinhalationatoccupationalandenvironmentallevelsofexposure(EPA,2002).InWashingtonState,the
WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcologyhasidentifieddieselexhaustastheairpollutantmostharmfultopublic
healthinWashingtonState.Theyfoundthat70%ofthecancerriskfromairbornepollutantsisfromdieselexhaust,
mainlyduetothePM2.5emissions(WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology,2006).UntilthemidͲ1990s,
emissionsfromtheseengineswerelargelyuncontrolled.Inordertocombatthehealtheffectsofdieselemissions,
theEPAstartedaprogramin2007toreducedieselengineemissionsintheU.S.(EPA,2004).Theplanisestimated
toreduceemissionsbymorethan90%by2030.
ContributionofNonroadDieselEnginestoEmissionsInventory
AccordingtoEPA’sNationalEmissionInventory(2008yeardata)(NEI,2009),nonroaddieselengines(usingthe
categoryof“offhighway”)areresponsiblefor26%ofNOxemissionsnationally(4,255,000tonsperyear),andfor
5.8%offineparticulateemissions(PM2.5)(283,000tonsperyear)nationally.Thesepercentagescanbe
considerablyhigherinsomeurbanareas.InWashingtonState,theDepartmentofEcologystatesthatconstruction
activitiesareresponsiblefor18%oftheState’sPM2.5emissions(2002data)(FigureCAͲ5.1).
311
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Equipment Emission Reduction CA-5

FigureCAͲ5.1:
(WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology,2006).
1.
ImprovementEfforts
Recognizingthelargeimpactthatdieselengineexhausthasonhumanhealthandtheenvironment(e.g.,CARB,
n.d.),therearesubstantialeffortstoreducedieselexhaustemissionsthroughburningcleanerdieselfuels(e.g.,
ultralowsulfurdieselorULSD),installingexhaustretrofitstoreduceemissionsfromexistingenginesand
producingnewdieselenginesthatemitless.
PaceofChange
Althougheffortstoreducedieselemissionsareunderway,significantimpactsmaybeyearsaway.Nonroad
dieselequipmentcanlast20to30yearsandtypicalnewemissionsstandardsarenotrequiredtobemetby
existingequipment.Therefore,theimpactsofsuchchangesarelikelytobefeltasamajorityofequipment
fleetsageandarereplacedbyequipmentmeetingnewer,morestringentregulations.Furthermore,change
anditspacewilllikelybecontrolledbytheprivatesectorastheyownnearly90percentofdieselvehiclesand
dieselengines(WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology,2006).Thus,effortstoincenttheprivatesectorto
changeaheadofnaturalequipmentturnoverratesmayhelpmakedieselemissionreductionshappensooner.
CostConsiderations
Amajorityofconstructioncompaniesaresmallfirms.Toretrofitorchangetheirequipmentrequireslarge
capitalinvestments,whichtheymaynotbeabletobear.Formanyprivatesmallerconstructioncompanies,this
costissignificantandinterfereswiththeenvironmentalbenefitsthiswouldachieve.Alsothecostofusing
alternativefuelorlowͲsulfurfuelisanissue.
TheEPAestimatestheincrementalcostofproducing500ppmfueltobeonaverage2.5centspergallon,and
15ppmaround5centspergallon.(Thistakesintoaccountallthenecessarychangesinbothrefiningand
distributionpractices,howeverthisestimatedcostsvarywidelyforequipmentofdifferentsizesandfor
differentapplications)(EPA,2003).Forthevastmajorityofequipment,thecostofmeetingemissionstandards
willberoughly1Ͳ2%comparedwiththetypicalretailprice.Asanexample,EPAestimatesthatfora175Ͳhp
bulldozer,itwillcostanadditional$2,600toaddtheadvancedemissioncontrolsystemstotheengineandto
312
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-5 Equipment Emission Reduction
designthebulldozertoaccommodatethemodifiedengine.Anew175Ͳhpbulldozercostsapproximately
$230,000(EPA,2003),sotheincreasedcostsareabout1%ofthetotalpurchaseprice.Costscouldbehigher
forsometypesofequipment.Asabenefit,enginesrunningonlowͲsulfurfuelwillhavereducedmaintenance
expenses(EPA,2003).Asincentive,thereareseveralgrantprogramsavailableatlocalandfederallevelfor
companiestoretrofitorchangepartoftheirequipmentfleet(WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology,2006;
EPA,2009).
Inthebroadercontext,thebenefitstosocietyofreducedhealthcostsresultingfromfeweremissionsare
substantial.TheEPAestimatedthebenefitͲtoͲcostratio(healthbenefitstocompliancecost)of30(CARB,n.d.).
Ingeneral,theCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard(CARB)reportsbenefitͲcostratiosintheliteraturefrom2to8.
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard(CARB).(nodategiven).HealthEffectsofDieselExhaustParticulateMatter.CARB.
Availableathttp://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/dpm_health_fs.pdf.Accessed14December2009.
ICFConsulting.(2005).EmissionReductionIncentivesforOffͲRoadDieselEquipmentUsedinthePortand
ConstructionSectors.PreparedforEPA.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/sectors/pdf/emission_20050519.pdf.
Accessed14December2009.
NationalEmissionsInventory(NEI).(2009).NationalEmissionsInventory,AirPollutantTrendsData,Average
annualemissions1978Ͳ2002,allcriteriapollutants.Availableat
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html#tables.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).(1995).CompilationofAirPollutantEmissionFactors,Volume1:
StationaryPointandAreaSources,Chapter13.2.3ͲHeavyConstructionOperations,AP42,FifthEdition.U.S.
EPA,Washington,D.C.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).(2002).HealthAssessmentDocumentforDieselEngineExhaust.
NationalCenterforEnvironmentalAssessment,OfficeofResearchandDevelopment,U.S.EPA,Washington,
D.C.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).(2003).SummaryofEPA'sProposedProgramforLowEmission
NonroadDieselEnginesandFuel.EPA420ͲFͲ03Ͳ008,U.S.EP,Washington,D.C.http://www.epa.gov/nonroadͲ
diesel/420f03008.htm.Accessed14December2009.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).(2004).CleanAirNonroadDieselRule.RegulatoryAnnouncement,
OfficeofTransportationandAirquality,EPA420ͲFͲ04Ͳ032.U.S.EPA,Washington,D.C.
Tier4emissionstandard EPAstandardsthatrequireemissionstobereducedovercurrentTier2and3
standards.Reductionsofparticulatematter(PM)forenginesabove19kW
andnitrousoxides(NOx)forengineslargerthan56kWaresubstantial.
Hydrocarbonlimitsarealsosubstantiallyreducedforengineslargerthan56
kW.Suchemissionreductionscanbeachievedthroughtheuseofcontrol
technologiesincludingadvancedexhaustgasaftertreatment.Tier4
standardsaretobephasedinovertheperiodof2008Ͳ2015.
Ultralowsulfurdiesel(ULSD) Standardtermfordieselfuelhavinglessthan15ppmsulfur.Asof2009,most
onͲhighwaydieselfuelsoldatretaillocationsisULSD.Thepreviousstandard,
lowsulfurdiesel(LSD),allowed500PPMsulfur.
313
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Equipment Emission Reduction CA-5
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).(2009).NationalCleanDieselCampaign.U.S.EPA,Washington,D.C.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/index.htm.Accessed14December2009.
USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2003).DraftRegulatoryImpactAnalysis:ControlofEmissionsfromNonroad
DieselEngines.EPA420ͲRͲ03Ͳ008,U.S.EPA,Washington,D.C.
WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology(2006).DieselParticulateEmissionReductionStrategyforWashington
State.WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcologyAirQualityProgram.

314
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-6 Paving Emissions Reduction
PAVING EMISSIONS REDUCTION
GOAL
Improvehumanhealthbyreducingworkerexposuretoasphaltfumes.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Placeatleast90%ofthehotmixasphalt(HMA)ontheprojectusingapaverthatis
certifiedtohavemetNationalInstituteforOccupationalSafetyandHealth(NIOSH)
emissionguidelinesassetforthinEngineeringControlGuidelinesforHotMixAsphalt
Pavers,Part1:NewHighwayͲClassPavers(DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices
(NIOSH)PublicationNo.97Ͳ105,April1997printing).
Details
Ifmorethanonepaverisusedonaproject,thepercentageofHMAplacedbyeach
pavershallbedeterminedusingthetotalweightofHMAplacedbyeachpaver.Use
EquationCAͲ6.1tocomputethetotalpercentageplacedbytheNIOSHpaver.
CalculationsshouldbedonebyweightofHMAplaced.Forthepurposesofthis
calculation,allplacedbituminousasphalticmixtures(e.g.,hotmixasphalt,warm
mixasphalt,openͲgradedasphalt,stonematrixasphalt,etc.)shallbecountedas
“HMA.”
EquationCAͲ6.1:

DOCUMENTATION
x Copyofthemanufacturingcertificationprovidedwiththepaver(s)when
purchased.Page5oftheNIOSH(1997)documentprovidesanexampleofthe
certificationwording.
x Signedstatementbyapavingcontractorrepresentativeindicatingthatthecertified
paver(s)referencedinthefirstdocumentwas(were)usedonthejobanddidplace
atleast90%oftheHMA.
CA-6
1 POINT
RELATED CREDITS
9 CAͲ4FossilFuel
Reduction
9 CAͲ5Equipment
EmissionReduction
9 PTͲ3WarmMix
Asphalt
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Equity
BENEFITS
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesGreenhouse
Gases
9 ImprovesHuman
Health&Safety

315
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Paving Emissions Reduction CA-6
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x UseapaverthatmeetsNIOSHengineeringcontrolguidelines.Aquickcheckcanbedonebylocatingthe
exhauststackorrequired3Ͳby5Ͳinchinformationplate(FigureCAͲ6.1)onthepaverbeingused.These
informationplatesarerequiredtobeattachedbythemanufacturer.
Example: Photos
FiguresCAͲ6.2andCAͲ6.3showexamplesofpaverswithandwithoutexhaustventilationsystems.

FigureCAͲ6.2:Thelargeblackexhauststacktotherightoftheoperator
ispartofaNIOSHcompliantexhaustventilationsystem.

FigureCAͲ6.1:Exampleofamanufacturerinformationplate(fromNIOSH,1997).
316
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-6 Paving Emissions Reduction

FigureCAͲ6.3:ThispaverisNOTequippedwithanexhaustventilationsystem.

Example: Calculation
Anurbanpavingprojectplacesa1.5Ͳinchoverlayona2Ͳlanecityarterialstreet.Theoverlayincludes
overlayingsmallareasoneachcrossstreet.ApaverhavingaventilationexhaustsystemmeetingNIOSH
guidelinesisusedforpavingthearterialwhileasmallpaver,notequippedwithaventilationexhaustsystem,is
usedtopavethecrossstreetareas.Oncompletionoftheproject,areviewoftruckticketsshowthattheNIOSH
paverplaced4,250tonsofHMAwhilethenonͲNIOSHpaverplaced200tonsofHMA.
ܶ݋ݐ݈ܽ ܪܯܣ ݋݊ ݐ݄݁ ܲݎ݋݆݁ܿݐ ൌ ͶǡʹͷͲ ݐ݋݊ݏ ൅ʹͲͲ ݐ݋݊ݏ ൌ ͶǡͶͷͲ ݐ݋݊ݏ
Ψ ܪܯܣ ݈ܲܽܿ݁݀ ܾݕ ܰܫܱܵܪ ܲܽݒ݁ݎ ൌ
ͶǡʹͷͲ ݐ݋݊ݏ
ͶǡͶͷͲ ݐ݋݊ݏ
ൈ ͳͲͲΨ ൌ ͻͷǤͷΨ ൒ ͻͲΨ
Therefore,thisprojectqualifiesfor1pointsince95.5%exceedsthe90%requirement.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. HavingaNIOSHcompliantpaverbuthavingamalfunctioningexhaustsystemornotusingtheexhaustsystem.
2. HavingaNIOSHcompliantpaverwithanexhaustsystemthatnolongermeetsNIOSHrequirementsforindoor
captureefficiency.
RESEARCH
WhilemanypaversbeingusedinconstructionhaveNIOSHengineeringcontrolsonthem,notalldo.Currently,
mosthighwaypavers(manufacturedsince1997)havefumecontrolsinstalledin/ontheminaccordancewith
NIOSHstandards.However,smallerpaversarenotrequiredtohavesuchcontrols.
Theseengineeringcontrolsarebasicallyanexhaustventilationsystemthatcollectsfugitiveemissionsnearthe
augers(FigureCAͲ6.4),andreleasesthemthroughanexhauststackthatishighenoughsuchthatworkersarenot
exposedtoemissionsfromthatstack(FigureCAͲ6.5).Thisreducesworkerexposuretoasphaltfumes.Accordingto
NIOSH(1997),eachnewselfͲpropelledHMApaverweighing16,000poundsormoreandmanufacturedafterJuly
1,1997“…shoulddevelopandinstallexhaustventilationsystemswithaminimumcontrolledindoorcapture
317
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Paving Emissions Reduction CA-6
efficiencyof80%...”TheNIOSH(1997)document,whichwasdevelopedinconcertwiththeNationalAsphalt
PavementAssociation(NAPA),describesthedetailedrequirementsfortheexhaustventilationsystemincluding
theperformancetestingcriteria,labeling,certification,operation,maintenanceandtraining.

TheNIOSHsummaryofhealtheffectsofoccupationalexposuretoasphaltfumesgenerallyindicatesthatthereare
acute(immediateorshortͲterm)andchronic(longͲterm)impactstohumanhealth.Whilenotallstudiesagreeon

FigureCAͲ6.4:Drawingofthecollectionhoodsusedtocollectfumesneartheauger
(fromConstructionInnovationForum,2006)
FigureCAͲ6.5:Drawingoftheexhaustventilationsystemwithkeypartslabeled
(fromConstructionInnovationForum,2006).
318
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-6 Paving Emissions Reduction
theeffectsortheirsignificancethereisgenerallystrongenoughevidencetoshowthatsucheffectscanbepresent.
Giventhat,itisbeneficialtoreduceasphaltfumeexposuretopavingworkersevenifitisbelowestablishedlimits.
Establishedexposurelimitsaregenerallytopreventacuteeffects;insomecasestheydonotfullyaddresschronic
effectsanditisverydifficulttodoso.
MoreinformationisavailableinthefullNIOSHdocumentonthewebat:http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/asphalt.html
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
ConstructionInnovationForum(CIF).(2006).2006NOVAAwardNomination12:HighwayAsphaltPaverFume
Controls.ConstructionInnovationForum,Walbridge,OH.Availableathttp://www.cif.org/nom2006/NomͲ12Ͳ
2006.pdf.Accessed6January2009.
NationalInstituteforOccupationalSafetyandHealth(NIOSH).(April1997secondprinting).EngineeringGuidelines
forHotMixAsphaltPavers:Part1NewHighwayClassPavers.DHHS(NIOSH)PublicationNo.97Ͳ105.U.S.
DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,PublicHealthService,CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention,
NationalInstituteforOccupationalSafetyandHealth,Cincinnati,OH.Availableat
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/asphalt.html

HMA Hotmixasphalt
NAPA NationalAsphaltPavementAssociation
NIOSH NationalInstituteofOccupationalHealthandSafety
WMA Warmmixasphalt(seealsoCreditPTͲ3)
319
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Paving Emissions Reduction CA-6

320
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-7 Water Use Tracking
WATER USE TRACKING
GOAL
GenerateprojectͲlevelinformationaboutconstructionwateruse.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Createaspreadsheetthatrecordstotalwateruseduringconstruction.This
spreadsheetshouldidentify,atminimum:
1. Datesofuse.
2. Amountsofuse.
3. Locationsandsourcesofwaterused.
4. Potabilityofwatersource(s).
5. Eachconstructionactivityrequiringwateruse.
6. Totalwaterquantityusedineachconstructionactivity.
7. Methodofmeasurementtodeterminetotalquantityused.
8. Disposalpracticeforunusedwater.
9. Typeofwaterusepermit,ifany.
10. Totalcostofwaterusedfromeachsource,ifany.
Details
Waterusecanbemeasuredbymeter,hosecapacity,numberofwatertanks,
pumpingrateovertime,orotherappropriatesourceͲdependentestimates.
Thecreditdoesnotrequirespecificperformancecriteriaforwaterconservation.
Eventually,waterusedatawillbecompiledtoestablishbenchmarksforroadway
constructionwaterefficiencyandtodevelopguidelinesforappropriatewater
conservationpracticesandprinciplestoreducepotablewaterusageandnegative
impactstotheenvironment.
DOCUMENTATION
x Copyofthespreadsheetusedtorecordconstructionwateruse.
CA-7
2 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ7Pollution
PreventionPlan
9 PRͲ10Site
Maintenance
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Expectations
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 Improves
Accountability
9 IncreasesAwareness
9 CreatesNew
Information
321
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Water Use Tracking CA-7
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Askindividualworkerstorecordwateruseontheirdailyreports.
x Providecopiesofthetrackingspreadsheetatlocationswherewaterisusedandmeasuredforgathering
consistentrecordings.
Example: Sample Spreadsheet
SamplespreadsheetentriesfordifferentconstructionactivitiesthatcommonlyusewaterareshowninTable
CAͲ7.1forthreedifferenttypesofprojects.Notethateachactivityhasaseparatecolumnandassociateddata.
Notethat,realistically,thedatafortheprojectwillrequireinformationforeachactivityontheprojectthat
useswaterandwilllikelybelargerthanthesmallsampleshown.
TableCAͲ7.1:SampleWaterUseSpreadsheetEntriesforDifferentTypesofProjects
ProjectType Urban Rural(DeliveredWater) Rural(Well Water)
Date(s) 6/1/09 Ͳ 6/12/09 January Ͳ May 2009 August2009
ConstructionActivity Dustsuppression Mixingconcrete Equipmentcleaning
WaterVolumeUsed 12,000 27,000 3,500
VolumeUnit Gal gal Gal
MeasurementMethod Citywatermeter 750gallontanks Hosemeter
WaterLocation/Source Hydrant Tankdelivery OnͲsitewell
PotableWater? Yes No Yes
DisposalPracticeofUnusedWater Stormdrain Storage Groundsurface
WaterUsePermitType Hydrant None None
WaterCost(pergal) Ͳ $8.13 $0.08
WaterCost(perccf) $4.00 Ͳ Ͳ
TotalCost $64.16 $219,510.00 $280.00
Notes Hydrantpermit
feesnotincluded.
Includesdelivery
charge
Ͳ

SomecommonlyusefulconversionsforwatervolumeareshowninTableCAͲ7.2.
TableCAͲ7.2:TypicalUnitsofWaterVolume
U.S.CustomaryUnits MetricUnits(S.I.)
1cubicfoot(cf)=7.481gallons(gal) 1liter(L)=0.001cubicmeters(m
3
)
100cubicfeet(cf)=1centumcubicfoot(ccf) 1cubicmeters(m
3
)=1000liters(L)

Example: Monitored Water Sources for Road Construction in the U.S.
x Montanalimitswaterleasesforconstructionto60,000gallons/dayor120,000gallons/day/project
(Overcast,2001).Requestsformorewatermustbeaccompaniedbyananalysisofpotentialadverseeffects
andadescriptionofplannedmitigationactionsattheproposedpointofdiversion.
x Oregonallowspublicagenciestoregisterawateruseforroadandhighwaymaintenance,construction;in
lieuofapermitforawaterright(OregonWaterResourcesDepartment,2007).
x TheCityofBend,Oregonrequireshydrantusepermitsforwatermeasurement,protectionofdrinking
waterquality,watersystemoperationalprotection,andfirehydrantintegrityandmaintenance.The
permitsapplytowaterobtainedbynormalmeterinstallation,dailyfillstationuse,monthlyhydrantmeter
andbackflowunits,orcustomwatersupplyinstallation.
x TheCityofSouthlake,Texasregulateswateruseonlyduringdroughtconditions.
322
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-7 Water Use Tracking
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Trackingwateruseonroadwayconstructionprojectsmaybeunfamiliartositeworkers.Trainingmaybe
necessarytoaccuratelytrackallrelevantwaterdata.
2. Wateruseforroadconstructionmayberegulatedbylocaljurisdictions.Checkwithauthoritiestodetermine
wateruserequirements.
3. WhereroadwayconstructionincludestheuseofnonͲpotablewater,thereisanobligationtoensurethat
workplacehealthandsafetyisnotnegativelyaffectedbytheuseofthewater.Thismustincludethe
managementofanyrisksarisingfromtheuse,handling,storage,transport,anddisposalofthewateratthe
projectsite.
RESEARCH
Growingcitiesareputtingstressonavailablewatersupplies,anddemandforwaterisgrowingfasterthanthe
humanpopulation.Arecentgovernmentsurveyshowedthat,undernormalconditions,atleast36statesare
anticipatinglocal,regional,orstatewidewatershortagesby2013,anddroughtconditionswillexacerbateshortage
impacts(GAO,2003).CommunitiesinwaterͲsupplyͲchallengedregionsoftheworldhavebeguntoaddressthe
ongoingissueofpotable(ordrinkingquality)wateruseonroadconstructionandmaintenanceprojects(CFV,MAV
andIPWEA,2007).Criticaltounderstandingtheissueistodetermineexactlyhowmuchwaterisusedduring
roadwayconstructionandmaintenance.
WaterUsesinRoadwayConstruction
Waterhasmanyusesforroadwayconstruction.However,thereislittleinformationavailableontheamountof
waterusedduringroadconstruction.Sandandgraveloperationsaremajorusers,andcementproductionrelies
heavilyonwater.OnͲsiteconstructionusesofwaterinclude:concretemixing,concretecuring,dustcontrol,
constructionequipmentwashing,vegetationestablishment,geotechnicalborings,addingwatertobackfill
material/soilcompaction,pipeflushingandpressuretesting,andsitecleanͲup.
WaterSourcesforRoadwayConstruction
Typicalwatersourcesincludenaturalwaterbodies,potablewatersupplypipelines(e.g.,hydrants),nonͲpotable
waterfromstormwaterorindustrialdischarges,andreusedwaterfromwastewatertreatmentplants.Water
withdrawalsfromthesefacilitiesmayormaynotberegulatedbythegoverningjurisdiction.Frequently,wateruse
frompublicsuppliesrequiresatemporarywaterrightorpermitallowingthelocaljurisdictioncontroloverthe
amountandmethodofwaterwithdrawnforapprovedconstructionuses.Manyregionsalsoregulatepotential
harmtofishfromwaterwithdrawalfromnaturalwaterbodies.Forexample,theNationalMarineFisheriesService
(NMFS)developedintakepumpingandscreeningcriteriaforfishprotectionthatmustbeinstalled,operated,and
maintainedwhenprotectedaquaticspeciesarepresent(NMFS,2008).Occasionally,thesepoliciesrequirewater
systemstomeasureandaccountforallwaterdelivered.However,thesesystemsarealsolikelytobeprovidedby
privatewatersuppliers.
Estimatesofactualwaterusebyprojectactivityareneededformakingmoreinformedwaterusedecisions.To
enableinformationsharingforimprovedwatersourcingdecisions,someregionsaredevelopingacentralized
“WaterAtlas”ofallalternativewatersources,includingqualityandquantityinformation,toreducedemandon
potablesupplies.Also,indevelopmentisan“IndustrialWasteWaterExchange”tomatchproducersofsuitable
industrialwastewaterwithusersofwaterforconstructionpurposes,allowingindustrialuserstohavetheirwaste
waterdisposedofandreused,resultinginpotentiallylowercostsforbothpartiesandlessoverallpotablewater
use.(CCFV,MAVandIPWEA,2007)
WaterPotabilityandQualityIssues
Largevolumesofpotablewaterarecommonlyusedinroadconstruction,butdrinkingwaterissubjectto
competingdemandsbyhumanpopulations.Also,manymunicipalitieschlorinatetheirwatersupply,andthelevel
ofchlorineinchlorinatedtapwater(ashighas1.0milligramofchlorineperliterofwater)istoxictofishandother
323
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Water Use Tracking CA-7
aquaticorganisms(GreaterVancouverRegionalDistrict,1997)andmaybeunsuitableforroadwayusewithout
priormitigation.
Alternativewatersuppliesalleviatedemandforpotabledrinkingwaterthroughmanagementofrelatedhealthand
environmentalrisksassociatedwithconstructionworkactivities.BrackishandoilͲcontaminatedwatershow
promiseforroadconstructioninwaterͲlimitedregions(Tahaetal.,2005;KansasDepartmentofHealthand
Environment,2000).Constructionsitemanagersareincreasinglyharvestingstormwaterfromtheirownsitesand
storingitforlateruse(QueenslandGovernment,2007a).Recycledwaterfrommunicipalwastewatertreatment
plantsisapotableͲwatersubstituteforoperationalandlandscapingpurposes(QueenslandGovernment,2007b).
DischargesofconstructionsitewateraregovernedbytheEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyNationalPollution
DischargeandEliminationSystem(NPDES)permits,orstateorlocalequivalentpolicies.
GLOSSARY
Brackish Waterwithmoresalinitythanfreshwaterbutlessthanseawater
Potability Waterthatissuitableforhumanconsumption

REFERENCES
CivilContractorsFederationofVictoria,theMunicipalAssociationofVictoriaandtheInstituteofPublicWorks
EngineeringofAustralia(CCFV,MAV,andIPWEA).(2007,March29).WaterUseonRoadworks–ACommunity
WideIssue.UseofPotableWaterforRoadWorksSummit.
GreaterVancouverRegionalDistrict.(1997).ConstructionWaterUseGuidelinesforReleaseofMunicipalTap
WatertotheEnvironment.GreaterVancouverRegionalDistrict,MetroVancouver,BC.Availableat
www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/ConstructionWaterUseGuidelines.pdf.
KansasDepartmentofHealthandEnvironment.(2000).KansasAdministrativeRegulations,Article47—UseOfOil
andGasFieldSaltWaterinRoadConstructionandMaintenanceProjects(28Ͳ47Ͳ1to28Ͳ47Ͳ7).KansasSecretary
ofState.
NationalMarineFisheriesService.(2008).Anadromoussalmonidpassagefacilitydesign.NationalMarineFisheries
Service,NorthwestRegion,Portland,OR.
OregonWaterResourcesDepartment.(2007).RegisterWaterUseforRoadandHighwayMaintenance,
ConstructionandReconstruction.OregonWaterResourcesDepartment,Salem,OR.ORS537.040andOAR690Ͳ
340Ͳ040.
Overcast,Kim.2001.Waterrightsandroadconstruction.WaterResourcesDivision,MontanaDepartmentof
NaturalResources&Conservation,Helena,MT.WATERLINES.4(1),1.
QueenslandGovernment.(2007a).WorkplaceHealthandSafetyQueensland:ModelWaterManagementPlanfor
theCivilConstructionIndustry.Version1–June2007.DepartmentofEmploymentandIndustrialRelations,
QueenslandGovernment,Australia.Availableat
http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/workplace/resources/pdfs/model_watermgt.pdf.
QueenslandGovernment.(2007b).GuidetotheworkplaceuseofnonͲpotablewater,includingrecycledwaters.
WorkplaceHealthandSafetyQueensland,DepartmentofEmploymentandIndustrialRelations,Queensland.
www.nebo.qld.gov.au/council/NonͲpotableͲwater_guide.pdf.
RoadsandTrafficAuthority.(2004).WaterPolicy.RoadsandTrafficAuthority,NewSouthWales,Australia.
Availableathttp://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/environment/downloads/wpolicy.pdf.
324
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-7 Water Use Tracking
Taha,Ramzi,AmerAlͲRawas,SalimAlͲOraimi,HossamHassan,&MohammedAlͲAghbari.(2005).TheUseof
BrackishandOilͲContaminatedWaterinRoadConstruction.ENVIRONMENTALANDENGINEERING
GEOSCIENCE.11(2),163Ͳ169.
UnitedStatesGeneralAccountingOffice(GAO).(2003).FreshwaterSupply:States’ViewsofHowFederalAgencies
CouldHelpThemMeettheChallengesofExpectedShortages.U.S.GeneralAccountingOffice,Washington,DC.
GAOͲ03Ͳ514.

325
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Water Use Tracking CA-7

326
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-8 Contractor Warranty
CONTRACTOR WARRANTY
GOAL
IncorporateconstructionqualityintothepubliclowͲbidprocessthroughtheuseof
warranties.

CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Theprojectconstructioncontractshallinclude,asaminimum,a5Ͳyearwarrantyfor
constructedportionsofthepavementstructuretoincludesurfacing(e.g.,hotmix
asphalt,portlandcementconcrete,etc.)aswellasanyunderlyinglayers(e.g.,granular
basematerial).Otheritemsmayalsobeincludedinthewarrantybutarenotrequired
tobeforthiscredit.
Thetermsofthewarrantyshallbedefinedbytheownerandmayincludecontractor
inputifdesired.Asaminimum,thecontractualwarrantyspecificationsshallinclude:
x Definitionofwhatproduct(s)arewarranted
x Lengthofthewarrantyperiod
x Responsibilitiesoftheowner
x Responsibilitiesofthecontractor
x Responsibilityformaintenance
x Conflictresolutionprocess
x Contractorqualitycontrolplan
x Measurementmethods
x Performancebasedrequirementsandassociatedthresholdlevelsthatrequire
correctiveactionbythecontractor
x Requirementsforremedialcorrectiveaction
x Requirementsforelectiveorpreventativeactions
x Basisofpayment
x Finalwarrantyacceptance

Details
TheintentionofthiscreditistoincludeashortͲterm5Ͳyearpavementwarrantyin
thecontractspecifications.Thiswarrantydurationisintendedtobelongenoughto
coveranypavementperformanceissuesduetopoorqualityconstructionbutshort
enoughsoasnottocreatewarrantybondingissuesassociatedwithcontractor
assumptionofriskforundulylongperiodsoftime.
Ultimately,warrantiesmustmeetallapplicablelocalandfederalregulations.
Federalregulationsaredescribedin23CFR635,SubpartD,Section413,Guarantee
andWarrantyClauses.
DOCUMENTATION
x Acopyofthewarrantyspecificationsincludedinthecontract.
CA-8
3 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ4QualityControl
Plan
9 PRͲ9Pavement
ManagementSystem
9 CAͲ1Quality
ManagementSystem
9 PTͲ6Pavement
Performance
Tracking
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Economy
9 Extent
9 Expectations
9 Experience
BENEFITS
9 IncreasesServiceLife
9 ReducesLifecycle
Costs
9 Improves
Accountability
327
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Contractor Warranty CA-8
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
Developastandardwarrantypolicy(oraspecificonefortheprojectinquestion)thathasbeenvettedwith
industrythatincludes:
x Thetypesofworktobecoveredbythewarranty(i.e.thesurfacecourseorentirepavementsection)
x Thewarranteeguaranteeandbondingrequirements
x Anoutletforconflictresolutionforbothcontractorandowner
x Pavementdistressthresholdsandremedialaction
x AgencyMaintenanceResponsibilities
x Methodofperformancebasedmeasurementformonitoringthepavement
x Finalwarrantyacceptance
x Aselectionprocessofprojectsforwhichwarrantieswillbeincluded
TheNCHRPProject10Ͳ68“GuidelinesfortheUseofHighwayPavementWarranties”finalreportshouldserveasan
excellentsourceforviableapproacheswhenreleased.AsofOctober2010,itisstillinfinalediting.
Example: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Asphalt Pavement Warranty
NCHRPReport451(Anderson&Russell,2001)describesastandardprocessmodelforwarrantycontracting
(FigureCAͲ8.1)andthenshowsacasestudyofWisconsinDepartmentofTransportation(DOT)warranted
asphaltpavementsinitsAppendixAasanexample.
328
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-8 Contractor Warranty

FigureCAͲ8.1:Flowchartprocessmodelforwarrantycontracting(fromAnderson&Russell,2001).
329
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Contractor Warranty CA-8

FigureCAͲ8.1(continued):Flowchartprocessmodelforwarrantycontracting(fromAnderson&Russell,2001).

330
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-8 Contractor Warranty

FigureCAͲ8.1(continued):Flowchartprocessmodelforwarrantycontracting(fromAnderson&Russell,2001).

Specificsofthecasestudycanbeviewedat:http://144.171.11.40/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=5476.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Usingawarrantyclauseinroadwayconstructioncontractsistypicallyaprogrammaticdecision(mustbe
implementedasstandardpracticewithinanowneragency)andnotaprojectͲspecificone.
2. Warrantyprovisionsasamatterofstandardpracticecanreducecontractorcompetitionassuretiesdecide
whichcontractorstobondandwhichonesnotto.ExperiencetodatehasbeenthatbondingforshortͲterm
warranties(likethe5Ͳyearwarrantyinthiscredit)havenotbeenanissuewhendonecorrectly.
3. LongͲtermperformancewarrantiescanreducecontractorbondingcapacitybecauseoftheincreasedriskthey
mustcarryontheirbooks.
4. Warrantiesarenotfree.Theyaregenerallypricedbasedontheriskorperceivedrisktheytransfertothe
contractor.
5. Performancemeasuresonwhichacompletedprojectistobejudgedcanbedifficulttoagreeupon.Itcanalso
bedifficulttofirmlyestablishalinkbetweencontractorconstructionandperformanceparameter
measurement.
331
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Contractor Warranty CA-8
6. Institutinganewwarrantyprogramcanbedifficultbecauseofthelearningperiodinvolvedwhereboth
contractorsandownersadjusttothewarrantyclause,itsimplementationandinterpretation.
7. Awarrantydoesnotguaranteeimprovedquality,however,mostresearchtodatecitesbetterqualityasan
outcomeofcontractorwarrantyprograms.

RESEARCH
Awarrantyisafairlycommontoolinconsumertransactions.Essentially,awarrantyisanassurancebytheseller
thatpropertyorgoodsareasrepresentedorpromised.Thisassuranceisoftenbackedbyaspecificallystated
remedyintheeventthepropertyorgoodfailstomeetthewarranty.
ABriefHistory
Inroadways,warrantieshavebeenusedinassociationwithpavementsforquitesometime.Theearliestpavement
warrantiesaroseinthelate1800s;oneexamplebeingthe15yearwarrantyofferedbytheWarrenBrothers
CompanyontheirpatentedWarreniteBitulithicPavement(FHWA,2009).Inthe1900swarrantiesfelloutoffavor.
Forinstance,priorto1991alongstandingFHWApolicyusedtorestrictedwarrantiesonfederalͲaidprojectsto
electricalandmechanicalequipmentbecauseitwasfeltthatwithoutthisrestrictionfederalfundscouldbeused
forroutinemaintenance,whichwasillegal(FHWA,2007).Inthe1990spavementwarrantiesbegantomakea
comeback.Rulechangesandanevolvingviewofwarrantiesledtoseveralagenciesexperimentingwithandthen
usingwarrantiesonaregularbasis.Althoughtheyarestillmorecommonelsewhere(e.g.,Europe)warrantiesare
commonforsomeowneragenciesintheU.S.Forotheragencies,theyareeithernotusedorexpresslyforbidden.
ReasonsforWarrantyUse
Warrantyusecanbeviewedasdrivenlargelybytwoforces:(1)thedesiretoimprovepavementqualityand
durability,and(2)thedesiretoreduceowneroversightduringconstruction(AGC,n.d.).Thefirstconcern
(improvedquality)canalsobeaddressedbyothernonͲwarrantysolutionssuchasaqualitycontrolspecificationor
tighterspecifications.Also,awarrantyrequirementdoesnotdirectlyensureanygreaterquality;itonlyrequiresa
contractortoprovidearemedyifcertainparameters(e.g.,smoothness,cracking,rutting)arenotmet.Aswithall
warranties,apavementwarrantyispricedandbidaccordingly.Inanextremesituation,acontractormaychoose
toincludethecostofanentireoverlayorpartialreconstructionintothebidpricetomitigatetheriskofcorrective
actionsrequiredbythewarranty.Thesecondreason(reducedoversight)maynotberealizedbecauseowner
personnelareusuallyneededtooverseewarrantedpavements(AGC,n.d.).
TypesofWarranties
Ingeneral,therearethreebasictypesofpavementwarranties:
x Materialsandworkmanship.Almostallconstructioniscoveredbyashortduration(usually1year)materials
andworkmanshipwarranty.Thistypeofwarrantyassignsrisktothecontractorforfollowingagency
specificationsinregardstomaterialsandworkmanship.Ifaproblemordefectisdetectedwithinthewarranty
period,theagencyusuallyusesaforensicanalysistodeterminethecause.Ifitisdeterminedthatspecification
nonͲcompliancecausedtheproblem,itisrepairedatthecontractor'sexpense.Otherwise,theagencyassumes
repaircosts.Thistypeofwarrantyisalmostuniversal,rarelycollectedonandisusuallycoveredbysuretiesat
noadditionalchargetothecontractor.
x ShortͲtermperformance.Awarrantybasedontheperformanceofthefinishedpavementproductthatlasts
for2Ͳ7years.Thesewarrantiesspecifyanumberofperformanceparametersthatthepavementmustmeet
overtime.Iftheyarenotmetthecontractorisrequiredtorepair/replacethepoorͲperformingpavement.The
generalintentoftheseshortͲtermperformancewarrantiesistoplacetheriskofpoorconstructiononthe
contractor.Inmostsituations,poorpavementconstructionwillmanifestitselfinpoorpavementcondition
withinabout2Ͳ5years.
x LongͲtermperformance.Awarrantybasedontheperformanceofthefinishedpavementproductthatlastsfor
upto20yearsandbeyond.Thesewarrantiesspecifyanumberofperformanceparametersthatthepavement
mustmeetovertime.Iftheyarenotmetthecontractorisrequiredtorepair/replacethepoorͲperforming
332
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-8 Contractor Warranty
pavement.TheselongͲtermperformancewarrantiesessentiallymakethecontractorresponsiblefor
maintenanceandrehabilitationofthepavementinquestion.
BenefitsandMarketRealitiesofWarranties
Mostoften,ownerspursuewarrantiesbecauseofaperceivedbenefit.However,theuseofcontractedwarranties
alsocreatesanumberofmarketconditionsthatmayormaynotnegateanyperceivedbenefits.Thefollowingisa
brieflistingofwarrantybenefitsandmarketrealities.
Benefits
Allowevaluationbasedonperformance.Warrantycontractsoftenprovidelittledirectioninmaterialsand
methodsandrelayinsteadondefiningperformanceovertimeasthekeycontractelement.Thisallowsowner
agenciesandcontractorstoconcentratetheireffortsonendresultsratherthanmethods.Thisalignsowner
evaluationofconstructionwiththepublicperceptionoftheconstructionaswellasallowscontractors
substantiallatitudetoinnovatesincemethodsarenotdefinedinthecontract.
Improvedquality.In2004,Bayraktaretal.(2004)showed13stateswereexperiencedwithwarranty
contractingwithvaryingdegreesofsuccess.Michigan,Ohio,Florida,andSouthCarolinahadthehighest
amountofwarrantycontractseachhavinga10to30percentofconstructioncontractscontainingapavement
warranty.Inthesamestudy,69percentofthestatedepartmentsoftransportationthatresponded,notedan
improvementintheoverallqualityofthefinalproduct(BayraktarM.etal.,2004).
Reducedownerrisk.Warrantiestendtoplacemoreoftheriskofpoorconstructiononthecontractor.
Typically,evenapoorlyconstructedpavementislikelytolast1year(thetypicaldurationofamaterialsand
workmanshipwarranty)infairlygoodcondition.Withawarranty,anownercancollectfromacontractorfor
poorconstructionbasedonpavementconditionmeasuredoverthelifeofthewarranty.
Inclusionofconstructionqualityinacompetitivebid.InmosttraditionalcompetitivelybiddesignͲbidͲbuild
pavementcontracts,pavementqualityisassumedtobeaminimumstandardtobemetratherthanthesubject
ofcontractorcompetition.Warrantyrequirementsusuallywillrequirecontractorstobuildtheirperceivedcost
ofthewarranty(theirpricefortheriskincurred)intotheircompetitivebid.Therefore,contractorsthatbuild
highqualitypavementandhavegoodknowledgeoftheirconstructionqualityaretheoreticallyabletoreduce
theirbidamountbecauseofaknownlowerrisk.Inessence,pavementqualitybecomesacompetitivelybid
item.
MarketRealities(AGC,n.d.)
Limitingcompetition.Askingcontractorstoassumeriskforpavementsaftertheyarebuiltgenerallymeans
thatsuretiesarerequiredtoprovidewarrantybonds.Suretiescanbeselectiveintheirissuanceofwarrant
bonds,whichmaylimitcompetition.
Reducedbondingcapacity.Thevalueofthewarrantybondsacontractorcarriescanreduceitsbonding
capacity,thuslimitingthenumberandvalueofjobsitcanbid.LongͲtermpavementwarrantiescanespecially
taxbondingcapacityandsuretiesbecausethelongdurationtheymustbecarried.Also,thereisconsiderable
pressureonsureties;thosewhobondcontractors.Withawarrantyessentiallyholdingacontractoratriskfor
thewarrantyperiod,thesuretywillalsobeheldliableforthewarrantyperiod.Therequirementofaseparate
warrantybondhasbeenthecommonpracticeforcontractorsparticipatinginpavementwarrantycontracts.
Suretieshaveaverydifferentresponsibilitywhenevaluatingcontractorsbiddingonwarrantycontracts.Some
suretiesviewtheprocessasadifficultsituation.Forinstance,theyareessentiallyrequiredtopredictthatthe
contractorsthattheyinsurewillbeinbusinessfortheentirewarrantyperiod.Forsureties,themajorsources
ofriskwhenevaluatingcontractorsforwarrantyprojectsincludewarrantyperiod,financialstrength,project
experience,andpastperformance(Bayraktaretal.,2006).
Increasedcost.Warrantiesmayincreaseconstructioncostsbecause(1)higherqualityconstructionmaycost
morebecausebettermaterialsormoremeticulousmethodsareused,or(2)thecostofwarrantiesarebidinto
333
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Contractor Warranty CA-8
contracts.Ultimately,awarrantytransfersrisktothecontractorandthatriskispriced.Theinclusionofa
warrantyprovisioncanincreasecontractcostsby5Ͳ10%(BayraktarM.etal.,2004).However,warrantieshave
alsoledtolowerpavementlifecyclecosts(Singhetal.,2007).SpecificallyinIndiana,someestimateshave
shownanincreaseofoverthirtypercentintheexpectedcosteffectivenessofawarrantyprogram(Singhetal.,
2007).
Difficultyinsettingobjectiveperformancemeasures.Itisdifficulttosettleonanobjectivesetofperformance
measuresbywhichanownercanjudgeapavementanddetermineifdefectsareduetocontractor
construction.Typicalperformancemeasurescanberoughness,rutdepth,surfacefrictionandcracking.Itis
oftendifficulttoestablishthatsuchitemsaredirectlyrelatedtoconstructionqualityandnotsomeotherfactor
suchasheavierthananticipatedloadingorpoorsubgrade.
Difficultinginstartingawarrantyprogram.Outsidestatesusingwarrantiesregularly,contractorexperienceis
limited.Themajorityofowneragenciesusingwarrantieshaveseenasimilarnumberofbiddersonprojects
comparedtoprojectswithoutwarranties.However,whenWestVirginiabeganitswarrantyprogram,ithad
manyprojectsthatcontainedasinglebidder(BayraktarM.etal.,2006).Contractorsshowedatendencyto
eithernotbidduetobeingconcernedabouttherisk,ortochargemoreonagivenbid.Ultimately,theremay
besometimeinvolvedwherecontractorsandowneragenciesbecomefamiliarwiththetermsofwarranties
andhowthesetermsareenforced.Duringthistime,itisnotuncommonforcontractorstobidhigherto
compensateforincreasedrisk.
StateofthePractice
TheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)maintainsawebsiteonconstructionwarrantiesinfederalͲaid
contracts.Theyalsoincludeasubsectiononpavementwarranties(FHWA,2009).TableCAͲ8.1listsvariousstates
withwarrantyexperienceinroadwayconstruction.
TableCAͲ8.1:WarrantyProvisionsUsedbyVariousStates(FHWA2007)
Forfurtherdiscussionofwarrantycontracting,seeNCHRPReport451GuidelinesforWarranty,MultiͲParameter,
andBestValueContracting(Anderson&Russell,2001).
GLOSSARY
HMA/RubberizedHMA 3Ͳ8years AL,CA,CO,FL,IN,ME,MI,MO,MS,OH,NM,UT,WI
HMACrackTreatment 2years MI
PCCPavement 5Ͳ10years KY,ME,MI,MS,UT,WI
BridgeComponents 5Ͳ10years WA,ME,NM
BridgePainting 2Ͳ10years IN,MA,MD,ME,MI,NH
ChipSealing 1Ͳ2years CA,MI
ITSComponents/Buildings 2Ͳ3years VA,NC
Landscaping/Irrigation 1year WY
Microsurfacing 2years CO,MI,NV,OH
PavementMarking 2Ͳ6years FL,MT,OR,PA,UT,WV
SignSheeting 7Ͳ12years WV
Roofing 10years HI
Warranty Acollateralassuranceorguaranteebyasellerthatapropertyorgoodsareas
representedorpromised.Thisassuranceisoftenbackedbyaspecifically
statedremedyintheeventhepropertyorgoodfailstomeetthewarranty.
334
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Construction Activities
CA-8 Contractor Warranty
REFERENCES
Anderson,S.D.&Russell,J.S.(2001).NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram(NCHRP)Report451
GuidelinesforWarranty,MultiͲParameter,andBestValueContracting.TransportationResearchBoard,
NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,D.C.Availableat
http://144.171.11.40/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=5476.
Aschenbrener,T.,Goldbaum,J.,&Shuler,S.(2008).EvaluationofShortͲTermWarrantyandPrescriptive
SpecificationsforHotͲMixPavementsAfter8Years.TransportationResearchRecord:Journalofthe
TransportationResearchBoard,2081(Ͳ1),130Ͳ138.doi:10.3141/2081Ͳ14.
AssociationofGeneralContractors(AGC).(nodategiven).PavementWarrantyTaskForceReport.Availableat
http://www.agc.org/cs/industry_topics/additional_industry_topics/pavement_warranties.Accessed31
December2009.
Bayraktar,M.E.,Cui,Q.,Hastak,M.,&Minkarah,I.(2004).StateͲofͲPracticeofWarrantyContractingintheUnited
States.JournalofInfrastructureSystems,10(2),60Ͳ68.
Bayraktar,M.E.,Cui,Q.,Hastak,M.,&Minkarah,I.(2006).WarrantyBondsfromthePerspectiveofSurety
Companies.JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement,132(4),333Ͳ337.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2007).Briefing:WarrantyClausesinFederalͲAidHighwayContracts.
Availableathttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/warranty.cfm.Accessed31December2009.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2009).PavementWarranties.Availableat
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Pavement/warranty.Accessed31December2009.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2009).ShortͲTermPavementWarrantiesProgramforHMACliffNotes.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/warranty/cliffnotes.cfm.Accessed10October2010.
Gharaibeh,N.,&Miron,A.(2008).WarrantySpecificationsforHighwayConstruction;CurrentPracticesand
EvolutiontoAdvancedQualitySystems.TransportationResearchRecord2081,77Ͳ82.
Moynihan,G.,Zhou,H.,&Cui,Q.(2009).StochasticModelingforPavementWarrantyCostEstimation.Journalof
ConstructionEngineeringandManagement,135(5),352Ͳ359.
Sees,E.,Cui,Q.,&Johnson,P.(2009).LegalEnvironmentforWarrantyContracting.JournalofManagementin
Engineering,25(3),115Ͳ121.
Singh,P.,Oh,J.E.,Labi,S.,&Sinha,K.C.(2007).CostͲEffectivenessEvaluationofWarrantyPavementProjects.
JournalofConstructionEngineeringandManagement,133(3),217Ͳ224.
Thompson,B.P.,Anderson,S.D.,Russell,J.S.,&Hanna,A.S.(2002).GuidelinesforWarrantyContractingfor
HighwayConstruction.JournalofManagementinEngineering,18(3),129Ͳ137.

335
Construction Activities Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Contractor Warranty CA-8

336

Greenroads Manual v1.5 © 2011

MATERIALS & RESOURCES


337

Greenroads Manual v1.5 © 2011

338
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-1 Lifecycle Assessment
LIFECYCLE ASSESSMENT
GOAL
Createnewlifecycleassessmentinformationforroads.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
ConductadetailedprocessͲbasedlifecycleassessment(ISOͲLCA)orhybrideconomic
inputͲoutputlifecycleassessment(HybridͲEIO)accordingtotheISO14040standard
frameworksforthefinalroadwaydesignalternative.Includeallitemsontheproject
bidlistintheinitialscopeofthestudybeforeanystreamliningofthescopeisdone.
Useprimarydataforallprocesseswherepossible.Wherenoprimarydataexists,use
thebestavailabledataandjustifythesubstitution.Chooseatleastthreeimpact
categoriestoreportforthelifecycleimpactassessment(LCIA)fromtheEnvironmental
ProtectionAgency(EPA)FrameworkforResponsibleEnvironmentalDecisionͲMaking
(FRED:2000).Useequivalencyfactorsfortheimpactassessmentbasedonthemost
currentversionoftheindicatormodelreferenced.FREDisavailablefromtheAmerican
CenterforLifeCycleAssessmenthere:http://www.lcacenter.org/library/pdf/fred.pdf.
Notethatsomeequivalencyfactorsinthisdocumentareoutdated.Seethefollowing
MRͲ1Researchsectionformoredetails.
Details
TheLCAmaybestreamlinedaccordingtothestreamliningprocess
recommendationsfromthe1999SocietyofEnvironmentalToxicologyand
Chemistry(SETAC)report“StreamlinedLifeͲCycleAssessment:AFinalReportfrom
theSETACNorthAmericaStreamlinedLCAWorkgroup”(Weitzetal.,1999).
Socialimpactassessmentisnotrequiredforthiscredit,butmaybecompletedif
socialmetricsorindicesareappropriateorrelevantfortheproject.
DOCUMENTATION
CopyofthecompletedLCA.Thisdocumentshouldinclude,atminimum,thefollowing
specificinformation.
x Nameandcontactinformationofperson(s)whoconductedtheLCA.Besureto
listanyLCACertifiedProfessionals(LCACP)involvedintheproject.
x Alistofalldatasourcesused,andtheinputdataused.Ifdataisproprietary,list
theownerandcontactinformation,andidentifyallprocessesincludedinthe
proprietarydatasets.
x ListanymaterialinputsnotlistedinPRͲ3butincludedintheLCA(thesewillbe
nonͲpavementitems).
x Detailedresultsofthelifecycleinventory(LCI).
x Lifecycleimpactassessment(LCIA)resultsshowingaminimumofthreeimpact
categories(i.e.globalwarmingpotential,acidification,photochemicalsmog,
humanhealth,etc.)fromFRED.Listsourcesofequivalencyfactorsused.
x Thedataqualityscoreofthefinalalternative(seeMRͲ1Researchsection.)
x Alistofthetopthreecontributingprocessestotheimpactcategories(basedon
normalizedresults,suchasannualenergyuseperAmericanhousehold,etc.)
x Alistofalllimitationsofthestudyscopeanddataused.
MR-1
2 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ2LifecycleCost
Analysis
9 PRͲ3Lifecycle
Inventory
9 PRͲ6Waste
ManagementPlan
9 EWͲ4Stormwater
CostAnalysis
9 CAͲ3SiteRecycling
Plan
9 CAͲ7WaterUse
Tracking
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Economy
9 Extent
9 Expectations
9 Exposure
BENEFITS
9 Improves
Accountability
9 IncreasesAwareness
9 CreatesNew
Information
339
Materials & Resources Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Assessment MR-1
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Createaspreadsheettocapturealloftheprocessesforproductionoftheroadwayprojectandcompletean
LCAinaccordancewiththereferencedISOstandards.
x HireaprofessionalthirdͲpartyconsultantifpossibletoreviewtheprojectandproduceafinalLCAreport.The
benefits:sometimestheyhaveaccesstosomeproprietarydataandsoftwarethatismorerecentorhigher
qualitythanpubliclyavailablesources.
x UseanopensourcesoftwareprogramforLCA.Thesearebecomingmorecommonandarepublicallyavailable
forfreeviaanumberofLCAorganizations.
x ConsiderusingahybridEIOmodelthatincorporatesbotheconomicsectordataandprocessͲbaseddata.
x Collectprimaryemissionsdatawhereverpossible.
x Usedatathatiscurrent,localorotherwiseprojectspecifictoimprovedataqualityfortheprojectLCAmodel.
Example: Comprehensive Process-Based LCA Approach (Stripple, 2001)
WhilenotacompleteLCAbecausetheimpactassessmentandinterpretationstepswerenotcompleted,
Stripple(2001)providesthebestavailableexampletodateofwhatshouldbeconsideredinacomprehensive
roadwaylifecycleinventoryanalysisandimpactassessmentbasedonanISOͲLCAmodel(fromSETACEurope).
Thelifecyclephasesstudiedwereconstruction,operation,maintenanceandassociatedtransportation
activities.Extractionactivitiesandtrafficwereincluded,butdisposalofwasteandproductionofcapital
equipmentwerenotconsidered.Inatrulycomprehensivestudy,wastegenerationandrecyclingactivitiesfor
mostpavementswillhavealargeroleintheoverallassessmentoftheroadway.Capitalequipmentproduction
mayalsobeincludedbutitisnotunusualforittobeexcludedviathestreamliningprocess.
Followingisalistofunitprocesses(andequipment)thatwereconsideredfortheinventoryanalysiswithinhis
definedGoal,Scope,andsystemboundaries(slightlyadaptedforclarity).(Stripple,2001)
TableMRͲ1.1:ExampleunitprocessesinStripple(2001)
x Aggregateproduction(blasting,
crushing)
x Aluminium[sic]production
x Bitumenproduction
x Cementproduction
x Cementstabilizationofbase
courseinconcreteroad
construction
x LandclearingofrightͲofͲway
x Clearingsnow
x ColdͲmixasphaltproduction
x Concreteproduction(mixing)
x Concretetexturing
x Drivingdieselmaintenance
vehicles
x Electricityproduction
x Erectionandremovalofsnow
posts
x Extractionofquarrygraveland
sand
x Extractionofsaltforwinter
roadmaintenance
x Felling(trees)
x Foundationreinforcement
usingcement/limecolumns
x Foundationreinforcement
usingconcretepiles
x Freighttransportationbysea
x HotͲmixasphaltproduction
x Layingofconcretewearing
courseinconcreteroad
construction
x Layingofroadmarkings
x Minoroperationalactivities
(minorrepairs,other)
x MowingofrightͲofͲway
x Operatingasphaltpavers
x Operatingasphaltrollers
x Operatingdumptrucks
x Operatingexcavators
x Operatingthetackcoattruck
x Operatingwheelloaders
x Polyethyleneplastic
production
x Quicklimeproduction
x Roadmarking,sign,lighting,
trafficlight,otherrailingand
fenceproduction
x Saltgrittingofroadinwinter
roadmaintenance
x Sandgrittingofroadinwinter
roadmaintenance
x Sawcuttingjointsinconcrete
x Sealingconcretejoints
x Steelproduction
x Surfacemillingofconcreteand
asphaltpaving
x Syntheticrubber(EPDM)
production
x Trenchdigginginroad
maintenance
x Trucktransportation
x Washingofroadsigns
x Washingofroadsideposts
x Wildlifefences
x Zincproduction

340
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-1 Lifecycle Assessment
Thefunctionalunitsinthestudywere:
x Theconstruction,maintenanceandoperationovera40yearperiodof1laneͲkmofroad,13metersin
width,with0.5msurfacecourseand1mbasecoursepavedwithhotͲmixasphaltandusingvehiclesfor
constructionandmaintenancewithlowemissiondieselengines.
x Theconstruction,maintenanceandoperationovera40yearperiodof1laneͲkmofroad,13metersin
width,with0.5msurfacecourseand1mbasecoursepavedwithcoldͲmixasphaltandusingvehiclesfor
constructionandmaintenancewithlowemissiondieselengines.
x Theconstruction,maintenanceandoperationovera40yearperiodof1laneͲkmofroad,13metersin
width,with0.5msurfacecourseand1mbasecoursepavedwithconcreteandusingvehiclesfor
constructionandmaintenancewithlowemissiondieselengines.
TheresultsoftheinventoryanalysisforenergyuseareshowninFigureMRͲ1.1below.
FigureMRͲ1.1:Resultsoflifecycleinventoryanalysisforenergyofthreetypesofroadways.Dottedlines
representstoredenergyinasphalt.(Stripple,2001)

Thefullreport(2
nd
edition)isavailablefromtheIVLSwedishEnvironmentalResearchInstitute,Ltd.here:
http://www3.ivl.se/rapporter/pdf/B1210E.pdf
Example: Impact Assessment for HMA Overlay Using FRED (EPA, 2000; Schenck, 2000)
IntheirdocumentationfortheFREDtool,theEPAprovidesaperfectlyrelevantexampleofanimpact
assessmentforaroadwayproduct,asphaltcement.ThefollowingistakenfromAppendixC:AsphaltCoating
CaseStudyandSchenck(2000).ThearticlebySchenck(2000)providesfurtherexplanationofhowLCA,
especiallytheimpactassessmentstep,canbeusedtomakeprocurementdecisionsforroadmaintenance
activitiesfortheDepartmentofDefense.
341
Materials & Resources Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Assessment MR-1
Goal&ScopeofStudy
Thestudymodeleda1.5inchthickoverlayappliedwithafrequencyof7Ͳ9yearsovera20yeartimeperiodand
estimatedthetemperatureofapplicationatorabove165°F.ForpurposesofthisExample,theinventoryand
impactassessmentresultsforthewaterbasedasphaltemulsionalternative,GSB88(gilsonite),areomittedto
minimizeconfusionwiththeLCIAprocessthatisrequiredforthiscredit.Notethatingeneral,thiswasavery
simplifiedlifecycleassessmentmodelduetothesimplicityoftheproductitself(EPA,2000).Explicitdata
criterialimitsensuredthatInputandoutputdatawasnotcollectedifitrepresentedlessthanonepercentof
thetotalmass,energy,orexpectedtoxicityscorecontribution(humanhealthandecosystemhealthindicators).
TableMRͲ1.2belowshowstheprocessesandmaterialdata,sourcesandtypesofdatacollectedforthemodel.
TableMRͲ1.2:DataSourcesforLCAStudy(Schenck,2000;EPA,2000)
ProcessorMaterialData Type Source
Asphalt IndustryAverage IndustryAssociation
Aggregate Primary Manufacturer
Diesel(HMAProduction) Primary:surrogate Applier
Diesel(ConstructionVehicleFuels) IndustryAverage PublishedData
Sand Primary Manufacturer
Gilsonite Primary Manufacturer
Hydrochloricacid(HCl) Primary Manufacturer
Water Primary Manufacturer
NPͲ40(Detergent) Primary Manufacturer
Surfactant IndustryAverage PublishedData
LightCycleOil Primary Manufacturer
LandUse(Road,m
2
) Calculated Thisstudy
LandUse(Manufacturing,m
2
) Mixed Manufacturer,Engr.Estimate
InventoryAnalysis
TableMRͲ1.3presentstheresultsofthelifecycleinventoryanalysisfortheHMAapplicationonly.Azero
indicatesthataparticularrawmaterialwasusedtomakethe“ThinLayerofHMA”product.
TableMRͲ1.3:SummaryofHMAInventory
SystemDescription(RawMaterials) ThinLayerofHMA(2Applications)lb/laneͲmi/20yr
Asphalt 122,621
Aggegate 2,181,960
Diesel(ConstructionVehicleFuels) 3,063
Diesel(HMAProduction) 884
Sand 0
Gilsonite 0
Hydrochloricacid(HCl) 32
Water 4,779
NPͲ40(Detergent) 0
Surfactant 156
LightCycleOil 0
LandUse(Road,m
2
) 5888
LandUse(Manufacturing,m
2
) <10
ImpactAssessment
TableMRͲ1.4presentstheresultsofthelifecycleimpactassessmentfortheHMAapplicationonly.Notably,the
valuesinTableMRͲ1.3abovetranslatethroughtoTableMRͲ1.4:azeroindicatesthataparticularvalueinthe
inventoryanalysiswasalsozero.ThisisbecausetheMRͲ1.3valuesaremultipliedbyequivalencyfactorsas
definedintheFRED.(Technically,itcouldalsomeanthat:1.theequivalencyfactorassignedtoaparticular
342
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-1 Lifecycle Assessment
impactwaszerothoughgenerallyanimpactwithzeroequivalencywouldnotbereported(i.e.notstudied),or
2.theresultcouldbeconsiderednegligibleandreportedaszero.)
TableMRͲ1.4:LCIAResults
Impact ThinLayerofHMA(2Applications)lb/laneͲmi/20yr
Indicator LCIAResults
GlobalWarmingPotential(kgCO2e) 40,000
OzoneDepletion(kgCFCͲ11e) 0
Acidification(kgSO2e) 300
Eutrophication(kgPO4e) 0.02
PhotochemicalSmog(kgO3e) 80
HumanToxicity
Cancer 0.2
NonͲCancer 5
Ecotoxicity(dimensionless) 2000
ResourceDepletion
Fossil(tonsoilequivalent) 90000
Mineral(equivalenttons) 0
Preciousmetals(equivalenttons) 0
OtherIndicators
LandUse(ha) 0.6
WaterUse(m3) 2
SolidWaste(ton) 800

FigureMRͲ1.2showsanexampleofacontributionanalysis,wheretherelativecontributions(onascaleof100
percent)areshownasassignedtoeachlifecyclestage.AcontributionanalysismayalsobedonewiththeLCIA
resultstoshowwhichprocessescontributemosttocertainimpacts.

FigureMRͲ1.2:ExamplecontributionanalysisforLCIAofasphaltcement.(Schenck,2000)

343
Materials & Resources Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Assessment MR-1
SomeNotesonResults(Interpretation)
ThisExampleonlyshowshalfthepicture,butthefullLCAwasactuallycompletedonbothtypesof
maintenancetechniquesandisexplainedinSchenck(2000)andtheFREDdocumentation.However,evaluating
thesetwoalternativesbycomparingtheimpactsofthetwoproductsmusttakeintoaccounttherelativedata
qualityavailable.AfewbriefexamplesofnotesthatmightbeusefultoareaderofanLCAreportforthe
interpretationstepfollow:
x InTableMRͲ1.2,secondarydata(averagedata)forasphaltproductionwasusedandmaynotbe
representativeoftheactualproductstudied.InformationfromthemanufacturerfortheGSB88wasfrom
primarysourcesandmaybemorerepresentative.Ifprimarydatawereavailablefortheasphalt,theresults
maybedifferentthanthoseproducedbythemodel.Thisistrueformanydifferentpartsofthedataused.
x Closescrutinyofthedataintheinventoryanalysisshowsthatmanyofthedatavalueswerenotavailableor
notreportedforeitherproduct,asdenotedby“NA”intheFREDcasestudy.
x IftheFREDcasestudyiscomparedtothepublishedresultsoftheLCIA,itisclearthatthereisveryhigh
uncertaintyintheresultsbecausethecomputedresultsreportuptofivesignificantdigits.Theamount,for
example,ofGWPthatwascomputedwas44,368kgCO2e.Thatcomputedlevelofprecisionisnot
reasonable,andthevaluereportedonlyreflectsonesignificantdigit(40,000kgCO2e).
x Itisunclearwhytheinventoryamountreportedfor“ResourceDepletionͲMinerals”is0.Thisshould
probablyhavebeendocumentedsomewhere.
x Itisunclearwhattheassumedtransportationdistancewasforeitherproduct(bothinSchenckandthe
FREDdocumentation).
Furtherdiscussionandthefulllifecycleinventory,impactassessment,andinterpretationforthisEPAcase
studyareavailableintheFREDguidancedocumentavailableat:http://www.lcacenter.org/library/pdf/fred.pdf.
Thereaderisreferredtothatresourcetomakehis/herowninterpretationsofthecasestudiesprovided.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Missingorotherwiseunavailabledata(suchasfromproprietarysources).Whereverpossible,datashouldbe
collectedfortheproject.Thisincludes(butisnotlimitedto)emissionsandenergyusesuchasemissionsdata
gatheredfromatthehotͲmixasphalt(HMA)batchplant,amountsofwaterusedinconcretemixes,fueltypes,
tippingfeereceipts,cut/fillvolumes,etc.Ingeneral,secondarydatachoicesshouldbebasedonrealistic
projectͲbasedinformation.
2. Professionallifecycleassessmentmayincuranaddedcosttotheproject.Projectsshouldbudgetforthis
additionalcostwherepossiblewhenplanningtoattemptthiscredit.
3. DatamanagementinprocessͲbasedLCAscanrequiremuchmanpower,betimeconsuming,andalsohighcost.
4. Thereisnosuchthingasasimpleproduct.Allproductsandprocessesaremorecomplicatedthanhumans
couldeverconceive.LCAsstillonlypresentasimplifiedmodeloftheactuallifecycle.ThegoalisthattheLCA
modelisrealisticandrepresentative,notexact.
5. StakeholdersinvolvedinLCAtendtosetsystemboundariesandconditionstotheircredit.Thiscanskewor
discreditresultsinsomecases.Transparencyisakeyissueinpart,forthisreason.
6. Professionallifecycleassessmentinfersthatfinalresultsmaybeproprietary.Verifyrightstosharethis
informationpriortosubmittingdocumentationforthiscredit.Wherepossible,usedatasourcesorLCA
softwarethatdoesnotincorporateproprietarydataunless,adequatelyreferencedanddocumentedforthe
project.UsingOpenSourceLCAprogramsmaybeabletohelpavoidsuchissues.
7. AnyuncertaintiesorassumptionsmadeintheLCAmustbeclearlyspecifiedordocumented(pertheISO
standards).Additionally,anysubstitutionsorgenericdatausedmustbeexplicitlystated.
8. Allocationproceduresusedforestimationsorassumptionsshouldbetransparentandsupporting
documentation(includingreferences)shouldbeprovided(wherepublishingandproprietaryrightspermit).
9. Comprehensivelifecycleassessmentsrequiredetailedattentiontodataquality.
344
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-1 Lifecycle Assessment
RESEARCH
ThisparticularcreditisavailableasasupplementtothethreerelatedProjectRequirements:PRͲ1Environmental
ReviewProcess,PRͲ2LifecycleCostAnalysis,andPRͲ3LifecycleInventory.Thiscreditrepresentsbothanadded
step(impactassessment)tothebasicprocessinvolvedinthesethreecreditsandanexpandedroadwaysystem
scopefortheinventoryanalysisstepcompletedforPRͲ3.PRͲ2andPRͲ3providedecisionͲmakinginformation
aboutcostandbaselineenvironmentalperformance(specificallyenergyuseandcarbondioxideemissions)forthe
roadwaypavementsection.Similarly,socialimpactclassificationandcharacterizationispartoftheenvironmental
reviewprocess(seePRͲ1)formanyroadwayprojects,butgenerallythisprocesswillnotrequireorspecifytheuse
ofanyparticularsocialmetric(e.g.birthanddeathrates,obesityrates,productivityrates,etc.)formeasurement
oftheseimpacts.ThiscreditrequiresanexpandedscopeofthesethreeProjectRequirementsthatincludesthe
entireroadwayprojectsystemaswellasanimpactassessmentstepfortheproject.
NotethatanintroductiontoLCA,itsbasicframeworkcomponents,andvarietyofLCAmethodsisprovidedinthe
ResearchsectionofPRͲ3.Thisresearchdiscussionissupplemental.
ExistingLiterature
Mostexistingliteratureforroadwaylifecycleassessmentsfocusontheinitialconstructionandmaintenanceof
pavementsectionsalone.ToourknowledgenostudieshavecompletedafullsystemͲwideLCAforaroadway
project.However,onestudycompletedbyStrippleetal.(2001),hascompletedafulllifecycleinventory(LCI)that
incorporatesallaspectsofaroadway,fromproductionprocessesofseveralkindsofpavementallthewaytothe
componentsoftheroadwaysuchaselectricutilitiesandwildlifefencing.Thisstudyfollowedthe
recommendationsfortheLCAprocessbytheSocietyofEnvironmentalToxicologyandChemistry(SETACEurope),
butisconsideredanincompleteLCAbecausetheimpactassessmentandinterpretationstepswerenotdone.
However,thepaperservesasagreatexampleofthefirsttwostepsinLCA,butnotethattheapplicabilityand
utilityoftheprimarilyEuropeandatasetisquestionableforapplicationsintheUnitedStates(i.e.itisdifficultto
justifysubstitutionofStripple’sinventorydataintoanonͲEuropeanLCAstudywithoutclosescrutinyofhisdata).
However,becauseSETACreferencesthesamemethodologyforLCA,namelytheInternationalStandards
Organization(ISO)14040and14044standards,thispaperisagreatexampleoftheframeworkandapproachfor
thiscredit.SeethefirstExampleintheprevioussectionformoredetails.
LCAMethodologySteps
Alifecycleisdefinedas“consecutiveandinterlinkedstagesofaproduct[orproject]system,fromrawmaterial
acquisitionorgenerationfromnaturalresourcestofinaldisposalor[endͲoflife:EOL]”(InternationalStandards
Organization:ISO,2006a).Generally,therearefourbasicstepstoanytypeoflifecycleassessment.Adifferent
interpretationofthesestepsthanthatshowninFigurePRͲ3.2isshowninFigureMRͲ1.3fromSETAC.Definitionof
thegoalandscope(theboundariesandextentofthestudy)willalwaystakeplaceforeveryLCAproject,andthe
variationinmethodologywillresultfromtheinitialchoicesmadeinthisinitial.InventoryAnalysis,thesecondstep,
willtakeplaceasoneofthreegeneraltypesasnotedinPRͲ3.Thesearebriefly:
x ProcessͲBasedLCA(alsoISOͲLCA)
x EconomicInputͲOutputLCA(EIOͲLCA)
x HybridLCA(alsoHybridEIOͲLCA)
Eachoftheseapproacheswillproducedifferentresultsfortheinventoryanalysisandingeneralcannotbe
comparedcrossͲplatformbecausetheprocessesconsideredandsystemboundarieswillvarywidely.
345
Materials & Resources Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Assessment MR-1

FigureMRͲ1.3:TheframeworkforLifeCycleAssessment(Consoli,1993)

ThefinaltwostepsoftheLCAaretheimpactassessmentandinterpretationoftheresults.Theimpactassessment
stepinvolvesanassignmentorapplicationofsubjectivevalues,whereinparticularindicatorsormetricsarechosen
toweightheresultsoftheinventoryanalysisaccordingtothosesubjectivevalues.Thesevaluesalsoneedtobe
explicitlydefinedinthegoalandscopeinordertoproduceameaningfulresultforinterpretation.Duetothe
iterativenatureofLCAs,however,itismorepracticaltostatethattheinterpretationstepreallyhappens
throughouttheentireLCAprocess,andoftenresultsinrefiningthescopewhendataiscollectedandanalyzedin
theinventoryanalysis.
ChoosingtheLCAModel
AprocessͲbasedlifecycleassessmentisonethatisconducted(usually)accordingtothestandardssetbythe
InternationalStandardsOrganization(ISO)lifecycleassessmentstandards,ISO14040andISO14044(2006a,2006b).
TheISOclearlyoutlinesthestepsanditerativeprocessbehindatechnicalLCAinbothofthosestandards.Thebasic
ideaofaprocessͲbasedLCAisthateverythingismadeofasumofdifferentparts.Thosepartsarealsoresultsof
differentprocesses.Fundamentally,everypartandprocessneedsmaterialsandenergy(e.g.“makes”)inorderto
fittogetherintoawhole(e.g.“takes”).
Forasimpleexample,makingonetonoftheproductcalled“hotmixasphalt”(“HMA”)isactuallytheresultof
takingtwomaterials,“asphaltbinder”and“aggregate”,throughaprocessthatmakesHMA,“mixing.”Sothe
processesthatthattheHMAproductactuallytakesare:asphaltbinderproduction(material),aggregate
production(material),andHMAmixing(aprocess).
Thesethreeprocessescouldbefurtherbrokendownintoevenmorespecificprocesses,called“unitprocesses.”
Forexample,“HMAmixing”iscomposedof“heating,”“drumplantoperating,”and“fuelcombustionforheating,”
etc.Themodel,andalsothedatacollectionrequirement,expandsastheprocessesgetmorespecific.Similarly,
eachoftheseprocesses“take”morethanjustasphaltandaggregatetomakeHMA:theyalsorequireenergyfrom
electricity,capitalequipmentandworkers,whoalsoneedfoodandhousing,healthcare,acartodrivetowork,and
soon.IftheprocessͲbasedmodelwerecontinuedandscaleduptoincludesuchinformation,itwouldbecome
incrediblycomplexanddifficult.Clearly,thescope,systemboundariesandpurposeoftheLCAarekeyissues.
ThisscopingissueissomewhatalleviatedbyEconomicInputͲOutputLCA(EIOLCA)models.EIOLCAusesabasisof
economicinputͲoutput(EIO)analysistomodelhowsectorͲbasednationalindustriesinteractandhowproductsare
intertwined.LCAwaseasilycombinedwithEIOdatabecausethecomputationalstructurewassimilartotheEIO
346
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-1 Lifecycle Assessment
approach.EIOLCAusesonlypubliclyavailableinformationtodetermineeconomyͲwide,systemͲlevelresults
insteadofprocessͲspecificresults(Hendricksonetal.,1998).ThismeansthatEIOLCAaggregatessectorͲlevelof
datatoquantifytheenvironmentalimpactcontributeddirectlyorindirectlybyeachsectoroftheeconomy.Itis
typicallybasedonmonetaryinputsinsteadofdimensionsormassandoutputsahandfulofcommon
environmentalimpacts,dependingontheindexselected.ThismethodwillnotearnGreenroadscredit.
HybridLCAisacombinationofprocessͲbasedandEIOͲbasedLCA(Bilecetal.,2006),effectivelyeliminatingmostof
thedisadvantagesofeithermodelasidefrombuiltͲinuncertaintiesindata.EIOdataareusuallyusedforcommon
productsorprocesses,whileothersaredescribedbytheprocessͲbasedmethod.HybridLCAcanbefurther
categorizedintofollowingtypes:tieredhybridanalysis,inputͲoutputbasedhybridanalysis,integratedhybrid
analysis,andaugmentedprocessͲbasedhybridanalysis(Suh,2004;Bilecetal.,2006).Thesetypesdifferin
technicaldetailssuchashowdataisallocatedoraggregated,wherethespecificboundariesaredrawnbetween
processandEIOanalysis,andgeneraldataprocessingtechniques.
StreamlinedLCAisaproposedmethodofminimizingdatacollectioneffortsatthestartofaLCAprojectbyscoping
outparticularprocessesthrougheducatedassumptions(mostofthetime).Thisinevitablyleadstoatechnically
nonͲISOconformantframework,becausevaluationisappliedatthestart,beforedatahasbeencollectedand
analyzed.Curranetal.(1996)notethatstreamliningisreallypartofacontinuumthatfallssomewherebetween
thelevelofdetailforanISOͲLCAandanEIOͲLCA,andalsotechnicallyallLCAsarestreamlinedtosomeextentdue
totheiriterativenature.
AcomparisonoftheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthecommontypesofLCAareshowninTableMRͲ1.5.
Ultimatelyitisuptotheprojectteamtodeterminewhichmethodwillbemostappropriate.
TableMRͲ1.5:ProcessͲBasedLCAandEIOͲLCA(ExpandedfromHendrickson,Lave&Matthews,2006)
LCAMethod Advantages Disadvantages
ProcessͲBased
LCA(ISOͲLCA)
(ISO,2006a;ISO
2006b)
x Detailed,processͲspecificresults x Systemboundariesaresubjective(or
projectͲspecific)
x Allowsforspecificproductcomparisons x Maybehighcostandtimeintensive
x Identifiesareasinsupplychainfor
improvement(weakestlinks,orlackofdata)
x Hardtousewheninitiallydevelopinga
processorproduct
x ProvidesabasisforprocessͲspecific
informationthatmaybeusedforother
developmentprocessesandassessments
x Oftenuseproprietarydata
x Canbedonewithpubliclyavailabledata x Cannotbereplicatedifconfidentialdatais
used
x Uncertaintyindataormissingdata
EIOͲLCA
(Hendricksonetal,
1998;Hendrickson,
Matthews&Lave,
2006)

NOTE:
METHODWILLNOT
EARNTHISCREDIT.
DONOTUSE.
x ResultsareeconomyͲwide,comprehensive
assessments
x Productassessmentscontainaggregate
data(suchasfoodthatfeedsworkersand
thewoodthatmakestheirhousing)
x AllowsforsystemsͲlevelcomparisons x Processassessmentsaredifficult
x Providesinformationoneverycommodityin
theeconomy
x Mustlinkmonetaryvalueswithphysical
units
x Providesabasisforinformationthatmaybe
usedforotherfuturedevelopmentof
productsandprocessesandassessments
x Economicimportsaretreatedasproducts
createdwithineconomic(region,stateor
country)boundaries
x Canbedonewithpubliclyavailabledata x Lackofcompletedataforenvironmental
effects
x Difficulttoapplytoanopeneconomy
(withsubstantialnonͲcomparableimports)
x Uncertaintyindata
347
Materials & Resources Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Assessment MR-1
LCAMethod Advantages Disadvantages
TieredHybridLCA
(Suh&Huppes,
2005)
x CombinesprocessandEIOdatatoproduce
morerepresentativeresult
x DoubleͲcountingerrorsmaybepresentin
results
x Facilitatesinventoryanalysis x Mayomitimportantprocesses
x Reducesdatacollectiontime x Doesnotalwaysmodelinteraction
betweenprocessandIͲOdata
appropriately
x IncorporatesadvantagesfrombothISOand
EIOmodels
x Incorporatessomedisadvantagesfrom
bothISOandEIOmodels
HybridEIO
(Treloar,1997;Joshi,
2000;Crawford,
2008)
x CombinesprocessandEIOdatatoproduce
morerepresentativeresult
x Requiresiteration
x DisaggregatesIͲOkeysectorsandsubstitutes
detailedeconomicinformation
x Incorporatessomedisadvantagesfrom
bothISOandEIOmodels
x IncorporatesadvantagesfrombothISOand
EIOmodels
x SubstitutionofIOdataformissing
processesmayreducemodelreliability
x Useanddisposalphasesareaddressed
manuallyinsteadofbysector

x Fillsprocessdatagapswherepreviouslyno
informationexisted

IntegratedHybrid
(Suh,2004;Bilecet
al.,2006)
x CombinesprocessandEIOdatatoproduce
morerepresentativeresult
x Incorporatessomedisadvantagesfrom
bothISOandEIOmodels
x IncorporatesadvantagesfrombothISOand
EIOmodels
x Computationallycomplex
x ConnectsprocessandEIOmodelsinmatrix x Difficulttolearn
x Eliminatesneedfortieredanalysis x Dataintensive
x Addressesinteractionsbetweensectorand
processdata
x Timeintensive
x Consistentcomputationalframework
x Nodoublecounting
AugmentedProcessͲ
BasedHybrid
(Guggemos,2003;
Guggemos&
Horvath,2005)
x Startswithprocessdataandsystemand
scalesup
x Incorporatessomedisadvantagesfrom
bothISOandEIOmodels
x Useseconomyasultimatesystemboundary
x Usesmostlyprocessdata
StreamlinedLCA
(Curranetal.,1996;
Weitzetal.,1999)
x Maysavemoney x Excludesupstreamand/ordownstream
processes
x Maysavetime x Limitsrawmaterialinputconsiderations
x Requiresreasonabledatamanagement
efforts
x Resultsmaybemoresubjectivedueto
weightingassignedearly(byscopingout
processesordatarequirements)
x Processesassignedsignificanceearlyin
scopingandalignwithgoalsofstudy
x Mayignoreimportantimpacts
unintentionally
x Providesfocusedassessment x Mayresultinreportingincompleteresults
topublic
AdditionalNotesonLCIA:FREDFramework
EquivalencyfactorsforimpactclassificationandcharacterizationforthisGreenroadscreditareprovidedbythe
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency’s(EPA)FrameworkforResponsibleEnvironmentalDecisionͲMaking(FRED)(EPA,
2000).Thefactorsaresubdividedintoeightcategoriesandthreegeneraltypesofflowsareinvestigated:(1)
emissionstoair,(2)emissionstowater,and(3)resourcedepletion(includesrawmaterials,fuels,waterandland).
Werecognizethatthereareanumberofmetrics,indicatorsandindicesavailableforuse;theFREDframeworkis
348
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-1 Lifecycle Assessment
flexible,broadlyapplicable,comprehensive,anddocumentedrespectably.Currentlythisisthemosttransparent
andflexibletoolthatispubliclyavailableforimpactassessment.
FREDisbasedonavarietyofdifferentindicatortoolsormetricsthathavebeendevelopedbydifferent
institutions,andreflectglobalaveragesorindicators.However,documentationforsomeoftheindicatorsusedin
thetoolhasnotbeenupdated,likelyduetolackoffunding.Theusermayconsultthoseindividualsourcesinorder
tocheckforupdates,determineapplicability,orsubstituteregionalandlocalindicatorvalueswhereappropriate
(EPA,2000).“ThedesignersofFREDconsiderimpactmodelselectiontobeaniterativeprocess.Asthescienceand
thedatasupportingthescience[develop],newer,moreenvironmentallyrelevantmodelswillgraduallyreplacethe
currentmodels”(EPA,2000).SomeotherlimitationsoftheFREDtoolareprovidedexplicitlyinthe
documentation.Notably,anydatauncertaintiesintheestablishedequivalencyfactorsthatareusedwithinthe
toolitselfareinherentissues.Also,FREDdoesnotincludeanysocialoreconomicimpacts.
GreenroadshasprovidedsomesuggestedresourcestouseinplaceofthoselistedintheFREDdocumentation.
Eithermaybeusedinsupportofthiscredit(theprocessiswhatwearelookingforhere),butreferencesforthe
selectedindicatormustbecitedtoearnthiscredit.TableMRͲ1.6(nextpage)liststheFREDimpactcategorieswith
sometypicalexamplesthatwouldbefoundinanLCIandusedintheimpactassessment.Notethatthisisonlya
sample,andthattheFREDdocumentationprovidesanumberofchemicalcompoundstotrack.
NotethatideallyFREDisdesignedtocomparetwoormoreproductsthathavethesamefunctionalunit.Theutility
ofcompletinganimpactassessmentforjustonesingleprojectisthatthereisnotnecessarilyanyestablished
industryaverageintermsofenvironmentalperformancethatcanbeusedforcomparisonofpavements.This
creditaimstohelpdevelopthisinformationinasystematicwaybyusingtheframeworkprovidedforimpact
assessmentbytheEPA’sFREDtool.Resultsoftheimpactassessmentmaythereforenotbesuitableforevaluative
purposes(EPA,2000),however,thisdoesnotmeanthattwodifferentdesignalternativesshouldnotbecompared
usingLCA.ForreportingpurposesinthisGreenroadscredit,wejustwanttoknowaboutthefinaldesign
alternative.
OtherLCIATools
x AnotherEPAtool,theToolsforReductionandAssessmentofChemicalandOtherReleases(TRACI),isno
longeravailablefromtheEPA.Asofthiswriting,weunderstandthatthistooliscurrentlybeingupdated.
(EPA,2008).
x CommonlyusedproprietarysoftwaretoolsmayhavebuiltͲinimpactassessmentindicators,suchasGaBi
andSimaPro.Thesetoolsoftenreportasinglevalueforallimpacts(anindex)thatdoesnotnecessarily
disaggregatecontributionstothatindexfromeachimpactorprocess,andmaynotbeappropriateforuse
inthiscreditbecausetheweightingcanlacktransparency.
x OthertoolsforimpactassessmentareavailablethroughtheNationalInstituteofScienceandTechnology
(NIST),suchastheBEES(BuildingorEnvironmentalandEconomicSustainability)tool.ThecaveatwithBEES
isthatitismostlyusedinthebuildingindustry,sovaluationandweightingsystemsusedbyNISTimpact
assessmenttoolsmaynotbeadequateforweightingimpactsofpavementorinfrastructureprojects
withoutfurtheradjustmentandreview.Also,thissoftwaretoolgeneratesonlyoneindexasa“score”
insteadofreportingdisaggregatedimpacts.

349
Materials & Resources Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Assessment MR-1
TableMRͲ1.6:FREDImpactCategoriesandIndicatorModelsfortheFREDLCASystem(EPA,2000)
Impact
Category
ImpactIndicator
Model/Source
Indicator* ExampleLCIData
NeededforModel
GreenroadsComment
Global
Warming
Potential
Intergovernmental
PanelonClimate
Change(IPCC)
CO
2
e(kg) Carbondioxide
(CO
2
)
Nitrousoxide(N
2
O)
Methane(CH
4
)
Halons
Recommendusingupdated
equivalencyfactorsfromIPCC2007
FAR(Solomonet.al.),especiallyfor
CH
4
,N
2
O.Othersarelessprevalent
inroads/paving.
Stratospheric
Ozone
Depletion
World
Meterological
Organization
(WMO)
CFCͲ11e Methylbromide
Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
Hydrofluorocarbons
(HCFCs)

Recommendusingupdatedindicator
forequivalencyfactors:Effective
EquivalentStratosphericChlorine
concentration(EECl,EESC).SeeEPA’s
2006AirQualityCriteriaforOzone
andOtherPhotochemicalOxidants
Acidification Chemical
Equivalents
Acidification
Potential
(AP)
Ammonia
Nitricoxide
Nitrogendioxide
Sulfurdioxide
Photochemical
Smog
EmpiricalKinetic
Modeling
Approach(EKMA)
Maximum
Incremental
Reactivity
(MIR)
Acetone
CarbonMonoxide
Formaldehyde
Alkanes
Aromatics(VOCs)
Napthalenes
RecommendusingaboxorEulerian
modelandMIRvaluesfromCarter
(2009)withbinnedreactivitiesbased
uponnͲalkane,isoͲalkane,cycloͲ
alkane,aromaticsandnapthalenes.
SeealsoLeukenandMebust(2008).
Eutrophication RedfieldRatio PO
4
e(kg) Phosphates
Nitricoxide
Nitrates
Ammonia
HumanHealth Universityof
California,
Berkeley(UCB)
TEPs
Benzene
TEP(cancer)
TouleneTEP
(nonͲ
cancer)
Toxicchemicals Recommendusingcurrentdatafrom
theEnvironmentalDefenseFund
(EDF)ScorecardandUCBTEPsas
showninFREDdocumentation.See
alsoMcKoneandHertwich(2001)
andHertwichetal.(2006)
Ecological
Toxicity
ResearchTriangle
Institute(RTI)LCIA
Expert(Version1)
N/A Toxicchemicals RecommendRTImodelanddata
fromEPA’sECOTOXdatabaseto
determinespecificweightingas
showninFREDdocumentation(EPA,
2000;2010)
Resource
Depletion
LifeCycleStressor
Environmental
Assessment
(LCSEA)Modelby
Scientific
Certification
Systems
Mass,
volume
(water)or
landarea
Various Recommendusingcomputed
“resourcedepletion”equivalency
factorsusingupdatedSCSͲ002Ͳ2008
(Draft)asshowninFREDdocument
(EPA,2000;SCS,2008)

DataQuality
ThemostimportantstepintheinterpretationphaseoftheLCAistheidentificationofthedataqualityand
statementofuncertainties.QualityofdatausedinanLCAcanbeevaluatedduringtheinterpretationstageofthe
LCAusingdataqualityscores.Forthiscredit,eachpieceofdatashouldberatedwithnumbers1to5andscored
accordingtothecriteriasetforwardbytheUniversityofWashingtonDesignforEnvironmentLab(Collegeof
350
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-1 Lifecycle Assessment
Engineering,DepartmentofMechanicalEngineering,underthedirectionofDr.JoyceCooper),basedon
ISO14040:2006requirements.ThescoringisshowninTableMRͲ1.7.
TableMRͲ1.7:Dataqualityscores(DQS)bytheUniversityofWashingtonDepartmentOfMechanical
EngineeringDesignforEnvironmentLab(Cooperetal.,n.d.)
Score
ID
ISO14040Data
QualityIndicators
Supporting
Information
ScoringMethod
DQS1 TimeͲRelated
CoverageData(i.e.
dataage)
Startdateofvalid
timespan
Deviationfromintendedperiod(differenceinyearstoyearof
study)
1. Lessthan3years
2. Lessthan6years
3. Lessthan10years
4. Lessthan15years
5. Ageofdataunknownormorethan15years
Enddateofvalid
timespan
DQS2 Geographical
Coverage
Areaandcountry
names
Deviationfromintendedarea
1. Datafromstudyarea
2. Averagedatafromlargerareawhichincludesstudyarea
3. Datafromareaundersimilarproductionconditions
4. Datafromareawithslightlysimilarproductionconditions
5. Datafromunknownareaorareawithdifferent
productionconditions
DQS3 Technology
Coverage
Technology
description
Deviationfromintendedtechnology
1. Datafromenterprises,processesandmaterialsunder
study
2. Datafromprocessesandmaterialsunderstudybut
differententerprises
3. Datafromprocessesandmaterialsunderstudybut
differenttechnology
4. Dataonrelatedprocessandmaterialsbutsame
technology
5. Dataonrelatedprocessandmaterialsbutdifferent
technology
Includedprocesses
Extrapolations
DQS4 Precision,
completeness,and
representativeness
ofthedata
Samplingprocedure Representativenessforintendedprocess
1. Veryhigh(datarepresentallaspectsofsystemunder
study)
2. High(datarepresentamajoritysubsetofthesystem
understudy)
3. Moderate(datarepresentaminoritysubsetofthesystem
understudy)
4. Low(datarepresentanexampleofthesystemunder
study)
5. Veryloworunknown(theextenttowhichthedata
representsthestudyisunknown)
Numberofsamples
Absolutesample
volume
Relativesample
volume
Extrapolations
Uncertainty
adjustments
351
Materials & Resources Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Assessment MR-1
Score
ID
ISO14040Data
QualityIndicators
Supporting
Information
ScoringMethod
DQS5 Consistencyand
reproducibilityof
themethodsused
throughouttheLCA
Descriptionof
methodfordata
collectionanddata
treatment
1. Veryhigh(dataarebasedondirectmeasurementsusinga
widelyacceptedtestmethodoronsoundengineering
modelsrepresentingthecurrenttechnologyandhave
beenextensivelypeerreviewed.Also,thesourceprovides
atransparentaccountoftheassumptionsmade.)
2. High(althoughthedataarebasedonagenerallysound
testmethodormodelandthesourceprovidesa
transparentaccountoftheassumptionsmade,thedata
aredatedorlackenoughdetailforadequatevalidationor
havenotbeenextensivelypeerreviewed)
3. Moderate(dataarebasedonanunprovenornew
methodologyorarelackingasignificantamountof
backgroundinformation)
4. Low(dataarebasedonagenerallyunacceptablemethod,
butthemethodmayprovideanorderͲofͲmagnitudeflow)
5. Veryloworunknown(dataarebasedonanunknown
method,butthemethodmayprovideanorderͲofͲ
magnitudevalueoftheflow)
DQS6 Sourcesandtheir
representativeness
Referencesusedfor
datacollectionand
datatreatment
Typeofreference
1. Datafromreviewedsource
2. Datafrompublicwrittensource(notreviewed)
3. Datafromclosedwrittensource(notreviewed)
4. Othersources
5. Unknownsource
DQS7 Uncertaintyofthe
information
Meanvalue Coefficientofvariance
1. Below10%
2. 10Ͳ25%
3. 25Ͳ50%
4. 50Ͳ100%
5. Over100%orunknown
Standarddeviation
Uncertaintytype
Descriptionof
strengthsand
weaknesses(e.g.
occurrenceofdata
gaps)

GLOSSARY
CO2 Carbondioxide
CO2e Carbondioxideequivalentemission
Ͳe Equivalent
EIO EconomicInputͲOutput
EIOͲLCA EconomicInputͲOutputforLifeCycleAssessment
EOL EndͲofͲlife
Functionalunit Thequantifiedperformanceofaproductsystemforuseasareferenceunit
(ISO,2006a)
HybridLCA AtypeofLCAthatcombinesbothprocessͲbasedandeconomicinputͲoutput
models
ISO InternationalStandardsOrganization
352
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-1 Lifecycle Assessment
ISOͲLCA ProcessͲbasedLCA
LCA Lifecycleassessment
LCCA Lifecyclecostanalysis
LCI Lifecycleinventoryanalysis
LCIA Lifecycleimpactassessment
Lifecycle consecutiveandinterlinkedstagesofaproduct[orproject]system,fromraw
materialacquisitionorgenerationfromnaturalresourcestofinaldisposalor
[endͲoflife:EOL](ISO,2006a)
Lifecycleassessment Compilationandevaluationoftheinputs,outputsandthepotential
environmentalimpactsofaproductsystemthroughoutitslifecycle(ISO,
2006a)
ProcessͲbasedLCA AnLCAconductedaccordingtoISOStandard14040
Referenceflow Themeasureoftheoutputsfromprocessesinagivenproductsystem
requiredtofulfil[sic]thefunctionexpressedbythefunctionalunit(ISO,
2006a)
SETAC SocietyofEnviornmentalToxicologyandChemistry
StreamlinedLCA IdentificationofelementsofanLCAthatcanbeomittedorwheresurrogate
orgenericdatacanbeusedwithoutsignificantlyaffectingtheaccuracyofthe
results(Weitzetal.,1999)
Systemboundary Setofcriteriadefiningwhichunitprocessesarepartofasystem(ISO,2006a)
Unitprocess Smallestunitconsideredinthelifecycleinventoryanalysisforwhichinput
andoutputdataarequantified(ISO,2006a)

REFERENCES
Bilec,M.R.,Robert,&Matthews,H.S.S.,AuroraL.(2006).ExampleofaHybridLifeͲCycleAssessmentof
ConstructionProcesses.JournalofInfrastructureSystems.12(4),207.
CarnegieMellonGreenDesignInstitute.(2008).EconomicInputͲOutputLifeCycleAssessmentͲCarnegieMellon
University(EIOͲLCA).US1997IndustryBenchmarkmodel.AccessedDecember11,2008,Availableat
http://www.eiolca.net.
Carter,W.P.L.(2009,June22).UpdatedMaximumIncrementalReactivityScaleandHydrocarbonBinReactivities
forRegulatoryApplications.PreparedforCaliforniaAirResourcesBoardContract07Ͳ339.Riverside,CA:College
ofEngineeringCenterforEnvironmentalResearchandTechnology,UniversityofCalifornia.AccessedJanuary8,
2010.Availableathttp://www.engr.ucr.edu/~carter/SAPRC/MIR10.pdf.
Consoli,F.(1993).GuidelinesforlifeͲcycleassessment:A"codeofpractice.”Pensacola,FL,U.S.A.:Societyof
EnvironmentalToxicologyandChemistry(SETAC).
Cooper,J.S.etal.(2007).UniversityofWashington(UW)DepartmentofMechanicalEngineeringDesignfor
Environment(DfE)Lab:DataQualityScores.
CrawfordR.H.(2008).ValidationofahybridlifeͲcycleinventoryanalysismethod.JournalofEnvironmental
Management.88(3),496Ͳ506.
Curran,M.A.&Young,S.(1996).ReporttotheEPAonStreamliningLCA.InternationalJournalofLifeCycle
Assessment.1(1),7Ͳ60.
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2000,October).FrameworkforResponsibleEnvironmentalDecisionͲMaking
(FRED):UsingLifeCycleAssessmenttoEvaluatePreferabilityofProducts.(EPA/600/RͲ00/095).AccessedMarch
12,2008.Availableathttp://www.lcacenter.org/library/pdf/fred.pdf
353
Materials & Resources Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Assessment MR-1
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2008,4March).ToolfortheReductionandAssessmentofChemicalandOther
EnvironmentalImpacts(TRACI).AccessedJuly29,2008.Availableathttp://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/sab/traci/
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2009,September15).AirQualityCriteriaforOzoneandRelatedPhotochemical
Oxidants(2006Final|NationalCenterforEnvironmentalAssessment|USEPA.AccessedJanuary8,2010.
Availableathttp://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.(2010,January8).EPA:WelcometoECOTOX.AccessedJanuary8,2010.
Availableathttp://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/ecotox_home.cfm
Guggemos,A.A.(2003).EnvironmentalimpactsofonͲsiteconstructionprocesses:Focusonstructuralframes.
Thesis(Ph.D.inEngineeringͲCivilandEnvironmentalEngineering)ͲͲUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,Spring
2003.
Guggemos,A.A.,&Horvath,A.(2005).ComparisonofEnvironmentalEffectsofSteelandConcreteFramed
Buildings.JournalofInfrastructureSystems.11(2),93Ͳ101.
Hendrickson,C.T.,Lave,L.B.,&Matthews,H.S.(2006).Environmentallifecycleassessmentofgoodsandservices:
AninputͲoutputapproach.Washington,DC:ResourcesfortheFuture.
Hendrickson,C.,Horvath,A.,Joshi,S.,&Lave,L.(1998).EconomicInputͲOutputModelsforEnvironmentalLifeͲ
CycleAssessment.EnvironmentalScienceandTechnology.32(7),184AͲ191A.
Hertwich,E.G.M.,SarahF.;Pease,WilliamS.;McKone,ThomasE.(2006).AnupdateoftheHumanToxicity
Potentialwithspecialconsiderationofconventionalairpollutants.
Hertwich,E.G.M.,SarahF.;Pease,WilliamS.;McKone,ThomasE.(2006).AnupdateoftheHumanToxicity
Potentialwithspecialconsiderationofconventionalairpollutants.WorkingReportNo.1.NorwegianUniversity
ofScienceandTechnology,IndustrialEcologyProgrammeProgramforindustrielløkologi.AccessedJanuary8,
2010.Availableat:http://ntnu.divaͲportal.org/smash/get/diva2:121810/FULLTEXT01
InternationalOrganizationforStandardization.ISO14040:2006(E)EnvironmentalManagement—LifeCycle
Assessment—PrinciplesandFramework.2nded.2006:IHS.
InternationalOrganizationforStandardization.ISO14044:2006(E)EnvironmentalManagement—LifeCycle
Assessment—RequirementsandGuidelines.1sted.2006:IHS.
Joshi,S.(2000).ProductEnvironmentalLifeCycleAssessmentUsingInputͲOutputTechniques.JournalofIndustrial
Ecology.3(2/3),95Ͳ120.
Luecken,D.J.,&Mebust,M.R.(2008).TechnicalChallengesInvolvedinImplementationofVOCReactivityͲBased
ControlofOzone.EnvironmentalScience&Technology.42(5),1615.
McKone,T.E.&Hertwich,E.G.(2001).TheHumanToxicityPotentialandaStrategyforEvaluatingModel
PerformanceinLifeCycleImpactAssessment.InternationalJournalofLifeCycleAssessment.6,106Ͳ109.
NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology(NIST).(2007,August20).BFRL:OfficeofAppliedEconomics:BEES
4.0.AccessedJanuary8,2010.Availableathttp://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/
PEInternational.(n.d.)GaBiͲLifeCycleAssessment(LCE/LCA)softwaresystemforeconomic,ecological,and
technicaldecisionsupportinsustainableproductionandproductdesign.AccessedJanuary8,2010.Availableat
http://www.gabiͲsoftware.com/
354
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-1 Lifecycle Assessment
ProductEcologyConsultants(Pré).(2009,September6)SimaProLCASoftware.AccessedJanuary8,2010.Available
athttp://www.pre.nl/simapro/
Schenck,R.(2000).UsingLCAforProcurementDecisions:ACaseStudyPerformedfortheU.S.Environmental
ProtectionAgency.EnvironmentalProgress.19,110Ͳ116.
ScientificCertificationSystems.(2008).TypeIIILifeͲCycleImpactProfileDeclarationsforMaterials,Products,
ServicesandSystems.(SCSͲ002Ͳ2008)[DraftStandardforComment].AccessedJanuary8,2010.Availableat
http://www.scscertified.com/lcs/docs/SCS_002_0808_FR.pdf
Solomon,S.etal.(2007)SynthesisReport.ClimateChange2007:SynthesisReport.FourthAssessmentReportof
theIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Stripple,H.,(2001).LifeCycleAssessmentofRoad:APilotStudyforInventoryAnalysis,SecondRevisedEdition.IVL
SwedishEnvironmentalResearchInstituteLtd.ReportfortheSwedishNationalRoadAdministration.
Suh,S.(2004).Functions,commoditiesandenvironmentalimpactsinanecologicalͲeconomicmodel.Ecological
Economics:theJournaloftheInternationalSocietyforEcologicalEconomics.48(4),451.
Suh,S.,&Huppes,G.(2005).MethodsforLifeCycleInventoryofaproduct.JOURNALOFCLEANERPRODUCTION.
13(7),687Ͳ697.
Treloar,G.J.(1997).ExtractingEmbodiedEnergyPathsfromInputͲOutputTables:TowardsanInputͲOutputͲbased
HybridEnergyAnalysisMethod.EconomicSystemsResearch.9(4),375Ͳ392.
Weitz,K.,Sharma,A.Vigon,B.,Price,E.Norris,G.etal.Todd,J.A.&Curran,M.A.,eds.StreamlinedLifeͲCycle
Assessment:AFinalReportfromtheSETACNorthAmericaStreamlinedLCAWorkgroup.1999Societyof
EnvironmentalToxicologyandChemistry(SETAC)Report.
WorldMeteorologicalOrganization(WMO),UnitedStatesNationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration,United
StatesNationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration.UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme,&
EuropeanCommission.(2007).Scientificassessmentofozonedepletion,2006:Executivesummary.Global
OzoneResearchandMonitoringProjectreport,no.50.Geneva,Switzerland:WorldMeteorological
Organization.AccessedJanuary8,2010.Availableat
http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/SAP/Scientific_Assessment_2006

355
Materials & Resources Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Lifecycle Assessment MR-1

356
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-2 Pavement Reuse
PAVEMENT REUSE
GOAL
Reuseexistingpavementandstructuralmaterials.
CREDIT REQUIREMENTS
Reuseataminimum,apercentageofexistingpavementmaterialsorstructural
elementsbyestimatedvolumeorweightasshowninTableMRͲ2.1.Thematerials
consideredinvolumecalculationscanincludebutarenotlimitedtohotmixasphalt
(HMA),portlandcementconcrete(PCC),unboundgranularbasematerial,stabilized
basematerial,reinforcedconcrete,structuralsteel,andtimber.Ingeneral,pavement
materialswillbeeasiertocalculatebyvolumewhilestructuralmaterialsshouldbe
calculatedintermsofweight,unlessmaterialvolumesareadjustedfordensity.
TableMRͲ2.1:PointsforEstimatedVolumeorWeightofReusedMaterials
CreditMRͲ2Points 1 2 3 4 5
%ReuseofExistingPavementMaterialsorStructuralElements 50 60 70 80 90

Details
“Reuse”isdefinedasacontinueduseorrepurposingofexistingmaterialswithin
theprojectlimits.Specifically,thismeansthematerialinquestionhasnotbeen
transportedbeyondtheprojectlimitsatanytimeduringprojectconstructionand
thatithasbeenminimallyprocessedorchangedfromitsoriginalcondition.
Thisdefinitiondifferentiates“reuse”from“recycle.”Pavementreusemethodsare
intentionallyusedtoextendthelifeoftheexistingpavementstructureinplace.
Similarly,inmostcases,reuseofstructures,suchasbridgesorretainingwalls,is
typicallyknownasa“retrofit,”wherespecificmethodsareimplementedtoextend
thelifeoftheexistingstructureinplace.Reusedmaterialsmaybeusedinplace,or
theymaybetemporarilyremovedfromtheiroriginallocationif:
1. Thematerialssubstantiallyremaininthesameconditionastheywereremoved.
2. Thematerialsarereplacedinthesamelocationontheprojectoraremovedto
anewlocationontheprojectandrepurposedwithoutprocessing.

“Retrofit”isdefinedasthereinforcementofstructurestobecomemoreresistant
andresilienttotheforcesofnaturalhazardsandotherenvironmentalfactorssuch
asagingandweathering.Itinvolvestheconsiderationofchangesinthemass,
stiffness,damping,loadpathandductilityofmaterials,aswellasradicalchanges
suchastheintroductionofenergyabsorbingdampersandbaseisolationsystems.
“Recycle”isdefinedasrecoveringaportionofausedproductormaterialfromthe
wastestreamforreprocessingand/orrepurposingwithminimalornotransport
offsiteorwithintheprojectlimits.A“recycledmaterial”isanymaterial,fromany
project,thathasbeen:
1. Processedatalocationoutsideoftheroadwayprojectlimits
2. Processedatalocationinsideoftheprojectlimits,butsubstantiallydisplacedor
otherwisemovedorremovedfromitsexistinglocationspecificallyinorderto
processthematerial,suchastemporaryormobileonͲsiterecyclingfacilities.
MR-2
1-5 POINTS
RELATED CREDITS
9 PRͲ2LifecycleCost
Analysis
9 PRͲ9Asset
ManagementPlan
9 MRͲ3Earthwork
Balance
9 MRͲ4Recycled
Materials
9 PTͲ1LongͲLife
Pavement
9 PTͲ6Pavement
Performance
Tracking
SUSTAINABILITY
COMPONENTS
9 Ecology
9 Economy
BENEFITS
9 ReducesRaw
Materials
9 ReducesFossilFuel
Use
9 ReducesAir
Emissions
9 ReducesGreenhouse
Gases
9 ReducesSolidWaste
9 ReducesManmade
Footprint
9 IncreasesServiceLife
9 ReducesLifecycle
Costs
357
Materials & Resources Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Pavement Reuse MR-2
3. Materialfromanyoutsidesourcethathasbeenrepurposedforuseontheroadwayproject,evenif
salvagedandstillitsoriginalcondition.

“Existingpavementmaterial”isdefinedasallmaterialwithintheprojectlimitsintheexistingpavement
structure(includingsurfacingandbasematerial).Thisincludestravelledlanesandshoulders,andpavement
structuresforphysicallyseparatedbicycleandpedestrianpathways.
“Existingstructuralmaterial”isdefinedasallmaterialwithintheprojectlimitsinexistingnonͲpavement
structuressuchasbridges(includingoverpasses),retainingwalls,andstormwaterinfrastructuresuchasvaults,
pipesandculverts.Allexistingstructuralmaterialsincludetheirfoundations,forwhichvolumesmaybedifficult
toestimate.Whereactualweightsarenotavailable,reasonableestimatesmaybeusedorvolumemaybe
estimated.Tocomputevolumeofhollowstructuralsectionssuchasprefabricatedmembersorcorrugated
steel,estimatethemassofthematerialandadjustformaterialdensitytodeterminevolume.Notethatfor
typicalreinforcedconcretesections,thesteeldoesnotneedtobeseparatedfromthecompositesectionfor
purposesofvolumecalculationsandacompositedensitymaybeused.
Inordertoachievecredit,someactivitymustbedonetoeitherthepavementorastructuresuchthatthe
materialsorassemblyisimprovedorupgradedinsomeway.Cleaning,regularmaintenanceandminorrepairs
doneaspartofroutineoperationsandmaintenancedonotqualifyforthiscredit.
ThiscreditisNOTappropriateforconstructionofanentirelynewroadwayorbridgereplacement,nordoesit
applytomaterialsinexistingsubgrade(naturalinͲsitumaterial),fillmaterialorsidewalksthatarenotexplicitly
partofthepavementstructureorstructuralelement.Additionally,thisreusecreditdoesnotincludeminor
structuralelementssuchasluminaires,signs,orsignalsbecausetheydonotmakeupasignificantamountof
thetotalvolumeofmaterialsontheprojectandtheydonotbearregularloadsofpeopleorvehicles.
ThiscreditISappropriatefor:
x Pavementrehabilitationactionsthatplacenewmaterialovertheexistingpavementstructuresuchashot
mixasphalt(HMA)overlays,PCCoverlays(eitherbondedorunbounded)andpavementsurfacetreatments
(e.g.,chipseals,slurryseals).
x InͲplacereprocessingoperations(eventhoughsomearereferredtoas“recycling”)suchashotinͲplace
recycling,coldinͲplacerecycling,fulldepthreclamation,portlandcementconcrete(PCC)crackͲandͲseat
andrubblization.
x Repurposingofexistingmaterialforotherpurposesinthesameproject.Thematerialmustnotleavethe
projectboundarytobeconsidered.Ifitdoesleavetheprojectboundaryitmaystillbeconsideredinthe
RecycledMaterialscredit.
x Anyofseveralbridgeretrofitmethods:
x Stainlesssteelwiremesh(SSWM)composites
x Fullheightsteeljackets
x Elastomericbearings
x Steelrestrainercables
x Shearkeys
x Fiberreinforcedpolymers(FRP)wraps
x Shapememoryalloy(SMA)devices
x Metallicandviscoelasticdampers
x Pipeseatextenders
x Reuseandrepairsofstructuralfoundations
x Retainingwallretrofitssuchasleveling,seismicretrofits,andslopestabilizationmethodsthatleavea
majorityoftheoriginalwallinplace.
358
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-2 Pavement Reuse
DOCUMENTATION
Acalculationthatshowsthecomputedpercentofmaterialreusedincludingthefollowingfouritemsatminimum:
1. Totalvolumeofexistingpavementstructure
2. Totalvolumeofreusedpavementstructure
3. Thecomputedpercentageofthetotalreusedvolume,and
4. Ashortwrittendescriptionofhowthestructurewasreused.
APPROACHES & STRATEGIES
x Wherefeasible,undertakepavementpreservationefforts(e.g.,overlays,diamondgrinds,etc.)thatpreservea
majorityoftheexistingpavementstructure.Pavementstructureshouldnotbereusedifitsengineering
propertiesareinadequateforthepavement’sintendedfunction.Inthisinstance,thiscreditservesasareward
foranagencymaintaininganactivepavementpreservationprogramthataddressesdeterioratedpavement
earlyenoughsoastoavoidatotalreconstructionastheonlyviableremedy.
x UseinͲplacerecyclingtechniquessuchashotinͲplacerecycling,coldinͲplacerecyclingandfulldepth
reclamation.Thesemethodsqualifyasreusebecausethematerialhasnotcrossedprojectboundaries.
x UseacrackͲandͲseatorrubblizationoptionfordeterioratedPCCratherthanremovingandreplacingthe
existingPCC.SuchoperationsusuallyinvolvepavingadditionalstructureoverthecrackedͲandͲseatedor
rubblizedPCC;therefore,additionalconsiderationswouldbebridgeclearance,drainageflowsandmatching
gradesforcrossͲstreets,rampsandotheraccessroads.
x Retrofitorrefurbishexistingstructures.Thereareavarietyofmethodsavailableforretrofitsdependingon
existingissues.
x Performalifecyclecostanalysisofretrofitoptionsforbridgeswhenconsideringdesignalternatives.
x Reusethepavementonbridgeswhereitexists.
x Plantoreusefoundationsbecauseitreducesenvironmentalimpacts,especiallyforinͲwaterwork.
x Reusesubassembliesandcomponentsofstructuresiftheentirestructuralelementcannotbereused.
x Evaluatethestructuralconditionofexistingelementssuchasbridgesandretainingwalls.Thisistypically
determinedbyastructuralengineer.Donotreuseelementsthathavebeendamagedbycorrosionornatural
hazardswithoutreviewbyastructuralengineer.
x Wherestructuralelementsaredeterminedtobeinadequateforreuse,considersalvagingthemor
deconstructingthemforuseonanotherprojectorpurpose.
Example: “Reuse” versus “Recycle”
Greenroadsmakesadistinctionbetweentheterms“reuse”and“recycle.”Thefollowingdiscussionprovides
moredetailsfordistinguishingbetweenthetwo.
Reusedmaterials:Thesematerialsoriginatefromwithintheprojectlimitsandareeithermaintainedinplace
(suchasexistingpavementstructure)ordisturbed/removedbutarenottransportedoutsidetheprojectlimits.
Examplesinclude:
x Overlayinganexistingpavementstructurewithnewpavementmaterial.Theexistingstructureiscounted
asreusedmaterial.Thisisspecifictopavementssince,forinstance,astopsignthatremainsundisturbed
duringaroadwayprojectdoesnotcountasbeingreused.
x Removingcrushedaggregatebasecoursefromonelocationandreusingitascrushedaggregatebase
courseinanotherlocationwithintheproject.
x HotinͲplacerecycling(HIR).TheprocessingandtreatmentofanexistingHMApavementsection(usually1Ͳ
2inchesofthesurfaceonly).TreatmentinvolvesheatingtheexistingHMAsurface,theadditionof
bituminousand/orchemicaladditivesand,often,someadditionalnewHMA.Theexistingpavement
materialsremaininplaceandessentiallyservetheiroriginalpurpose.
359
Materials & Resources Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Pavement Reuse MR-2
x ColdinͲplacerecycling(CIR).Theprocessingandtreatmentwithbituminousand/orchemicaladditivesofan
existingHMApavementsectionwithoutheatingtoproducearestoredpavementlayer.Theexisting
pavementmaterialsremaininplaceandessentiallyservetheiroriginalpurpose.Inmanycasesthe
resultantproductisusedasastabilizedbasecoursethatmayormaynotbesubsequentlyoverlaidwitha
newsurfacecourse.
x FullͲdepthreclamation(FDR).Theprocessingandtreatmentwithbituminousand/orchemicaladditivesof
anexistingHMApavement(mayalsoincludebasematerial)withoutheatingtoproducearestored
pavementlayer.Theexistingpavementmaterialsremaininplaceandessentiallyservetheiroriginal
purpose.Inmanycasestheresultantproductisusedasastabilizedbasecoursethatmayormaynotbe
subsequentlyoverlaidwithanewsurfacecourse.
Recycledmaterials:Thesematerialsmayoriginatewithinorexternaltotheprojectlimitsandarediverted
fromfinaldisposal(i.e.landfill)andarereprocessedorrepurposedforuseintheproject.Theessential
differencebetween“recycling”and“reuse”isthatrecyclinginvolvesreprocessing/repurposingand,usually,
substantialtransportation(usuallytoandfromthereprocessingfacilityandsometimestoandfromtheproject
site).Also,arecycledmaterialcanoftenoriginatefromoutsidetheprojectlimitsbeforeuseontheproject,
whereasreusedmaterialdoesnot.Examplesinclude:
x HMAfromtheprojectinquestionoranotherproject,commonlycalledreclaimedasphaltpavement(RAP),
istransportedtoastoragelocationorHMAplantlocationandincludedasaconstituentofanewHMA
mixturefortheprojectinquestion.
x Anexistingconcretestructurefromtheprojectinquestionoranotherprojectisdemolishedandcrushed
intoanappropriategradationandusedasacrushedaggregatebasematerialoranaggregatecomponentin
newPCContheprojectinquestion.
x Anindustrialbyproduct(e.g.,coalflyash,silicafume,groundgranulatedblastfurnaceslag)isincorporated
asacomponentinanewmaterial(e.g.,PCC).
x Divertedwastematerial(e.g.,discardedrubbertires,crushedglass)isincorporatedasacomponentina
newmaterial(e.g.,HMA,PCC).
Example: What Is and What Is Not “Existing Pavement Structure”
FiguresMRͲ2.1throughMRͲ2.4showexamplesofwhatshouldandshouldnotbeincludedinthiscalculation.
x FigureMRͲ2.1:ThisbicyclepathshouldNOTbecountedasexistingpavementstructurebecauseitisa
separatebicycle/pedestrianpaththatisnotaccessibletoautomobiles.
x FigureMRͲ2.2:Thisbicyclelaneshouldbecountedasexistingpavementstructurebecausealthoughitis
markedasabicyclelane,itisaccessibletoautomobiles.Specifically,itmustbecrossedbyvehicles
accessingcurbsideparking.
x FigureMRͲ2.3:ThispavedmedianshouldNOTbecountedasexistingpavementstructurebecauseitis
separatedfromthetravelledwaybyacurbstructureandisnotaccessibletoautomobiles.
x FigureMRͲ2.4:Thispavedmedianareashouldbecountedasexistingpavementstructurebecauseitis
accessibletoautomobileseventhoughthedoubleyellowlineimpliesthattheyshouldstayout.
360
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-2 Pavement Reuse
FigureMRͲ2.1:AbicyclepathinAuburn,AL. FigureMRͲ2.2:Abicyclepathaspartofthe
roadway(imagefromGoogleMaps).

FigureMRͲ2.3:ApavednonͲaccessiblemedian
(imagefromBingMaps).

FigureMRͲ2.4:ApavedaccessiblemedianonUS101
inWashingtonState.

Example: Calculation for Widening an Existing Roadway
Description:FourmilesofanexistingtwoͲlaneroadwith12Ͳfootwidelanesandnoshouldersistobewidened
toincludea10ͲfootwidetwoͲwayleftturnlaneand8Ͳfootshoulders.Theexistingpavementstructureconsists
of5inchesofHMAover8inchesofcrushedaggregate.Theexistingpavementiskeptinplaceexceptthatthe
top1.5inchesofHMAisremovedbyamillingmachine.Newpavementofthesamestructureisbuiltoneither
sideoftheexistingpavementstructuretoaccommodatethewiderfinalalignment.
Calculationlogic:All8inchesofthebasematerialand3.5inchesoftheHMAarereused.The1.5inches
removedbythemillingmachineisnotconsidered“reused.”Ifitisrecycledthenitmayqualifyfor
considerationunderMRͲ4RecycledMaterials.
Calculation:
Totalvolumeofexistingpavement:

Reusedvolumeofexistingpavement:

361
Materials & Resources Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Pavement Reuse MR-2
Percentageofexistingpavementreused:
ͳ͹ǡͻͻͳ ݕ݀

ʹͲǡ͵͵ͺ ݕ݀

ൌ ͲǤͺͺ ൌ ͺͺΨ ݎ݁ݑݏ݁
Thisprojectwouldqualifyfor4points.
Example: Calculation for Bridge Retrofit Project – State Route 99 Aurora Bridge
Description:ThelandmarkAuroraBridgeintheCityofSeattlewasbuiltin1932andhasundergoneseveral
rehabilitationactivities.Currently,itisscheduledforadditionalretrofitof18ofits48uniquecolumns,aswell
asitssupportingtrusses,girdersandbeamsstartinginlate2010.Thecolumnsare“cruciform”shaped,which
makesitdifficulttousetraditionalretrofitoptionssuchassteelcolumnjackets.TheWashingtonState
DepartmentofTransportationintendstospend$2.1milliontocompletetheupgradetheseismiccapacityof
thebridge.

FigureMRͲ2.5:AuroraBridge,Seattle,WA(PhotoCourtesyofWSDOT)
Calculationlogic:Theentirebridgestructureistoremaininplacefortheplanned2010retrofit,therefore
100%ofitisreused.
Calculation:Noneneeded.Allexistingstructuralmaterialsarereused.
Thisprojectwouldqualifyfor5points.
Example: Calculation for Bridge Retrofit Project – State Route 104 Hood Canal Bridge
Description:TheHoodCanalBridgeisthelongestfloatingbridgeoversaltwaterintheworld.At1.5miles,the
bridgeiscomprisedoftwoapproaches,twotransitionspansand36pontoons.Thewest“half”ofthebridge
has19pontoonsandtheeasthas17.Thewestapproachspanofthebridgeandsomeoftheexistingpontoon
structureswereretrofitted.Thisportionofthebridgehadbeenreplacedin1982aftersinkingin1979.Theeast
“half”ofthebridgewascompletelyreplacedwithconstructioncompletinginearly2010.
362
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-2 Pavement Reuse
Calculationlogic:Useweightasanindicatorforactualmaterialvolumeofthepontoons.(Totalvolumeof
materialscanbecomputedfromWSDOTdata,butdensityinformationisnotavailable.)Theeastportionofthe
bridge(17pontoons)weighs107,111tonswithanapproachslabweighing3,800tons.Thewestportionofthe
bridgeweighs127,817tonswithanapproachslabweighing1,000tons.Therearetwotransitionspans(steel
truss)thatare800tonseach.
Calculation:Computethetotalweightofthebridge.
[107,111+127,817+3,800+1,000+2(800)]=241,328tons
Computethetotalweightoftheretrofittedsections.(Notethiscalculationpresumes100%ofthewesthalf
featureswereretrofittedforeaseofcalculation.)
[127,817+1,000+800]=129,617tons
Computethepercentageofthetotalbridgeweightoftheretrofittedsection.
129,617tons/241,328tons=53.7%
Thisprojectwouldqualifyfor1point.Additionally,thepontoonsweresoldtoacompanyinCanadaandthey
havebeenrebornasmarinastructures.Thereplacedbridgetrusseswerenotabletobereusedbutwere
salvagedforscrap.

FigureMRͲ2.6:HoodCanalfloatingbridgeretrofitandreplacementproject.(PhotoCourtesyofWSDOT)
Example: Calculation for Preservation Overlay of an Existing HMA Pavement
Description:SixmilesofanexistingfourͲlanehighwaywith12Ͳfootwidelanesand8Ͳfootshouldersistobe
overlaidwith2inchesofadditionalHMA.Alloftheexitingpavementstructureistoremaininplace.
363
Materials & Resources Greenroads™ Manual v1.5
Pavement Reuse MR-2
Calculationlogic:Alloftheexistingpavementstructureistoremaininplacetherefore100%ofitisreused.
Calculation:Noneneeded.Allexistingpavementisreused.
Thisprojectwouldqualifyfor5points.
Example: Calculation for Rubblization of an Existing PCC Roadway
Description:ThreemilesofafourͲlanehighwaywith12Ͳfootwidelanesand8Ͳfootshouldersistoberubblized
andoverlaidwith6inchesofHMA.Theexistingpavementstructureacrossalllanesandshouldersconsistsof9
inchesofPCCover12inchesofcrushedaggregate.
Calculationlogic:Alloftheexistingpavementstructureistoremaininplacetherefore100%ofitisreused.
Calculation:Noneneeded.Allexistingpavementisreused.
Thisprojectwouldqualifyfor5points.
Example: Calculation for Hot In-Place Recycling of an Existing HMA Roadway
Description:TwomilesofatwoͲlanehighwaywith12Ͳfootwidelanesand4ͲfootshouldersistobehotinͲplace
recycled.HotinͲplacerecyclingwillbedoneonthetop2inchesofHMApavementusingaheaterscarification
approach(http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=HIPR).Thismethodusesaplantthatheatsthe
pavementsurface(typicallyusingpropaneradiantheaters),scarifiesthepavementsurfaceusingabankofnonͲ
rotatingteeth,addsarejuvenatingagenttoimprovetheasphaltbinderviscosity,thenmixesandlevelsthemix
usingastandardaugersystem.Thepavementisthencompactedusingconventionalcompactionequipment.
Calculationlogic:Alloftheexistingpavementstructureisreprocessedandreusedontheproject,therefore
100%isreused.
Calculation:Noneneeded.Allexistingpavementisreused.
Thisprojectwouldqualifyfor5points.
Example: Calculation for Reconstruction of One Lane of an Existing Roadway
Description:OnemileoftheoutsidesouthboundlaneofanexistingsixͲlanearterialwith12Ͳfootwidelanesis
toberemovedandreplacedwithPCCtoaccommodateabusrapidtransitlane.Thearterialhasnoshoulders
andhasaraisedvegetatedmedianthatisnotaccessibletoautomobiles.Theexistingpavementstructure
consistsof7inchesofHMAover9inchesofcrushedaggregate.Theoutsidesouthboundlaneconstruction
requiresapavementstructureof12inchesofPCCover7inchesofcrushedaggregate.Therefore,allthe
pavementstructureintheoutsidelanemustberemovedandafurtherthreeinchesofexcavationmustbe
donetoaccommodatethethickerpavementsection.Oncetheexcavationisdone,7inchesofthepreviously
removedcrushedaggregateisplaced.Then,12inchesofnewPCCisplaced.Theprojectscopeincludesall
southboundlanesbecauseothermedianworkandrestripingistobedone.Theprojectscopedoesnotinclude
thenorthboundlanes.
Calculationlogic:Theprojectscopeonlyincludesthesouthboundlanes;onlymaterialintheselanesshallbe
includedinthecalculation.Also,since7inchesoftheexistingcrushedaggregatewasreusedasbasecoursefor
thenewPCClane,itcanbeincluded.
Calculation:Totalvolumeofexistingpavementinthesouthboundlanes:
364
Greenroads™ Manual v1.5 Materials & Resources
MR-2 Pavement Reuse
ሺ͵͸ ݂ݐሻሺ͹ ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏ ൅ͻ ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏሻ ൬
ͳ ݂ݐ
ͳʹ ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏ
൰ ሺͳ ݈݉݅݁ሻ ൬
ͷǡʹͺͲ ݂ݐ
݈݉݅݁
൰ ቆ
ͳ ݕ݀

ʹ͹ ݂ݐ

ቇ ൌ ͻǡ͵ͺ͹ ݕ݀

ReusedvolumepavementinthetwoleftͲhandexistinglanes(thosenotreconstructed):
ሺʹͶ ݂ݐሻሺ͹ ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏ ൅ͻ ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏሻ ൬
ͳ ݂ݐ
ͳʹ ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏ
൰ ሺͳ ݈݉݅݁ሻ ൬
ͷǡʹͺͲ ݂ݐ
݈݉݅݁
൰ ቆ
ͳ ݕ݀

ʹ͹ ݂ݐ

ቇ ൌ ͸ǡʹͷͺ ݕ݀

ReusedvolumeofcrushedaggregateinthereconstructedrightͲhandlane:
ሺͳʹ ݂ݐሻሺ͹ ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏሻ ൬
ͳ ݂ݐ
ͳʹ ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏ
൰ ሺͳ ݈݉݅݁ሻ ൬
ͷǡʹͺͲ ݂ݐ
݈݉݅݁
൰ ቆ
ͳ ݕ݀

ʹ͹ ݂ݐ

ቇ ൌ ͳǡ͵͸ͺ ݕ݀

Percentageofexistingpavementreused:
͸ǡʹͷͺ ݕ݀

൅ͳǡ͵͸ͺ ݕ݀


ͻǡ͵ͺ͹ ݕ݀

ൌ ͲǤͺͳ ൌ ͺͳΨ ݎ݁ݑݏ݁
Thisprojectwouldqualifyfor4points.
Iftheprojectdidnotreusetheexistingaggregateintherightlane,thecalculationwouldbeasfollows:
͸ǡʹͷͺ ݕ݀


ͻǡ͵ͺ͹ ݕ݀

ൌ ͲǤ͸͸ ൌ ͸͸Ψ ݎ݁ݑݏ݁
Theprojectwouldqualifyfor2points.
POTENTIAL ISSUES
1. Aprojectmaymisclassifyamaterialas“reused”insteadof“recycled.”Usuallythisisaminorissuesinceboth
processescanreceiveGreenroadspoints.SeeMRͲ4RecycledMaterialsformoreinformation.
2. Pavementthicknessinolderroadsectionsmaybehighlyvariable;thereforeestimatingexistingvolumemaybe
difficult.Insuchcases,itisimportanttoclearlystateassumptionsandthesourcesofinformationyouareusing.
RESEARCH
ReusedmaterialsareavaluableandcostͲeffectiveresourcethatmaybeusedtohelpreducetheecological
impactsandlifecyclecostsofroad