Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations, Volume 1: Research Overview (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

52 C H A P T E R 4 This chapter provides a high-level overview of Volume 2: Assessment Process Manual. In addition, this chapter identifies the rationale used in the development of Volume 2: Assess- ment Process Manual and the key points in the assessment process developed for this project. Assessing is defined as the process of evaluating a structure’s condition through inspection and possible data analysis or modeling. This process can be completed manually or through technological means. 4.1 Introduction The purpose of this project was to provide a rapid, effective process for the assessing, coding, and marking of highway structures in emergency situations that can be implemented by SHAs across the United States. Although this process was developed with the intent of being adopted nationwide, the document focuses on procedures that can be implemented at the state and/or local transportation agency level. The assessment process was developed to fit easily within the context of the overall emergency response life cycle (see Table 4-1) and includes pre- event planning, training, appropriate technology usage, prioritization strategies, coding and marking, coordination, communication, inspection procedures, and redundancy. The intent of Volume 2: Assessment Process Manual is to define a clear process and to provide the tools necessary to effectively and uniformly assess, code, and mark highway structures in emergency situations. The primary audience for Volume 2: Assessment Process Manual includes the senior managers, engineers, and inspectors who will have the responsibility to coordinate emergency response and determine if structures are safe for the traveling public during and after emergency events. These could include, but are not limited to, managing engineers, chief structural engineers, chief geotechnical engineers, chief hydrological engineers, chief mechanical engineers, chief materials engineers, and their supporting staffs. Additionally, Volume 2: Assessment Process Manual is of use within the planning and preparation phases, which could be led by SHAs’ emergency response coordinators and heads of maintenance and safety. 4.2 Rationale The assessment process developed for this project was based on a review of the published lit- erature, DOT responses to the questionnaire, and technique evaluations. The assessment process was largely based on approaches currently used by several state agencies and DOTs including NYSDOT (O’Connor 2010), WSDOT (Reed and Wang 1993), MSP (2013), Utah DOT (2014), and Caltrans. Assessment Process

Assessment Process 53 Phase Timeline Components Planning and Preparation (−) Now to Day 0 Identify vulnerable structures and categorize Prioritize and perform maintenance and upgrades on structures, following a prioritized list, if available and based on availability of funds Acquire baseline data and analyze potential impacts to key structures Instrument structures, if possible Develop response plans and procedures for a number of scenarios Perform what-if analyses and update plans and procedures as needed Assign inspection ownership for each structure and highway segment, if possible Identify safe zones and centralized reporting locations Research and review best practices and lessons learned Perform training and drills Coordinate with other agencies Publish communication protocols and procedures Perform regional analysis to develop priority inspection list Assemble list of potential first responders and PDARs for emergency task force Develop guidelines for repairing damaged structures Advance Notification for some emergencies (e.g., hurricanes) but not with others (e.g., earthquakes) (−) Few days/ hours prior to Day 0 Review emergency procedures Review communication procedures Implement evacuation plans Alert response teams Close traffic near most-vulnerable structures Identify special needs and begin coordination with other agencies Collect and update emergency task force Report for duty (physically or through conference call) Perform initial regional analysis to develop/update priority inspection list Emergency Event / Initial Response* Day 0 Complete tasks listed in Advance Notification if not already done Perform FR, when deemed necessary Initialize PDA starting with critical and essential structures, including coding and marking of structures, as needed Close impacted routes and set up detours in coordination with other agencies Communicate with public as appropriate Site Inspections Days to weeks Continue PDA—assess, code, and mark, as needed Build temporary structures/bracing Optimize DDA through regional assessment and coordination Perform load rating / load analysis when required Coordinate with other agencies and close/open routes Regional Assessment Weeks Document areas of impact and damage Document which highway structures experienced damage Perform EI on required structures Develop damage cost estimates to support requests for federal relief funds Build temporary structures/bracing Initial Recovery Weeks to months Prioritize and begin repairs Document procedures Open routes Build temporary structures Economic Recovery Months to years Repair or re-build structures Continued Recovery Years Review lessons learned Prioritize upgrades Continued maintenance Update strategic plans and emergency response procedures Go back to Planning and Preparation phase *Additional events may occur such as earthquake aftershocks or a tsunami following an earthquake that need to be accounted for as well. Table 4-1. Key phases in emergency response and events life cycle.

54 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview The assessment process was developed based in large part on its ability to satisfy the following attributes: • Practical—The methodologies must be practical; that is, they must be realistically imple- mentable in diverse organizational structures of a variety of transportation and emergency agencies. • Cost-Effective—The methodologies must fit within the budgetary constraints of the SHAs. Thus upfront, maintenance, and training costs are considered. In addition, methodologies are considered based on their ability to rapidly assess damages that can be tallied and submitted to FEMA for emergency relief funds. • Ease of Use—The recommended methods need to be simple to use with sufficient documen- tation so that they can be learned “on-the-fly” by untrained first responders, if necessary. Easy-to-use methodologies require minimal pre-event training and keep annual training costs to a minimum. In addition, simple methods reduce implementation errors that may occur during emergency events. • Multi-tiered—The methodologies and procedures considered must be capable of supporting inspectors with varying levels of skill and expertise. For instance, if the first responders are not confident in their ability to make a decision, the methodology should support a process for escalating a request for a more detailed review by a higher skilled person. • Redundant—The proposed methodologies need to have overlapping capabilities with multi- ple communication avenues and backup plans to build redundancy into the rapid assessment process. This will encourage efficient communication between all parties and will ensure that all highway structures are safely opened for use as soon as possible. • Flexible—The recommended methods need to be flexible in order to ensure suitability for multiple types of emergency situations (e.g., earthquake, tsunami, tornado, hurricane, storm surge, high winds, flooding, scour, fire, and other similar events); multiple types of highway structures (e.g., bridges, tunnels, culverts, walls, embankments, and overhead signs); mul- tiple ranges of traffic levels; and the varying organizational structures of the multiple agencies involved (e.g., local, state, and/or federal). • Assessment Rate—Time is critical in emergency response. Thus, the speed at which struc- tures can be assessed is an important evaluation criteria. • Fail-Safe—Each assessment technique needs to be analyzed in terms of the consequences of failure of that assessment technique and assessment system. Redundancy can overcome some of these limitations, but each technique needs to first be judged on its own merits. 4.3 Planning and Preparation The goal of the planning and preparation phase is to anticipate as many of the likely emer- gency scenarios as possible so that the needed response can be identified, planned, and effec- tively coordinated with a minimum of crisis management. Proper planning can ensure that limited resources for data collection (including installation, training, and maintenance of equip- ment for inspection) are available and optimally allocated. During this vital planning phase, regional factors, interagency needs, and communication issues will be identified and addressed in a non-emergency environment. Access by inspectors to all available information (which can vary significantly) can be planned and tested under simulated event conditions (e.g., ShakeOut earthquake drills). While specific guidance for all work necessary at the planning and preparation stage is not directly within the scope of this project, it is important to discuss relevant preparatory tasks and efforts that can provide the foundation for the emergency response procedure presented

Assessment Process 55 in Volume 2: Assessment Process Manual. The relevant tasks and efforts are described in detail in Volume 2: Assessment Process Manual and outlined in the following list of key recommendations: • Developing Emergency Operations Plans – Incorporate structural assessments and procedures into the current EOP – Establish the coordination process within the broader missions of the agency • Data Infrastructure and Asset Management – Place quick-response (QR) codes on structures during routine inspections – Identify what data and software are needed to coordinate an emergency response – Identify the current status and quality of data infrastructure—improve if needed – Establish a timeline for updating data infrastructure – Provide recommendations on improving data collection during bridge inspection and asset management inventories • Equipment and Resource Infrastructure – Establish a list of resources needed for emergency response – Identify which resources typically used for regular operations are needed for emergency response – Determine appropriate technologies and workflows that can be used for emergency response – Establish an appropriate percentage of agency funding resources to be put toward emer- gency response preparation – Identify what upgrades are needed for mobile phone, tablet, and database software and establish plans for when and how often they should be updated • Emergency Event Planning – Establish a list of possible emergency events – Correlate which areas and highway structures are likely to be affected during specific emer- gency events – Identify critical highway routes and establish lifeline routes (Lifeline routes can be depen- dent on different businesses that are needed for economic recovery and well-being.) • Traffic Levels and Capacity – Identify highways based on their attributes and functional classification – Identify traffic levels such as average daily traffic and average annual daily traffic • What-If Analyses – Establish ShakeMap and ShakeCast scenarios for bridges during earthquakes – When applicable, establish scenarios for other emergency events – Update relevant structure data to provide more accurate scenarios • Preparation for PDARs – Familiarize PDARs with their routes – Identify alternate PDAR routes – Establish a list of personnel that can be used for emergency response • Training – Identify procedures needed to obtain additional staff – Prepare appropriate training materials – Determine an appropriate amount of time that should be dedicated to training materials – Provide a list of personnel needed during training • Communication, Coordination, and Preparation – Establish intra- and interagency communication protocols and strategies – Update contact information regularly

56 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview 4.4 Assessment Stages The assessment of highway structures during an emergency situation will be accomplished using a four-stage process: Fast Reconnaissance, Preliminary Damage Assessment, Detailed Damage Assessment, and Extended Investigation. The primary scope of this project was to address rapid assessment (i.e., the FR and PDA stages). The DDA and EI stages will generally be completed using standard structural inspection operating procedures that reflect the specific needs and approach of each SHA. Hence, the DDA and EI stages will be briefly introduced in Volume 2: Assessment Process Manual, but detailed methodologies for the different highway structures and hazards were not developed in this project. The four stages are based on methods currently in use throughout the United States (ATC 1995, 1; O’Connor 2010; Reed and Wang 1993). This multi-tiered approach is aimed at making the best use of the limited resources with the appropriate skill and expertise, while maximizing assessment rates and providing redundancy to the process in order to maximize safety. Figure 4-1 presents an overview of the assessment process for a single structure and the inter- action of the assessment stages along with the possible coding and marking classifications for a structure. The coding and marking classifications are described further in Chapter 5. Table 4-2 summarizes the objective and primary deliverables of each assessment stage. 4.4.1 Fast Reconnaissance The objective of the FR assessment stage is to provide a global perspective and to establish/ update the extents of the damage region as necessary. While FR should be completed at all response levels (discussed in Section 4.5), the type and detail of FR will depend heavily on the size of the event. A basic FR should be completed within 4 to 6 hours of the event. The five pos- sible FR methods are as follows: 1. Pre-event or real-time disaster hazard mapping products 2. Rapid remote sensing 3. Crowdsourcing PDA LIMITED USE UNSAFE DDA UNSAFE INSPECTED EI Repair/ Rebuild INSPECTED UNSAFE (Partial/Full Collapse) Emergency Situation Primary Scope of NCHRP Project INSPECTED Preparation UNSAFE = The structure requires further evaluation in the next assessment stage prior to being open to traffic. LIMITED USE = Potentially dangerous conditions are believed to be present and usage is restricted to ensure public safety. INSPECTED = The structure appears to be in the same condition as it was prior to the event. No Collapse FR Figure 4-1. Outline of assessment stages and subsequent primary level of coding.

Assessment Process 57 4. Small or micro UAV-based imaging 5. Detailed FR techniques such as aerial reconnaissance (e.g., helicopter or small fixed-wing aircraft) Any of these FR methods are useful to quickly assess multiple structures within a region and to help inform the prioritization of ground PDAs and DDAs. This information should also quickly be fed to traffic agencies and engineers who can identify and create appropriate detour routes, minimizing traffic congestion problems that can lead to accidents or slow recovery efforts. 4.4.2 Preliminary Damage Assessment The PDA stage is performed immediately following an incident, likely within hours, to pro- vide information on the need for action such as road or bridge closures and to define immediate Fast Reconnaissance (FR) Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) Detailed Damage Assessment (DDA) Extended Investigation (EI) Objective Global perspective Rapid route reconnaissance Detailed inspection Special study to address a particular concern Scope All structures in affected area All structures in affected area, starting with priority routes Structure and site specific Site specific, as needed Inspection Method Helicopter, small fixed-wing aircraft, UAVs, and other “fast” methods Drive-through with quick stop at each structure Inspection and special access equipment as needed, load rating and remaining strength analysis Any special equipment that is needed Personnel Chief engineers or managing engineer in aircraft or vehicle; specialized technicians as needed; the public PDARs—Trained emergency responders (maintenance & operations crews, design engineers) Routine inspectors and specialists (e.g., structural, geotechnical, hydrological, mechanical, materials) Specialists (e.g., structural, geotechnical, hydrological, mechanical, materials) Time Frame Immediate (within 4–6 hours) Immediate (within 24 hours) Start ASAP (usually within 8 hours) and continue as necessary Subsequent to DDA Outcome Determine the geographic extent of damage Identify impassible routes and traffic bottlenecks Locate structures that have major damage or are obviously unsafe Suggest priority for ground assessments Determine the extent and type of damage Identify/confirm impassible routes and traffic bottlenecks Close unsafe structures Code and mark Recommend DDA for damaged or suspect structures Preliminary damage level estimate Code and mark as necessary Close unsafe structures Recommendations for restriction, repair, or further investigation Preliminary cost estimates for agencies such as FEMA Reopen structures deemed safe that were closed as a precautionary measure during PDA survey Damage level estimate Code and mark as necessary Detailed damage analysis Provide specific recommendations on necessary restrictions and/or repair Approximate cost estimate for remedial work Deliverable Reconnaissance report with maps, geo-referenced photos, and/or video that defines the affected region Digital PDA form/ database (one entry per structure) and physical marking on the structure DDA report for each structure and daily summary report Special engineering report Coding Options UNSAFE UNSAFE, INSPECTED UNSAFE, LIMITED USE, INSPECTED UNSAFE, LIMITED USE, INSPECTED Source: Modified from O’Connor (2010). Table 4-2. Damage assessment stages.

58 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview remedial action if needed (see Figure 4-1). It is expected that this may take a few minutes to 30 minutes per structure depending on the type of structure, degree of damage, and accessibility constraints. The ground/on-site PDA will be conducted by PDARs who will use digital cameras or other mobile devices to take pictures, preferably geo-tagged, and make brief written reports of their observations on each structure. SHAs are strongly encouraged to develop apps for mobile devices that can be filled out on the field (discussed in Chapter 6). PDA photos and reports will be uploaded into an emergency inspection management system or agency equivalent. If connec- tivity is available during the emergency incident, uploading will occur remotely at the site, if not, this will occur upon return to central command. This type of assessment includes a preliminary percent damage estimate of the structure, which is used for prioritizing DDA. These estimates could be also used to develop preliminary damage cost estimates for the incident that can be refined with DDA and EI. 4.4.3 Detailed Damage Assessment The DDA stage is performed as soon as possible following an UNSAFE rating from a PDA, likely within 8 hours of the incident, if needed, and will continue as necessary to provide an evaluation of the structural damage levels and decisions on use restriction, or the need for an EI (see Figure 4-1). This is a “damage inspection” as defined by the MBE. It is not considered a rapid assessment for an emergency situation and is therefore beyond the scope of this proj- ect. The DDA is described in Volume 2: Assessment Process Manual for completeness and to ensure the overall process is clearly defined as well as to ensure a smooth transition between the inspection stages. 4.4.4 Extended Investigation The EI stage is performed as soon as possible following an UNSAFE or LIMITED USE rating from a DDA. This is an “in-depth inspection” as defined by the MBE and may also include a “special inspection” or an “underwater inspection.” It would also likely entail specialized tech- nologies. Reporting of the findings from an EI follows the NBIS and other standard SHA opera- tions. The EI is not considered a rapid assessment for an emergency situation and is therefore beyond the scope of this project; however, this stage should be considered during planning and the DDA stage such that the process can transition from rapid emergency assessment into recovery and day-to-day operations. 4.5 Response Levels Responses levels relate to the immediacy of the response, the level of resources, and the effort that will be put into a response during an emergency event. They are essentially a status alert that can help ensure everyone is on the same page as to the magnitude of the response effort. As an example, a large earthquake (e.g., Mw7.0) creating damage over a dispersed geographic region will require a different method of response for structural assessment compared to a smaller event (e.g., Mw4.0 earthquake) where damages will be more localized and of lesser intensity. Use of response levels can help a SHA prioritize resource allocation, strategize their emer- gency response, determine which assessment stages are necessary, know when outside resources will be needed, and refine selection of inspection routes. Identifying these levels prior to the event will help improve coordination and communication of the response. Volume 2: Assessment Process Manual presents four response levels. Each SHA has to deter- mine the appropriate criteria for each level of response. During an emergency event, SHAs can decide to escalate or reduce a response level as more information becomes available. As an example, a SHA may choose the following strategy to help in their response:

Assessment Process 59 Level I Regular inspectors in the affected region(s) are placed on call to perform PDA. Teams are mobilized when the managing engineer determines that some damage has occurred based on FR observations. Level II SHAs complete PDAs with their maintenance crews and DDAs using inspection crews. Additional personnel such as design engineers are placed on call and mobi- lized to assist with PDAs when the managing engineer deems appropriate. Level III Inspectors focus directly on DDAs, while maintenance crews, design engineers, and others (as needed) in the region are immediately mobilized to perform PDAs. Inspectors from other regions could be placed on call to assist. External consultants from local firms who are appropriately trained could be utilized, as necessary. Fed- eral assistance and coordination may also be required. Level IV In addition to the mobilization strategy in Level III, the SHA requests immedi- ate assistance from inspectors, maintenance crews, design engineers, and external consultants from other districts/regions to assist with the PDAs. Significant federal assistance and coordination may be necessary. Figure 4-2 provides a process flowchart for the emergency response following an emergency event. FR should be conducted for all response levels; however; it should be refined according to the severity and geographic extent of the emergency event. Upon receiving an emergency notifica- tion, emergency management officials should first validate the warning. Once the warning has been confirmed, structure priority routes should be reviewed and planned for inspection. Response levels corresponding to different emergency events are detailed in subsequent sections. For purposes of this manual, emergency events with similar characteristics were grouped together for simplicity when defining response levels. Therefore, response levels were defined for the following emergency events: • Earthquake • Tsunami • Tornado and high wind • Hurricane wind • Storm surge • Flooding • Fire 4.6 Supporting Technology Assessment tools and technologies (both simply referred to as “technologies” herein) range from simple devices and field tools to high-tech sensing and computing equipment. Technolo- gies are indispensable in responding to emergency events and in assessing damage to highway structures both during emergency situations and day-to-day operations. In addition, technolo- gies can play a vital role in efficient and effective coding and marking. This section recommends assessing, coding, and marking technologies that are appropriate to identify, evaluate, map, or quantify damage on highway structures. Technological recom- mendations can be suggested for all four assessment stages (FR, PDA, DDA, and EI) described previously; however, due to the scope of the project, technologies for the FR and PDA stages are considered in detail. 4.6.1 Technologies for Fast Reconnaissance Efficient and effective FR quickly provides an overview of the geographic extents of the dam- aged region as well the overall severity of the damage. It is based on rapid technology-based observation and/or reporting from both the SHA personnel and the public. For example, the

60 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview ME = Managing Engineer Figure 4-2. Response level process flowchart.

Assessment Process 61 GIS map products resulting from an FR that display the extents and communicate the severity of damage across those extents will provide key guidance in prioritizing routes for engineers conducting manual inspections (e.g., PDA). Various predictive, near-real-time hazard, or disaster mapping products can be utilized immediately after (or prior to in some cases) the event to understand the extent and intensity of the emergency and even provide estimates of the likely damage from the event. Examples are included in Table 4-3. Various FR technologies (Table 4-4) for data gathering are recommended for quickly assess- ing spatially distributed highway structures and networks within a region as well as to inform the prioritization of on-the-ground assessments. The most commonly used technologies include (1) citizen-based or public reporting through SHA operation centers or the national 511 travel information system and (2) helicopter or small-aircraft-based overview survey. 4.6.2 Technologies for Preliminary Damage Assessment The PDA stage is performed immediately following an incident, likely within hours, to provide information on the need for action such as road or bridge closures and to define immediate reme- dial action if needed. GIS-based preliminary damage mapping from the FR stage will provide two key decision-making elements for the PDA activities. First, a critical list of highway structures that demand further evaluation will be noted in a digital or paper-based mapping product for PDA. Second, an optimal route that facilitates the inspectors’ access to the structures can be generated. Table 4-5 summarizes technologies suitable for PDA as well as their general availability, clas- sifications, and resources. These technologies emphasize rapid inspection and data recording when working with highway structures or their structural elements. 4.7 Coordination and Communication This section will describe two of the fundamental elements of an emergency response plan: coordination and communication. Although it is difficult to separate the two, coordination will be treated as primarily involving human resources, while communications will focus on the network itself. Pre-emergency Event Assessment Technology General Availability Classification Available Resources Hurricane forecast and simulation Available for use NOAA National Hurricane Center (www.nhc.noaa.gov) and Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program (www.hfip.org) Tornado and storm forecast Available for use NOAA Storm Prediction Center (www.spc.noaa.gov/products/wwa) Hazard modeling-based loss estimation for earthquakes, flooding, and hurricanes Available for use FEMA Hazus loss estimation (www.fema.gov/hazus) and USGS ShakeCast (earthquake.usgs.gov/research/software/shakecast) Transportation inventory/ databases Available for use National Bridge Inventory database (www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm) Seismic shaking maps Available for use USGS ShakeMaps (earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap) Seismic deformation and aftershocks forecast Emerging E-Decider project (www.e-decider.org) FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency, NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USGS = United States Geological Survey Table 4-3. Predictive hazard forecasting, loss estimation, and near-real-time hazard mapping technologies prior to and supporting FR operations.

62 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview Post-emergency Event Technology General Availability Classification Available Resources Public reporting (i.e., through phone calls) to the SHA’s transportation operation/ management center Commonly used Examples include Virginia DOT’s Report a Problem (www.virginiadot.org/travel /citizen.asp) and Delaware DOT’s Report a Road Condition (www.deldot.gov /ReportRoadCondition/) Helicopter or small-aircraft- based aerial survey Commonly used NA Commercial satellite/airborne sensing (providing optical or visually interpretable images) Available for use USGS Hazard Data Distribution System (hddsexplorer.usgs.gov) or the International Charter (www.disasterscharter.org) Community-based oblique imaging Available for use FEMA Civil Air Patrol program (www.capvolunteernow.com) Advanced GIS integration and interoperability technologies Emerging Esri web-based disaster response GIS service (www.esri.com/services/disaster-response) XchangeCore framework for interagency information reporting, sharing, and interoperability (www.xchangecore.org) Low-cost airborne imaging (e.g., radio-controlled or GPS way-point UAVs or UASs) at a regional scale Emerging Research at University of Vermont funded by U.S. DOT (www.uvm.edu/trc/transportation-research- center-uas-project-awarded-new-round-of- grant-money) Crowdsourcing through professional or the general public communities using smart apps Emerging SpotOnResponse (www.spotonresponse.com) and FEMA Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk program (www.fema.gov/earthquake-training/rapid- observation-vulnerability-and-estimation- risk) FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency, USGS = United States Geological Survey Table 4-4. Post-emergency event observation-based FR technologies. Recommended Technology General AvailabilityClassification Available Resources Digital camera Commonly used No training needed Mobile imaging/video logging Commonly used No professional training needed Personal laptops/mobile computers Commonly used No professional training needed Personal communication devices Commonly used No professional training needed Smart devices that embed digital cameras, GPS, and communication Commonly used No professional training needed Personal GPS/GNSS devices Commonly used No professional training needed Digital or paper maps Commonly used No professional training needed Cloth/tape measures/carpenter level/calipers/compass/level/laser distance measures and others Commonly used No professional training needed Signs/marking supplies and materials Commonly used No professional training needed Human visual inspection Commonly used Volume 3: Coding and Marking Guidelines; FHWA Highway Bridge Inspection: State-of-the-Practice Survey (www.fhwa.dot.gov /publications/research /nde/pdfs/01033.pdf) High water markings Commonly used Abboud and Kaiser (2012), Arneson et al. (2012), Huizinga and Waite (1994), Idaho DOT (2004), Pennsylvania DOT (2014) Table 4-5. Recommended technologies for PDA.

Assessment Process 63 The planned coordination and supporting lines of communication should be well-established, understood, and practiced to the point where they are second nature to all involved parties prior to an emergency event. For the purposes of this section, the coordination effort will consider four tiers: 1. Local government—municipalities and local counties 2. SHA and state government—within the Office of Emergency Management 3. Federal government—government and other agencies 4. Public—vendors and the general public Table 4-6, along with the flowchart in Figure 4-3, is a summary of the proposed lines of communication and suggested protocols at each of the four tiers. Figure 4-4 also highlights the proposed chain of command within the SHA. Agency and Title Description Lo ca l G ov er nm en t Municipalities, Counties, etc. It is suggested that the same hierarchy as SHAs be implemented, or at least an emergency management coordinator be assigned. Local government involvement is important to the SHAs’ timely emergency response. SH A a nd S ta te G ov er nm en t Emergency Management Coordinator (EMC) The EMC will have responsibility for all coordination and communication in case of an emergency. The EMC needs to have the responsibility for developing an ERP that is best suited to the needs of their particular state. Depending on the size of the state, it may be necessary to have an assistant to this position. Responsible for adopting the suggested “First You Plan” concepts. SHA Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) Chief structural, geotechnical, hydrological, mechanical, and material engineers who specialize in the affected structure types. Report to the managing engineer. SMEs properly apply and follow the procedures derived from the Assessment Process Manual. Approve standard work packets that are developed for the inspection teams including assessing, coding, and marking procedures and information management. SMEs support the chain of command and properly communicate their findings. Contingency plans with what-if scenarios should be presented and explained to increase the likelihood of success. Prepare and coordinate pre-incident planning and training. Provide reference materials. Assistant EMC Reports to the EMC. Properly applies and follows the procedures derived from the Assessment Process Manual. Ensures implementation of the standard work packets that were developed for the inspection teams including assessing, coding, and marking procedures. Assists in establishing the chain of command and how to properly communicate the findings. Contingency plans with what-if scenarios should be presented and explained to increase the likelihood of success. Other SHAs Neighboring states in case of an emergency event crossing state boundaries. Communication/ Press Coordinator Communicates with the public (see Public Entities row). Ensures that procedures are followed per SHA requirements. Fe de ra l G ov er nm en t FHWA Division Office Establishes and maintains communication channels within FHWA. Emergency Agencies Lines of communication with federal and state agencies such as FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security need to be identified. SHAs are encouraged to follow the established protocols. Pu bl ic En tit ie s Vendors Coordinates and places agreements in advance with communication companies, online service providers, and others. Public Coordinates with public. Can take many forms including incoming calls, emails, media reports and queries. Table 4-6. Table summary of proposed lines of communication and suggested protocols.

64 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview *Refer to Interagency Communications DEP = Department of Environmental Protection Figure 4-3. Flowchart of proposed lines of communications.

Assessment Process 65 Figure 4-4. Interagency communication chain of command.