Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events (2020)

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.

1 Federal regulations, specifically 23 CFR § 667, Periodic Evaluation of Facilities Repeatedly Requiring Repair and Reconstruction Due to Emergency Events, require state departments of transportation (DOTs) to conduct statewide reviews to identify roads, highways, and bridges that have been damaged two or more times since 1997 by events declared emer- gencies by the president of the United States or by a state’s governor. DOTs are required to evaluate these damaged facilities to determine whether there are reasonable repair and reconstruction alternatives that could be considered to reduce future emergency funding needs in areas with recurring damage. The regulation requires two sets of reviews and evaluations. The initial review was focused on National Highway System (NHS) assets, and the results were due on or before November 23, 2018. Subsequent evaluations including all public roads, highways, and bridges must be completed by November 23, 2020. The results of these evaluations are required to be summarized in states’ risk-based transpor- tation asset management plans (TAMPs) and incorporated into agency asset management and project development practices. These reviews and evaluations and use of the resulting information are new to DOTs, and little guidance is available to help agencies develop an acceptable process. The objective of this synthesis was to document practices by state DOTs to identify loca- tions where highway assets have been repeatedly damaged and to identify considerations for mitigating the risk of recurring damage in those areas. The synthesis focuses on identifying decisions and practices that support use of the results to improve achievement of asset management or performance management objectives. This synthesis was conducted during the time period between two deadlines established by 23 CFR § 667 and two additional deadlines established by a related federal regula- tion, 23 CFR § 515, Asset Management Plans. 23 CFR § 667 requires state DOTs to have identified and evaluated locations on the NHS damaged by multiple emergency events by November 23, 2018, and to complete similar analysis and evaluation for all public roads by November 23, 2020 (23 CFR § 667.7). The result of evaluations, performed to comply with 23 CFR § 667, are required to be included in each agency’s risk-based TAMP [23 CFR § 515.7(c)(6)]. TAMPs have been developed by the state transportation agencies of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, based on similar roll-out of two deadlines. State DOTs submitted initial TAMPs containing all required processes—but could exclude some analyses for life-cycle planning, risk management, and financial planning—by April 30, 2018 (23 CFR § 515.11). A second deadline of June 30, 2019, was established in the regulation for states to show consistency with the processes established in the initial TAMP (23 CFR § 515.11). These overlapping regulations and deadlines meant many states were working to incorporate the S U M M A R Y Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events

2 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events findings of their 23 CFR § 667 evaluations on the NHS into their final TAMPs at the time they responded to this synthesis. Copies of state TAMPs filed for the June 30, 2019, deadline can be accessed on FHWA’s website, at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/plans.cfm. The information contained in this synthesis was obtained using three different types of sources. • A literature review identified existing research and provided background information on the federal statutes, regulations, and guidance to provide context to the states’ efforts. • A survey was distributed to the asset management lead contacts as identified by FHWA for each state DOT, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (FHWA 2019). FHWA maintains this list on its website at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/ amcontacts.cfm. Forty-two of the 52 surveyed agencies responded (81%). • Interviews conducted by phone and in person with state DOT staff were used to develop case examples of agency efforts to identify and evaluate sites damaged by multiple emer- gency events, use those results in making investment decisions, improve data collection, and ensure dissemination of information for future reviews and evaluations. The literature search revealed very little information on identifying and evaluating sites damaged by multiple emergency events. However, it did identify several federal and state policies, procedures, and guidelines related to emergency recovery and repair efforts. Particular attention was paid to requirements and guidelines for documentation of damage. These sources provided insights into conditions that could lead to differences in practices and data between states that potentially aided or hindered different agencies’ efforts to comply with the requirements. The review included published information from state DOTs related to their efforts, such as documented practices and initial TAMPs. Finally, a review of research related to emergency response practices and the incorporation of resiliency into DOT processes identified emerging practices that could support the integra- tion of states’ results in asset management or project development efforts. The survey results showed that most agencies complied with the November 2018 dead- line, and at least six agencies completed evaluations for all public roads, which are not required to be completed until November 23, 2020. Agencies used a variety of internal work units to head up the effort, but most agencies included asset management, planning and programming, or maintenance and operations. Agencies used a variety of data sources but primarily relied on damage reports from past federal emergency relief–eligible events. The data format varied considerably between agencies, with desktop files (e.g., spread- sheets), enterprise databases, and paper records being the most common. There was a wide variation between agencies in the criteria established to determine whether damage from multiple events occurred in the same location. This had a significant impact on the number of sites identified by agencies. The agencies that developed the most inclusive criteria for the types of events identified or how damage was defined as occurring in the same location tended to identify more locations. These agencies also tended to be actively working to incorporate their results in asset management or performance management practices and data sets. The California DOT case example describes how an existing database of emergen- cies declared through director’s orders, which has been established since 1985, enabled the agency to incorporate data from events that would not be captured by most states’ procedures. The example also describes how the California DOT is integrating the results of its evaluations with efforts to conduct and document climate change vulnerability assessments in each of its 12 districts. The combined information from these two efforts is being incorporated into developing the agency’s State Highway Strategic Management

Summary 3 Plan (SHSMP), which connects the agency’s asset management and performance manage- ment objectives to investment decisions. A case example from the Oregon DOT focuses on how the agency used operationally focused criteria to define damage from different emergency events that occurred in the same location. Any damage sites requiring the same detour were considered to be in the same location. This created some sites of several miles in length in this mountainous state. Of the more than 40 sites the Oregon DOT identified as being damaged more than once, many were due to rockfalls and landslides. The agency is utilizing an existing program to evaluate and mitigate unstable slopes and rockfalls to both assess alternative mitiga- tion strategies and communicate the scope and cost of those strategies to district staff for inclusion in project identification and development. A case example for the New York State DOT provides an overview of that agency’s efforts to improve the quantity, quality, and availability of data by integrating the tools and data sets used for damage assessment, emergency relief (ER), ER funding, and related climate change resiliency efforts. The agency is actively developing new tools for data collection and building an integrated data set that will enable employees at all levels to access information to support asset management, capital programming, and project development. The Iowa DOT is developing information technology tools to improve data collection on damage and repair and making those data available for use in project scoping, selection, and development. A case example on the Iowa DOT highlights the software tools in use by the agency and external stakeholders to improve overall data quality related to emergency events, including related damage and repairs. The case example also describes the project scoping tool under development to incorporate data on emergency events and recovery efforts into the capital programming process.