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.

51 Case Examples The following case examples illustrate how the subject agencies have addressed federal requirements related to the topic of this synthesis and how they are moving forward to improve their data, tools, and business practices for evaluating damages associated with ER events. Agencies were chosen to be case examples based on indications from their survey responses or additional information provided by the agency that their efforts, to date or planned, go beyond the minimum needed for compliance and seek to apply quality management practices. Several of these agencies identified the requirements of 23 CFR § 667 as an opportunity to better inform critical business areas such as incident preparedness, life-cycle planning (LCP), and investment prioritization. • The California DOT is integrating multiple assessments, including 23 CFR § 667 analyses, regional climate vulnerability assessments, and LCP, into a comprehensive State Highway Strategic Management Plan (SHSMP). • The Oregon DOT is utilizing the results of 23 CFR § 667 analyses to prioritize and develop alternative strategies for landslide sites. • The New York State DOT is leveraging information from 23 CFR § 667 analyses to inform investment decisions. • 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. The case examples presented in this chapter do not focus on the identification or evaluation of sites damaged by multiple events but instead focus on how agencies are utilizing the infor- mation from these efforts and how they are working to improve practices that will allow them to continue complying with applicable regulations more efficiently and effectively in the future. Information for the case examples was obtained largely through email, phone, and in-person interviews along with written materials provided by each agency. This chapter summarizes the information gathered through this process. The California DOT: Integration of Multiple Assessments into a Statewide Highway Strategic Management Plan The following case example from the California DOT highlights two aspects of how the agency is addressing transportation infrastructure that has been damaged by more than one event. The first section of the case example discusses how the California DOT identified locations that had been damaged multiple times. The second section of the case example focuses on how the California DOT is integrating the information on these sites with information from other vulnerability assessments to inform the agency’s Strategic Highway Management Plan. C H A P T E R 4

52 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Identifying Sites Damaged by Multiple Events The California DOT has developed an extensive database of emergency events, including details of damage and repairs, identified in development of this report. The California DOT has been tracking emergency events, including the costs of temporary and permanent repairs, since 1985. In that year, the California DOT director received the authority to declare a “director’s order,” which enables the agency to expedite procurement of materials or services in response to any emergency event. In most other states, a declaration that removes normal procurement requirements must be issued by the governor. One key difference between a governor-declared emergency and a California DOT director’s order is that a director’s order is only applicable to the California DOT and does not have any impact on any other agencies. Conversely, a governor’s emergency declaration takes effect for all state agencies unless otherwise stipulated in the declaration. The ability to establish a director’s order is provided in California Public Contract Code, Article 2, Plans and Specifications, Section 10122 (PCC 10122), which reads, Work on all projects shall be done under contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder pursuant to this part, except that it may be done by day’s labor under the direction of the department, by contract upon informal bids, or by a combination thereof: (a) In case of emergency due to the failure or threat of failure of any bridge or other highway structure. (b) In case of emergency due to the failure or threat of failure of any dam, reservoir, aqueduct, or other water facility or facility appurtenant thereto. (c) In case of emergency due to damage to a state-owned building or any other state-owned real property or improvements located thereon, by an act of God, including but not limited to damage by storm, flood, fire or earthquake, for work and remedial measures which are required immediately. (d) At any time after the approval of plans, specifications and estimates of cost, if the director deems the advertising or award of a contract, the acceptance of any bid, or the acceptance of any further bids after the rejection of all submitted bids, is not in the best interests of the state. (PCC 10122) When the director’s order was implemented in 1985, the California DOT developed a database to track each order, including key information such as • The time and location of damage, • The cause of failure or damage, • A description of the damage and scope of repairs, • The cost of repairs, both temporary and permanent, and • The amount of reimbursement by FHWA ER or FEMA Public Assistance. The California DOT opted to use this database to identify sites damaged by more than one event and to use the issuance of a director’s order in place of a governor’s declared event. The decision was made for two reasons. First, this is the format of the data in the data set available to California DOT staff and would minimize the analysis effort. Second, using this definition allows the California DOT to develop an inventory of damage sites that are directly relatable to its past operations. This decision undoubtedly led to the identification of more sites than if the agency had chosen a more literal approach to meeting the regulation. By identifying more sites, the agency can prepare alternative strategies for more sites and be better prepared for future events, regardless of size. Table 4-1 shows how the number and value of director’s orders has increased over the last 10 years (California DOT 2019). This general increase factored heavily into the agency’s decision to be more inclusive when identifying sites. The agency has been active in managing risks through capital actions, such as seismic retrofitting of structures, for several decades. However, the level of risk faced by the agency continues to grow, as do the impacts of those risks. The agency feels

Case Examples 53 strongly that the only way to effectively manage its risks is through comprehensive coordination across all business work units. The following sections highlight additional activities the California DOT is undertaking to address risks related to climate change and emergency events and how the results from the 23 CFR § 667 analysis are being integrated into those efforts and eventually the agency’s infrastruc- ture investments. District Vulnerability Assessments and Climate Change Adaptation The California DOT is in the process of developing climate change vulnerability assessments for each of its 12 districts. As of the time of the writing of this report, assessments have been completed and posted on the agency’s website for Districts 2, 4, and 6 (California DOT 2018). The California DOT opted to perform district-level assessments because the state includes a variety of climate zones and areas of varying geography, including coastlines, mountain ranges, and deserts. This variation in climate and geography leads to different potential impacts of climate change. Also, the California DOT’s capital program is largely managed at the district level, with project selection and management mostly controlled by district offices. Developing district-level assessments will allow the results to support district planning, programming, and project delivery activities. The assessments are part of the agency’s efforts to comply with several state statutes and policies, particularly Executive Order B-30-15, which requires climate change to be considered in all state planning efforts (State of California 2015). The assessments each have three objectives: • “Understand the types of weather-related and longer-term climate change events that will likely occur with greater frequency and intensity in future years, • Conduct a vulnerability assessment to determine those California DOT assets vulnerable to various climate-influenced natural hazards, and • Develop a method to prioritize candidate projects for actions that are responsive to climate change concerns, when financial resources become available.” (California DOT 2018) To achieve these objectives, the assessments consider five impacts of climate change: temperature, precipitation, wildfire, sea level rise, and storm surge. The assessment includes the establishment of metrics and application of climate models to determine the exposure of the highway system in each district to each impact (California DOT 2018). The outputs of these assessments include interactive maps showing the projected level of impact over Fiscal Year Total Cost ($) Count 2008-2009 90,000 76 2009-2010 100,000,000 68 2010-2011 70,000,000 61 2011-2012 120,000,000 65 2012-2013 90,000,000 75 2013-2014 90,000,000 77 2014-2015 220,000,000 124 2015-2016 460,000,000 208 2016-2017 1,030,000,000 400 2017-2018 590,000,000 216 2018-2019 700,000,000 220 Table 4-1. The California DOT director’s orders summary.

54 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events time through 2085. When combined with information such as sites identified as having been damaged by past events, this assessment data can be used to support planning, programming, and design decisions. State Highway Strategic Highway Management Plan The California DOT’s State Highway Strategic Management Plan (SHSMP) is the manage- ment document connecting the TAMP to its maintenance and capital programming to align maintenance and rehabilitation investments with the California DOT Strategic Management Plan 2015–2020. “The SHSMP defines the inventory and condition of assets, establishes condi- tion targets, determines the magnitude of condition gaps, develops cost estimates to close the gaps, and defines a constrained investment plan for the entire State Highway Operation and Protection Plan (SHOPP)” (California DOT 2019). The SHSMP lays out projected needs and anticipated investment levels across all categories of maintenance and rehabilitation work. Included in this is a category of protective better- ments, which is funding dedicated to improving infrastructure resiliency to damage caused by emergency events. These events may be natural, such as floods, or manmade, such as bridge impacts. The SHSMP covers investments across the primary and secondary asset classes shown in Table 4-2 (California DOT 2019). The SHSMP includes a section on cross-cutting issues, which includes the issue of system resiliency and climate change. This section identifies the district climate change vulnerability assessments and the resulting district adaptation plans as the primary means for incorporating vulnerability needs into the SHSMP. The expectation is that future SHSMPs will incorporate climate change elements into asset management performance objectives. There are no specific goals or targets related to climate change or locations identified as being damaged by multiple events within the current draft SHSMP, but these factors are considered within all projects in accordance with Executive Order B-30-15 (California DOT 2019). Inclusion of climate change elements into asset management performance objectives will ensure consistent inclusion of risk-based climate concerns in multiobjective SHOPP projects. While there are no fiscal performance goals or targets associated with the consideration of climate change (greenhouse gas emissions reduction and adaptation to enhance resiliency) impacts on infrastructure, these aspects are expected to be considered and incorporated within all projects as required by Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 1 Section 2030(e). The SHSMP funding plan includes $148 million (California DOT 2019) for protective betterments but recognizes a total need of over $913 million. The result is a funding gap of more than $765 million for protective betterments (California DOT 2019). As the California DOT completes the district assessments and incorporates evaluations of sites damaged from multiple events, the SHSMP will be updated with the resulting needs and planned investments. Primary Asset Classes Supplementary Asset Classes Pavement Bridges and Tunnels Drainage (culverts) Transportation Management Systems Drainage Pump Plants Highway Lighting Office Buildings Overhead Sign Structures Safety Roadside Rest Areas Transportation-Related Facilities Weigh-in-Motion Scales Table 4-2. Asset classes included in the California DOT’s draft SHSMP.

Case Examples 55 The Oregon DOT: Incorporating Assessment of Sites Damaged by Multiple Events into Managing Unstable Slopes The Oregon DOT knew at the start of their efforts to comply with 23 CFR § 667 that they would identify a significant number of sites. Oregon is a mountainous, coastal state with weak soils where rockfalls are common. The Oregon DOT has been working in cooperation with neighboring states to systematically identify, categorize, and address this issue since 1984. In 2000, the Oregon DOT began managing both rockfalls and landslides in a common database. To date, the Oregon DOT has identified more than 4,000 rockfalls and landslides in or near its ROW (Oregon DOT 2017). Oregon’s mountainous terrain is not only the reason for much of the damage during emer- gency events, but it also makes response and recovery from the damage a significant challenge due to lack of redundant routes, which results in requiring long detours and difficult access to sites. The Oregon DOT wanted to approach the identification of sites damaged from multiple emergency events in a way that could inform the agency’s emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. To do this, the agency chose a novel approach to determining whether two incidents of damage occurred in the same location. After identifying and mapping out all damage sites from past emergency events (since 2005), the agency considered two sites to be in the same location if they required the same detour route. This resulted in sites that were miles apart being considered within the same location. The agency’s rationale for doing this was quite simple: if damage along the route has caused the same disruption to service during more than one event, then the impact to the system and the traveling public is the same as if the damage had occurred in the same spot. Using its liberal definition of location, the Oregon DOT has identified more than 20 sites on the NHS as having been damaged by more than one event. The Oregon DOT’s Unstable Slopes Program The Oregon DOT has established an Unstable Slopes Program for identifying, evaluating, and proposing solutions for landslide and rockfall sites. However, the agency does not have a dedicated source of funding to address these sites. Instead, the agency considers permanent and emergency repairs to these sites as part of its overall planning process. The Oregon DOT recog- nized an opportunity with the issuance of 23 CFR § 667 to provide information that could help planners and designers better identify, prioritize, select, and scope projects related to rockfalls and landslides. The Unstable Slopes Program has been active since the 1980s but has had a renewed emphasis since 2010, when the agency decided to reevaluate all its seismic lifelines to determine risks to the highway system following a major earthquake. Initially, this led to an evaluation of coastal routes for existing rockfalls and landslides. Each identified hazard receives a hazard rating, which considers both the likelihood of the slide or rockfall occurring and the impact if it does occur. Figure 4-1 shows the current hazard score matrix. The hazard score is used to prioritize sites for further evaluation. That further evaluation typically consists of the development of a permanent repair for the site by staff of the Unstable Slopes Program. A permanent repair is generally defined as what needs to be done to make the problem go away—in other words, a repair with a design life greater than that of the highway assets served by the repair. Due to the way the Oregon DOT chose to define locations for its 23 CFR § 667 analysis, each location may contain multiple rockfall, landslide, or other hazards. The Unstable Slopes Program is prioritizing the development of permanent repair recom- mendations for any hazard within their inventory identified within the locations identified under 23 CFR § 667.

56 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events These permanent repair recommendations are similar to a project scope and include a high-level cost estimate. Using the estimate, the Unstable Slopes Program calculates a main- tenance benefit-cost factor, as shown in Table 4-3. This factor is the cost to maintain the site for 20 years divided by the cost of the recommended permanent repair. An additional factor is applied based on the relative importance of the highway facility served by the site, as shown in Table 4-4. Figure 4-1. Hazard score matrix (courtesy of the Oregon DOT). 20-year Maintenance Cost/Repair Cost Factor > 0.0–0.2 0.5 –0.4 0.75 –0.6 1.00 –0.8 1.06 –1.0 1.12 –1.2 1.18 –1.4 1.24 –1.6 1.30 –1.8 1.36 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8–2.0 1.42 > 2.0 1.50 Source: Courtesy of the Oregon DOT. Table 4-3. Maintenance benefit-cost factor.

Case Examples 57 Connecting Risk Management, Asset Management, and Capital Programming The recommended permanent repairs serve as alternate strategies that Oregon is required to develop through the evaluations under 23 CFR § 667. The recommendations and their relevant maintenance benefit-cost factors are also available to the Oregon DOT’s district planning offices to consider during project selection and programming processes. Using the recommended solutions and cost information, district staff prioritize project sites within their individual systems. Once projects are selected, regular scoping and preliminary engineering practices are followed to identify design alternatives and select the most appropriate project scope. The New York State DOT: Integrating Data to Support Investment Decisions The New York State DOT’s approach to resiliency integrates relevant considerations into existing processes. As part of its resiliency efforts, the New York State DOT continually assesses its system for vulnerabilities. These efforts include flooding vulnerability assessments, identi- fying scour critical and debris-prone bridges and culverts, and mapping repairs from major declared flooding events. The following case example highlights how the New York State DOT used historic information to comply with 23 CFR § 667 and is working to leverage technology to streamline future compliance efforts and provide better access to all resiliency-related data to agency staff at all levels. 23 CFR § 667 Compliance When 23 CFR § 667 was published, the New York State DOT built on past mapping efforts of damage and repair sites due to recently declared events. However, § 667 required that the analysis include events from 1997 onward; therefore, additional mapping and analysis had to be performed. The New York State DOT initiated an effort to compile damage and repair data from past events after a series of declared events, including Hurricane Sandy. This collec- tion effort was led by an internal adaptation work group and required the identification and location of historic records to determine what type of information was and was not available. The primary sources of data for this effort were spreadsheets containing information tracking DDIR submissions from past events eligible for FHWA ER funding. Following each event, the agency compiles DDIR data into a spreadsheet that serves as a program of projects (POP), allowing New York State DOT and the FHWA New York Division Office to track progress, costs, expenditures, and reimbursements for each damage site. While the product of this earlier effort was helpful in tracking ER repairs and costs, it was not sufficiently comprehensive for direct use in compliance with 23 CFR § 667. However, the experience the New York State DOT staff gained through this effort allowed the agency to develop and execute a plan for compliance with 23 CFR § 667. The New York State DOT undertook a more comprehensive and historic look at ER information, allowing it to expand its database of sites and to build on existing data sources for use in resiliency planning. District Regional Statewide Interstate 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.20 Source: Courtesy of the Oregon DOT. Table 4-4. Highway classification factor.

58 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Leveraging Technology for Future Improvements The New York State DOT is engaging in several interrelated efforts to improve its data sets, software, and hardware related to capturing, storing, and reporting data about damage from emergency events. These efforts are expected to reduce the effort necessary to maintain compli- ance with 23 CFR § 667 and to aid the agency in using the results of evaluations from the compli- ance efforts to inform asset management and capital programming decisions. The New York State DOT uses several standalone tools and manual processes to collect and report the data needed for compliance with 23 CFR § 667. The New York State DOT uses a custom GIS application, RSDA, to identify damage sites and operational events, such as road closures, to support emergency response efforts. Data collected in RSDA are used to develop DDIRs in support of ER reimbursement. DDIR information is collected in spreadsheets that serve as a POP, which is developed separately for each event. POPs are only generated if an event is determined to be eligible for ER funding. The POPs are stored in a shared drive but are not uploaded to an enterprise data set that is easily accessible. At the time of the interview for this case study, the New York State DOT was engaged in updating the RSDA tool. The agency was also evaluating the use of FHWA’s MSAR software for creating and tracking DDIRs. However, the software does not accept an upload of data from an external source and requires manual entry of all data. This means that the New York State DOT cannot automate the process of bringing damage data from RSDA into MSAR and must dupli- cate the entry for data that are common between the two systems (FHWA 2018a). The agency had not yet decided whether it will use MSAR as of the time of the interview and was evaluating options to better integrate its damage assessment data with other asset management data sets. The Iowa DOT: Developing Tools to Better Track Damage Assessment and Inform Project Planning The Iowa DOT is engaging in two information technology projects to improve the agency’s ability to continually comply with 23 CFR § 667 and to take advantage of the data collected for that effort. After complying with the November 2018 deadline, the Iowa DOT recognized that improved practices and tools were needed to collect and store data related to damage from emergency events. Improved tools and practices could both reduce the level of effort needed to collect and analyze the data, while at the same time improve the level of detail and consistency. At the start of the effort, the Iowa DOT staff identified two areas in which its data related to damage from emergency events could be improved. They are damage caused by events that did not qualify for ER funding and damage to facilities not eligible for ER funding. Coincidental with the effort to improve the quality of damage assessment data, the Iowa DOT is also developing improved project-scoping tools. These tools use the agency’s linear referencing system to link different data sets to locations on the highway network. The tool presents data for both tabular and map-based queries to assist planners and engineers in scoping and designing projects (Hofer 2018). The following sections describe how the Iowa DOT has developed tools to address its needs regarding compliance with 23 CFR § 667 and connected those data to the project scoping tool to improve quality of planning and design products. Emergency Relief Program Data Collection Tool The two highest priority objectives for the Iowa DOT ER Program are to maximize the eligibility for ER funds to all eligible highway owners while minimizing the effort required of

Case Examples 59 Iowa DOT staff. These goals are accomplished through the features of the tool and by distributing the tool to all agencies that own highway assets that may be eligible for ER funds. Users access the tool through a website managed by the Iowa Department of Administrative Services, which manages security and user profile information. The Iowa DOT is responsible for administering the application. Figure 4-2 shows the business process that is supported by the Iowa DOT ER Program. The tool is intended for collection of damage from emergency events. However, agencies are encouraged to record all weather- or event-related damage in the tool. This serves two purposes. First, it provides the state with an indication of whether repeated minor events are causing enough damage to consider an emergency proclamation by the governor. Second, once a proclamation is made, the users can quickly associate the records to the appropriate event. This approach helps improve data quality by promoting timely data collection and limiting batch input of hard copy records. The initial entry screen, or homepage, as shown in Figures 4-3 and 4-4, requires the user to select a location that is eligible for ER funding. If the user does not know the highway segment ID, the location can be selected from a map. The agency is evaluating a future feature that would allow users to select any public road. Once a location is selected, the user can enter information on the damage assessment, including • Description, • Cost estimate, • Relevant emergency, • Comments, • Photographs, • Relevant documents, • Project type (e.g., DOT, city, county, or railroad), and • Related assets (e.g., highway inventory, bridges, or railroad crossing). Figure 4-2. The Iowa DOT ER Program business process.

60 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Figure 4-3. The Iowa DOT ER Program homepage.

Case Examples 61 In addition to the home page, the application has only three other screens: map, cost estimate (see Figure 4-5), and summary (see Figure 4-6). The cost estimate screen uses drop- down menus and unit costs calculated from Iowa DOT maintenance records to simplify data entry and ensure consistent and accurate estimates. The summary screen is in the form of the current FHWA DDIR form, which is needed to seek authorization of funds for the ER program. This allows the agency that is requesting the funds to see the completed form prior to submission. Once the data are entered into the tool, they are available to support several Iowa DOT activities, including requesting ER funding, generating a POP to manage ER funds, analyses to comply with 23 CFR § 667, and informing project planning, scoping, and development. The following section describes how data collected in the Iowa DOT ER Program are used to identify, scope, and develop projects for the Iowa DOT. The Iowa DOT Project Scoping Tool The Iowa DOT incorporated data collected during the initial 23 CFR § 667 analysis and data collected from the Iowa DOT ER Program into the project scoping and development processes through an additional web-based application. The Project Scoping Tool is a web application that allows users, primarily district engineers, to view information on a section of highway or Figure 4-4. The Iowa DDIR tool initial data entry screen.

62 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Figure 4-5. The Iowa DOT ER program cost estimate screenshot.

Case Examples 63 Figure 4-6. The Iowa DOT ER program summary screenshot.

64 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events area of a map to identify potential project benefits aggregated from multiple data sets. Among the data sets available in the tool are (Hofer 2018): • DDIR, • Wetlands, • Easements, • Candidate pavements, • Candidate bridges, • Traffic, • Crashes, and • ROW. The tool provides an initial assessment of items that may be of interest during initial project review. The site provides all relevant data from each data set and includes a scoring mechanism to provide an estimate of priority based on each data set, as shown in Figure 4-7. The Iowa DOT is developing this application to support the initial steps of project selection and programming. Districts will use the tool to enter initial project definitions, which will then transfer through the selection, programming, and project development processes. The intention is that the data entered into the scoping tool will form the initial data set for each project. As projects are advanced through successive processes, necessary data can be added to the data set without requiring duplicate data entry. Case Example Summaries and Lessons Learned The four case examples presented in this chapter demonstrate two ways in which agencies are advancing their practices related to evaluating sites damaged by multiple emergency events. All four agencies are incorporating the results of their analyses into planning and programming decisions through different means. Additionally, the New York State DOT and the Iowa DOT are at different stages of pursuing improvements to their processes for collecting and analyzing data related to damage sites during and following emergency events. The California DOT has integrated the results of its evaluations of sites damaged by multiple emergency events with information from several other strategic efforts to inform its SHSMP. The plan provides a comprehensive 10-year strategy to guide maintenance and capital investments across all state highways. In addition to the SHSMP, the California DOT is utilizing the results to inform the development of climate change vulnerability assessments for each of its districts. By integrating these efforts, the agency is improving coordination between long-term statewide strategies and shorter-term district programming decisions. The Oregon DOT’s analysis of damage from emergency events led the agency to focus on enhancing its Unstable Slopes Program, which has been in place since the 1980s. The agency is using the list of sites damaged by multiple landslides or rockfalls to improve the prioritization of sites to be addressed through the program. The Unstable Slopes Program provides an evalu- ation of each site to develop a permanent solution alternative. The alternative is reported to the appropriate district office along with a hazard score for each site. The district offices use these scores and alternatives to scope, prioritize, and select projects. Benefits of this process include better statewide prioritization of unstable slopes and more complete information for districts to use in project selection and design. The New York State DOT has integrated data related to repairs from major flooding events into networkwide assessments that include other vulnerabilities such as scour-critical bridges, debris-prone bridges, and flood risk. The agency is actively pursuing improvements to its infor- mation technology systems that will allow it to streamline data collection and analysis, and better

Figure 4-7. The Iowa DOT project scoping tool screenshot.

66 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events inform planning and programming decisions. The expected implementation of these enhanced tools will benefit the agency by connecting data sets related to emergency response, damage assessment, and disaster recovery (e.g., emergency and permanent repairs) with the agency’s planning and project development processes. The Iowa DOT has developed two technology tools to support multiple processes related to collecting, analyzing, and leveraging data related to damage from emergency events–related repairs. A tool to collect damage information for the completion of DDIRs for the FHWA ER Program has been developed and provided to all owners of FA-eligible highway assets. This tool offers a single data source for all damage from emergency events, whether or not the event is declared an emergency. This will directly support the agency’s ability to comply with 23 CFR § 667 moving forward. The agency is leveraging this new data source by integrating the results into a project scoping tool, which is used by planners to identify potential projects and identify likely issues to be addressed during scoping or preliminary engineering activities. The project scoping tool provides a single access point for development of both regional and statewide capital and maintenance programs. These four case examples show a variety of ways that agencies’ efforts to comply with 23 CFR § 667 are leading to improvements in multiple practices and work products. All agencies face similar challenges and will be collecting similar lists of sites and alternative strategies. These cases provide useful examples to other states seeking to streamline their compliance efforts or utilize the results to make better investment decisions.