Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide (2021)

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.

61   Implement Early Wins (Step 4) Incorporating resilience strategies and concepts into a transportation agency does not necessarily require costly actions and detailed technical analyses that are implemented over a long period of time. In some cases, changes can occur in the daily operations of an agency or processes might exist that allow changes in procedures to occur over months rather than years. This step refers to such changes as “early wins.” Short-term changes are important to an agency for the following reasons: • Early wins provide the first step to an overall change strategy for an organization’s evolution to a more resilience-oriented culture. • Such changes convey to staff that the agency is serious about becoming a more resilience- oriented agency. • In many cases, the identification of the early wins involves asking staff what steps can be taken to enhance system resilience, thereby involving staff members in the efforts to change agency procedures. This leads to a better understanding of what system resilience actually means in terms of day-to-day activities. • Early wins provide the agency communications strategy with concrete actions that can be pointed to as steps the agency has taken to improve its system resilience efforts. • Similarly, such early wins illustrate to agency partners and other key stakeholders (such as legislators) that the agency is serious about enhancing its transportation system resilience efforts. • In many cases, early wins will focus on operations and maintenance changes whose benefits will be apparent in the short term. For example, changes to improve the efficiency of agency response to major incidents or disasters will provide evidence of the benefits of the actions taken. • Step 10 in the Framework examines how the agency has incorporated resilience-oriented performance measures into decision-making. Doing so could be one of the early wins and thus could be viewed as performance test beds. The first bullet above is an important building block for a sustainable and impactful strategy to bring about change in an organization. This concept is also an important foundation in a CEO primer on transportation system resilience (Matherly et al., forthcoming). As noted earlier, this step is a placeholder for early wins identified in other steps (indicated in each chapter by green shaded rows in the recommended actions templates). As other steps in the self- assessment tool are completed, the early wins can be moved into the overall “Let’s do this” table for Step 4. Agency leadership could identify a wide range of actions that could be considered early wins. Given the emphasis of this guide on an agency-wide perspective and a resilience-oriented C H A P T E R   6

62 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide agency culture, these actions could occur anywhere in the agency. The following self-assessment is based on those early wins identified as part of this research and by transportation agencies as actions that showed short-term benefits. Users of the self-assessment tool are encouraged to consider the range of actions they have taken to enhance their agency’s system resilience efforts and to incorporate these actions in the self-assessment process. Capability Factors and Levels of Maturity Many early wins can occur by functional area (e.g., emergency management) and agency concerns (e.g., cybersecurity). Note that agency interactions with communities and other agencies are highlighted in other steps. For example, agency efforts to reach out to local com- munities to help in developing resilience strategies were part of Step 2. However, such factors could also be part of this step if an agency should so desire. Where early wins are more related to specific areas, they are considered in other steps; the factors that follow are more general. Factor 4.1: Has your agency undertaken a systematic effort to identify those actions that could be implemented quickly and that would enhance system resilience? This factor focuses on the degree to which your agency has systematically examined the opportunities for implementing early wins. Thus, the range of agency maturity relating to this factor reflects the degree to which the agency has formally identified such opportunities. For example, in many agencies, the responsibility for improving program delivery rests with program managers. In some examples of transportation agency efforts to enhance system resilience, the initiative for such efforts came from the operating unit. • Level 1: We have informally identified where early win improvements can be made. The responsibility for implementing rests with the respective functional units. No written documentation has yet been produced. • Level 2: We have undertaken a systematic assessment for (up to) two of our agency’s units. Written reports have been prepared that indicate the recommended steps and how they will be implemented. • Level 3: We have undertaken a systematic assessment for all our agency’s units. A written report has been produced that is available for both agency staff and for stakeholders to understand the need and purpose for implementing the recommended actions. Factor 4.2: Has your agency adopted a policy where new projects are to explicitly consider resilience in terms of design and operations? Experience in those agencies that have successfully implemented agency-wide resilience strategies suggests that one of the most important initial steps is making a statement to agency leadership, staff, and key stakeholders that your agency is serious about mainstreaming resil- ience into agency business practices. This most often takes the form of a policy statement or adopting resilience-oriented goals and objectives. The projects could range from major capital investments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of existing assets. The levels for this factor relate to the degree to which all projects are viewed from a resilience perspective and what types of hazards and threats are part of the assessment. • Level 1: Only major projects (e.g., over a certain estimated cost) consider resilience in their design. The assessment considers only historical and current hazards and threats.

Implement Early Wins (Step 4) 63   • Level 2: Only major projects consider resilience in their design. The assessment considers historical, current, and future hazards and threats. • Level 3: All new projects consider resilience to current and future hazards and threats. Factor 4.3: Has your agency pursued betterments when reconstructing facilities that have been damaged by extreme weather events? Improving the project design of a damaged asset as part of its restoration is referred to as including “betterments” in the design. When an asset is damaged as part of a federally declared disaster, the state can apply for FHWA’s Emergency Relief (ER) funds to help pay for unusually heavy expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions. A state has three options for the use of these funds: (1) replace the project as it was originally designed (even though the project did not meet design standards), (2) reconstruct the facility using current design standards, or (3) reconstruct the facility at a higher level of design to account for projected future climate changes. FHWA requires applicants for betterments to demonstrate that, “the [design] feature is economically justified to prevent future recurring damage. The economic justification must weigh the cost of the betterment against the risk of eligible recurring damage and the cost of future repair” (FHWA 2019). If federal ER funds are not available for the repair of an asset, state or local funding could also be used for betterments. The levels for this factor focus on how institutionalized the process is for justifying better- ments in the ER program. • Level 1: Our approach to ER projects is to at least design the project to current standards. We recognize the logic of improving the design of a project to account for future threats and hazards. When applying for FHWA ER funds, we consider the use of betterments on a case- by-case basis. We use the benefit/cost methodology that best illustrates the return on invest- ment for the use of such funds. This decision is a stand-alone decision specific to each disaster declaration, and the initiative for doing so is usually done on an ad hoc basis. • Level 2: We have developed an institutionalized approach for determining the eligibility of betterments (using ER funds) to cover the gap between current standards and a more resilient design. This approach has been applied in previous applications. The applicable future risk is directly related to the event that caused the initial failure. This includes a standardized benefit/cost methodology that is applied for all project applications. So far, this approach has not been applied for non-ER projects. • Level 3: We have developed an institutionalized standard operating procedure for pursuing betterments as part of all of our ER project reconstruction efforts. All possible future risks are considered when justifying the use of betterment funds. We routinely consider the use of other funds (regular federal aid or state funds) to cover the gap between current standards and a more resilient design. In addition to ER projects, we apply the same approach for non-federally funded reconstruction projects in response to facility failure. Factor 4.4: Does your agency have a program for periodically cleaning culverts and other drainage infrastructure to make sure they will function as designed? Experience from around the nation for extreme precipitation events has indicated that culverts, gullies, and storm drains tend to be highly vulnerable to capacity limitations caused by debris. Culvert vulnerability became particularly noticeable after the remnants of Hurricane Irene hit Vermont, causing considerable damage to the state’s transportation system. Many of the locations most damaged were at culverts that were washed away. Note that there are federal

64 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide requirements for bridge inspection, but not for culvert maintenance, so the need to clean and inspect culverts is often lower on the priority list. • Level 1: We have an agency strategy that identifies where culverts and other drainage treat- ments are blocked or where sufficient debris has accumulated. Drainage treatment and culvert maintenance occur when resources permit. • Level 2: We have a culvert and drainage maintenance program that identifies and cleans those assets located on our critical roadways on a periodic basis (not a one-time effort). • Level 3: We have a program combined with our culvert condition inspection program that provides our best effort at protecting against culvert failure statewide on all roadways under our jurisdiction. Factor 4.5: Has your agency developed a strategy of pre-positioning equipment, materials, and other resources to respond to a disruption and/or support recovery? Agencies involved in recovery operations have found that pre-positioning of equipment, materials, and staff has been an effective strategy in bringing the transportation system back into operation expeditiously. This is particularly important in areas where, due to geographic constraints or network characteristics, network redundancy is limited. • Level 1: We have undertaken a study of where such resources could be best positioned for such a purpose. We expect to implement the study recommendations within the year. • Level 2: We have adopted such a strategy and have pre-positioned the necessary resources to improve our response and recovery efforts in one or two locations where we expect facilities to be disrupted. • Level 3: We have such a strategy and have already pre-positioned the necessary resources to improve our response and recovery efforts statewide. Factor 4.6: Has your agency developed and approved joint agreements or understandings with other agencies to share resources (e.g., staff and equipment) during emergencies? Major disasters often require resources beyond the capability of state and local agencies. It is common to have agreements in place among many different organizations and agencies to provide temporary support during the period immediately following a disruption (sharing resources among utility companies to recover power is a good example of this). This factor recognizes the importance of such agreements, in particular with surrounding jurisdictions that could help or be part of the response strategy. For example, the response to major disasters that occur near state boundaries could very well rely on the transportation system in the neigh- boring state for such things as bringing in relief supplies or having detour routes that use the other state’s road network (and thus the need for signage). Note that this factor is focused on resource-sharing. Agreements that ensure a local asset owner conducts work to the same standard as a DOT is a different type of agreement and also useful to resilience. For example, if your agency clears its culverts and a locality does not, both could suffer from flooding. This could also be extended to private sector actors and their transportation assets. The maturity levels for this factor are distinguished by how formal the arrangements are and the breadth of outreach to partner agencies. • Level 1: We have ad hoc mutual support arrangements with other transportation agencies. The actual support depends on the circumstances and the ability of partner agencies to offer aid.

Implement Early Wins (Step 4) 65   • Level 2: We have formal agreements with other transportation agencies to provide mutual support during emergencies. Logistics responsibilities and communication protocols have been established. • Level 3: We have achieved Maturity Level 2 and, in addition, identified and adopted agreements with all the agencies we think could help us improve transportation system resilience during emergencies (not only other transportation agencies). This includes those we have worked with for many years (such as emergency response organizations) and those we have worked with before but not necessarily in the area of system resilience (e.g., MPOs). Factor 4.7: Has your agency developed agreements or understandings with FEMA regarding procedures and requirements when a disaster has been declared? Federally declared disasters usually involve a major role for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). One of FEMA’s primary objectives in response to a disaster is to minimize the loss of life and put in place as quickly as possible the services and networks needed to assure recovery. Although FEMA provides near-term resources for handling an emergency, it too must respond to rules and requirements in terms of the justification for resources expended. Some state DOTs, for example, have expressed frustration in satisfying the requirements for filling out the forms and other paperwork associated with federal emergency aid. The distinction in the level of maturity for this factor is the degree to which agreements with FEMA are in place to support effective interactions. • Level 1: We have met with FEMA officials and have reached an understanding of the key procedures, protocols, and requirements when a disaster occurs. We are in the process of formalizing this agreement. • Level 2: We have agreements in place with FEMA that are intended to expedite and make our response and recovery effort more effective. • Level 3: We have achieved a Maturity Level 2. In addition, agency staff have received training on how FEMA procedures are to be undertaken. Agency response involving FEMA inter- action has been institutionalized in agency standard operating procedures. Factor 4.8: Have you participated in AASHTO, FHWA, or other professional association resilience efforts? One of the most effective means of learning about potential early win actions is to hear what other agencies have been doing successfully. Organizations such as AASHTO and FHWA provide many outlets and opportunities for transportation officials to identify possible strategies for their own agency. The distinction in the level of maturity for this factor is the degree to which your agency comprehensively seeks information on what other agencies are doing. • Level 1: We regularly monitor the information outlets of these organizations to identify the latest information on system resilience. • Level 2: We attend professional and industry meetings that examine transportation system resilience, and staff members serve on resilience-oriented committees. Our representatives on the resilience-oriented committees are very active in suggesting efforts and guidance that would be useful to our agency and to others. • Level 3: We have achieved a Maturity Level 2. In addition, agency staff have received training on how FEMA procedures are to be undertaken. Agency response involving FEMA inter- action has been institutionalized in agency standard operating procedures.

66 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide Factor 4.9: Has your agency implemented any resilience-related strategies beyond those listed in this step’s factors that can be considered early wins during the past 2 years? One sure indication of how mature an agency is with respect to implementing early wins is the extent to which such actions have been taken. The level of maturity distinction made in this factor is the number of early win actions that your agency has taken in the past 2 years. • Level 1: We have implemented up to two such strategies. • Level 2: We have implemented three or four such strategies. • Level 3: We have implemented at least five such strategies. Table 11 shows the factors that are included in the self-assessment for Step 4. The maturity levels for each factor are presented in the descriptions of each factor. Recommended Actions to Maintain the Highest Level of Agency Resilience Capability The highest level of capability for Step 4: Implement Early Wins focuses on systematically and periodically identifying strategies and actions that can be implemented quickly and without significant organizational resources. If your agency has reached Maturity Level 3, the highest level of agency capability, the following recommended actions focus on maintaining this level. • Periodically reassess the capability of your agency’s units with respect to their role in imple- menting early wins. This could be done in-house or by bringing in a third-party evaluator to conduct the assessment. • Assess the effectiveness of your agency’s program to clean culverts. Estimate the benefits of this program from the perspective of costs foregone associated with a smaller number of dis- ruptions. Continue to monitor the level to which the culvert maintenance program achieves its objectives. • Monitor the effectiveness of your agency’s efforts to use betterment funds when applying for ER funding. Keep abreast of the latest regulations and technical guidance on how such an application can be made. Assess your agency’s information resources that support the betterment funding request (e.g., making improvements to data collection and data archiving on the expenditure of agency resources during disruptions to justify later federal reimbursement). • Monitor the pre-positioning of equipment, materials, and other resources to ensure that these resources remain viable in the event of a system disruption. Simulate different types of system disruptions to test the viability of the pre-positioning strategy. • Periodically reassess joint agreements with other agencies and with FEMA to identify improvements and enhancements to make such agreements more effective. • Participate in and/or lead meetings with partner agencies and groups to reinforce the importance of collaboration and coordination. • Maintain situational awareness of rapidly changing cyber and physical security exposures that impact agency resilience and where short-term changes could provide a more resilient cyber system. • Continue to participate in professional meetings and other information exchange oppor- tunities to stay abreast of innovative early win actions taken by others that might be applied in your agency. If you did not score a 27 in the assessment (a perfect score in Level 3 efforts), identify those factors that were rated lower and identify a strategy or action steps to improve these particular components of Step 4.

Maturity Factor Level 1 (1 point) Level 2 (2 points) Level 3 (3 points) 4.1 Has your agency undertaken a systematic effort to identify those actions that could be implemented quickly and that would enhance system resilience? We have informally identified where early win improvements can be made. The responsibility for implementing rests with the respective functional units. No written documentation has yet been produced. We have undertaken a systematic assessment for (up to) two of our agency’s units. Written reports have been prepared that indicate the recommended steps and how they will be implemented. We have undertaken a systematic assessment for all our agency’s units. A written report has been produced that is available for both agency staff and for stakeholders to understand the need and purpose for implementing the recommended actions. 4.2 Has your agency adopted a policy where new projects are to explicitly consider resilience in terms of design and operations? Only major projects (e.g., over a certain estimated cost) consider resilience in their design. The assessment considers only historical and current hazards and threats. Only major projects consider resilience in their design. The assessment considers historical, current, and future hazards and threats. All new projects consider resilience to current and future hazards and threats. 4.3 Has your agency pursued betterments when reconstructing facilities that have been damaged by extreme weather events? Our approach to ER projects is to at least design the project to current standards. We recognize the logic of improving the design of a project to account for future threats and hazards. When applying for FHWA ER funds, we consider the use of betterments on a case-by-case basis. We use whatever benefit/cost methodology that best illustrates the return on investment for the use of such funds. This decision is a stand-alone decision specific to each disaster declaration, and the initiative for doing so is usually done on an ad hoc basis. We have developed an institutionalized approach for determining the eligibility of betterments (using ER funds) to cover the gap between current standards and a more resilient design. This approach has been applied in previous applications. The applicable future risk is directly related to the event that caused the initial failure. This includes a standardized benefit/cost methodology that is applied for all project applications. So far, this approach has not been applied for non-ER projects. We have developed an institutionalized standard operating procedure for pursuing betterments as part of all of our ER project reconstruction efforts. All possible future risks are considered when justifying the use of betterment funds. We routinely consider the use of other funds (regular federal aid or state funds) to cover the gap between current standards and a more resilient design. In addition to ER projects, we apply the same approach for non-federally funded reconstruction projects in response to facility failure. 4.4 Does your agency have a program for periodically cleaning culverts and other drainage infrastructure to make sure they will function as designed? 4.5 Has your agency developed a strategy of pre-positioning equipment, materials, and other resources to respond to a disruption and/or support recovery? We have an agency strategy that identifies where culverts and other drainage treatments are blocked or where sufficient debris has accumulated. Drainage treatment and culvert maintenance occur when resources permit. We have undertaken a study of where such resources could be best positioned for such a purpose. We expect to implement the study recommendations within the year. We have a culvert and drainage maintenance program that identifies and cleans those assets located on our critical roadways on a periodic basis (not a one-time effort). We have adopted such a strategy and have pre-positioned the necessary resources to improve our response and recovery efforts in one or two locations where we expect facilities to be disrupted. We have such a program combined with our culvert condition inspection program that provides our best effort at protecting against culvert failure statewide on all roadways under our jurisdiction. We have such a strategy and have already pre-positioned the necessary resources to improve our response and recovery efforts statewide. Table 11. Assessment table for Step 4: Implement Early Wins. (continued on next page)

Maturity Factor Level 1 (1 point) Level 2 (2 points) Level 3 (3 points) 4.6 4.7 Has your agency developed agreements or understandings with FEMA regarding procedures and requirements when a disaster has been declared? 4.8 Have you participated in AASHTO, FHWA, or other professional association resilience efforts? We regularly monitor the information outlets of these organizations to identify the latest information on system resilience. We attend professional and industry meetings that examine transportation system resilience, and staff members serve on resilience-oriented committees. Our representatives on the resilience-oriented committees are very active in suggesting efforts and guidance that would be useful to our agency and to others. We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, agency staff have received training on how FEMA procedures are to be undertaken. Agency response involving FEMA interaction has been institutionalized in agency standard operating procedures. 4.9 Has your agency implemented any resilience-related strategies beyond those listed in this step’s factors that can be considered early wins during the past 2 years? We have implemented up to two such strategies. We have implemented three or four such strategies. We have implemented at least five such strategies. Score Range Description of Agency Maturity in Implementing Early Wins 0 to 12 Your agency is emerging into this area and has taken initial steps to grow awareness and understanding of the types of early wins it can implement. 13 to 23 Your agency has implemented several early win strategies, not so much as part of an agency-wide strategy but rather at the initiative of agency staff. 24 to 27 Your agency has reached significant maturity in identifying and implementing an early wins strategy. The major focus should be on maintaining and enhancing existing efforts when appropriate and taking advantage of new opportunities as they become available. We have ad hoc mutual support arrangements with other transportation agencies. The actual support depends on the circumstances and the ability of partner agencies to offer aid. We have met with FEMA officials and have reached an understanding of the key procedures, protocols, and requirements when a disaster occurs. We are in the process of formalizing this agreement. We have formal agreements with other transportation agencies to provide mutual support during emergencies. Logistics responsibilities and communication protocols have been established. We have agreements in place with FEMA that are intended to expedite and make our response and recovery effort more effective. We have achieved Maturity Level 2 and, in addition, identified and adopted agreements with all the agencies we think could help us in improving transportation system resilience during emergencies (not only other transportation agencies). This includes those we have worked with for many years (such as emergency response organizations) and those we have worked with before but not necessarily in the area of system resilience (e.g., MPOs). We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, agency staff have received training on how FEMA procedures are to be undertaken. Agency response involving FEMA interaction has been institutionalized in agency standard operating procedures. Has your agency developed and approved joint agreements or understandings with other agencies to share resources (e.g., staff and equipment) during emergencies? Table 11. (Continued).

Implement Early Wins (Step 4) 69   Recommended Actions to Achieve Higher Levels of Resilience Capability If you scored at Level 1 or 2, you can take steps to continue your evolution toward a more resilience-oriented agency. In such cases, agency managers should identify which of the factors in Table 11 were most lacking and determine priorities for improving your agency’s organiza- tion. Table 12 is offered as a template to determine which steps your agency can take to improve its resilience capabilities, who should be responsible, the timeframe for the implementation, and expected outcomes. Chapter 6 References FHWA. 2019. Memorandum from Hari Kalla, Associate Administrator for Infrastructure, to Gloria Shepherd, Associate Administrator for Planning, Environment and Realty. “Integration of Resilient Infrastructure in the Emergency Relief Program.” October 11, 2019. Retrieved June 20, 2020, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ specialfunding/er/191011.cfm Matherly, D., P. Bye, J. McDonald, W. Ankner, J. Mobley, K. Kim, P. Murray-Tuite, A. Pande, J. Renne, B. Wolshon, and E. Yamashita. Forthcoming. NCHRP Research Report 976: Resilience Primer for Transportation Executives. Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. Useful Resources AASHTO. 2010. AASHTO/FHWA/FTA Climate Change Symposium, Summary Report. Aug. 23, Washington, DC. Retrieved June  20, 2020, from https://environment.transportation.org/pdf/2010_symposium/Climate ChangeSymposiumSummary.pdf Let’s do this. (check) Action Re sp on si bi lit y? Ti m ef ra m e? Ex pe ct ed ou tc om es ? Undertake a systematic effort/study to identify early wins to enhance system resilience. Assign staff responsibilities and/or establish an organizational mechanism for identifying early wins to enhance resilience efforts. Develop or enhance your existing culvert cleaning program. Pursue betterments when reconstructing facilities affected by federally designated disasters/emergencies. Develop a strategy to pre-position equipment, materials, and other resources to respond to a disruption and/or support recovery. If such a strategy exists, continue to monitor the viability of this pre-positioning in relationship to different types of disruptions. Develop agreements or understandings with FEMA on procedures and requirements when a disaster has been declared. Participate in AASHTO, FHWA, or other professional association resilience efforts. Develop joint agreements or understandings for sharing resources with other agencies during emergencies. Table 12. Actions to achieve higher maturity for Step 4: Implement Early Wins.

70 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide AASHTO. 2018. Resiliency Case Studies: State DOT Lessons Learned. Prepared for the AASHTO Resilient and Sustainable Transportation Systems Program. May, Washington, DC. Retrieved June 20, 2020, from https://environment.transportation.org/pdf/rsts/aashto_resiliency%20_case_studies.pdf FHWA. 2016. Transportation Engineering Approaches to Climate Resiliency (TEACR) Study. Website. Retrieved March 28, 2021, from https://web.archive.org/web/20170125192413/https:/www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ sustainability/resilience/ongoing_and_current_research/teacr/index.cfm#l2 FHWA. 2017a. Post­Hurricane Sandy Transportation Resilience Study in NY, NJ, and CT. Report FHWA-HEP-17-097. Washington, DC. Retrieved June 20, 2020, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/ resilience/publications/hurricane_sandy/index.cfm FHWA. 2017b. Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework, 3rd ed. Report FHWA-HEP-18-020. Washington, DC. Retrieved June 20, 2020, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/ resilience/adaptation_framework/ FHWA. 2019a. Adaptation Decision-Making Assessment Process (ADAP). FHWA-HEP-17-004. Website. Retrieved June 20, 2020, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/ongoing_ and_current_research/teacr/adap/index.cfm FHWA. 2019b. Gulf Coast Study. Website. Retrieved June 20, 2020, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ sustainability/resilience/ongoing_and_current_research/gulf_coast_study/index.cfm FHWA. Forthcoming. Integrating Natural Hazard Resilience into the Transportation Planning Process. Georgetown Climate Center. n.d. Adaptation Clearinghouse. Website. Georgetown University. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 28, 2021, from adaptationclearinghouse.org Massachusetts Port Authority. 2015. Massachusetts Port Authority Floodproofing Design Guide. April. Retrieved June 20, 2020, from http://www.massport.com/media/1149/massport-floodproofing-design-guide-revised- april-2015.pdf The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 2018. Climate Resilience Design Guidelines, June 1. Retrieved June  20, 2020, from https://www.panynj.gov/business-opportunities/pdf/discipline-guidelines/climate- resilience.pdf