Deploying Transportation Resilience Practices in State DOTs (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.

63 Chapter 4: MAINSTREAMING SYSTEM RESILIENCE CONCEPTS INTO TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES: A GUIDE INTRODUCTION Based on the results of the literature review, case studies, and the results of the RISE conference, a guide entitled Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide was prepared to help transportation agencies identify actions and strategies to improve the system resiliency efforts of their agencies. The guide was in the form of a self-assessment tool that focuses on the current status of an agency’s efforts to improve the resilience of the transportation system and how then to improve an agency’s capacity through the mainstreaming of resilience concepts into agency decision making and procedures. The self-assessment tool gathers in one sequence of steps the various activities that will enhance an agency’s resilience efforts aimed at natural and human-caused hazards and threats. The self-assessment tool guides transportation officials in, 1) understanding what their agency is currently doing that leads to a more resilient transportation system, 2) identifying where new or modified actions could be taken to enhance these efforts, and 3) recommending steps that can be taken to implement these actions. The tool can be applied to a broad array of natural and human-caused threats to transportation systems and services. It focuses on these threats, and describes mitigation actions to minimize the consequences of disruptions. The guide looks at resilience not only from an agency perspective (and thus focusing on the types of responsibilities these agencies have), but also from a societal perspective. This latter perspective introduces into the assessment such issues as the economic, social, public health, and financial implications of disruptions to the transportation system. Some key characteristics of the self-assessment tool in the guide include: • The tool provides attention to both human-caused (e.g., cyberattacks) and natural disruptions (e.g., large-scale flooding). • The focus is on both the hazards that occur today as well as those that will likely occur in the future. Thus, the tool adopts a proactive approach to anticipate future disruptions in order to minimize possible impacts. • For some types of disruptions, such as climate change and weather-related events, relying on historic trends, data, or institutional knowledge will likely underestimate potential future threats given changes in the underlying phenomena. For example, future climate conditions are likely to be very different from the extension of past experience. In such cases, different analysis and data collection might be necessary. • The types of impacts considered are those that occur persistently as well as those that might occur once-in-a-lifetime. • Every functional area within a DOT has a role in making the transportation system more resilient, and thus strategies are offered that cross typical agency lines of responsibility.

64 • Planning for and responding to disruptions often requires the participation of many different agencies, organizations, communities, and groups that leads to multidisciplinary collaborative efforts. • The benefits, costs, and impacts of having a resilient transportation system (or not) go beyond just those happening to a DOT or for that matter to the transportation system. Community resilience, economic, and social impacts, and in a broad sense, quality of life, can be affected as well. These characteristics are integrated throughout the guide where appropriate. The guide is provided as a stand-alone document, and is thus not repeated here. Those interested in an in-depth understanding of the guide and how it can be used to enhance an agency’s system resilience efforts are encouraged to review the guide. The following sections provide an overview of key guide characteristics and concepts. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL A variety of other resilience frameworks have touched on various aspects of an organizational perspective on resilience, but have never really connected all of the different steps into one overall agency resilience self-assessment perspective. Or, they have focused at such a high level as to be of limited value to those responsible for implementing actions. The self-assessment tool is based on an organizational decision-making framework that represents a way of thinking of how resilience concepts could be incorporated into how a transportation agency does business. This framework is shown in Figure 8. The self-assessment tool focuses on the following topics: Step 1: Assess Current Practice Understanding the current state-of-practice of your organization's efforts leading to a more resilient transportation system is a basic point of departure for determining where enhancements to these efforts can occur. All units within a transportation agency should be the focus of such an assessment. This chapter identifies some of the major characteristics of a resilience-oriented agency this assessment focuses on. Step 2: Organize for Success One of the results of Step 1 is identifying where new or modified institutional structures or mechanisms can lead to more effective and efficient resilience actions. The focus of improving organizational capability is both internal, that is, what can you do better? ….. and external, that is, how can you better interact with key partners and stakeholders to improve your collective efforts to improve the resilience of the transportation system? This chapter examines strategies for developing improved organizational capability from the perspective of an organization's structure and information flow.

65 Step 3: Develop an External Communications Strategy and Plan One of the lessons learned from many DOTs is that effective communications among the many different participants in responding to an incident or disruptive event is critical to overall success. This step examines how such communications and information exchange can be improved. Importantly, however, Figure 8: Organizational Resilience Framework and Self-assessment Steps Underlying Guide Organization this step also includes efforts to inform/educate/ highlight the DOT's efforts at improving transportation system resilience to the public and other key stakeholders. This encompasses making a case for investments that improve such resilience, as well as explaining to the public how the DOT is improving its efforts to make the transportation system more resilient.

66 Transportation Engineering Approaches to Climate Resiliency (TEACR) FHWA produced this report that examined changing climate conditions and extreme weather events ane the implications of such changes to project development and engineering design (FHWA 2017f). Changes that were examined included changes in temperature, precipitation, and moisture, including changes in frost penetration, freeze-thaw cycles, wet-dry cycles, and groundwater levels threaten all parts of the pavement system, as well as soil and rock slopes, causing impacts such as rutting and cracking, smoothness deterioration, roadway deformation, and destabilized rock and soil slopes. Lessons learned included : • Climate stressors often have non-linear effects. • Climate change does not necessarily mean design standards should change. Design standards are set based on risk tolerance, which should not change over time. Rather, practitioners should consider how the design input necessary to meet the standard is shifting with climate change. • Practitioners should consider both extreme and incremental changes. • It is important to consider the interactions among diverse climate stressors. For example, wildfire burn of a watershed causes a dramatic increase in storm flows and creates the potential for debris flows. • In some cases, adaptation strategies will be very similar to existing practices. • Adaptive management can help manage uncertainty and reduce the risk of overspending. While adaptation strategies are specific to each engineering discipline, the categories of adaptation options are similar across disciplines: • Management and Maintenance: Maintain existing infrastructure for optimal performance and manage the response to extreme events through advanced preparation. • Increased Redundancy: Ensure that transportation services provided by infrastructure can be supplied by other alternatives. • Protection: Reduce or eliminate damage by providing protective physical barriers to climate stressors. • Accommodation: Modify or redesign infrastructure for better performance in a climate- stressed environment. • Relocation: Lessen or eliminate exposure to climate stressors by relocating infrastructure away from the climate stressor. Any of these strategies may include an adaptive design or adaptive management element, meaning they may be implemented step-wise over time, as needed.

67 Step 4: Implement Early Wins As part of an overall strategy for improving resilience capability, your agency should be identifying and implementing strategies/actions that can be taken early (and hopefully with little cost). The reasons for this are many. First, such action improves system resilience, ultimately the goal of a DOT's efforts. Second, it indicates that the DOT is in fact moving forward in its stated strategy. Third, it sends a message to DOT employees that the agency is serious and is willing to make changes. Fourth, it provides the public and others (e.g., legislators) with a "visual" of what types of actions fall under the agency's overall strategy. Finally, early implementation of resilience actions could reveal barriers/constraints that need to be overcome in order to make later implementation more successful. This chapter provides guidance on how to identify such early wins. Step 5: Understand the Hazards and Threats Understanding the sources and magnitude of the likely hazards and threats facing a transportation system is a basic prerequisite to developing a more resilient transportation system. The analogy of many DOTs’ responses to crashes and incidents is insightful in this regard. Much research and study has gone into understanding the physical and behavioral causes of crashes and identifying the locations on the road network where crashes tend to happen most often. Studies have also occurred on predicting future crash characteristics given changing vehicle technologies, system management strategies, and behavioral changes. This step examines the nature and likely characteristics of the types of hazards and threats facing the transportation system…..and importantly what these hazards and threats might be in the future when conditions will likely be very different. These conditions will vary from state to state. In some cases, changes in winter weather could be an important consideration, whereas in others the incidence and strength of hurricanes might be a key threat to future transportation system performance. Step 6: Understand the Impacts Knowing the sources and expected magnitude of likely hazards and threats is an important precursor to answering the question, "So what?" This step provides ways of examining the impacts and consequences of different hazards and threats. Different types of hazards and threats will likely have very different impacts and consequences to the agency, surrounding communities, and to broader societal and economic systems. This step thus provides a broad perspective on the many benefits and costs to those actions and strategies aimed at minimizing the level of disruption from natural and human-caused events. Step 7: Determine Vulnerability and Prioritize Responses Once potential threats and hazards are understood, those parts of the transportation system that are at higher risk to disruption need to be identified (e.g., highways and bridges in one area are likely to be exposed to new environmental stresses in the future given changing climatic conditions). In such case, more detailed assessments of the vulnerability and risks associated with these such will be necessary. Priorities for these assessments might be based on the following considerations: • Facilities are considered so critical that failure or massive disruption would result in significant impacts to the rest of the transportation system (e.g., seismic assessments of critical bridges).

68 • Facilities might need to be protected because of the broader function they serve for surrounding communities or key facilities (e.g., protecting lifeline, evacuation, recovery routes or access to military bases). • Facilities might be part of a system of infrastructure networks where the disruption of the weakest link could have cascading impacts on other sectors (e.g., power grid disruptions lead to disrupted transportation services leading to disruptions to emergency service provision to affected communities). • Asset types could be targeted for more detailed assessment due to their importance for mitigating certain types of impacts or that might have been ignored for many years and thus be in poor condition (e.g., culverts). This step identifies candidate areas/assets/asset types where more detailed assessments should be conducted, and prioritizes those that should occur first. Step 8: Identify Actions to Enhance Resilience This step identifies the projects, strategies, and actions that your agency should take to enhance its efforts to improve transportation system resilience. Experience with transportation system resilience activities in a state DOT has shown that there are four agency functional areas where resilience-oriented actions can have the most impact: 1) emergency response efforts and agency preparedness, 2) operations and maintenance programs, 3) project design and development (assuring a more adaptive design approach), and 4) asset management plans and programs. Step 8A: Assess Strategies for Enhancing Emergency Response Capabilities and Agency Preparedness Most DOTs have developed protocols and relationships within the agency itself and with other partners for responding to incidents and disasters. Such response is very much part of the system resilience capabilities of DOTs. This step identifies actions and strategies that can be taken to enhance current emergency response capabilities in light of a better understanding of the likely impacts and consequences of disruptions as they change over time (from Step 6). By its very nature, this step will be multi-hazard, multi-participant, and multidisciplinary. In addition, this step examines how prepared an agency itself is to survive major disruptions (e.g., cyberattacks). Step 8B: Identify Enhancements to Operations and Maintenance Activities Operations and maintenance (O&M) efforts within a transportation agency are often the first groups affected by system disruption. In a reactive sense, managing detoured traffic and removing debris after an event are important actions that are the responsibility of the transportation agency. However, one can also view O&M in a proactive way, that is, what can a DOT do to minimize future disruptions? For example, making sure culverts are debris-free--a maintenance function--has been shown to be a critical factor in reducing the likelihood of culvert failure. Making sure evacuation operational plans and institutional partnerships are in place can minimize the level of disruption experienced when key network links have failed. This step looks at the types of actions you can take to ensure your agency’s O&M efforts are best positioned to enhance transportation system resilience.

69 Step 8C: Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects This step conducts the detailed assessments of exposed assets and new projects identified and prioritized in Step 7. These assessments will vary by type of hazard or threat and with the level of resources that are available for conducting the assessments. For example, doing a detailed assessment for a cyberattack threat will utilize very different methods and approaches than one focusing on future flood risks. The results of this step will be a set of actions/strategies/projects that should be implemented by your agency. Step 8D: Integrate into Asset Management This step recognizes the important role that asset management has in transportation agencies for monitoring asset condition and of feeding such information into investment priorities. The factors associated with this step focus on how resilience concepts can be incorporated into asset management recommendations so that they will be considered as part of the investment prioritization process. Step 9: Program and Implement Resilience Measures The consideration of resilience projects will be part of the normal project programming process although this step assumes that some consideration (that is, prioritization criteria) is given to incorporating resilience projects into the agency's program. This could also include providing more priority for projects that incorporate resilience treatments in other project designs. Ultimately, influencing the types of projects implemented by the agency is the most important output measure for an agency's resilience program. Step 10: Monitor and Manage System Performance Many transportation agencies have adopted performance-based decision-making and program management approaches for identifying the most cost-effective investments. Such approaches are data- driven, performance-based, and results-oriented. This step examines how resilience concepts can be incorporated into how transportation system performance is monitored and how agency actions aimed at enhancing the resilience component of this performance can be managed. Users of the guide can use the self-assessment tool to identify how the overall agency is doing with respect to system resilience efforts, or it can focus on individual steps in the resilience framework. The self-assessment took is based on a capability maturity framework that allows users to score their agency’s activities in each step from 1 to 3 points as they relate to three levels of maturity and sophistication. Table 3 shows an example of the types of criteria that are used for one step, “Step 4: Implement Early Wins.” Table 4 shows the types of strategies associated with the Step 4 assessment, with the strategies in the guide identified by what level of maturity the agency has achieved for that step. In addition to the recommended actions by self-assessment tool step, the guide provides targeted recommendations for nine functional areas found in typical transportation agencies. • Policy development/Agency leadership and management • Planning • Project development/Engineering • System and Traffic Operations

70 Table 3: Self-Assessment Questions for Step 2; Organize for Success Score Range Description of Agency Maturity in Implementing Early Wins 0 to 13 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. 14 to 26 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. 27 to 30 Your agency has reached significant maturity in identifying and implementing an “early wins” strategy. Major focus should be on maintaining and enhancing existing efforts when appropriate, and take advantage of new opportunities as they become available. Maturity Factor Points (1 to 3) Has your agency undertaken a systematic effort/study to identify those actions that could be implemented quickly and that would enhance system resilience? As part of project development, does your agency incorporate resilience “add-ons” to projects (to handle any type of risk) that are being undertaken for other primary purposes? Has your agency identified and implemented changes to your agency’s design process that will result in more resilient project designs? Has your agency pursued Betterment funds when reconstructing facilities that have been damaged from some form of disruption (where FHWA has approved the use of ER funds)? Does your agency have a program for periodically cleaning culverts to make sure they will function as designed? Has your agency developed and approved joint agreements or understandings with neighboring states and local agencies to share resources (e.g., staff and equipment) during emergencies? Has your agency developed a strategy of pre-positioning equipment, materials, and other resources to reduce the impact, improve mitigation, and support desired resilience-related outcomes associated with disruptions? Has your agency developed agreements or understandings with FEMA regarding procedures and requirements when a disaster has been declared? Has your agency implemented any resilience-related strategies beyond those listed above that can be considered “early wins” during the past two years? Have you participated in AASHTO, FHWA, or other professional association’s resilience efforts? Other? Score for Implementing “Early Wins” /30 = %

71 Table 4: Example Early Win Actions Transportation Agency Functional Areas Policy Planning Design Operations Emergency Response and Recovery Maintenance Incorporate “system resilience” into agency goals, policy statements, and directives Develop and describe methodologies for including system resilience concerns in planning. Identify the recurring types of design exceptions that relate to extreme environmental conditions. Examine recurring system operations disruptions and identify strategies to minimize future disruptions. Meet with emergency response partners periodically to identify improvements to standard operating procedures. Identify priority assets whose disruption or failure would have a significant impact on system performance. Prioritize maintenance of these assets. Include “system resilience” in communications with key stakeholders concerning agency activities and priorities Identify planning-level data that can be used as part of a resilience planning effort. Examine how more adaptive design approaches can be considered in areas considered vulnerable to system disruptions. Examine agency procedures and protocols with respect to handling system disruptions, and make changes where appropriate. Conduct table top and field exercises to assess incident response effectiveness. Establish a periodic culvert maintenance program for culverts for priority assets. Encourage agency partners to consider “system resilience” as part of their efforts (e.g., in interactions with regional planning agencies) Incorporate resilience into project evaluation criteria and screening for resilience concerns as part of Transportation Plan and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) development. Identify asset types that will likely be at risk to future disruption risks and develop a strategy for using a more adaptive design process for these assets. Train staff on operational strategies to handle system response to disruptions. Establish formal agreements with other states and local transportation agencies for mutual aid and support during emergencies. Train staff to identify potential failure points in facility assets as part of normal maintenance reviews.

72 Work with key enabling groups and organizations (e.g., governor’s office) to develop consistent message on system resilience Develop resilience performance metrics. Examine guidance and technical support (e.g., from FHWA) relating to adaptive design and consider how to include in your agency’s activities. Examine operations data that are collected as part of normal procedures to assess their usefulness in informing resilience- related decisions Pre-position equipment and supplies to aid in rapid recovery. Examine maintenance data that are collected as part of normal procedures to assess their usefulness in informing resilience- related decisions Incorporate into design process the consideration of incremental improvements to project designs whose aim is to improve facility resilience.

73 FEMA’s Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) FEMA created the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) process that communities can use to better understand their risks and determine the level of capability they need in order to address those risks. The outputs of this process feed into the identification of a community’s capability gaps (FEMA 2018). In this latter function, THIRA is similar in concept to the self-assessment tool developed for this project. THIRA first guides communities in identifying threats and hazards of concern. It then describes the likely impacts of these threats and hazards on different capability areas. There are 32 core capabilities that span five mission areas: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery. After establishing capability targets, communities estimate the resources required to achieve the targets. The following example shows a section of a completed THIRA for one of the core capability areas. It includes two threats, descriptions of potential consequences associated with these threats, capability targets for the Mass Search and Rescue Operations core capability, and resources required to meet these targets.

74 • Construction • Maintenance • Asset Management • Emergency response/Agency preparedness • Public outreach/Communications Although each self-assessment step provides very specific recommended actions targeted for that step as well as leading to recommended actions for agency functional areas, the following themes run throughout the guide. • Collaboration – Given the multi-agency, multi-participant, and multi-disciplinary nature of many resilience actions and efforts, many of the factors emphasize the level to which your agency has made the effort to collaborate with partner agencies and other groups. • Communication – Partly due to the need for collaboration as noted above, but also recognizing the importance of external communication to inform key stakeholders and constituency groups, many factors focused on the degree to which your agency’s communication strategy is effective and inclusive of the many different resilience roles and contributions of your agency. • Data collection and analysis – Given that resilience projects and strategies will compete with other demands for resources in your agency, many of the assessment factors focus on the need to provide evidence-based information that justifies resilience investment. • Hazard and threat assessment – By its very nature, system resilience reflects the degree to which a transportation system can withstand stresses placed upon it. Whether such stresses occur today (e.g., crashes that close major highways) or whether they are part of a long-term trend (e.g., sea-level rise), mainstreaming resilience efforts into an agency’s functions requires an understanding of the nature, scope, and magnitude of expected system disruptions. • Institutional capacity – Mainstreaming any effort, action, or initiative in an agency requires institutionalizing it in the organization structure, how leaders use information, and how standard operating procedures can be changed to lead to the desired results. Many of the self-assessment factors relate to how resilience concepts and efforts have been institutionalized (that is, mainstreamed) into the structure of your agency. • Leadership – Most transportation agencies are structured in a hierarchy with very clear lines of authority and responsibility. Thus, many of the self-assessment factors reflect the degree to which an agency’s leadership is directing, supporting, and adopting resilience initiatives. Without leadership support very little of any significance is likely to happen. • Professional training and professional development - Providing resilience-related training and professional development opportunities for staff in different functional areas is an important strategy for improving the human resource capabilities of your agency in promoting resilience- oriented actions.

75 The guide is a useful tool for mainstreaming resilience efforts into agency decision-making and standard operating procedures. Although the proposed resilience framework steps and the factors included in the self-assessment are offered as best case examples of resilience concerns for agency decision makers, users of the guide can modify the approach to make it as relevant as possible to the circumstances facing in individual agency.