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.

87 State Survey Responses A P P E N D I X B A. Respondent Information Which agency work unit(s) completed the survey? Agency Work Units That Contributed to Answering the Survey (State Agencies) Asset Management AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, GA, ID, KY, MA, ME, MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA Emergency Response NC, TN Engineering AK, TN Information Technology OH, UT Maintenance and/or Operations AL, AR, KY, NC, NV, PA, TN, TX Planning and/or Programming FL, MD, MN, MO, MS, MT, NJ, NY, OH, OK, SC, WY Other AK, DE, IA, ND, OR, UT, WV B. Part 667 Analysis Status Question 1a. What percent of the system has been reviewed to identify facilities damaged by multiple emergency events?

88 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Percent of System Reviewed NHS Non-NHS Federal-Aid System Public Roads System Complete AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, GA, IA, ID, KY, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WY AZ, CA, CO, GA, MN, MT, NC, NM, OK, PA, SC, TN, UT, VT, WY CO, NM, SC, UT, VT, WY > 75% Complete DE, MA, MD, OH DC, DE, MA, NH, OH DE, MA, OH 50 to 75% Complete AL, NY AL, KY, NY AL, DC 1 to 50% Complete NV IA, NE, NV, OR, SD - Not Started WV AK, AR, CT, FL, MD, ME, MO, NJ, WA, WV AR, FL, ME, NJ, PA, TN, WV No Response (Blank) - ID, MS, ND, TX AK, AZ, CA, CT, GA, IA, ID, KY, MD, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NV, NY, OK, OR, SD, TX, WA Question 1b. What percent of identified locations have complete alternative strategy evaluations? Percent of Locations Identified NHS Non-NHS Federal-Aid System Other Complete AZ, CA, DC, FL, ME, MT, NH, NY, NC, PA, SD, TX, WA, WY CA, NC, NY, PA - > 75% Complete AK, OR, SC DC, SC SC 50 to 75% Complete - MT DC 1 to 50% Complete DE DE, ND, OR, SD DE Not Started IA, ID, KY, VT AK, AZ, CT, FL, KY, ME, NH, NJ, VT, WA FL, ME, VT N/A (None identified) AL, AR, CO, CT, GA, MN, MO, MS, NE, NM, NJ, NV, TN, UT, WV AL, AR, CO, GA, IA, ID, MN, MO, NE, NM, NV, TN, UT, WV, WY AL, AR, CO, ID, ND, NJ, NM, PA, TN, UT, WV, WY No Response (Blank) MA, MD, ND, OH, OK MA, MD, MS, OH, OK, TX AK, AZ, CA, CT, GA, IA, KY, MA, MD, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, SD, TX, WA

State Survey Responses 89 Comments on the evaluation process that were specified by the agency respondents: • Some responses were percentage of state-owned and managed NHS. • Off-system bridges with multiple emergency events will need to be evaluated by November 2020 deadline. • One agency looked at all DDIRs and have located them (to the best of their ability) on both the state-managed system as well as on the local system. The agency won't develop alternatives until they have a project in that area. The agency’s scoping tool will help identify the locations that meet the definition, and when the project is scoped, the agency will develop alternatives. • One agency was identifying past repairs based on ER submissions to FHWA. The agency’s approach considers NHS and non-NHS repairs equally as these are not differentiated in the ER submissions. The agency mapped and analyzed repairs from 2005 through 2017. The agency is still mapping repairs from 1997 to 2004 and 2018. Evaluations for alternatives were accomplished at the time of repair for sites known to be repetitive damages at the time of occurrence. Identifying repetitive damage sites under Part 667 is 60 percent complete. • Initial review of facilities was limited to the NHS. Statewide event locations have been identified and incorporated into GIS, but the in-depth analysis for facilities off the NHS has not yet been performed. • The TAMP Team change in late 2018, we have been unable to find record of the work prior to that time. • All state-owned roads were analyzed, so the “other” were state-owned, non-FA eligible.

90 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events C. Data Sources Question 2a. Which of the seven availability options best describes your agency’s data source availability used to identify locations damaged by emergency events for the November 23, 2018 deadline? Data Source Availability Data Source Availability by Event Type Data Source Availability by Network Type President Declared Governor Declared NHS Non-NHS FA Public Roads System Not available - MO - - AK, AZ, ID, IA, ME, NJ, SD, TN, VT Analysis not started WV WV WV AK, AZ, CT, FL, TX, WV CT, FL, MT, NH, PA, TX, WV Fully (internal) AK, AZ, CA, CT, GA, ID, KY, NC, NV, NY, OH, SC, SD, TN, UT, WA AK, AZ, CA, CT, GA, ID, KY, ME, NC, NV, NY, OH, SC, SD, TN, UT, WA AK, AZ, CA, CT, FL, GA, ID, KY, ME, MN, MS, NC, NE, NV, NY, OH, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT CA, GA, KY, ME, MN, NC, NE, NV, NJ, NY, OH, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT GA, KY, NE, NV, OH, SC, UT Fully (internal & external) AL, DC, FL, IA, ME, MS, NJ, NM, OK, OR, PA, TX AL, CO, DC, FL, IA, MS, NJ, NM, OK, OR, PA, TX AL, IA, MT, NM, OR, PA, TX, WY AL, IA, MT, NM, OR, PA, WY AL, NM, OR, WY Partial (internal) MO, NE, NH, VT NE, NH, VT CO, DE, MO, NH, NJ, OK, WA AZ, CO, DE, MO, NH, OK, WA CO, DC, DE, MO, WA Partial (external) CO, WY WY DC DC, NJ MD, MS Partial (internal & external) AR, DE, MD, MT, ND AR, DE, MD, MT, ND AR, MD, ND AR, ID, MD, MS, ND AR, ND, OK No Response (Blank) MA, MN MA, MN MA MA CA, MA, MN, NY, NC

State Survey Responses 91 Question 2b. Which of the six format options best describes your agency’s data source formats used to identify locations damaged by emergency events for the November 23, 2018 deadline? Data Format Data Source Availability by Event Type Data Source Availability by Network Type President Declared Governor Declared NHS Non-NHS FA Public Roads System GIS DC, MA, ME, NC, ND, NH, OR, UT, VT, WA DC, MA, ME, NC, ND, NH, OR, UT, VT, WA AK, DC, IA, KY, MA, ME, MN, MT, NC, ND, NE NH, OR, UT, VT, WA DC, IA, KY, MA, MN, MT, NC, ND, NH, OR, UT, VT, WA DC, KY, MA, OR, UT, WA Enterprise Tabular Database ME, NH, NM, NV, OH, PA, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA ME, NH, NM, NV, OH, PA, SD, TX, UT, WA AK, CO, DC, FL, IA, ME, MT, NH, NM, NV, OH, OK, PA, SD, TX, UT, WA, WY CO, IA, MT, NH, NM, NV, OH, OK, PA, SD, UT, WA, WY CO, NM, NV, OH, OK, UT, WA, WY Desktop Databases or Spreadsheets AL, AR, CA, DC, DE, MD, MO, MT, NC, NE, NH, NM, NY, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, VT, WY AL, AR, AZ, CA, DE, MD, MT, NC, NE, NH, NM, NY, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, VT, WY AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, MD, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, VT AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DE, MN, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NY, OR, PA, SC, TN, VT AL, AR, CO, DE, NE, NM, OR, SC Hard Copy Records AZ, DC, DE, FL, IA, MT, NE, NH, NJ, OR, VT, WY AZ, DE, DC, FL, IA, KY, MT, NE, NH, NJ, OR, VT, WY AZ, DC, DE, IA, KY, MN, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, OR, TX, VT DC, DE, IA, KY, MN, MT, ND, NH, NJ, OR, VT DC, DE, OR Other AK, CO, GA, NH AK, CO, GA, NH GA, NH, TX GA, NH GA Have Not Started Analysis WV WV WV AZ, CT, ME, MD, WV AZ, CT, IA, MD, ME, MT, NH, PA, TN, WV No Response (Blank) CT, ID, KY, MN, MS CT, ID, MN, MO, MS ID, MS AK, FL, ID, MO, MS, TX AK, CA, FL, ID, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NJ, NY, SD, TX, VT

92 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Question 3. What internal IT systems were used in the analysis? Selected IT Systems (State Agencies) Construction/Contracting records AZ, DC, DE, IA, ME, MS, MT, ND, NH, NM, NV, OR, PA, SD, WA, WY FHWA ER Funding AK, AR, AZ, DC, FL, IA, KY, ME, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, OH, OR, SD, TN, UT, VT GIS AK, CO, DC, IA, KY, MA, ME, MN, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NY, OH, OR, SD, UT, VT, WA MMS AZ, CO, DC, DE, GA, ME, MS, NC, NH, NM, NV, OK, OR, PA, SC, TX, WY STIP ID, MS, MT, OR, WA, WY Other AK, AL, CA, CO, CT, IA, MD, ND, NE, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, TX, UT, VT, WA No Response (Blank) MO, WV MMS = Maintenance Management System, STIP = Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan, FHWA ER Funding = FHWA Emergency Relief Funding Project Plans. Comments on internal data sources that were specified by the agency respondents: • CPMS • Funding requests • Major damage coordinator spreadsheet • Procurement office list of emergency contracts. List of projects that we spent federal emergency funds on. This list was provided by our accounting and finance team. Federal DDIR forms. • Financial spreadsheet and maintenance records • Records management system • Project Program Management (PPM) database

State Survey Responses 93 • State DOT FMIS to identify ER-funded projects • GIS to map sites and identify repetitive damage sites/areas • Internal ER project tracking website/database • Finance databases and project development system • LiDAR • RCRS (Roadway Condition Reporting System) • Electronic Program Management system was used for most of the data and additional details were obtained from project plans • Within GIS, we overlaid our historic, current, and planned capital projects list (which included projects part of the STIP) Question 4. What external IT systems or data sources were used in the analysis? External Data Sources State Agencies FHWA Financial Management Information System (FMIS) AL, AK, AZ, DC, DE, IA, ID, KY, MA, MD, MS, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, UT, VT, WA, WY Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) ID, MS, OR Other Federal Agency Data Systems CO, DC, MS, MT, NJ, OR, TX Other State Agency/Authority Data Systems CO, FL, MT, NC, NJ, WA County/Municipal Data Systems DC, NJ No Response (Blank) AR, CA, CT, GA, ME, MN, MO, NV, NY, SD, WV

94 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Other federal agency data systems: FEMA records, project records, National Forest Service wildfire webmap, MSAR. Other state agency/authority data systems: APEX, web-based application/database from state effort led by consultant to develop an application to record damages from Superstorm Sandy to the Governor's Office, email, state-developed Financial Management System, FATS, and SPORT (local federal aid tracking system), SAP. Question 5. What data elements were used to identify damage locations? Data Elements Used to Identify Damage Locations (State Agencies) Asset ID CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, IA, ME, MN, MT, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, TX, UT, VT Coordinates CO, IA, KY, MD, ME, NC, ND, NE, NH, OR, SC, SD, UT, VT, WA Physical Milepost or Benchmarks AK, AZ, CT, DC, DE, FL, IA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, TX, VT, WA, WY Route / Mile Point AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, KY, MA, MD, ME, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WY Other AL, CO, CT, MO, MS, NJ, NY, SD, TX, WY No Response (Blank) WV Other data elements used: • Contract numbers that had emergency or damage repair prefixes • County boundaries • DDIR location descriptions • Disaster declaration queries • Location descriptions

State Survey Responses 95 • Northing and Easting • Site IDs, which included route and milepost • Station on construction plans Question 6. What data elements other than location were included in your data collection or analysis efforts? Data Elements Other than Location Used to Identify Damage Locations (State Agencies) Damage Type AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, KY, MA, ME, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WY Repair Type AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, IA, KY, MA, ME, MN, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, VT, WA, WY Repair Cost AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, IA, ID, KY, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, UT, VT, WA, WY Project Limits AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, KY, MN, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA Betterments Opportunity AZ, CO, FL, KY, MT, NC, ND, OR, SC Repair Delivery Mechanism CO, DC, DE, FL, IA, MT, ND, NH, NY, PA, SC, TX, WY Other CO, IA, MD, MN, MS, NC, NE, NY, OR, VT No Response (Blank) OK, WV “Other” data elements, other than location, that were specified by the agency respondents: • Cause of damage • Declared event year and name; BINs, CINs as available • Gathered data, intelligence, and information through informal interviews with Maintenance teams • Potential mitigation/adaptation measures • Time extent of closure

96 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Year Range State Agencies 2016–2017 - 2011–2015 GA, MD, OK 2006–2010 AL, CA, DE, KY, ND, TN 2001–2005 AR, CT, ID, IA, ME, MO, NH, NC, OR, VT 1997–2000 AK, DC, FL, MS, MT, NM, NY, OH, SC, SD, TX, WA Earlier than 1997 AZ, MN, NE, NV, NJ, UT, WY None CO No Response (Blank) MA, PA, WV Question 7. What was the earliest year for which you had complete records of emergency events and damage locations?

State Survey Responses 97 Question 8. Did you encounter any other data gaps or missing data not captured in the questions above? State Agency Encountered Data Gap (Y/N) Description of Data Gap AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, IA, ID, MD, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OK, SD, TX, UT, VT, WY N Not Applicable CO Y Alternatives considered in managing risk when recovering from damage/repairing damaged assets. KY Y Historic records prior to 2009. MA, PA, SC, TN, WV Y No detailed description provided. NM Y Some of the location information in FHWA FMIS and MMS for non-NHS routes was not specific for the type of work but more general route location by county. NY Y Location descriptions are often not specific enough to map with certainty, especially repairs listed by localities and for events that occurred further back in time. NC Y Damages from non-declared events. Complete documentation for events prior to SAP (2000). ND Y Piecing together old project information (from 1997 to 2009) into GIS to analyze spatially. OR Y Conceptual repair options, mitigation/adaptive measures considered and eliminated due to anticipated costs. WA Y Specific assets damaged through the emergency event. Records contained partial information, but specific assets and asset quantities were difficult to obtain. Local NHS project location data was less complete than state location data.

98 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events NHS Lead Agency Work Units Involved in Identifying Locations on the NHS Network (State Agencies) Asset Management AK, AZ, CO, CT, DC, IA, ID, KY, ME, MS, MT, NE, NM, OH, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA Emergency Response IA, MD, NC, NV, OR, SC Engineering AK, AZ, KY, NE, NH, SC, TX, WY Information Technology AK, FL, OH, SC Maintenance and/or Operations AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, DE, GA, IA, KY, MA, MD, ME, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, OH, OK, SC, TX, WV, WY Planning and/or Programming AK, FL, IA, ID, KY, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OR, SC, VT Other NE, OH, WV Non-NHS Federal-Aid System Lead Agency Work Units Involved in Identifying Locations on the non-NHS FA Network (State Agencies) Asset Management AZ, CO, CT, DC, IA, KY, MS, MT, NE, NM, OH, OR, PA, SD, TN, UT, VT Emergency Response IA, NC, NV, OR, SC, VT Engineering AZ, NE, NH, SC, WY Information Technology OH, SC, VT Maintenance and/or Operations AL, AR, AZ, CA, DE, GA, IA, KY, MA, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, OH, OK, SC, VT, WV, WY Planning and/or Programming IA, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OR, SC, VT Other NE, OH, WV Not Applicable AK, FL, ID, MD, WA No Response (Blank) ME, TX D. Resources Question 9a. Please identify the lead agency work units involved in identifying and evaluating facilities damaged by emergency events.

State Survey Responses 99 Public Roads System Lead Agency Work Units Involved in Identifying Locations on the Public Roads System (State Agencies) Asset Management CO, DC, IA, MS, NE, NM, OH, VT Emergency Response IA, OH, SC, VT Engineering NE, SC, WY Information Technology OH, SC, VT Maintenance and/or Operations AL, DE, GA, IA, MA, NE, NM, OH, SC, VT, WV, WY Planning and/or Programming IA, MS, NE, OH, SC, VT Other ND, NE, OH, WV Not Applicable AK, FL, ID, MT, PA, TN No Response (Blank) AZ, AR, CA, CT, KY, MD, ME, MN, MO, NC, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA Agency respondent comments regarding lead work unit involvement: • District offices track, identify and evaluate emergency event information. • District/ Field Personnel/ Offices are the lead work units; they are the first responders. • Historic events mapping and analysis is led by Planning. The process for future evaluations (internally) will likely involve the DOT Planning, Maintenance, Operations, Engineering, and District Offices. For external damages, the DOT will need to reach out to the state thruway, the capital city’s DOT, and other local entities to complete evaluations for repetitive damage repair sites. • Lead Unit is the DOT. Other is LPAs. • Local Government Division is the program manager for ER. • NJDOT created an advisory group for completion of Part 667 evaluation. • Responsibility for identifying and evaluating facilities damaged by emergency events is still in the process of being formalized. Deadline for completion is April. • The emergency response function is under Operations.

100 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events • There was a team of people trying to locate sites. We started with the funding requests and then moved to the plans for more information of what was done and the locations where damages occurred. • Used internal organizations to identify and evaluate facilities damaged. • The agency leverages the TAMP for processes that support Part 667 evaluation and other types of analysis, resulting in a holistic process. • One agency relied on a lot of folks with different expertise across the agency to cast a broad net to develop the best understanding of the damaged areas. The project manager (PM) works within the Planning Team and served as the primary lead for this effort with significant asset management support or sponsorship of the PM. Question 9b. Please identify the internal support work units involved in identifying and evaluating facilities damaged by emergency events. NHS Number of Internal Support Work Units Involved in Identifying Locations on the NHS Network (State Agencies) Asset Management AK, CO, FL, IA, KY, ME, NE, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, SC, SD, TX VT, WA, WY Emergency Response AK, CO, DC, FL, IA, MS, MT, NC, NJ, NY, OR, PA, TN, VT Engineering AK, AZ, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, IA, KY, ME, MS, MT, NE, NH, NV, NY, OR, PA, SC, TX, UT, VT, WA Information Technology AK, CO, DC, FL, IA, MD, MN, MT, ND, NJ, NV, OH, OR, SC, UT, VT Maintenance and/or Operations AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, KY, MA, ME, MO, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TX, VT, WA, WV Planning and/or Programming AK, CO, CT, DC, IA, ID, KY, MD, ME, MN, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, UT, VT, WA District/Field Offices AK, CO, CT, FL, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, TX, VT, WY Other CO, CT, KY, NE, NJ, OR, WA, WV

State Survey Responses 101 Non-NHS Federal-Aid System Number of Internal Support Work Units Involved in Identifying Locations on the Non- NHS FA Network (State Agencies) Asset Management CO, IA, NE, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, SC, VT, WY Emergency Response CO, DC, IA, MS, MT, NC, NY, OR, PA, TN, VT Engineering AZ, CO, CT, DC, DE, IA, MS, MT, NE, NH, NV, NY, OR, PA, SC, UT, VT Information Technology CO, DC, IA, MN, MT, ND, NV, OH, OR, SC, UT, VT Maintenance and/or Operations AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, GA, IA, MA, MO, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, VT, WV Planning and/or Programming CO, CT, DC, IA, MN, NE, NH, NV, NY, OH, PA, SC, UT, VT District/Field Offices CO, CT, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, VT, WY Other CO, CT, NE, OR, WV Not Applicable ID, FL, WA No Response (Blank) AK, KY, ME, MD, NJ, SD, TX Public Roads System Number of Internal Support Work Units Involved in Identifying Locations on the Public Roads System (State Agencies) Asset Management CO, IA, NE, NM, OH, SC, WY Emergency Response CO, DC, IA, MS Engineering CO, DC, DE, MS, NE, SC Information Technology CO, DC, IA, ND, OH, SC Maintenance and/or Operations AL, CO, GA, IA, MA, MS, NE, NM, OH, SC, WV Planning and/or Programming CO, DC, IA, NE, OH, SC District/Field Offices CO, MS, NE, NM, OH, SC, WY Other CO, NE, WV Not Applicable FL, ID, MT, PA, TN No Response (Blank) AK, AR, AZ, CA, CT, KY, MD, ME, MN, MO, NC, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA

102 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events • District offices track, identify, and evaluate emergency event information. • Division of Accounting and Finance and Risk Management units. • Environmental Analysis. • Environmental Services. • Finance. • The “Other” unit is LPA. • “Other” units include Local, Environmental Resources, and Budget. • Support participants in identification and evaluation process are still being finalized. In addition to the above, Geo-environmental and Research staff are expected to be involved. • There was a team. AM started the request of GIS/IT and then met with maintenance and operations and district offices. Question 9c. Please identify the external support organizations involved in identifying and evaluating facilities damaged by emergency events. Agency respondent comments regarding internal support work unit involvement:

State Survey Responses 103 NHS Number of External Support Organizations Involved in Identifying Locations on the NHS Network (State Agencies) FHWA AZ, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, IA, KY, MN, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, WA, WY FEMA AL, CO, DC, MS, NE, NM, NV, OK, OR, SC, WY Other Federal Agency NE, SC State Police AL, DC, NE, NY, SC State Emergency Management AL, CO, DC, DE, FL, MA, MS, NE, NV, NY, PA, SC, SD, VT, WY Other State Agency MT, SC Metropolitan Planning Organization MD, MS, NE County/Municipal MD, NE, NV, NY, OK, SC Not Applicable AK, CA, GA, ID, MO, OH, WV No Response (Blank) AR, ME, NJ FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency. FHWA = Federal Highway Administration. Non-NHS Federal-Aid System Number of External Support Organizations Involved in Identifying Locations on the Non-NHS FA Network (State Agencies) FHWA AZ, CO, CT, DC, IA, MN, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, OK, PA, SC, TN, TN, UT, WY FEMA AL, CO, DC, KY, MS, NE, NM, NV, OK, SC, WY Other Federal Agency NE, SC State Police AL, DC, NE, NY, SC State Emergency Management AL, CO, DC, DE, MA, MS, NE, NV, NY, PA, SC, SD, VT, WY Other State Agency MT, SC Metropolitan Planning Organization MS, NE County/Municipal AR, CT, NE, NV, NY, OK, SC Not Applicable CA, FL, GA, ID, MO, OH, WA, WV No Response (Blank) AK, MD, ME, NJ, OR, TX FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency. FHWA = Federal Highway Administration.

104 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Public Roads System Number of External Support Organizations Involved in Identifying Locations on the Public Roads System (State Agencies) FHWA CO, DC, ND, NE, NM, SC, WY FEMA AL, CO, DC, MS, NE, NM, SC, WY Other Federal Agency NE, SC State Police AL, DC, NE, SC State Emergency Management AL, CO, DC, DE, MA, MS, NE, NY, SC, WY Other State Agency SC Metropolitan Planning Organization MS, NE County/Municipal ND, NE, NY, SC Not Applicable FL, GA, ID, MT, OH, WV No Response (Blank) AK, AR, AZ, CA, CT, IA, KY, MD, ME, MN, MO, NC, NH, NJ, NV, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency. FHWA = Federal Highway Administration. Agency respondent comments regarding external support organization involvement: • All roadways other than municipal roadways are maintained by the state. • COOP details coordination w/internal and external agencies. • FHWA Division Office, FEMA, and state office of emergency management (OEM). • We had an FHWA representative who helped us with this analysis doing a rotation through our planning office. • Yet to be finalized.

State Survey Responses 105 Question 10a. Did your agency augment its staff to conduct this analysis for the NHS network? Augmented Staff? (Y/N) State Agencies N AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, ME, MD, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NM, NY, ND, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, VT, WA, WV, WY Y DC, IA, KY, MA, NH, NJ, NC, OH, SC, TN, UT Question 10b. If the answer to question 10a was yes, please indicate the type of support that was utilized. Support Type State Agencies Consultant DC, IA, MA, NH, NJ, NC, OH, SC, TN, UT University KY Temporary workers SC Interns NH Other OH, SC The “Other” support types are: • Project Management type resources. • Temporary workers were existing staff reassigned temporarily. Question 11a. Has or is your agency planning to augment its staff to conduct this analysis for the non-NHS network? Additional Resources Used? State Agencies Yes IA, KY, NC, SC, TN, UT No, but the agency plans to AK, DC, MD, MT, WV No AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, ME, MN, MS, MO, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, VT, WA, WY

106 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events 11b. If the answer to question 11a was not “No”, please indicate the type of support that was or that is planned to be utilized. Support Type State Agencies Consultant DC, IA, MD, MT, NC, SC, TN, UT University KY Temporary workers SC Interns - Other AK, SC, WV The “Other” support types are: • Additional internal staff. • Temporary workers were existing staff reassigned temporarily.

State Survey Responses 107 E. Approach Question 12a. Did you establish criteria for determining if damage from different events occurred at the same location? Established Criteria? State Agencies No AK, AZ, AR, CT, DE, ID, ME, MD, MA, NM, OK, WV Yes AL, CA, CO, DC, FL, GA, IA, KY, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WY Question 12b. If you answered “Yes” to question 12a, can you share the criteria with the research team? Can You Share Your Criteria? State Agencies No AL, CO, GA, MS, NY Yes DC, FL, IA, KY, MN, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WY No Response (Blank) CA Question 13. What techniques did you use to identify locations damaged more than once? Techniques Used to Identify Locations Damaged More Than Once (State Agencies) GIS (standard tools) AK, AR, CO, DE, IA, ID, KY, ME, MN, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, UT, VT, WA GIS (custom scripts) KY, NY, VT, WA Database Queries AL, AR, AZ, CO, DC, DE, FL, GA, ID, KY, ME, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, WY Manual Records Search AK, AR, AZ, CO, CT, DC, DE, IA, KY, MD, MN, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NV, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, WY Judgment AR, AZ, DE, IA, MA, MN, MS, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, VT Other AL, CA, CO, FL, MD, MO, NE, NH, OH, TX No Response (Blank) WV

108 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events The “Other” techniques used were: • Spreadsheet of damage locations per event. • Location limit searches. • Organizational history. • If the roadway ID suffered damage from different events, but not necessarily at the same begin/end mile points, one DOT conducted the required analysis. • Verbal questions to longtime maintenance staff. • Project location; reference post and log mile. • GIS spatial analysis results are reviewed by an analyst. • The initial analysis required multiple different techniques to assess and pinpoint locations and assets that were verified by our Districts. • Construction plan review. Question 14. How many locations have you identified to date that have been damaged by more than one emergency event? Network Type Asset Owner Number of Damaged Locations Identified as of April 2019 (State Agencies) 0 1–5 6–10 11– 15 16– 20 21– 25 > 25 N/A (Not Yet Analyzed) No Response (Blank) NHS StateDOT AL, AR, CO, CT, GA, MA, MD, ME, AK, AZ, DE, DC, FL, ID, IA, MO, - ND, SD VT KY, OR, WA CA,1 NC - OH, SC, WV

State Survey Responses 109 Network Type Asset Owner Number of Damaged Locations Identified as of April 2019 (State Agencies) 0 1–5 6– 10 11– 15 16– 20 21– 25 > 25 N/A (Not Yet Analyzed) No Response (Blank) MN, MS, MT, NE, NJ, NM, NV, OK, PA, TN, TX, UT NH, NY, WY Toll Authority AL, CO, MA, MD, MN, NE, NH, NJ, OK, TN, UT NY - - - - - - AK, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, KY, ME, MO, MS, MT, NV, NM, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, VT, WA, WV, WY Municipal/ County AL, CO, CT, MA, MN, MS, NE, NH, NJ, NM, OK, TN, UT, WY WA - - - - - VT2 AK, AR, AZ, CA, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, KY, MD, ME, MO, MT, NC, ND, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, WV

110 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Network Type Asset Owner Number of Damaged Locations Identified as of April 2019 (State Agencies) 0 1–5 6–10 11– 15 16– 20 21– 25 > 25 N/A (Not Yet Analyzed) No Response (Blank) Non- NHS Federal- Aid State DOT AL, CO, GA, IA, MA, MN, MS, NE, NM, NV, OK, PA, TN, UT, WY AZ, CT, MT, NC - - - - NH, NY ND, NJ, VT3 AK, AR, CA, DC, DE, FL, ID, KY, MD, ME, MO, OH, OR, SC, SD, TX, WA, WV Toll Authority AL, CO, MA, MN, NE, OK, TN, UT DC - - - - - - AK, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, KY, MD, ME, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, VT, WV, WY Municipal/ County AL, CO, MA, MN, MS, NE, NM, OK, TN, UT, WY - - NY - - - ND AK, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, KY, MD, ME, MO, MT, NC, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, VT, WA, WV

State Survey Responses 111 Network Type Asset Owner Number of Damaged Locations Identified as of April 2019 (State Agencies) 0 1–5 6– 10 11– 15 16– 20 21– 25 > 25 N/A (Not Yet Analyzed) No Response (Blank) Public Roads State DOT AL, CO, GA, IA, MA, MN, MS, MT, NE, NV, NM, OK, TN, UT, WY DE - - - - - NJ AK, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DC, FL, ID, KY, MD, ME, MO, NC, ND, NH, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, VT, WA, WV Toll Authority AL, CO, MA, MN, NE, OK, TN, UT - - - - - - - AK, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, KY, MD, ME, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, VT, WA, WV, WY Municipal/ County AL, CO, MA, MN, MS, DC - - - - - ND AK, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID,

112 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Network Type Asset Owner Number of Damaged Locations Identified as of April 2019 (State Agencies) 0 1–5 6– 10 11– 15 16– 20 21– 25 > 25 N/A (Not Yet Analyzed) No Response (Blank) NE, NM, OK, TN, UT, WY KY, MD, ME, MO, MT, NC, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, VT, WA, WV 1 40 total across all route classes. 2 All agency owned/maintained. 3 Not sure, we have the data though. Question 15. Which agency stakeholders have access to the analysis results? Agency Stakeholders with Access to Identified Locations (State Agencies) Internal Staff AL, AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, KY, MA, MD, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WY FHWA AL, AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, KY, MA, MD, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OK, OR, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, WY Metropolitan Planning Organizations CA, CO, DC, FL, IA, MD, MN, MO, MS, NH, NJ, NM, SC, SD, TX, VT, WY Toll Authorities CA, CO, DC, FL, MD, NH, NJ, SD Municipal/County Agencies CA, CO, DC, FL, IA, MD, MN, MS, NH, NJ, NM, SC, SD, VT, WY Public CA, CO, CT, FL, IA, MD, MN, MS, MT, PA, SC, SD, UT, VT, WY No Response (Blank) ME, WV

State Survey Responses 113 F. Procedures Question 16a. Has your agency developed written procedures for identifying facilities damaged by emergency events? Developed Written Procedures? State Agencies No AK, AR, AZ, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, KY, MA, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NH, NM, NV, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA, WV, WY Yes AL, CA, CO, MD, NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, TX Question 16b. If you answered, “Yes” to question 16a, would you be willing to share the procedures with the research team? Willing to Share Procedures? State Agencies No AL, MD, OH Yes CO, NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, TX No Response (Blank) CA Agency respondent comments regarding written procedures: • The State/LPA ER Manual is currently under revision. File too large to attach in Word Doc or PDF Form. • One agency did not have any written procedures to share. The agency clicked “yes” to share the following comment: “Although not documented, in general, for Part 667, we identify ER repairs that are located within a 500-foot distance and have occurred due to different declared events. The team then uses judgement as to whether repairs qualify as repetitive damage. The agency also has procedures in place to identify locations during a declared event and assure that repairs are made in compliance with the agency’s

114 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events procedures. The agency replaces/repairs facilities to current standards and seeks ‘betterments’ where appropriate, which in the past have not always been approved by FHWA.” • We have developed preliminary procedures that document evaluation to date and future enhancements. Question 17a. Were the results of evaluations performed to comply with 23 CFR 667 used in developing your agency’s initial TAMP submitted in April of 2018? Were the Results Used in the 2018 TAMP Development? State Agencies Yes. AL, CA, CO, CT, DC, ID, KY, MD, MT, ND, NE, NJ, NM, NV, OR, PA, SD, WY No, but they will be in the 2019 TAMP submission. AK, AR, AZ, DE, FL, IA, MA, MO, NC, NH, NY, OH, OK, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV N/A, no locations were identified. GA, ME, MN, MS, SC No Response (Blank) - No, and they will not be in the 2019 TAMP submission. - Question 17b. If your answer to question 17a was, “Yes”, please indicate which 2018 TAMP elements the results were used. Sections of the 2018 TAMP Impacted by the Results of Part 667 (State Agencies) Risk Management AL, CA, CO, CT, DC, ID, KY, MD, MT, ND, NE, NJ, NM, OR, SD Investment Strategies CA, DC, MT, OR Life-Cycle Planning MT, OR Other NJ, NV, PA, WY

State Survey Responses 115 Question 17c. If your answer to question 17a was, “No, but they will be in the 2019 TAMP submission,” please indicate in which 2019 TAMP elements the results were used. Sections of the 2019 TAMP Impacted by the Results of Part 667 (State Agencies) Risk Management AK, AZ, DE, IA, MO, NC, NH, NY, OH, OK, TN, UT, VT, WA, WV Investment Strategies DE, OH, TN, VT Life-Cycle Planning NC, OH, TN, VT Other FL, TX, WA No Response AR, MA Agency respondent comments regarding incorporating alternative strategies in TAMPs: • Evaluations are most appropriately referenced in the Risk Mgt. section, but the subject will also be incorporated into sections for LCP and GAP analysis, which come together in the development of investment strategies. • Section noting Part 667 compliance. • Appendix. • One state DOT integrates risk into all aspects of asset management. • Currently results from this study can only be used for addressing risk, but as asset management processes mature, we will seek to include it in other areas (such as LCP and Investment Strategies).

116 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Question 18a. Has your agency completed evaluations of alternative strategies for the sites identified as being damaged by more than one emergency event? Alternative Strategy Evaluations? State Agencies No locations identified AL, AR, CO, CT, DE, GA, MA, MD, ME, MN, MS, NE, NJ, NM, NV, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT No AK, IA, ID, KY, MT, NC, NY, OH, OR, TX, VT, WV Yes AZ, CA, DC, FL, MO, ND, NH, WA, WY Question 18b. Have the results (partial or complete) been used in any of the following processes? Agency Process That Use Alternative Strategy Results (State Agencies) STIP FL, IA, MO, MT, OR TIP CA, FL Project Scoping AZ, CA, DC, FL, IA, MO, MT, ND, OR, VT Project Selection CA, DC, FL, IA, MT, OR, VT Preliminary Engineering FL, IA, MO, MT, OR Final Design CA, FL, OR

State Survey Responses 117 Question 19. What was your greatest challenge in meeting the regulation requirements? Greatest Challenge to Meet Requirements? State Agencies Data availability AL, CA, CO, CT, DC, IA, MD, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NH, OR, PA, VT Lack of guidance ME, NE, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, TN, WA Resources/staffing AK, AR, ID, KY, SD, UT Data quality DE, GA, MA Analysis tools TX Other (please specify) AZ, FL, ND, NY, SC, WV, WY Agency respondent comments regarding the greatest challenge to regulation requirements: • Not all permanent repair locations had roadway IDs so more in-depth research was required to complete the analysis. • All of the above and 20 years of data that were not captured through existing systems. • All the above were great challenges. There was a lack of data going back to 1997. The older the data were, the lower its quality it was. There were no available full time- equivalent (FTE) resources to work on this. The tools in place were not adequate, additional databases and tools needed to be created. There was a significant lack of guidance from FHWA on many aspects of this requirement. • Both Data Availability and Staffing. • Finding the intent of the disaster declaration and scrubbing the data to find if work was accomplished to repair.

118 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Question 20. Please indicate the types of enhancements to your data, systems, or processes that you have in place by (or you expect to have in place after) the November 23, 2020 deadline to support compliance with 23 CFR 667. Please include a brief (1 to 2 sentences) description of each enhancement. Agency Process Enhancements (State Agencies) Process In Place Before November 23, 2020 Deadline In Place After November 23, 2020 Deadline Data Collection (process improvement or training) AL, AK, CA, CT, DC, IA, KY, MD, MT, NC, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, SD, TN, UT, WV CO, ID, MA, MN, MS, SC, VT, WA Data Collection (hardware) MD, MT, NC, NM, NY, OH, SC MN, NH, VT Data Collection (software) CA, CT, IA, MD, MO, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR MN, NH, SC, TN, TX, VT Data Governance AK, FL, IA, KY, MD, MT, NE, NJ, NM, NY, OR, SC, WV, WY AZ, CO, ID, MN, NH, OH, VT Data Structure CT, KY, MD, MT, NC, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR CO, ID, MN, NH, SC, TX, VT Analysis Tools DC, IA, KY, MD, MN, MT, NE, NV, NY, OH, OR, WV CO, ID, NJ, SC, TX, VT Organizational Changes DC, IA, MD, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, WV KY, MN Increased Staffing DC, MD, MT, SC KY Increased External Support AK, CT, MD, MT, NJ, UT KY Other GA, NJ, WA CO, OR None - AR, MS Delaware and Maine did not respond to this survey.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

A sset M anagem ent A pproaches to Identifying and Evaluating A ssets D am aged D ue to Em ergency Events N CH RP Synthesis 556 TRB TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88 ISBN 978-0-309-48151-9 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 8 1 5 1 9 9 0 0 0 0