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.

4 Introduction Background Current legislation and subsequent asset management rules require state DOTs to conduct statewide evaluations of roads, highways, and bridges that have required repair and reconstruc- tion activities two or more times due to emergency events as declared by the president of the United States or by a state’s governor. These requirements, commonly referred to as 23 CFR § 667, Periodic Evaluation of Facilities Repeatedly Requiring Repair and Reconstruction Due to Emergency Events, involve an assessment of prior damage due to emergency events since January 1, 1997, as well as the development of a process to ensure that alternate improvements are considered in locations requiring repetitive repairs and reconstruction after future emer- gency events. The intent of the evaluation is to determine whether there are reasonable repair and reconstruction alternatives that could be considered to reduce future emergency funding needs in areas with recurring damage. The initial evaluation focused on roads, highways, and bridges on the NHS, but after November 23, 2020, subsequent evaluations are required to include NHS roads, highways, and bridges as well as the rest of the public highway network. The reevaluation is required to be updated after every emergency event to the extent needed, or at least every 4 years. The § 667 requirements coincide with other national initiatives under way to support the consideration of risks in managing transportation assets. For example, per 23 USC § 119, state DOTs are required to develop risk-based TAMPs that result in 10-year investment strategies for NHS pavements and bridges that consider risks, available funding, and the long-term needs of an asset over its life cycle. Unexpected weather events are one example of the types of risks that state DOTs are considering in developing their 10-year investment strategies. In addition, FHWA is conducting a pilot program to examine agencies’ resilience and dura- bility to extreme weather events. The pilot program includes 11 agencies that are exploring strategies for integrating resilience into agency practices, tools, and resources for deployment in long-range transportation plans, statewide transportation improvement plans (STIPs), or other agency plans. The pilot programs are intended to enable transportation agencies to help ensure that transportation systems meet both short- and long-term objectives for safety, mobility, and functionality as the frequency and intensity of weather events increases. At the time the synthesis was conducted, little guidance and few standard tools existed to support state DOT efforts. Additionally, state DOTs vary in their abilities to respond to § 667 and incorporate resiliency into their planning processes. One of the factors influencing the degree to which § 667 requirements could be met was the way emergency repairs had been tracked in historical databases. In some cases, records did not detail the specific assets that were repaired, so it was difficult to evaluate what work had been performed. In other situations, agencies had reported general locations that were difficult to match from one event to another. C H A P T E R 1

Introduction 5 This synthesis documents the current state of practice and illustrates the innovative ways that several state DOTs have approached the reporting of repairs associated with emergency events. Objective of the Synthesis This synthesis furnishes documentary evidence of the approaches that state DOTs have taken to identify and evaluate locations where highway assets have been repeatedly damaged and to identify considerations that have been made for mitigating the risk of recurring damage to assets in those areas. The information contained in this report is intended to benefit transportation agencies with building data sets and tools that support the evaluation of damage to assets asso- ciated with emergency events and to illustrate methodologies that are being used to integrate these risks into asset investment decisions. Synthesis Scope and Approach This synthesis primarily focuses on state DOT responses to § 667, including the sources of information and tools used to conduct the evaluation, the gaps that were discovered, the information obtained from external resources to complete the evaluation, and the degree to which the results influenced the 10-year investment strategies included in a state’s TAMP. The synthesis also sought to determine the integration of the evaluation results into state planning processes and the changes that have been made to better track damage caused by emergency events in the future. The information presented in this report specifically details current practices in the following areas: • Sources and methods of collecting the required data, • Gaps in data needed by state DOTs to conduct the evaluation, • State DOT functional areas responsible for the § 667 evaluation, • Use of external resources to complete the evaluations (e.g., consultants, university partners, local agencies), • Tools and methodologies used to conduct the evaluations [e.g., geographic information systems (GIS)], • Summary of evaluation outcomes (e.g., number of locations identified by each state DOT), • If and how the results of the evaluation influenced the TAMP (e.g., investment strategies or risk management), and • Integration of results into existing planning processes [e.g., STIP, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), resilience planning, and local agency coordination]. The information contained in this synthesis was obtained using three sources. First, a literature search was conducted to collect information relevant to the efforts of state DOTs to comply with federal regulation 23 CFR § 667. While the search included review of traditional methods such as a review of the Transportation Research Information Database (TRID), most of the literature sought for the synthesis is not considered research. Therefore, the literature review included manual searches of state, federal, and international websites to identify the desired documents. This search included information on efforts that are outside of the specific requirements of the regulation but were performed in concert with or in extension of the agency’s compliance efforts, including the following types of information: • Federal and state statutes and regulations, • Federal and state policies and procedures related to the declaration of emergency events, • Federal and state guidelines for documenting emergency recovery and repair efforts,

6 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events • Federal and state guidelines for compliance with 23 CFR § 667, • State policies and procedures related to compliance with 23 CFR § 667, • State reports, websites, databases, or other information sources relevant to compliance with 23 CFR § 667, • State submissions for compliance with 23 CFR § 667, • International practices, and • Domestic and international research into documenting and analyzing damage due to emergency events. Second, a survey distributed to the asset management contacts in each of the 50 state DOTs, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, as identified by FHWA, asked for information about the process that was followed in responding to § 667, the adequacy of the information available, and the way the information was used. The asset management contacts were the initial recipients of the survey, because the results from § 667 are required to be included in a state DOT’s TAMP submittal. FHWA maintains a list of state DOT asset management contacts on its website at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/amcontacts.cfm. The asset management practitioners were advised to forward the survey to other individuals if that would improve the quality of the responses. A total of 42 of the 52 state DOTs (81%) responded to the survey. Third, another source of information consisted of in-person and phone interviews with representatives from four state DOTs—California, Iowa, New York, and Oregon—to expand on one or more of the following three aspects of their efforts: • The site identification and evaluation process, • The integration of results into asset management and programming practices, and • Automation and data integration efforts. The four state transportation agencies selected to participate in the interviews were chosen based on several factors, including the degree to which they could demonstrate highly efficient or effective processes, unique approaches, or links between the evaluation and other agency processes. The selected agencies represent diverse characteristics in terms of size, geographic location, organizational structure, and asset management maturity. The information obtained from these sources was used to develop the findings presented in this synthesis. Case examples were developed of the practices of the California DOT, the New York State DOT, the Oregon DOT, and the Iowa DOT. Information gathered from these agencies was also incorporated into the conclusions and opportunities for research documented in this report. Terminology Specific terms used in the § 667 regulations, rules, and other terminology related to emergency events are defined in this section of the document to assist the reader. A list of abbreviations and acronyms is provided at the end of the report. • Betterments: Added protective features, such as rebuilding of roadways at a higher elevation or the lengthening of bridges, or changes that modify the function or character of a highway facility from what existed prior to the disaster or catastrophic failure, such as additional lanes or added access control (23 CFR § 668.103). • Catastrophic failure: The sudden failure of a major element or segment of a road, highway, or bridge due to an external cause. The failure must not be primarily attributable to gradual and progressive deterioration or lack of proper maintenance (23 CFR § 667.3 and 23 CFR § 668.103). • Evaluation: An analysis that includes identification and consideration of any alternative that will mitigate, or partially or fully resolve, the root cause of the recurring damage, the costs of

Introduction 7 achieving the solution, and the likely duration of the solution. The evaluations shall consider the risk of recurring damage and cost of future repair under current and future environmental conditions. These considerations typically are a part of the planning and project development process (23 CFR § 667.3). • Emergency event: A natural disaster or catastrophic failure resulting in an emergency declared by the governor of the state or an emergency or disaster declared by the president of the United States (23 CFR § 667.3). • Emergency repairs: Repairs, including temporary traffic operations undertaken during or immediately following the disaster occurrence for the purpose of (23 CFR § 668.103): – Minimizing the extent of the damage, – Protecting remaining facilities, or – Restoring essential traffic. • External cause: An outside force or phenomenon that is separate from the damaged element and not primarily the result of existing conditions (23 CFR § 668.103). • Heavy maintenance: Work usually done by highway agencies in repairing damage normally expected from seasonal and occasional unusual natural conditions or occurrences. It includes work at a site required as direct results of a disaster that can reasonably be accommodated by a state or local road authority’s maintenance, emergency, or contingency program (23 CFR § 668.103). • Natural disaster: A sudden and unusual natural occurrence, including but not limited to intense rainfall, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tidal waves, landslides, volcanoes, or earth- quakes that cause serious damage (23 CFR § 668.103). • Proclamation: A declaration of an emergency by the governor of the affected state (23 CFR § 668.103). • Reasonable alternatives: Options that could partially or fully achieve the following (23 CFR § 667.3): – Reduce the need for federal funds to be expended on emergency repair and reconstruction activities. – Better protect public safety and health and the human and natural environment. – Meet transportation needs as described in the relevant and applicable federal, state, local, and tribal plans and programs [such as the long-range statewide transportation plan, the STIP, metropolitan transportation plans, and transportation improvement programs (TIPs)]. • Repair and reconstruction: Work on a road, highway, or bridge that has one or more reconstruction elements. This includes permanent repairs such as restoring pavement surfaces, reconstructing damaged bridges and culverts, and replacing highway appurtenances but excludes emergency repairs as defined in 23 CFR § 668.103 (23 CFR § 667.3). • Resilience: The capability to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from significant multihazard threats with minimum damage to social well-being, the economy, and the environment (FHWA 2013). • Roads, highways, and bridges: “A highway, as defined in 23 USC 101(a)(11), that is open to the public and eligible for financial assistance under Title 23 USC but excludes tribally owned and federally owned roads, highways, and bridges” (23 CFR § 667.3). Organization of the Report This synthesis of practice consists of five chapters and two appendices, as described. • Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter introduces the synthesis, providing background infor- mation and summarizing the synthesis approach and organization of the document. • Chapter 2: Literature Review. This chapter summarizes and presents key findings from the literature. Relevant topics include current statutes and regulations related to § 667, federal

8 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events and state guidelines for documenting emergency recovery and repair efforts, guidance for compliance with § 667, and state documents pertaining to the requirements under § 667. • Chapter 3: State of the Practice. The results of the survey of state practice are presented in this chapter, organized by – Respondent Information: Information such as respondent title, agency work unit, and contact details. – 23 CFR § 667 Analysis Status: Information on the agency’s current status regarding identifying and evaluating facilities damaged by emergency events. – Data Sources: Information regarding the data elements, data sources, data gaps, and tools used to identify locations damaged by emergency events for the November 23, 2018, deadline. – Internal and External Support: Information regarding the internal and external organi- zations and staff involved in identifying and evaluating facilities damaged by emergency events. – Developing an Established Criteria: Information regarding the established criteria and techniques to identify locations damaged more than once. – Written Procedures and Compliance Processes: Information regarding written proce- dures, the procedures compliance, aspects of how the agency plans have or will incorporate the procedures, and planned enhancements to the procedures. • Chapter 4: Case Examples. This chapter summarizes information provided by the four state DOTs that were interviewed to learn more about their evaluation processes, the integration of their results into asset management and other programming activities (the California and Oregon DOTs), and their use of automation and data integration to collect data, complete the evaluation, and incorporate the results into investment decisions (the New York State DOT and the Iowa DOT). • Chapter 5: Opportunities for Future Research. The report concludes with a summary of key observations from the findings and suggestions for further research and outreach in this area to support state DOTs in their efforts to comply with the § 667 requirements and better use the evaluation results to support other asset management and performance management efforts. • Appendix A provides a copy of the questionnaire that was distributed electronically to the DOTs of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. • Appendix B provides a summary of the survey results that were received from the survey respondents. A list of abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms, along with references and bibliography, precede the appendices.