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.

9 Review of Literature, Statutes, Regulations, and Documented Practices Overview This chapter summarizes the results of the literature review to obtain information related to 23 CFR § 667 as well as additional information regarding how state DOTs have responded to the legislation and incorporated weather-related events into asset management investment planning. The results of the literature search were relatively sparse, largely because of the limited amount of time that the regulation has been in place. The synthesis found most of the literature addressing the topic in statutes, regulations, and guidance documents issued by government agencies. Because there is a relatively limited body of relevant technical research on this topic, this chapter is organized to provide an overview of relevant components of the current U.S. DOT emergency relief (ER) funding programs, the requirements under § 667, and the published procedures states have established for compliance. The final section of this chapter includes a brief summary of some research into damage assessment and recovery efforts following emergency events that are particularly relevant to agencies looking to develop or improve their ability to track damage from multiple events. U.S. DOT Emergency Relief for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems The U.S. DOT provides federal assistance for disaster-damaged roads and public transporta- tion systems through the ER Program (23 USC § 125) administered by FHWA and the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program (49 USC § 5324) administered by the FTA. FHWA’s ER Program provides funds for federal-aid highways and public-use roads on federal lands. ER funds are generally made available for both emergency repairs and restoration of eligible facilities to conditions comparable to those before the disaster (23 CFR § 668.105). FHWA pays 100% of the cost of emergency repairs conducted within 180 days of the emergency event to minimize the extent of damage, protect remaining facilities, and restore essential traffic during or immediately after a disaster (FHWA 2013). A second category of repairs, known as permanent repairs, is intended to go beyond the restoration of essential traffic by restoring damaged roads and bridges to conditions and capabilities comparable with those prior to the event. The federal share for permanent repairs is generally 90% for interstate highways and 80% for non-interstate federal-aid roads (FHWA 2013). According to Kirk and Mallet (2018) of the Congressional Research Service, there are two recurring issues that have drawn recent congressional attention: funding levels for ER and activities that go beyond restoring transportation facilities to pre-disaster conditions, such as making damaged highways and bridges more resilient to natural disasters. The second of these two issues is relevant to the current requirements associated with § 667 and the growing interest C H A P T E R 2

10 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events in improving the resiliency of the nation’s transportation system. Under the current program, “damaged facilities are eligible for ER funding if they are consistent with current standards and are not considered betterments or intended to save the program money in the long run” (Kirk and Mallet 2018). However, the Emergency Relief Manual suggests that repairs to damaged facilities should consider their long-term resilience. The program does not fund projects to improve the resilience of assets that have not been damaged by an unexpected event (FHWA 2013). The Congressional Research Service identifies options for addressing infrastructure resilience through the ER program, including expanding the eligibility for betterments to include measures to improve resiliency following disasters, expanding the existing ER program to provide funds to improve the resiliency of facilities that are not damaged in disasters, establishing a standalone program dedicated to improving the resiliency of the transportation system, or encouraging states to use federal funds to address resiliency efforts (Kirk and Mallet 2018). Federal Statutes, Regulations, and Guidance Federal statutes and rules serve as an impetus for state DOTs to track transportation facilities’ damage associated with emergency events. While in the past many state DOTs recorded infor- mation related to the site of repairs associated with emergency events, few agencies collected the information in a way that would identify the specific assets that were damaged or the types of repairs that were made. Therefore, when the requirements associated with § 667 were estab- lished, state DOTs found it difficult to link events to specific assets and specific types of repairs. Additionally, unless repairs qualified as a “betterment” by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), there was little incentive for agencies to implement a systematic process for evaluating sites that were damaged repeatedly or to identify alternate strategies that would reduce or eliminate the need for future repairs. Table 2-1 provides a list of the federal statutes and regulations identified as most relevant to the synthesis topic. The table also includes a synopsis of how the statutes or regulations relate to the synthesis topic and to each other. The following sections provide additional details on the aspects of the federal statutes, regulations, guidance, and supplemental materials relevant to this synthesis. By presenting the materials in this order, this section seeks to establish the context within which state DOTs operate in pursuit of compliance. The Origination of Federal Requirements for Periodic Evaluations of Facilities Damaged Repeatedly The federal requirement for state DOTs to identify and evaluate facilities damaged by multiple emergency events was established in an uncodified provision of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), section 1315(b) (FHWA 2016a). The requirement was preceded by an instruction for the Secretary of Transportation to change rules governing environmental review of repairs to damaged facilities, making those repairs categorically excluded from requiring environmental review, provided the repairs are (1) in the same location with the same capacity, dimensions, and design as the original road, highway, or bridge as before the declaration described in this section; and (2) commenced within a 2-year period beginning on the date of a declaration described in this section. [HR 4348, Sec. 1315 (a)] Once this allowance of categorical exclusion was in place, the requirement to track sites damaged and repaired in response to multiple emergency events established a means by which the evaluation of reasonable alternatives, typically addressed during the environmental review

Review of Literature, Statutes, Regulations, and Documented Practices 11 component of project preliminary engineering, could be performed after an emergency event for facilities that have been damaged by repeated emergencies. (1) In general—The Secretary shall ensure that the rulemaking helps to conserve Federal resources and protects public safety and health by providing for periodic evaluations to determine if reasonable alter- natives exist to roads, highways, or bridges that repeatedly require repair and reconstruction activities. (2) Reasonable alternatives—The reasonable alternatives described in paragraph (1) include actions that could reduce the need for Federal funds to be expended on such repair and reconstruction activities, better protect public safety and health and the environment, and meet transportation needs as described in relevant and applicable Federal, State, local and tribal plans. [HR 4348, Sec. 1315 (b)] This statute is established in a section of MAP-21 relevant to environmental review, specifi- cally referencing 40 CFR § 1508.4 and 23 CFR § 771.117, neither of which pertains to TAMPs. Further, the statute references emergency events, which are regulated under 23 CFR § 668 and 42 USC § 5121. The connection of this provision to asset management was made as a response to comments in the rulemaking process. The original draft rules related to this provision were issued in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under 23 CFR § 515.019. 23 CFR § 667—Periodic Evaluations of Facilities Repeatedly Requiring Repair and Reconstruction Due to Emergency Events The final rules establish state DOT responsibilities to “conduct statewide evaluations to determine if there are reasonable alternatives to roads, highways, and bridges that have required repair and reconstruction activities on two or more occasions due to emergency events (23 CFR § 667.1).” Figure 2-1 provides an example of a process agencies may follow to comply with this regulation. There are several key considerations in the rules that are highlighted in the bullets below (23 CFR § 667), which collectively summarize the scope of efforts required of state DOTs and the FHWA to comply with the regulation. • Emergency events include emergencies declared by the governor of the state or emergencies and disasters declared by the president of the United States. Reference Title and Description 23 USC § 101 Definitions and Declaration of Policy—Establishes definitions and policies that apply across all sections of U.S. Code 23 Highways. Definitions in 23 USC § 101 are referenced in some of the statutes and regulations listed in this table. 23 USC § 119 National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)—Establishes requirements for the use of NHPP funding, including requirements for risk-based TAMPs, which are required to include a summary of each state DOT’s evaluations of facilities repeatedly damaged by emergency events. 23 USC § 125 Emergency Relief—Establishes funding for the repair or reconstruction of highways, roads, and trails damaged by natural disasters or catastrophic failure from an external cause. There is commonality between the requirements for the use of ER funding and the definition of emergency events as defined in 23 CFR § 667.3. 23 USC § 134 Metropolitan Transportation Planning—Establishes policy and requirements for metropolitan transportation planning. FHWA may consider the results of analyses performed under 23 CFR § 667 when making planning findings under this statute (23 CFR § 667.9). 42 USC § 5121 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act—Establishes the legal authority for the federal government to aid states during declared major disasters and emergencies, including the authority to establish 23 USC § 125. 23 CFR § 515 Asset Management Plans—Establishes requirements for the development of risk-based TAMPs by state highway departments, including the requirement to include the results of analysis performed under 23 CFR § 667 [23 CFR § 515.7(b)(1) and (6) and 23 CFR § 515.9(b)(3) and (6)]. 23 CFR § 667 Periodic Evaluation of Facilities Repeatedly Requiring Repair and Reconstruction Due to Emergency Events—Establishes requirements for identifying and evaluating facilities damaged by multiple emergency events, including the distribution and use of the results. 23 CFR § 668 Emergency Relief Program—Establishes the requirements for the allocation and use of federal emergency relief funding for highways. This includes requirements for information needed on facilities damaged during emergency events and any resulting repairs. Table 2-1. Summary of most relevant federal statutes and regulations.

12 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events • The rule defines repair and reconstruction as work that includes one or more reconstruction elements. Therefore, it excludes emergency repairs as defined in 23 CFR § 668.103. • The first evaluation was due by November 23, 2018, and it was to include a statewide eval uation for all NHS roads, highways, and bridges. For the rest of the roads, highways, and bridges in the state, beginning November 23, 2020, an evaluation must be completed for the affected part of the facility prior to including any project relating to that part in the STIP. • The evaluation is to be updated after each emergency event to the extent necessary, but at least every 4 years. • The beginning date for the evaluation was established as January 1, 1997, and the end date will be no earlier than December 31 of the year prior to the due date. State DOTs may evaluate a longer period if useful data are reasonably available. • State DOTs are expected to use reasonable efforts to obtain the data needed for the evalu- ation. If adequate data are not available, the state DOT must document the lack of data in its evaluation. The state DOTs can use whatever sources and types of data are determined to be useful. • The state DOTs are to consider the evaluation results when developing projects, TIPs, and STIPs and during the environmental review process under § 771. • FHWA will periodically review state DOT compliance with § 667, so state DOTs are required to make evaluation results available to FHWA upon request. FHWA may consider the results of the evaluations when making a planning finding under 23 USC § 134(g)(8), making decisions during the environmental review process under 23 CFR § 771, or when approving funding. 23 CFR § 515 Asset Management Plans 23 CFR § 515 establishes the processes that state DOTs must use to develop the asset manage- ment plans required under 23 USC § 119(e)(8). The process for establishing the asset manage- ment plan is documented in 23 § CFR 515.7, and 23 CFR § 515.9 describes the requirements for the plan, including the minimum mandatory content. The rules also establish implementation procedures and procedures for FHWA oversight. The rule requires state DOTs to use the best available data and bridge and pavement management systems meeting the minimum standards established in 23 CFR § 515.17 to analyze the condition of NHS pavements and bridges and recommends including additional assets. Specific to the subject covered in this synthesis are the following requirements related to risk management and the consideration of risks in the 10-year investment strategies incorporated into the TAMP. • “The process for developing a risk management plan is expected to identify risks that can affect the condition of NHS pavements and bridges and the performance of the NHS, including Figure 2-1. Example of a process for compliance with 23 CFR § 667.

Review of Literature, Statutes, Regulations, and Documented Practices 13 risks associated with current and future environmental conditions, such as extreme weather events, climate change, seismic activity, and risks related to recurring damage and costs as identified through the evaluation of facilities repeatedly damaged by emergency events carried out under § 667” [23 CFR § 515.7(c)(1)]. • The TAMP is to include a summary of the completed evaluation, at least for the pavements and bridges on the NHS. FHWA Support for Complying with 23 CFR § 667 FHWA has posted questions and answers related to the implementation of 23 CFR § 667 on its website (FHWA 2018b; https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/23cfr667_qa.cfm). The material covers a range of topics in response to questions posed by state DOTs, including some of the points in the following list (posted responses dated November 26, 2018). • Clarification of “repair and reconstruction” as including one or the other or both activities but excluding emergency repairs as defined under the Emergency Relief Program in 23 CFR § 668.103, • The conditions under which a repeatedly damaged facility can be removed from future evaluations and when it should again be identified on the list, • What to consider when identifying alternatives to address the root cause of the damage, • The minimum or maximum length of roadway specified for consideration in the evaluation, • The format and level of detail of the evaluation, • Clarification of periodic updates to the list of repeatedly damaged facilities, • Clarification on the inclusion of § 667 evaluations in an agency’s fully compliant TAMP, • What specific activities could include the consideration of the results of the evaluations, and • Clarification of evaluation deadlines and their relationship to the inclusion of projects on a state’s STIP. 23 USC 125 Emergency Relief This legislation establishes an emergency fund that is authorized for expenditure by the Secretary of Transportation for the repair or reconstruction of highways, roads, and trails in any area of the United States, including Indian reservations, that the Secretary finds have suffered serious damage due to: • A natural disaster over a wide area, such as by a flood, hurricane, tidal wave, earthquake, severe storm, or landslide; or • A catastrophic failure from any external cause. The funds may not be used for the repair or reconstruction of a bridge that has been perma- nently closed to all vehicular traffic by the state DOT (or other responsible local official) because of imminent danger of collapse due to a structural deficiency or physical deterioration or if the construction phase of a replacement structure is included in the approved STIP at the time of the event. The funds may be expended by the Secretary only for the repair or reconstruction of highways on federal-aid highways, except that • No funds shall be so expended unless an emergency has been declared by the governor of the state with concurrence by the Secretary, unless the president has declared the emer- gency to be a major disaster for the purposes of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 USC § 5121 et seq.) for which concurrence of the Secretary is not required; and

14 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events • The Secretary has received an application from the state DOT that includes a comprehensive list of all eligible project sites and repair costs by not later than 2 years after the natural disaster or catastrophic failure. 23 CFR § 668 Emergency Relief Program Under the ER Program, funding is provided to aid states in repairing road facilities that have suffered serious damage resulting from a natural disaster over a wide area or serious damage from a catastrophic failure. Expenditure is intended, as much as possible, to reduce the cost of permanent restoration work. Approval to use funds under this program is based on the “combination of the extraordinary character of the natural disturbance and wide area of impact as well as the seriousness of the damage” (23 CFR § 668.105). Therefore, intense storms that occur over a small area may not meet the criteria for ER funding. The ER Program policy states that funding is only to be used to repair highways which have been seriously damaged and is not intended to fund heavy maintenance or routine emergency repair activities which should normally be funded as contingency items in the State and local road programs. An application for ER funds in the range of $700,000 or less must be accompanied by a showing as to why the damage repair involved is considered beyond the scope of heavy maintenance or routine emergency repair. Generally, widespread nominal road damages in this range would not be considered to be of a significant nature justifying approval by the FHWA Division Administrator for ER funding. (23 CFR § 668.105) Permanent repairs or restoration must have prior FHWA program approval and authorization unless done as part of the emergency repairs. Per 23 CFR § 668.109, ER funds may participate in: • Repair to or reconstruction of seriously damaged highway elements as necessary to restore the facility to pre-disaster conditions, including necessary clearance of debris and other deposits in drainage courses within the right-of-way (ROW). • Restoration of stream channels outside the highway ROW when – The public highway agency has responsibility for the maintenance and proper operation of the stream channel section, and – The work is necessary for satisfactory operation of the highway system involved. • Actual preliminary engineering and construction engineering costs on approved projects. • Emergency repairs. • Temporary operations, including emergency traffic services such as flagging traffic through inundated sections of highways, undertaken by the applicant during or immediately following the disaster. • Betterments, only where clearly economically justified to prevent future recurring damage. Economic justification must weigh the cost of betterment against the risk of eligible recurring damage and the cost of future repair. • Temporary work to maintain essential traffic, such as raising roadway grade during a period of flooding by placing fill and temporary surface material. • Raising the grades of critical federal-aid highways faced with long-term loss of use due to basin flooding as defined by an unprecedented rise in basin water level both in magnitude and timeframe. Such grade raises are not considered to be a betterment for the purpose of 23 CFR § 668.109(b)(6). FHWA Emergency Relief Manual FHWA issued its Emergency Relief Manual to guide transportation agencies through the process of requesting, obtaining, and administering ER funds. The manual was updated in 2013

Review of Literature, Statutes, Regulations, and Documented Practices 15 to reflect changes to the program that were prompted by MAP-21, which was signed into law on July 6, 2012, and became effective on October 1, 2012. The manual explains eligibility for ER funds based on damage to federal-aid highways exceeding $700,000 that was caused by a natural disaster or catastrophic failure from an external cause. Damage costing less than $700,000 to repair is generally considered to be heavy mainte- nance or routine emergency repair that is not eligible for federal assistance. Under this program, funding is provided to repair and restore highway facilities to pre-disaster conditions. Funding is not intended to correct non-disaster-related deficiencies or otherwise improve highway facilities. The amount of ER funding is limited to the cost of repair or reconstruction of a comparable facility. The manual encourages agencies to consider the long-term resilience of a facility when designing and constructing repairs. FHWA recommends a risk-based analysis that considers the cost-effectiveness of alternate designs and construction approaches to reduce the potential for future losses based on the best available scientific and economic information to evaluate future risk factors. The manual specifically addresses betterments, which are added features or changes that alter the facility from what existed before the disaster or catastrophic failure. Betterments can be justified for ER funding if the projected costs to the ER program from potential recurring damage over the life of the repair exceed the cost of the betterment, excluding factors such as traffic delay costs, user costs, and so on. Several types of betterments that make facilities more resilient to future damage may be considered, including (FHWA 2013) • Raising roadway grades, • Relocating roadways to higher ground or away from slide-prone areas, • Stabilizing slide areas, • Stabilizing slopes, • Installing riprap, • Lengthening or raising bridges to increase waterway openings, • Deepening channels, • Increasing the size or number of drainage structures, • Replacing culverts with bridges, • Installing seismic retrofits on bridges, • Adding scour protection at bridges, and • Adding spur dikes. Another category of betterments involves changes that are made to the function or character of a facility, such as adding lanes, upgrading surfaces (such as paving a gravel road), improving access control, adding grade separations, or changing from a rural to an urban cross-section. In general, these types of betterments are not eligible for ER funding, with limited exceptions. Descriptions of the types of repairs that are not considered betterments and are eligible for ER funds follow (FHWA 2013). • Replacement of older features or facilities with new ones. The fact that a damaged highway feature or facility is replaced with something new that extends the service life of the facility is not, in and of itself, a betterment. • Incorporation of current design standards. Repaired facilities may be built to current design standards, which could result in improved or added features that do not change the function or character of the facility. For example, a repaired length of roadway may have wider lanes or shoulders, additional roadside safety hardware, or improved waterway openings that result from following current design standards. These features are not betterments.

16 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events • Replacement in-kind on an existing location not practical or feasible. On rare occasions, it is neither practical nor feasible to replace a damaged highway facility in-kind on its existing location. A comparable facility selected through the NEPA process is eligible for ER funding. This is not considered a betterment. • Additional required features resulting from the NEPA process. ER projects may include additional required features as an outcome of the project being developed in accordance with the NEPA process. These features are eligible for ER funding because they are not considered betterments. There are several other references to betterments in the manual related to flooding, slides, and environmental mitigation measures that describe situations in which ER funds may or may not be used. With reference to resiliency and adaptation to climate change, FHWA recognizes that these are emerging issues in infrastructure planning and development: [FHWA] supports planning, designing and constructing highways to adapt to current and future climate change and extreme weather events under the federal-aid program. Features that will improve the resilience of repaired federal aid (FA) highways should be considered and evaluated consistent with risk, cost effectiveness, and regulatory conditions. The evaluation should apply the best available scientific and economic information to forecast and assess future risk factors. (FHWA 2013) State Emergency Declarations In addition to federal legislation, statutes, and guidance, the literature review identified several resources related to emergency declarations that have been established at the state level, as described in the following paragraphs. In general, declarations of emergency provide extraordinary powers to government agencies aimed at shortcutting normal internal controls to expedite response and recovery activities. However, the scope and format of these declara- tions, as well as the types of events for which they are utilized, vary by state and by agency. The following summary of state documents related to declarations of emergency by state governors is provided to demonstrate the commonalities and variances among the practices of different states. • The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) has a toolkit available on emergency authority and immunity under its Legal Preparedness Series (2012). The infor- mation is provided to familiarize governments, the private sector, and the public of the implications associated with the decision to declare a state of emergency. The information provided describes the scope of federal and state emergency authorities and their involvement in public health emergencies. The toolkit provides helpful information on both state and federal emergency declarations and resulting actions that is useful for any type of emergency even though the organization focuses primarily on health-related events. • According to the New Jersey Office of Emergency Management (http://ready.nj.gov/about-us/ state-of-emergency.shtml), the governor may declare a state of emergency when a disaster is believed to have occurred or is imminent and the resulting damage is significant enough to need state aid to supplement local resources. The declaration accelerates the speed with which assistance is provided to communities that may have been impacted. State aid can be used for rescue, evacuation, shelter, and basic necessities (such as heating, fuel, or food), and it can also be used to help the state seek federal assistance when state resources are exceeded. The Department of Transportation is one of the many agencies employed through the New Jersey Office of Emergency Management (on behalf of the governor) to respond to the event as needed. • The North Carolina Department of Public Safety (https://www.ncdps.gov/blog/2018/12/14/ what-does-state-emergency-actually-mean) is primarily responsible for reducing crime and

Review of Literature, Statutes, Regulations, and Documented Practices 17 enhancing public safety to improve the quality of life for the state’s residents. Its responsi- bilities include rescue services, emergency communications, and operation of the Office of Emergency Management. The agency assists when the governor or a local mayor, governing body of a municipality or county, or the General Assembly declares a state of emergency. The declaration enables government officials to take extra measures to protect the public and to seek state or federal aid for disaster relief. In the end, the declaration allows emergency managers the legal means they need to deploy resources so they can respond immediately to a crisis to protect lives and property as much as possible. • California DOT Deputy Directive DD-26-R2 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/general/ DD_26_R2_Signed.pdf) authorizes exceptions to formal advertising, bidding, and award requirements established under the State Contract Act for emergency projects that include any of these conditions (California DOT 2009): – An emergency exists due to failure or threat of failure of any bridge or other highway facility or any dam or other water facility. – An emergency exists due to damage to a state-owned building, real property, or improve- ments located on the property. – The Director deems, at any time after the approval of plans, specifications, and estimates of cost, that following State Contract Act requirements is not in the best interest of the state. Documented State Approaches to Identify and Evaluate Repeatedly Damaged Assets The synthesis identified several documents issued by state DOTs that describe the processes being used to identify and evaluate assets that have been damaged repeatedly due to emer- gency events. These documents were identified through the survey of practice, summarized in Chapter 3. Several states indicated in the survey that they had developed written procedures describing their practices for compliance with 23 CFR § 667. As described further in Chapter 3, most states had not yet developed written procedures at the time of the survey, which was following the deadline for identifying and evaluating sites on the NHS but prior to the deadline for identifying and evaluating sites on the full public road network. The written procedures pro- vided by state DOTs demonstrate that there are several ways to approach compliance with the requirements of 23 CFR § 667, and state DOTs have achieved various levels of thoroughness in their procedural documentation. The following sections provide summaries of the documented procedures from the Colorado DOT and the New Jersey DOT, which provided the most complete description of their respective agency’s practices. The Colorado DOT To meet the requirements under § 667, the Colorado DOT sought the assistance of asset managers and other agency experts and stakeholders to review past records documenting damage that had occurred due to past emergency events. The synthesis found that no assets on the NHS had been damaged as a result of an emergency event two or more times since 1997, but the agency used the knowledge and expertise of those involved in the evaluation to develop a process that could be used in the future to identify and evaluate assets that suffer from repeated damage. As part of the process, the Colorado DOT developed a damaged asset database, which is updated regularly to ensure that assets can be evaluated for prior damage when future events occur. In its report, the Colorado DOT recognized that the threat of emergency events is expected to rise in the state as average temperatures in the state have risen over the past decades, making Colorado especially vulnerable to extreme weather events and natural catastrophes. These events

18 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events disrupt the DOT’s ability to keep its transportation system operational through unplanned delays and closures associated with damage to assets such as pavements and bridges. The report indicates that Colorado is particularly vulnerable to • Extreme heat that can increase thermal expansion on bridge joints, resulting in metal fatigue and a faster rate of pavement deterioration. • Precipitation changes that can lead to traffic disruptions and accidents due to flash flooding, landslides, or rockfalls. The lack of precipitation can also cause problems because the risk of wildfires and the frequency of dust storms may increase. • Extreme winter weather conditions that cause dangerous driving conditions, accelerate pave- ment and bridge deterioration, or increase the likelihood and severity of avalanches and rockfalls. • Extreme wind that can disrupt vehicle traffic on sections of highways due to incidents with large vehicles such as tractor trailer trucks. Wind can also increase the intensity of other events, such as dust storms, winter weather, or wildfires (Colorado DOT 2018). The process that the Colorado DOT established for identifying repeatedly damaged assets and evaluating resilience alternates, which is triggered by an emergency event, is reflected in Figure 2-2 (Colorado DOT 2018). Immediately after an emergency event has occurred, the DOT deploys its Emergency Operations Plan. This involves identifying and assessing the level of damage to various assets. The information is reported in the Detailed Damage Inspection Report (DDIR), which is submitted to FHWA. As work is conducted, work orders provided by on-site maintenance crews and emergency event reports compile and add to the damaged assets database so that a full record of asset damage is collected. The process to evaluate resilient alternatives to repeatedly damaged assets uses previously established risk and resiliency practices that were developed by the DOT in prior studies. Resilient alternatives are those that address the root cause of previous damage to the facility while addressing all other relevant facility needs. The process involves evaluating the operational Figure 2-2. The Colorado DOT’s proposed process for responding to § 667 (modified from Colorado DOT 2018).

Review of Literature, Statutes, Regulations, and Documented Practices 19 and resiliency needs for a damaged asset, determining factors such as the level of damage that occurs, the impact of the asset on operating performance, engineering factors, and other risk mitigation options, as shown in Figure 2-3. The process also includes the development of a Damage Assessment Report for FHWA. Once the resiliency evaluation is completed, the Colorado DOT plans its repair and recon- struction projects. Projects that are selected to address resiliency are designed to address the root cause of the repeated damage, reduce the consequence of future events, and mitigate additional asset damage. The final step in the process is to update the Repeatedly Damaged Assets Report (DAR), as required under 23 CFR § 667. The data used to support the evaluation process include information that is collected immediately after the emergency event, over the mid-term recovery period, and over the life of each asset, all of which are reflected in Figure 2-4. The short-term data are primarily compiled from information provided by maintenance staff, emergency response personnel, Identify Repeatedly Damaged Assets Assess Causality Identify Threat Likelihood Assess Asset Risk Assess Damage Response Develop Resiliency Recommendations Figure 2-3. Proposed process for evaluating resiliency recommendations for repeatedly damaged assets (modified from Colorado DOT 2018). Figure 2-4. Damaged assets data flow (Colorado DOT 2018).

20 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events and asset managers who have visited the sites to assess damage. The mid-term data are primarily found in the DDIR forms and DARs. The long-term information is obtained from maintenance crews or asset managers as the DOT performs maintenance and repairs that are part of an asset’s typical life cycle. The New Jersey DOT The New Jersey DOT recognized that extreme weather events were increasingly disrupting the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission of “Improving Lives by Improving Transportation.” The state ranks in the top five vulnerable states in terms of insured U.S. coastal properties vulnerable to hurricanes [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2019] due to the 19 destructive storms that have taken place since 2010. The DOT’s evaluation of emergency declarations found that they had reported • Eight federal emergency declarations, • Twenty-two major disaster declarations, and • Forty-five state of emergency declarations (New Jersey DOT 2018). Most of the damage was due to six main events that took place between 1999 (Hurricane Floyd) and 2012 (Hurricane Sandy). As a result, the New Jersey DOT has taken steps to prepare for these types of events as a key factor in preserving the functionality of the state’s infrastructure. The § 667 evaluation consisted of two phases: an evaluation to identify locations subject to § 667 and a process to update the database and future evaluations. The primary sources of information used to identify locations subject to § 667 included information provided by non-DOT NHS owners and paper and electronic records (such as emergency relief pro- gram field reports). Damage locations identified through this process were verified using the DOT’s automated straight-line diagram and a spreadsheet provided by the DOT’s Transpor- tation, Data, and Support work unit. Assets verified to be on the NHS were then evaluated for recurring damage, and the study found that no assets had been repeatedly repaired or reconstructed two or more times. Going forward, the New Jersey DOT will follow the steps shown in Figure 2-5 and summa- rized as follows to evaluate future events (New Jersey DOT 2018): • The damage associated with an official emergency declaration will be assessed. • The database will be updated to record assets impacted and damage. • Several different New Jersey DOT work units will be alerted to the damage to evaluate whether the location is under review in any of the project delivery process phases (i.e., screening, concept development, preliminary engineering, design, or construction). If it is not, the project is entered in the problem screening phase to identify and evaluate mitigation options. If an asset has been damaged repeatedly, a root cause analysis will be conducted to determine the most cost-effective solution. Assets that have not been damaged more than two times will be considered during the problem screening phase to determine a preliminary preferred alternative. • The database will be updated with the information to ensure that the most up-to-date information is available for future evaluations (New Jersey DOT 2018). The results from the § 667 evaluation were also added to the DOT’s risk register in the DOT’s TAMP so the evaluations could be updated and managed as an ongoing risk. Any areas found to have required repeated repair and reconstruction will be identified in a separate risk statement in the TAMP risk register so that area can be managed directly. The § 667 process is now managed by a § 667 advisory group that helps to ensure that future evaluations will consider reasonable alternatives to assets with repeated damage (New Jersey DOT 2018).

Review of Literature, Statutes, Regulations, and Documented Practices 21 Emerging Issues in Emergency Relief, Repairs, and Resiliency Because the federal requirements related to § 667 are relatively new, the literature search revealed no research directly related to the identification or evaluation of sites damaged by repeated emergency events. However, there is substantial research related to emergency event preparedness, operations, damage assessment, and federal assistance. Reviews of Practices Related to FEMA and FHWA Emergency Relief Funds Reimbursements to State Departments of Transportation In 2015, the National Cooperative Research Program conducted a synthesis study to summarize agency experiences with the ER program and the steps they are taking to improve responsiveness, obtain reimbursements, and simplify cost estimating activities. The records related to the ER program are commonly used by states for compliance with 23 CFR § 667, as described in Chapter 3, making several of the findings from the synthesis study, published Figure 2-5. The New Jersey DOT’s § 667 evaluation process (New Jersey DOT 2018).

22 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events in NCHRP Synthesis 472: FEMA and FHWA Emergency Relief Funds Reimbursements to State Departments of Transportation, relevant to this synthesis topic. At that time, NCHRP Synthesis 472 indicated that federal relief programs were undergoing changes as a result of MAP-21, a review of the ER program, and other efforts. Changes from MAP-21 included the elimination of state reimbursement limits, some changes in terminology, and minor changes in eligibility and reimbursement rates. Most relevant to § 667 is the fact that climate change risk mitigation measures became eligible (Nakanishi and Auza 2015). Section 667 had not yet been published in 2015, and so it was not included in the earlier synthesis. While these changes were anticipated to lead to improvements in the program, the authors noted that during the adjustment period, state DOTs reported facing challenges as they adjusted to the changes. NCHRP Synthesis 472 found that state DOTs that had strong accounting and financial management, information management, project management, and procurement processes could often better facilitate the reimbursement process (Nakanishi and Auza 2015). The more these systems, processes, and technologies were aligned with the reimbursement process, the more cost-effective the reimbursement process was for the agency. For example, aligning financial management systems with maintenance management systems helped some agencies eliminate discrepancies in the data stored in the two systems. NCHRP Synthesis 472 also found that state DOTs benefit from a high level of preparedness prior to emergency events. Steps that establish strong working relationships with federal, state, and local partners; align changes to existing systems and processes with reimbursement requirements; and resolve issues from previous disasters can help state DOTs maximize their eligible reimbursements and help ensure that emergency work is streamlined (Nakanishi and Auza 2015). Several other studies reviewed the standardized procedures guidance available to state and local agencies in support of FHWA’s ER program. For instance, in 2011 the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that more standardized procedures for reviewing emer- gency relief documentation and making eligibility decisions would help ensure that only eligible projects are funded and that eligibility decisions are being made consistently and transparently (U.S. GAO 2011). This report was also issued prior to the publication of 23 CFR § 667. In 2018, the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General published an evaluation of FHWA’s guidance and processes for incorporating resilience improvements into ER projects since 2013, when FHWA’s primary guidance in this area was last updated. The report provides recommendations to FHWA for further refinement of the Emergency Relief Manual and other related processes, and FHWA’s responses to those recommendations (U.S. DOT 2018). Incorporating Resilience into Infrastructure Investments Identifying assets at risk of damage from extreme or emergency events and establishing cost-effective strategies to address that risk are only the first steps in establishing a resilient highway network. Once identified the strategies need to be executed, typically through invest- ments made to build, maintain, preserve, improve, or replace infrastructure assets. To support this need, FHWA developed the Adaptation Decision-Making Assessment Process (ADAP) as a tool for planners and designers to address resiliency needs caused by climate change. ADAP is risk based, helping decision makers identify and select appropriate alternatives (FHWA 2016b). Figure 2-6 illustrates the steps in the ADAP. This process could be used by states in the evaluation of sites damaged by multiple emergency events to identify and compare alternative strategies to address the root cause of damage at each site.

Review of Literature, Statutes, Regulations, and Documented Practices 23 Figure 2-6. ADAP flowchart (FHWA 2016b).

24 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events FHWA has worked with state and local agencies to apply the ADAP to actual projects. The California DOT references the ADAP in its district climate change vulnerability assessment reports, which are described in more detail in Chapter 4. Most of these pilot projects applied the ADAP to specific projects. However, the Maine DOT used the process to identify strategies for addressing the impacts of pavements in cold-weather climates (FHWA 2016c). To determine whether a potential investment is cost-effective, agencies need a rational means of measuring benefit that can be used to prioritize between alternatives. The concept of accu- mulated loss of functionality (ALF) can serve as a model an agency can apply to this purpose. As illustrated in Figure 2-7, ALF is a quantification of both the functionality lost due to a disruptive event and the time needed to recover the functionality (Onishi 2018). The difference in ALF between two alternatives can be used to inform investment prioriti- zation. Functionality can be measured in many ways, including total throughput, travel time, economic loss, or other factors. Time for recovery (TfR in Figure 2-7) depends on the degree of damage, the level of emergency preparedness, and the level of response (Onishi 2018). While the practices in this section address resilience at a project level, agencies need means of ensuring that resilience is incorporated into the entire network. Brabhaharan (2011) describes five levels of resilience management that governments can practice to support a resilient trans- portation network. 1. National Strategy: Impacts on nationally significant transport routes that would have a national impact as illustrated by the Queensland floods, require a national strategy. Figure 2-7. Example of using ALF to compare two alternatives (modified from Onishi 2018).

Review of Literature, Statutes, Regulations, and Documented Practices 25 2. Regional Strategy: Transport networks may often be managed by different road-controlling authorities (e.g., federal, state, and local in Australia, or national and local in New Zealand) but function together as an integrated network and require a regional strategy to manage resilience. Such integrated consideration will allow redundancies from alternative routes and interdependencies to be taken into consideration. 3. Network Asset Strategy: Each transportation infrastructure network requires the resilience of the asset managed proactively, with a long-term strategy for improvements. Funding and responsibility for this work are often at a network asset level. 4. Emergency Management: Achieving an acceptable level of resilience requires planning for emergency response and recovery to reduce the time for recovery and to target critical routes necessary for emergency response. This is important to be implemented at network level, with regional coordination. 5. Project Development and Design: Projects to enhance the transportation networks, asset renewal, or addition of new routes should also consider the network context of that project and afford focus on resilience to achieve an overall improvement to the resilience. Not focusing on new routes or the resilience of projects will be a significant missed opportunity to enhance network resilience, as it is at such a project planning and design stage that major enhancements can be achieved. This needs to be implemented at the individual project level (Brabhaharan 2011). Incorporating resilience at all five levels allows agencies to address resilience across the entire network, as a system, rather than addressing individual facilities (Brabhaharan 2011). Literature Review Summary The requirements of 23 CFR § 667 are just one of many concerns state DOTs and other trans- portation agencies must consider as they address vulnerabilities in their networks and seek to develop resilient transportation systems. The literature sampled in this chapter demonstrates the interconnectedness of statutes, regulations, policies, and practices across multiple levels of government. This information provides background and context to aid in understanding the decisions made by state DOTs in their efforts to comply with 23 CFR § 667 and utilize the results of those efforts to make investment decisions. The following chapter summarizes the results of a survey of state DOTs regarding those agency efforts.