National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix A - Technical Memorandum No. 1
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25847.
×
Page 156

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.

B-1 Appendix B - Technical Memorandum No. 2

B-2 CONTENTS  1  INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4  2  FINDINGS FROM FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS WITH DOTS ................................................... 4  3  PRIORITIZED PRACTITIONER NEEDS ....................................................................................... 6  3.1  High-Priority Needs Description .................................................................................................. 6  3.2  Scoring the Frameworks’ Ability to Meet Identified Needs ......................................................... 7  4  GAP ANALYSIS: NEEDS MET, PARTIALLY MET, OR NOT MET BY EXISTING TOOLS, METHODS, AND DATA ..................................................................................................................... 8  4.1  Capital Improvements ................................................................................................................... 8  4.1.1  Currently Satisfied .............................................................................................................. 9  4.1.2  Can Be Satisfied with Minor Modifications ....................................................................... 9  4.1.3  Will Require New Approaches ......................................................................................... 10  4.2  Operations and Emergency Response ......................................................................................... 10  4.2.1  Currently Satisfied ............................................................................................................ 11  4.2.2  Can Be Satisfied with Minor Modifications ..................................................................... 11  4.2.3  Will Require New Approaches ......................................................................................... 12  4.3  Hazard Mitigation ....................................................................................................................... 12  4.3.1  Currently Satisfied ............................................................................................................ 12  4.3.2  Can Be Satisfied with Minor Modifications ..................................................................... 13  4.3.3  Will Require New Approaches ......................................................................................... 14  4.4  Climate Resilience and Sustainability ......................................................................................... 15  4.4.1  Currently Satisfied ............................................................................................................ 15  4.4.2  Can Be Satisfied with Minor Modifications ..................................................................... 16  4.4.3  Will Require New Approaches ......................................................................................... 17  4.5  Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 17  5  MAINSTREAMING OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................................ 18  6  WORKLOAD ESTIMATE ............................................................................................................... 25  7  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 26  8  REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 27  9  ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................................... 28  APPENDIX A INTERVIEW SUMMARIES

B-3 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Table 4-1. Evaluation of Capital Investment Frameworks’ Abilities to Meet CBA Needs .......................... 8  Table 4-2. Operations and Response Frameworks' Abilities to Meet CBA Needs ..................................... 10  Table 4-3. Hazard Mitigation Frameworks' Abilities to Meet CBA Needs ................................................ 12  Table 4-4. Climate Resiliency and Sustainability Frameworks' Abilities to Meet CBA Needs ................. 15  Table 5-1. The project planning process offers multiple opportunities to incorporate adaptation and CBA. .................................................................................................................................................................... 19  Table 6-1. Estimated workload to address gaps by development of a prototype. ....................................... 25 

B-4 1 INTRODUCTION  As stated in the first Technical Memorandum for this project, our research to date has found that there are many available tools, data, and methods that address aspects of climate and weather resiliency from a cost- benefit perspective, but a multi-hazard, multi-asset approach that also considers operational needs is lacking. While Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are taking into account changing climate and extreme weather when making infrastructure decisions, they typically are not using a formal set of tools or cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to address climate resilience. Climate and extreme weather resilience is by nature a system-wide, multi-asset goal; thus adaptation options should ideally address and incorporate this complexity. CBA tools that focus on single asset types (e.g., roadways but not bridge, culvert, building, and stormwater assets) focus on operations at the expense of addressing risks posed by extreme weather. Since these tools do not consider changing climate as an exacerbating factor on existing vulnerabilities, they fail to adequately inform decision makers seeking adaptation options to risks posed by extreme weather and climate change. This Technical Memorandum presents a gap analysis of the available tools, methods, models, and data in relationship to the needs expressed by transportation practitioners. The gap analysis is informed by the results of our literature search, practitioner surveys, and follow-up interviews with several of the survey participants. We summarize the needs expressed by practitioners, and the capabilities of available tools. From that summary, we evaluate which needs can be satisfied by existing tools, which needs could be satisfied by existing tools with some adaptation, and areas where further research and development are needed. 2 FINDINGS FROM FOLLOW‐UP INTERVIEWS WITH DOTS  In responding to the surveys distributed for the first Technical Memorandum, several DOTs indicated their availability for follow-up interviews. Interview findings are summarized below, and summaries of each interview are included in Appendix A. In many cases, extreme weather impacts or, more generally, resilience, was a factor in selecting projects; however, formal CBAs were rarely conducted. Cost-benefit analyses are characterized by quantifying the reduction in anticipated future damages from known and projected hazard events over the useful life of the project (i.e., project benefits) to the required investment needed to design, construct, and maintain the project (i.e., project cost) with a resulting cost- benefit ratio (CBR) that assesses project cost-effectiveness. In the case of extreme weather and climate change, these known and projected hazards are often difficult to assess. Interviews were conducted via conference call with eight DOTs: Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, Maine, New York, Delaware, Washington, and Oregon. The questions posed to the participants focused on what types of extreme weather events they are most concerned about; what types of transportation facilities are typically prioritized for repair or replacement and how prioritization decisions are made; and what DOTs would want to have included in a cost-benefit analysis tool that accommodates extreme weather and/or climate change. The participants indicated that the weather events of greatest concern or impact include flooding and erosion from multiple sources, including upstream sources; tropical storms and hurricanes; storm surge; sea level rise; and intense rainfall events. Additional concerns were expressed about mass evacuations, landslides, and wildfires. DOTs typically depend on long-standing processes that have developed and evolved over time in response to a range of

B-5 complex and changing circumstances. They view extreme weather and climate change as “another factor” to be addressed within an established set of processes designed to cope with a constantly changing landscape of economic, social, and environmental concerns. DOTs require analytical tools that will allow them to balance investments across a wide range of needs and time scales while addressing increasing risks posed by climate change and extreme weather. Ideally, these tools will:  Make use of available data  Fit into existing processes  Complement existing methods  Yield cost-benefit ratios calculated using net present value to inform objective decision-making  Be simple enough for immediate use, yet sophisticated enough to evolve and improve with use In conducting these interviews, two recurring themes regarding the need for and use of tools were evident: context and scale. DOTs need tools for assessing resilience and adaptation on a basis of cost-effectiveness, but the tools must be consistent with their primary mission and useful in the context of the current processes and methods at the DOT. For example, a bridge that is scheduled for replacement because it has reached the end of its useful life might be subject to adaptation considerations to a much larger degree than a bridge that has been constructed recently but has no pressing need for attention at this time. Thus, the methods to be employed and the tools to be developed must be tailored to the context and decision-support needs of the DOT. These tools also must be scalable so that they can apply equally to a small project and a full program and results can be compared; a DOT needs to be able to conduct a CBA for resizing a culvert in accordance to requirements from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) emergency recovery requirements as well as to prioritize investments at a programmatic level involving hundreds of projects among additional alternatives. At the programmatic level, a too-narrowly-focused cost-benefit tool (that does not include disposal or replacement costs, for example) to prioritize adaptation strategies would be of limited use in the context of incorporating other needs, such as life cycle cost, into the prioritization process. For this overarching application, a tool that builds on the processes and methods already used in determining capital update priorities could well be the tool required to complete the crosswalk between concerns such as life cycle cost analysis, safety and capacity vs. adaptation, and continuity of service. Thus, the approach could begin with a review of existing tools that DOTs currently use to assess whether they can include climate change considerations using available data and methods that DOTs can immediately apply without undue additional effort, and be a basis for a more comprehensive CBA that also requires this information. At the other end of the spectrum, these principles should be assessed for applicability to small-scale projects such as individual culvert replacement and/or embankment slope protection. DOTs need to supplement their existing well-thought-out, tested, and understood processes, methods, and tools to enable them to factor additional climate change considerations into their processes. Several DOTs have done this by engaging local maintenance forces to leverage their intimate knowledge of the risks, conditions, and threats to life and property at site-specific locations in their work areas to develop a practical menu of remediation options. Several DOTs (e.g. Florida, Maine, and Oregon) are already using assessment protocols addressing a wide range of factors using scaled weightings; others (e.g. Texas, Pennsylvania) consider a similar set of variables in their program development process. Examination of these methodologies to assess the

B-6 prospects for interim substitution of dollar equivalents for weightings could be a useful step toward development of tools that would complement existing methods as applied to existing needs, using existing data for more transparent, analytical, cost-benefit-based analysis to help DOTs cope with evolving climate risk. 3 PRIORITIZED PRACTITIONER NEEDS  CBA needs for climate resilience were identified through the tools and literature reviewed in the first Technical Memorandum, DOT surveys and interviews, and a special session during the 2016 Annual Transportation Research Board meeting; the findings are summarized below. These needs form the basis of the gap analysis, which in turn will inform Phase II of this project. 3.1 High‐Priority Needs Description  While many frameworks and tools exist offering elements of what is needed to perform project-level CBAs that can be used to develop climate resilience programs, no single tool or framework captures all of the elements needed to do so. High-priority needs expressed by transportation practitioners include: 1. Usability, data accessibility, and familiarity. CBAs usually are performed by DOTs on large projects. In such cases, data and inputs are familiar to DOT personnel. In contrast, it is not unusual for climate-resilience-specific CBA tools to require substantial data collection efforts, expert-level climate knowledge, significant allocation of staff time to use the tool, or some combination of the three. A key need, therefore, is to lower the perceived barrier of complex data entry needed to perform climate resilience CBAs. Simple but effective tools targeted to infrastructure are needed. 2. Compatibility with resilience policy drivers. CBA output is most useful if it improves communication about the value of planned projects and programs using format and language that is accessible internally, to the public, and to the funding and regulatory entities explored in the first Technical Memorandum. The output format ultimately should be determined by the potential CBA tool users so that the results are understood by practitioners and funding entities. Some CBA outputs that might be of use to practitioners include CBR, net present value (NPV), return on investment (ROI), and (modified) internal rate of return ((M)IRR). 3. Unification of the four frameworks explored in the first Technical Memorandum. The four frameworks overlap in useful ways but cannot, individually, be used to develop a CBA for the transportation sector with a climate resilience component. The four frameworks discussed in the first Technical Memorandum are: a. Capital Investment b. Operations, Emergency Response, and Recovery Planning Frameworks c. Hazard Mitigation Framework d. Climate Resilience Framework 4. Ability to perform alternatives analysis. The goal of a CBA is to assess costs, benefits, and trade- offs, and often to compare these across various design options, perhaps in combination with operations strategies. Costs and benefits should be discounted such that results are easily comparable across design options, alternatives, and projects. A climate-resilience CBA must be sensitive to design characteristics, life cycle considerations, and changes to disruptions and safety issues under changing climate. CBAs should help to quantify risk across various design options,

B-7 particularly as they relate to climate change and extreme weather. Adaptations may include capital improvements, operations strategies, and combinations of the two. 3.2 Scoring the Frameworks’ Ability to Meet Identified Needs  The high-priority needs described above have been broken out for scoring in the gap analysis as follows:  Familiarity to transportation practitioners. Inputs, data availability, and tool format need to be familiar to practitioners so that they will feel comfortable completing a CBA. Obscure, difficult- to-understand, or excessively detailed inputs are an impediment to performing CBAs and are detrimental to increasing the usage of CBA to inform investment decisions. Similarly, outputs should be standardized or easily understood by users so that correct interpretations can be applied to the decision-making process.  Support for multi-asset and operations analysis. Users need tools that allow them to consider relevant design specifications, which for some hazards may be multiple. Users should be able to consider the entire lifecycle over various climate scenarios.  Consideration of hazards. The best hazard mitigation CBA tools are those that can be applied to multiple hazards to quantify risk across hazards and changing climate conditions. Climate change may affect the frequency, severity, and location of hazards significant to transportation due to floods, landslides, wind, precipitation/runoff, fire, drought, etc.  Consideration of non-stationarity. Frameworks that consider design specifications or hazard mitigation that are tied to climate but do not consider changing climate or facilitate geographically specific analysis across scenarios cannot provide insight into climate resilience. CBA tools need to be able to assess changes to risk associated with changes in climate scenarios.  Consideration of other resilience and sustainability factors. Social and environmental factors such as livability and decreased greenhouse gas emissions are examples of qualitative and quantitative elements, respectively, that are sometimes considered in CBAs for the transportation sector. CBA tools that are able to monetize the “triple bottom line” (social, environmental or ecological, and financial) enable users to consider the full costs and benefits of a design or project.  Relevance for design-level alternatives comparison. A key need in climate adaptation practice is to understand the performance and potential losses of specific designs under changing climate.  Relevance for communication to funding entities and public. CBAs have historically been used to illustrate the usefulness of planned projects to the public, and alignment with regulatory requirements and requirements of funding entities increases a tool’s utility.  Scalability from project- to planning-level analyses. For isolated projects, it may be sufficient to illustrate the CBA for individual assets, but for statewide transportation improvement plans (STIPs) and long-range transportation plans (LRTRPs), it is useful to understand CBAs for the transportation infrastructure and climate resilience portfolio.  Geographic scalability. Projects and plans can take place across a variety of scales ranging from a single site or transportation corridor to an entire region, state, or multi-state (cross-border collaboration) area.

B-8 4 GAP ANALYSIS: NEEDS MET, PARTIALLY MET, OR NOT MET BY  EXISTING TOOLS, METHODS, AND DATA  While many of the frameworks described in the first Technical Memorandum have useful elements, it is clear that no single tool or methodology currently offers a robust, resilience-centric CBA for the transportation network. The study team recommends building a composite methodology which incorporates the relevant elements of the tools listed above to comprehensively address climate change, resilience, and social, environmental, and economic considerations. The framework should also unify capital improvements, operations, emergency management, and hazard mitigation concerns, which are all relevant to climate adaptation. The individual frameworks are scored in Tables 4-1 through 4-4 according to their current ability to contribute to a composite framework accounting for climate resilience in transportation investments.  “Currently satisfied” indicates that readily available CBA tools are available to fully support the need.  “Can be satisfied with minor modification” represents a range of needs for which data and tools exist, but either: o Are not a reliable feature of tools within the framework in question (i.e., one or some tools may meet this criterion); o Are treated with differently between tools in the framework in question, and these differences must be resolved to develop a unified framework; or o Are not considered in this framework type, but have an analogue in other frameworks.  “Will require new approaches” indicates that the necessary data and tools to meet this need are not yet available or require further refinement. Each need listed in the tables is discussed in more detail below, summarizing the research in the previous Technical Memorandum with additional insights. 4.1 Capital Improvements   Table 4-1. Evaluation of Capital Investment Frameworks’ Abilities to Meet CBA Needs Needs Currently satisfied Can be satisfied with minor modification Will require new approaches Capital Investment Framework Data Readily Available to Transportation Practitioners X Support for Multi-Asset and Operations Analysis X Consideration of Hazards X Consideration of Non-Stationarity (Changing Climate) X Consideration of Other Resilience and Sustainability Factors X Relevance for Design-Level Alternatives Comparison X Relevance for Communication to Funding entities and Public X Scalability from Project- to Planning-Level Analyses X Geographic Scalability X

B-9 4.1.1 Currently Satisfied   Data Readily Available to Transportation Practitioners.  Of all the frameworks described in the first Technical Memorandum, data needs for capital improvements are most readily available to DOTs. Data needs for infrastructure that DOTs have only begun to locate and evaluate, such as culverts in many states, are more challenging; culverts are typically evaluated and potentially replaced only when construction is occurring on the road above. Culverts are often a risk area that needs to be evaluated, though, as Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) determined. The Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA) and Ohio DOT were the first two transportation agencies to locate and assess all of their culverts. Many culverts at DOTs are nearing the end of their design lives, considering their first installation when the highway system was developed; however, the technology and practice of re-lining and extending the life of culverts has also expanded. Unfortunately this does not help expand a culvert’s size or flow capacity. Discount rates, traffic characteristics, design characteristics, safety statistics, etc., are necessary components of both a standard transportation CBA and a climate resilience CBA design alternatives comparison. While formal capital improvement CBAs are typically only performed when required, such methodologies can be adapted for a climate resilience CBA. It should be noted that some sustainability advocates have argued that discount rates for climate change adaptation resilience analyses may require the use of very low or even zero value discount rates so that long-lived environmental costs are dealt with sooner rather than deferred for future generations. A zero discount rate gives equal weight to present and future generations. Alternatively, analysts may recognize this concern and complete two analyses, one using the traditional discount rate and one using the zero discount rate to calculate the net present value of future benefit streams.  Relevance for Design-Level Alternatives Comparison. Project-level tools are familiar and available to transportation practitioners. Inputs include the design-level characteristics that are meaningful for transportation engineers and are also necessary for a climate-resilience-focused CBA. 4.1.2 Can Be Satisfied with Minor Modifications   Consideration of Other Resilience and Sustainability Factors. Greenhouse gas reduction is the most common sustainability metric included in reviewed CBA tools in this framework category. Resilience could be considered by comparing alternatives across designs of varying degrees of robustness, but this comparison would not consider changing climate, so modifications from the hazard mitigation and climate resilience frameworks are needed.  Relevance for Communication to Funding Entities and Public. The numeric estimates concerning, for example, performance improvements due to capital investments, have a long history of being used to communicate with the public. In addition, tools have been developed for use in grant applications, such as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER)-compatible formulation of Caltrans’ Lifecycle Benefit Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C). However, the outputs needed for compatibility with the policy drivers discussed in the first Technical Memorandum differ somewhat from existing tools. In some cases, understanding of the necessary outputs is still emerging as regulatory and funding entities develop guidelines in alignment with recent executive orders.

B-10  Scalability from Project- to Planning-Level Analyses. Many of the tools in the capital improvement framework category are suitable for use at the project or planning level. Reviewed tools that provide both are less common. Examples include HDM-4, Cal-B/C, AASHTOWare Bridge Management, and TransValU (for more detail, see the first Technical Memorandum). For tools that scale from project to planning level, individual project CBAs can be aggregated to provide a summary across the network, asset category, or as otherwise needed by transportation decision makers.  Geographic Scalability. Typically, the tools in this framework are useful at the asset, corridor, or network level rather than at all three. One exception is Cal-B/C, which can provide analysis at all three levels; however, this is done in separate spreadsheet tools. Given that the problem of climate resilience concerns a large catalogue of assets impacted over a physically large area, the ability to “toggle” between geographic scales using a single tool would be useful. 4.1.3 Will Require New Approaches   Support for Multi-Asset and Operations Analysis.  Asset types are considered separately in most of these capital improvement tools, and capital improvement tends to use a different framework than operations. Because extreme weather can be managed through both capital improvements and operational protocols, it would be useful to perform alternatives analyses that examine combinations of structural and operational strategies. CBA methodologies addressing the need to compare combinations of capital improvement and operations strategies are needed.  Consideration of Hazards. Hazards are not a typical focus of CBAs in this framework category, which generally focus on objectives such as capacity improvement and safety. Extreme events are treated as extraordinary, low-probability events. CBA methodologies that improve quantification of losses due to damage, disruption, and impaired safety are needed.  Consideration of Non-Stationarity (Changing Climate). Extreme weather and changing climate are not the focus of existing CBA tools for transportation. Methods from the hazard mitigation and climate resilience frameworks must be used to extend the capital improvement framework to better incorporate climate resilience concerns. 4.2 Operations and Emergency Response  Table 4-2. Operations and Response Frameworks' Abilities to Meet CBA Needs Needs Currently satisfied Can be satisfied with minor modification Will require new approaches Operations, Emergency Response, and Recovery Planning Frameworks Data Readily Available to Transportation Practitioners X Support for Multi-Asset and Operations Analysis X Consideration of Hazards X Consideration of Non-Stationarity (Changing Climate) X Consideration of Other Resilience and Sustainability Factors X Relevance for Design-Level Alternatives Comparison N/A N/A N/A

B-11 Needs Currently satisfied Can be satisfied with minor modification Will require new approaches Relevance for Communication to Funding Entities and Public X Scalability from Project- to Planning-Level Analyses X Geographic Scalability X 4.2.1 Currently Satisfied   Geographic Scalability.  Operations activities are often deployed on a variety of geographic scales, and existing tools reflect this. Tools like TOPS-BC offer the ability to select a range of geographic scales (i.e., isolated location versus corridor). However, with the exception of the IDAS (proprietary), most tools cannot handle both large (regional and statewide) and smaller (corridor and site) geographic scales. The ability to “toggle” between geographic scales using a single tool would be useful. 4.2.2 Can Be Satisfied with Minor Modifications   Data Readily Available to Transportation Practitioners. DOTs may not have sufficient data to easily estimate past costs for road weather management, traffic incident management (TIM), and other strategies that may be helpful for addressing extreme weather and climate change. For example, DOTs report that data gathering can be particularly difficult for winter weather; further, past costs may not be representative of future costs under changing climate, and methods may need to be developed to account for potential changes. However, data on the costs of infrastructure, incremental costs, and equipment are readily available.  Support for Multi-Asset and Operations Analysis. Operations CBAs tend to use a different framework than for capital improvements. CBA methodologies addressing the need to compare combinations of capital improvement/technology and operations strategies are needed.  Consideration of Hazards. The hazards considered by tools in the operations framework have excellent overlap with those due to changing climate, and many operations strategies are relevant to reducing risks posed by changing climate and extreme weather. Existing operations CBAs do not capture how these hazards may change over time, however, and will benefit from augmentation by the hazard mitigation and climate resilience frameworks.  Consideration of Other Resilience and Sustainability Factors. While not a direct focus of many operations strategies, those focusing on maintaining traffic flow and reducing delays can be categorized within sustainability insofar as they help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With respect to resilience due to reduced disruptions and rapid recovery, the ability to use existing tools to perform CBAs for TIMs and road weather management is particularly relevant;  however, wherever extreme events are projected to increase, the protocols for emergency response, preparedness, and recovery will become increasingly important, and there is a gap in the methodologies available to estimate the value of these activities.  Relevance for Communication to Funding Entities and Public. Operations budgets generally have a lower public profile than capital improvements spending; however, CBA estimates can provide a similar role in illustrating the value of operations strategies, especially the disruptions

B-12 and delays motorists experience in areas that are both congested and impacted by extreme weather. External funding tends to play less of a role in operations than capital improvements, and CBA tool outputs in the operations framework tend to be focused internally.  Scalability from Project- to Planning-Level Analyses. Tools in the operations framework category consider strategies that require infrastructure, incremental costs, and equipment. This information can be used to plan for a single season, which is analogous to a project-level analysis for physical infrastructure. The tools can also be used for planning to understand investments that require multi-year layouts, but they do not provide methodologies capturing potential losses or reductions in effectiveness over time due to changing climate. 4.2.3 Will Require New Approaches   Consideration of Non-Stationarity (Changing Climate).  While many operations-focused CBA tools consider extreme weather, changes to the magnitude, duration, and frequency of those events are not considered. Understanding changes to the frequency of disruptions and safety issues is critical to evaluating the effectiveness of operations strategies, and comparing them to structural or combined structural-operations strategies. Methods from the hazard mitigation and climate resilience frameworks must be used to extend the operations and emergency response framework to better incorporate climate resilience concerns. 4.3 Hazard Mitigation  Table 4-3. Hazard Mitigation Frameworks' Abilities to Meet CBA Needs Needs Currently satisfied Can be satisfied with minor modification Will require new approaches Hazard Mitigation Framework Data Readily Available to Transportation Practitioners X Support for Multi-Asset and Operations Analysis X Consideration of Hazards X Consideration of Non-Stationarity (Changing Climate) X Consideration of Other Resilience and Sustainability Factors X Relevance for Design-Level Alternatives Comparison X Relevance for Communication to Funding entities and Public X Scalability from Project- to Planning-Level Analyses X Geographic Scalability X 4.3.1 Currently Satisfied   Consideration of Hazards. Analyzing the impacts of adaptation or mitigation alternatives is one of the primary objectives of hazard mitigation CBA tools. They are designed to consider a variety of natural hazard types and to allow users to conduct analyses of the benefits and costs of taking a particular action to mitigate against the impacts of a selected hazard on a particular asset. While some tools may focus only on one or two hazard types, others are capable of addressing a wider variety of natural hazards. For example, CAPTool, which was specifically developed for the

B-13 transportation sector, considers both natural and manmade hazards and can be implemented across multiple modes of transportation. 4.3.2 Can Be Satisfied with Minor Modifications   Data Readily Available to Transportation Practitioners. Most of the DOTs surveyed and interviewed indicated that they have access to the data that is required to complete hazard- mitigation-type CBAs. Some of them noted, however, that not all of the data is located in one place or within one division or agency, such that the data gathering process can take some time and effort. Many of the hazard mitigation CBA tools require knowledge of the recurrence intervals of the hazard being analyzed, which is not always readily known or easily found by transportation practitioners. Some tools, such as FEMA’s Benefit-Cost tool, have the capability of calculating recurrence intervals based on historical or estimated data input by the user.  Support for Multi-Asset and Operations Analysis. Most hazard mitigation CBA tools have been designed to analyze individual assets for a specified hazard event. CAPTool is an exception; separate tabs in the Excel-based workbook allow users to enter information for multiple asset classes, and it also includes in its list of standard countermeasures the use of operational approaches to mitigate specific hazards. Most other CBA tools do not allow users to specifically analyze the impacts of different operational approaches to mitigate a hazard. Some CBA tools do take overall operations and maintenance costs into account, but do not consider more detailed life cycle cost analyses. Most of the hazard mitigation CBA tools use national averages for the values of certain inputs such as the wage rates that are used to calculate passenger value of time; some will allow the user to override the default value and input their own value.  Consideration of Resilience and Other Sustainability Factors. Most open-source hazard mitigation CBA tools were created to analyze the financial cost-benefit ratio of mitigation projects and did not consider the “triple bottom line” of financial, environmental, and social factors in the analysis. The past decade has seen an increasing emphasis on considering more than just the financial benefits of hazard mitigation projects, with Executive Orders such as E.O. 13653 and legislation such as MAP-21 including language requiring users of Federal funds to consider sustainability and resilience in their planning considerations and cost analyses. Different approaches are being taken to address this need. FEMA has added sea level rise benefits to the flood module of their toolkit by adding a fixed amount of freeboard to stillwater elevations for given recurrence intervals, and the tool now accounts for social benefits if the financial benefit-cost ratio exceeds a specified threshold. FEMA is in the process of incorporating environmental benefits as well. FTA is in the process of modifying the tool they used for their competitive Sandy grant program to make it applicable to a wider range of hazard types and geographies. The tool includes a recurrence interval calculator that allows users to adjust coastal flood recurrence intervals for sea level rise. It does not calculate social and environmental benefits, but allows users to provide a written explanation of these types of benefits associated with a particular project. Some proprietary software, such as Impact Infrastructure’s Business Case Evaluator Transit Module (which is freely available online), corresponds to the Envision rating system and allows users to consider the financial, environmental, and social benefits of projects.  Relevance for Design-Level Alternatives Comparison. As mentioned previously, most hazard mitigation CBA tools were designed to analyze a single project or scenario; they generally do not

B-14 consider multiple scenarios or alternatives in the same analysis. These tools can be used to compare design-level alternatives, but separate runs must be completed, altering the inputs to suit each individual alternative or scenario and then comparing the results.  Relevance for Communication to Funding Entities and the Public. Many of the CBA tools for hazard mitigation are used to support grant applications. As such, funding entities understand and encourage, and in many cases require, their use. The applicants that use these tools vary in their level of sophistication and comfort; some have had the occasion to regularly apply for funding and are familiar with the tools’ input requirements, while others have had little or no opportunity to use the tools to apply for funding. The funding entities usually make some sort of assistance available to all applicants. For example, FEMA supports a Benefit-Cost Helpline that users can call or email for assistance with use of their software in addition to publishing a reference guide. Developers of CBA tools not specifically tied to grant funding also provide support tools; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has a website for their HEC-FDA tool that includes a user manual and Frequently Asked Questions page. Some of the tools were not developed specifically for transportation assets, but can be used to analyze road, culvert, and bridge projects that are of interest to the public. The outputs from the tools vary; some provide costs of mitigation measures, others output damages (which can be extrapolated to losses avoided by implementation of mitigation measures), and still others provide a ratio of benefits to costs. Each output can be useful in communicating a need and proposed solution to the public, but because of other limitations, none of the tools completely captures and readily communicates all of the financial, environmental, and social costs and benefits of an adaptation approach that might be of interest to the public. Moreover, no tools address and convey the large benefit-to-cost ratio in preventing climate change, or that the only way to really “adapt” in some areas is to avoid or prevent problems that may be too costly for the public sector to effectively surmount.  Scalability from Project- to Planning-Level Approaches. Most of the tools evaluated as part of the first Technical Memorandum are applicable at the project level. Multiple runs would be required for a transportation agency’s multitude of assets to facilitate evaluation at the planning level, as many of the tools were created to support grant applications and not hazard mitigation plan development. CAPTool was designed as a planning tool to “support planning…for developing capital budgets for countermeasures that reduce the impact of threat/hazard event”, but it is not intended for use in prioritizing assets. 4.3.3 Will Require New Approaches   Consideration of Non-Stationarity (Changing Climate). When they were originally developed, hazard mitigation projects were focused on preventing damages from an event with a specified recurrence interval from happening again as the result of a similar event. Consequently, the tools were not designed to accommodate non-stationarity such as that associated with climate change. Recently, these tools have been used to analyze mitigation projects that also include adaptation to climate change, so they are being adapted to try to accommodate the impacts that a changing climate has on natural hazards. The approaches vary but generally do not account for variability of climate conditions over time or the impacts that these changing conditions could have on transportation assets.

B-15  Geographic Scalability. Because hazard mitigation CBA tools were designed to evaluate projects for different hazard types, they can be applied across different geographies, typically within the United States, although others may apply within the European Union, Australia, or New Zealand. These tools are designed for site-specific or asset-specific analysis and do not consider impacts of an action or project at different scales such as the corridor, region, or state, though some can consider short distances such as a stretch of roadway. Some progress is starting to be made through European research. As part of the tool-supported policy development for regional adaptation (ToPDad) research project, Swiss researchers are working to develop approaches to conduct economic analyses for adaptation options to climate change and extreme weather using existing tools that allow the analyses to be scaled from the city level to the country level. The approaches can be applied to different hazard types. Some of the tools being used together include Multi-Agent Transport Simulation (MATSim); Mobility, Vehicle Fleet, Energy Use, and Emissions Forecast Tool (MOVEET); and Economic Model for the Analysis of Distribution and Inequality Policy (EDIP). As these approaches are evaluated and further developed, they should serve as a good model for developing geographic scalability. 4.4 Climate Resilience and Sustainability  Table 4-4. Climate Resilience and Sustainability Frameworks' Abilities to Meet CBA Needs Needs Currently satisfied Can be satisfied with minor modification Will require new approaches Climate Resilience Framework Data Readily Available to Transportation Practitioners X Support for Multi-Asset and Operations Analysis X Consideration of Hazards X Consideration of Non-Stationarity (Changing Climate) X Consideration of Other Resilience and Sustainability Factors X Relevance for Design-Level Alternatives Comparison X Relevance for Communication to Funding Entities and Public X Scalability from Project- to Planning-Level Analyses X Geographic Scalability X 4.4.1 Currently Satisfied   Consideration of Hazards. Academics and practitioners, including NCHRP and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), have identified many hazards posed by changing climate to highway infrastructure, and while new hazards may emerge, research in this area is fairly mature and ready to be used for decision support. Furthermore, the FHWA Climate Adaptation Pilots were specifically directed at helping DOTs understand their vulnerability to changing climate and offer a transportation-specific framework that is a useful prerequisite for identifying areas and assets where climate resilience CBAs may be helpful in making the case for adaptation.

B-16  Consideration of Non-Stationarity. One of the major gaps in the other frameworks summarized in this chapter is the inability to account for changes to the frequency, magnitude and duration of extreme weather events due to changing climate. Climate models and tools using climate model output do capture these changes for numerous hazards of interest to the transportation community, particularly certain hazards related to temperature and precipitation. 4.4.2 Can Be Satisfied with Minor Modifications   Support for Multi-Asset and Operations Analysis. Both physical assets and operations are affected by extreme weather. Cross-asset (e.g. COAST) and operations-focused (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Watershed Management Optimization Support Tool) tools already exist, but tools and frameworks addressing both are less common. Approaches such as those used in the hazard mitigation-focused CAPTool may be instructive.  Consideration of Other Resilience and Sustainability Factors. A holistic climate resilience CBA tool ideally captures the quantitative and qualitative contributions a project may make to resilience and sustainability. Several of the climate resilience tools reviewed in the first Technical Memorandum included modules capturing quantitative resilience metrics and the sustainability aspects of projects (e.g., EPA Watershed Management Optimization Support Tool). The approaches used in the capital investment framework, such as quantifying greenhouse gas reductions and contributions to livability, are also applicable.  Relevance for Communication to Funding Entities and Public. A major challenge with respect to changing climate and extreme weather is the gap between expert knowledge and public understanding. Climate resilience policy such as the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard bridges the gap somewhat by discussing resilience in terms commonly understood by the insurance industry and homeowners in the floodplain, such as freeboard, 100-year, and 500-year events. CBA outputs can be developed in a similar fashion, so that tool results adhere to funding guidelines and terminology meaningful to the public.  Scalability from Project to Planning Level Analyses. Many of the planning-level tools investigated in the first Technical Memorandum were sketch-level. A CBA for climate resilience requires a comparatively high level of design-specific detail; therefore, instead of creating a sketch- level overview (a top-down summary), it will likely be desirable to aggregate portfolios of climate resilience projects (a bottom-up summary), perhaps organized by sub-categories such as asset type. Organization for planning level analyses will be discussed further with DOTs following initial drafts of the architecture and frameworks but could include evaluating and identifying mission- critical activities and systems with high priority, detailed analysis of how assets are being used, how they fit into the mission, and what redundancies may or may not exist.  Geographic Scalability. Climate hazards have significant geographic spread, as do transportation networks. CBA frameworks considering both climate and transportation must scale from the asset level to the network level, and must also be able to consider alternatives analyses for co-occurring hazards (e.g. storm surge and heavy precipitation). Designing a framework that facilitates multiple runs of alternatives analysis and hazard scenarios will help address the latter concern. The ability to group and search CBA analyses by hazard types, geographic extent, and asset or operation type may be a useful summary approach accounting for geographic scale. Organization for geographic

B-17 scalability concerns will be discussed further with DOTs following initial drafts of the architecture and frameworks, and the results of these discussions will be summarized in the interim report. 4.4.3 Will Require New Approaches   Data Readily Available to Transportation Practitioners. Although downscaled data is available through federal web portals such as Bureau of Reclamation, combined climate and civil engineering expertise is required to identify which scenarios, ensembles, and climate metrics will be relevant for evaluating the loss avoidance component of CBA when comparing design alternatives. There is also a need to use climate models to obtain climate inputs for CBAs that are meaningful to design engineers; this can be accomplished through collaboration between climate scientists and civil engineers. Guidance in this area would be helpful for transportation practitioners. FHWA currently is working with transportation agencies on this topic and expects to release the results of their study in 2016.  Relevance for Design-Level Alternatives Comparison.  Data at the appropriate spatial scales and time steps as well as data for some hazards of interest (e.g. high winds, hail, fog) are not yet available, either due to the state of the science or, in the case of spatial scales, the unmet need for supercomputing resources. However, pilot CBA methodologies can be developed for some temperature, precipitation, sea level rise, and hydrology-related impacts for which the science is sufficiently mature. 4.5 Summary   The state of the science is such that we are able to discern a direction and trend for many climate vectors at many locations. These trends are often evident in the historical record as well as General Circulation Model (GCM)-based climate projections for the 21st century. In addition, there are numerous cases where academics and practitioners have identified, developed, and implemented adaptations that may be useful in addressing some of the projected changes. Complementing these efforts, many state DOTs have participated in the FHWA’s climate adaptation pilots, and as a result have begun to understand their vulnerabilities and priorities. Tools to test the cost-effectiveness of adaptations are emerging, but multi- asset, multi-hazard frameworks are not yet available; however, with existing tools, methods, and data, or minor modifications to the same, it is currently possible to provide high quality, actionable CBA information suitable for design at the project level for a number of design-relevant climate hazards. Selecting the appropriate climate scenario is essential to the CBA process. The scenarios and timeframes selected will have an important bearing on factors such as which alternatives are considered adaptive, their overall cost, and estimation of losses avoided. Scenario selection may also be driven by the agency’s risk tolerance with respect to the assets under consideration. Depending on risk tolerance, it is fully possible that the scenarios selected for CBA at the project level will vary from those which informed a climate vulnerability assessment performed for the entire asset catalogue. For example, infrastructure with higher criticality may receive special attention under more extreme climate scenarios. Ultimately, CBA will help distinguish which alternatives are preferred based on performance over the range of timeframes and scenarios examined. A major task of this project is to reconcile the strengths of the various frameworks examined to develop a composite framework that is multi-hazard, multi-asset, considers operational strategies, and is capable of

B-18 incorporating relevant climate projections in the CBA estimation methodology. While not all climate hazards of interest can be represented in a prototype tool due to lack of maturity in the science, a number of relevant climate hazards can be investigated. As noted in our proposal, the study team believes the initial prototype focus is on flooding. Floods are high-priority given the comparative lack of climate resilience CBA tools considering riverine flooding, the outsize role of water in presenting a threat to many state transportation systems, and the study team’s position on the leading edge of translating climate impacts to meaningful hydrologic metrics. 5 MAINSTREAMING OPPORTUNITIES  In order to facilitate uptake and maximum utility, a tool produced for this project will need to take into account opportunities to mainstream consideration of extreme weather and climate change. While some projects may be motivated by climate vulnerability assessments, other projects will be based on typical transportation needs assessments. If resilience is considered early in the project planning process, DOTs have the opportunity to incorporate adaptations to extreme weather and changing climate. Table 5-1, which is adapted from U.S. DOT’s diagram, “Integrating Security into the Project Planning and Development Process,” indicates the junctures at which project planning offers opportunities to mainstream adaptation.

B-19 Table 5-1. The project planning process offers multiple opportunities to incorporate adaptation and CBA. Planning and Programming Steps Task Climate Resilience Frameworks and Resilience Policy Considerations Decision Points Climate Adaptation Engineering Experts Stakeholders System Level Analysis Determine the need for climate adaptation projects based on a climate vulnerability assessment identifying vulnerability, criticality and priorities. FHWA Climate Adaptation Framework  Which portion of the asset catalogue will be assessed?  Have recent events pinpointed vulnerabilities that are particularly high priority?  Will the assessment be interactive, desktop, or a combination?  Are the climate projections current?  Are the scenarios appropriate and the most likely, given current known trends?  Is the data resolution sufficient?  Are there new vulnerabilities that have been uncovered in recent academic or practitioner work?  DOT personnel across the agency will be needed  Guidance and documentation is available through TRB, FHWA, and AASHTO  Universities may have data or expertise that is useful during the vulnerability assessment  DOTs may wish to involve other stakeholders, such as local transportation representatives and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)

B-20 Planning and Programming Steps Task Climate Resilience Frameworks and Resilience Policy Considerations Decision Points Climate Adaptation Engineering Experts Stakeholders Project Identification Decide which locations and vulnerabilities have the most significant impact on the network, what types of projects might help, and identify potential funding sources OR Assess climate vulnerabilities in a planned project, identify modifications which might help address those vulnerabilities, and identify potential funding sources.  Executive Order 13653: Preparing the United States for the Impact of Climate Change  Executive Order 13514: Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, & Economic Performance  Executive Order 13690: Federal Flood Risk Management Standard  FHWA Order 5520  MAP-21  Are higher-resolution data needed to characterize the vulnerable assets or areas at this time?  If an asset is being repaired post-disaster or in the normal course of maintenance, is there a requirement or opportunity to consider climate resilience?  Which design specifications for project options are climate-sensitive?  Is there science available to help understand how climate may affect performance, safety, and degradation over the project lifespan?  DOT maintenance personnel: records and experience may provide insight into past damages or other issues at this location.  DOT operations personnel: records and experience may provide insight into delays and safety issues.

B-21 Planning and Programming Steps Task Climate Resilience Frameworks and Resilience Policy Considerations Decision Points Climate Adaptation Engineering Experts Stakeholders Project Planning If available, perform climate resilience CBA during study of project area. If CBA benefit-to- cost ratio is below 1.0, develop and compare alternatives. Submit project for review and approval by MPO and consider including in Unified Planning Work Program and Long- Range Transportation Plan. N/A  Is the initial project proposal cost-effective?  Is an alternatives analysis necessary/desirable?  Does the project require additional maintenance and inspections?  What types of adaptation options are available for the project?  Are incremental adaptations possible, and what is needed in the current project design to accommodate these?  What are the likely consequences of infrastructure failure, and how can those consequences be mitigated through operations strategies or other mechanisms?  DOT operations personnel: are there operational strategies that complement this project?  Are there transportation system management and operations (TSM&O) strategies available to help protect physical infrastructure or motorists if extreme weather exceeds design specifications?  MPOs: are regional economic analyses desirable?

B-22 Planning and Programming Steps Task Climate Resilience Frameworks and Resilience Policy Considerations Decision Points Climate Adaptation Engineering Experts Stakeholders Project Programming and Funding MPO includes the project in their Transportation Improvement Program and the state includes the project in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. N/A N/A N/A  Regional or local representatives may also wish to include the project in adaptation plans, master plans, scheduled maintenance and infrastructure replacement, or sustainability master plans. Preliminary Design Project enters preliminary design phase. Perform CBAs during the design phase or at least at major design milestones. N/A  Does the scope of work include the selected adaptations to changing climate and extreme weather?  Are any unique or specialized design skills required to design this project? N/A Environmental Review The NEPA process identifies, minimizes and, if needed, mitigates the project's environmental impact. If changes are required, consider potential impact on climate resilience. N/A  Should CBA be performed again to check changes to loss estimates?  What options are available to help reconcile adaptation needs and environmental requirements? N/A

B-23 Planning and Programming Steps Task Climate Resilience Frameworks and Resilience Policy Considerations Decision Points Climate Adaptation Engineering Experts Stakeholders Final Design The project design is approved with climate resilience and environmental considerations addressed. N/A  Does the scope of work include the adjustments for environmental mitigation as well as selected adaptations to changing climate and extreme weather? N/A N/A Acquisition and Contracting Right of Way acquisition Construction firm is hired Plan, specification, and estimate (PS&E) agreement Utilities N/A  Does the procurement language need to specify climate-resilient standards or experience?  Is the construction firm qualified to handle the adaptive component of design?  Are there unique or specialized competencies and experience necessary to construct this climate resilient project? N/A Project Construction Project is constructed. N/A N/A N/A N/A

B-24 Planning and Programming Steps Task Climate Resilience Frameworks and Resilience Policy Considerations Decision Points Climate Adaptation Engineering Experts Stakeholders Project Acceptance The operator of the project follows standard operating procedures. N/A  Is project performing as expected?  Is project condition deteriorating as predicted?  Are stopgap interventions or timed and planned incremental adjustments needed?  What metrics should be used to monitor adaptation effectiveness?  Have updates to climate projections been issued, and do they alter the expected performance or lifespan of the project?  Is there new information about climate stressors that was previously unavailable, and how should it be handled?  Universities, MPOs, local entities, and other involved stakeholders may wish to publicize their involvement in the climate resilient design.  DOT may be in a position to advise peers about similar projects.

B-25 6 WORKLOAD ESTIMATE  The four CBA frameworks complement each other to some extent. Several of the gaps identified in some of the four CBA frameworks can be addressed simply by relying on the frameworks that do address those gaps. For example:  Capital Investment Framework: develop a framework where the majority of data inputs are similar to those used in the capital investment framework and which facilitates the comparison of design- level alternatives.  Operations Framework: emphasize geographic scalability and consider how operations strategies can augment or complement adaptations to physical infrastructure.  Hazard Mitigation Framework: provide multi-hazard functionality.  Climate Resilience Framework: show how hazards may change over time. The remaining gaps include those that can be addressed within the project and those that require additional resources or improvements in the state of the science. The workload in Table 6-1 reflects effort needed to address gaps in order to develop the study team’s proposed prototype tool, which focuses on CBAs for resilience to flood hazards, but will be designed to incorporate multiple hazards in subsequent work. Table 6-1. Estimated Workload to Address Gaps by Development of a Prototype. Task Name 2016 2017 N D J F M A M J J Extend existing hydrology methods to consider range of return periods Develop river floodplains for nuisance (10-year), 100-year, and 500- year events based on climate projections for a pilot state Infrastructure: develop flood-design specifications matrix for roads, bridges, and culverts Adapt benefits valuation and cumulative loss estimation methodologies Develop user interface facilitating project-level alternatives comparison and program level summaries Incorporate pilot state's asset catalogue into prototype module Beta test adaptation alternatives and revise prototype Develop guidebook/documentation for scenario selection and tool use Final report Project closeout

B-26 7 CONCLUSION  The resulting framework and tool will consider resilience of the transportation systems in a cross-asset, cross-operations fashion and will rely predominantly on datasets that are already commonly used by transportation agencies. This point is particularly important because according to the survey process, many DOTs are not employing formal CBAs when considering climate and extreme weather resilience. However, such a framework will be useful because of growing pressure from policy and funding entities to address this aspect of resilience and increasing awareness of the need for climate resilience when DOTs experience more disruptions and damage. To streamline adoption of a formal CBA method, it will be useful to employ existing terminology, datasets, and inputs, as well as approaches already successfully implemented by DOTs showing leadership in this area, as summarized in this document.

B-27 8 REFERENCES  Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Incorporating Sea Level Rise (SLR) into Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Benefit Cost-Analysis Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).” Online: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1387903260455- e6faefb55a3f69d866994fb036625527/HMA%20Sea%20Level%20Rise%20FAQ%2012-23-2013.pdf. (December 2013). Federal Highway Administration. “CAPTool User Guide Using CAPTool to Implement the ‘Costing Asset Protection: An All-Hazards Guide for Transportation (CAPTA)’ Methodology.” Online: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/security/emergencymgmt/profcapacitybldg/captool_users_guide.cfm. (January 2013). Federal Highway Administration. “Integrating Security into the Project Planning and Development Process.” Online: https://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/Integrating_Security_into_Project_Planning.pdf Federal Highway Administration. “Traffic Incident Management.” Online: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/eto_tim_pse/about/tim.htm. (2015). Heyndrickx, C., et. al. “The impact of extreme weather events on urban mobility in Switzerland: combining a traffic micro-simulation with an economic macro-model.” Online: http://www.ivt.ethz.ch/vpl/publications/reports/ab1012.pdf. (2014). Horni, Andreas, K. Nagel, and K. W. Axhausen (eds). “The Multi-Agent Transport Simulation MATSim.” Online: http://ci.matsim.org:8080/job/MATSim-Book/ws/partOne-latest.pdf. (2016). Ivanova, Olga, et . al. “Assessing transport policy impacts equity and on income distribution with the EDIP model.” Online: http://www.tmleuven.com/project/refit/d4-2.pdf . (November 2007). Purwanto, Joko. “MOVEET MObility, Vehicle fleet, Energy use, and Emissions forecast Tool.” Online: http://www.tmleuven.com/methode/moveet/MOVEET.pdf. (July 2013). ToPDad Research Team. “Adaptation and Resilience of the Transport Sector.” Online: http://www.topdad.eu/upl/files/120163. (2015). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “HEC-FDA Flood Damage Reduction Analysis Users’ Manual.” Online: http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-fda/documentation/CPD-72_V1.2.4.pdf. (November 2008). U.S. Department of Transportation. “TIGER Discretionary Grants.” Online: https://www.transportation.gov/tiger. (2016).

B-28 9 ACRONYMS  AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials BCA Benefit cost analysis CBA Cost benefit analysis CBR Cost benefit ratio DOT Department of Transportation E.O. Executive Order EDIP Economic model for the assessment of income Distribution and Inequality effects of economic Policies EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GCM General Circulation Model LRTRP Long-range transportation plan MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century MATSim Multi-Agent Transport Simulation (M)IRR (Modified) Internal Rate of Return MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation MOVEET Mobility, Vehicle fleet, Energy use and Emissions forecast Tool MPO Metropolitan planning organization MSHA Maryland State Highway Administration NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPV Net present value

B-29 PS&E Plan, specification, and estimate ROI Return on investment STIP Statewide transportation improvement plan TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery TIM Traffic incident management ToPDad Tool-supported policy development for regional adaptation TRB Transportation Research Board TSM&O Transportation Systems Operation and Maintenance USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

APPENDIX A – INTERVIEW SUMMARIES B-30

B-31

Synthesis and extension of findings 1.0 Weather events are not new to DOTs, what is new is the extreme nature of recent and projected events in the face of climate change and their potential to disrupt continuity of service on an aging transportation system increasingly stressed to capacity. Processes and methods to determine "the right projects" and how "to do projects right" are also well established and have evolved to address safety, mobility/continuity of service, lifecycle cost, and a wide range of economic, social and environmental concerns. To effectively address the increasing importance of climate resilience and adaptation, DOTs need analytical tools to balance investments across a range of needs with the increasing risks posed by climate change and extreme weather. Ideally these tools would use available data, fit into existing processes, complement existing methods, yield benefit-cost ratios to objectively inform decisions, be simple enough for immediate use, and sophisticated enough to evolve with use over the long run. To this end, several DOTs (e.g., Florida, Maine, Oregon) are already using assessment rubrics addressing a wide range of factors using scaled weightings. Others (e.g. Texas, Pennsylvania) consider a similar set of variables in their program development process. Examination of these rubrics to assess the prospects for interim substitution of dollar equivalents for weightings could be a useful step toward development of tools that would complement existing methods as applied to existing needs using existing data for more transparent, analytical, benefit-cost- based analysis to help DOTs cope with evolving climate risk. Discussion: Context was a recurring theme in these interviews. Context combined with scale seemed to be the quandary faced by DOTs. They need tools for assessing resilience and adaptation on a cost-effective basis, but the tools must be consistent with their primary mission and useful the context of their current processes and methods. As for scale, It's one thing for a DOT to do the required benefit cost analyses for resizing a culvert in response to requirements from FHWA's emergency recovery requirements (doing the project right), but it's another thing entirely for them to prioritize their investments on a programmatic level involving hundreds of projects among thousands of potential alternatives (doing the right project). With regard to context, one of the things that has become obvious is that DOTs generally do not operate in a climate change vacuum. In their line processes they never look at just one factor at a time. For example, a bridge that is scheduled for replacement because it's reached the end of its useful life might be subject to adaptation considerations to a much larger degree than a newly constructed bridge in no pressing need for attention at this time. Thus, the methods to be employed and the tools to be developed must be tailored to the context in question. In the program update process where DOTs are trying to allocate the sum total of their resources across many projects for many considerations, a narrowly focused benefit-cost tool to prioritize adaptation would be of limited utility when it comes to the essential question of prioritization in the full context of other needs such as lifecycle cost, safety, capacity, etc. For this overarching application, a tool that builds on the processes and methods already used in determining capital update priorities could well be the tool required to complete the crosswalk between concerns such as safety and capacity vs. adaptation and continuity of service. Thus, the approach could begin with tools that are used for this application such as the weighting rubrics already in routine use with available data and perhaps the TIGER B/C Guidelines due to their familiarity. These could be considered to the degree that they can include climate change considerations using available data and methods which the DOTs can immediately apply without undue additional effort. At the other end of the scale, for site-specific considerations for projects such as culvert replacement or slope protection, these the same principles should be assessed for applicability. DOTs need supplements to existing well- thought-out, tested, and understood processes, methods, and tools to enable them to factor additional climate change considerations into their processes. Several DOTs have done this through a process that engages local maintenance forces with their intimate knowledge of the risks, conditions, and threats to life and property at site- specific locations in their work area as set against the menu of practical remediation choices. There is a significant advantage in keeping in mind the menu of programmatic and site-specific remedies for common problems such as replacing/resizing culverts in a given watershed or county, or armoring all slopes exposed to erosion by flashy streams. Another factor to be considered in the scope of development consideration is the question of evolution. Clearly DOTs are all going to start from where they are. Not all DOTs are in the same place in their development of climate or risk assessment expertise, nor do all DOTs face the same concerns; however, they must all start with a choice among various tool options that can fit their needs and capacities. For example, reliance on local expertise and responsibility can be the launching pad for a checklist for maintenance forces to use when assessing culvert replacement. Similarly, a policy framework expanded to include investment consideration for continuity of service along evacuation routes will make sense in a “policy driven” capital framework. The main consideration is one of evolution, given that DOTs will start from where they are in processes, data, and understanding. Knowledge will grow in time within the typical DOT "continuous improvement " approach. With regard to the evolving nature of any tools that might be developed, it is essential that the initial tools make use of initial data. Virtually all states have access to a wide range of conventional datapoints (capacity, AADT, safety, pavement condition, bridge condition, etc.). Additional datapoints with regard to flooding incidence, erosion potential, and risk factors are also available for most states. B-32

20-101 INTERVIEW TEMPLATE 0.21 DelDOT AGENCY Delaware DOT RESPONDENT Silvana Croope, LaTonya Gillam, Barry INTERVIEWER Marie, Gary, Laurel, Krista, Joshua DATE 1-Feb-16 INTRO QUESTIONS FROM SURVEY RESPONSE FOLLOW UP QUESTION ANSWER ADDITIONAL NEEDS / GAP? Policy 1. Does your organization have any policies in place that require you to incorporate adaptation to climate change or extreme weather? Yes, Bridge Design Manual requires adaptation to SLR/CC in design of new structures and substantial improvement of existing structures. Also, DE Stormwater regulations rquire designers to demonstrate the the location of a project within a watershed will not aggravate flooding or channel erosion. (Scour, erosion control, and flooding appear to be the main triggers/concerns.) Bridges concerned with hydraulic conductivity, but greater issues are with culverts and approaches to bridges. Policy says to design for BFE +3'. Should they use that or should they think about other alternatives? Consider green infrastructure? DelDOT takes care about 90% of all transportation infrastructure. Primarily concerned with flood. What about snow and ice? Are these linked to climate change adaptation? Is the thinking that these will become more common? 2. Does your organization have any policies in place that require you to complete cost-benefit analysis for projects that incorporate adaptation to climate change or extreme weather? Bridge Design Manual requires LCCA for larger projects (>$1 million estimated cost). Typically, though, they are only completed for disaster recovery/mitigation projects (where it's required). Right now climate change adaptation and resilience are not requirements for completing BCA or LCCA. Is it likely to factor in more in the future? Use deficiency formula to prioritize projects (bridges). Put data into an equation to develop a priority list. Likely to consider in the future but not part of the current equation. Developing priority list for culverts and approaches. Evolving an understanding of if they are part of "critical miles" - evacuation routes. There might be easier ways for failure to happen. Trying to understand types of technology available to put sensors at vulnerable locations to monitor conditions and impacts. Then will develop approaches, possibly consider cost-effectiveness. Bringing in Ann Brown to start to address the needs. a. If yes, What are the triggers/requirements? (e.g., for all projects, for projects over a certain dollar value, for projects with a certain expected life, etc.) Bridge Design Manual requires LCCA for larger projects (>$1 million estimated cost). b. What economic impacts do you consider in the analysis (e.g., impacts on businesses, etc.)? Cost of design, construction, right-of-way, maintenance, rehab, service life, operating, accidents, and users. c. What social and environmental costs do you consider in the analysis? 3. Increasingly, federal policies are requiring that asset management plans be in place and cost-benefit analyses be completed to qualify for federal funding. For example, USDOT will soon release guidance on how to incorporate the federal flood risk management standard into design; FHWA's current guidance in Order 5520 requires considering climate change and resiliency; and HEC 25b incorporates guidance for designing for sea level rise at the project level. How do you believe these and other future policies will impact your organization’s approach to incorporating adaptation to climate change? To conducting cost- benefit analyses for climate change adaptation? When MAP 21 required them to select assets they had the data they needed. They're not at the point yet where they can do this for climate resiliency. Silvana has intentionally raised this question within DelDOT. The Planning Division has some teams that are developing an approach. GIS team is gathering a lot of data and making it available. Then will be able to incorporate climate change. Need to understand what needs are for new types of metrics. Re: Cross-asset allocation, is this part of NCHRP project or internal DelDOT project? DelDOT sees a need to address CC for cross- cutting projects. Use GIS to gather and interpret data. Need to understand where you are before you can determine where you are going? Getting support from upper mgt? Brought information from NCHRP into DelDOT. Work with existing managers, existing work, and existing manner of evaluating projects and ranking priorities. Then determine when/how to apply BCA. Must be done by inclusion rather than imposition. Teams built as a result of disasters will be stronger than those that haven't. Need to change internal culture. Consider different geologies, geographies, topographies, microclimates, etc. Need to understand that the infrastructure will outlast us and that CC will last for a long range of time. How should we build now and how flexible does it need to be? Has support from upper management - could not do this without the support of the various Directors. E.O. 41 - need to develop metrics. Funding 20-101 INTERVIEW TEMPLATE 0.21 DelDOT B-33

20-101 INTERVIEW TEMPLATE 0.21 DelDOT INTRO QUESTIONS FROM SURVEY RESPONSE FOLLOW UP QUESTION ANSWER ADDITIONAL NEEDS / GAP? 1. How are the responses to and recovery from extreme weather events paid for? a. If funds are shifted from one area to another to cover the costs, what types of work often do not get accomplished to pay for the response to extreme weather? Funds come from state and vehicle tariffs. A certain amount is allocated each year. Emergency events from capital transportation trust fund. Usually get reimbursed from FEMA or FHWA. Capital programs may need to be adjusted if costs exceed funding available and total of reimbursements. Delaware is a self- insured state; they are revisiting the idea of self-insurance and are looking into catastrophe bonds and resilience bonds. There is terrorism insurance; ` They do not have a plan for economic resilience from a catastrophic event. Florida is looking into this as well. Commission for Insurance must approve it. 2. Which types of events are most costly? Most disruptive? 3. FHWA, FEMA, and now FTA have Emergency Relief programs that can provide federal funding to assist organizations with costs associated with qualifying events. How does the nature and structure of these programs impact the funding that is budgeted for response to and recovery from extreme weather events and climate change? Capital Budgeting 1. How are priorities for the capital budget determined? 2. How many years out is the capital budget developed? 3. What are the qualification requirements or thresholds for projects to be considered as “capital projects”? 4. Do you think that cost-benefit analyses at the project and/or program level could be useful? 4a. If so, under what circumstances/for which projects? 4b. What really is preventing you from consistently completing cost-benefit analyses at the present time? Did not have dedicated staff or team to implement until September 2014. How many staff do you have for this and what are their responsibilities? Data and Models (OMIT IN FAVOR OF FOLLOWING AS TRIGGERED BY SURVEY RESPONSE?) 1. What models or methods do you currently use to complete cost-benefit analysis? BrM (formerly Pontis), Hazus, INVEST What do they use to complete LCCAs? 2. How user-friendly do you find them? Somewhat friendly/use with some difficulty 3. What do these models do that you find to be beneficial? B-34

20-101 INTERVIEW TEMPLATE 0.21 DelDOT INTRO QUESTIONS FROM SURVEY RESPONSE FOLLOW UP QUESTION ANSWER ADDITIONAL NEEDS / GAP? 4. What do these models not do that you wish they did or that you need them to do? (i.e., What would an ideal analysis tool do given your needs and constraints?) GIS-based, applicable to interdependencies (cost and prioritization are a function of interdependencies of the entire system as well as society). Consider resilience as well as sustainability. How well do your criticality frameworks capture your needs in terms of asset management? Do you feel that using AADT weights the urban areas too heavily resulting in disadvantages to rural areas? Bridges are prioritized (according to formula) and addressed in order. Traffic volumes have a large impact, so interstate and freeway assets and evacuation routes usually are at the top of the list. We are comfortable with AADT and there is no doubt that urban areas typically get funded first, but rural areas often support detours which can help them rise up in priority. AADT was not accepted as the basis for flood program they are looking at. To that order, the number that is used for priority is the one for the summer peak season. The State evacuates a lot of out-of-state people during the summer. The other critical piece that they are in the process of looking at is the need in catastrophic events and supply chain - in a catastrophe scenario there are only 6 points of access to the peninsula. This can impact BCA. They haven't done the study yet but are considering it. Also revising insurance, microsimulation, etc. Other desirable features - address different modes? Yes. Features of needing locations of egress - questions from the project level to the strategic level. Tool would be used in capital budgeting and put everything on a level playing field, be able to talk to other agencies, connect with where you are now. They have counties/cities, sub-regions (typically are failing in producing), state partnerships, regions. Need to consider a regional basis and your role - region will fail if you fail. Insurance policies - levels and coverage. 5. Where do you get the data that you use for your analysis? Need to get cross-cutting data. Need to pay more attention to the NEPA process and incorporate more into the analysis process. Need to consider if investments are also considering the impacts that pollution has. 6. How easy is it for you to acquire this data? B-35

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - PennDOT AGENCY PennDOT RESPONDENT Doug Zimmerman PennDOT dozimmerma@pa.gov 717-787-0782 & Marl Lombard, Justin Bruner INTERVIEWER Gary McVoy DATE 2/17/2016 REVIEWER Doug Zimmerman 2/19/16 Summary/Synthesis what how needs QUESTION # QUESTION RESPONSE 1 What (natural) hazards are top priorities for you to design for? Mitigate against/adapt to? 1a a. For example, we’ve heard from other DOTs that flooding is a top priority that drives design requirements. What has your experience been? Primarily flooding PennDOT has experienced significant flood damage to bridges in the NE portion of the state on what seems a recurring basis. To get a handle on this issue they have commissioned a vulnerability analysis that is just getting underway. The current program development process is largely based on asset condition with other factors such as capacity, safety, flooding, etc. factored in as needed. Priorities and project scope are determined by overall need for the range of factors - but again asset condition tends to be the driver. Benefit cost analysis is used on an exception basis for major projects, but resilience and adaptation have generally not factored into these analyses. Value engineering is employed routinely for major investments as a cost saving measure. The vulnerability analysis just getting underway will help determine as yet only general needs to define the scope of the problem for programmatic funding requests and determine procedures for factoring resilience into the project development process. Climate projections on rainfall intensity are seen as a major potential gap. 20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS & FILE - PennDOT B-36

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - PennDOT QUESTION # QUESTION RESPONSE 1b b. Do you consider climate change when designing for this (or any) type of event? 1bi i. If so, how do you determine what level of event you will design for? just starting an adaptation study so level will come from this 1bii i i. If not, what is preventing you from doing this? 2 What types of facilities are top priorities for upgrades, repair, and/or replacement? Are the needs to address these facilities driven in part by the natural hazards we just discussed? 2a a. For example, we’ve heard that while roads, bridges, and culverts are frequently considered for floods, slopes are also critical to consider. What are your top priority assets? roads, bridges, and culverts are frequently considered for floods, slopes, but bridges are the primary focus in light of floods and failures in NE Penn a few years ago. 2b b. How do you identify and prioritize them? For example, we’ve been told that some DOTs use a formula that considers, among other things, AADT or peak tourist traffic volumes to develop their priorities. What is your approach? What factors are the priority drivers? priority driver is primarily asset condition. 2c c. How frequently is the priority list updated? 2 year cycle? 2d d. Some people in the transportation community have expressed concern that urban assets consistently receive greater attention and funding at the expense of rural assets. What has been your experience? How does your prioritization system address the needs of rural assets? follow up question for Lloyd but rural assets seem to get appropriate attention 3 How are cross-asset needs addressed in your organization? What other agencies need to participate or are impacted by these decisions? 3a a. For example, we’ve heard that some project and funding decisions need to consider city, county, state, and regional impacts. What has your experience been? city, county, state compete for funds in cooperative manner - perhaps more from Lloyd on this 4 How does your prioritization process help to inform your overall capital budget program and funding? prioritization process for asset attention factors in 4a a. For example, we’ve learned that some DOTs fund projects in priority order. What approach does your organization take? 4b b. Does your prioritization process consider cost-benefit analysis or life cycle cost analysis for each (or any) project? cost-benefit analysis as needed - see program update instructions B-37

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - PennDOT QUESTION # QUESTION RESPONSE 4bi i. For example, we’ve heard that some DOTs have a $ threshold that requires cost-benefit analysis to be done for projects that exceed that threshold, or that CBAs are done for FHWA-funded projects. What is your experience? $ threshold - large projects get value engineering, but focus tends to be cost reduction. 4c c. (If their prioritization process includes CBA or LCCA then ask this) Do you conduct only one CBA, or do you consider a couple of options? Have you seen any cases where any of the options incorporate climate change adaptation? If not, what is preventing your organization from incorporating climate change adaptation into CBAs? options alternatives to come from study just underway 4d d. (If their prioritization process does not include CBA or LCCA then ask this) What is preventing your organization from completing CBAs? Do you think they could be useful? If yes, under what circumstances? options alternatives to come from study just underway 5 What are you looking for in a CBA tool that accommodates climate change? In other words, what would an “ideal” tool do and what format would it use (e.g., Excel, GIS-based, etc.)? to come from study just underway “ideal” tool do and what format would it use (e.g., Excel, GIS-based, etc.). Wiki maps may be used. 5a a. For example, we’ve been told that some elements of an ideal tool are that it would be GIS-based, it would address cross-asset needs, it would consider cross-agency needs, it would consider different funding mechanisms such as catastrophe or resilience bonds, etc. What are your thoughts on what would be helpful so that people would want to use it? thoughts on what would be helpful 5b b. Where would you obtain the data needed to input into the tool? asset data is expected to be a prime driver 6 Can you provide an example of a case study in which your agency has successfully applied climate change adaptation and/or cost-benefit analysis to inform capital planning and decision-making? case study - to come from study just underway B-38

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - TxDOT AGENCY TxDOT RESPONDENT Mark McDaniel INTERVIEWER Gary McVoy DATE 2/17/2016 REVIEWER Mark McDaniel 2/19/16 Summary/Synthesis what TxDOT is most concerned with hurricanes and attendant evacuations, damage control, etc., as well as flooding along major rivers that tend to result from rainfall further up the watersheds. how Preparation and response to events often are investments in infrastructure replacement on a post-event basis. Priorities for resilience/ adaptation investments are considered along with other factors such as pavement condition, safety, capacity, etc. in a collaborative program development process that depends on program managers for structure, priority, and funding strictures. Local experts/asset managers are expected to provide context and local knowledge to decisions as to when and how to invest in adaptation. Program prioritization policy, e.g., priority for evacuation routes; asset management and life cycle cost data; emergency transportation operations dispatch records or after action reports; feedback from maintenance personnel; and work orders all factor into this comment/review/ decision process on projects. Formal B/ C analysis in not commonly employed unless larger infrastructure needs are being addressed simultaneously. needs With expert local knowledge and familiarity as the basis for decisions, checklist tools are thought to be of most immediate utility in the process. Data is sufficient in most all regards except climate/rainfall intensity/hurricane predictions. Here a marginal cost increase for percent increase in intensity/likelihood would be of most help in the decision process. 20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS & FILE - TxDOT B-39

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - TxDOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1 What (natural) hazards are top priorities for you to design for? Mitigate against/adapt to? 1a a. For example, we’ve heard from other DOTs that flooding is a top priority that drives design requirements. What has your experience been? 1 - hurricanes with evacuations, damage control, etc. 2 - flooding along major rivers. Could be from rainfall in other states. 1b b. Do you consider climate change when designing for this (or any) type of event? 1bi i. If so, how do you determine what level of event you will design for? In reconstruction after events upgrades are considered. 1bii i i. If not, what is preventing you from doing this? 2 What types of facilities are top priorities for upgrades, repair, and/or replacement? Are the needs to address these facilities driven in part by the natural hazards we just discussed? culverts tend to be the most frequent, but hurricanes can take anything 2a a. For example, we’ve heard that while roads, bridges, and culverts are frequently considered for floods, slopes are also critical to consider. What are your top priority assets? 2b b. How do you identify and prioritize them? For example, we’ve been told that some DOTs use a formula that considers, among other things, AADT or peak tourist traffic volumes to develop their priorities. What is your approach? What factors are the priority drivers? judgement as manifest by the design process wherein scoping is done and then refined through comment process and then design proceeds, etc. 2c c. How frequently is the priority list updated? 2d d. Some people in the transportation community have expressed concern that urban assets consistently receive greater attention and funding at the expense of rural assets. What has been your experience? How does your prioritization system address the needs of rural assets? not an issue TxDOT owns most of the system B-40

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - TxDOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 3 How are cross-asset needs addressed in your organization? What other agencies need to participate or are impacted by these decisions? Program prioritization policy, e.g., priority for evacuation routes; Asset management and life cycle cost data; Asset management and life cycle cost data; Emergency Transportation Operations dispatch records or after action report; Feedback from maintenance personnel; and Work orders all factor in the comment / review process on projects. Formal B/ C analysis in not commonly employed. Except where also incorporated into a larger infrastructure project. 3a a. For example, we’ve heard that some project and funding decisions need to consider city, county, state, and regional impacts. What has your experience been? 4 How does your prioritization process help to inform your overall capital budget program and funding? Through review Program prioritization policy, e.g., priority for evacuation routes; Asset management and life cycle cost data; Asset management and life cycle cost data; Emergency Transportation Operations dispatch records or after action report; Feedback from maintenance personnel; and Work orders all factor in the comment / review process on projects. Formal B/ C analysis in not commonly employed. Except where also incorporated into a larger infrastructure project. 4a a. For example, we’ve learned that some DOTs fund projects in priority order. What approach does your organization take? 4b b. Does your prioritization process consider cost- benefit analysis or life cycle cost analysis for each (or any) project? yes - see above . Note climate . Extreme weather is never considered in isolation other drivers such as pavement conditions, safety, capacity are the drivers. 4bi i. For example, we’ve heard that some DOTs have a $ threshold that requires cost-benefit analysis to be done for projects that exceed that threshold, or that CBAs are done for FHWA-funded projects. What is your experience? FEMA ER processes use B/C processes on an exception process when upgrades are warranted. B-41

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - TxDOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 4c c. (If their prioritization process includes CBA or LCCA then ask this) Do you conduct only one CBA, or do you consider a couple of options? Have you seen any cases where any of the options incorporate climate change adaptation? If not, what is preventing your organization from incorporating climate change adaptation into CBAs? 4d d. (If their prioritization process does not include CBA or LCCA then ask this) What is preventing your organization from completing CBAs? Do you think they could be useful? If yes, under what circumstances? 5 What are you looking for in a CBA tool that accommodates climate change? In other words, what would an “ideal” tool do and what format would it use (e.g., Excel, GIS-based, etc.)? Keep it simple! -- Checklists are very helpful in the decision process described above where local knowledge is integrated with statewide priorities and resources. 5a a. For example, we’ve been told that some elements of an ideal tool are that it would be GIS- based, it would address cross-asset needs, it would consider cross-agency needs, it would consider different funding mechanisms such as catastrophe or resilience bonds, etc. What are your thoughts on what would be helpful so that people would want to use it? 5b b. Where would you obtain the data needed to input into the tool? expert local judgment 6 Can you provide an example of a case study in which your agency has successfully applied climate change adaptation and/or cost-benefit analysis to inform capital planning and decision-making? no B-42

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - Florida DOT AGENCY Florida DOT RESPONDENT Maria Cahill, Maria.cahill@dot.state.fl.us INTERVIEWER Gary McVoy DATE 2/1/2216 REVIEWER GM assumed summary generally OK - 3/21/16 Summary/Synthesis what how Florida DOT has a long history of using GIS and other IT /analytical tools and approaches to project and program development. As such, climate/extreme weather risks to continuity of service and assets is something that this agency with its susceptibility to severe costal storms is seeking incorporate into its program development process (do the right project) and design activities (do the project right). The current capital process updates a five year program on an annual basis for the next year's expenditures, and looks at the next five years' needs to bring additional projects into the program, and revisits the 20-year long- term planning horizon on a periodic basis. Done by district, the updates factor in the full range of considerations including asset condition, capacity, demand, safety, environment, risks to continuity of service, strategic importance to the economy, etc. Climate risks do factor in but the process for this is evolving through pilots. B/C is employed for the program as a whole and for individual large projects on an exception basis. 20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS & FILE - Florida DOT B-43

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - Florida DOT needs QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1 What (natural) hazards are top priorities for you to design for? Mitigate against/adapt to? 1a a. For example, we’ve heard from other DOTs that flooding is a top priority that drives design requirements. What has your experience been? storm surge, flooding, sea level rise 1b b. Do you consider climate change when designing for this (or any) type of event? 1bi i. If so, how do you determine what level of event you will design for? yes - tends to be a matter of individual judgement 1bii i i. If not, what is preventing you from doing this? 2 What types of facilities are top priorities for upgrades, repair, and/or replacement? Are the needs to address these facilities driven in part by the natural hazards we just discussed? state highway system - in connection with 5 year update process. Continuity of service risk considered. Extreme weather addressed by MPO's on pilot basis. 2a a. For example, we’ve heard that while roads, bridges, and culverts are frequently considered for floods, slopes are also critical to consider. What are your top priority assets? varies, but bridges to barrier islands tend to be especially vulnerable strategic intermodal system first state system next Tools that can supplement and inform the current process for project selection are needed, as are hydraulic and other factors to help normalize the design process. Currently the Multimodal Economic Tool (MET) is being used to evaluate a broad variety of major capacity projects. The benefit categories being considered in these analyses include: travel time savings, out of pocket cost savings, economic value of induced trips, emissions cost savings, and safety benefits. Although the tool is not currently being used to evaluate resilience or adaptation activities, it may be possible to incorporate these factors for major projects. Something simpler may be more suitable for small projects. Program-level assessments may also evolve from current MPO/FHWA pilots, but given the complexities involved, an evolutionary approach that starts with the current FIT process and begins to factor in climate concerns with increasing sophistication over some years may be the most practical way forward. B-44

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - Florida DOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 2b b. How do you identify and prioritize them? For example, we’ve been told that some DOTs use a formula that considers, among other things, AADT or peak tourist traffic volumes to develop their priorities. What is your approach? What factors are the priority drivers? FIT tool process - Chris Edmonston Strategic update process for major facilities - see website link to be provided. See also seal level viewer as adjunct to this. 100 yr. 500 yr. etc. 2c c. How frequently is the priority list updated? annual update 5 year plan 2d d. Some people in the transportation community have expressed concern that urban assets consistently receive greater attention and funding at the expense of rural assets. What has been your experience? How does your prioritization system address the needs of rural assets? costal areas (where threats are) tend to be urban 3 How are cross-asset needs addressed in your organization? What other agencies need to participate or are impacted by these decisions? yes 3a a. For example, we’ve heard that some project and funding decisions need to consider city, county, state, and regional impacts. What has your experience been? MPO's in coordination with FDOT handle this reasonably well 4 How does your prioritization process help to inform your overall capital budget program and funding? see FIT process 4a a. For example, we’ve learned that some DOTs fund projects in priority order. What approach does your organization take? FDOT's current approach to transportation resiliency and adaptation is guided by the Florida Transportation Plan which requires the department to incorporate and consider the risk of service interruption (e.g. extreme weather events, asset failures, bridge scour, etc.) into its priority setting process. In an asset management context, the identification, analysis, evaluation, and mitigation are combined into a formalized process. As part of the process, the department has elevated roads, installed rip rap and other types of scour and erosion control measures, inspected bridge foundations and heights, etc. 4b b. Does your prioritization process consider cost-benefit analysis or life cycle cost analysis for each (or any) project? no - exception basis . Martin Markovich. Macro level B/C. Designs tend to be based on current records. B-45

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - Florida DOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 4bi i. For example, we’ve heard that some DOTs have a $ threshold that requires cost-benefit analysis to be done for projects that exceed that threshold, or that CBAs are done for FHWA-funded projects. What is your experience? The most comprehensive of these tools is the Multimodal Economic Tool (MET) which is being used to evaluate a broad variety of major capacity projects. The benefit categories being considered in these analyses include: travel time savings, out of pocket cost savings, economic value of induced trips, emissions cost savings, and safety benefits. Although the tool is not currently being used to evaluate resilience or adaptation activities, the MET can be adapted for that use. These tools are being applied on a case by case basis for major projects or when a special need has been identified. See also Summary Matrix of eight (8) current FDOT models in use that consider the economic benefits of transportation projects. 4c c. (If their prioritization process includes CBA or LCCA then ask this) Do you conduct only one CBA, or do you consider a couple of options? Have you seen any cases where any of the options incorporate climate change adaptation? If not, what is preventing your organization from incorporating climate change adaptation into CBAs? varies by scope scale location 4d d. (If their prioritization process does not include CBA or LCCA then ask this) What is preventing your organization from completing CBAs? Do you think they could be useful? If yes, under what circumstances? Multitude of factors - not all of which lend themselves to routine monetization 5 What are you looking for in a CBA tool that accommodates climate change? In other words, what would an “ideal” tool do and what format would it use (e.g., Excel, GIS-based, etc.)? DOT's generally do not operate in a climate change vacuum. In their line processes they never look at just one factor at a time. For example, a bridge which is scheduled for replacement because it's reached the end of its useful life might be subject to adaptation considerations to a much larger degree then a bridge which is been recently constructed but in no pressing need for attention at this time. Thus, the methods to be employed and the tools to be developed must be tailored to the context in considerations that the user must consider. B-46

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - Florida DOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 5a a. For example, we’ve been told that some elements of an ideal tool are that it would be GIS-based, it would address cross-asset needs, it would consider cross-agency needs, it would consider different funding mechanisms such as catastrophe or resilience bonds, etc. What are your thoughts on what would be helpful so that people would want to use it? In the program update process where the DOT is trying to allocate the sum total of its resources across many projects for many considerations a tool which looks only at adaptation in determining benefit cost can only prioritize adaptation projects within this set of climate considerations and would be of little help with the prioritizations in the context of other needs such as lifecycle cost safety capacity etc. For this overarching application a tool which builds upon the processes and methods already used in determining capital update priorities is the tool required to enable the DOT to do the crosswalk between concerns such as safety and capacity along with adaptation and continuity of service. 5b b. Where would you obtain the data needed to input into the tool? most of the data is already in the system. Also use data from COE, et al. Integrate with GIS. 6 Can you provide an example of a case study in which your agency has successfully applied climate change adaptation and/or cost-benefit analysis to inform capital planning and decision-making? The Hillsborough MPO Transportation Vulnerability Assessment Pilot (2014) is a good example because the pilot considered the cost/benefit of five critical assets identified as vulnerable to coastal and inland flooding. The objective of the pilot was to identify cost-effective strategies to mitigate and manage the risks of coastal and inland flooding. Other pilots underway. Miami Beach is one where chronic flooding occurs. Key West another. B-47

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - Maine DOT AGENCY Maine DOT RESPONDENT Judy.Gates@maine.gov INTERVIEWER Gary McVoy DATE 3/1/2016 REVIEWER Judy Gates with notes 3/9 & 3/11/16 Summary/Synthesis what how needs Maine DOT has approached climate change and extreme weather in a straightforward, pragmatic, and informed manner. Through pilots it has looked at watersheds, coastline, projects, and facilities. As with other states, it has factored climate concerns into its programming as a risk to continuity of service and threat to infrastructure investment while using traditional drivers such as safety, condition, and level of service as the major investment drivers. Bridges have been screened on a programmatic basis for scour susceptibility and culverts have been assessed for failure using a combination of local maintenance knowledge and hydrologic analysis. Proactive pragmatic problem solving has been applied in their "flood watch" program in which colored placards affixed to bridge piers are used to define "caution" and "closure" actions for particular flood stages. On the project side, design specifications have been provisionally upgraded on an "as practicable" basis to address 100-year storms for culverts and 500-year storms for bridges. Work with the regulatory community, and application of TIGER Grant program guidance is commonly used on an exception basis. Tools that build on existing information, pilots, and processes to "automatically" factor climate and extreme weather risk into the full suite of funding drivers would be of value, while tools that are restricted in their purview to climate related data are unlikely to see wide application. 20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS & FILE - Maine DOT B-48

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - Maine DOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1 What (natural) hazards are top priorities for you to design for? Mitigate against/adapt to? Flooding 1a a. For example, we’ve heard from other DOTs that flooding is a top priority that drives design requirements. What has your experience been? Flooding & storm surge 1b b. Do you consider climate change when designing for this (or any) type of event? yes - 100 year culverts, 500 year bridges - as tempered by other considerations such as habitat, cost, social concerns (e.g. row) 1bi i. If so, how do you determine what level of event you will design for? alternatives considered 1bii i i. If not, what is preventing you from doing this? B/C may not always be there for 100 yr., etc. 2 What types of facilities are top priorities for upgrades, repair, and/or replacement? Are the needs to address these facilities driven in part by the natural hazards we just discussed? Bridges subject to scour. Yes driven in part by climate among other factors, but never exclusively so. 2a a. For example, we’ve heard that while roads, bridges, and culverts are frequently considered for floods, slopes are also critical to consider. What are your top priority assets? Scour critical bridges, culverts as identified by maintenance forces. 2b b. How do you identify and prioritize them? For example, we’ve been told that some DOTs use a formula that considers, among other things, AADT or peak tourist traffic volumes to develop their priorities. What is your approach? What factors are the priority drivers? safety, condition, level of service & then other factors such as climate (flooding) 2c c. How frequently is the priority list updated? annual with 3-5 year look ahead 2d d. Some people in the transportation community have expressed concern that urban assets consistently receive greater attention and funding at the expense of rural assets. What has been your experience? How does your prioritization system address the needs of rural assets? Geographic formula distribution seems to handle this concern 3 How are cross-asset needs addressed in your organization? What other agencies need to participate or are impacted by these decisions? Geographic formula distribution 3a a. For example, we’ve heard that some project and funding decisions need to consider city, county, state, and regional impacts. What has your experience been? Geographic formula distribution B-49

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - Maine DOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 4 How does your prioritization process help to inform your overall capital budget program and funding? 4a a. For example, we’ve learned that some DOTs fund projects in priority order. What approach does your organization take? Regional / program areas propose projects. Planning recommends allocations / priorities. 4b b. Does your prioritization process consider cost-benefit analysis or life cycle cost analysis for each (or any) project? On an exception basis - except for TIGER applications. 4bi i. For example, we’ve heard that some DOTs have a $ threshold that requires cost-benefit analysis to be done for projects that exceed that threshold, or that CBAs are done for FHWA-funded projects. What is your experience? B/C done as required for TIGER Regulatory negotiation s approvals, etc. 4c c. (If their prioritization process includes CBA or LCCA then ask this) Do you conduct only one CBA, or do you consider a couple of options? Have you seen any cases where any of the options incorporate climate change adaptation? If not, what is preventing your organization from incorporating climate change adaptation into CBAs? Alternatives considered e.g. 25 year design, 1.5 bank full design, 100 year design. 4d d. (If their prioritization process does not include CBA or LCCA then ask this) What is preventing your organization from completing CBAs? Do you think they could be useful? If yes, under what circumstances? 5 What are you looking for in a CBA tool that accommodates climate change? In other words, what would an “ideal” tool do and what format would it use (e.g., Excel, GIS-based, etc.)? Has to work with other (more important…?) factors including safety, condition, capacity, cost, project delay threats (see also threat matrix) 5a a. For example, we’ve been told that some elements of an ideal tool are that it would be GIS-based, it would address cross-asset needs, it would consider cross-agency needs, it would consider different funding mechanisms such as catastrophe or resilience bonds, etc. What are your thoughts on what would be helpful so that people would want to use it? If it were all automated using existing data sets 5b b. Where would you obtain the data needed to input into the tool? Data largely available. 6 Can you provide an example of a case study in which your agency has successfully applied climate change adaptation and/or cost-benefit analysis to inform capital planning and decision-making? yes - see specifics on questions & appendix. B-50

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - NYSDOT AGENCY NYSDOT RESPONDENT Debra Nelson, Lynn Weiskopf, Rich Lee, Joe Doherty, Jim Davis, Mark Saunders, George Long, Mike Rossi. Elisabeth Lennon (absent) INTERVIEWER Gary McVoy DATE 2/23/2016 REVIEWER Deb Nelson 3/18/16: summary ok, survey specifics revised without further review what how needs QUESTION # QUESTIONS Summary Response 1 What (natural) hazards are top priorities for you to design for? Mitigate against/adapt to? 1a a. For example, we’ve heard from other DOTs that flooding is a top priority that drives design requirements. What has your experience been? Flooding - 1b b. Do you consider climate change when designing for this (or any) type of event? Yes -- note changes in COE general permit for culverts lead to increased capacity COE nationwide permit condition addresses aquatic organism passage which results in larger culverts; these larger culverts serve to handle increase in stream flow during flooding. Test HY-8 runs as part of FHWA CC pilot verified that the USACOE AOP-sized culverts were adequate to handle flows predicted by the future StreamStats tool, indicating that they have the capacity to convey increased future discharge. 1bi i. If so, how do you determine what level of event you will design for? Professional judgment on projects -- Development of B/ C for programmatic assessment of revised design events proved problematic. 20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS & FILE - NYSDOT New York State DOT has become quite sophisticated in determining how best to invest in continuity of service and long-term asset management. The main risk to continuity of service and assets from a climate perspective has to do with flooding. Current approaches to assessing how best to achieve the objectives of long- term asset management and continuity of service fall into two types: doing the right project, and doing the project right. The capital program update system is the mechanism for determining investments (doing the right project) in accordance with a range of priorities. It is important to note that investments in resilience must compete with all other investments and tend to be factored into other considerations using a range of evolving pilot systems. At the project level, design processes incorporate risk assessment as part of the scoping, design, and review procedures. B/C analysis tools are used on an exception basis. Institutionalization is a challenge. Improve and move forward with existing asset management factors within the program update process to explicitly and quantitatively incorporate factors for criticality and risk so as to program "the right project" in context with other competing needs. That done, updated rainfall intensity and streamflow projections could improve engineering judgment to "do the project right." To be useful the tool will have to exhibit high utility, ease of use, and modest data requirements at initial adoption with the understanding that increasing sophistication/precision could develop in time as warranted. Additional commentary Summary/Synthesis B-51

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - NYSDOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS Summary Response Additional commentary 1bii i i. If not, what is preventing you from doing this? Consensus on factors and approach in the face of technical complexity (above revised 3.21) 2 What types of facilities are top priorities for upgrades, repair, and/or replacement? Are the needs to address these facilities driven in part by the natural hazards we just discussed? 2a a. For example, we’ve heard that while roads, bridges, and culverts are frequently considered for floods, slopes are also critical to consider. What are your top priority assets? Structures, culverts, approaches. Note "every bridge is an "intersection" -- need to keep BOTH highway AND stream open during storm. 2b b. How do you identify and prioritize them? For example, we’ve been told that some DOTs use a formula that considers, among other things, AADT or peak tourist traffic volumes to develop their priorities. What is your approach? What factors are the priority drivers? Capital program update ; Community Risk and Recovery Act (2017). This is an evolving process Project Prioritization of Capital Projects (through CPT Statewide Solicitation), done through Bridge and Pavement Priority Indexes. Both of these use the Corridor Importance Factor (CIF), which takes Employment, Agriculture, Truck Traffic and Functional Class into account. Both also use AADT, % Trucks and asset condition. Bridges also look at the detour length, any load postings and the hydraulic vulnerability of the structure. Community Risk and Resiliency Act (not "Recovery"). Although CRRA is still about 1 year away from implementation, it is expected to have impacts on our projects and program and planning-level decision- making. The Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Act requires that a resiliency criteria be added to the checklist and major DEC funding and permit programs will require future flooding considerations including DEC's Article 15 Protection of Waters program as well as the Section 401 Water Quality Certifications. A NYS Flood Risk Management Standard is also being developed. The Smart Growth criteria can contribute to weighing priorities. The project level changes/impacts are still to be determined. 2c c. How frequently is the priority list updated? Annual - see additional references 2d d. Some people in the transportation community have expressed concern that urban assets consistently receive greater attention and funding at the expense of rural assets. What has been your experience? How does your prioritization system address the needs of rural assets? developed corridor importance factor as way to get beyond AADT and better address rural/urban disparity. Urban/Rural – Projects in urban areas for get some priority, due to increased AADT and CIF. However, AADT factors are maxed at around 20,000 vehicles to prevent unbalancing the scale toward NYC/Long Island. In addition we take local criticality into account (crucial, non- redundant routes in rural areas) when choosing SCP projects. 3 How are cross-asset needs addressed in your organization? What other agencies need to participate or are impacted by these decisions? DOT CPT where we discuss cross-asset needs. Doesn't involve other agencies but may have implications with DEC regarding flooding, planned stream work, etc.. Also coordination with MPOs. B-52

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - NYSDOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS Summary Response Additional commentary 3a a. For example, we’ve heard that some project and funding decisions need to consider city, county, state, and regional impacts. What has your experience been? some locals (e.g. Delaware county) very evolved. Urban higher AADT, but rural have fewer alternative routs NYSDOT sets regional planning targets 4 How does your prioritization process help to inform your overall capital budget program and funding? Prioritization is the update process NYSDOT’s asset management framework includes NYSDOT executives serving on the capital program delivery committee who make the final decisions based on input from senior management serving on the comprehensive program team. To prioritize projects, CPT considers the condition of the assets, the location and the project’s context in the transportation system and local geography, and the function of the roadway. 4a a. For example, we’ve learned that some DOTs fund projects in priority order. What approach does your organization take? Complex and extensive series of weighting factors to identity priority (at least at a "first cut" level) condition focus (bridge and pavement models) with Sustainability lens - Bridge and Pavement indices are used to establish a first cut list of projects. These lists are then analyzed and rearranged, taking sustainability and other factors into account to move a project up or down in priority, 4b b. Does your prioritization process consider cost-benefit analysis or life cycle cost analysis for each (or any) project? Not explicitly on routine basis C/B used for safety but not for resilience 4bi i. For example, we’ve heard that some DOTs have a $ threshold that requires cost-benefit analysis to be done for projects that exceed that threshold, or that CBAs are done for FHWA-funded projects. What is your experience? 4c c. (If their prioritization process includes CBA or LCCA then ask this) Do you conduct only one CBA, or do you consider a couple of options? Have you seen any cases where any of the options incorporate climate change adaptation? If not, what is preventing your organization from incorporating climate change adaptation into CBAs? Options considered in value engineering & "standard scoping development review design process. Note application of "value engineering" to climate risk not really consistent with established practice. 4d d. (If their prioritization process does not include CBA or LCCA then ask this) What is preventing your organization from completing CBAs? Do you think they could be useful? If yes, under what circumstances? 5 What are you looking for in a CBA tool that accommodates climate change? In other words, what would an “ideal” tool do and what format would it use (e.g., Excel, GIS-based, etc.)? For now something to at least flag climate risk / criticality of highway segments for consideration (weighting?) in the capital program. AND, guidance / updated specifications design parameters (e.g. 50 year storm) for doing the projects right. 5a a. For example, we’ve been told that some elements of an ideal tool are that it would be GIS-based, it would address cross-asset needs, it would consider cross-agency needs, it would consider different funding mechanisms such as catastrophe or resilience bonds, etc. What are your thoughts on what would be helpful so that people would want to use it? With regard to the evolving nature of any tools which might be developed, it is essential that the initial tools make use of initial data and existing process to do a better job of what they need to do (right project - done right).. feel cross asset comparison and GIS- based would be very beneficial. B-53

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - NYSDOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS Summary Response Additional commentary 5b b. Where would you obtain the data needed to input into the tool? condition data from DOT; ecological importance from TNC research - info on DOT Environmental Viewer; info on CAMCI viewer 6 Can you provide an example of a case study in which your agency has successfully applied climate change adaptation and/or cost-benefit analysis to inform capital planning and decision-making? Yes Route 20 Madison County (raise route 20 because its detour for thruway); Champlain Valley (in process); Dewberry "criticality" B/C study for NYS ERDA (in process). See CAMCI Viewer for Cap program update FHWA Post Sandy Study with NY-NJ-CT is looking at representative transportation assets and developing BCA tools. Still a work in progress. Looking for completion Summer 2016. B-54

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - Oregon DOT AGENCY Oregon DOT RESPONDENT Curran.E.MOHNEY@odot.state.or.us INTERVIEWER Gary McVoy DATE 3/17/2016 REVIEWER Curran Mohney 3/21/16 Summary/Synthesis what how needs Geography, geology, topography, economics, and demography combine to make Oregon's highway system subject to an unusually diverse and serious set of climate/extreme weather threats that include rock falls, landslides, and forest fires as well as flooding and erosion from precipitation, storm surge, sea level rise, stream aggradation (sedimentation/channel instability). For their part, Oregon DOT has developed a suite of internal tools/processes and conducted an impressive FHWA pilot study exploring the particulars of project selection and benefit cost analysis for immediate use. The 2014 Oregon "Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Options Study" (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/resili ence_pilots/2013-2015_pilots/oregon/index.cfm), and Curran Mohney's Unstable Slope Management on Oregon Highways (https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=D927F1584F8ADA70!16489&authke y=!AE-9-yL4mLH9APM&ithint=file%2cppt) illustrate how the agency is approaching questions of risk and criticality in a workable benefit-cost framework that should be commended through further study. Oregon DOT is making good progress with their approaches and would welcome feedback and ideas from others. Assessment of culvert risks is of particular concern and more specifics on climate variables would be useful. New tools would be most helpful if they incorporate a full range of variables including asset condition and user costs, but must be relatively easy to use with available data if they are to be helpful on a routine basis. 20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS & FILE - Oregon DOT B-55

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - Oregon DOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1 What (natural) hazards are top priorities for you to design for? Mitigate against/adapt to? 1a a. For example, we’ve heard from other DOTs that flooding is a top priority that drives design requirements. What has your experience been? Flooding is the primary hazard, but landslides are a particular threat as are forest fires and stream aggradation (sedimentation / channel instability). 1b b. Do you consider climate change when designing for this (or any) type of event? yes, but tools (see link) incorporate a wide range of considerations 1bi i. If so, how do you determine what level of event you will design for? individual project basis but also note programmatic approach to landslides 1bii i i. If not, what is preventing you from doing this? 2 What types of facilities are top priorities for upgrades, repair, and/or replacement? Are the needs to address these facilities driven in part by the natural hazards we just discussed? slopes, embankments, culverts, bridges 2a a. For example, we’ve heard that while roads, bridges, and culverts are frequently considered for floods, slopes are also critical to consider. What are your top priority assets? slopes subject to landslide 2b b. How do you identify and prioritize them? For example, we’ve been told that some DOTs use a formula that considers, among other things, AADT or peak tourist traffic volumes to develop their priorities. What is your approach? What factors are the priority drivers? vulnerability based on slope, soil type, geology. Criticality based on AADT, detour length -- see tool 2c c. How frequently is the priority list updated? continuous 2d d. Some people in the transportation community have expressed concern that urban assets consistently receive greater attention and funding at the expense of rural assets. What has been your experience? How does your prioritization system address the needs of rural assets? Funds distributed by formula. -- Oregon has a Transportation Commission drawn from all over the State so that the rural/urban perspectives are equally represented. 3 How are cross-asset needs addressed in your organization? What other agencies need to participate or are impacted by these decisions? cooperative venture with MPO's 3a a. For example, we’ve heard that some project and funding decisions need to consider city, county, state, and regional impacts. What has your experience been? B-56

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - Oregon DOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 4 How does your prioritization process help to inform your overall capital budget program and funding? For slopes - candidate project priorities come from slope risk analysis and then compete with other needs 4a a. For example, we’ve learned that some DOTs fund projects in priority order. What approach does your organization take? most projects come from analysis of asset conditions. These are then prioritized based on program update deliberations 4b b. Does your prioritization process consider cost-benefit analysis or life cycle cost analysis for each (or any) project? generally not. See example using MOSAIC type analysis 4bi i. For example, we’ve heard that some DOTs have a $ threshold that requires cost-benefit analysis to be done for projects that exceed that threshold, or that CBAs are done for FHWA-funded projects. What is your experience? exception basis 4c c. (If their prioritization process includes CBA or LCCA then ask this) Do you conduct only one CBA, or do you consider a couple of options? Have you seen any cases where any of the options incorporate climate change adaptation? If not, what is preventing your organization from incorporating climate change adaptation into CBAs? exception basis 4d d. (If their prioritization process does not include CBA or LCCA then ask this) What is preventing your organization from completing CBAs? Do you think they could be useful? If yes, under what circumstances? lack of staff time, tools, process 5 What are you looking for in a CBA tool that accommodates climate change? In other words, what would an “ideal” tool do and what format would it use (e.g., Excel, GIS-based, etc.)? simple & accommodates a full range of concerns 5a a. For example, we’ve been told that some elements of an ideal tool are that it would be GIS-based, it would address cross-asset needs, it would consider cross-agency needs, it would consider different funding mechanisms such as catastrophe or resilience bonds, etc. What are your thoughts on what would be helpful so that people would want to use it? 5b b. Where would you obtain the data needed to input into the tool? data generally available 6 Can you provide an example of a case study in which your agency has successfully applied climate change adaptation and/or cost-benefit analysis to inform capital planning and decision-making? see example B-57

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - WSDOT AGENCY WSDOT RESPONDENT Carol Lee Roalkvam INTERVIEWER Marie Venner DATE REVIEWER Summary/Synthesis what how needs QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1 Policy Explain asking about negatives - to identify needs/gaps - rather than a synthesis of what places are doing The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) does not use cost-benefit analysis and does not think this is required. WSDOT is now doing climate vulnerability, statewide data on each asset. Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment (CIVA) is a base layer for the asset management system. It's one of the first things viewed along with bridge deficiencies. It's an agency-wide requirement for everyone to look at and use this. WSDOT also has a Risk Assessment office: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/ProjectMgmt/RiskAssessment/http://w ww.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/ProjectMgmt/RiskAssessment/ Vulnerability assessments and the regular DOT decision-making processes are proving adequate for WSDOT. WSDOT assesses risks, gathers feedback from maintenance personnel, and considers flooding risk and asset management strategies, but does not do CBA. WSDOT considers climate readiness, and stormwater design considers adequate/increasing flows for the expected life of the asset, but there are new ways in which asset life is being extended all the time. Washington State DOT felt that they and other DOTs have ample data to make the decisions they need to make. 20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS & FILE - WSDOT B-58

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - WSDOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 1a 1. Does your organization have any policies in place that require you to complete cost-benefit analysis for projects that incorporate adaptation to climate change or extreme weather? Mentioned Gov' mandate 1b a. If yes, What are the triggers/requirements? (e.g., for all projects, for projects over a certain dollar value, for projects with a certain expected life, etc.) Carol Lee said this relates to the Risk Estimating program in the Design Office. She was just talking from the perspective of the Climate Office. WSDOT does consider resiliency . Triggers off of major environmental documents - anything with an EA or EIS gets the more full work, and many of the CE projects also note the vulnerability and so would be flagged. 1bi b. What economic impacts do you consider in the analysis (e.g., impacts on businesses, etc.)? WSDOT had excellent work on business impacts from closure of I-5 and Snoqualmie Pass 1bii c. What social and environmental costs do you consider in the analysis? 2 2. Increasingly, federal policies are requiring that asset management plans be in place and cost-benefit analyses be completed to qualify for federal funding. How do you believe this will impact your organization’s approach to completing cost-benefit analyses? WSDOT is now doing climate vulnerability, statewide data on each asset. That's a base layer for the asset management system. It's one of the first things viewed along with bridge deficiencies. It's an agency-wide requirement for everyone to look at and use this. Talk with Mark Gable about cost risk. 2a Mainly for reconstruction options post-disaster - will do it then? 2b Funding http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/ProjectMgmt/RiskAssessment/ 2c 1. How are the responses to and recovery from extreme weather events paid for? Mark Gabel 2d a. If funds are shifted from one area to another to cover the costs, what types of work often do not get accomplished due to current funding of the response to extreme weather? John Himmel in Maintenance - Emergency guy. Casey Kramer - study recently published. 2. Which types of events are most costly? Most disruptive? Looked at all of climate threats. Did qualitative analysis, days of flows, not costs. 3 3. FHWA, FEMA, and now FTA have Emergency Relief programs that can provide federal funding to assist organizations with costs associated with qualifying events. How does the nature and structure of these programs impact the funding that is budgeted for response to and recovery from extreme weather events and climate change? Anything about the nature and structure of the program that is impacting you? John Himmel might be able to respond. FHWA made more activities eligible. Capital Budgeting B-59

20-101 SURVEY - INTERVIEW / FINDINGS FILE - WSDOT QUESTION # QUESTIONS RESPONSE 4 1. How are priorities for the capital budget determined? 4a 2. How many years out is the capital budget developed? 4b 3. What are the qualification requirements or thresholds for projects to be considered as “capital projects”? Data and Models (OMIT IN FAVOR OF FOLLOWING AS TRIGGERED BY SURVEY RESPONSE?) 5 1. What models or methods do you currently use to complete cost- benefit analysis? Mark Gabel 5a 2. How user-friendly do you find them? 5b 3. What do these models do that you find to be beneficial? 5c 4. What do these models not do that you wish they did or that you need them to do? 5d 5. Where do you get the data that you use for your analysis? 5e 6. How easy is it for you to acquire this data? Data is not a limitation B-60

Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is useful for climate change response and adaptation, and if used properly, it has great potential for long-range planning. CBA should help agencies navigate the spectrum of decisions from mitigation and greenhouse gas reduction to adaptation: where does investing public funds generate the most public good?

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Web-Only Document 271: Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change is published as a companion document to NCHRP Research Report 938. It includes two frameworks that were developed for the project to allow practitioners to conduct CBAs to a level of detail they deem appropriate; a sketch-level analysis can serve as a screening tool to evaluate if adaptation is even appropriate, while a more detailed climate resilience analysis can help to answer the question, “How much can I spend on an adaptation project and have it remain cost-effective?”

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!