Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

A-1 Appendix A - Technical Memorandum No. 1

A-2 CONTENTS  1  PREPARING FOR EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE ................... 6  1.1  Climate and Extreme Weather Hazards to Infrastructure ............................................................. 6  1.2  Policy and Funding Drivers for Considering Changing Climate and Extreme Weather .............. 7  2  USING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS TO INFORM COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ........................................ 9  2.1  Know Climate- and Weather-Related Stressors in Your Region ................................................ 11  2.2  Understand Risks to the Transportation System ......................................................................... 12  2.3  Identify Adaptation Options ........................................................................................................ 14  2.4  Evaluate institutional readiness to conduct cost benefit analysis ................................................ 16  3  A ROBUST COST BENEFIT METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 17  3.1  Capital Investment Framework ................................................................................................... 17  3.1.1  Data and Methods ............................................................................................................. 17  3.1.2  Tools ................................................................................................................................. 19  3.1.3  Assessment Summary ....................................................................................................... 21  3.2  Operations, Emergency Response, and Recovery Planning Frameworks .................................. 21  3.2.1  Methods and Data ............................................................................................................. 21  3.2.2  Tools ................................................................................................................................. 23  3.2.3  Assessment Summary ....................................................................................................... 24  3.3  Hazard Mitigation Framework .................................................................................................... 24  3.3.1  Methods and Data ............................................................................................................. 24  3.3.2  Tools ................................................................................................................................. 25  3.3.3  Assessment Summary ....................................................................................................... 27  3.4  Climate Resilience Framework ................................................................................................... 27  3.4.1  Methods and Data ............................................................................................................. 28  3.4.2  Tools ................................................................................................................................. 32  3.4.3  Assessment Summary ....................................................................................................... 33  4  STATE OF THE PRACTICE ........................................................................................................... 33  4.1  Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ 33  4.2  U.S. State Examples .................................................................................................................... 34 4.3  International Examples ............................................................................................................... 36  4.4  Additional State-of-the-Practice Insights from 2016 TRB Annual Conference ......................... 38  4.4.1  Climate Resilience ............................................................................................................ 39  4.4.2  Sustainability and Greenhouse Gas Reduction ................................................................. 40 

A-3 5  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 40  5.1  Available Tools and Methods ..................................................................................................... 40  5.2  Inputs and economic valuations used in CBA tools .................................................................... 40  5.2.1  Benefits ............................................................................................................................. 41  5.2.2  Costs ................................................................................................................................. 41  5.2.3  Inputs ................................................................................................................................ 42  5.3  Applicability and Scalability ....................................................................................................... 43  6  REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 44  7  ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................................... 48  APPENDIX A BCA TOOLS LIST APPENDIX B ECONOMIC EVALUATION APPENDIX C SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY APPENDIX D NCHRP 20-101 SURVEY QUESTIONS

A-4 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Table 1. Federal-level documents and frameworks relevant to climate change and resilience. ................... 8  Table 2. Vulnerability assessments and transportation asset management plans contain many of the prerequisites for the climate resilience CBA process. .................................................................. 11  Table 3. Frameworks/guidelines for selecting scenarios for risk-based transportation planning that considers extreme weather and changing climate ........................................................................ 12  Table 4. Sources of Guidance on Understanding Climate Risk to the Transportation System ................... 13  Table 5. Engineering design publications and resources. ........................................................................... 14  Table 6. Examples of adaptation using lower-cost, operations-focused tools and activities ...................... 15  Table 7. Key resources overviewing major topics in transportation-related capital investment ................ 17  Table 8. Cost analysis tools for infrastructure investment in the transportation sector .............................. 19  Table 9. Key resources overviewing major topics in transportation-related emergency management ....... 21  Table 10. Weather-Related CBA Tools for the Transportation Sector ....................................................... 23  Table 11. Key resources overviewing major topics in transportation-related hazard mitigation ................ 24  Table 12. Hazard mitigation CBA tools relevant to the transportation sector ............................................ 25  Table 13. Key resources overviewing major topics in transportation-related climate resilience ................ 28  Table 14. Authoritative sources of projections of future climate and sea level. The entities responsible for producing this information will provide updates over time. ........................................................ 30  Table 15. Climate resilience CBA tools relevant to the transportation sector ............................................ 32  Table 16. Efforts to address climate change through engineering design and adaptation alternatives ....... 39  Table 17. Transportation-related climate mitigation projects ..................................................................... 40  Table 18. Benefit valuation in reviewed frameworks ................................................................................. 41  Table 19. Cost valuation in reviewed frameworks ...................................................................................... 42  Table 20. Summary of typical inputs for CBA frameworks ....................................................................... 42  Figure 1. EF3 tornado in Springfield, MA. On June 1, 2011, Massachusetts and southern Maine experienced seven tornadoes, mostly in the Connecticut River Valley. Tornadoes are uncommon in this region, and the 2011 event caused several deaths and damage to homes, businesses, and infrastructure. ...................................................................................................... 6  Figure 2. The transportation sector has begun performing vulnerability assessments, but does not usually have a formal CBA framework to distinguish between adaptations addressing identified vulnerabilities. CBA is a key link between climate vulnerability assessments and adaptation implementation. ............................................................................................................................ 9  Figure 3. FHWA is one of several national and international entities developing tools, models and guidelines for adapting to climate change and extreme weather in the transportation sector. Some FHWA-developed resources which can be used by DOTs in the assessment activities that are prerequisites to the CBA process are shown. ........................................................................ 10  Figure 4. Readiness to conduct agency-wide CBA to support program-level resilience to extreme weather and changing climate .................................................................................................................. 16  Figure 5. Vulnerability of culverts, bridges, and roads to changing climate based on the NYSDOT FHWA Pilot. Excerpted from Elisabeth Lennon’s 2015 TRB Annual Meeting, Workshop 149 presentation. ................................................................................................................................ 35 

A-5 Figure 6. Example valuation of the benefits of building a sea wall, excerpted from UNISDR (2005). While not well-suited for catastrophic events, green infrastructure can be a useful strategy to handle “nuisance”-type impacts. ................................................................................................ 37 

A-6 1 PREPARING FOR EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS & CLIMATE CHANGE  In the face of increased incidents and magnitudes of extreme weather events, transportation practitioners, particularly departments of transportation (DOTs), need to understand what data and tools are available to help them make timely, informed decisions about the best use of limited resources to achieve desired results. In this technical memorandum, the research team first discusses climate change and extreme weather and their interrelationship with cost-benefit analysis to provide context for the need for and use of tools, models, methods, and data for informed decision-making in an increasingly unpredictable environment. This memorandum then summarizes the tools, methods, data, and models currently available to transportation practitioners to analyze the benefits and costs of adaptation and resiliency measures to prepare for extreme weather and changing climate. The focus of this research is tools and methods suitable for comparing engineering adaptation alternatives for the more expensive, longer-lifecycle assets most commonly subjected to cost-benefit analysis (CBA) during the capital planning process. A key theme uncovered during this research is 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. The survey process used during information gathering also revealed that while DOTs are taking into account changing climate and extreme weather when making infrastructure decisions, they are not typically using a formal set of tools or CBA to address climate resiliency. A gap analysis will be presented in a separate memorandum; this document chiefly summarizes the suite of available tools and what they offer, and indicates many of the key data and methodologies needed to develop a more robust decision-making framework. 1.1 Climate and Extreme Weather Hazards to Infrastructure  Changes to climate and extreme weather tax the effective operation of our transportation systems, and extreme weather events tend to leave damage and debris in their wake; furthermore, certain types of extreme weather may be increasing locally in either frequency, such as heavy precipitation events (e.g. Alexander et al., 2006 and Trenberth et al., 2007) or destructive potential, such as Atlantic hurricanes (Knutson et al., 2010). These changes represent a divergence from historical weather and climate patterns and increasing hazards for transportation assets and operations (e.g., Meyer, 2014). This divergence is termed nonstationarity, and is reflected in changes in the averages and variances of climate parameters (e.g., Wilby, 1997 and Benestad, 2004), some of which are important for engineering design. For DOTs, increasingly frequent weather events present a connected set of issues with potentially serious, costly impacts on infrastructure; moreover, much of our nation’s transportation infrastructure is reaching the end of its useful life, and in some cases, competing priorities and limited budgets have resulted in underfunded Figure 1. EF3 tornado in Springfield, MA. On June 1, 2011, Massachusetts and southern Maine experienced seven tornadoes, mostly in the Connecticut River Valley. Tornadoes are uncommon in this region, and the 2011 event caused several deaths and damage to homes, businesses, and infrastructure.

A-7 preventive maintenance programs. In addition to extreme weather events, aging infrastructure is also being stressed by increases in population and development. Paraphrasing NCHRP Report 525 Volume 15 (2009), extreme weather impacts on DOTs may be characterized by:  Exhaustion of available equipment;  Exhaustion of available personnel; and  Exceedance of planning and design thresholds set by the transportation agency. Indeed, preparedness, engineering design, and recovery may benefit from a higher degree of coordination than has been typical. Scientific studies widely show climate is beginning to exacerbate extreme weather. Higher temperatures mean more evaporation and moisture in the atmosphere and stronger storms, droughts, and heat waves. DOTs are preparing for:  Increased incidence and magnitude of extreme events common to the region;  Unseasonal or unusual types of extreme weather hazards (e.g., see Figure 1);  The gradual shifting of climate zones outside the parameters for which infrastructure was designed (NCHRP, 2014), potentially reducing an asset’s lifespan, including: o Higher maximum temperatures; o Depending on geography, wetter or drier climates; o Changes to expected types of winter precipitation; and o Rising sea level. Effective planning for resilience acknowledges the multiple “one-in-a-hundred year events” occurring in five, 10, and 15 year periods, impacting DOTs around the country, and many more catastrophic events encountered in the last decade, such as the 2013 floods in Colorado, estimated as due to 1-in-1,000 year rainfall event (Minchon, 2013), and the 1-in-500 year hurricane and flood events in South Carolina in 2015 (Holmes, 2015). In the face of changing climate and increased incidence of extreme weather, tools such as policies, particularly those that address cost-effectiveness, can help DOTs make informed decisions about how to invest limited funds. In particular, CBA for climate adaptation helps provide a rigorous foundation for decision-making, improving stewardship of limited public monies, and improving overall transportation system resilience. CBAs can help strengthen the case for resilience investments, particularly because peak benefits usually occur later in the infrastructure lifecycle (Coley, 2012). Climate resilience means recognizing that extremes are not necessarily extraordinary, and effective CBA methodologies are needed to support the ability to efficiently select between project alternatives, allowing transportation agencies to prepare, respond, and recover quickly. 1.2 Policy and Funding Drivers for Considering Changing Climate and Extreme Weather  Federal, state, and local level governance provide important sources of policy and regulatory guidance on climate change. Ultimately, DOTs on the Federal and state levels are responsible for managing and cost- effectively maintaining public infrastructure that is worth trillions of dollars but that, in some cases, was constructed over 60 years ago. A number of current Federal-level initiatives are relevant to climate change and resilience projects in the transportation community, and several new or proposed Federal frameworks are expected to influence the

A-8 funding environment in the future. These Federal-level documents and frameworks are described briefly in Table 1. A selection of state-level efforts are described in the U.S. State Examples in Chapter 4. Table 1. Federal-level documents and frameworks relevant to climate change and resilience. Policy or Regulatory Framework Objective Implications for Transportation Executive Order 13653: Preparing the United States for the Impact of Climate Change (2013) Enhance U.S. climate preparedness and resilience, provide decision-support tools.  Has implications for grants and cost-sharing with state and local governments  Resulted in revised hydraulic design guidance (HEC-25) Executive Order 13514: Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, & Economic Performance (2009) Require federal agencies to develop and implement climate adaptation plans.  Agencies (e.g., FHWA) manage climate risks in their missions, operations and programs. High vulnerability locations and infrastructure receive priority consideration for climate change funding.  Prompted FHWA Gulf Coast and Climate Adaptation Pilot Studies  Activities eligible for funding further outlined in FHWA memo dated 09/24/2012.  2014 & 2015 TIGER grants explicitly considered resilience to current and projected vulnerabilities as a selection factor Executive Order 13690: Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (2015) Federal investments in and affecting floodplains must meet FFRMS standards. Includes new and damaged infrastructure.  Federally funded projects will likely need to consider higher freeboard elevations (+2 to +3 ft) and wider future floodplains in design  Agency-level guidance pending; will likely include highways and other transportation facilities (potential update to FHWA guidance on EO 11988) FHWA Order 5520 (2014) Develop engineering solutions, O&M strategies, asset management plans and transportation programs promoting resilience at both the project and systems levels  Funding is available to support resiliency and adaptation in the delivery of Title 23 programs MAP-21 (2012) Reform and consolidate surface transportation funding  Emergency Relief applicants may consider climate change in designing replacements to damaged infrastructure (FHWA, 2013)  State DOTs are encouraged to include climate and resilience in risk-based asset management plans As transportation agencies prepare to address the impacts of extreme weather and climate change on built infrastructure, they may find that existing policies are insufficient to address these evolving needs and that new policies should be incorporated into planning and decision-making processes to accommodate these impacts. To address their own evolving needs, some DOTs have already begun to incorporate adaptation to extreme weather and climate change into their guidelines and policies. For example, Delaware DOT (DelDOT) revised their bridge design manual to incorporate a minimum freeboard of three feet above sea

A-9 level rise anticipated over the lifetime of the structure (DelDOT, 2015 and S. Croope, personal communication, February 16, 2016). As DOTs consider developing and implementing climate-related policies, they will need to consider their agency context and goals (FHWA, 2013). These and other case studies are described in greater detail in Chapter 4. State of the Practice. 2 USING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND TRANSPORTATION ASSET  MANAGEMENT PLANS TO INFORM COST‐BENEFIT ANALYSIS  The actions that DOTs are taking and the policies they are considering or enacting in response to extreme weather events and climate change can have significant cost implications. DOTs need to ensure that any adaptation measures that they are considering implementing will provide long-term cost savings, and they need to be able to evaluate the trade-offs between different adaptation measures and their effectiveness in terms of cost and other measures. Typical measures used to assess the potential effectiveness of investment include CBA, return on investment (ROI), internal rate of return, and net present value, each of which have proponents and detractors. In an effort to meet practitioners on familiar terrain, this study usually uses CBA, the terminology most frequently used in the transportation sector. CBA provides an overview of options for assets at a specific location, experiencing a particular hazard/set of hazards, over a period of time. See Figure 2. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has provided support for and education in CBA concepts and application related to DOTs for capital projects since the late 1990s. CBA for adaptation in capital improvement programs augments traditional CBA used for planning transportation projects. A fundamental difference between a traditional CBA and CBA for adaptation is the shift toward considering losses from extreme weather and potential climate-related design obsolescence as important components of operational, maintenance-related, and lifecycle considerations rather than as an ancillary or separate consideration. This shift is reflective of the “new normal” and of projected increases in extreme weather events nationwide as a consequence of changing climate (USGCRP, 2014). While there is currently limited guidance available on CBA for climate adaptation in the state transportation sector, useful guidance and case studies are available for important prerequisite steps. Vulnerability assessments and transportation asset management plans (TAMPs) provide a foundation for CBA by indicating which assets are high risk and high priority, which is especially important when dealing with the entirety of a statewide asset catalog. The foremost examples of climate vulnerability assessments and TAMPs for state DOTs are the FHWA’s work on this topic, such as the tools and publications shown in Figure 3, as well as:  Climate Change Resilience Pilot Projects (hereafter, FHWA Pilots)  Gulf Coast Study Climate Risk  Identification Vulnerability  Assessment &  Prioritization CBA of  Adaptations &  Alternatives Adaptation  Selection Implementation Figure 2. The transportation sector has begun performing vulnerability assessments, but does not usually have a formal CBA framework to distinguish between adaptations addressing identified vulnerabilities. CBA is a key link between climate vulnerability assessments and adaptation implementation.

A-10  Hurricane Sandy Follow-Up and Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Analysis  Development of Transportation Asset Management Plan Pilot Project (e.g., by the Louisiana, Minnesota, and New York State DOTs) Figure 3 outlines major components of the vulnerability assessment and asset management process preceding CBA, and notes a selection of applicable FHWA tools and publications. This portion of the adaptation process is well-supported by existing work by FHWA, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and other entities such as NCRHP. Additionally, frameworks from Europe, such as Risk Management for Roads in a Changing Climate (RIMAROCC) (ERA-NET Road, 2014) are conceptually similar and demonstrate a growing international understanding of the infrastructure issues posed by changing climate, as well as the desire to understand tradeoffs. Where vulnerability assessments have been performed but there is difficulty making the business case for adaptation, accessible cost-benefit methodologies may serve as the link between recognizing vulnerabilities and implementing effective solutions. Conceptual linkages between vulnerability assessments, typical capital improvement CBAs, and CBAs acknowledging climate resilience goals include being able to understand:  Which adaptation options and alternatives are suitable for the scenarios being investigated  Expected losses over the lifecycle of existing and planned assets  Mainstreamed consideration of climate resiliency alongside valuation of standard performance measures (e.g., asset condition, mobility/accessibility, operations and maintenance, and safety) CBA complements the vulnerability assessment and TAMP processes by providing a rigorous way to determine how and when to implement adaptation by comparing adaptation strategies and providing information that can be used to evaluate the impact of timing and phasing. While CBAs are not currently a requirement for DOT climate resilience initiatives, tools to support CBA of adaptation options could streamline alternatives selection, support planning activities, and provide a quantitative dimension to Figure 3. FHWA is one of several national and international entities developing tools, models and guidelines for adapting to climate change and extreme weather in the transportation sector. Some FHWA- developed resources which can be used by DOTs in the assessment activities that are prerequisites to the CBA process are shown.

A-11 arguments for capital investments in adaptation. Formal cost-benefit methodologies are also useful in states or regions where economic and policy requirements are more stringent; furthermore, much of the information gathered during vulnerability assessments and transportation asset management planning are useful in the CBA process (Table 2). Table 2. Vulnerability assessments and transportation asset management plans contain many of the prerequisites for the climate resilience CBA process. Frameworks Objective Key Information FHWA Vulnerability Assessments (2012) Understanding the transportation system’s vulnerability to climate change  Asset type and characteristics  Asset criticality  Asset vulnerability to key climate variables  Risk (based on vulnerability and likelihood of impact)  Adaptation options  Ranked priorities MAP-21 – Compliant Transportation Asset Management Plans (TAMP) (2013) Enabling sustainable asset stewardship and investment  Asset listing and conditions condition (MAP-21 requires, at minimum, pavement and bridges)  Asset management objectives and measures  Performance gaps  Lifecycle cost and risk analysis  Financial plan  Investment strategies (FHWA, 2016) TAMP for Extreme Weather and Adaptation (Meyer, 2015) Building resilience to extreme weather and climate change into transportation assets  Record of asset performance and damage during previous extreme events  Frequency and type of extreme weather events that have been experienced  Projected changes in extreme events and expected impact to agency objectives, asset condition, performance, maintenance and lifecycle management  Relative ranking of vulnerability by asset category  Identification of “too important to fail” and “repetitive loss” assets  Reconstruction and recovery funding needs and mechanisms While readers may refer to the FHWA Pilots and related studies for more detail on the pilot activities, other useful information concerning the vulnerability assessment steps prerequisite to cost benefit analysis are summarized in subsections:  2.1 Know Climate- and Weather-Related Stressors in Your Region;  2.2 Understand Risks to the Transportation System; and  2.3 Identify Adaptation Options. Each subsection contains a brief description of the activity followed by a table listing resources and examples from authoritative sources such as TRB, FHWA (in addition to those shown in Figure 3), AASHTO, individual DOTs, and universities. Web links are current as of the second quarter of 2016. 2.1 Know Climate‐ and Weather‐Related Stressors in Your Region  A need common to vulnerability assessment, TAMP, and CBA is the ability to determine which historical and projected climate data are necessary for adaptation and resilience. Weather and climate vary among

A-12 geographic regions and change within each region; asset vulnerability differs across asset category as well as individual design specification. Transportation agencies need to be able to identify potential stressors across a range of scenarios and timeframes compatible with their transportation planning horizons (e.g. long-range transportation plans) and asset lifecycles. They can then select scenarios that are compatible with planning needs, design and performance considerations, and state and Federal funding requirements. Useful frameworks and guidelines for selecting appropriate scenarios to understand projections for the climate and weather stressors experienced by the transportation agency are shown in Table 3 and Table 4. Table 3. Frameworks/guidelines for selecting scenarios for risk-based transportation planning that considers extreme weather and changing climate Resource Title Author/Organization Region Criteria for Selecting Climate Scenarios (2013) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change International Scenarios for Climate Assessment and Adaptation (2015) U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Model Comparison Tool The Infrastructure and Climate Network Northeast A Framework for Considering Climate Change in Transportation and Land Use Scenario Planning (2012) The Interagency Transportation, Land Use, and Climate Change Pilot Program U.S. DOT Volpe National Transportation System Center Pilot Project on Cape Cod Central New Mexico Climate Change Scenario Planning Project (2015) The Interagency Transportation, Land Use, and Climate Change Pilot Program U.S. DOT Volpe National Transportation System Center Scenario Planning Project – Central NM FHWA Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Pilot Project: Hampton Roads (2014) Federal Highway Administration Virginia Department of Transportation Climate change vulnerability assessment model – Hampton Roads, VA 2.2 Understand Risks to the Transportation System  The FHWA TAMP process focuses on developing risk-based management systems for transportation assets. Transportation asset managers must try to predict asset performance in the face of unknown threats that are increasing in frequency and severity (FHWA, 2013). Recent events also indicate that transportation agencies should consider the impacts of non-agency assets on the performance of transportation systems during extreme weather events. For example, dam breaches in South Carolina in 2015 had a greater impact on road failures than the location of the road relative to the floodplain. Table 4 lists a number of resources which describe the impact of changing climate on the transportation system. As part of this process, agencies should define characteristics such as location, connectivity, vulnerability, and criticality at both an asset and system level. Taking these characteristics into consideration, the City of Toronto is starting to adopt an approach that builds plans on a watershed basis rather than on political boundaries to more accurately reflect flood risk to transportation and other assets. They also need to develop a clear idea of adaptation priorities (e.g., keeping certain roads open, functional, and/or resilient) across modes and at various scales and jurisdictional boundaries, such as:  Regional/maintenance district

A-13  Corridor  Neighborhood  Site/project Table 4. Sources of Guidance on Understanding Climate Risk to the Transportation System Resource Title Author/Organization Links Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation (2008) Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation Transportation Research Board http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290.pdf First International Conference on Surface Transportation System Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events (2015) Transportation Research Board http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conferences/ 2015/ClimateChange/Program.pdf National Climate Assessment: Chapter 5 Transportation (2014) U.S. Global Change Research Program http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/tr ansportation Building Climate Resilient Transportation (2016) Federal Highway Administration https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_ change/adaptation/publications/bcrt_brochure.cf m Integrating Extreme Weather Risk into Transportation Asset Management (2012) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials http://climatechange.transportation.org/pdf/extrw eathertamwhitepaper_final.pdf Virtual Framework for Vulnerability Assessment (2016) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_c hange/adaptation/adaptation_framework/ Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rails: Public Transportation and Climate Change Adaptation (2011) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files /FTA_0001_- _Flooded_Bus_Barns_and_Buckled_Rails.pdf Planning for Systems Management & Operations as part of Climate Change Adaptation (2013) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwah op13030/ Challenges and Opportunities for Integrating Climate Adaptation Efforts across Sate, Regional and Local Transportation Agencies (2015) National Center for Sustainable Transportation http://ncst.ucdavis.edu/wp- content/uploads/2014/08/04-06-2015- NCST_UVM_ClimateAdaptionWhitePaper_FIN AL.pdf Vulnerability Assessment Scoring Tool (2015) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_ change/adaptation/adaptation_framework/modul es/scoring_tools_guide/vast.xlsm https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_ change/adaptation/adaptation_framework/modul es/scoring_tools_guide/

A-14 Resource Title Author/Organization Links Risk-Based Transportation Asset Management: Building Resilience into Transportation Assets Report 5: Managing External Threats Through Risk-Based Asset Management (2013) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif13018.p df 2.3 Identify Adaptation Options  Adaptation options are needed to address identified vulnerabilities in priority investments. Adaptations may be proposed to account for factors such as risk tolerance, performance, and technical feasibility. For project-level CBAs, the analyst must be able to provide design and specification information for adaptation option engineering design. At a system level, development and implementation of a risk-based asset management strategy may be considered a climate change adaptation strategy (FHWA, 2103). Expert knowledge may be needed to identify appropriate adaptations and alternatives, particularly for flood impacts, though transportation-specific guidance is becoming increasingly available. Several publications and engineering design resources are shown in Table 5. Table 5. Engineering design publications and resources. Resource Title Author/Organization Modes Links Transportation Engineering Approaches to Climate Resiliency (TEACR) Study (2016) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Multimodal/ Multi-asset https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environ ment/climate_change/adaptation/o ngoing_and_current_research/teacr /index.cfm Planning for Systems Management & Operations as Part of Climate Change Adaptation (2013) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Operations http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publication s/fhwahop13030/ Riverine Hydraulic Engineering Circular (HEC- 17) Highways in the Riverine Environment- Floodplains, Extreme Events, Risk and Resilience U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Roadway Bridge Railway Structure Tunnel In development Riverine Hydraulic Engineering Circular (HEC- 25) Highways in the Coastal Environment: Assessing Extreme Events (2014) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Roadway Bridge Railway Structure Tunnel http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineeri ng/hydraulics/pubs/nhi14006/nhi1 4006.pdf Integrating Extreme Weather Risk into Transportation Asset Management (2012) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Multi-Asset http://climatechange.transportation .org/pdf/extrweathertamwhitepape r_final.pdf

A-15 Resource Title Author/Organization Modes Links Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 2: Climate Change, Extreme Weather Events, and the Highway System: Practitioner’s Guide and Research Report (2014) National Cooperative Highway Research Program Multi-Asset http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepub s/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_750v2.pdf Table 5 deals predominantly with engineering adaptations that are applicable to the longer-lifecycle assets most commonly subjected to CBAs during the capital planning process. Comparatively lower-cost, operations-focused tools may also be used as adaptations to extreme weather and changing climate. Many of the tools listed in Table 6 will be familiar to practitioners as common techniques to handle lower-intensity “nuisance” events that nonetheless have an effect on demand and performance. While not the focus of this memorandum, a discussion of adaptation would be incomplete without mentioning these tools. Table 6. Examples of adaptation using lower-cost, operations-focused tools and activities Operational Impact Area Example Tools or Activities Adaptation Examples Debris Management  Personnel scheduling  Perform more frequent inspections  Clear culverts and drains prior to forecasted events (Drenan, 2014) Procurement and Preparedness  Training  Operations plans  Inter-agency coordination  Cross-train staff to handle multiple aspects of event response  Reserve equipment (e.g. buses) for evacuation or other response and preparedness responsibilities  Reserve sufficient materials for “bad seasons” with multiple extreme events  Establish contingency contracting to maintain surge capacity for events occurring outside typical seasons (FHWA, 2016) Monitoring  RWIS stations  BridgeWatch water level monitors  USGS and NWS stream gages  Invest in denser networks of real-time road weather monitoring  Receive, respond and communicate changes in conditions  Anticipate response activities such as closures and detours (Mampara, 2016) Communication and ITS  Variable message boards  Dedicated radio  Social media  Independent agency communication system  Apprise travelers of real-time and expected extreme weather conditions and changes in traffic conditions  Reduce disruptions to agency communications during events (G. Donaldson, personal communication, March 22, 2016)

A-16 2.4 Evaluate institutional readiness to conduct cost benefit analysis  Once first-cut adaptation priorities are identified through frameworks such as the FHWA climate adaptation assessment and asset management planning frameworks, DOTs and other public transportation agencies can evaluate and implement adaptation alternatives. Practitioners may be at various points in the process outlined in Figure 4. For example, some agencies are proactively identifying additional assets such as culverts and including them in their asset management databases, while others are just getting started. As transportation agencies progress in their vulnerability and TAMP efforts, they will increasingly have the data available to perform CBAs at a programmatic level. Many agencies are “data-rich but information- poor” in that they actually have a lot of data but they do not know how to appropriately apply it to address challenges and improve operations. They continue to face challenges in storing data in formats that are compatible across databases and that can be easily merged. Some states are looking at ways to integrate data across agency divisions to break down silos and store and manage data in one centralized location. New software (e.g., Trapeze, FTA’s TERM Lite) is being developed and implemented that will allow agencies to build their asset inventories and track their states of good repair by asset types and/or total dollar value. Some agencies are tracking their asset management activities through time sheets and then merging the time sheet information with other asset management data either in existing databases or are creating new databases and programs to extract the necessary data. Figure 4. Readiness to conduct agency-wide CBA to support program-level resilience to extreme weather and changing climate To further establish or support prioritization and implementation, it can be useful to have access to a clear methodology to compare benefits and costs of selected adaptation options, including characteristics such as traditional cost benefit considerations, ecosystem services, social benefits and climate resilience, and risk mitigation over the lifecycle. Models and tools that contribute to aspects of a resilience-focused CBA methodology are described in Chapter 3.

A-17 3 A ROBUST COST BENEFIT METHODOLOGY  CBA is currently used for many aspects of transportation investment (bridge projects, highway feasibility studies, competitive grant programs such as TIGER, etc.), and informative examples from other disciplines provide insight into how existing techniques may be modified to better address adaptation. For example, emergency management, hazard mitigation, and climate adaptation all provide useful frameworks for evaluating hazards, vulnerabilities, risks, and benefits to transportation infrastructure. Through this lens, climate change and extreme weather are conceptualized as hazards posing risks that need to be managed through planning, infrastructure, and operational frameworks, whereas existing tools with an infrastructure focus tend not to consider extreme weather events, except perhaps as low-probability events. Emergency management ensures short-term, immediate needs are met, whereas capital investment planning, hazard mitigation, and climate adaptation are suitable for evaluating mid- and longer-term needs. Effective practices established in emergency management and hazard mitigation provide a robust starting point for assessing and achieving climate resilience. While climate adaptation frameworks are still maturing, current and emerging work by climate adaptation practitioners is also instructive. Climate resiliency guidance developed for or directly applicable to the transportation context is summarized below in Section 3.4. Together with sustainability and social return on investment (SROI) (discussed as part of section 3.4 Climate Resilience), these frameworks inform the development of a holistic suite of resilience metrics, some of which are already found in existing CBA tools as summarized in Section 5. Unless otherwise stated, tools described in this chapter are publicly available. 3.1 Capital Investment Framework  Informed by traffic projections and other short- or longer-term needs, traditional cost analysis and lifecycle cost analysis provide information about the benefits and costs of projects and programs, typically over multi-year timeframes (Coley, 2012). Tools often evaluate projects at the asset or corridor level, although some work at the network level. Support for analyzing investment in roadway improvements is most common, although multimodal and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)-focused tools also exist. The tools and data discussed in Tables 7 and 8 are predominantly produced by national-level entities (e.g., FHWA), and demonstrate various strengths. Methodologies that consider lifecycle costs are the most relevant to this work, as they consider initial costs as well as future costs such as maintenance and rehabilitation. The ability to consider impacts to the transportation network and across modes is also desirable. Additionally, the ability to use standard design characteristics and readily-available statistics (such as those required in national infrastructure databases) in combination with up-to-date local data (for example, traffic counts and regional travel demand models) where available, is a user-friendly feature. 3.1.1 Data and Methods  Table 7. Key resources overviewing major topics in transportation-related capital investment Key Citations Coley, Nathaniel. "Spotlight on Benefit-Cost Analysis." Public Roads 75.5 (2012). Sallman, Doug, et al. Operations Benefit/Cost Analysis Desk Reference. No. FHWA-HOP-12-028 (2012). See, especially, Chapter 4. Hugh, H. "NCHRP Report 483-Bridge Life Cycle Cost Analysis (BLCCA)." Washington DC: Transportation Research Board (TRB) (2003). Additional Resources

A-18 TRB Transportation Economics Information Resource Center TRB Transportation Economics Committee Transportation Benefit-Cost Analysis Site For a more exhaustive listing of CBA tools for the transportation sector, please see:  Li, Zongzhi. "Review of Literature on Highway Project Benefit-Cost and Tradeoff Analyses." (2006) See, especially, p. 15  McNeil, Sue. "Advancing Asset Management at DelDOT." (2012). See, especially, p. 20  Lawrence, Michael, et al. Road Weather Management Benefit Cost Analysis Compendium. No. FHWA-HOP-14-033. 2014. See, especially, Chapter 3. Challenges  Extreme weather is typically not the focus of existing CBA tools for transportation  Where extreme weather is considered, it tends to be contextualized as extraordinary, low- probability events, which are therefore not a central driver in design decisions (for discussion on balancing extreme weather and operational considerations, see e.g., Hawk, 2003)  Climate adaptation is not commonly addressed, although emissions are increasingly considered Input requirements for CBA tools falling within the capital investment framework, such as BCA.net and HERS-ST, both of which are CBA tools for highway investments, include factors such as:  Discount rate  Traffic characteristics o Current traffic distribution and projections (peak, non-peak, special events) o Delays/queues o Vehicle makeup (auto, bus, truck) and occupancy o Average vehicle speed, number of lanes, and flow  Safety statistics (fatalities, injuries)  Value of travel time to motorists/single unit trucks/combination trucks  Value of injuries and fatalities  Value of fuel  Roadway design characteristics (e.g. lanes, ramps, HOV, design speed)  Pavement condition and rate of asset depreciation  Weights on aspects of project cost o Scope o Right-of-way acquisition o Construction disruption o Operations and maintenance o Various lifecycle costs  Fuel tax  Price of oil  Pollution/emissions Based on the feedback we received from DOTs that participated in the survey that was disseminated as part of the research for this project, most DOTs have this information readily available or can access it fairly easily.

A-19 3.1.2 Tools  The survey of tools in Table 8 is not exhaustive; it is intended to be representative, spanning project-level as well as corridor- and network-level tools, tools that may or may not consider lifecycle costs, and multimodal options. In general, these tools do not consider changing climate whatsoever, nor do extreme events take center stage; however, these tools are useful in demonstrating existing frameworks and typical inputs in the CBA process, at least where physical assets are concerned. Additional tools not discussed in the table are included in Appendix A. Table 8 summarizes the relevant aspects of the tools under consideration. Note that the “Usability Challenges” section for each tool is not primarily an assessment of issues with the techniques used for economic analysis. Certainly there is always a case to be made for improving assumptions, valuation methods, and modeling processes (e.g. distribution selection for various parameters; deterministic versus probabilistic output; handling uncertainty via Monte Carlo simulations versus closed form solutions); however, this portion of the study focuses on understanding how the state of practice can inform the development of tools to support alternatives analysis of climate adaptation strategies. Thus, in this and the following subsections discussing tools, “Usability Challenges” refers to issues that:  Render various tools or methodologies suboptimal for supporting a holistic, transportation-centric, resiliency-focused analytical framework.  Represent a known difficulty with respect to IT security environments, versioning incompatibility, and/or update frequency.  Were identified by users or in help documentation as a usability issue. Table 8. Cost analysis tools for infrastructure investment in the transportation sector Tool Name/Screenshot Details BCA.net BCA.net compares highway management and improvement scenarios and provides sensitivity analysis, allowing users to explore how benefits change in response to inputs. Produces estimates for total benefits, total costs, net benefit, BCR, and rate of return. Applicability: Web-based (reducing potential IT security issues), tabular inputs and outputs, data inputs are commonly- available design and performance statistics, compares multiple strategies across varying scenarios, values a variety of benefits. Usability Challenges: Confined to highway projects (resurfacing, widening, adding lanes, reversible lanes, and combinations thereof), project-level only. Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model (STEAM) STEAM assesses multimodal infrastructure alternatives as well as policy alternatives. Produces estimates for net present worth and BCR. Applicability: Estimates infrastructure and operating costs, compatible with typical travel demand management software, has a strong framework considering livability and accessibility, regional-level analysis. Considers:  Auto/carpool  Truck

A-20 Tool Name/Screenshot Details  Local bus/express bus  Light rail  Heavy rail Usability Challenges: Desktop-based application built in the late 1990s and last versioned in the early 2000s, somewhat cumbersome manual input required for multiple alternatives analyses. National Bridge Investment Analysis System (NBIAS) NBIAS is a national-level tool predicting the conditions and performance of the bridges in the National Bridge Inventory. Related: HERS and HERS-ST, which focus on roadways (similar user cost parameters). Applicability: Provides system-level (in this case, national) benefit-cost analyses on maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation work to be performed; condition deterioration probability curves vary based on (stationary) climate zones; produces useful enterprise-level statistics on funding needs, backlog, structural deficiencies, and user benefits; uses readily-available NBI data (and will incorporate National Bridge Element Data to comply with MAP-21). Usability Challenges: Single-asset, outputs may be of limited use at the project level, conditions and performance alternatives analysis is supported but analysis of impact of various types of replacements is not supported (e.g. “replacement” recommendation is implicitly replace-in-kind). RealCost v2.5 RealCost v2.5 is a desktop-based, project-level lifecycle analysis tool with alternatives analysis for highway projects Related: Bridge-specific lifecycle analysis: Pontis (older but still in use); NIST’s BLCC; FHWA’s BLCCA. Applicability: Indicates both agency cost and user costs for various alternatives, includes costs and performance characteristics related to work zones; is intended to support alternatives analysis for up to six different structural designs. Usability Challenges: Single-asset roadway geometry must be identical for all alternatives (important for LCCA best practices but problematic when adaptation alternatives may include reconfiguring or relocating roadways), desktop-based Excel with VBA likely to cause IT security conflicts; current version appears incompatible with Excel 2013. Caltrans California Lifecycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model Caltrans California Lifecycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model analyzes capacity-expansion projects for several modes. Estimates NPV, BCR, rate of return, and project payback period. Applicability: Handles road, rail, transit, and combinations thereof; includes a module compatible with Federal grant

A-21 Tool Name/Screenshot Details requirements (TIGER); has evolved to support project, network, and corridor-level analyses. The current build (v5.0) also supports analysis of operational improvements and transportation management systems. Usability Challenges: Model default values are California- centric; asset lifecycle is fixed at 20 years (not suitable for bridges or other long-lifecycle structures); can be unclear when project/corridor/network-level analysis is needed; desktop-based Excel with macros likely to cause IT security conflicts. Additional tools are included in Appendix A. 3.1.3 Assessment Summary  There are a number of useful CBA tools available for DOT assets, many of which require similar inputs across modes, which is promising for interoperability; however, no single tool is multi-modal and cross- asset while also allowing project/corridor/network analysis and providing a range of analysis timeframes. Additionally, particularly with lifecycle analysis, the range of alternatives available is sometimes constrained (e.g., to identical roadway geometry or replace-in-kind solutions). 3.2 Operations, Emergency Response, and Recovery Planning Frameworks  Establishing Emergency Transportation Operations (ETO) and pre-event recovery plans can be viewed as both programmatic, non-structural adaptation options as well as loss reduction factors, should structural adaptations fail. The publications and resources in Table 9 provide excellent overviews of major topics in emergency management in a transportation context. Findings from these resources are briefly summarized by the preparedness goals listed below the table. Because of the limited valuation work done in the transportation sector, it is more appropriate to produce an activity checklist for developing plans, rather than a list of economic or asset-related data and metrics. The extent to which these goals have been met provides insight into transportation system resilience from an emergency management perspective. 3.2.1 Methods and Data  Table 9. Key resources overviewing major topics in transportation-related emergency management Key Citations Houston, Nancy. Best Practices in Emergency Transportation Operations Preparedness and Response: Results of the FHWA Workshop Series. No. FHWA-HOP-07-076 (2006). Houston, Nancy. Good Practices in Transportation Evacuation Preparedness and Response: Results of the FHWA Workshop Series. No. FHWA-HOP-09-040 (2009). Lockwood, S., J. O’Laughlin, D. Keever, and K. Weiss. NCHRP Report 525: Surface Transportation Security, Volume 6: Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC (2005). Nakanishi, Y. J. and P. M. Auza. NCHRP Synthesis 468: Interactive Training for All-Hazards Emergency Planning, Preparation, and Response for Maintenance and Operations Field Personnel. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC (2015).

A-22 Key Citations Wallace, C. E., A. Boyd, J. Sergent, A. Singleton, and S. Lockwood. NCHRP Report 525: Surface Transportation Security, Volume 16: A Guide to Emergency Response Planning at State Transportation Agencies. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC (2010). Additional Resources FHWA Office of Operations Publications: Emergency Transportation Operations Section FHWA Emergency Transportation Operations Planning Documents AASHTO SCOTSEM Emergency Response Planning Site TRB Publications about Security and Emergencies Challenges  The DOT may have effective practices in place, however, the degree of ETO readiness at a given agency is difficult to assess  The benefit of readiness is inherently difficult to quantify, given that readiness manifests as dollars not spent during and after an incident. The documents and resources in Table 9 indicate that the items listed below are crucial components of adequate ETO readiness, including emergency response and planning. With these items in place, practitioners and experts assert that readiness and response is improved, leading to fewer casualties and less damage to assets, and recovery time following an incident is shorter. This is true with respect to all hazards, including increased extreme weather and changing climate. ETO and pre-event recovery planning should establish:  Evacuation plan, including traffic control and ITS  Continuity of operations plan (COOP) with repair vs. replacement criteria  Up-to-date and trained Incident Command System (ICS) system and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) staff  Telecommunications interoperability and backups  Alert/notification processes for internal and external audiences  Up-to-date transportation system details in ETO agency plan and regional emergency management plans  Contract vehicles specifying the role of contractors in response Preparedness goals also include:  Emergency procurement and contracting processes with prequalified vendors  Mutual aid agreements  Strong relationships with the Regional Emergency Transportation Coordinator (RETCO) and the Regional Emergency Transportation Representative (RETREP)  Identification and training of personnel essential for recovery  Backup on-call personnel for surge capacity Recovery needs are informed by ETO and preparedness, and benefit from pre-defined procedures for:  Debris clean-up, including staging  Emergency, short-term repairs  Emergency demolition  Temporary infrastructure

A-23  Damage assessment procedures  Phasing for rapid restoration of service  Benchmarks and due dates for level of service and speed of restoration (important to receive reimbursements through Federal grant programs) Establishing ETO and adequate preparedness planning are widely viewed as an effective practice, but perhaps because of the lack of a clear monetary value of the activities, few tools exist to evaluate costs and benefits for practices in this category as a whole. Instead, a small number of tools exist to evaluate the benefits and costs of certain activities in this category, most notably road weather management for winter weather (e.g. Ye et al., 2009). While not spanning the variety of weather hazards and emergency management-related costs that would be ideal for this project, these tools provide insight into components of a comprehensive methodology for comparing adaptation alternatives using a CBA of extreme weather and changing climate. Cost-benefit tools for road weather management typically consider weather as an operational issue (rather than an emergency management issue) but are the closest match available for this category. See Table 10. Insofar as it is possible to do so (e.g. through records for a recent disruption due to extreme weather), it would be advantageous to capture elements of the above in the typical inputs for operations-focused tools, such as:  Value of person hours and delay (e.g. autos and trucks, on or off the clock)  Length of delay and/or detour  Cost of fuel  Value of emissions  Value of crashes (fatalities, injuries, and property damages)  Roadway characteristics (volume, speed, capacity)  Strategy and alternatives characteristics 3.2.2 Tools  Table 10. Weather-Related CBA Tools for the Transportation Sector Tool Name/Screenshot Details TOPS-BC TOPS-BC: Tool for Operations Benefit/Cost (2013), a sketch-level decision support tool developed to use the FHWA’s guidance on benefit-cost. Related: Operations Benefit/Cost Analysis Desk Reference; Road Weather Management Cost Benefit Analysis Compendium. Applicability: Establishes the benefits of road weather management with respect to operational considerations (travel time, travel time reliability, crashes). Usability Challenges: Limited to roadway assets. Existing case studies are not typically multi-hazard (i.e., winter weather dominates). Does not consider changing climate. Clear Road BC Toolkit Clear Road BC Toolkit (updated 2013): Estimates the benefits and costs of practices, equipment, and operations related to winter weather. Applicability: Establishes the benefits of winter maintenance activities.

A-24 Tool Name/Screenshot Details Usability Challenges: Limited to roadway assets. Focuses solely on winter weather. Does not consider changing climate. Additional tools are included in Appendix A. 3.2.3 Assessment Summary  Adopting effective practices in emergency operations and response planning provides the benefit of loss avoidance; however, weather tends to be treated primarily as an operational issue in existing CBA tools for the transportation sector, and valuation strategies for emergency and recovery preparedness are difficult to come by. Nonetheless, operationally-focused tools offer precedent and vocabulary for discussing weather and climate issues in the context of CBA. 3.3 Hazard Mitigation Framework  Cost-benefit tools for hazard mitigation are often tied to reimbursement programs. Although hazard mitigation in advance of an event is the ideal, post-event reimbursement may often be a more accessible funding source and should be used to improve the infrastructure and its ability to withstand future hazards. For this reason, plans for anticipated risks and hazards should be developed and made available, particularly for shovel-ready projects with longer lifecycles. Hazard mitigation is a useful lens through which to consider impacts due to extreme events and changing climate. There are several tools available through Federal entities that are useful for the transportation sector, either because transportation assets are the focus, are included as a module, or because the valuation framework is directly transferrable to transportation. In addition, state transportation agencies may have familiarity with hazard mitigation CBA tools in applying for programs such as FEMA Public Assistance (PA) grants, the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), or the FHWA Emergency Relief Program (Nakanishi, 2015). Because of their compatibility with FEMA grants as well as recently available resilience grants (e.g. the 2015 National Disaster Resilience Competition), FEMA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) tools will be this section’s focus. The goal of this section is to review tools in the context of their potential to augment analysis of projects, corridors, and networks affected by changing climate. See Table 11 and Table 12. 3.3.1 Methods and Data  Table 11. Key resources overviewing major topics in transportation-related hazard mitigation Key Citations FEMA. Hazard Mitigation Field Book: Roadways. FEMA B-797 (2010). Matherly, Deborah, et al. A guide to regional transportation planning for disasters, emergencies, and significant events. No. Project 20-59 (42) (2014).

A-25 See, especially, Tool 4: Sample Transportation Security and Hazard Mitigation Strategies for Various Project Modes and Types Science Applications International Corporation, et al. Surface Transportation Security: Costing asset protection: an all hazards guide for transportation agencies (CAPTA). Vol. 15. Transportation Research Board (2009). Additional Resources FHWA Hazard Mitigation R&D Series LeDuc, A. et al. “A Guide to Planning Resources on Transportation and Hazards.” Research Results Digest. (2009): 1. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance USACE Planning and Guidance Notebook, ER 1105-2-100 and related updates (see especially Appendix D of Amendment #1) Challenges  With the exception of the ability to consider sea level rise, widely available hazard mitigation CBA tools do not yet evaluate changing climate.  Tools are often predominantly concerned with damage and mitigation of structures, posing hurdles for those interested in roads, bridges, culverts, etc., which face their own risks and which threaten the whole when they fail.  Hazard mitigation CBA frameworks do not overlap significantly with capital investment frameworks. Information common to hazard mitigation CBA frameworks includes:  Infrastructure facility type (roads/bridges/utilities/embankments/nonresidential buildings)  Infrastructure and travel characteristics (capacity, dimensions)  Infrastructure criticality to network and/or corridor  Proposed mitigation (acquisition, elevation, flood-proofing, drainage improvements)  Damages o Based on historical or expected estimates: year, recurrence interval, time out of service o Categories may include injuries, casualties, damage to structures  Hazard type  Hazard recurrence interval  Project life, cost, and yearly maintenance costs (i.e., full lifecycle analysis)  Economic estimate of loss of function based on detour time and mileage 3.3.2 Tools  Table 12. Hazard mitigation CBA tools relevant to the transportation sector Tool Name/Screenshot Details CAPTool CAPTool is a spreadsheet tool designed to capture capital and operations costs for transportation hazard mitigation activities. Applicability: Considers extreme weather; strategies organized by asset, mode, or hazard; multimodal and all-hazards; alternatives analysis; analysis based on agency-defined risk thresholds; provides enterprise-level and asset-specific summary; considers capital and operating costs.

A-26 Tool Name/Screenshot Details Usability Challenges: Provides cost of countermeasure but no quantification of benefit (framework is “impacts mitigated” rather than losses or damages avoided); does not distinguish type of extreme weather; desktop-based Excel with macros likely to cause IT security conflicts. FEMA BCA Tool The multi-hazard FEMA BCA Tool allows analysis of multiple assets for a single mitigation project; support for analyzing impacts of sea level rise, and some consideration of social/environmental benefits as well as traditional benefit categories (avoided structure damage, contents damage, and displacement/service losses for utilities, roads, and bridges). Applicability: Multi-hazard, allows analysis of multiple assets for a single mitigation project, support for analyzing impacts of sea level rise, some consideration of social and environmental benefits. Related: HAZUS-MH, which has fragility curves for building structures that can develop loss estimates for earthquake, high wind, and floods, which may be useful as a CBA input. Usability Challenges: Cumbersome to run multiple alternatives analyses or hazard scenarios; cannot easily compare alternatives across hazards (changing climate is characterized by multiple changes to design-relevant characteristics simultaneously); assumes stationary recurrence intervals (with changing climate, recurrence intervals shift over time, i.e., nonstationarity); does not offer comparison against a “no-build” scenario; benefits are solely damages avoided (not multi-objective). USACE Flood Damage Reduction Analysis (HEC-FDA) HEC-FDA is a tool to assess the effectiveness of a project from both a risk perspective and an economic perspective. Applicability: Computes both hazard risk reduction and economic aspects of alternatives. Usability Challenges: Single-hazard, not developed for transportation sector (roads have to be treated as a “pseudo- structure”); project performance is assessed over return period and not asset lifecycle; stationary return periods; output is damages (thus damages avoided are the only benefit that can be computed).

A-27 Tool Name/Screenshot Details FTA HMCE Tool The FTA HMCE Tool is designed for transit resilience projects with Federal Transit Administration hazard mitigation grant programs. Provides CBAs for floods, hurricanes, and coastal storms using a methodology based on the FEMA BCA Tool damage-frequency assessment option. Provides benefits, costs, and BCR as well as inputs to include other benefits such as lost transit revenue. Applicability: Simplified tool that allows analysis of a single transit mitigation project, and includes a supplemental calculator to adjust coastal flood recurrence internals to account for sea level rise impacts and detailed considerations of avoided physical damages as well as socioeconomic impacts of lost transit service. Usability Challenges: Cumbersome to run multiple alternatives analyses or hazard scenarios; cannot easily compare alternatives across hazards; assumes stationary recurrence intervals (with changing climate, recurrence intervals shift over time, i.e. non- stationarity); does not automatically offer comparison against a “no-build” scenario; benefits are solely damages avoided (not multi-objective); current version has limited geography (East Coast from New England to Mid-Atlantic states) 3.3.3 Assessment Summary  Benefit-cost analysis for hazard mitigation focuses on reduction of risk and damage to assets, which is an appropriate framework for considering extreme weather and changing climate; however, mainstream tools tend to focus on structures and do not consider changing risks to assets (i.e., due to changing climate). Hazard mitigation frameworks are not integrated to account well for projects or programs that have both a hazard mitigation and an operational function. 3.4 Climate Resilience Framework  The frameworks for climate adaptation, sustainability, and resilience bear similarities to one another as well as to the CBA frameworks concerning capital investment, operations, and hazard mitigation described already in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, respectively. Understanding the relationships between these concepts provides insight into how climate resilience metrics can be incorporated into the methods used in existing CBA tools for the transportation sector. Climate adaptation, sustainability, and resilience are briefly defined below, as are examples of their connections to one another and the frameworks described above.  Sustainability is typically defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability to meet those needs in the future. In the capital improvement framework, aspects of sustainability may be captured in seemingly disparate metrics such as those related to adequate capacity as well as emissions and livability. Additionally, the hazard mitigation, resilience, and sustainability frameworks all encourage the consideration of climate change in design and planning to safeguard the useful life of infrastructure.  Climate change adaptation involves building and planning for current and projected changes in the climate and is based on the understanding that engineering design standards are based on the

A-28 since-invalidated (e.g., Milly et al., 2008) assumption that relevant climate statistics are static. Climate adaptation is captured well in the hazard mitigation framework, which focuses on reducing losses and recovery time due to extreme events. The capital improvement framework, which is concerned with infrastructure lifecycle costs, is also relevant, as is the operations and emergency management framework, which will be pressured by increases in extreme weather. Combined, these considerations embody a significant component of resilience.  Resilience is the ability to recover quickly after an event (or avoid impacts altogether) and is a useful umbrella term to capture many of the concerns related to hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness. Resilience may be embedded in both design of physical assets and operations. Resilience is the ultimate goal of climate change adaptation and hazard mitigation. Resilience cannot be achieved with adaptation alone, but adaptation is an important part of planning for climate change and extreme weather, given the effects already being observed as well as the warming effects from already-emitted carbon that will not come into play for another 30 years or more. While sustainability has important overlaps with and serves as a helpful bridge for resilience and climate adaptation, this section will deal principally with climate resilience. The FHWA Pilots serve as an excellent starting point for implementing adaptations. Similarly, the FTA Pilots have allowed some transit agencies to make the case for integrating climate change vulnerabilities into their asset management programs on the basis of maintaining a state of good repair. Proceeding from this work, researchers in the practitioner community have identified mainstreaming options in transportation agencies such as transportation plans, emergency management systems, hazard mitigation plans, environmental management systems (FHWA, 2015), and asset management systems (Meyer, 2015). In addition, publications such as HEC-25b, which provides technical guidance for incorporating extreme events related to sea level rise and climate change into highway planning and design, have also been produced. Given the existence of guidance on adaptation options and design, as well as guidelines facilitating awareness or initial consideration of climate change and extreme weather factors through entities such as NCHRP, AASHTO, and FHWA, CBA frameworks are needed to support project planning and implementation of climate resilience adaptation. See Table 13. 3.4.1 Methods and Data  Table 13. Key resources overviewing major topics in transportation-related climate resilience Key Citations (Roads, Transit and Airports) FHWA. Climate Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment Framework. No. FHWA-HEP- 13-005 (2012). Alberts, Brian, Mazhar Ali Awan, and Kimberly A. Gayle. Transit and Climate Change Adaptation: Synthesis of FTA-Funded Pilot Projects. No. FTA Report No. 0069 (2014). Dewberry, Gresham, Smith and Partners, GCR Inc., and R. Marchi. ACRP Report 147: Climate Change Adaptation Planning: Risk Assessment for Airports. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (2015). Rowan, Emily, Christopher Evans, Marybeth Riley-Gilbert, Rob Hyman, Rob Kafalenos, Brian Beucler, Beth Rodehorst, Anne Choate, and Peter Schultz. Assessing the Sensitivity of Transportation Assets to Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2326 (2013): 16-23. Meyer, M., M. Flood, J. Keller, J. Lennon, G. McVoy, C. Dorney, K. Leonard, R. Hyman and J. Smith. NCHRP Report 750: Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 2: Climate Change, Extreme Weather

A-29 Key Citations (Roads, Transit and Airports) Events, and the Highway System: Practitioner’s Guide and Research Report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC (2014). See especially Part I, Appendix B: Benefit-Cost Methodology for Climate Adaptation Strategies Additional Resources FHWA Publications & Tools - Climate Change Adaptation Site TRB Specialty Page on Climate Change AASHTO Resilient and Sustainable Transportation Systems Technical Excellence Center US DOT Transportation and Climate Change Clearinghouse DHS Supplemental Tool: Incorporating Resilience into Critical Infrastructure Projects Climate-ADAPT European Climate Adaptation Platform Cost Benefit Database Challenges  Mature CBA tools for transportation are not yet widely available.  Currently available resiliency and sustainability tools do not always have quantitative aspects.  Requires some data that is uncommon for capital investment, operations, emergency management, and hazard mitigation frameworks.  Key climate model limitations: o GCM outputs are able to report, with high confidence, a limited number of climate metrics o Metrics commonly reported by climate scientists are different than those needed for engineering design o Some of the climate metrics needed for engineering design are sub-24 hour (e.g., short duration storms), and accepted methodologies for scaling from 24 hours to smaller time increments are still forthcoming Information needed for climate resilience can be broken into two categories: asset characteristics and climate characteristics. Asset characteristics needed for climate resilience CBA frameworks are similar to those for hazard mitigation. Much of this information will reside with the transportation agency, particularly as TAMPs come into greater alignment with MAP-21 requirements. Information needs for climate resilience CBAs include:  Infrastructure facility type (roads/bridges/utilities/embankments/nonresidential buildings)  Location and elevation, centerline, crest, shoulder, and base, as well as low chords of bridges  Proposed project and adaptation alternatives  Planned construction start date  Projected damages (ideally cumulative over the asset lifecycle [Merrill, 2015]; may be developed with reference to past events)  Economic estimate of loss of function based on detour time and mileage  Assessment of other downstream impacts and consequences  Project life, cost, and yearly maintenance costs (i.e., full lifecycle analysis)  Climate stressors of interest (i.e., hazard)  Preferred climate and sea level scenarios (see Table 14) In contrast to asset data, climate data are likely to reside almost exclusively with other entities and may require further effort to generate useful information for modifying design specifications and computing projected damages. Sources of climate projections are detailed in Table 14, based on the most recently

A-30 available information at time of publication and study team subject matter experts. Individual states may require the use of certain scenarios or data sources. As the FHWA Pilots indicate, scenario selection should ultimately be guided by considerations such as vulnerability, criticality, and institutional risk tolerance. Both the use of climate projections in CBA and developing projected damages will be discussed in greater detail in the gap analysis. Table 14. Authoritative sources of projections of future climate and sea level. The entities responsible for producing this information will provide updates over time. Type Source Data Data Publishing Date Geographic Coverage Atmospheric Data Historical Atmospheric Expert Team on Climate Change Detection and Indices (ETCCDI) Observation-based gridded data of extreme climate indices 2013 United States (land-only) Historical Atmospheric NASA Modern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA) Model reanalysis using observed historical conditions 2008-present Global Non-Downscaled Atmospheric and Sea Level Rise Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5) CMIP5,* hosted at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Data Portal 2013 Global Non-Downscaled Atmospheric and Sea Level Rise U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2014 National Climate Assessment Predominantly SRES A2 and B1 from CMIP3 2007 United States Downscaled Atmospheric & Hydrology Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 Climate and Hydrology Projections CMIP5 and CMIP3 (Western US hydrology) 2007-2014 United States Sea Level Rise Data Local Sea Level Rise Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment  Linear extrapolation of historical data (low)  IPCC AR4 (low intermediate)  Various (high intermediate and high) 2007-2012 United States Local Sea Level Rise US Army Corps of Engineers Sea Level Rise Change Curve Calculator  Linear extrapolation of historical data (low)  Intermediate and high from IPCC and National Research Council 2015 United States Local Sea Level Rise NOAA’s Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for  Linear extrapolation of historical data (low) 2012 United States

A-31 Type Source Data Data Publishing Date Geographic Coverage the U.S. National Climate Assessment  Intermediate-low: considers risk primarily from expansion due to ocean warming  Intermediate-high: same as intermediate-low with the addition of limited ice sheet loss  Highest: complete ice sheet loss *CMIP data refers to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, a product of the IPCC. CMIP5 results correspond to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report and CMIP3 corresponds to the Fourth Assessment Report.

A-32 3.4.2 Tools  Table 15. Climate resilience CBA tools relevant to the transportation sector Tool Name/Screenshot Details NOAA Port Tomorrow Resilience Planning Tool Prototype NOAA Port Tomorrow Resilience Planning Tool Prototype. Although no longer maintained, this tool compiled resiliency summaries and checklists for ports. Applicability: Useful vulnerability characteristics, such as indicating whether ports where NOAA storm-ready, Tsunami- ready, and depicting high traffic navigation areas as well as hazardous materials incident statistics. Summaries of livability and economic development activities. Usability Challenges: Not cross-asset, not quantitative, does not explicitly account for changing climate, no longer maintained Watershed Management Optimization Support Tool The Watershed Management Optimization Support Tool was designed by EPA and developed principally for water resources managers and planners in coastal locales. Applicability: Operations-focused; support for LID and green infrastructure stormwater BMPs; incorporates metrics for cost- effectiveness, environmental aspects, and sustainability; considers a range of climate scenarios. Usability Challenges: Focuses solely water resources and land use management, local/single-watershed only. U.S. Climate Resiliency Toolkit Beach-fx U.S. Climate Resiliency Toolkit Beach-fx is a USACE tool evaluating performance, cost, and benefits of activities to mitigate erosion, inundation, and wave damages. Applicability: Considers various damage categories (erosion, inundation, and wave impact); evaluates alternatives; considers economic consequences as well as losses due to direct damage; considers local storm record, considers impact of local morphology on storm impact. Usability Challenges: Coastal resources only, focus on assets or programs with a primary function of protection (nourishment, shoreline structures), does not consider changing climate. COAST is a proprietary but freely available tool for comparing benefits and costs of proposed adaptation alternatives in the coastal environment and has been used successfully by MaineDOT. Applicability: Geospatially enabled to capture the extent of the hazard being examined; evaluates alternatives; computes losses

A-33 Tool Name/Screenshot Details COAST over the lifecycle of infrastructure (cumulative losses); losses evaluated include direct losses as well as impacts to economic output; displaced persons and impacts to cultural and natural resources. Usability Challenges: Exclusively considers coastal impacts and adaptations, limited to examining one scenario at a time, use of the software may require significant support from the development team. 3.4.3 Assessment Summary  Climate resilience tools are specifically developed to compare adaptation alternatives intended to address the risk of changing climate. Sea level rise tools are much more common than tools addressing any other aspect of climate and extreme weather. Tools are not tailored to address operationally relevant climate stressors on transportation assets, nor are they designed to acknowledge that multiple stressors may be pertinent and, potentially, co-occurring (e.g. storm surge and high winds). Another important limitation to climate models is that the high case (IPCC's RCP 8.5), only represents the 90th percentile warming scenario, and may under-predict when users desire to examine extreme case scenarios. See Table 15. 4 STATE OF THE PRACTICE  4.1  Survey Results  As part of our research efforts, we developed and disseminated, via the Transportation Research Board’s Committee Communication Coordinators, a survey for transportation practitioners regarding climate change and extreme weather adaptation practices and the use of CBA for planning. A summary of the results and a copy of the survey questions are included in Appendices C and D, respectively. We received 56 responses; some were from individuals, but the majority were from panels specifically assembled by DOTs to respond to the survey. Survey results suggest expecting or experiencing adverse weather events resulting in damage may be a key driver in resilience investment decisions. To evaluate costs and benefits of adaptation or resilience measures for individual projects, the top project methods, used by about 40 percent of respondents, are:  Program priority listings or factors, such as flooding potential;  General asset management strategies, such as culvert repair; and  Feedback from maintenance personnel. Feedback from maintenance personnel is also a key source of information for evaluating costs and benefits at the program level. When CBA is performed to assess resilience to climate and weather, the following types of projects predominate:  Post-disaster  Bridges or other large projects including rehabilitation projects  Locations where flooding is already and issue

A-34  Projects required or recommended by the regulatory paradigm Over 90 percent of respondents have not performed economic analyses at the program level to consider investment in extreme weather and climate change. While several respondents do perform CBAs for projects considering climate resiliency, many others cite limitations in existing tools, guidance, and funding. When asked about available tools to support climate resilience CBAs, 64 percent of respondents said they do not use tools and models for this purpose; approximately one-quarter (25.9 percent) of respondents have developed their own CBA tools for individual projects. Of those respondents that do use CBA tools to distinguish between climate resilient alternatives, approximately 65 percent find the CBA tools they use to be insufficient for their needs. Respondent comments suggest a gap between currently available tools and resilience CBA needs. The bullet list below summarizes issues DOTs have experienced or perceive as barriers to implementing CBAs. Lack of information about risk factors and funding availability (both at 34.5 percent of respondents), followed by gaps in climate data and agency knowledge (both at 25.5 percent of respondents) are key constraints on performing project-specific CBAs. It is also important to note that more than 25 percent of respondents have concerns about the quality of climate data, which is the highest area of data quality concern among respondents. Further, of those respondents who use tools and models for CBA at the project level, 83 percent characterize them as difficult to use or somewhat difficult to use, and approximately 60 percent have had trouble scaling up those same tools to address program-level activities. Key issues at both the project and program level include:  Lack of valuation information  Lack of baseline asset data (87 percent of respondents do not track actions and costs related to extreme weather)  Access to and confidence in using climate projections for planning  Difficulty computing long-term benefits  The expense of performing CBA on an asset-specific basis  Limited access to information on adaptation alternatives  Lack of support from leadership  The need to integrate adaptation into the project scope and budget in the planning process  Lack of funding mechanisms through which to implement adaptation options 4.2 U.S. State and Transit Examples Although there is a deficit of mature climate resilience tools available for transportation agencies, some states have begun the adaptation process, sometimes also beginning to develop their own CBA frameworks. International efforts are also instructive. Several states and transit agencies showing particular leadership are highlighted below; unless otherwise stated, all examples below come from survey and follow-up discussions with the DOTs in question.

A-35  DelDOT: While a unified framework for evaluating adaptations such as elevation of roadways has not yet been implemented, DelDOT has begun engaging with changing climate by establishing increased freeboard for bridge decks, and with extreme events by defining when bridges should be closed due to wind impacts. DelDOT also employs a risk assessment framework based on HAZUS- MH and is in the process of implementing an initiative titled the Statewide Strategic Weather and Flooding Plan. DelDOT considers climate adaptation to be an extension of hazard mitigation as defined by FEMA.  Iowa DOT: Although Iowa DOT did not reply to the survey, the study team is aware of the agency’s efforts to engage with changing climate and flood risk. Their FHWA Pilot involved the use of climate modeling to understand future rainfall and flooding statewide. The intention is to use this data to size bridges and culverts, augmenting the existing approach, which relies on the historical record. This work may serve as the foundation for developing a risk-based cost-benefit methodology accounting for changing climate and extreme events in bridge design and other critical infrastructure (Anderson, 2015).  NYSDOT: Following tens of millions of dollars in damage to transportation infrastructure from extreme storms, precipitation, and flooding in 2011-2013, NYSDOT drafted a policy titled “Resiliency to Climate Change and Extreme Weather” that resulted in CBA tools and guidance. NYSDOT started with a qualitative WSDOT-style vulnerability analysis (see WSDOT’s FHWA Pilot), consulting with local and maintenance staff, and NYSDOT integrated that with their asset Figure 5. Vulnerability of culverts, bridges, and roads to changing climate based on the NYSDOT FHWA Pilot. Excerpted from Elisabeth Lennon’s 2015 TRB Annual Meeting, Workshop 149 presentation.

A-36 management system to guide prioritization. The agency’s next step was to develop a prototype Excel-based alternatives analysis CBA tool capable of comparing build and no-build scenarios, including the cost of asset failure. See Figure 5.  MaineDOT: MaineDOT has tested benefit-cost analyses on several bridge projects and is in the process of updating design standards for culverts and bridges. The latter adaptation requires an additional foot of freeboard for bridges and upgrades standard sizing of culverts from the 50-year event to the 100-year event. Condition, safety, level of service, and site-specific knowledge of agency personnel drive prioritization, and once an asset is slated for replacement, climate-based risk is used to influence selection of adaptations. MaineDOT notes the importance of considering these factors prior to preliminary design.  MnDOT: In the wake of flash flooding and expected increases in extreme precipitation due to changing climate, Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) initiated a flash flood climate adaptation pilot. Tailoring adaptation options to meet state clearance guidelines and FEMA National Flood Insurance Program requirements, the state developed a pilot at a high vulnerability location that already floods at the current 10-year storm. Using the COAST model’s depth-damage functionality and including safety and detour costs in the computation, MnDOT evaluated and compared four alternatives.  Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART): Through the FTA Pilot Program, BART developed a cost- benefit matrix and implementation timeline to assess adaptation strategies using low-, moderate-, and high-cost designations. The transit agency determined that the need to adapt to climate change is real and that climate poses a risk to its systems. Integrating asset management strategies and LCCA will allow BART to better understand if implementing climate adaptation measures make financial sense, as well as what the least lifecycle cost is likely to be. The agency applied their framework to a case study to evaluate how it can be used on a programmatic level to inform decision-making and budget planning.  Chicago Transit Authority (CTA): As part of their FTA Pilot project, CTA identified both heat and flooding as posing significant threats to their system. The agency conducted LCCAs for their rail systems and determined that adaptation strategies for these two natural hazards for a defined range of severe weather event frequencies will generally have a positive ROI. These results suggest that certain investments made today should offset future costs associated with climate change, but CTA concluded that additional factors also should be included in the prioritization process. 4.3 International Examples  A number of countries’ transportation agencies have relatively advanced climate adaptation programs. The FHWA’s study “International Practices on Climate Adaptation in Transportation” (Filosa, 2015), indicates that the following countries are leaders in this field:  Australia  New Zealand  Denmark  Netherlands  Republic of Korea  United Kingdom

A-37  Norway  Canada These countries have implemented a number of innovative strategies to address the challenges posed by changing climate and extreme weather. In addition, a number of these countries have nationally- standardized valuation frameworks for assessing transportation projects, many of which are multi-objective and multi-modal, which address climate adaptation or resilience in general to varying degrees. A number of the countries that have developed tools and CBA guidelines for climate resilience in the transportation sector are described below, with the additions of Germany and the UN’s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). See Figure 6. Figure 6. Example valuation of the benefits of building a sea wall, excerpted from UNISDR (2005). While not well suited for catastrophic events, green infrastructure can be a useful strategy to handle “nuisance”- type impacts.  Germany: The German Federal Environmental Agency has been engaging with climate adaptation over the past decade, concurrent with the 2008 adoption of the German Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change. The German government then commissioned the study, Costs and Benefits of Climate Adaptation Measures (Tröltzsh, 2012). The national-level study indicates that information campaigns, warning systems, green infrastructure-based flood protection, and integration of adaptation into rail and road infrastructure projects may be especially cost-beneficial. The latter two points are most relevant to this project. Benefits considered were loss avoidance and indirect economic, recreational and social benefits. Costs considered were implementation and opportunity costs.  Australia: Australia’s National Guidelines for Transport System Management (“National Guidelines”, 2016), which are currently under revision, outline accepted methods for predicting and assessing the value of transportation investments, and the Infrastructure Sustainability Rating Tool (“Infrastructure Sustainability”, 2016) provides valuation of environmental, social and economic benefits of infrastructure projects. The website for the former was under reconstruction at the time of writing; however, CBA tools available for other sectors may be instructive. For example, in developing a decision-support tool for water utilities considering climate adaptation,

A-38 the AdaptWaterTM project can handle adaptation alternatives analysis for thousands of assets. This tool responded to one of the Australian water utility’s concerns that it had too many assets to assess manually. Although intended for water resources assets, the developers note that, with minor modifications, transportation and other infrastructure could be accommodated. The framework may be particularly useful for states with particularly large asset catalogs.  New Zealand: The New Zealand Transport Agency produced an Economic Evaluation Manual (NZTA, 2016) standardizing valuation of transportation projects, including those promoting active transportation. The agency’s State Highway Network Resilience National Program Business Case (Ashford, 2014) advances a nationally consistent prioritization framework, which prioritizes investments based on risk and state highway classification. The framework includes the proposed valuation of improved disaster response and recovery, better support for economic growth, and reduced injuries and fatalities for users. Metrics to value many of these categories are in development, but will be instructive for the U.S.  United Kingdom: The United Kingdom has been an EU leader in climate vulnerability assessment with the adoption of the 2008 Climate Change Act, as well as being at the forefront of adaptation for the transportation sector. The UK Department for Transport has nationally consistent guidance and web-based software tools, updated in 2013, for conducting CBA on all transportation projects. Software tools include Transport Users’ Benefit Appraisal (TUBA), which values benefits to users, and COBALT, which assists with the valuation of costs of accidents. The Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Framework (Highways Agency, 2009) considers “amending design standards for long-life assets to address predicted climatic changes” clearly beneficial and are recommended as part of a strategy implementing low-cost “quick wins”.  UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: The UN has produced a number of documents regarding cost and benefit valuation for disaster risk reduction. In one report (“Natural Disaster”, 2005), valuation of benefits is predominantly conceptualized as extent of avoided losses to buildings and infrastructure. As elsewhere, it is acknowledged that social and environmental benefits can be difficult to value. More recent work such as the fourth edition of the UN Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2015) notes increasing trends in losses to the built environment and to human life as a result of disasters, with an expectation of further increases due to changing climate. UNISDR advocates a risk-based approach to hazard mitigation that develops benefit-cost ratios based on local context and specific disaster risk management strategies; it also values benefits primarily as loss avoidance but promotes strategies that provide co-benefits in the areas of reducing inequality, achieving sustainability goals, and considering other trade-offs.  Swiss Re (private sector): Insurers and reinsurers worldwide are beginning to consider changing climate. SwissRe offers a course on the economics of climate change adaptation, presenting a decision-making framework for understanding, addressing, and financing adaptation measures that prevent losses to the economy and society (Swiss Re, 2016). 4.4 Additional State‐of‐the‐Practice Insights from 2016 TRB Annual Conference  During the 2016 Transportation Research Board Annual Conference, the study team convened a “lightning” session of talks concerning climate resilience. Speakers included a mix of professionals with consulting, Federal, and combined academic-consulting backgrounds who have worked with individual states and internationally. Topics included an overview of CBA and project examples. Summaries captured here

A-39 represent the opinions of the speakers rather than the study team; however, the study team believes they add a useful dimension to understanding current activities and challenges with climate adaptation CBA. 4.4.1 Climate Resilience  The foremost topic addressed by invited speakers was climate resilience and quantitative CBA, often with reference to project examples as well as common analytical methods. General concepts in CBA were also discussed, with a number of insights from FHWA speakers. The project examples in Table 16 represent several thoughtful, innovative efforts to address changing climate through engineering design as well as efforts to show which adaptation alternatives are effective and fiscally efficient. Table 16. Efforts to address climate change through engineering design and adaptation alternatives Project Name Speaker Key Insights Identified Challenges Highway Project Investment Analysis, Return on Investment Nathaniel Coley (FHWA) Economic analysis enables agencies to evaluate projects based on their expected benefits and costs. It is a holistic prospective looking to maximize benefit-cost payoff through a Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) and provide Return on Investment (ROI). The goal is to incorporate the benefits of preparing for climate change impacts. Decisions are being made with serious resource constraints. Economic analysis does not provide one right solution, just a support to make decisions. BCA measures direct benefits and costs of a project, not the indirect effects on the economy. Cost-Benefit in Climate Change Adaptation Analysis Becky Lupes (FHWA) FHWA is overseeing climate change resilience pilot programs with state DOTs. CBA was something that was pointed out where additional information is needed and updates are needed. DOTs would like guidance on how to conduct CBA with more specifics for climate change adaptation. Identifying and Evaluating Cost- Effective Adaptation Options in Highway Assets Rob Hyman (FHWA) FHWA is conducting case studies to develop a process engineers can use for climate change adaptation. By providing confidence intervals around the mean, the Monte Carlo method provides richer results. When measuring bridge and wave attacks, the most cost-effective option is to raise the bridge somewhat as well as strengthening connections. Nature-based features (i.e. living shoreline) will buy time but eventually must be coupled with or supplemented by other methods to solve the problem. Assessing CBA of Climate Change Vulnerability & Adaptation in Uganda Amy Schweikert (Resilient Analytics) Infrastructure Planning Support System (IPSS) is an engineering- based stressor analysis on a network. It finds where site-specific and detailed studies should be done. Adaptation can represent an opportunity cost where infrastructure is underdeveloped, such as sparse rural road networks. Designing to Minimize Lifecycle Costs Sam Merrill (GEI Consultants) Focus on cumulative avoided damage, not just avoiding damage from a single large event in the future. There is no right standard to use for fiscal efficiency. Site-specific analysis is required.

A-40 Project Name Speaker Key Insights Identified Challenges Climate Change Impacts, Energy, and Sustainability on Transportation Infrastructure LOSSAN Corridor Gheorghe Rosca (HDR) Designed bridge spans with the ability to be raised in the future for <5% of project costs. The project team compared this approach to elevation of embankments to the max sea-level scenarios. The additional maintenance and future impacts would be much more expensive. N/A 4.4.2 Sustainability and Greenhouse Gas Reduction  While climate resilience and adaptation was the focus of the session, an internationally based speaker weighed in on climate mitigation in the transportation sector through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (Table 17). Table 17. Transportation-related climate mitigation projects Project Name Speaker Key Insights Identified Challenges Options for Deep Cuts in Carbon Emissions from Transportation Claus Doll (Fraunhofer Institute) Transportation sector needs to find new energies to reduce carbon footprint. Need to get climate emissions down approx. 85% to meet CO2 standards. Electrification of motorways is being tested in Germany and by GM in the U.S. toward achieving a reduction in climate emissions. Working to shift transportation to rail is the best option with respect to emissions reduction, but may be prohibitively expensive. 5 CONCLUSIONS  5.1 Available Tools and Methods  A cost analysis is often critical for illustrating the value of a project or program. Numerous cost analysis methodologies exist, each with advocates and detractors. The preceding sections contained a sampling of frameworks, tools, and methodologies in the following categories:  Capital Investment  Operations and Emergency Management  Hazard Mitigation  Climate Adaptation, Sustainability, and Resilience 5.2 Inputs and economic valuations used in CBA tools  Numerous CBA tools and methodologies have been developed using the frameworks investigated for this memorandum. In these tools, costs and benefits are represented in dollar or hour amounts, the latter of which is converted into dollars using accepted methodologies. Sources of valuation methodologies can be found in Appendix B. The benefits, costs, and inputs summarized below are based on review of the tools found in the previous sections as well as those found in Appendix A.

A-41 5.2.1 Benefits  Table 18 lists benefits representative of each of the CBA framework categories described above. This table is the sum of typical benefits considered in each framework; individual tools do not produce the full set of benefits shown here. DOTs tend to have access to valuation data for the capital investment and operations and emergency management categories, as well as some of the social and environmental categories. Hazard mitigation and climate resilience valuation is less accessible but likely to increase in availability as TAMPs mature. Table 18. Benefit valuation in reviewed frameworks Category Benefits Capital Investment  Decreased travel time  Reduced vehicle operating costs  Reduced crash rate and duration  Safety (reduced fatalities/injuries/property damage)  Reduced emissions (regulated, CO2)  Reduced noise Operations and Emergency Management  Reductions in maintenance and operating costs  Reduced materials and equipment costs during recovery  Reduced traffic incident management activities  Fewer road/lane closures  Less need for variable or reduced speeds  Fewer diversions  Fewer freight restrictions  Less work zone management (i.e., for repairs) Hazard Mitigation and Climate Resilience  Damages avoided to assets (ideally cumulative)  Reduced labor hours due to preparedness and tactical decision support  Reduced response time to incidents  Increased operating efficiency and safety for staff responding to incidents Social  Active transportation (livability and health benefits)  Increased reliability  Increased property value  Reduction in automobile use and dependency on oil  Low income mobility benefit Environmental  Urban heat island mitigation  Reduction of combined sewer overflows  Improvement in water quality and reductions in sheet flow and basin flashiness due to green infrastructure 5.2.2 Costs  Costs tend to be similar across CBA categories (see Table 19). Because of the need to consider future costs due to changing climate as well as strategies that may include combinations of structural, operational, and management strategies, initial as well as lifecycle costs are listed. DOTs are very familiar with these cost categories and use them to perform lifecycle analyses of assets such as bridges, tunnels, and pavement.

A-42 Additional costs and benefits which may be of interest (e.g. some social and environmental benefits) are not addressed in the tools investigated for this memorandum due to lack of accepted valuation methodologies. Table 19. Cost valuation in reviewed frameworks Cost Valuation  Design and construction  Land acquisition  Installation of incremental equipment  Operations and maintenance  Resurfacing or reconstruction, rehabilitation and restoration (esp. bridges)  Lifecycle replacement 5.2.3 Inputs  It is useful to briefly summarize the inputs needed for each of the frameworks listed above. DOTs typically have ready access to the transportation-focused inputs but will often need to seek external sources to develop the resilience-focused inputs. Table 20 lists typical inputs required across the reviewed frameworks, representing the sum of inputs that could be incorporated for use in a single, unified CBA framework. Common sources of data availability are also shown. Table 20. Summary of typical inputs for CBA frameworks Category Inputs Representative Available Data Sources Transportation- Focused  Right-of-way acquisition  Rate of depreciation  Rate of deterioration  Project lifecycle costs  Traffic characteristics  Detour cost  Safety statistics  Value of travel time  Price of fuel  Emissions  Fuel tax  Project operation and maintenance costs  DOT records (e.g. ADT, accidents, maintenance records, passenger travel times, travel characteristics, historical project records, etc.)  Depreciation schedules  Bureau of Labor Statistics  American Petroleum Institute (fuel tax rates, price of fuel)  USEPA (emissions)  FEMA BCA Guidance (value of travel time, depreciation)  FHWA website  AASHTO website, portals  TRB publications Resilience- Focused  Hazard type  Hazard recurrence interval  Infrastructure criticality to network  Proposed mitigation  Loss of function cost  Estimated damages  Climate scenarios  State and local hazard mitigation plans (hazard types, recurrence interval)  FEMA BCA Guidance (recurrence intervals)  FIRMs (recurrence intervals)  IPCC (climate change scenarios)  FHWA website  AASHTO website, portals  TRB publications

A-43 Category Inputs Representative Available Data Sources  DOT Vulnerability Assessment (criticality)  DOT Asset Management Plan (criticality)  State Climatologist (climate data)  Universities (climate data) Common to both  Discount rate  Infrastructure facility type and design characteristics  Planned project construction start date  Planned project construction duration  OMB Circular A-94  Project design documents  Project construction schedule  FHWA Primer GASB 34  FHWA Financial Planning for Transportation Asset Management: An Overview 5.3 Applicability and Scalability  The frameworks in the preceding sections of this chapter were selected for their utility in developing a robust CBA methodology for extreme weather and changing climate. Of particular interest is merging the hazard mitigation framework, which is also central to climate resilience, with both the operational and capital investment frameworks, which are more familiar to transportation agencies. Once methods for the valuation of emergency management activities become more mature and are more widely applied, they will also become a valuable component of this framework. Ultimately, the objective is to move hazard mitigation and emergency management to a more centralized focus in infrastructure investment and operational CBAs. This will help DOTs, which our survey results show do not typically consider resilience using CBAs, acknowledge and plan for the increased stress a changing climate and extreme weather are likely to bring. With respect to applicability of currently available tools and frameworks to the goal of climate resilience, the major challenge is aligning climate data with the inputs needed for developing design alternatives and future damage estimates. With respect to scalability, the major challenge is developing methods that are appropriate for both projects and programs as well as varying geographic scales: individual assets, corridors, and larger geographies. Applicability and scalability are essential considerations in the gap analysis, framework, and architecture. These tasks are currently under development and will be discussed in detail in the second memorandum.

A-44 6 REFERENCES  Alexander, L. V. et al., “Global observed changes in daily climatic extremes of temperature and precipitation.” Journal of Geophysical Research. Vol.111, Issue D5, DOI:10.1029/2005JD006290 (March 16, 2006). Anderson, Christopher J.; David Claman; and Ricardo Mantilla. “Iowa’s Bridge and Highway Climate Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment Pilot.” Tech Transfer Summaries, Paper 74. Online: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=intrans_techtransfer. (March 2015). Ashford, Adam. “State Highway Network Resilience National Programme Business Case: Delivering State Highway Resilience.” NZ Transport Agency, Wellington, NZ. Online: https://hip.nzta.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/49072/SH-Resilience-National-Programme- Business-Case.pdf. (August 22, 2014). Benestad, Rasmus E. "Record-values, nonstationarity tests and extreme value distributions." Global and Planetary Change, Vol. 44, issue 1, pp.11-26 (December 2004). Choate, Anne. “Opportunities for Risk-Baset Asset Management in Flood Resilience: A Retrospective on the October 2015 South Carolina Flooding.” 11th National Conference on Transportation Asset Management, Minneapolis, MN. (July 10-12, 2016). Coley, Nathaniel. "Spotlight on Benefit-Cost Analysis." Public Roads Vol. 75, No. 5. Online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/12marapr/05.cfm. (2012). Delaware Department of Transportation. Bridge Design Manual: 2015 Edition. Online: https://www.deldot.gov/information/projects/bridge_projects/bridge_design_training_program/Bridg e_Design_Manual.pdf. (November 1, 2015). Drenan, Peter and Shandi Treloar. NCHRP Report 781: A Debris Management Handbook for State and Local DOTs and Departments of Public Works. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. Online: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_781.pdf. (2014). Economic evaluation manual. NZ Transport Agency, Wellington, NZ. Online: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/economic-evaluation-manual/economic-evaluation- manual/docs/eem-manual-2016.pdf. (January 1, 2016) “ERA-NET ROAD.” Online: http://www.cedr.fr/home/index.php?id=251&dlpath=2008%20Call%20Road%20Owners%20Gettin g%20to%20Grips%20with%20Climate%20Change%2FRIMAROCC&cHash=0d3ce2ac10a4d935d9 012c515d8e1dc3. (November 5, 2014). Federal Highway Administration. “Climate Change Resilience Pilots: 2010-2011 Pilots.” Online: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/resilience_pilots/2010- 2011_pilots/index.cfm. (2011). Federal Highway Administration. “Assessment of the Body of Knowledge on Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Measures into Transportation Projects.” Online:

A-45 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/publications/transportation_projec ts/page05.cfm. (October 20, 2015). Federal Highway Administration. “Climate Change Adaptation Guide for Transportation Systems Management, Operations, and Maintenance: Appendix F. Adaptation Checklist for Technical Staff.” Online: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop15026/app_f.htm. (February 11, 2016). Federal Highway Administration. Emergency Relief Manual (Federal-Aid Highways). Online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/erm/er.pdf. (May 31, 2013). Federal Highway Administration. Risk-Based Transportation Asset Management: Building Resilience into Transportation Assets; Report 5: Managing External Threats through Risk-Based Asset Management. Online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/pubs/hif13018.pdf. (March 2013). Federal Highway Administration. “Transportation Asset Management Plans.” Online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/plans.cfm. (February 25, 2016). Filosa, Gina and Alexandra Oster. “International Practices on Climate Adaptation in Transportation: Findings from a Virtual Review.” Online: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/publications/international_practic es/fhwahep15011.pdf. (January 2015). Gordon, Marcus. “The Practicalities of Incorporating Risk into Optimized Maintenance and Renewal Strategies for Infrastructure Asset Portfolios.” 11th National Conference on Transportation Asset Management, Minneapolis, MN. (July 10-12, 2016). Hawk, Hugh. NCHRP Report 483: Bridge Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. Online: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_483.pdf. (2003). Highways Agency. “Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Framework.” Online: http://assets.highways.gov.uk/about-us/climate- change/CCAF_Strategy_and_Vol_1_Rev_B_Nov.pdf. (November 2009). Holmes, Robert. “2015 Flood Events: Appalachian Floods and Hurricane Joaquin: Flood Frequency Q&A.” Online: https://water.usgs.gov/floods/events/2015/Joaquin/HolmesQA.html. (October 9, 2015). “Infrastructure Sustainability Rating Tool.” Online: http://www.isca.org.au/is-rating-scheme/is- overview/is-rating-tool/item/68-is-rating-tool. (As of March 29, 2016) Koenig, Brett. “MAP-21 Toolbox: How to Use Enterprise Asset Management Systems to Track the State of Good Repair of your Assets.” 11th National Conference on Transportation Asset Management, Minneapolis, MN. (July 10-12, 2016). Knutson, T. R. et al., “Tropical cyclones and climate change.” Nature Geoscience Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 157–163 (February 21, 2010). Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. UNISDR, Geneva, Switzerland. Online: http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2015/en/gar-pdf/GAR2015_EN.pdf. (2015).

A-46 Mampara, Mathew. “FloodCast: a Framework for Enhanced Flood Event Decision Making for Transportation Resilience.” Online: http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3725 (As of March 29, 2016). McKinsey & Company. “How the world’s economies can shape climate-adaptation approaches.” Online: http://mckinseyonsociety.com/shaping-climate-resilient-development/. (September 2009). Merrill, Samuel B. “Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Framework for Transportation Organizations.” Online: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conferences/2015/ClimateChange/8.SamMerrill.pdf. (September 16, 2015). Meyer, Michael and Michael Flood. "Integrating extreme weather risk into Transportation Asset Management." American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Online: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP25-25(94)_FR.pdf. (September 21, 2015). Meyer, M., M. Flood, J. Keller, J. Lennon, G. McVoy, C. Dorney, K. Leonard, R. Hyman and J. Smith. NCHRP Report 750: Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 2: Climate Change, Extreme Weather Events, and the Highway System: Practitioner’s Guide and Research Report. Online: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_750v2.pdf. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. (2014). Milly, P.C.D. et al. “Stationarity Is Dead: Wither Water Management?” Science Vol. 319, Issue 5863, pp. 573-574, DOI: 10.1126/science.1151915. Online: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5863/573. (February 1, 2008). Minchon, Scott. “Historical Rainfall and Floods in Colorado.” Online: https://www.climate.gov/news- features/event-tracker/historic-rainfall-and-floods-colorado. (September 17, 2013). Nakanishi, Yuko and Pierre Auza. NCHRP Synthesis 472: FEMA and FHWA Emergency Relief Funds Reimbursements to State Departments of Transportation. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. Online: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_472.pdf (2015). “National Guidelines for Transport System Management.” Online: http://ngtsmguidelines.com/. (As of March 29, 2016). “Natural Disaster and Disaster Risk Reduction Measures: A Desk Review of Costs and Benefits.” Department for International Development. Online: http://www.unisdr.org/files/1071_disasterriskreductionstudy.pdf. (December 8, 2005). Solsrud, Dave and Shelly Pedersen. “Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Approach to Developing Maintenance Cost Models for Its Pavement Infrastructure Based on Asset Condition Data.” 11th National Conference on Transportation Asset Management, Minneapolis, MN. (July 10-12, 2016). Sondag, Sarah and Trisha Stefanski. “. “Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Approach to Developing Maintenance Cost Models for Its Bridge Infrastructure Based on Asset Condition Data.” 11th National Conference on Transportation Asset Management, Minneapolis, MN. (July 10-12, 2016). Swiss Re. “What does Economics of Climate Adaptation mean for insurance?” Online: http://www.swissre.com/rethinking/what_does_economics_of_climate_adaptation_mean_for_insura nce.html. (As of March 29, 2016).

A-47 Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D. Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J.A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden and P. Zhai. Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (2007). Tröltzsh, Jenny. “Cost-benefit analysis of adaptation measures in Germany.” Online: https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://ecologic.eu/sites/files/presentation/2013/Tr%25 C3%25B6ltzsch_Cost-benefit_analyses_adaptation_measure_23_05_2013_v5.pdf. (May 23, 2013). U.S. Global Change Research Program. “National Climate Assessment.” Online: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/. (2014). Wilby, Robert L. "Non-stationarity in daily precipitation series: implications for GCM down-scaling using atmospheric circulation indices." International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 439-454 (1997). Ye, Zhirui, Xianming Shi, Christopher K. Strong, and Tina H. Greenfield. Evaluation of Effects of Weather Information on Winter Maintenance Costs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2107. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,Washington, DC. (2009) pp. 104-110.

A-48 7 ACRONYMS  AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project COOP Continuity of Operations Plan DOT Department of Transportation EO Executive Order EOC Emergency Operations Center ETO Emergency Transportation Operations FFRMS Federal Flood Risk Management Standard FHWA Federal Highway Administration HEC Hydraulic Engineering Circular ICS Incident Command System IPCC Interagency Panel on Climate Change ITS Intelligent Transportation System MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century O&M Operations and Maintenance RCP Representative Concentration Pathways RETCO Regional Emergency Transportation Coordinator RETREP Regional Emergency Transportation Representative RIMAROCC Risk Management for Roads in a Changing Climate ROI Return on Investment SROI Social Return on Investment TAMP Transportation Asset Management Plan UNISDR UN’s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

A-49 Appendix A – CBA Tools List Table 21. Capital Improvement and Operations Tools Tool Developed By Infrastructure/O perational Focus Considers Asset Management Level (asset/corridor/network) Project/Program Level AASHTO Red Book AASHTO Infrastructure Highway (Operational) Asset Project AASHTOWare Project (was TRNS*PORT) AASHTO Operations Construction Asset Project AssetManager NT NCHRP Infrastructure Highway; Bridge Network Program AssetManager PT NCHRP Infrastructure Highway; Bridge Network Program B/C Analysis Florida DOT Both Highway Asset Project BCA.Net FHWA Infrastructure Highway Asset Project BLCCA NCHRP Infrastructure Bridge Asset Project Cal-B/C Caltrans Infrastructure Highway; Transit Asset/Corridor/Network Project; Program CIMS (Culvert Information Management System) NJDOT Infrastructure Culvert Asset/Network Program Clear Roads BC Toolkit Clear Roads Consortium Operations Highway Network Program COMMUTER EPA Operations Highway (Emissions) Network Program DIETT NCHRP Operations Bridges and Tunnels Network Program EMFITS NYSDOT Both ITS Network Program FITSEval Florida DOT Both ITS Network Program HDM-4 HDMGlobal/Wor ld Bank Infrastructure Highway Asset/Corridor/Network Project; Program HERS-ST FHWA Infrastructure Highway Network Program IDAS FHWA Both ITS Network Program IMPACTS FHWA Infrastructure Multimodal Corridor Program Interactive Interchange Management System SCDOT Infrastructure Highway; Bridge Network Program MBCA TREDIS Infrastructure Multimodal Asset Project MicroBENCOST NCHRP Infrastructure Highway; Safety Corridor Project

A-50 Tool Developed By Infrastructure/O perational Focus Considers Asset Management Level (asset/corridor/network) Project/Program Level MOOS Bridge Level NCHRP Infrastructure Bridge Asset Project MOOS Network Level NCHRP Infrastructure Bridge Network Program NBIAS FHWA Infrastructure Bridge Network Program PONTIS (now AASHTOWare Bridge Management) AASHTO Infrastructure Bridge Network Project; Program REALCOST FHWA Infrastructure Highway Asset Project Smart Roadside AASHTO Infrastructure ITS Asset Project SCRITS FHWA Both ITS Network Program STEAM FHWA Infrastructure Multimodal Corridor Project StratBENCOST NCHRP Infrastructure Highway Asset/Network Project TIM-BC FHWA Operations Highway (Incident Management) Network Program TOPS-BC FHWA Operations Highway Network Program TransValU FDOT District Five Both Multimodal Corridor Project; Program TRIMMS CUTR University of Florida Operations Highway Network Program The tools listed in Table 1 are: in the public domain, commonly used at state transportation agencies, quantitative, developed and in use in the past 15-20 years. Note that some DOTs may lack an all-assets asset catalogue. For example, bridge culverts and non-bridge culverts may be kept in separate databases, such as Pontis and Maximo, respectively. Links are either to tool documentation (particularly in the case of older or proprietary tools which do not have public downloads available), or tool download locations, where available. An un-linked tool names indicates that current documentation and downloads are not available. Source: Venner, Marie. Culvert and Storm Drain Management Case Study Vermont, Oregon, Ohio, and Los Angeles County. No. FHWA-HIF-14- 008

A-51 Table 22. Hazard Mitigation, CCA, Resilience, and Sustainability Tools Tool Developed By Infrastructure/ Operational Focus Framework Type Developed for (or including) Transportation Sector (Y/N) Considers Geographic Scale Beach-fx USACE Infrastructure Resiliency No Protective structures; coastal hazards Sub-state (coastal) Blowing Snow Control Tools MnDOT and UM Extension Operations Resiliency Yes Snow fences Sub-state Business Case Evaluator - Transit Module Impact Infrastructure Infrastructure Sustainability Yes Sustainability of new or retrofitted transit infrastructure Local CAPTool FHWA Infrastructure Hazard Mitigation Yes Cross-asset; examines multiple assets simultaneously; multi- hazard Regional, state, or local COAST Blue Marble Geographics Infrastructure Resiliency No Lifecycle benefit-cost analysis for infrastructure alternatives, including no- build. Cumulative loss avoidance over various climate scenarios. Sub-state (coastal) FEMA BCA Tool FEMA Infrastructure Hazard Mitigation No Multi-hazard; potentially cross-asset Sub-state FTA HMCE Tool FTA Infrastructure Resiliency Yes Multi-hazard; coastal flood recurrence/SLR, physical damages; lost transit service Regional, state, or local HEC-FDA USACE Infrastructure Hazard Mitigation No Coastal hazards; examines multiple assets simultaneously Sub-state (coastal) InVEST Natural Capital Project Operations Sustainability No Ecosystem services values (e.g. water regulation, moderation of extreme events, air quality, climate stability) Sub-state

A-52 Tool Developed By Infrastructure/ Operational Focus Framework Type Developed for (or including) Transportation Sector (Y/N) Considers Geographic Scale IPSS Resilient Analytics Infrastructure Resiliency Yes Evaluate investment options for various climate scenarios and build dates throughout an infrastructure network Regional, state, or local iTree USDAA Forest Service Operations Sustainability No (except i-Tree Streets) Ecosystem services values for trees and forests (water quality, air quality, carbon sinks) Local PRISM Parsons Brinkerhoff Operations Sustainability Yes Triple bottom line (sustainability) valuation of transportation projects Regional, state, or local SERVES Earth Economics Operations Sustainability No Ecosystem services values (e.g. water regulation, moderation of extreme events, air quality, climate stability) NA (prototype) Watershed Management Optimization Support Tool EPA Operations Resiliency No Watershed management strategies; multiple climate scenarios and timeframes Sub-state (coastal) Based on this assessment, it appears that most hazard mitigation tools account for impacts to the capital budget, but not necessarily the operating budget. CAPTool is an exception, providing estimates for both.

A-53 Appendix B – Economic Evaluation Table 23. Economic Valuation Methodologies Economic Valuation and Supporting Data Basis Source Value of Statistical Life (VSL) U.S. DOT, Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses (2013) https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL_Guidance_2014.pdf VSL upper and lower bound as per DOT guidance Knieser (2009) http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=cpr Value of Injuries Fraction of VSL U.S. DOT, Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses (2013 ) Truck Emissions HC, VOC, CO, NOx, etc. EPA MOVES Emissions for eGrid Subregions NOX, SO2,CO2, CH4, N2O USEPA - http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2012V1_0_year09_Summary Tables.pdf Value of Time Guidance U.S. DOT Departmental Guidance for Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis Value of Time Median Household Income 2009 American Community Survey, 1-year estimates Value of Time Median Wage, Employer Costs wages, Employer costs benefits Bureau of Labor Statistics Vehicle Operating Cost FHWA, AAA report Inflation Rates Monthly U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistic (2013). Consumer Price Index. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ Table 24. Demographic-Transportation Data Demographic-Transportation Data Basis Source Unemployment Rate Statewide Bureau of Labor Statistics Property Value Statewide; Property Taxes, Home Value U.S. Census Bureau; Tax Foundation calculations Means of Transportation By Poverty Status/Mode of Transport & Travel Time, All US Metro & Micropolitan Areas 2013 American Community Survey, 5 Year Average Population and population density By City 2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Average Vehicles per household By City 2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Average

A-54 Appendix C – Survey Response Summary Table 1. NCHRP 20-101 Guidelines to Incorporate the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Measures in Preparation for Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change 1. In the past ten years, has your organization engaged in planning, design, construction, maintenance, or operational activities that fit into the definitions of resilience or adaptation? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Over 60% of respondents have engaged in capital improvements or maintenance activities that fit within the definition of resilience, adaptation, or both. Resilience 9 16.1% Adaptation 6 10.7% Both 21 37.5% Neither 20 35.7% answered question 56 skipped question 2. Has your organization performed economic analyses to consider investment in resilience or adaptation activities at the project level? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Almost three quarters of respondents have not performed economic analyses to consider investment in resilience or adaption activities at the project level. Yes 2 3.6% No 41 73.2% If yes, please include or reference specific examples showing where concerns about the costs of extreme weather or climate change were factored into design considerations. 13 23.2% answered question 56 skipped question

A-55 3. Has your organization identified key local or organizational knowledge needed or used for producing cost-beneficial outcomes of resilience or adaptation activities? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count The majority of respondents (66.1%) have not identified key local or organizational knowledge needed to produce cost-beneficial resilience outcomes. Yes 19 33.9% No 37 66.1% If yes, what knowledge? 17 answered question 56 skipped question 4. Which project method(s) does your organization use to evaluate the costs and benefits of adaptation or resilience measures for individual projects? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count The top project methods, which are used by approximately 40% of respondents, are:  Program priority listings or factors  General asset management strategies  Feedback from maintenance personnel  Experiencing adverse weather events resulting in damage may be key driver in resilience investment decisions. Program priority listings or factors, such as flooding potential 23 41.1% General asset management strategies, such as culvert repair 22 39.3% Emergency Transportation Operations dispatch records or after action review 9 16.1% Feedback from maintenance personnel 22 39.3% Work orders (electronic or hard copy) 3 5.4% FHWA Vulnerability Assessment Framework 5 8.9% Individual project-specific cost-benefit analysis 16 28.6% None 26 46.4% Other (please specify) 6 10.7% answered question 56 skipped question

A-56 5. Please describe limitations you have encountered in using the above methods for evaluating costs and benefits of adaptation or resilience measures for individual projects. Answer Options Response Count 32 answered question 26 skipped question 15 6. How would you characterize the availability of tools and models for cost-benefit analysis for adaptation and resilience options for projects? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Open source (e.g., FEMA, FHWA) and meets my needs 4 7.5% 64% of respondents do not use tools and models for cost-benefit analysis. Of those respondents that do use CBA tools, approximately 65% find the CBA tools they use to be insufficient for their needs. Respondent comments suggest a gap between currently available tools and resilience CBA needs. Open source (e.g., FEMA, FHWA) but insufficient for my needs 10 18.9% Proprietary and meets my needs 3 5.7% Proprietary but insufficient for my needs 3 5.7% Not available 9 17.0% We do not use tools and models for cost-benefit analysis of climate change or extreme weather adaptation options 34 64.2% answered question 53 skipped question 3 7. Has your organization developed its own cost-benefit and/or life cycle cost analysis tool for individual projects? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Approximately one-quarter (25.9%) of respondents have developed their own CBA tools for individual projects. Yes 14 25.9% No 40 74.1% If yes, please describe and attach link or attach/upload descriptive information 14 answered question 54 skipped question 2

A-57 8. How would you characterize the user-friendliness of the tools and models you have available for cost-benefit analysis for adaptation and resilience options for projects? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Of those respondents who use tools and models for cost-benefit analysis, 83% of them characterize them as difficult to use or somewhat difficult to use. User-friendly 2 3.8% Somewhat user-friendly/use with some difficulty 5 9.4% Difficult to use 5 9.4% Don't use 41 77.4% answered question 53 skipped question 3 9. Under what circumstances do you perform and use such analyses for individual projects? Answer Options Response Count 28 answered question 21 skipped question 20 10. What key factors bear on your agency's ability to address extreme weather or climate change resilience or adaptation concerns for individual projects? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Climate data 20 37.0% Infrastructure data 15 27.8% Climate data, risk factors, and funding are the top factors that bear on the agency's ability to address resilience and adaptation, of those who address it at the project level. Regional demographic data 5 9.3% Traffic data 9 16.7% Risk factors 18 33.3% Analysis capacity 11 20.4% Funding 25 46.3% Knowledge 14 25.9% Don't address resilience and adaptation at the project level 26 48.1% Other (please specify) 4 7.4% answered question 54

A-58 skipped question 11. Which of the following categories of data are available to your organization (based on NCHRP 814, Data to Support Transportation Agency Business Needs: A Self-Assessment Guide)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Travel data (e.g., traffic monitoring, travel and freight planning, etc.) 39 70.9% System inventory and condition data 40 72.7% Facilities data 34 61.8% The only factor available to less than 50% of the respondents is customer relations/public affairs data. Financial/program management data 33 60.0% Project development data (e.g., designs, rights-of-way, environmental, etc.) 36 65.5% System operation data (e.g., incident management, road weather management, etc.) 35 63.6% Safety data 38 69.1% Customer relations/public affairs data 22 40.0% General (e.g., GIS data, database management, IT applications, etc.) 38 69.1% I don't know 13 23.6% answered question 55 skipped question

A-59 12. Availability of which of the following constrain project-specific analysis for resilience or adaptation to extreme weather or climate change? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Climate data 14 25.5% Lack of information about risk factors and funding availability (both at 34.5% of respondents), followed by gaps in climate data and agency knowledge (both at 25.5% of respondents) are key constraints on project-specific CBAs. Infrastructure data 10 18.2% Regional demographic data 4 7.3% Traffic data 7 12.7% Risk factors 19 34.5% Analysis capacity 13 23.6% Funding 19 34.5% Knowledge 14 25.5% We don't address resilience and adaptation to extreme weather or climate change at the project level 28 50.9% Other (please specify) 3 5.5% answered question 55 skipped question 13. Quality of which of the following constrain project-specific analysis for resilience or adaptation to extreme weather or climate change? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Climate data 15 27.3% Infrastructure data 9 16.4% Regional demographic data 3 5.5% Traffic data 7 12.7% The area of greatest concern with respect to data quality is for climate data. Risk factors 13 23.6% Analysis capacity 5 9.1% Funding 11 20.0% Knowledge 12 21.8% We don't address resilience and adaptation to extreme weather or climate change at the project level 27 49.1% Other (please specify) 4 7.3% answered question 55 skipped question 1

A-60 14. Has your organization performed economic analyses to consider investment in extreme weather resilience or adaptation, on a program level? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Over 90% of respondents have not performed economic analyses Yes 5 8.9% No 51 91.1% answered question 56 skipped question 15. Do you use your organization's asset management systems to track actions and costs related to extreme weather or climate change? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count 87% of respondents do not use their organization's asset management system to track actions and costs related to extreme weather or climate change Yes 10 17.9% No 46 86.8% If yes, how is this information used in the decision-making process about future investments? 7 answered question 56 skipped question

A-61 16. Which method(s) does your organization use to assist in evaluating the costs and benefits of adaptation or resilience measures for extreme weather or climate change for programs? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Program prioritization policy, e.g., priority for evacuation routes 7 12.5% The only method that has more than 20% of respondents reporting that they use to assist in evaluating the costs and benefits of adaptation or resiliency measures for programs is feedback from maintenance personnel Asset management and life cycle cost data 9 16.1% Emergency Transportation Operations dispatch records or after action report 5 8.9% Feedback from maintenance personnel 15 26.8% Work orders (electronic or hard copy) 1 1.8% FHWA Vulnerability Assessment Framework 5 8.9% Program level cost-benefit analysis 3 5.4% None 36 64.3% Other (please specify) 3 5.4% answered question 56 skipped question 17. Please describe any major limitations you have encountered in using the above methods for evaluating costs and benefits of adaptation or resilience measures for program-level activities. Answer Options Response Count 22 answered question 18 skipped question 23

A-62 18. Availability of which of the following are limiting factors for program analysis of resilience or adaptation to extreme weather or climate change? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Climate data 11 19.6% Infrastructure data 5 8.9% Regional demographic data 1 1.8% 34% of respondents report that funding is a limiting factor in an organization's ability to perform program analysis. Traffic data 1 1.8% Risk factors 12 21.4% Analysis capacity 10 17.9% Funding 19 33.9% Knowledge 10 17.9% We don't address resilience and adaptation to extreme weather or climate change at the program level 32 57.1% Other (please specify) 6 10.7% answered question 56 skipped question 19. Quality of which of the following are limiting factors for program analysis of resilience or adaptation to extreme weather or climate change? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Climate data 12 21.8% Infrastructure data 5 9.1% Regional demographic data 1 1.8% Slightly over half of respondents do not address resilience and adaptation. Less than 2 percent of respondents use regional demographic data. Traffic data 2 3.6% Risk factors 12 21.8% Analysis capacity 8 14.5% Funding 15 27.3% Knowledge 10 18.2% We don't address resilience and adaptation to extreme weather or climate change at the program level 30 54.5% Other (please specify) 4 7.3% answered question 55 skipped question

A-63 20. If your organization uses tools or methods to help evaluate costs and benefits of resilience or adaptation measures for projects, have you had any difficulty scaling tools up to the program level? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Yes 6 11.1% No 4 7.4% We don't address resilience and adaptation to extreme weather or climate change at the program level 44 81.5% answered question 54 skipped question 2 21. Would you be available to participate in a follow-up interview (during the TRB Annual Meeting)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Yes 24 43.6% No 31 56.4% If yes, please provide your contact information. 16 29.1% answered question 55 skipped question 1

A-64 Appendix D – NCHRP 20-101 Survey Questions We request your response about the use of cost-benefit analysis for extreme weather. For the purposes of this survey, please see the following two definitions. Resiliency is the ability to recover quickly after a stressor event. Resiliency includes design features of proposed projects, maintenance practices, or operational measures intended to promote rapid recovery or minimize damage. Examples of resiliency measures are building roads out of more durable materials or raising roads along coastal evacuation routes. Hazard mitigation also generally falls within resiliency. Adaptations are features intended to address asset-specific vulnerabilities to aspects of extreme weather or climate that are changing or expect to change over time. For example, upon determining that air temperatures are leading to problems with pavement deformation, DOTs might issue revised design guidelines for pavement materials used for bus stop pads. Adaptations can take the form of changes to planned design, retrofits, or consideration of an expanded field of options during the lifecycle operation/replacement process. PROJECT‐LEVEL QUESTIONS  1. In the past ten years, has your organization engaged in planning, design, construction maintenance, or operational activities that fit into the definitions of resiliency or adaptation? a. Resiliency b. Adaptation c. Both d. Neither 2. Has your organization performed economic analyses to consider investment in resilience or adaptation activities at the project level? a. Yes b. No If yes, please include or reference specific examples showing where concerns about the costs of extreme weather or climate change were factored into design considerations. 3. Has your organization identified key local or organizational knowledge needed for producing cost-effective resilience or adaptation activities? a. Yes b. No If yes, what knowledge? 4. Which project method(s) does your organization use to evaluate the costs and benefits of adaptation or resiliency measures for individual projects? a. Program priority listings or factors, such as flooding potential b. General Asset Management strategies, such as culvert repair c. Emergency Transportation Operations dispatch records or after action review d. Feedback from maintenance personnel e. Work orders (electronic or hard copy) f. FHWA Vulnerability Assessment Framework

A-65 g. Individual project-specific cost-benefit analysis h. None i. Other (Please specify) 5. Please describe limitations you have encountered in using the above methods for evaluating costs and benefits or adaptation or resiliency measures for individual projects. 6. How would you characterize the availability of tools and models for cost-benefit analysis for adaptation and resiliency options for projects? a. Open source (e.g., FEMA, FHWA) and meets my needs b. Open source (e.g., FEMA, FHWA) but insufficient for my needs c. Proprietary and meets my needs d. Proprietary but insufficient for my needs e. Not available f. We do not use tools and models for cost-benefit analysis of climate change or extreme weather adaptation options 7. Has your organization developed its own cost-benefit and/or life cycle cost analysis tool for individual projects? a. Yes (please describe and send link or attach/upload descriptive information) b. No 8. How would you characterize the user-friendliness of the tools and models you have available for cost-benefit analysis for adaptation and resiliency options for projects? a. User-friendly b. Somewhat user-friendly/use with some difficulty c. Difficult to use d. Don’t use 9. Under what circumstances do you perform and use such analyses for individual projects? 10. What key factors bear on your agency’s ability to address extreme weather or climate change resiliency or adaptation concerns for individual projects? a. Climate Data b. Infrastructure data c. Regional demographic data d. Traffic data e. Risk factors f. Analysis Capacity g. Funding h. Knowledge i. Don’t address resilience and adaptation at the project level j. Other 11. Which of the following categories of data are available to your organization (based on NCHRP 814, Data to Support Transportation Agency Business Needs: A Self-Assessment Guide)? a. Travel data (e.g., traffic monitoring, travel and freight planning, etc.) b. System inventory and condition data c. Facilities data d. Financial/program management data e. Project development data (e.g., designs, rights-of-way, environmental, etc.) f. System operations data (e.g., incident management, road weather management, etc.) g. Safety data

A-66 h. Customer relations/public affairs data i. General (e.g., GIS data, database management, IT applications, etc.) j. I don’t know 12. Availability of which of the following constrain project-specific analysis for resiliency or adaptation to extreme weather or climate change? a. Climate Data b. Infrastructure data c. Regional demographic data d. Traffic data e. Risk factors f. Analysis Capacity g. Funding h. Knowledge i. We don’t address resilience and adaptation to extreme weather or climate change at the project level j. Other 13. Quality of which of the following constrain project-specific analysis for resiliency or adaptation to extreme weather or climate change? a. Climate Data b. Infrastructure data c. Regional demographic data d. Traffic data e. Risk factors f. Analysis Capacity g. Funding h. Knowledge i. We don’t address resilience and adaptation to extreme weather or climate change at the project level j. Other PROGRAM‐LEVEL QUESTIONS  14. Has your organization performed economic analyses to consider investment in extreme weather resiliency or adaptations, on a program level? a. Yes b. No 15. Do you use your organization’s asset management systems to track actions and costs related to extreme weather or climate change? a. Yes b. No If yes, how is this information used in the decision-making process about future investments? 16. Which method(s) does your organization use to assist in evaluating the costs and benefits of adaptation or resiliency measures for programs? a. Program prioritization policy, e.g. priority for evacuation routes b. Asset management and life cycle cost data

A-67 c. Emergency Transportation Operations dispatch records or after action report d. Feedback from maintenance personnel e. Work orders (electronic or hard copy) f. FHWA Vulnerability Assessment Framework g. Program level cost-benefit analysis h. None i. Other (Please specify) 17. Please describe any major limitations you have encountered in using the above methods for evaluating costs and benefits of adaptation or resiliency measures for program-level activities. 18. Availability of which of the following are limiting factors for program analysis of resiliency or adaptation to extreme weather or climate change? a. Climate Data b. Infrastructure data c. Regional demographic data d. Traffic data e. Risk factors f. Analysis capacity g. Funding h. Knowledge i. We don’t address resilience and adaptation to extreme weather or climate change at the program level j. Other 19. Quality of which of the following are limiting factors for program analysis of resiliency or adaptation to extreme weather or climate change? a. Climate data b. Infrastructure data c. Regional demographic data d. Traffic data e. Risk factors f. Analysis capacity g. Funding h. Knowledge i. We don’t address resilience and adaptation to extreme weather or climate change at the program level j. Other 20. If your agency uses tools or methods to help evaluate costs and benefits of resiliency or adaptation measures for projects, have you had any difficulty scaling tools up to the program level? a. Yes b. No c. We don’t address resilience and adaptation to extreme weather or climate change at the program level 21. Would you be available to participate in a follow-up interview? a. Yes b. No If yes, please provide your contact information: