Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide (2021)

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.

142 Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects (Step 8C) Step 7 identified and prioritized existing assets that are potentially vulnerable to hazards and threats. Step 8C involves more detailed assessments of these assets, one-by-one (or collectively if several vulnerable assets are clustered together such that it might make sense to look for more holistic solutions). The order in which these detailed assessments get done should be based on their vulnerability as reflected in their Step 7 prioritization. Step 8C also involves detailed assessments for all new facilities in the asset management and capital improvements program. The self-assessment factors for Step 8C reflect a technical approach for conducting detailed assessments that lead to cost-effective means of reducing damage and/or minimizing outages caused by hazards and/or threats. This technical approach, called the Adaptation Decision- Making Assessment Process (ADAP), was developed by FHWA for facility-level analysis as part of a pilot study program (FHWA 2019). An overview of ADAP can be found in the FHWA Adaptation Decision-Making Assessment Process text box along with a link to a more detailed description. Figure 5 shows the ADAP decision tree. ADAP helps you consider whether your agency would benefit by integrating adaptation/mitigation measures now or later during the life cycle of the asset (in effect, examining the investment tradeoffs of reducing damage and consequences given the uncertainties of future disruptions actually occurring). It also helps determine what the most cost-effective adaptation/mitigation measure might be across the range of possible future scenarios (FHWA 2019). The following section describes the capability factors and levels of maturity for this step. Note that the detailed assessments are discussed in terms of being part of the project develop- ment process, regardless of whether they are for a new asset or an existing asset. This language is used even for existing assets because the detailed assessments of the exposed assets are very likely to lead to new capital projects that can be programmed into the capital improvement program in Step 9. Capability Factors and Levels of Maturity Factor 8C.1: When projects are being developed, does your agency require the consideration of resilience concerns? Ideally, an assessment of natural hazards and human threats will occur for each project, and adaptation/mitigation measures will be undertaken where necessary. This assessment should consider the asset’s entire life cycle and the hazards/threats it may experience over this time. Because of the long design lives of many transportation assets, the need to take climate changes into account is important. Even for assets with a relatively short design life like pavement, the pavement composition chosen for today’s conditions may underperform over the next 30+ years of pavement life if prolonged extreme heat events increase in frequency, magnitude, C H A P T E R   1 3

Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects (Step 8C) 143   4. Develop climate scenarios 1. Understand the site context 2. Document existing or future base case facility 3. Identify climate stressors Is climate data readily available? Yes No Is exposure projected to rise? Yes No Are consequences of failure high? No C. Develop detailed projections Adaptation analysis complete B. Use surrogate methods or sensitivity tests Are design criteria met? Yes No 5. Assess performance of the facility A. Assess highest impact scenario B. Assess all other scenarios Yes 8. Conduct an economic analysis 10. Select a course of action 11. Develop a facility mgmt. plan 6. Develop adaptation options Are costs of adaptation small? A. Develop for highest impact scenario B. Develop for all other scenarios A. Use readily- available data 7. Assess performance of adaptation options 9. Evaluate additional considerations No Yes Re vi si t a na ly si s in fu tu re Adaptation analysis complete Stressors present None Figure 5. Decision Tree of the ADAP Steps (FHWA 2019).

144 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide and duration due to climate change. The chances of adverse change are greater for longer-lived assets like bridges. By assessing the potential risks posed to an asset or project associated with future hazards, the analysis can identify alternatives that are more cost-effective over the life cycle of the project. The consideration of hazards and threats over the life cycle of an asset should also include an examination of any physical security, crime prevention, personal safety, and fire and life safety concerns, where appropriate. The major distinctions in different maturity levels for this factor are related to the level to which more detailed assessments include a range of hazards and threats and the extent to which different subject matter experts are included in the analysis process. An agency at a Level 3 maturity will include a long-term, risk-based perspective in detailed project-level analyses. • Level 1: We consider natural hazards and climate change on an ad hoc basis. The extent of consideration of physical security, crime prevention, and personal safety is dependent on the type of project. Major projects usually include a review by security personnel, and projects are developed in accordance with fire and life safety codes. Major projects usually include a review by emergency management personnel. • Level 2: We require the consideration of natural hazards and climate change in all our project analyses. With respect to human- caused threats, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles are considered during the project develop- ment process. Emergency management aspects of projects are also considered. • Level 3: We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, we have adopted a scenario-based risk assessment process like ADAP (see ADAP text box) for our project development process. Where appropriate, all projects are examined for security concerns in the context of resilient and continuous operations, future growth, and potential countermeasures. Agency projects are built with emergency management’s fire and life safety concerns as critical core components. Project sign-offs are required for security and emergency management compliance. Factor 8C.2: When projects are being developed, do you utilize projected data on the future frequency, magnitude, and scope of natural hazards? Traditionally, assets have been designed based on statistical analyses of observed natural hazard data. For example, a culvert designer might use NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation depths based on statistical analyses of observed rainfall data to size a culvert. However, the grow- ing understanding of climate change is upending the basic assumption that the future will be like the past. This is leading many to question the practice of using statistical analyses of past conditions as good indicators of the conditions that assets will be subject to in the future. Moving forward, projections of future conditions will need to be used to supplement and, in some cases, replace historically focused design inputs. For many natural hazards, models and tools are now available to help you project future conditions given the expected changes in underlying causal factors (e.g., climate change). These models and tools should be used to project potential impacts to assets over their lifetime as part of the standard practice when developing projects. The major distinctions among the different maturity levels in this factor FHWA Adaptation Decision-Making Assessment Process (ADAP) (FHWA 2019) ADAP was developed to assess climate change-related risks and response options for transportation assets (see Figure 4). This process was borne from the FHWA Gulf Coast 2 project and refined through the Transportation Engineering Approaches to Climate Resilience (TEACR) study that evaluated, with a series of case studies, how climate change impacts can be integrated into the design of transportation projects. The framework can be adapted to assess other forms of physical risk to an asset, not just climate change impacts. For a more detailed description of ADAP visit https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ sustainability/resilience/ongoing_and_ current_research/teacr/adap/index.cfm. Many of the factors described in Step 8C are also detailed in ADAP.

Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects (Step 8C) 145   reflect the degree to which future-oriented projected data on the frequency, magnitude, and scope of hazards and threats are used as input into project analyses. • Level 1: We consider only historical data on natural hazards in the design process. This includes special consideration of DOT records on past extreme weather events’ impacts in the vicinity of the asset. Such data have been tabulated and summarized so that designers have available information at their fingertips to supplement the standard sources of climate data. • Level 2: We consider both historical and projected data of natural hazards (including climate change projections) when developing all projects. • Level 3: We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, we consider the interactions amongst hazards and how such interactions could affect our assets. This consideration also includes the amplifying or dampening effects of other environmental factors (e.g., land-use change in a drainage area). We have codified these data and information into our standard environmental and design practices. Factor 8C.3: When you develop projects, does your agency formally account for the uncertainty in natural hazard likelihood? This factor considers the degree to which your agency incorporates uncertainty into project analyses. Uncertainty exists for estimating the likelihood of recurrence of events today using historical data and becomes even greater when considering future climate changes. The uncertainty associated with such events occurring could have a strong influence on whether decision-makers would be willing to invest in recommended resilience strategies. Ideally, the likelihood of an event occurring can be represented by probabilities, which can then be used to determine the level of risk associated with potential disruptions. However, coming up with such probabilities can be challenging. One approach recommended by several federal agencies is to use hazard and threat scenarios in the analysis. A scenario simulates one or more possible conditions to which the asset might be exposed. It is preferable to consider a range of plausible scenarios when evaluating the future performance of an asset rather than relying on just a single scenario. Many sources of historical data on natural hazards quantify uncertainty in a way that could be used for a scenario-based analysis. For example, NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall projections provide a confidence interval around their central projection: the outer bounds of these confidence limits along with the central projection can be used in a scenarios framework like ADAP to perform a sensitivity test on the proposed design and determine if enhanced design measures are cost-effective. For future-oriented projections, the RCPs discussed in Step 5 represent scenarios used to capture the plausible range of future greenhouse gas emissions. Climate metrics pertinent to the design task at hand can be calculated under each of the RCPs and used to define a range of plausible scenarios on future conditions that the asset may be exposed to. The major distinction for the different maturity levels on this factor relates to the extent to which your agency’s project analyses incorporate some accounting for the uncertainty of the likelihood and magnitude of natural hazard impacts. • Level 1: We consider only historical data on natural hazards when developing projects. We routinely do scenario-based sensitivity tests of our designs using the published uncertainty ranges of the input data. • Level 2: We use future climate projections for natural hazards when developing projects. However, we do not use scenarios to perform sensitivity testing of the design to understand uncertainty. Instead, we use a pre-determined climate scenario (RCP or sea level rise amount) for our work.

146 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide • Level 3: As standard practice for project design, we utilize a scenarios-based approach such as ADAP to better understand the range of uncertainty in the natural hazards that might affect our projects (and its implications). At least two future-oriented climate scenarios are evaluated in each case. Factor 8C.4: When you develop projects, how are adaptation options determined? For situations where the detailed assessment has confirmed that either the existing asset or a new project built using the standard design option (a traditional design based on historical data on natural hazards) is exposed to current/future natural hazards, adaptation options need to be developed. This factor considers how your agency develops adaptation options for its projects. On most projects, several different adaptation strategies are possible. In general, the more alternatives explored and tested, the better, as this increases the chance that the best solution will be chosen. Typically, adaptation options are tied to the various natural hazard scenarios discussed in prior factors with each option offering protection under that scenario. An exception is a novel approach to adaptation that is meant to address the uncertainties in future climate changes: adaptive (or flexible) design. An adaptive design approach allows for integrating adaptation project characteristics over time as the likelihood of impacts becomes more certain (i.e., uncertainty over the future decreases). The distinction amongst the maturity levels in this factor reflects the level of effort expended in developing different adaptive design options for evaluation. • Level 1: As standard practice, we develop one adaptation option for each natural hazard/ climate scenario evaluated. Each adaptation option is designed to meet design standards under its corresponding scenario. • Level 2: As standard practice, we develop more than one adaptation option for each natural hazard/climate scenario evaluated. Each adaptation option for a given scenario represents a different strategy for meeting design standards under that scenario. • Level 3: We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, as a matter of practice, we always consider an adaptive management approach in our development of adaptation options. Our design guides/manuals have been modified to allow this approach as part of standard design practice. Factor 8C.5: When you develop projects, do you use resiliency-driven economic analysis to determine the most cost-effective project design? Given that most decision-makers want to know what system or other benefits are going to accrue for the dollars being expended, some form of economic analysis is often used to show the relative monetary value of choosing one option over another. For evaluating adaptation measures, this takes the form of a benefit-cost analysis (BCA). BCA is used to quantify and compare societal benefits and costs associated with a project (where such benefits and costs can be monetized). The primary purpose of a BCA is to identify the benefits that will accrue with project investment as compared to the costs incurred, in some sense this can be considered a return on investment analysis. With respect to BCAs for detailed facility-level assessment, benefits are defined as the costs avoided from natural hazard impacts (relative to leaving the existing asset in place as-is or for new assets, a standard design based on historical climate data), whereas costs are the incremental costs to construct and maintain the adaptation option. BCA helps you consider the relationships between costs and benefits for different adaptation options. Many BCAs only include the agency costs avoided (e.g., from reducing damage to an asset) when determining the benefit of an adaptation. However, there are additional consequences and

Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects (Step 8C) 147   user costs when an asset or facility is out of service that can also be included as avoided costs (benefits). For example, if a highway segment is damaged and closed for repairs, the resulting congestion and/or detour routing may lead to lost time for drivers and passengers (these are called user costs). Costs to the broader society (beyond just the direct costs to systems users) can also be included (e.g., the costs to a business if an asset providing access to them is taken out of service). All the costs can be calculated for the base case and each alternative and then integrated into life cycle costs by natural hazard scenario. The distinction among the different levels of maturity for this factor reflects the degree to which project-level economic analysis methods are used to determine which adaptation options or strategies are the most cost-effective: • Level 1: We conduct a resiliency-driven BCA that considers life cycle agency costs due to natural hazards on all projects. • Level 2: We conduct a resiliency-driven BCA that considers life cycle agency and user costs due to natural hazards on all projects. • Level 3: We conduct a resiliency-driven BCA that considers life cycle agency, user, and (whenever appropriate) broader societal costs due to natural hazards on all projects. Factor 8C.6: Does your value engineering process consider resilience measures as a valid cost? Agencies will generally have a value engineering assessment process that reviews project designs to determine where cost reductions could occur while still meeting the functional goals of the project. Experience from some transportation agencies suggests that the value engineer- ing assessment often results in the removal of adaptation/mitigation measures because they are considered “extra” costs. Recommending a least-cost alternative during the value engineering process typically only involves consideration of up-front costs, not life cycle costs. This may lead to a final design with resilience-specific fatal flaws, increasing the possibility of significant damage to the asset and/or lead to significant consequences to the agency, transportation users, and surrounding communities. In other words, the costs incurred over the long run may very well outweigh any up-front cost savings identified through value engineering. This factor focuses on how your agency’s value engineering process considers resilience-related project characteris- tics. The major distinction among the different levels of maturity for this factor reflects the extent to which resilience characteristics are considered as part of your value engineering process. • Level 1: We consider additional expenditures for resilience enhancements on a case-by-case basis. The justification for such a consideration is based on the engineering judgment of the designers included on the project. There is no guidance as to how such costs should be considered in the value engineering assessment. This has resulted in some resilience enhancements being removed during the value engineering process. • Level 2: We consider additional expenditures for resilience enhancements as valid expendi- tures for all projects subject to value engineering. The justification for such a considera tion is based on the economic analysis results conducted during the detailed assessment process. This has resulted in most resilience enhancements being included in post-value engineering. • Level 3: We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, we have developed a resilience test that is applied to ensure cost-saving recommendations do not have broader implications for facility and societal risk. The consideration of resilience concerns in value engineering has been codified in value engineering guidance. Factor 8C.7: Do you consider resilience in facility management plans? A facility management plan strategically outlines how an asset will be used and managed over its lifetime. The term “facility management” includes both transportation facilities as well

148 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide as buildings and other structures that are part of an agency providing its services. A facility management plan provides the means to continue monitoring asset performance to ensure it meets expectations. Further, the plan may lay out adaptive management processes for inte- grating resilience strategies over time. The distinction among the different levels of maturity for this factor reflects the degree to which resilience concerns are included in your facility management plans. • Level 1: We incorporate resilience concerns into the facility management plans for only a small number of the most important assets of the transportation system and for other facilities considered essential to managing the system. • Level 2: We incorporate resilience concerns into the facility management plans for all assets of the transportation system for which facility management plans are developed and for other facilities considered essential to managing the system. • Level 3: We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, our facility management plans are monitored and periodically revisited to address changing conditions. The results of this reas- sessment are incorporated into our agency’s project development process to inform future adaptive management designs. Factor 8C.8: Do you document how resilience concerns were addressed for each project? This factor focuses on documenting the tools, resources, data, decisions, and institutional knowledge applied in this step for each project undertaken. The process and justification for recommended actions should also be documented. Documentation on the methods and approaches also provides a benchmark for future reference in a rapidly evolving field such as resilience. The distinction among the different levels of maturity for this factor reflects the level to which you document the resilience considerations and results for each project coming out of project development. • Level 1: We document the process followed and the justification for recommended actions, but only for the most important projects. We do not have a formal process for consistent documentation. • Level 2: We document the process followed and the justification for recommended actions for all projects. We do not have a formal process for consistent documentation; the document reflects the factors the designers considered as part of the design process. • Level 3: We document the process followed and the justification for recommended actions for all projects. We have a formal process for consistent documentation (using the ADAP steps or something similar as an outline) that has been included in the standard operating procedures of our agency. Table 24 summarizes the factors that are included in the self-assessment tool for Step 8C. The maturity levels for each factor are presented in the descriptions of each factor. The total score for this step is found by summing the number of points given for each factor. Recommended Actions to Maintain the Highest Level of Agency Resilience Capability The highest level of capability for Step 8C: Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects focuses on continual improvement in agency capability and actions leading to a more resilient transportation system. If your agency has reached a Level 3 maturity, the steps that can be taken to maintain this level include: • Periodically reassess the project analysis process to assure it is considering all of the possible hazards and threats facing your transportation agency. Update your process where necessary.

Maturity Factor Level 1 (1 point) Level 2 (2 points) Level 3 (3 points) 8C.1 When projects are being developed, does your agency require the consideration of resilience concerns? We consider natural hazards and climate change on an ad hoc basis. The extent of consideration of physical security, crime prevention, and personal safety is dependent on the type of project. Major projects usually include a review by security personnel, and projects are developed in accordance with fire and life safety codes. Major projects usually include a review by emergency management personnel. We require the consideration of natural hazards and climate change in all our project analyses. With respect to human-caused threats, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles are considered during the project development process. Emergency management aspects of projects are also considered. We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, we have adopted a process scenario-based risk assessment process like ADAP for our project development process. Where appropriate, all projects are examined for security concerns in the context of resilient and continuous operations, future growth, and potential countermeasures. Agency projects are built with emergency management’s fire and life safety concerns as critical core components. Project sign-offs are required for security and emergency management compliance. 8C.2 When projects are being developed, do you utilize projected data on the future frequency, magnitude, and scope of natural hazards? We consider only historical data on natural hazards in the design process. This includes special consideration of DOT records on past extreme weather events’ impacts in the vicinity of the asset. Such data have been tabulated and summarized so that designers have available information at their fingertips to supplement the standard sources of climate data. We consider both historical and projected data of natural hazards (including climate change projections) when developing all projects. We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, we consider the interactions amongst hazards and how such interactions could affect our assets. This consideration also includes the amplifying or dampening effects of other environmental factors (e.g., land-use change in a drainage area). We have codified these data and information into our standard environmental and design practices. 8C.3 When you develop projects, does your agency formally account for the uncertainty in natural hazard likelihood? We consider only historical data on natural hazards when developing projects. We routinely do scenario- based sensitivity tests of our designs using the published uncertainty ranges of the input data. We use future climate projections for natural hazards when developing projects. However, we do not use scenarios to perform sensitivity testing of the design to understand uncertainty. Instead, we use a pre- determined climate scenario (RCP or sea level rise amount) for our work. As standard practice for project design, we utilize a scenarios-based approach such as ADAP to better understand the range of uncertainty in the natural hazards that might affect our projects (and its implications). At least two future-oriented climate scenarios are evaluated in each case. 8C.4 When you develop projects, how are adaptation options determined? As standard practice, we develop one adaptation option for each natural hazard/climate scenario evaluated. Each adaptation option is designed to meet design standards under its corresponding scenario. As standard practice, we develop more than one adaptation option for each natural hazard/climate scenario evaluated. Each adaptation option for a given scenario represents a different strategy for meeting design standards under that scenario. We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, as a matter of practice, we always consider an adaptive management approach in our development of adaptation options. Our design guides/manuals have been modified to allow this approach as part of standard design practice. 8C.5 When you develop projects, do you use resiliency-driven economic analysis to determine the most cost- effective project design? We conduct a resiliency-driven BCA that considers life cycle agency costs due to natural hazards on all projects. We conduct a resiliency-driven BCA that considers life cycle agency and user costs due to natural hazards on all projects. We conduct a resiliency-driven BCA that considers life cycle agency, user, and (whenever appropriate) broader societal costs due to natural hazards on all projects. Table 24. Assessment table for Step 8C: Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects. (continued on next page)

Maturity Factor Level 1 (1 point) Level 2 (2 points) Level 3 (3 points) 8C.6 Does your value engineering process consider resilience measures as a valid cost? We consider additional expenditures for resilience enhancements on a case-by-case basis. The justification for such a consideration is based on the engineering judgment of the designers included on the project. There is no guidance as to how such costs should be considered in the value engineering assessment. This has resulted in some resilience enhancements being removed during the value engineering process. We consider additional expenditures for resilience enhancements as valid expenditures for all projects subject to value engineering. The justification for such a consideration is based on the economic analysis results conducted during the detailed assessment process. This has resulted in most resilience enhancements being included in post-value engineering. We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, we have developed a resilience test that is applied to ensure cost-saving recommendations do not have broader implications for facility and societal risk. The consideration of resilience concerns in value engineering has been codified in value engineering guidance. 8C.7 Do you consider resilience in facility management plans? We incorporate resilience concerns into the facility management plans for only a small number of the most important assets of the transportation system and for other facilities considered essential to managing the system. We incorporate resilience concerns into the facility management plans for all assets of the transportation system for which facility management plans are developed and for other facilities considered essential to managing the system. We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, our facility management plans are monitored and periodically revisited to address changing conditions. The results of this reassessment are incorporated into our agency’s project development process to inform future adaptive management designs. 8C.8 Do you document how resilience concerns were addressed for each project? We document the process followed and the justification for recommended actions, but only for the most important projects. We do not have a formal process for consistent documentation. We document the process followed and the justification for recommended actions for all projects. We do not have a formal process for consistent documentation; the document reflects the factors the designers considered as part of the design process. We document the process followed and the justification for recommended actions for all projects. We have a formal process for consistent documentation (using the ADAP steps or something similar as an outline) that has been included in the standard operating procedures of our agency. Score Range Description of Agency Maturity in Undertaking Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects 0 to 11 Your agency is emerging into this area and has taken initial steps to begin to undertake a detailed assessment of exposed assets and new projects. 12 to 20 Your agency has conducted assessments that indicate resilience options and measures that are cost-effective and provide the least consequences for individual hazards and threats. 21 to 24 Your agency has reached significant maturity in undertaking a detailed assessment of exposed assets and new projects. The major focus should be on maintaining and enhancing existing efforts when appropriate and taking advantage of enhancing and validating current practices and findings whenever possible. Table 24. (Continued).

Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects (Step 8C) 151   • Continue to monitor asset performance. Collect data on asset failures to understand what went wrong and how this can be rectified in the future. This could be done in-house or by bringing in a third-party evaluator to conduct the evaluation. • Keep abreast of the latest science and best practice for projecting future climate stressors and on approaches for considering and reporting levels of uncertainty in future projections. Consider ways to expand and/or revise the existing analyses to stay up to date. • Monitor and conduct assessments on the effectiveness of adaptation/mitigation strategies and/or enhanced operational measures in the face of different hazards and threats. Feed the results of these assessments into your agency’s design guidance. • In concert with the above actions, examine the original economic analysis tools used and the results to verify that the assumptions used and the results were close to actual outcomes. • Monitor your value engineering outcomes to ensure resilience actions continue to be considered accepted costs in the project design. • Periodically hold meetings with project development staff to identify any suggestions for improving how resilience concerns are considered in project development. • Update your agency’s documentation on its resilience program to highlight the successful application of resilience strategies and actions. • Provide training and professional development opportunities to your agency’s staff to learn about the latest approaches to adaptive design approaches. • Where necessary, work closely with key leaders in the legislative and executive branch of your governmental system to codify changes in procedures, institutional relationships, and other actions necessary to enable the steps to mainstream adaptive design into your agency’s standard operating procedures. If you did not score a 24 in the self-assessment (a perfect score in Level 3 efforts), identify those factors that were rated lower and identify a strategy or actions to improve the particular components of Step 8C. Recommended Actions to Achieve Higher Levels of Resilience Capability If you scored at maturity level 1 or 2, you are still evolving toward a more resilience-oriented agency. In such a case, the top managers of your agency should identify which of the factors in Table 24 were most lacking and determine priorities for undertaking detailed assessments of exposed assets and new projects. Table 25 is offered as a template to determine which actions your agency can take to improve its resilience capabilities, who should be responsible, the time- frame for implementation, and expected outcomes. Let’s do this. (check) Action Re sp on si bi lit y? Ti m ef ra m e? Ex pe ct ed ou tc om es ? Examine your current project development process from the perspective of where and how resilience concerns are incorporated into the process. To what extent would standard operating procedures have to be changed to provide a more flexible approach? Table 25. Actions to achieve a higher maturity for Step 8C: Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects. (continued on next page)

152 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide Chapter 13 Reference FHWA. 2019. Adaptation Decision-Making Assessment Process (ADAP). FHWA-HEP-17-004. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 17, 2021, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/ongoing_ and_current_research/teacr/adap/index.cfm Useful Resources Army Corps of Engineers. Institute for Water Resources. 2013. Benchmarks for Incorporating Adaptive Manage- ment into Water Project Designs, Operational Procedures, and Planning Strategies: Report I, Federal Agency Inventory of Adaptive Management Practices and Policies. Report 2013-R-11. Alexandria, VA. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/iwrreports/2013-R-11_Benchmarks_ Adaptive_Mgmt_Report_1.pdf Internally discuss and identify a funding stream to support detailed assessments that result in more resilience-oriented project development. Incorporate your resilience-oriented project development approach into your agency’s external communications strategy and plan. Meet with external partners (e.g., regional agencies, cities, and towns) to explain the approach. Possible steps for Step 4: Implement Early Wins Let’s do this. (check) Action Re sp on si bi lit y? Ti m ef ra m e? Ex pe ct ed ou tc om es ? Monitor and record stressor/hazard/threat impacts on assets and related costs as they occur. Feed this information into the project development process so that agency staff have the most up-to-date information on the likely benefits of adaptive designs. Identify staff who are capable and interested in integrating resilience into asset-specific analyses. If necessary, provide additional training to these staff members. Where appropriate, conduct pilot studies of the application of an adaptive design process to illustrate key steps and what a resilience- sensitive project will look like. Develop a menu of general adaptation and mitigation options and crosswalk these against hazards/threats and asset types to streamline choices. Work with partner agencies (e.g., resource agencies) to explain the approach your agency is taking toward adaptive design and identify any changes to existing agreements and interactions that might be necessary to implement desired changes. Monitor any activities or strategies already being implemented that may serve as future adaptation options/measures. Develop an internal communications strategy to convey to agency staff what is occurring with respect to resilience-oriented project development and how staff can contribute. Table 25. (Continued).

Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects (Step 8C) 153   FHWA. 2014a. Highways in the Coastal Environment: Assessing Extreme Events. Hydraulic Engineering Circular 25, Volume 2. Report NHI-14-006. Washington, DC. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://www.fhwa.dot. gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/nhi14006/nhi14006.pdf FHWA. 2014b. Task 3.2: Engineering Assessments of Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Measures, Volume 2. Report FHWA-HEP-15-004. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 15, 2021, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ environment/sustainability/resilience/ongoing_and_current_research/gulf_coast_study/phase2_task3/ task_3.2/task2phase3.pdf FHWA. 2016. Highways in the River Environment - Floodplains, Extreme Events, Risk, and Resilience. Highway Engineering Circular 17, 2nd ed. Report HIF-16-018. Washington, DC. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/library_arc.cfm?pub_number=16&id=162 FHWA. 2017a. Synthesis of Approaches for Addressing Resilience in Project Development. Report FHWA- HEP-17-082. Washington, DC. Retrieved June  30, 2020, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ sustainability/resilience/ongoing_and_current_research/teacr/synthesis/index.cfm FHWA. 2017b. Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework, 3rd ed. FHWA Report. FHWA-HEP-18-020 Washington, DC. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/ resilience/adaptation_framework/ FHWA. 2018. Peer Exchange Summary Report - Nature-Based Solutions for Coastal Highway Resilience. Report FHWA-HEP-18-070. Washington, DC. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ sustainability/resilience/ongoing_and_current_research/green_infrastructure/coastal_highways/fhwahep 18070.pdf FHWA. 2019. Golf Cost Study. Website. Retrieved March 28, 2021, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ sustainability/resilience/ongoing_and_current_research/gulf_coast_study/index.cfm The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Engineering Department. 2017. Architectural Design Guidelines. Reviewed/Released 2018 v1.1. New York, Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://www.panynj.gov/business- opportunities/pdf/discipline-guidelines/architecture.pdf