National Academies Press: OpenBook

Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems (2021)

Chapter: Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results

« Previous: Appendix A - Blank Survey Questionnaire
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 161
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 162
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 163
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 164
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 165
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 166
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 167
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 168
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 169
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 170
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 171
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 172
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 173
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 174
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 175
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 176
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 177
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 178
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 179
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 180
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 181
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 182
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 183
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 184
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 185
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 186
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 187
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 188
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 189
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 190
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 191
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 192
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 193
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 194
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 195
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 196
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 197
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 198
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 199
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 200
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 201
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 202
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 203
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 204
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 205
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 206
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 207
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 208
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 209
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 210
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 211
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 212
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 213
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 214
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 215
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 216
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 217
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 218
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 219
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Questions and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26330.
×
Page 220

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.

160 A P P E N D I X B Survey Questions and Results NCHRP Synthesis Project 20-05, Topic 51-10, “Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems” INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The purpose of this appendix is to present the survey questions distributed to all 50 state departments of transportation (DOTs), the District of Columbia DOT, and Puerto Rico through SurveyGizmo and to present a summary of the results. CURRENT STATUS OF FLOOD EVENT MANAGEMENT Question 1: “Has your state experienced sustained substantial infrastructure and economic damages due to flood events in the past 15 years?” Table B1. Survey response to Question 1: “Has your state experienced sustained substantial infrastructure and economic damages due to flood events in the past 15 years?” Response Response rate Yes 92% (44 DOTs) No 8% (4 DOTs) Question 2: “What types of flooding does your state experience? (check all that apply)” Figure B1. Survey response to Question 2: “What types of flooding does your state experience? (check all that apply).” 6 (13%) 24 (50%) 44 (92%) 47 (98%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Other Coastal flooding Surface/Overland flooding (e.g., due to the poor drainage) River flooding (e.g., overtopping banks) Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 48 DOTs

Survey Questions and Results 161   Table B2. Survey response to Question 2: “What types of flooding does your state experience? (check all that apply).” Other reported types of flooding. State DOT Description Alaska Frazil ice dams, breakup ice jams, jokulhlaups, and over-ice flow (winter aufeis) Florida Storm surge Nebraska Ice jam flooding, flash flooding New Hampshire Inadequate roadside drainage due to changes in adjacent land use and development Rhode Island A 500-year flood preceded by two 100-year floods Washington Stream flooding similar to river flooding Question 3: “What causes of flooding does your state experience? (check all that apply)” Figure B2. Survey response to Question 3: “What causes of flooding does your state experience? (check all that apply).” Table B3. Survey response to Question 3: “What causes of flooding does your state experience? (check all that apply).” Other reported causes of flooding. State DOT Response Alaska Frazil ice dams, breakup ice jams, jokulhlaups, and over-ice flow (winter aufeis) Missouri Major river flooding from Missouri and Mississippi Rivers Nebraska Ice jam flooding New Hampshire Inadequate drainage management on development adjacent to roadways North Carolina Riverine Utah Forest fire burn scars Washington Private ponds fail that cause downstream flooding Wisconsin Flooding due to increased water levels in Lake Michigan 8 (17%) 13 (27%) 14 (29%) 26 (54%) 28 (58%) 47 (98%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Other Flooding due to king tide events Tidal flooding due to sea level rise and/or subsidence Flooding due to snow melt Flooding due to storm surge Flooding due to heavy rain events Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 48 DOTs

162 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Question 4: “From the perspective of your office, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), is your state DOT integrated system for flood prediction and response system viewed as successful?” Table B4. Survey response to Question 4: “From the perspective of your office, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), is your state DOT integrated system for flood prediction and response system viewed as successful?” Response (1-least effective to 5-very effective) Response rate 1 2 DOTs (4%) 2 6 DOTs (13%) 3 13 DOTs (27%) 4 8 DOTs (17%) 5 4 DOTs (8%) N/A 15 DOTs (31%) Figure B3. Survey response to Question 4: “From the perspective of your office, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), is your state DOT integrated system for flood prediction and response system viewed as successful?” Question 5: “What plans or initiatives have contributed to the successful integrated system? Please describe some of the details or provide an informative link in the space provided below.” Table B5. Survey response to Question 5: “What plans or initiatives have contributed to the successful integrated system? Please describe some of the details or provide an informative link in the space provided below.” State DOT Response California We use in-house monitoring system for rainfall, flash floods, etc. We also have some instrumentation on bridges. Delaware https://deldot.gov/Publications/brochures/pdfs/ITMS/ITMSInfoSeriesFlyer-FloodMonitoring.pdf Georgia BridgeWatch—flood monitoring website USGS rapid deployment gages Idaho Idaho Transportation Department scour committee that includes a multidisciplinary team to evaluate bridge to be monitored on our Bridge when infrastructure could be impacted by flooding. Watch system. Illinois Extensive USGS gage system, BridgeWatch Iowa Use of the BridgeWatch program to monitor real-time rainfall and USGS gages to provide alerts 2 (8%) 4 (16%) 6 (24%) 8 (32%) 13 (52%) 15 (60%) 1 5 2 4 3 N/A 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 48 DOTs

Survey Questions and Results 163   Kansas We monitor NWS information/warnings and USGS streamflow gage data regularly. Our field personnel and bridge inspectors respond quickly to events. Louisiana We have an excellent emergency plan and management that we put into place. We conduct exercises and work to always improve our response. Maine Biggest effort is for snowmelt season. Coordinated effort with many state, federal, and county agencies, as well as private hydro. https://www.maine.gov/rfac/ Nebraska Nebraska DOT doesn’t have an “integrated” system. We use information from the weather service, stream gage data, and direct information from district personnel. Nevada Nevada DOT (NDOT) partners with USGS to fund stream gages to expand the network and have greater predictability of flooding events. NDOT partners with local regional flood control districts to identify projects that have multi-agency benefit and can be integrated into transportation projects. NDOT Hydraulic Division and Maintenance forces monitor the National Weather Service website and the California Nevada River Forecast Center (using USGS data) to determine when and where NDOT maintenance forces are the most needed during an event. New Hampshire WebEOC Incident Management managed by Homeland Security and Emergency Management, NH Silver Jackets, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Dam Bureau Operations Section, the Transportation Management Center under the New Hampshire DOT Operations Division & Bridge inspection/monitoring during flood events https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/hsem/ https://silverjackets.nfrmp.us/State-Teams/New-Hampshire https://www.nhtmc.com/current_weather.html http://www4.des.state.nh.us/Rti_home/ New Jersey None. We do not have an “integrated” system. Our process is two separate components. Items that have contributed to our success for predication is the National Weather Service– riverine gage readings and coastal forecasting. Additionally, we have long-serving operations personnel who know the locations that historically flood. New York We have the Statewide Transportation Information and Coordination Center (STICC) watching for weather events and preparing responses to weather events. When upcoming events are anticipated, people are deployed to address the situation. Others are on call if needed. North Carolina North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) Infrastructure Flood Data: Road flooding from storm surge: These data layers have been developed using road LiDAR elevations and the predicted surge from Coastal Emergency Risks Assessment (CERA). The data layers show the predicted amount of water over the roadway based on the identified National Hurricane Center storm track. If the actual storm track changes from the predicted, values will change. This data set is for NCDOT use ONLY. Flood Inundation Mapping and Alert Network for Transportation (FIMAN-T): FIMAN-T is a web-based tool used to provide NCDOT officials and other emergency stakeholders with real- time and forecasted flood inundation depths along roads, bridges, and other NCDOT assets. Currently, the FIMAN-T Pilot Project monitors gages along the Neuse River Basin between Clayton and New Bern. The program takes gage readings every 15 minutes to provide data on the impacts to roads, bridges, and other assets and displays real-time flooding extents and impacts. Based on forecasts from the National Weather Service, FIMAN-T allows impacts to be visualized at the predicted peak flooding, which is useful for planning purposes. There are plans to expand the pilot application to other river basins and enhance the web application to meet NCDOT needs. Password: NCDOT2019 Instructions for FIMAN-T Flood Inundation Mapping and Alert Network (FIMAN): This website provides real-time data on stream elevation, rainfall, and weather parameters from over 550 gages across North Carolina. Some sites may be rain or stage gages only, while some may have weather data available. Many of these gages are managed by the Division of Emergency Management, while others are operated by local government agencies and private organizations. Additionally, gages from the U.S. Geological Survey are included in this network. This website also contains inundation maps at selected sites across the state, as well as along entire river basins. Flooding risk information is provided for areas with inundation maps. For each incremental rise in flood waters, buildings, roads, and infrastructure that would be impacted are identified. Information on water depth in each building affected along with estimated damage costs is displayed. Multi-Frequency Flood Studies Road Inundation Mapping (East of 95): Identification of road flooding areas based on flood study areas provided by Emergency Management. Rainfall frequency event may be correlated with the flow frequency to provide information on flood-

164 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems vulnerable roads. Data may be used by department to stage equipment and plan detours. Team partners include Wood and GIS Unit; 38 eastern counties and evacuation routes. Username: mslauffer1 Password: ncdot123 NCDOT bridge span vulnerability: Identification of NCDOT bridge spans that are vulnerable to surge and wave forces. The data provide CERA forecast data and allow users to look at vulnerable bridges and spans and print out reports. The Hydraulics Unit and Structures Management Unit completed a Level Three Wave Analysis on the North Carolina Coast to identify bridge span arrangements that were vulnerable to surge height and wave forces. This application identifies vulnerable bridge spans based on information from CERA. Team partners include Wood and GIS Unit. Instructions are in the application and located here. Hurricane Briefs: Latest Hurricane Dorian Brief NWS—WFO—Newport/Morehead City, NC Emergency Management Flood Briefs SERT Briefs Hurricane tracking: nowCOAST: NOAA’s Web Mapping Portal to Real-Time Coastal Observations, Forecasts, and Warnings National Hurricane Center WRAL-Weather Surge data: P-Surge 2.6 CERA CO-OPS Map—NOAA Tides & Currents CORMP | Coastal Ocean Research and Monitoring Program Rainfall data: Weather Prediction Center Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts—Day 1 Weather Prediction Center home page NWS Weather and Hazards Data Viewer River forecast: Meteorological Model Ensemble River Forecasts Southeast River Forecast Center Ohio We have a strong relationship with the National Weather Service and a paid weather forecasting service. We also have an emergency management center that coordinates efforts. Oklahoma Our communications and cross-over people with Office of Emergency Management, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and cooperative gages with USGS. We also have an extensive Mesonet system of precipitation stations monitored by NOAA. Pennsylvania PennDOT’s data and information: https://pdprgisweb.penndot.gov/pdi/index.html South Carolina To have a successful integrated system you need pre-storm planning, documenting of institutional knowledge from previous events, meetings that include all parts of the DOT involved in pre/during/post response, improved communication between DOT units, communication with other state agencies, communication with federal agencies, keep dedicated employees, and the ability to quickly understand information and apply it. Expand use of rapid deployment gages (RDGs), USGS Gaging System, BridgeWatch, USGS river cams, traffic cams https://www.scdot.org/travel/travel-emergencyresponse.aspx https://www.scdot.org/travel/travel-trafficdata.aspx https://scemd.org/ Texas Texas DOT (TxDOT) is currently working on improving the National Water Model with research on the densification of the gage network. Utah We use Utah DOT application on phones to warn of flooding on the roads. Vermont Training and knowledge of existing systems. We have a few gage height predictions and inundation maps, but the general understanding and knowledge of these simple tools go a long way in being prepared. Washington Washington State DOT (WSDOT) Office of Emergency Management <EmergencyMgtOffice@WSDOT.WA.GOV> is tied to the NOAA gages to predict flood peaks. An email distribution is sent internally. West Virginia Frequent progress meetings with field offices, constant communication with traffic management and field offices, as well as other agencies Wisconsin Command Structure Emergency Transportation Operations Plan

Survey Questions and Results 165   Figure B4. Survey response to Question 6: “What are observed benefits of your successful integrated system? (check all that apply). Question 7: “What are the top three lessons learned from your state’s flooding (and other events) over the past 15 years? Are there any recommendations from those lessons that have been implemented?” Table B6. Survey response to Question 7: “What are the top three lessons learned from your state’s flooding (and other events) over the past 15 years? Are there any recommendations from those lessons that have been implemented?” DOT Response Alaska 1. It is helpful to have collaborations in place between state and federal agencies to share information and on-site observations, and to offer assistance where needed. I consider USGS and NOAA-NWS to be key federal partners to the state during flood events. 2. It is helpful to have capable Maintenance & Operations crews who are able to quickly respond to emergencies. Alaska does; though budget constraints have required recent reductions in Management & Operations camps. 3. It is helpful to have publicly available flood and hazard forecasting information. The Alaska Pacific River Forecast Center (NOAA) is a prime example. See https://www.weather.gov/aprfc/. Arizona - Not enough vents in sewer systems; highways can flood due to being unable to enter. - Some bridge foundation types can cause public alarm from being partially exposed from scour despite still being safe. - Waterway capacity issues at some locations, high flood volumes. California 1. Communication with Maintenance personnel. 2. Being informed of weather systems across the state. 3. Plan proactively. Connecticut 1. Need to be more proactive, rather than mainly reactionary. 2. Conduct vulnerability assessments and identify areas of chronic flooding. 3. Coordination of personnel for emergency response and recovery after the event. Delaware Not every coastal roadway needs to be elevated immediately. Armoring of the roadway using a combination of dune wash-over and sheet piling was successful. Waze is effective in notifying drivers. Total Number of DOT Responses: N = 25 1 (4%) 8 (32%) 9 (36%) 10 (40%) 12 (48%) 17 (68%) 17 (68%) 21 (84%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Does not have an integrated system Enhanced common database Better understanding of the performance of flood conveyance systems Reduction in economic loss (e.g., reduced infrastructure repair and maintenance cost) Positive public feedback/trust (e.g., enhanced reliability on the state DOT issued warning, etc.) Improved and reliable relationship within state DOT offices Streamlined and collaborative inter-agencies communication Overall safety enhancement (e.g., reduction in death toll due to flood events, decreased crash frequency during heavy rain season, etc.) Number of DOTs: Question 6: “What are observed benefits of your successful integrated system? (check all that apply)”

166 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems District of Columbia 1. Lack of streamlined communication system for flood prediction. 2. Lack of integrated effort by various agencies. 3. Absence of overarching response framework and detail agency-specific response plans. In an ultra-urban setting like Washington, many agencies have jurisdiction over various issues and property limits. It is essential that a comprehensive and coordinated preparedness, response, and communication plan framework is created. Preparation of this framework plan should involve all stakeholders who in return should prepare their detailed plans coherent to the integrated framework. Georgia Needed quicker access to existing bridge plans Hawaii 1. Debris is a major problem in terms of capacity. Hawaii DOT (HDOT) may clean areas within our jurisdiction, but debris comes from off-site properties. HDOT will try to incorporate freeboard into the design, but this is not always possible. Idaho - The BridgeWatch system needs to be updated to match with observed high flow events. - Use of deep foundations for bridges. Illinois 1. Bridges on the state system that are in pressure flow can produce more adverse scour impacts. 2. Combination of contraction and abutment scour can produce deep scour holes. 3. We have found that once we have installed a countermeasure after an adverse scour event, we typically do not have to reinstall over the life of the bridge. Indiana Debris removal from roadway medians keeps inlets unclogged and roadways open. We have put a robust trash removal program in place. Iowa Developed Flooding Standard Operation Plan. Foster communication between districts and central staff to share information regarding flood projections, conditions on the ground and resources available for mitigation traffic issues. Kansas Communication between agencies and within agencies is important. Preparation and planning for such events is beneficial. Experienced staff is important. Louisiana 1. Having a good plan in place is critical. 2. Practicing and planning for events help keep our efforts current. Unfortunately, we have had several events so practicing has been reality. 3. We have found new techniques for flood fighting that have been successful. Maine No catastrophic events in past 15 years; lost a couple of bridges in Hurricane Irene; also 2007/2008. Lessons: capacity and scour Maryland Urbanization and lack of stormwater management contributes to more frequent flooding of heavily developed watersheds. High-intensity short-duration storms are most frequent and most damaging. Rapidly aging drainage infrastructure greatly contributes to flooding and degradation of urban streams. Drainage and Stormwater Assets Program has been implemented to proactively address deficiencies. Massachusetts Where flooding can occur. Response times needed for repairing infrastructure. The extent to where damage can occur. Michigan 1. Our infrastructure is old and in need of repair. 2. Old infrastructure is not sized to today’s standards. 3. We need more funding to address 1 and 2. Minnesota Plan and predict, be proactive vs. responsive. Gages are very important to forecast potential issues; infrastructure needs to be in place. Knowledgeable monitoring staff, have people who are aware of potential issues. Recommend partnerships with other agencies, e.g., locals, NWS, NOAA, USGS. Mississippi You can’t be overprepared. Missouri 1. There is a lack of infrastructure to assist with flood status awareness. 2. Weather patterns are becoming more severe and more frequent, requiring new approaches to managing flood response. 3. There is a need to identify repeated damage locations and improve resilience. Montana Permitting takes longer than you think for larger repairs, so take the time needed for survey and design. Nebraska The time it takes to complete FHWA’s Detailed Damage Inspection Reports (DDIRs) is timely and the process to receive federal moneys back for reimbursement is longer than anticipated. The lesson learned was that if we had an event similar to our March 2019 event, then we would contract out consultants to perform that work. For locations along highways where it was apparent, add or upsize a culvert, or to make the betterment at that location, then we should do so. Federal money only covers the cost of replacing infrastructure and restoring original condition. Working through DDIRs, repairs were classified as emergency or permanent repairs. The second lesson is to document communication with FHWA in writing of the decisions that were made. Emergency is defined in FHWA’s Emergency Repair Manual. Looking back after the process, we need to get emergency and urgent permanent repairs approved by FHWA and in writing, so that reimbursements will be made as discussed. Because the March 2019 flood was so large, there were so many people involved and plans changed by the hour.

Survey Questions and Results 167   The third lesson learned was related to communication, and the GIS tool that was developed from the March 2019 event that helped assist with communication among Nebraska DOT. Communication is key to successfully determining where the sites are and the extent of the damage. A GIS website application was developed in order to track where the sites were and what the DDIR site number was named. Other information was included in the site as well that made it helpful for personnel across the state to see where the sites were. Even though there are things that we can do better, Nebraska DOT worked well as a team in many aspects and was able to bounce back from this disaster. It was absolutely amazing how many people wanted to help restore essential traffic back to the public. Lesson learned are that we would contract out work to consultants because it was difficult to maintain normal duties on top of completing DDIRs. When the event happened, there were multiple databases being updated between different managers—the lesson here is that one database should be used. Nevada Potential flooding/routing impacts from development must undergo more thorough evaluation than has occurred in the past. Collaboration with local entities for planning and construction of flood control measures ensures the most benefit for fiscal investment, as well as design considerations from multiple viewpoints. And finally, Special Flood Hazard Areas need to be reevaluated with more accurate methodologies and topographic data to better represent actual flood events. New Hampshire 1. Temporary repairs instead of providing final reconstruction as part of the damage mitigation to transportation infrastructure will typically lead to more costly project development, rework, and increase the duration of decreased mobility and safety and strain the limited resources for design, permitting, and construction. 2. Inter-agency coordination and streamlining through pre-emergency planning by DOT and resource agencies in conjunction with incident management are effective. 3. Resilient design methods will require continued development and new guidance documents. Hardening roadway infrastructure and accepting periodic roadway or lane closures may be a more cost-effective option to making geometric changes. However, this will require public support and acceptance of travel delays. New Jersey 1. We need a better, real-time predictive system for flooding to be able to automatically communicate alerts to appropriate personnel. 2. Advanced messaging to the public increases safety, trust, and goodwill. 3. Not enough resources to prevent flooding in certain areas. New Mexico New Mexico DOT doesn’t have a statewide flood event management system. Highway operations and maintenance are handled in the six districts, and each probably has some protocol for preparing for and responding to extreme weather events, but the DOT does not have any kind of flood prediction/warning/monitoring system in place at this time. Occasionally, the Drainage Bureau is asked to do some “forensic” hydrology in response to significant flood events. New York 1. Flooding is occurring more often. 2. Flooding is more severe. 3. Mitigation techniques are useful and important. North Carolina 1. Communication 2. Partnership 3. Plan North Dakota Flooding will occur. Knowledge of previous flood events help us gage new events. Certain roadways are more impacted than others. Due to this, roadways have been raised in some areas to prevent over-topping. Detour routes are mapped for known problem areas. Ohio Communications with other agencies are important. Oklahoma Forewarning of highway closures prior to overtopping and resilience. Oregon Need dedicated communications coordinator. Need rapid information upload and organization tool (photos, reports, etc.) for quick sharing. Need better interaction with local county emergency response, protocols for interactions. Pennsylvania The climate is changing. Events are of increasing magnitude and frequency. New design guidance is needed to ensure the resiliency of the department’s assets. Implemented lessons learned. Completed an extreme weather vulnerability study. Created a task force for extreme weather and resiliency. In process of performing a Global Climate Study. Developing enhancements to existing systems. Rhode Island 1. Watch the flood forecasts—we do watch the forecasts. 2. Flooding occurred from a dam failure. Department of Environmental Management is implementing more stringent dam restrictions.

168 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems 3. Better modeling was necessary for one of our largest rivers. Rhode Island DOT and Community Development Block Grant funding have been utilized to obtain better flood predictions. South Carolina 1. Preparation helps to get everyone on the same page and operating in disaster mode. 2. Know where to find data and forecast from federal and state agencies online. 3. Good communication within the agency and with federal and state partners is a necessity. South Dakota 1. Having a defined scour inspection process during flood events is very beneficial during the event. 2. Relationships with locals is key to coordination. 3. Road reporting system needs to be improved to better communicate impacts of flooding. Texas One of the most difficult decisions to make during a flood for any DOT is when to close and reopen a roadway like I-10. I-10 has been shut down during three different flood events since 2015. An accurate forecasting/early warning system is needed. TxDOT will continue to work toward a reliable statewide system. Early preparedness and knowledge of where to stage equipment and material are also very important before an event occurs. Providing information on road closure is also a challenge. Utah 1. Need to forecast better. 2. How do we prevent the debris flows. 3. Preventing culverts from getting clogged. Vermont Stress-test any system or procedure. You can never expect a new/untested system to perform right out of the box. Even proven strategies like “Incident Command System” need practice. Washington Aging infrastructure, climate change DOES have an effect; lots of data collection; and there is a need for a common database. West Virginia 1. Training and refreshers for emergency response 2. Continually updating protocol, manuals, etc. 3. Documentation (pictures, invoices, time sheets) Wisconsin Use of dams to manage water levels along the Wisconsin River NOAA Flood webpage Predictive flow and water level models based on snow cover, soil saturation, and precipitation NWS.

Survey Questions and Results 169   FLOOD MONITORING Question 8: “Which state DOT office(s) is(are) currently responsible for flood monitoring? (check all that apply)” Figure B5. Survey response to Question 8: “Which state DOT office(s) is(are) currently responsible for flood monitoring? (check all that apply).” Table B7. Survey response to Question 8: “Which state DOT office(s) is(are) currently responsible for flood monitoring? (check all that apply).” Other reported State DOT offices currently responsible for flood monitoring. State DOT Response Connecticut Construction Delaware Traffic Management Center Kentucky Division of Water Nevada Done by agency that has jurisdiction over the area where flooding occurs Oklahoma Waterways Office South Carolina Construction, County Offices, Upper Management Utah Road Weather Information System 1 (2%) 3 (6%) 3 (6%) 4 (8%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 7 (15%) 8 (17%) 9 (19%) 9 (19%) 10 (21%) 11 (23%) 16 (33%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Research office staff Consultants contracted to flood monitoring and deliver to DOT office Planning and/or Programming office staff Bridge Division National Weather Service Our state does NOT monitor flooding at all Other Emergency Management Maintenance Operations Local/District Office Asset management office staff Hydraulics/Hydrology office staff Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 48 DOTs

170 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Question 9: “What is the title of the office or staff member that oversees the flood monitoring? Please provide a link to the website, if available.” Table B8. Survey response to Question 9: “What is the title of the office or staff member that oversees the flood monitoring? Please provide a link to the website, if available.” State DOT Response Alaska This is not a centralized endeavor alone. When large floods occur, a lot of people from a variety of state departments monitor the situation. (The Statewide Bridge Section monitors select sites for bridge scour. I can provide that website, if desired.) Arkansas Maintenance Division California SM&I Hydraulics Colorado Office of Emergency Management Lead Connecticut Joint effort of all above Delaware Transportation Management Center Operations Manager Georgia State Maintenance Engineer Hawaii District Engineer Idaho Bridge Asset Management Tech Engineer Illinois Bureau of Bridges and Structures Bridge Management Unit Indiana Bridge Inspectors Iowa Dave Claman, Preliminary Bridge Supervisor Kansas Statewide: offices monitor their areas Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Emergency Operations Maine Director of Bridge Maintenance Massachusetts State Emergency Management/FEMA Minnesota State Waterway Engineer, Solomon Woldeamlak http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bridge/hydraulics/contacts.html Missouri Emergency Management Unit Nebraska Operations Division Manager Nevada Nevada DOT oversees flood recording on NDOT right-of-way for the purposes of mitigation with future projects. New Hampshire New Hampshire DOT Operations Highway maintenance or Bridge maintenance staff are generally the ones who identify and keep track of flooding events. New York We have a Hydraulic Engineer in each of our 11 regions that monitor their region. They also report information to the Main Office in Albany. North Carolina Matt Lauffer, North Carolina DOT; Tom Langan, North Carolina Emergency Management North Dakota State Maintenance Engineer Ohio https://www.dtn.com/. Leslie Prater is our staff person. Oklahoma Too many to list. Pennsylvania Rich Runyen, Internal system; no link available to public. Rhode Island Managing Engineer and Environmental Scientist South Carolina Hydraulic Design Support Texas 25 District Offices Utah Utah DOT Weather Department Vermont No. 1 person in charge Washington WSDOT Office of Emergency Management < EmergencyMgtOffice@WSDOT.WA.GOV> West Virginia Kathy Bowe, Disaster Coordinator Wisconsin Regional Incident Management Coordinator/Duty Officer/Maintenance Engineer

Survey Questions and Results 171   Question 10: “What methods/practices does your state DOT apply for flood monitoring? (check all that apply)” Figure B6. Survey response to Question 10: “What methods/practices does your state DOT apply for flood monitoring? (check all that apply).” Table B9. Survey response to Question 10: “What methods/practices does your state DOT apply for flood monitoring? (check all that apply).” Provided links to dynamic flood inundation map. State DOT Dynamic flood inundation map State model Alaska Through the Silver Jackets Program, Alaska has seen some flood inundation mapping efforts in a few communities (Juneau, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, maybe others) Delaware Delaware Coastal Flood Monitoring System (http://coastal- flood.udel.edu/) Idaho BridgeWatch Louisiana Use NOAA and USGS data North Carolina Google FIMAN NC Ohio DTN website (https://www.dtn.com/) Oklahoma Produced inundation maps this year with USACE; no link Pennsylvania Internal system South Carolina South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) will have a website in December 2020. Table B10. Survey response to Question 10: “What methods/practices does your state DOT apply for flood monitoring? (check all that apply).” Other reported methods/practices state DOT applies for flood monitoring. State DOT Response Arizona, Colorado, Oregon Not applicable/unsure California California Nevada River Forecast Center Connecticut News reports Minnesota Field monitoring Nebraska Nebraska Emergency Management Agency New Hampshire Operations Division monitoring and response New York Maintenance engineers watching hydraulically vulnerable bridges North Carolina Southeast River Forecast Center, multi-sensor precipitation estimates Pennsylvania Internal systems South Carolina Similar event data, Coastal Emergency Risks Assessment, river cams 3 (7%) 3 (7%) 4 (9%) 6 (14%) 8 (19%) 8 (19%) 12 (28%) 24 (56%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 USGS, USGS gages State Model BridgeWatch National Water Model NWS Dynamic Flood Inundation Map Other National Water Information System Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 43 DOTs

172 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Question 11: “What instrument/tools does your state DOT use for flood monitoring? (check all that apply)” Figure B7. Survey response to Question 11: “What instrument/tools does your state DOT use for flood monitoring? (check all that apply).” Table B11. Survey response to Question 11: “What instrument/tools does your state DOT use for flood monitoring? (check all that apply).” Other reported instrument/tools state DOT uses for flood monitoring. State DOT Response Alaska Local reports, local observations, satellite data Colorado None of the above Connecticut BridgeWatch Hawaii National Weather Service Massachusetts Tide gages Minnesota Flights Mississippi Information from local DOT maintenance personnel Nebraska Nebraska DOT cameras Ohio DNT website (www.dtn.com) Oklahoma Mesonet Oregon Preventative, used in design not during a flooding event Pennsylvania Internal systems South Carolina On-site measurements, RDGs, river cams, BridgeWatch, on- site pictures Wisconsin GIS Division of State Patrol 8 (19%) 11 (26%) 11 (26%) 14 (33%) 14 (33%) 16 (37%) 17 (40%) 21 (49%) 25 (58%) 41 (95%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 UAV/UAS Remotely sensed data Video Rain gages (non-federal) Other Radar Geographic Information system (GIS) Stream gages (non-federal) Rain gages (federal) Stream gages (federal) Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 43 DOTs

Survey Questions and Results 173   Question 12: “What type (format) of data is collected to support flood monitoring? (check all that apply)” Figure B8. Survey response to Question 12: “What type (format) of data is collected to support flood monitoring? (check all that apply).” Table B12. Survey response to Question 12: “What type (format) of data is collected to support flood monitoring? (check all that apply).” Other reported types (formats) of data collected to support flood monitoring. State DOT Response Alaska Airborne survey methods (e.g., structure-from-motion) Colorado State DOT does not have function but state agency Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) might per survey respondent. Connecticut BridgeWatch alerts, high-water marks, rainfall amount- distribution-duration Kentucky Reports Nebraska Social media North Dakota Data are monitored, not recorded Oklahoma USGS field measurements Pennsylvania Internal systems 8 (19%) 8 (19%) 17 (40%) 22 51%) 24 (56%) 26 (60%) 28 (65%) 30 (70%) 31 (72%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Other LiDAR data Citizen reports Bridge scour Videos Emergency services reports Images Staff reports Gage data/point data Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 43 DOTs

174 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Question 13: “How is flood data logged/stored? (check all that apply)” Figure B9. Survey response to Question 13: “How is flood data logged/stored? (check all that apply).” Table B13. Survey response to Question 13: “How is flood data logged/stored? (check all that apply).” Other reported ways flood data are logged/stored. State DOT Response Alaska On bridge and culvert plans Connecticut BridgeWatch logs alert data in system accessible to department personnel, proposed integrated database to be developed in the future Delaware, Michigan Unsure Hawaii On reports from bridge inspections Massachusetts State Emergency Management Minnesota Database in development New Hampshire Operations servers Ohio Enterprise Information Management System Oregon No dedicated system; shared as needed Pennsylvania Paper files South Dakota Local electronic files 2 (5%) 3 (8%) 5 (13%) 7 (18%) 9 (23%) 11 (28%) 12 (30%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 In an integrated structured database Multiple locations/databases Not stored In a database shared between other state and/or federal agencies In a single repository, unshared In a database shared between state DOT divisions and offices Other Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 40 DOTs

Survey Questions and Results 175   Question 14: “How is flood data shared across federal, state, and local organizations? (check all that apply)” Figure B10. Survey response to Question 14: “How is flood data shared across federal, state, and local organizations? (check all that apply).” Table B14. Survey response to Question 14: “How is flood data shared across federal, state, and local organizations? (check all that apply).” Other reported ways flood data are shared across federal, state, and local organizations. State DOT Response Alaska Orally, National Water Information System, Alaska-Pacific River Forecast Center Colorado No data is collected Nebraska File Transfer Protocol sites Nevada Shared as projects are initiated Texas DriveTexas (DriveTexas.org) Question 15: “Is there a public website to view your state’s flood monitoring data?” Table B15. Survey response to Question 15: “Is there a public website to view your state’s flood monitoring data?” Response Response rate No 26 DOTs (65%) Yes 14 DOTs (35%) Table B16. Survey response to Question 15: “Is there a public website to view your state’s flood monitoring data?” Reported links to public websites to view flood monitoring data. State DOT Response Arizona NOAA website Colorado Colorado Hazard Mapping & Risk MAP Portal (coloradohazardmapping.com) Delaware DelDOT MAPS (http://deldot.gov/map/index.shtml)* Illinois USGS Current Water Data for Illinois (https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/il/nwis/rt) Indiana USGS gage data Louisiana Our 511 site as it applies to road closures (https://www.511la.org/)* Nebraska Nebraska 511—Traveler Information (https://www.511.nebraska.gov/)* North Carolina FIMAN North Carolina North Dakota ND Response (https://ndresponse.gov/) 2 (5%) 3 (8%) 4 (10%) 5 (13%) 6 (15%) 8 (21%) 13 (33%) 19 (49%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Better system needed Shared if requested Intranet platform Other Reporting through transcripts Online platform (please provide the website link) Data is not shared Email Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 39 DOTs

176 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Rhode Island NWS Weather Forecast (https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?CityName=Warwick&state=RI&site=BOX&lat=41.7022 &lon=-71.4219#.XlXFKKFYZpc) Texas DriveTexas (DriveTexas.org)* Washington Flicker for photos West Virginia West Virginia 511 (wv511.org)* *Website managed by state DOT. Question 16: “Is this website managed by the DOT?” Table B17. Survey response to Question 16: “Is this website managed by the DOT?” Response Response rate No 8 DOTs (62%) Yes 5 DOTs (38%) Question 17: Does your agency provide public access to the guidelines on flood monitoring? Table B18. Survey response to Question 17: “Does your agency provide public access to the guidelines on flood monitoring?” Response Response rate No 35 DOTs (90%) Yes 4 DOTs (10%) Table B19. Survey response to Question 17: “Does your agency provide public access to the guidelines on flood monitoring?” Reported links to access public guidelines on flood monitoring. State DOT Response Alaska No policy or procedure exists to cover all flood risks and scenarios; however, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has an “Incident Field Operations Guide” publication that attempts to cover multiple hazards, not just flooding. Minnesota Minnesota DOT Hydraulics (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bridge/hydraulics/scour.html) Pennsylvania Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) Publications: Pub 238 and Pub 23 Texas TxDOT Inclement Weather (https://www.txdot.gov/driver/weather.html) Question 18: “Is the flood monitoring program assessed relative to its performance and accuracy?” Table B20. Survey response to Question 18: “Is the flood monitoring program assessed relative to its performance and accuracy?” Response Response rate No 35 DOTs (85%) Yes 6 DOTs (15%)

Survey Questions and Results 177   Question 19: “How is the success of the monitoring program assessed?” Figure B11. Survey response to Question 19: “How is the success of the monitoring program assessed?” Question 20: “How often is the instrument/tool assessed?” Table B21. Survey response to Question 20: “How often is the instrument/tool assessed?” Frequency Response rate Every __ years 2 DOTs (40%) Every __ major storm 3 DOTs (60%) Table B22. Survey response to Question 20: “How often is the instrument/tool assessed?” Reported details on assessment period in years. State DOT Every __ years New York Periodically when observations are made that need to be addressed North Carolina Just started Table B23. Survey response to Question 20: “How often is the instrument/tool assessed?” Reported details on assessment period in major storms. State DOT Every __ major storm Pennsylvania Whenever a post-flood inspection is required Question 21: “Are the assessment reports available?” Table B24. Survey response to Question 21: “Are the assessment reports available?” Response Response rate No 5 DOTs (100%) Yes 0 DOTs (0%) 1 (17%) 3 (50%) 4 (67%) 0 1 2 3 4 N/A User feedback Observation Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 6 DOTs

178 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Question 22: “From the perspective of your office, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), is your state’s flood monitoring program viewed as successful?” Table B25. Survey response to Question 22: “From the perspective of your office, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), is your state’s flood monitoring program viewed as successful?” Response (1-least effective to 5-very effective) Response rate 1 1 DOT (2%) 2 6 DOTs (14%) 3 17 DOTs (40%) 4 8 DOTs (19%) 5 5 DOTs (12%) N/A 5 DOTs (12%) Figure B12. Survey response to Question 22: “From the perspective of your office, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), is your state’s flood monitoring program viewed as successful?” 1 (2%) 5 (12%) 5 (12%) 6 (14%) 8 (19%) 17 (41%) 1 5 N/A 2 4 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 41 DOTs

Survey Questions and Results 179   Question 23: “What are some observed benefits with your flood monitoring system? (check all that apply)” Figure B13. Survey response to Question 23: “What are some observed benefits with your flood monitoring system? (check all that apply).” Table B26. Survey response to Question 23: “What are some observed benefits with your flood monitoring system? (check all that apply)” Other reported observed benefits with flood monitoring system. State DOT Response Connecticut Maintaining flood history for future events. Iowa Better traffic management. Nebraska Improved response to roadway overtopping. New Hampshire We don’t have a dedicated “system” that I am aware of. Ohio We are able to track flooding and what efforts need to be applied to resolve issues. Oregon N/A: Flood monitoring is reactive, through Maintenance coordinated with headquarters, with Geo/Hydro/Structure professionals assisting. South Carolina Better communication. Question 24: “What are some challenges/weaknesses in implementing a successful flood monitoring system? (check all that apply)” 7 (23%) 12 (40%) 17 (57%) 20 (67%) 23 (77%) 23 (77%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Other Improved emergency evacuation Improved understanding of system performance Improved emergency planning Improved understanding of maintenance needs Improved emergency response Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 30 DOTs 4 (9%) 13 (28%) 14 (30%) 16 (35%) 17 (37%) 18 (39%) 19 (41%) 20 (43%) 28 (61%) 41 (89%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Other Data timeliness Data accessibility Data format consistency Data completeness (contents) Data accuracy Technical Expertise Local Resources (staffing, funding, turnover, etc.) Data coverage (e.g. lack of stream gages) State Resources (staffing, funding, turnover, etc.) Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 46 DOTs Figure B14. Survey response to Question 24: “What are some challenges/weaknesses in implementing a successful flood monitoring system? (check all that apply).”

180 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Table B27. Survey response to Question 24: “What are some challenges/weaknesses in implementing a successful flood monitoring system? (check all that apply).” Other reported challenges/weaknesses in implementing a successful flood monitoring system. State DOT Response Colorado State DOT does not have function but state agency CWCB might per survey respondent. Maine It is a “manual” system, relies on an individual. Massachusetts Ensuring local awareness of dangers. Oregon Not applicable. Question 25: “Approximately what percentage of the streams crossing roads are equipped with the gages?” Table B28. Survey response to Question 25: “Approximately what percentage of the streams crossing roads are equipped with the gages?” Response Response rate Less than 10% 37 DOTs (80%) 10%–25% 6 DOTs (13%) 50%–75% 2 DOTs (4%) 25%–50% 1 DOT (2%) More than 75% 0 DOTs Question 26: “How are the roadway segments assessed after a flood event? (check all that apply)” Figure B15. Survey response to Question 26: “How are the roadway segments assessed after a flood event? (check all that apply).” Table B29. Survey response to Question 26: “How are the roadway segments assessed after a flood event? (check all that apply).” Other reported methods for roadway assessment after a flood. State DOT Response Florida Flooding can not only cause significant damage to roadway assets but also pose a safety threat to the road users. Thereby, flooded pavements are closed to traffic to restrict further deterioration of pavements and to ensure safety of the traveling public. Oregon N/A; regarding question 19 above, gages do exist and are used within the basin/watershed at ~90%. Washington Maintenance staff. 2 (4%) 3 (6%) 5 (11%) 7 (15%) 8 (17%) 18 (38%) 22 (47%) 47 (100%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 UAV/Drone Other Satellite image comparison LiDAR GIS External agency reporting Public reporting Visual inspection Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 47 DOTs

Survey Questions and Results 181   Question 27: “How are the bridges assessed after a flood event?” Figure B16. Survey response to Question 27: “How are the bridges assessed after a flood event?” Table B30. Survey response to Question 27: “How are the bridges assessed after a flood event? Other reported methods for bridge assessment after a flood.” Other reported ways bridges assessed after a flood event. State DOT Response Missouri Sonar Nebraska Drone footage Washington Bridge inspectors 3 (6%) 4 (9%) 4 (9%) 6 (13%) 14 (30%) 15 (32%) 31 (66%) 47 (100%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Other (sonar, drone footage, bridge inspectors) Satellite image comparison LiDAR GIS Public reporting External agency reporting Bridge scour Visual inspection Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 47 DOTs

182 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Figure B17. Survey response to Question 28: “Which State DOT office(s) is(are) currently responsible for flood prediction? (check all that apply).” Table B31. Survey response to Question 28: “Which State DOT office(s) is(are) currently responsible for flood prediction? (check all that apply).” Other reported state DOT offices currently responsible for flood prediction. State DOT Response Alaska Consultants providing design support for projects involving hydraulic structures Colorado, Kentucky, Nevada, Vermont None Delaware University of Delaware Hawaii HDOT specifies design storm criteria for roadways and bridges/culverts Utah Weather Department 1 (2%) 3 (6%) 3 (6%) 3 (6%) 4 (8%) 4 (8%) 8 (17%) 18 (38%) 18 (38%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Research office staff Asset management office staff Bridge Section Operations Division Consultants contracted to flood prediction and deliver to DOT office Emergency Management and Maintenance Other Hydraulics/Hydrology office staff Our state does NOT perform flood prediction/modeling at all Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 48 DOTs FLOOD PREDICTION/MODELING Question 28: “Which state DOT office(s) is(are) currently responsible for flood prediction? (check all that apply)”

Survey Questions and Results 183   Question 29: “What is the title of the office or staff member that oversees the flood prediction? Please provide a link to the website, if available.” Table B32. Survey response to Question 29: “What is the title of the office or staff member that oversees the flood prediction? Please provide a link to the website, if available.” State DOT Office or staff member title Link to website Alaska Hydraulics Engineers and Hydrologists Arizona Hydraulics Engineer Colorado Colorado Water Conservation Board Delaware http://coastal- flood.udel.edu/about/ Hawaii Hydraulic Design Engineer Idaho Bridge Division Illinois Hydraulics Unit Chief Iowa Dave Claman, Preliminary Bridge Supervisor Maryland Office of Highway Development Highway Hydraulics Division, Office of Structures—Bridge Hydraulics Division Missouri Emergency Management Unit Nebraska Nebraska DOT Operations Division Manager New York State Hydraulic Engineer North Carolina Matt Lauffer, North Carolina DOT; Tom Langan, North Carolina Emergency Management North Dakota Hydraulics Engineer Ohio John McKnabb https://www.dtn.com/ Oklahoma Maintenance Divisions at a county level Pennsylvania Nicholas A. Vivian, Hydrology and Hydraulic Unit Manager South Carolina Hydraulic Design Support South Dakota Bridge Office Texas Design Division Hydraulics Branch Utah Weather Department Director Washington WSDOT Office of Emergency Management West Virginia Kathy Bowe

184 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Figure B18. Survey response to Question 30: “What type of model is used by your state DOT? (check all that apply).” Table B33. Survey response to Question 30: “What type of model is used by your state DOT? (check all that apply).” Other reported types of models used by state DOTs. State DOT Response Colorado, Maine Do not monitor flooding Massachusetts Currently being developed Nevada Models are project related rather than predictive Ohio DTN provides model (https://www.dtn.com/) Oklahoma Common sense and experience; no modeling will be done South Carolina Comparison to similar events South Dakota Monitor other agency information Utah Weather forecast model 2 (6%) 2 (6%) 2 (6%) 4 (11%) 9 (26%) 18 (51%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Hydrologic/hydraulic and threshold model BridgeWatch NOAA Threshold model Other Hydrologic/hydraulic model Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: N = 35 Question 30: “What type of model is used by your state DOT? (check all that apply)”

Survey Questions and Results 185   Question 31: “How is your state DOT’s flood prediction model developed and managed? (check all that apply)” Figure B19. Survey response to Question 31: “How is your state DOT’s flood prediction model developed and managed? (check all that apply).” Table B34. Survey response to Question 31: “How is your state DOT’s flood prediction model developed and managed? (check all that apply).” Other reported state agencies that develop and manage state DOT flood prediction models. State DOT Response Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (Division of Community and Regional Affairs), Department of Natural Resources (Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Dam Safety, Water Resources & Hydrologic Survey), Department of Military and Veterans Affairs Colorado Colorado Water Conservation Board Nebraska Nebraska Department of Natural Resources North Carolina Department of Public Safety Emergency Management South Carolina South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Table B35. Survey response to 31: “How is your state DOT’s flood prediction model developed and managed? (check all that apply).” Other reported ways flood prediction models are developed and managed. State DOT Response Delaware Delaware Coastal Flood Monitoring System (http://coastal-flood.udel.edu/about/) Hawaii County agencies implement the National Flood Insurance Program Kentucky, Maine, Nevada Not applicable South Carolina CERA 3 (10%) 5 (16%) 6 (19%) 8 (26%) 13 (42%) 16 (52%) 0 5 10 15 20 By local governments By other state agency (please provide the agency) Other (e.g., Coastal Emergency Risk Assessment, National Flood Insurance Program, Delaware Coastal Flood Monitoring System, N/A) By an external consultant By a federal agency (e.g., USGS, FEMA, NOAA, NWS) In-house (by the state DOT’s office/division overseeing flood prediction) Number of DOTs: Total Number of DOT Responses: N = 31

186 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Question 32: “What is the platform/model of the flood prediction model used by your state? (check all that apply)” Figure B20. Survey response to Question 32: “What is the platform/model of the flood prediction model used by your state? (check all that apply).” Table B36. Survey response to Question 32: “What is the platform/model of the flood prediction model used by your state? (check all that apply).” Other reported platforms/models of flood prediction used by DOTs. State DOT Response Maine, Nevada, Oklahoma Do not run models to perform flood prediction South Carolina Comparison to similar events Question 33: “Does the model incorporate the following observations? (check all that apply)” Figure B21. Survey response to Question 33: “Does the model incorporate the following observations? (check all that apply)” 6 (19%) 6 (19%) 9 (29%) 14 (45%) 16 (52%) 16 (52%) 19 (61%) 23 (74%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Snowmelt depth Other Integrated (combining above attributes) Bridge scour Inundation area/depth Runoff Precipitation Stream stage/discharge Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 31 DOTs 4 (13%) 4 (13%) 6 (20%) 6 (20%) 14 (47%) 17 (57%) 0 5 10 15 20 Other Other state agency platform External platform hosted by a consultant In-house (by the state DOT’s office/division overseeing flood prediction) platform A national platform (e.g., HEC-RAS, SRH-2D) Federal agency (e.g., USGS, FEMA, NOAA, NWS) platform Number of DOTs: Total Number of DOT Responses: N = 30

Survey Questions and Results 187   Table B37. Survey response to Question 33: “Does the model incorporate the following observations? (check all that apply).” Other reported observations incorporated into flood prediction models. State DOT Response Maine, Ohio, South Dakota Not applicable/not sure how to answer Massachusetts Standard federal products Nevada Models are projects, not flood prediction Oklahoma People and computers; we do not run models to predict floods, we design to withstand them Question 34: “What is the timestep of the precipitation input?” Figure B22. Survey response to Question 34: “What is the timestep of the precipitation input?” Table B38. Survey response to Question 34: “What is the timestep of the precipitation input?” Other reported timesteps used in flood prediction models. State DOT Response Colorado Depends on watershed size and elevation Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio, South Dakota Unsure Hawaii Varies by the hydrological method used Maine, North Dakota, Oklahoma Not applicable to model Pennsylvania Every 12 hours up to 192 hours 2 (7%) 3 (11%) 4 (15%) 6 (22%) 7 (26%) 8 (30%) 10 (37%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 15 minutes 3 hours Varies/Depends 12 hours 1 hour Other 24 hours Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 27 DOTs

188 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Question 35: “What federal data are being applied in your state DOT’s flood prediction model? (check all that apply)” Figure B23. Survey response to Question 35: “What federal data are being applied in your state DOT’s flood prediction model? (check all that apply).” Table B39. Survey response to Question 35: “What federal data are being applied in your state DOT’s flood prediction model? (check all that apply).” Other reported federal data being used in flood prediction models. State DOT Response Colorado State DOT does not have function but state agency CWCB might per survey respondent Iowa Iowa Flood Center sensors Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Ohio, Vermont Not applicable/unsure Oklahoma Inundation maps have been used South Carolina Uses USGS gage data, NWS rainfall data, NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service] soil data, and other data sources South Dakota Does not have a DOT model but uses other agency information 6 (20%) 7 (23%) 8 (27%) 9 (30%) 10 (33%) 15 (50%) 23 (77%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Model flood outputs Images (e.g., inspector or stationary camera images) Remotely sensed data (e.g., satellite or aerial images, land cover data, etc.) LiDAR data Other Topographic data Gage data/point data Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 30 DOTs

Survey Questions and Results 189   Question 36: “What state DOT data are being applied in your state DOT’s flood prediction model? (check all that apply)” Figure B24. Survey response to Question 36: “What state DOT data are being applied in your state DOT’s flood prediction model? (check all that apply)” Table B40. Survey response to Question 36: Other reported state DOT data being applied to state DOT flood prediction models. State DOT Response Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota Not applicable Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont Unsure North Dakota Survey data 6 (20%) 8 (27%) 9 (30%) 9 (30%) 9 (30%) 10 (33%) 12 (40%) 13 (43%) 14 (47%) 16 (53%) 0 5 10 15 20 Videos (e.g., inspector or stationary camera videos) Land use data Land cover data Citizen reports Other (e.g., Survey Data, N/A, Unsure) LiDAR data Agency reports Images (e.g., inspector or stationary camera images) Gage data/point data Topographic data Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 30 DOTs

190 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Question 37: “What data from local agencies and other state agencies (not DOT) are being applied in your state DOT’s flood prediction model? (check all that apply)” Figure B25. Survey response to Question 37: “What data from local agencies and other state agencies (not DOT) are being applied in your state DOT’s flood prediction model? (check all that apply).” Table B41. Survey response to Question 37: “What data from local agencies and other state agencies (not DOT) are being applied in your state DOT’s flood prediction model? (check all that apply).” Other reported data from local agencies and other state agencies. State DOT Response Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah Not applicable Hawaii, Vermont Unsure Washington Answer varies; local agency input is on a case- by-case basis Question 38: “How often is the model input data updated? (select one answer)” Table B42. Survey response to Question 38: “How often is the model input data updated? (select one answer).” Response Response rate Other 14 DOTs (47%) Ongoing 9 DOTs (30%) Needs to be updated but no formal plan for update 5 DOTs (17%) Periodically but at least once a year 2 DOTs (7%) Table B43. Survey response to Question 38: “How often is the model input data updated? (select one answer).” Other reported responses to how often the flood prediction model input data are updated. State DOT Response Colorado CWCB Delaware University of Delaware working with Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Hawaii Usually done in the design process and not usually updated Maine, Ohio, South Dakota Not applicable/unsure 4 (14%) 6 (21%) 6 (21%) 7 (24%) 7 (24%) 9 (31%) 10 (35%) 10 (35%) 11 (38%) 13 (45%) 0 5 10 15 Topographic data Citizen reports Videos (e.g., inspector or stationary camera videos) Land cover data Land use data Images (e.g., inspector or stationary camera images) Other (e.g., depends on local agency, N/A, Unsure) Agency reports LiDAR data Gage data/point data Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 29 DOTs

Survey Questions and Results 191   Maryland As needed Nebraska When site conditions change Nevada, Oklahoma Models are not used for flood prediction New York When bridges are replaced North Dakota Project-by-project basis South Carolina SCDNR Utah No data are being inputted for the DOT Question 39: “How often is the prediction model updated?” Table B44. Survey response to Question 39: “How often is the prediction model updated?” Response Response rate Other 15 DOTs (50%) Ongoing 12 DOTs (40%) Needs to be updated but no formal plan for update 3 DOTs (10%) Table B45. Survey response to Question 39: “How often is the prediction model updated?” Other reported responses to how often the flood prediction model is updated. State DOT Response California Model is updated only once Colorado CWCB Hawaii Usually done in the design process and not usually updated Iowa As new versions are released Maine, Ohio, South Dakota Not applicable/unknown Maryland As needed Massachusetts, Utah Model is not updated Nebraska When site conditions change Nevada, Oklahoma Models are not used for flood prediction North Dakota Project-by-project basis South Carolina SCDNR Question 40: “How is the model and its outputs shared across organizations?” 3 (10%) 4 (13%) 4 (13%) 7 (23%) 9 (30%) 10 (33%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Online platform (please provide the website link) Reporting through transcripts Intranet platform Email Other The model is not shared Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 30 DOTs Figure B26. Survey response to Question 40: “How is the model and its outputs shared across organizations?”

192 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Table B46. Survey response to Question 40: “How is the model and its outputs shared across organizations?” Reported online platform website links. State DOT Response Delaware Delaware Coastal Flood Monitoring System (http://coastal-flood.udel.edu/about/) Idaho BridgeWatch South Carolina South Carolina Department of Natural Resources will have a website in March 2020 Table B47. Survey response to Question 40: “How is the model and its outputs shared across organizations?” Other reported ways the flood prediction model and its outputs are shared across organizations. State DOT Response Colorado, Maine, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah Not applicable Nebraska File Transfer Protocol site Nevada Shared projects are initiated with other agencies New York On request, we will provide Pennsylvania Each internal user applies for access Question 41: “Is there a public website to view your state’s flood model projection?” Table B48. Survey response to Question 41: “Is there a public website to view your state’s flood model projection?” Response Response rate No 28 DOTs (93%) Yes 2 DOTs (7%) Table B49. Survey response to Question 41: “Is there a public website to view your state’s flood model projection?” Reported website to view flood model projection. State DOT Link to website Delaware Delaware Coastal Flood Monitoring System (http://coastal-flood.udel.edu/about/) North Carolina FIMAN North Carolina Question 42: “Is the flood prediction model assessed relative to its performance and accuracy?” Table B50. Survey response to Question 42: “Is the flood prediction model assessed relative to its performance and accuracy?” Response Response rate No 22 DOTs (76%) Yes 7 DOTs (24%)

Survey Questions and Results 193   Figure B27. Survey response to Question 43: “How is the success of the tool assessed? (check all that apply).” Question 44: “How often is the tool assessed?” Table B51. Survey response to Question 44: “How often is the tool assessed?” Frequency Response rate Every __ major storm 5 DOTs (83%) Every __ years 1 DOT (17%) Table B52. Survey response to Question 44: “How often is the tool assessed?” Reported assessment in major storms. Table B53. Survey response to Question 44: “How often is the tool assessed?” Reported assessment in years. State DOT Every ____ major storm Idaho Significant over threshold Louisiana No frequency Missouri, West Virginia One Pennsylvania Every storm event that requires a post-flood inspection State DOT Every ____ years North Carolina One 1 (14%) 5 (71%) 1 (14%) Both User feedback Observation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 7 DOTs Question 43: “How is the success of the tool assessed? (check all that apply)”

194 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Question 45: “What does the assessment review? (check all that apply)” Figure B28. Survey response to Question 45: “What does the assessment review? (check all that apply).” Question 46: “Are the assessment reports available?” Table B54. Survey response to Question 46: “Are the assessment reports available?” Response Response rate No 6 DOTs (86%) Yes 1 DOT (14%) Table B55. Survey response to Question 46: “Are the assessment reports available?” Reported documents and/or links. State DOT Document and/or link North Carolina Just started; still being reviewed Question 47: “From the perspective of your office, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), is your state’s flood prediction model viewed as successful?” Table B56. Survey response to Question 47: “From the perspective of your office, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), is your state’s flood prediction model viewed as successful?” Response (1-least effective to 5-very effective) Response rate 1 2 DOTs (7%) 2 4 DOTs (13%) 3 8 DOTs (27%) 4 7 DOTs (23%) 5 3 DOTs (10%) N/A 6 DOTs (20%) 2 (29%) 3 (43%) 4 (57%) 7 (100%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Usability Timeliness Applicability Accuracy Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 7 DOTs

Survey Questions and Results 195   Figure B29. Survey response to Question 47: “From the perspective of your office, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), is your state’s flood prediction model viewed as successful?” Question 48: “What makes this model a success? (check all that apply)” Figure B30. Survey response to Question 48: “What makes this model a success? (check all that apply).” Table B57. Survey response to Question 48: “What makes this model a success? (check all that apply).” Other reported reasons why the model is considered a success. State DOT Response Oklahoma FHWA Flood Rapid Resiliency team noted our success Pennsylvania Accuracy of output is dependent upon continually refining input data 2 (6%) 3 (10%) 4 (13%) 6 (20%) 7 (23%) 8 (27%) 1 5 2 N/A 4 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 30 DOTs 2 (11%) 7 (39%) 7 (39%) 13 (72%) 0 5 10 15 Other Ease of use Accuracy of output Type of information output/usability Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 18 DOTs

196 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Question 49: “What are observed benefits of having this flood prediction model/practice in-place? (check all that apply)” Figure B31. Survey response to Question 49: “What are observed benefits of having this flood prediction model/practice in place? (check all that apply).” Table B58. Survey response to Question 49: “What are observed benefits of having this flood prediction model/practice in place? (check all that apply).” Other reported observed benefits of having a flood prediction model/practice in place. State DOT Response Hawaii Unsure Iowa Enhanced public safety Question 50: “Are guidelines or a user’s manual on flood prediction model available?” Table B59. Survey response to Question 50: “Are guidelines or a user’s manual on flood prediction model available?” Response Response rate No 15 DOTs (88%) Yes 2 DOTs (12%) Table B60. Survey response to Question 50: “Are guidelines or a user’s manual on flood prediction model available?” Reported available links and/or documents for guidelines or user’s manual on flood prediction models. State DOT Link and/or document Arizona Arizona DOT Highway Drainage Design Manuals New York HES RAS surface modeling systems user manuals 2 (11%) 6 (33%) 7 (39%) 12 (67%) 14 (78%) 17 (94%) 0 5 10 15 20 Other Improved understanding of agency emergency performance Improved emergency evacuation Improved emergency planning Improved emergency response Improved emergency preparedness Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 18 DOTs

Survey Questions and Results 197   Figure B32. Survey response to Question 51: “What issues (limitations, constraints, etc.) have you observed in implementing the flood prediction model? (check all that apply).” FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM Question 52: “Which state DOT office(s) is(are) currently responsible for flood warning system? (check all that apply)” Figure B33. Survey response to Question 52: “Which state DOT office(s) is(are) currently responsible for flood warning system? (check all that apply)” 4 (9%) 6 (13%) 6 (13%) 7 (15%) 10 (22%) 11 (24%) 12 (26%) 14 (30%) 15 (33%) 18 (39%) 36 (78%) 0 10 20 30 40 Data timeliness Difficulty in integrating Federal resources Data completeness (contents) Data accessibility Data accuracy Other Data format consistency Local Resources (staffing, funding, turnover, etc.) Data coverage Technical Expertise State Resources (staffing, funding, turnover, etc.) Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 46 DOTs 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 2 (4%) 2 (4%) 2 (4%) 3 (6%) 4 (8%) 4 (8%) 4 (8%) 6 (13%) 13 (27%) 15 (31%) 15 (31%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Planning and/or Programming office staff Research office staff Safety office staff Bridge Section Hydraulics Section Risk Management office staff Emergency Management Asset management office staff Consultants contracted to manage the flood warning system Design office staff No office, no implementation of flood warning system at all Other Operations office staff Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 48 DOTs Question 51: “What issues (limitations, constraints, etc.) have you observed in implementing the flood prediction model? (check all that apply)”

198 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Table B61. Survey response to Question 52: “Which state DOT office(s) is(are) currently responsible for flood warning system? (check all that apply).” Other reported DOT offices currently responsible for flood warning system. DOT Response Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Michigan Not applicable/unsure Delaware Combination of Delaware DOT (DelDOT), Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and University of Delaware District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment Florida NWS and NOAA gages Kentucky Kentucky Emergency Management and Division of Water to public and elected officials Louisiana State homeland security Nevada Maintenance staff in districts Oregon Region Rhode Island Natural Resourced Unit Utah Weather Department Wisconsin Technical Oversight Committee Question 53: “What is the title of the office or staff member that oversees the flood warning system? Please provide a link to the website, if available.” Table B62. Survey response to Question 53: “What is the title of the office or staff member that oversees the flood warning system? Please provide a link to the website, if available.” Reported title of office or staff member that oversees flood warning. State DOT Office or staff member Link to website Delaware Transportation Management Center Operations Manager District of Columbia Department of Energy & Environment (https://doee.dc.gov/service/flooding) Georgia State Bridge Maintenance Engineer Hawaii District Engineer Idaho Bridge Section Iowa Dave Claman, Preliminary Bridge Supervisor Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security Maine Director of Bridge Maintenance Maryland District Maintenance and Traffic Operations Massachusetts Highway Operations Center/Intelligent Transportation Systems maintains contents for variable message board system Missouri Safety and Emergency Management Unit Nebraska Operations Division Manager New Jersey Emergency Management New York Regional Hydraulics Engineers North Carolina Matt Lauffer, North Carolina DOT; Tom Langan, Department of Public Safety- Emergency Management North Dakota State Maintenance Engineer Ohio John McKnabb DTN Website (https://www.dtn.com/) Oregon Region staff

Survey Questions and Results 199   Pennsylvania Numerous, collaborative South Carolina Hydraulic Design Support; Operations Texas Design Division Hydraulics Branch Utah Weather Director Washington WSDOT Office of Emergency Management Wisconsin Technical Oversight Committee Question 54: “Does your state DOT have an established flood warning protocol and/or published guidelines in place?” Table B63. Survey response to Question 54: “Does your state DOT have an established flood warning protocol and/or published guidelines in place?” Response Response rate No 28 DOTs (80%) Yes 7 DOTs (20%) Table B64. Survey response to Question 54: “Does your state DOT have an established flood warning protocol and/or published guidelines in place?” Reported links to established flood warning protocol and/or published guidelines. State DOT Link to website Delaware Delaware Coastal Flood Monitoring System (http://coastal-flood.udel.edu/about/) Hawaii HDOT has an emergency response plan. Kansas We have Bridge Scour Action Plans for scour critical bridges. Louisiana It’s in our state’s emergency plan. Maine Scour-critical bridge program. New York New York State Hydraulic Vulnerability Manual Question 55: “What is the threshold parameter/data that your state applies to issue a flood warning?” Table B65. Survey response to Question 55: “What is the threshold parameter/data that your state applies to issue a flood warning?” State DOT Link to website Alaska I believe many DOT&PF staff rely on the Alaska Pacific River Forecast Center’s website. (https://www.weather.gov/aprfc/) for tracking floods. The presentation of hazard level is based upon locally defined thresholds. Arizona, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan Unsure California, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma Varies by site/case Colorado, District of Columbia, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island Not applicable Delaware Flood inundation “potential” map generated by assuming the water level at the coast is projected inland to the community region and comparing that to the Digital Elevation Model elevation. This is typically called a “bathtub” model, as the water depth is based on a constant water level surface, analogous to filling a bathtub. We use the term “potential” as this method tends to over-estimate the inundated areas. In addition to generating the flood inundation map for a community, we also create a time series of forecasted tidal predictions. Likewise, overlay the maximum forecasted water level for a community on road elevation profiles for transportation routes in the area. These routes were selected because they were either a DelDOT-designated evacuation route during times of coastal flooding or a typically heavily trafficked road. Between one and three roads were selected for each community. Hawaii, Iowa, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah NWS

200 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Idaho Discharge of 25% and up Louisiana The biggest one we have is our plan for the New Orleans area. It is triggered by a Cat 3 or greater. Maine HEC-RAS Massachusetts State Emergency Management provides data. Missouri Comparison of historic data to anticipated impacts. Additionally, research project partners provide new innovative. Nebraska Nebraska Emergency Management Agency New York Stage height based on gage or observation. North Carolina, South Carolina BridgeWatch Texas Stage to low chord. Observed by the districts. Washington, West Virginia NOAA West Virginia U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies Wisconsin Water approaching roadway traveled lanes. Bridges where bridge superstructure is close to inundation. Washed out roadways and culverts. Question 56: “Which state DOT office(s) is(are) engaged in deciding when the threshold is met? (check all that apply)” Figure B34. Survey response to Question 56: “Which state DOT office(s) is(are) engaged in deciding when the threshold is met? (check all that apply).” 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 2 (6%) 2 (6%) 3 (8%) 5 (14%) 9 (25%) 12 (33%) 15 (42%) 0 5 10 15 20 Risk Management office staff Asset management office staff Safety office staff Hydraulics Section Emergency Management Bridge Maintenance Design office staff External office/agency (e.g., Governor’s Office; Please specify) Other Operations office staff Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 36 DOTs

Survey Questions and Results 201   Table B66. Survey response to Question 56: “Which state DOT office(s) is(are) engaged in deciding when the threshold is met? (check all that apply).” Reported external office/agency engaged in deciding when a threshold is met. DOT Response Alaska Public interests may dictate the threshold Colorado Colorado Water Conservation Board District of Columbia Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA) (https://hsema.dc.gov/hsema-training-and-exercise) Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security Massachusetts Governor/state emergency management office Michigan State Police North Carolina Emergency Management North Dakota National Weather Service Pennsylvania Governor’s Office Table B67. Survey response to Question 56: “Which state DOT office(s) is(are) engaged in deciding when the threshold is met? (check all that apply).” Other reported DOT offices engaged in deciding when a threshold is met. State DOT Response Alaska Case-by-case basis as warranted Arizona, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah Not applicable/unsure Illinois No contact New Hampshire When infrastructure is impacted the most, local level of DOT can act Ohio Weather forecast Pennsylvania Coordinate and posted on PA 511 Texas District offices Question 57: “Rank the importance of the information used in your state’s flood warning system (more stars = higher importance)” Table B68. Survey response to Question 57: “Rank the importance of the information used in your state’s flood warning system (more stars = higher importance).” Reported importance rankings of information used in DOT’s flood warning system. DOT Forecast precipitation Forecast stream stage Observed precipitation Observed stream stage Observed stream inundation Model precipitation Model inundation Bridge scour Alaska 6 6 6 8 8 5 6 8 California 7 6 4 4 2 2 N/A 5 Delaware 6 6 4 8 8 4 8 6 District of Columbia 7 7 6 4 7 4 5 6 Georgia 8 8 8 8 8 N/A N/A 8 Hawaii 6 N/A 6 6 6 N/A N/A 4 Idaho 4 N/A N/A 8 N/A N/A N/A 6 Iowa 5 7 2 8 8 6 N/A N/A Kansas 7 8 7 7 7 N/A N/A 7 Louisiana 8 8 8 8 5 5 5 8 Maine 6 2 6 8 4 N/A N/A 8 Maryland 6 4 4 6 6 7 7 7 Massachusetts 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Michigan N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 Missouri 8 7 8 8 8 6 6 8 Nebraska 8 8 8 8 2 2 8 8

202 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems New Hampshire 7 7 7 7 8 1 1 8 New York 6 6 6 8 8 4 4 7 North Carolina 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 North Dakota 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Ohio 8 6 6 5 4 3 4 3 Oklahoma 8 8 8 8 8 N/A N/A 4 Pennsylvania 5 5 8 8 8 6 6 8 Rhode Island 5 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South Carolina 4 6 4 8 6 3 3 N/A Texas 5 5 8 8 8 6 6 8 Utah 8 2 4 1 1 3 2 N/A Washington 8 8 5 8 8 N/A N/A 8 West Virginia 8 7 8 8 8 5 7 8 Wisconsin 8 8 8 8 8 N/A N/A 8 Question 58: “From your office’s perspective, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), how would you rate your state DOT’s flood warning system effectiveness? (e.g., availability, accessibility, etc.)” Table B69. Survey response to Question 58: “From your office’s perspective, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), how would you rate your state DOT’s flood warning system effectiveness? (e.g., availability, accessibility, etc.).” Response (1-least effective to 5-very effective) Response rate 1 2 DOTs (4%) 2 1 DOT (2%) 3 8 DOTs (17%) 4 10 DOTs (22%) 5 5 DOTs (11%) N/A 10 DOTs (22%) Figure B35. Survey response to Question 58: “From your office’s perspective, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), how would you rate your state DOT’s flood warning system effectiveness? (e.g., availability, accessibility, etc.).” 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 5 (14%) 8 (22%) 10 (28%) 10 (28%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 1 5 3 4 N/A Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 36 DOTs

Survey Questions and Results 203   Question 59: “From your office’s perspective, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), how would you rate your state DOT’s flood warning system accuracy? (e.g., lead time, false alarm rate, flood extent and severity, etc.)” Table B70. Survey response to Question 59: “From your office’s perspective, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), how would you rate your state DOT’s flood warning system accuracy? (e.g., lead time, false alarm rate, flood extent and severity, etc.).” Response (1-least effective to 5-very effective) Response rate 1 1 DOT (3%) 2 3 DOTs (8%) 3 7 DOTs (19%) 4 14 DOTs (39%) 5 1 DOT (3%) N/A 10 DOTs (28%) Figure B36. Survey response to Question 59: “From your office’s perspective, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), how would you rate your state DOT’s flood warning system accuracy? (e.g., lead time, false alarm rate, flood extent and severity, etc.).” 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 3 (8%) 7 (19%) 10 (28%) 14 (39%) 1 5 2 3 N/A 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 36 DOTs

204 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Figure B37. Survey response to Question 60: “What have been the key attributes and factors that have led to the success of the flood warning system at your agency? (check all that apply).” Table B71. Survey response to Question 60: “What have been the key attributes and factors that have led to the success of the flood warning system at your agency? (check all that apply).” Elaboration on communication system as a key attribute and factor that has led to success of the flood warning system. State DOT Response California Effective communication system is email to maintenance. Georgia Both effective communication and internal communication system attributes lead to quicker response times. Iowa Effective internal communication requires communication between field and design staff. Louisiana Effective internal communication critical to responding. Effective inter-agency communication system coordination is critical. Effective public communication system is critical for travelers and their safety. Maine Effective internal communication system is an established communication system between headquarters ops center, Bridge Maintenance, and crews on the road. Maryland Effective communication system is provided by the Coordinated Highways Action Response Team. Massachusetts Effective communication system is ensuring local understanding (re: evacuation). Effective internal communication system includes the use of mobile phones. Effective inter-agency communication system includes activation of the Emergency Operations Center. Effective public communication system includes public broadcast and social media. Nebraska For an effective communication system, relationships have been maintained between weather service and Nebraska Emergency Management Agency and district staff. New York Effective communication and internal system are done by maintenance (field engineers) who report back to regional hydraulic engineers. North Carolina Effective communication system is done by partnership with Emergency Management and monthly communication. North Dakota Effective internal communication system is open communication lines. Links to: Effective communication system: https://www.des.nd.gov/response-section/weboc Effective public communication system: https://www.des.nd.gov/response-section/webeoc South Carolina Effective communication is communication between different DOT offices and state agencies. Effective internal communication requires making sure information is provided across the DOT. Effective inter- agency communication is being able to communicate with the correct personnel at other state and federal agencies. Effective public communication is being able to communicate evaluations and closures. 4 (17%) 4 (17%) 5 (22%) 8 (35%) 10 (43%) 10 (43%) 13 (57%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Effective Inter-agency communication system Effective public communication system Other Effective Internal Communication system Effective Communication System Accurate Flood Prediction system Accurate Flood Monitoring system Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 23 DOTs Question 60: “What have been the key attributes and factors that have led to the success of the flood warning system at your agency? (check all that apply)”

Survey Questions and Results 205   South Dakota Effective communication system is the communication between different DOT offices and state agencies. Effective internal communication system is making sure information is provided across the DOT. Effective inter-agency communication system is being able to communicate with the correct personnel at other state and federal agencies. Effective public communication system is being able to communicate evacuation and closures. Washington Effective communication system is a part of the emergency response center. Table B72. Survey response to Question 60: “What have been the key attributes and factors that have led to the success of the flood warning system at your agency? (check all that apply).” Other reported key attributes and factors that have led to the success of the flood warning system. State DOT Response Delaware • Real-time gage monitoring • Real-time camera monitoring at vulnerable locations • User feedback from Waze • 24/7 monitoring of statewide systems by the Transportation Management Center with response forces on call Maine Focused on scour-critical bridges with well-defined threshold. New Hampshire Local knowledge by DOT highway and bridge maintenance staff. Oklahoma People and computers. We do not run models to predict floods; we design to withstand them. Wisconsin Diligence of our Operations staff and our agency partners. Question 61: “What are the observed benefits of having this flood warning system? (check all that apply)” Figure B38. Survey response to Question 61: “What are the observed benefits of having this flood warning system? (check all that apply).” 2 (9%) 2 (9%) 3 (13%) 6 (26%) 10 (43%) 19 (83%) Public Safety Local knowledge Other (compliance with scour program, computer programs, increased response time and implementation) Flood Damage Mitigation (reducing the amount of damage due to a flood) Improved Emergency Evacuation Improved Emergency Response 0 5 10 15 20Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 23 DOTs

206 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Figure B39. Survey response to Question 62: “What issues (limitations, constraints, etc.) have you observed in the flood warning system? (check all that apply).” Table B73. Survey response to Question 62: “What issues (limitations, constraints, etc.) have you observed in the flood warning system? (check all that apply).” Other reported issues observed in flood warning system. State DOT Response Arizona Unaware of flood warning system Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont Not applicable/unknown Kansas Flood warning system involves watching NWS and USGS gage information online and field observations 4 (9%) 4 (9%) 5 (11%) 7 (15%) 7 (15%) 8 (17%) 8 (17%) 9 (20%) 11 (24%) 13 (28%) 14 (30%) 14 (30%) 31 (67%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Communication Among Other State… Communication within the State DOT Difficulty in Integrating Federal Resources Data format Consistency Data Timeliness Data Completeness (contents) Data Accessibility Data Accuracy Local Resources (staffing, funding, turnover, etc.) Data Coverage Other Technical Expertise State Resources (staffing, funding, turnover, etc.) Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 46 DOTs Question 62: “What issues (limitations, constraints, etc.) have you observed in the flood warning system? (check all that apply)”

Survey Questions and Results 207   Figure B40. Survey response to Question 63: “Which State DOT office(s) is(are) currently responsible for flood response system? (check all that apply).” Table B74. Survey response to Question 63: “Which State DOT office(s) is(are) currently responsible for flood response system? (check all that apply).” Other reported offices currently responsible for flood response system. State DOT Response Alaska Technical staff, as needed Connecticut Hydraulics & Drainage, Bridge Safety and Evaluation, Highway Operations (https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Bureau-of-Highway-Operations/Bureau-of-Highway-Operations) Kansas Field offices Michigan State Police Question 64: “What is the title of the office or staff member that oversees the flood response system? Please provide a link to the website, if available.” Table B75. Survey response to Question 64: “What is the title of the office or staff member that oversees the flood response system? Please provide a link to the website, if available.” State DOT Title of office or staff member Link to website Arkansas Maintenance Division Colorado Region Transportation Director Connecticut Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security https://portal.ct.gov/DEMHS Delaware Transportation Management Center Operations Manager District of Columbia District Department of Transportation Emergency Preparedness Georgia Sate Maintenance Engineer Hawaii District Engineer Idaho Asset Management Office staff Indiana Bridge Inspectors Iowa Director Operations Division Scott Marler 4 (8%) 4 (8%) 4 (8%) 4 (8%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 6 (13%) 24 (50%) 28 (58%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Risk Management Office Safety Office Staff Asset Management Office Staff Bridge Maintenance Other Maintenance District/Regional Offices Emergency Management Office Operations office staff, Transportation Management Center staff Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 48 DOTs EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM Question 63: “Which State DOT office(s) is(are) currently responsible for flood response system? (check all that apply)”

208 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Maryland District Offices and Office of Traffic and Safety Massachusetts Security and Emergency Management/Highway Operations Center Minnesota District Maintenance staff Missouri Safety and Emergency Management Unit Nebraska Operations Division Manager New Jersey Assistant Commissioner, Transportation Operations Systems & Support New Mexico State Maintenance Engineer New York Regional Bridge Maintenance Engineer and Regional Hydraulics Engineer North Carolina Billy Keith North Dakota State Maintenance Engineer Ohio Leslie Prater DTN website: https://www.dtn.com Oregon District South Carolina Operations South Dakota Division of Operations Tennessee 25 Districts Utah Emergency Response Director Vermont Emergency Management Director Washington WSDOT Office of Emergency Management EmergencyMgtOffice@WSDOT.WA.GOV Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management Maine Director of Maintenance

Survey Questions and Results 209   Figure B41. Survey response to Question 65: “What other agencies are involved when dealing with major flood events? (check all that apply).” Table B76. Survey response to Question 65: “What other agencies are involved when dealing with major flood events? (check all that apply).” Other additional reported agencies involved in dealing with major flood events. State DOT Response Florida NWS, USACE, all state agencies Hawaii County Police Maryland Department of Environment Massachusetts All Emergency Support Function desks when activated Montana Division of Fire 2 (4%) 4 (9%) 5 (11%) 15 (32%0 20 (43%) 23 (49%) 29 (62%) 33 (70%) 35 (75%) 37 (79%) 41 (87%) 41 (87%) 45 (96%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 FHWA USGS Other Division of Fish and Wildlife Public Health Department of Water Resources, Bureau of Water Department of Environmental Protection National Guard Governor's Office FEMA State Police Local Government State Emergency Management Agency Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 47 DOTs Question 65: “What other agencies are involved when dealing with major flood events? (check all that apply)”

210 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Question 66: “How is your state DOT internal communication system structured to respond to flood events? (check all that apply)” Figure B42. Survey response to Question 66: “How is your state DOT internal communication system structured to respond to flood events? (check all that apply).” Table B77. Survey response to Question 66: “How is your state DOT internal communication system structured to respond to flood events? (check all that apply).” Other reported ways state DOT internal communications system is structured to respond to flood events. State DOT Response Alaska Contact tree North Carolina Office 365 Oregon Text group South Carolina Direct communication Question 67: “From a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), rate your experience with the DOT internal communication system.” Table B78. Survey response to Question 67: “From a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), rate your experience with the DOT internal communication system.” Response (1-least effective to 5-very effective) Response rate 1 3 DOTs (6%) 2 3 DOTs (6%) 3 7 DOTs (15%) 4 19 DOTs (40%) 5 7 DOTs (15%) N/A 8 DOTs (17%) 2 (4%) 4 (9%) 4 (9%) 11 (23%) 18 (38%) 26 (55%) 26 (55%) 32 (68%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 WebEOC Internal hotline Other Automated text among internal members Existing internal emergency contact tree Emergency management center Conference calls Email list Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 47 DOTs

Survey Questions and Results 211   Figure B43. Survey response to Question 67: “From a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), rate your experience with the DOT internal communication system.” Question 68: “What practices and approaches does your state DOT have for communicating and working with other state agencies when responding to flood events?” Table B79. Survey response to Question 68: “What practices and approaches does your state DOT have for communicating and working with other state agencies when responding to flood events?” DOT Communication practices and approaches Alaska For large area-wide emergencies (e.g., earthquakes, extreme floods), the state of Alaska would mobilize a command center to which all engaged department staff would report. Colorado International controls systems Connecticut Information and agency expertise sharing Delaware DelDOT has an integrated response system that continually coordinates with surrounding state and internal state agencies through the Transportation Management Center based on the Transportation Incident and Event Management Plan. District of Columbia In cases of major floods, the District of Columbia (DC) Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency coordinates response efforts. In smaller flooding conditions, District Department of Transportation coordinates with DC Water—which manages and maintains the drainage network—Metropolitan Police Department, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Fire and Emergency Medical Service Department, Virginia DOT Florida Emergency operations center, state emergency response team calls and briefings, water management district and NWS briefings, USACE briefings Georgia State Operations Center activation with multiple agencies under direction of Emergency Management Agency Hawaii DOT would work with the other agencies, such as the emergency response (county) and State Emergency Response teams Idaho Telephone Iowa Collaboration between districts; Design and Emergency Operations to provide a common line of communication and decision making regarding flood events. Kansas Contact those needed. Louisiana Conference calls, and we use WebEOC to track all efforts in the response. Maine Email, text, dedicated contacts Maryland Emails and multiagency meetings Massachusetts Contacts have established using the structure of the Emergency Management support teams. Michigan We have some staff that are part of the emergency response team (not me). Minnesota Rarely work with others in response. 3 (7%) 3 (7%) 7 (16%) 7 (16%) 8 (18%) 19 (43%) 1 2 3 5 N/A 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 47 DOTs

212 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Missouri Collaborative situation awareness calls, joint EOC (Emergency Operations Center) operations Nebraska Communicate with adjacent DOTs to work out emergency plans and detour routes. New Hampshire Email notifications, text messaging, WebEOC incident management system, media New Jersey Excellent collaboration and communication, conference calls New Mexico Email, personal relationships (if available) New York We work with Department of Environmental Conservation for flood mitigation and flood studies. North Carolina Emergency Event Command Center if Extreme Event—hurricane North Dakota Resource request system from individual agencies. Regular situational updates. Ohio We open our emergency management center and communicate there. Pennsylvania Internal protocols under the emergency management plan. Rhode Island News website; email South Carolina All state agencies have representatives at the South Carolina Emergency Management Division command center; direct communication between personnel; email. South Dakota In extreme conditions that are impacting a wide area across the state, the Office of Emergency Management and the Governor’s Office will activate the EOC (Emergency Operations Center). EOC will manage and coordinate resources, including the needs from the local entities. During less severe or regional events, email and conference calls will be used to coordinate response. Texas Participate and communicate with the Emergency Response Command Center. Utah Shared information and communication to reduce damage and prevent harm to people. Vermont Email lists and conference calls Washington WSDOT Office of Emergency Management < EmergencyMgtOffice@WSDOT.WA.GOV> West Virginia West Virginia Division of Homeland Security serves as a hub with a great deal of information supplied by the DOT Traffic Management staff. Wisconsin Agency-to-agency communication happens at the State Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Wyoming Phone calls, email Question 69: “From a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), rate your experience with the inter-agency communication system.” Table B80. Survey response to Question 69: “From a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), rate your experience with the inter-agency communication system.” Response (1-least effective to 5-very effective) Response rate 1 3 DOTs (6%) 2 5 DOTs (11%) 3 9 DOTs (19%) 4 16 DOTs (34%) 5 7 DOTs (15%) N/A 7 DOTs (15%)

Survey Questions and Results 213   Figure B44. Survey response to Question 69: “From a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), rate your experience with the inter-agency communication system.” 3 (6%) 5 (11%) 7 (15%) 7 (15%) 9 (19%) 16 (34%) 1 2 5 N/A 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 47 DOTs

214 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Figure B45. Survey response to Question 70: “What communication tools and methods are available to alert the public in response to flooding events? (check all that apply).” Table B81. Survey response to Question 70: “What communication tools and methods are available to alert the public in response to flooding events? (check all that apply).” Other reported tools and methods available to alert the public in response to flooding events. State DOT Response California Road Info Colorado Emergency Alert System New Hampshire Mobile electronic sign boards North Dakota Roadway barricades Oregon TripCheck South Carolina DOT website and call center Wisconsin Press releases Question 71: “From a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), rate your experience in the public communication system.” Table B82. Survey response to Question 71: “From a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), rate your experience in the public communication system.” Response (1-least effective to 5-very effective) Response Rate 2 2 DOTs (4%) 3 7 DOTs (15%) 4 20 DOTs (43%) 5 11 DOTs (23%) N/A 7 DOTs (15%) 2 (4%) 5 (11%) 7 (15%) 9 (19%) 10 (21%) 14 (30%) 20 (43%) 21 (45%) 26 (55%) 33 (70%) 36 (77%) 37 (79%) 38 (81%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 TADD Gates RSS feed Other Dispatch lines Turn Around Don’t Drown (TADD) Red Lights Emails Text messages Mobile application 511 systems Signs Television Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) Radio Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 47 DOTs Question 70: “What communication tools and methods are available to alert the public in response to flooding events? (check all that apply)”

Survey Questions and Results 215   Figure B46. Survey response to Question 71: “From a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), rate your experience in the public communication system.” Question 72: “Does your state DOT have established guidelines related to flooding event responses?” Table B83. Survey response to Question 72: “Does your state DOT have established guidelines related to flooding event responses?” Response Response rate Yes 22 DOTs (50%) No 22 DOTs (50%) Table B84. Survey response to Question 72: “Does your state DOT have established guidelines related to flooding event responses?” Reported guidelines related to flooding event responses. DOT Response Document and/or link Alaska Yes See DOT&PF’s Incident Field Operations Guide Arkansas No California Yes Unknown Colorado No Connecticut No Delaware Yes When we are alerted, or notified, a road is approaching flood stage we close the road. Some are tidal, subject to lunar cycle and storm surge. Other places residents just know to be aware of water encroachments at certain time of the day or cycle. At this time, Delaware does not have any scour critical bridges that may need to be closed well in advance of cresting. Delaware also has hurricane evacuations that occur days ahead of the storm making landfall. 2 (4%) 7 (15%) 7 (15%) 11 (23%) 20 (43%) 2 3 N/A 5 4 0 5 10 15 20 25Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 47 DOTs

216 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems District of Columbia Yes In draft form Florida Yes State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan Georgia No Hawaii Yes, HDOT has guidelines for scour critical bridges. Idaho No Illinois Yes I do not have definitive information. Indiana No Iowa Yes Flooding Standard Operation Procedure Kansas Yes No documents available Kentucky Louisiana Yes State emergency response manual Maine No Massachusetts No Michigan Yes Scour action plans Minnesota No Missouri No Montana No Nebraska No Nevada No New Hampshire Yes DOT work instructions & WebEOC incident management New Jersey No New Mexico No New York Yes N/A North Carolina Yes Would need to get from Emergency Management North Dakota Yes Link not available Ohio No Oklahoma Yes Don’t have a link ask operations Oregon No Pennsylvania Yes Pub 238, Pub 23 Rhode Island No South Carolina No South Dakota Yes State Emergency Operation Plan is a binder hard-copy document

Survey Questions and Results 217   Texas Yes https://drivetexas.org/#/7/32.340/-99.500?future=false Utah No Vermont No Washington Yes WSDOT Office of Emergency Management <EmergencyMgtOffice@WSDOT.WA.GOV> West Virginia Yes N/A Wisconsin Yes Emergency Transportation Operations Wyoming No Question 73: “From your office’s perspective, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), rate your experience in the flood event response system.” Table B85. Survey response to Question 73: “From your office’s perspective, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), rate your experience in the flood event response system.” Response (1-least effective to 5-very effective) Response rate 1 1 DOT (1%) 2 2 DOTs (4%) 3 11 DOTs (23%) 4 17 DOTs (36%) 5 6 DOTs (13%) N/A 10 DOTs (21%) Figure B47. Survey response to Question 73: “From your office’s perspective, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-least effective to 5-very effective), rate your experience in the flood event response system.” 1 (2%) 2 (4%) 6 (13%) 10 (21%) 11 (23%) 17 (36%) 1 2 5 N/A 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 47 DOTs

218 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Question 74: “What have been the key attributes and factors that have led to the success of the flood response system at your agency? (check all that apply)” Figure B48. Survey response to Question 74: “What have been the key attributes and factors that have led to the success of the flood response system at your agency? (check all that apply).” Table B86. Survey response to Question 74: “What have been the key attributes and factors that have led to the success of the flood response system at your agency? (check all that apply).” Other reported key attributes and factors that have led to the success of the flood response system. State DOT Response Kansas Good USGS and NWS online data Michigan, Nevada, Oregon Not applicable/unsure Oklahoma Experience by the DOT 5 (15%) 8 (24%) 10 (29%) 12 (35%) 13 (38%) 16 (47%) 17 (50%) 17 50%) 19 (56%) 22 (65%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Other Gained public trust through successful and accurate flood prediction system Provision of relevant training for practitioners (state, local, tribal nations, planning organizations, etc.) Having real-time or near real-time model results/observations Holding peer exchanges for practitioners (state, local, tribal nations, planning organizations, etc.) Establishment and distribution of a clear emergency response plan that is shared with all practitioners Consensus from stakeholders regarding the importance of the initiative Continuous public awareness campaign regarding the emergency response and warning systems Adequate state resources (in terms of staff and/or funding) Cooperation from local agencies in the state Number of DOTs: Number of DOT Responses: 34 Dots

Survey Questions and Results 219   Question 75: “What methods are used to facilitate the emergency response system? (check all that apply)” Figure B40. Survey response to Question 75: “What methods are used to facilitate the emergency response system? (check all that apply).” Table B87. Survey response to Question 75: “What methods are used to facilitate the emergency response system? (check all that apply).” Other reported methods used to facilitate the emergency response system. State DOT Response Delaware Artificial Intelligence—Integrated Transportation Management System grant Maine Primary effort: River Flows Advisory Commission Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada Not applicable/unsure New Hampshire Emergency & response drills Question 76: “If your state DOT’s response system to the flood event has aspects that are ineffective, please indicate the reasons of the system ineffectiveness. (check all that apply)” Figure B49. Survey response to Question 76: “If your state DOT’s response system to the flood event has aspects that are ineffective, please indicate the reasons of the system ineffectiveness. (check all that apply).” 6 (18%) 6 (18%) 7 (21%) 10 (29%) 13 (38%) 19 (56%) 23 (68%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Workshops developed and delivered to practitioners (through LTAP) Other Joint funding for emergency response efforts Peer exchanges held with other states Committee established that oversees and contributes to effective emergency response initiatives Involvement from the FHWA Division office or other FHWA assistance Frequent coordination meetings among the stakeholders Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 34 DOTs 2 (4%) 4 (9%) 6 (13%) 8 (17%) 13 (28%) 16 (35%) 24 (52%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Data security Lack of stakeholder commitment/willingness to invest and/or engage Lack of prioritizing from state leadership Lack of concern or understanding of flood risk Lack of commonality of databases Other Lack of Resources (staffing, funding, technical expertise, etc.) Number of DOTs: Number of DOT responses: 46 DOTs

220 Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Table B88. Survey response to Question 76: “If your state DOT’s response system to the flood event has aspects that are ineffective, please indicate the reasons of the system ineffectiveness. (check all that apply).” Other reported reasons for ineffectiveness of response system to flood events. DOT Response Alaska Our informal “system” may be imperfect, but it seems to be effective. Best to have well-funded Maintenance & Operations personnel available for immediate flood response. Arizona, California, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin Not applicable/unsure/no information to provide Colorado Not a DOT priority Delaware “I am sure we could use more gages. As sea level rise (SLR) continues more road sections will need to be monitored.” District of Columbia System has not been tested yet. Kansas Lack of in-house statewide system. Maine Focus on snowmelt season seems to be working. Question 77: “If your state DOT does not have an effective flooding event response system, is there a future program being developed in order to improve effectiveness?” Table B89. Survey response to Question 77: “If your state DOT does not have an effective flooding event response system, is there a future program being developed in order to improve effectiveness?” Response Response rate System is already effective 21 DOTs (49%) Do not have a future plan 12 DOTs (28%) Future program in development 10 DOTs (23%) Question 78: “What is the title of this program under development? Please provide the name of the program and any details of the program.” Table B90. Survey response to Question 78: “What is the title of this program under development? Please provide the name of the program and any details of the program.” DOT Comment Connecticut Still in planning. District of Columbia District Department of Transportation Flood Emergency Response Plan Hawaii Hawaii would like to incorporate real-time scour monitoring for scour critical bridges. A contract is programmed in the budget for 2022. Minnesota Working to establish response program. Nebraska Emergency Response Manual North Carolina FIMAN-T, BridgeWatch Oregon In progress. Pennsylvania PennDOT’s emergency response program is continually being reevaluated and upgraded; it is not a finished product and will continue to evolve as possible. Texas Streamflow Measurement at TxDOT Bridges to Improve the National Water Model Utah Utah is trying to create a research project to try to predict debris flows from burn scars.

Next: Appendix C - Summary of State Flood Systems »
Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

State departments of transportation (DOTs) and other state and local agencies have implemented integrated flood warning and response systems to mitigate the effects of floods. These systems are critical for staging personnel, deciding when to close roads, inspecting bridges, tracking floods throughout the state, and planning recovery.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Synthesis 573: Practices for Integrated Flood Prediction and Response Systems documents an overview of the state of the practice from agencies involved in finding new or innovative ways to improve flood management and response systems.

Supplementary to the report is Appendix F, which includes sample documents of practices related to integrated flood prediction and response systems.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

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

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!