Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis (2023)

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.

E-1   Technical Memorandum— Stakeholder Engagement Contents E-2 Introduction E-2 Objective E-2 Research Task Approach: Procedure and Participation E-9 High-Level Takeaways E-12 Appendix E1: Table of Suggested Topics That Should Be Covered by RPS E-15 Appendix E2: Research Problem Statement Survey E-16 Appendix E3: PowerPoint Presentation A P P E N D I X E

E-2 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis Introduction This appendix documents the third of three interactive, online stakeholder engagements. The first two were conducted in March and April of 2021. These workshops served to validate the gaps identified during the literature review and to get a pulse on where the agencies believe they are in terms of risk and resilience tools, metrics, and methodologies. The third workshop, conducted on September 22, 2021, served to validate the proposed research problem state- ments (RPSs) and research roadmap. Note that the RPS titles have been shortened in this appendix. Objective The third workshop had two objectives: 1. Validate the research topics and RPSs. 2. Validate the research roadmap. The research team presented two different roadmap options and a total of 12 RPSs. The goal of the research team was to engage stakeholders in a discussion, supplemented with an interactive online platform, to obtain feedback concerning the selection and prioritization of RPSs as well as stakeholder preference for the two proposed research options. Research Task Approach: Procedure and Participation Twenty states plus the District of Columbia were represented (see Figure E-1), with 35 par- ticipants from state DOTs, U.S. DOT, FHWA, local agencies, academia, and the private sector. Before the workshop, all invitees were sent a read-ahead packet which included detailed descrip- tions of the following: 1. Framework for Conducting Quantitative Risk and Resilience Assessments to Physical Highway Infrastructure 2. Research Roadmap to Develop and Adopt a Highway Standard/Guidance for Risk and Resilience Assessments, including illustrations of two research roadmap options 3. A catalog of the 12 proposed RPSs The industry workshop for roadmap validation was conducted in two parts: a PowerPoint presentation (included in Appendix E3), followed by an interactive session with Mural, a virtual whiteboard that facilitates visual collaboration. The presentation provided a project overview and summary of the tasks completed to date, followed by a discussion of the proposed risk and resilience framework and roadmap with corresponding RPSs. At the end of the presentation, the participants were asked if they agreed with the mission, goals, and objectives. Two participants emphasized the importance of Road- map Development Goal, number 2: “Define a consistent framework for risk and resilience assessment that identifies core processes and methods.” Another participant expressed how he liked the focus on highway assets in the Roadmap Development Mission: “Our mission is to create an efficient guidance for state DOTs to implement consistent physical transportation highway asset risk and resilience processes within and among organizations for improved sus- tainability.” Others voiced concern about the order of the steps outlined in the framework, that perhaps asset characterization should be done before threat characterization (see Figure E-2). The research team suggested that the exact order of the steps is not necessarily fixed, and the framework was going to be revised.

Figure E-1. Map of workshop attendees.

E-4 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis There was also some discussion about whether risk and resilience can be separated in an analysis. The research team explained that while risk and resilience overlap and are related, there are still differences that warrant separate methodologies and metrics; risk has a greater connec- tion to vulnerability while resilience has a greater connection to recovery after an event. One of the participants summarized that before an agency can successfully perform a detailed, granular assessment, it must first have a well-thought-out high-level understanding of risk and resilience, including an agency agreed upon definition of resilience and an overall risk and resilience nar- rative (i.e., an awareness of the critical threats facing the agency’s assets). After the slideshow presentation, the workshop attendees were instructed to join an interac- tive session with Mural. The Mural session engaged the participants with five activities: • Activity 1: Brainstorming of topics to be covered in the roadmap by thematic lane. • Activity 2: Mapping roadmap topics to existing RPSs. • Activity 3: Development of new RPSs based on new topics from Activity 3. • Activity 4: Discussion of roadmap options. • Activity 5: Selection of priority topics for the roadmap. The Mural itself was organized into eight boards to cover the five activities (see Table E-1 and Figure E-3): Figure E-2. Risk and resilience framework. Board Name Activity Number 1 How Does This Work? N/A 2 Power On! N/A 3 Topics We Need to Cover 1 4 Mapping Exercise 2 5 Break Time N/A 6 Develop New Problem Statements 3 7 Choose Roadmap Options 4 8 Prioritize RPSs 5 N/A: not applicable. Table E-1. Mural board and corresponding activities.

Technical Memorandum—Stakeholder Engagement E-5 Figure E-3. Mural interface. The first two boards introduced the Mural interface to the participants. On the third board, “Topics We Need to Cover,” the participants were asked to pin virtual Post-it notes by research “thematic lane” (see Figure E-4). The three thematic lanes, derived from the gap assessment conducted during the research phase, are as follows: A. Organizational development, outreach, and implementation B. Risk and resilience assessment processes C. Technology and tools

E-6 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis A. ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, OUTREACH, AND IMPLEMENTATION B. RISK & RESILIENCE ASSESSMENT PROCESSES C. TECHNOLOGY & TOOLS Figure E-4. Activity 3: Topics that need to be covered.

Technical Memorandum—Stakeholder Engagement E-7 Participants were instructed to jot down any topic they believed had not been addressed by the 12 RPSs (see Table E-2), using color-coded post-it-notes and pinned to the appropriate thematic lane. The fourth board, “Mapping Exercise,” required the participants to drag the post-it notes from board #3 to the Mapping Exercise board and place it next to the most closely related exist- ing RPS (Figure E-5). For example, the proposed topic “partnership with resource agencies” was posted next to RPS A1, Communication & Collaboration Practices. However, if the participants determined that a proposed topic did not align with any of the existing RPSs, then the topic could be placed at the bottom of the appropriate swim lane, indicating that the new topic should be developed as a new RPS. Appendix E1 includes a table with the complete list of topics by RPS. The participants determined that almost all the topics posted on the Mural did align with existing topics. Nine topics were not moved to any of the existing RPSs. The participants agreed that these nine, such as “keep it simple” and “customized to each discipline,” were common to all projects and were left in the “parking lot” (see Figure E-6). The nine topics are included in the table in Appendix E1. One participant questioned whether incorporating strategic disinvestment into risk and resil- ience assessment could become a new RPS—in other words, a method for agencies to deter- mine if it was time to stop maintaining an under-used asset as well as a communication plan to address the politics of making such a decision. The research team explained that such a dis- investment strategy really belongs to RPS B5, Risk and Resilience Thresholds and Selection of Mitigation Strategies, and offered to expand the description and objectives of RPS B5 to make sure this is covered. Finally, the participants and research team came to the conclusion that no new RPS needed to be developed and Activity 6, “Develop New Problem Statements,” was skipped. The workshop advanced to the seventh activity, “Choose Roadmap Options” (see Figure E-7). The participants had the option of selecting either Option 1, a 3-year roadmap where all of the tasks necessary to build a risk and resilience assessment standard are bundled into a single project, or Option 2, where the roadmap is subdivided into multiple projects over a 3-year time period plus a 2-year follow-on for tool development and pilot study for validation. The research team explained the pros and cons of each option, as summarized in Table E-3. One participant remarked that which option is appropriate depends on who will do the work— consultants, university researchers, or internal agency assets. One participant felt that a single project approach, Option 1, would be too much for any entity to handle and that it would be better to divide the project into bite-sized chunks, as in Option 2. Another asked if AASHTO Lane Number Title A RPS A1 Communication & Collaboration Practices RPS A2 Capacity Building Plan for R&R Assessment Processes RPS A3 Pilot Test R&R Models and Tools RPS A4 Identifying IOP Changes and Implementation Strategies for Guidance B RPS B1 Risk Models for Top Priority Hazards/Threats (PHASE 1) RPS B2 Developing a Historical Data Capture Process RPS B3 RISK Models for Multiple Hazards/Threats (PHASE 2) RPS B4 Quantitative RESILIENCE Assessment Methodology RPS B5 R&R Thresholds and Selection of Mitigation Strategies C RPS C1 Tools for RISK MODELS (PHASE 1) RPS C2 Tools for RESILIENCE Models RPS C3 Tools for RISK Models (PHASE 2) Note: Titles of the RPSs provided in this table have been abbreviated from their formal titles. Table E-2. Proposed RPSs.

Figure E-5. Mapping exercise.

Technical Memorandum—Stakeholder Engagement E-9 Figure E-6. Parking lot for general topics. Technical Support Services can do some of this work. Finally, one participant pointed out that due to the time required for the NCHRP project cycle, a project proposed now would be completed in the next 4 to 5 years. During the workshop the participants voiced a preference for Option 2, the multi-project approach. Due to technical difficulties and lack of time the participants were unable to conduct the final activity, “Prioritize RPS.” As a remedy, the research team created an online survey with Wufoo.com. The actual survey form can be found in Appendix E2. For each RPS, survey respon- dents were asked whether they felt a given RPS must be included in the 3-year roadmap, they would like to include the RPS, or the RPS can wait to be deferred to a later time. In addition, respondents had the option of entering what they thought the prerequisites for an RPS should be and entering any additional comments relevant to each RPS. Most respondents chose not to suggest the prerequisites nor add additional comments. With 11 surveys completed, the majority (over 50%) indicated that RPS A3, B1, B3, B4, B5, C1, C2, and C3 are must haves. The survey respondents indicated that RPS A1, A2, and B2 are like-to-haves, while the results for RPS A4 were tied between must have and like-to-have (Figure E-8). High-Level Takeaways Several key points were emphasized and raised consistently by participants across topics: • The participants agreed that the roadmap should be divided into multiple projects rather than a single, comprehensive project. • The participants stressed preference for a 3-year roadmap to produce the most important deliv- erables as soon as possible, with a 2-year follow-on to produce needed but less critical features. • Risk and resilience should not be completely siloed but treated as interrelated. • The framework should be consistent and focus on highway assets. • Tools and methodologies should be as simple as possible and not too expensive. Do not try to make models perfect. • Leadership buy-in is crucial, but this requires being able to demonstrate the benefits and costs of doing risk and resilience assessments. • There are different levels of assessment: planning versus project scoping.

Figure E-7. Roadmap options.

Technical Memorandum—Stakeholder Engagement E-11 Option 1 Option 2 Shorter delivery time. Greater pressure to produce results quickly. Project divided into smaller, more easily managed pieces. Longer delivery time. Centralized effort and enhanced internal collaboration. Higher project risk. Stuck with same project team for entire project. Ensures prerequisites met for each step of the long- term effort. Potential for greater transparency. Separating different steps/phases into different projects requires each team to track and study other projects before launching. Reduced redundancy in contracting process Possibility of unforeseen cost overruns. Shorter timeline requires a larger team and budget. Project teams selected based on expertise for each individual project. Multiple projects and teams result in less continuity of effort. Flexible, design- build approach. Project team can test and implement changes throughout the process. Potential for less stability for each step/phase and less transparency. Risk and resilience framework is fully fleshed out before tool development begins. Start and end points for each step are clearly defined, making it easier to measure progress. Tool development pushed out to the end means less flexibility. Project team tasked to develop tools may be stuck with blueprint it does not agree with. Table E-3. Comparison of roadmap Options 1 and 2. Note: The red shading indicates the highest score for the RPS; the yellow shading indicates a tie score. Figure E-8. RPS prioritization of survey results.

E-12 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis Appendix E1 Table of Suggested Topics That Should Be Covered by RPS Lane RPS Comment A A1. Communication & Collaboration Practices R&R Coordination within agency and interagency coordination Partner with the appropriate TRB committee to develop RNS about how to communicate uncertainty Define resilience Roadmap for integration (top down and bottom up) Policies and best practices for buy-in What should DOT role be in MPO/local resiliency programs Partnership with resource agencies Media outreach on importance of resiliency Media outreach is really important Roadmap for integration (top down and bottom up) A A2. Capacity Building Plan for R&R Assessment Processes An ultimate goal/deliverable of design parameters Consultant and thought leadership training Outreach and implementation: webinars, peer exchanges Compendium of best practices!! -- nationally Before any training happens, we need to have a beta test of a product/framework. Training program development. Mixed media. Training! Get each discipline to take ownership of resilience Buy-in from leadership CEO Primer Need leadership support Document resiliency considerations and when does adaptation end? A A3. Pilot Test R&R Models and Tools How resilient are our current design practices Best practices for implementation Performance Measures—how do we know when we did what we wanted? Define threats by regions A A4. Identifying IOP Changes and Implementation Strategies for Guidance Does FHWA funding for emergencies allow for resiliency improvements? Which division should take the lead? Asset maintenance, planning, design? Executive policy support—directive—and ongoing support Understanding federal funding matrixes and alignment of decision-making Need leadership support Strategies for enculturation of risk and resilience lexicon and principles within the organization Must have funding and/or mandate—carrot and/or stick Leadership buy-in approaches Defined deliverables B B1. RISK Models for Top Priority Hazards/Threats (PHASE 1) Systems’ thinking and prioritizing Standardized assessments Step-by-step approach for the various assessments Need nationally accepted assumptions on climate change impacts. Or at least at a state level. What assets can we let go and a process of those decisions and outreach needs Perhaps a way to help structure R&R investments into a project selection and prioritization framework Ideas for different assessments for varying assets (e.g., pavement, ITS devices)

Technical Memorandum—Stakeholder Engagement E-13 Lane RPS Comment B B2.Developing a Historical Data Capture Process Much better data on water flow—stream stats doesn't work! Better data sets from our DOTs. Updatable to live data sources Some data needed isn't readily available or accurate B RPS B3. RISK Models for Multiple Hazards/Threats (PHASE 2) Thinking beyond pavement and bridges that are at risk Different levels of assessment at planning versus project scoring B B4. Quantitative RESILENCE assessment Models Cost-benefit analysis How risk and resiliency overlap/integrate A process framework which is flexible but not overly so. Agreed consistent basis for risk and resilience quantification. Clear/agreed/robust KPIs. Applicability of findings Find ways to help "embed" this work in existing processes—it's hard to add things to people's plates. Need to know what DOTs need to have developed in order to do each step...the process is evolutionary and needs to take small steps prior to system-wide level analysis. Don't neglect qualitative assessment entirely B B5. R&R Thresholds and Selection of Mitigation Strategies Guidance Increase overall understanding of differences between risk and resilience processes Performance Measures!! Defendable decision matrix—justify go/no go Know acceptable threshold of asset for risk Clear and easy to grasp relationship between risk and resilience Perhaps include ROI and how to calculate it as part of this process to be able to justify recommendations Costs associated with improving resiliency. Need to assess that we have funding to improve resiliency. To what standard should we improve? Strategic disinvestment incorporated into R&R assessment (ROI thresholds, alternative funding) C C1. Tools for RISK Models (PHASE 1) GIS-based Easy to use across divisions Not too costly!!! Standard risk cost-benefit analysis ROI tool Tools that can be updated easily Tools to capture/report data Beta test first Easy to use C C2. Tools for RESILIENCE Models Tools that can integrate planning, design, and maintenance for risk management Tool to understand how our climate/resiliency decisions impact transportation equity Clear way to show cost-effectiveness of resiliency efforts Report risk/resilience performance metrics Some guidance on calculating or framing asset vulnerability ROI tool Best practices from other states (continued on next page)

E-14 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis Lane RPS Comment C C3. Tools for RISK Models (PHASE 2) Easy to use Tools that can integrate planning, design, and maintenance for risk management ROI tool Tools facilitating analysis at a point in time and as a function of time “Parking Lot”—Common to all projects Don't create something new. Seems like the basics are out there Keep it as SIMPLE as possible Lends itself to JIT training. Equitable access Know state resources Don’t silo risk and resilience models, assessment tools R&R and sustainability correlation Remember: "All models are wrong, some are useful"—in other words, don't try to make it perfect. Customized to each discipline

Technical Memorandum—Stakeholder Engagement E-15 Appendix E2 Research Problem Statement Survey Research Problem Statement Survey Results Note: The red shading indicates the highest scores for the RPSs. The yellow shading indicates a tie score. Must Like Can Wait A1. Communication and Collaboration Practices 18% 64% 18% A2. Capacity Building Plan 45% 55% 0% A3. Pilot Test R&R Models and Tools 55% 18% 27% A4. Identifying IOP Changes & Implementation Strategies 36% 36% 27% B1. RISK Assessment Methodologies Top Priority Hazards/Threats (PHASE 1) 82% 18% 0% B2. Historical Data Capture Process 27% 55% 18% B3. RISK Assessment Methodologies Other Hazards/Threats (PHASE 2) 55% 45% 0% B4. RESILIENCE Assessment Methodologies 64% 36% 0% B5. R&R Thresholds and Selection of Mitigation Strategies 64% 36% 0% C1. Tools for RISK Models (PHASE 1) 73% 9% 18% C2. Tools for RESILIENCE Models 64% 18% 18% C3. Tools for RISK Models (PHASE 2) 55% 45% 0%

E-16 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis Appendix E3 PowerPoint Presentation

Technical Memorandum—Stakeholder Engagement E-17

E-18 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis

Technical Memorandum—Stakeholder Engagement E-19

E-20 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis

Technical Memorandum—Stakeholder Engagement E-21

E-22 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis A. ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, OUTREACH, AND IMPLEMENTATION B. RISK & RESILIENCE ASSESSMENT PROCESSES C. TECHNOLOGY & TOOLS

Technical Memorandum—Stakeholder Engagement E-23

E-24 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis

Abbreviations and acronyms used without denitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ISBN 978-0-309-68775-1 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 6 8 7 7 5 1 9 0 0 0 0