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.

6 C H A P T E R 2 Phase 1 involved the development of a comprehensive glossary of terms related to risk and resilience, a literature review, a gap assessment of the state of practice, and the development of multiple draft approaches for roadmap development. This chapter describes the approaches used by the research team for each of these activities. 2.1 Glossary of Terms The first step in this research was to develop a glossary of terms. Many different glossaries of terms related to risk and resilience have been developed in multiple sectors and from different perspectives (e.g., cyber risk versus climate change resilience). The glossary of terms was devel- oped with the lens of quantitative all-hazards risk and resilience analysis for highway infrastruc- ture. The glossary intended to coalesce the language surrounding all-hazards risk and resilience and to bring together the multiple authoritative definitions for review as an industry. The intent was to develop a comprehensive and consistent set of risk and resilience terminology for transportation agency use. The current glossary contains more than 180 terms with definitions drawn from more than 90 sources. Definitions were derived from sources published by the transportation sector, such as the FHWA Planning Glossary, the TRB Glossary, various NCHRP reports, and the AASHTO Transportation Asset Management (TAM) Guide. Some definitions are based on the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) language. Additionally, certain definitions are derived from glossaries contained in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Risk Analysis and Management for Critical Asset Protection (RAMCAP) Plus manual and the American Water Works Association (AWWA) J100 standard. Multiple definitions are included in this glossary to provide context and to help transportation professionals understand the nuance and contextual differences among authoritative sources. After a draft version of the glossary of terms was submitted and reviewed by the NCHRP Project 23-09 panel, a revised version was developed addressing all panel comments to the best of the team’s ability. The revised glossary is presented in Appendix A. 2.2 Literature Review In conducting the literature review, the research team assembled an extensive inventory of existing research, tools, and key products that are relevant to this project. In addition, the research team looked at national and international sources for identifying best practice guid- ance and risk and resilience assessment methodologies. The team reviewed more than 230 active and past research reports where risk and resilience were discussed or employed in the context State-of-Practice Review

State-of-Practice Review 7 of highway asset analysis. This list included general research reports, state asset management plans, guidelines, state performance reports, management tool application documents, and state policies and recommendations. While transportation is the central focus of this project, literature from other relevant fields was included for added insight. The search included the following: • Traditional academic journal databases via Google Scholar • TRID: TRB’s integrated database • AASHTO’s TAM Portal • Review of the U.S. DOT website as well as state DOT websites and publications • Materials suggested by resiliency and risk management experts The research team reviewed 230 documents and provided summary comments about their relevance in a table of resources. The resource review was organized by section in a shared Excel document so that the research team could provide input. Each resource had a link to access the publication, type and date of publication, comments relating to the document, and the contributing research team member’s name. The review format allowed the team to pull the necessary resources quickly and efficiently when producing the review. From the original list, 219 documents were deemed relevant and helpful. These formed the basis of the literature review. The research team made the following observations about the findings in the literature review: • In many cases, risk and resilience concepts are used interchangeably among state and local DOTs. There is a need for education to help transportation professionals understand how these two terms relate to each other and the relevant metrics for each term. • It has been observed that many metrics for resilience incorporate risk measures. There is an inverse relationship between risk and resilience where reducing risk increases resilience and vice versa. However, other factors such as planning for a response, recovery, and adaptation play a significant role in system resilience. • There are minimal differences in AASHTO and FHWA definitions for risk and resilience. Many states have adopted either the FHWA or AASHTO risk and resilience definitions. How- ever, some states have developed their own definitions. • Most states currently perform risk assessments by using simple risk registers based on a five-point rating system that relies on a collective judgment. A few state DOTs are expand- ing their initiatives and incorporating quantitative methodologies for risk and resilience assessments. • Multiple federal transportation agencies, state DOTs, and MPOs have performed vulner- ability assessments using the FHWA Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework (VAAF) or a variation of it during FHWA-sponsored resilience pilot projects. • There is no standard methodology for performing quantitative risk and resilience assessments for transportation agencies; however, other sectors such as the water/wastewater industry and the energy industry have developed methodologies that are more widely adopted and applied in their industries. Appendix B of this report presents the literature review developed for this project. 2.3 Gap Assessment Based on the findings of the literature review, the research team conducted an assessment to identify gaps existing in the state of practice of how state DOTs conduct quantitative all-hazard risk and resilience assessments.

8 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis The methodology for the gap assessment started with the barriers and limitations that were noted in the literature review. That information was reviewed in detail, including the limitations and lessons learned. Potential gaps were compiled and organized into three categories: Processes This set of gaps relates to the business processes for state DOTs, Emergency Management Agencies (EMAs), and other partner organizations. Various methods and frameworks have been adopted to conduct risk and resilience assessments with varying levels of analytical or evaluation effort covering both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The major gaps identi- fied in this category include the following: • Risk and resilience assessment to support interagency planning for disasters • Defining and adopting risk and resilience performance measures • Monitoring results of risk and resilience assessments and their integration into DOT decision-making • Scoping guidance for risk and resilience analysis Technology and Tools The second set of gaps relates to the technology and tools that are used to support risk and resilience assessments. There are a variety of technologies and tools that are available to planners, including the following: • Qualitative, semiquantitative, and quantitative risk assessment tools • Asset vulnerability estimation tools • Criticality and communication tools These tools have limitations and gaps in their underlying methodologies and data requirements necessary for their use. The following are the main gaps identified: • Choice of methodology for risk and resilience assessment tools (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, deterministic, probabilistic, etc.) • Data availability and suitability for risk and resilience assessments • Developed standard consequence estimation methodologies Technical Capacity Building The final set of gaps relates to agencies’ technical capacity to carry out risk and resilience assessments. As risk and resilience methodologies become more sophisticated, they require more staff training and additional skill development to regularly conduct assessments within constrained resources. The following are the main gaps agencies have in building capacity to handle increasing technical demands: • There is a lack of training material available for DOT staff for risk and resilience assessments. • Various definitions and frameworks for risk and resilience analyses may cause confusion. • Many risks and resilience tools do not meet accessibility principles and standards. The gap assessment is presented in Appendix C. These gaps were further validated during the industry workshops. 2.4 Stakeholder Engagement The research team conducted three interactive stakeholder engagements in the form of industry workshops. The first two had representation from state DOT staff, local agencies, academia, and private consultants. Over 21 states were represented between the two workshops

State-of-Practice Review 9 with participants from different areas and levels of state DOTs, U.S. DOT, AASHTO, FHWA, local agencies, academia, and the private sector. Figure 2-1 shows the geographical distribution of participants. These workshops were an important factor to ensure that a standardized process for conduct- ing an all-hazards risk and resilience analysis of highway assets would meet the transportation industry’s needs. The workshops helped the research team: • Validate gaps identified in the state of practice. • Obtain information for the development of the risk and resilience framework and roadmap. • Identify working groups to validate the roadmap and RPSs. The workshops consisted primarily of participant responses to a series of questions as well as an open discussion on deep-dive topics. They were conducted using online platforms and tools (Zoom for the discussion and Mentimeter for questions). Break-out groups were created based on information provided on the registration site regarding affiliation (e.g., state DOT), area of expertise (e.g., asset management), and location (e.g., East Coast). Participation and attendance during the 3-hour workshops were successful; the March workshop had 21 participants, and the April workshop had 34. During the workshops, several key points were emphasized and raised consistently by participants across topics: • Obtain resources and tools that are easy to use and understand so that agencies can better perform in-house assessments. • Obtain updated guidance and education for staff and leadership, including training to assist staff in conducting risk and resilience analysis. • Obtain a clear and defined definition of risk and resilience. • Use a combination approach of deterministic and probabilistic quantitative factors when creating the risk and resilience framework. Note: The shading indicates participants’ states. Figure 2-1. Geographical distribution of participants of the industry workshops.

10 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis • Address gaps in agencies’ functionality and confusion about the “right” tool to use when working on risk and resilience initiatives. • Develop economic analyses for alternative resilience improvements within agencies and incorporate risk and resilience assessments into decision-making. Overall, workshop participants concurred with the findings from the gap assessment. In addi- tion, participants emphasized the need for tools that are (a) easy to use, (b) require minimum data inputs, and (c) produce outputs meaningful to decision-makers. In addition, information to better inform the research roadmap and Highway Risk and Resilience (R&R) Manual was gathered through a series of questions introduced to participants during the workshop. The questions were based on the following topics: • Identification of the most significant threats and assets to include in the Highway Risk and Resilience (R&R) Manual • Type of analysis to be included in the Highway Risk and Resilience (R&R) Manual (deterministic versus probabilistic) • Metrics to be developed for both risk and resilience • The best way to promote the adoption of the Highway Risk and Resilience (R&R) Manual once established • Use of the Highway Risk and Resilience (R&R) Manual (e.g., project prioritization)