[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RETHINKING DISASTER RECOVERY AND RESILIENCY: PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND
ACCELERATING ASSISTANCE, PART I
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Brian Schatz (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Schatz, Reed, Coons, Murphy, Van Hollen,
Collins, Boozman, Capito, Hoeven, and Braun.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEMENT OF HON. POLLY TROTTENBERG, DEPUTY SECRETARY
opening statement of senator brian schatz
Senator Schatz. Good morning. I am honored to kick off our
first oversight hearing as the chairman of the Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee.
I want to thank Ranking Member Collins who has served as
chairman of this important subcommittee for many years with
Jack Reed. Senator Collins, there is literally no one in the
United States Senate, I would be more pleased to work with, who
has got a longer and more substantial track record of
bipartisan accomplishment on the Appropriations Committee, but
really throughout the Senate. So it is going to be a pleasure
to work with you.
This hearing is the first of two to examine how departments
under our jurisdiction manage disaster recovery programs, and
how we can make our communities more resilient to the effects
of climate change. Today's focus is on the Department of
Transportation.
For transportation, building back is step one in the
disaster recovery. We need to build back better to be more
resilient. This saves money in the long term, and allows for a
quicker recovery in the short term. We need to move beyond
quick fixes and push state transportation Departments to
include resiliency in all aspects of transportation
infrastructure, including their planning, design, materials and
engineering.
We need to investments in resiliency to help communities
adapt to the effects of climate change. Every day that we fail
to act we become more vulnerable. We see the impacts of climate
change everywhere, with increased flooding, and repeated major
disaster events every year, coastal communities and critical
roadways are quite literally being reclaimed by the ocean
itself.
DOT has started to work on this through the Federal
Highways Administration (FHWA), which now allows states to
include resiliency features, such as shoreline stabilization,
and larger culverts when building back from a disaster. But the
Department still needs to provide consistent guidance on the
approval process and treat resiliency as a core feature and not
as an added luxury.
The Department should also take action to encourage state
and local transportation agencies to think more broadly about
resiliency. It is not just about roadways, it is also about
ports, airports, railways that are all essential to our
economy. These assets need to be able to recover quickly from
extreme weather events and adapt to sea level rise.
The recent events of the Colonial Pipeline also highlight
the need to incorporate cybersecurity into our resiliency
framework. While DHS has jurisdiction over cybersecurity and
the security of critical infrastructure, there is no Federal
agency that regulates mandatory cybersecurity standards for our
Nation's pipelines. The administration is taking an aggressive
and whole-of-government approach to this issue.
Deputy Secretary Trottenberg, I look forward to your
comments on how DOT is supporting this effort.
I am glad to see the administration's American Jobs Plan
includes dedicated funding for infrastructure resiliency
programs, specifically it includes $8 billion for the
Department of Transportation, including $3 billion for the
National Resilient Communities challenge, and $5 billion for
PROTECT grants. I want to highlight that PROTECT grants were
part of the Senate Reauthorization Bill marked up by EPW on a
unanimous vote last Congress, so that we know that there is
broad bipartisan support for dedicated funding for resiliency.
But $8 billion is not nearly enough, and this funding needs to
be available to all modes.
In addition to the American Jobs Plan proposal, I am glad
to see the administration incorporating resiliency into its
competitive grant process. The Department should provide more
technical assistance to state and local governments, and update
policy guidance to incorporate resiliency into the day-to-day
work of transportation planners and engineers. This is
important because, as we know, these changes must come from the
local level, and not just Washington, DC.
With that, I would like to turn it over to our ranking
member, Senator Collins.
statement of senator susan m. collins
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin my remarks
today by congratulating you on assuming the chairmanship of
this important subcommittee. I am sure that you will enjoy it
and be a great leader as we work together. I also want to pay
tribute to Senator Reed with whom I have worked. We sort of
went back and forth as chairman and ranking member for a long
time. And he did a great job, and we always worked together in
a bipartisan way, and I know that you, Senator Schatz, and I
will do so as well.
I also want to thank you for holding an extraordinarily
timely hearing on disaster recovery programs and transportation
resiliency.
I welcome each of our witnesses who are joining us today.
And I am particularly pleased to welcome Dr. Habib Dagher, who
joins us from the University of Maine.
Today's discussion regarding disaster recovery and
transportation resiliency is, as you noted, particularly timely
given the devastating cyberattack on a major pipeline,
demonstrates the need for our critical infrastructure to be
hardened against such attacks, and for mandatory reporting of
attacks on our critical infrastructure.
The administration recently released its infrastructure
plan; a more than $4 trillion proposal that goes far beyond the
traditional definition of infrastructure, and prioritize these
expensive subsidies for electric vehicles over at the repair
and replacement of roads, bridges, highways, airports, and
seaports, and includes social programs not traditionally
considered infrastructure.
As everyone is aware, there are some Republicans who have
also proposed an infrastructure package that would target core
transportation infrastructure, as well as water systems and
broadband expansion.
For my part, I support a robust infrastructure investment
in this country, and I have worked hard with the former
chairman of this subcommittee to increase funding for many
critical programs to address our country's physical and digital
infrastructure needs.
As Senator Schatz and I know, the infrastructure needs of
Hawaii are quite different from those in the State of Maine,
but in many ways, I think that is important because it helps us
recognize that states have different needs, and that our
programs need to be flexible enough to recognize that.
As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the
former chair of the Homeland Security Committee quite some time
ago, I have long had an interest in cybersecurity for our
critical infrastructure, and I look forward to pursuing that
issue. In fact, I am working with Senators Warner and Rubio on
a cybersecurity bill that we will introduce shortly.
As a member of the Bipartisan Senate Climate Solutions
Caucus, I have worked with many of my colleagues across the
aisle to build consensus for programs that can help combat
climate change while supporting our infrastructure. Today, we
will learn more better country's needs in terms of disaster
response, transportation resiliency, and improving our
infrastructure through research development, construction
materials, building techniques, and more.
Whether it is for disaster recovery, infrastructure
longevity, or sustainability, research and investment in new
techniques and materials has the potential to extend the life
of critical public works to make them more resilient.
Recently, I introduced a bill that focuses on innovative
materials, it is called the IMAGINE Act, with Senator
Whitehouse. Our bill would fund research into new materials,
and building techniques, and spur Federal investment in bridge
and water infrastructure projects that use innovative materials
and techniques, prioritizing coastal and rural projects.
This would help translate research into practice, an area
where the University of Maine has been a national leader. I
will talk more about Dr. Habib Dagher's work when I introduce
him later, but let me say that the University of Maine's
Advanced Structures and Composite Center has grown from 4 to
260 personnel, and is housed in a 100,000-square-foot
laboratory, making it the largest university-based research
center in the State of Maine. Among other achievements that
composite centers have developed technologies to build the
longest composite materials highway bridge in the country.
I am pleased to say it happens to be located in the State
of Maine, and was completed in cooperation with Maine's
Department of Transportation.
Dr. Dagher is also leading the Transportation
Infrastructure Durability Center at the university, which was
recently established with the U.S. Department of Transportation
funding under a highly competitive grant program. It brings
together the expertise of New England State DOTs, and six
universities in developing more sustainable materials and
construction methods. The University of Maine is also working
with one of our national labs.
I look forward to hearing from all of our distinguished
witnesses, and working with them, as well as the chairman and
other members of this committee to advance our shared
bipartisan priorities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Senator Collins.
I now want to turn to our panel of witnesses, and welcome
all of you to the subcommittee. First, we have the Honorable
Polly Trottenberg, deputy secretary of the Department of
Transportation. Congratulations on your confirmation. I am
honored that your first congressional hearing will be before
this subcommittee.
Next, we will have Ms. Elizabeth Repko, acting director of
the Physical Infrastructure Team at the GAO.
From Hawaii, up at 4:00 a.m., we have my friend, Mr. Ed
Sniffen. Ed is the deputy director for Highways at Hawaii DOT.
Mr. Sniffen is also the chair of the AASHTO Committee on
Transportation System Security and Resiliency. Thank you so
much for being up early to share your experience with us, Ed.
And finally, we have Dr. Habib Dagher, who is the executive
director of the Advanced Structures and Composite Center, as
well as the founder of the Transportation Infrastructure
Durability Center. Mr. Dagher, thank you for joining us here
today to share your expertise.
Deputy Secretary Trottenberg, you may proceed with your
testimony.
summary statement of hon. polly trottenberg
Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Schatz,
Ranking Member Collins, and members of the committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today about the Department of
Transportation's policies and approaches to enhance
infrastructure resilience, and how the President's American
Jobs Plan will help us create stronger, more resilient
transportation systems.
Today, we will discuss one of the most critical
infrastructure risks, climate change, as well as the growing
challenge of cybersecurity in light of the recent Colonial
Pipeline cyberattack. This administration recognizes that
climate change is here and demands a national response,
wildfires, droughts, floods, and other high-impact weather
events have become more and more common. They have destroyed
communities, damaged infrastructure and claimed lives.
And the cost has been staggering. In 2020 alone the U.S.
suffered 22 weather disasters that each cost at least a billion
dollars in damages. When Superstorm Sandy charged up the
Atlantic Coast in the fall of 2012, it brought a record-setting
storm surge that claimed lives, destroyed homes and businesses,
left millions without power, and cost tens of billions.
We have seen similar destruction caused by Hurricane Harvey
in 2017, the California wildfires in 2020, and the winter ice
storm in Texas just a few months ago, along with many other
events. We are still rebuilding and learning from these
disasters, but they have taught us that we must proactively
incorporate resilience into our infrastructure, rather than
turn to Federal emergency relief after the damage is done.
And clearly we must consider cybersecurity as another
dimension of resiliency. While we are pleased that the Colonial
Pipeline was back online last night, the cyberattack and
resulting shutdown have had an effect on the regional fuel
supply. The President has directed the entire administration to
bring all resources to bear in addressing the situation,
working in concert with our sister agencies, the extraordinary
team at DOT, across all the modes, work to facilitate the
transport of fuel and the reopening of the pipeline.
The Colonial Pipeline incident underscores that in addition
to protecting critical infrastructure from extreme weather
events, we must also take--must also make cybersecurity a core
priority.
But for today's hearing, I will focus primarily on actions
we are taking in DOT to address climate change and resiliency,
and how the American Jobs Plan can help us do even more. At DOT
we are supporting the President's aggressive goal of net-zero
emissions by 2050, by investing in and accelerating a shift to
clean transportation, including clean vehicles, airplanes,
ships, and transit, as well as making walking and biking safer
and easier.
Furthermore, we have developed four key resiliency
strategies. First, build stronger or better, or retrofit
existing infrastructure incorporating nature-based strategies
wherever possible. Second, add redundancy and efficiency to the
transportation network by building new links, multimodal hubs,
or routes. Three, relocate transportation assets to less
vulnerable locations; and lastly, operational strategies to
help address disruptions.
In addition, Federal Highways and the Federal Transit
Administration, both offer emergency relief programs and work
closely with your states and transit agents to get aid on the
ground quickly. We are also partnering with state, local, and
tribal agencies to evaluate the climate vulnerabilities of
their transportation assets, and helping them incorporate
resiliency into their planning.
And the President's American Jobs Plan is a chance to
jumpstart efforts to make transformational investments in
projects and approaches that build resilience. One highlight of
the plan is a $50 billion investment in infrastructure
resilience across a range of sectors, including transportation.
The plan also allocates 115 billion for a ``fix it right''
approach to repairing our roads and bridges, including 20
billion to improve road safety for all users. The plan will
decrease greenhouse gas emissions by investing 85 billion in
transit, and 80 billion in rail, as well as 174 billion to
support the adoption of electric vehicles. And it calls for 25
billion for airports, and 17 billion for inland waterways and
ports.
The plan will also improve equity by ensuring that at least
40 percent of the benefits of climate investments flow to
underserved communities who bear the disproportionate effects
of transportation pollution. We look forward to working with
you to make sure that all the American Jobs Plan investments
meet local community needs.
The AJP also makes financial sense, since the benefits of
sound resilience investments can far outweigh the cost. In 2020
the National Institute of Building Sciences found that for
every dollar of Federal mitigation grant spent to avoid
disasters before they happen, we save six dollars. Investing in
a more sustainable, equitable transportation system will create
jobs and new American industries, and will help us tackle
climate change, improve safety, and quality of life.
But addressing resilience requires more than money. It
requires an interdisciplinary effort and a partnership with you
and Congress, with state, local, and tribal leaders, with
industry, with scientists and researchers, and with local
communities.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I am happy
to answer your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Polly Trottenberg
Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am eager
to speak with you about how the Department of Transportation's policies
and approaches enhance infrastructure resilience and how the
President's American Jobs Plan will help us create stronger, more
resilient transportation infrastructure.
The Biden-Harris Administration recognizes that climate change is
here and demands a national response. Wildfires, droughts, floods, and
other high-impact weather events have become more and more common. They
have destroyed communities, damaged infrastructure, and claimed lives.
And the cost has been staggering. In 2020 alone, the U.S. suffered 22
high-impact weather disasters that each cost at least $1 billion in
damages.
Meanwhile, rising sea levels are dramatically eroding our
coastlines in many places, putting communities and vital infrastructure
at risk. Our seaports and coastal airports face storm surges, chronic
flooding, and the risk of permanent inundation. Crucial transportation
hubs in states like Hawaii and Louisiana are at severe risk.
When Superstorm Sandy charged up the Atlantic Coast in the fall of
2012, it brought a record-setting storm surge that pummeled coastal
communities large and small. Sandy destroyed homes and businesses, left
millions without power, and cost our nation tens of billions.
When I became the Commissioner of the New York City Department of
Transportation in 2014, I inherited a recovery still very much in
process and witnessed the devastation wrought by a storm of that size
and power, and the enormous challenges of building back critical
infrastructure in a dense urban environment that can withstand future
weather and climate disasters.
We have seen similar destruction caused by Hurricane Harvey in
2017, the California wildfires in 2020, the winter ice storm in Texas
just a few months ago, and the January collapse of Highway 1 in Big
Sur, California, caused by heavy rain and storm debris, along with
many, many more events. We are still rebuilding and learning from those
disasters. They have taught us that if we want to protect the public,
prevent damage and disruption, and save taxpayer dollars, we must
proactively incorporate resilience into our transportation
infrastructure, rather than turn to federal emergency relief funds for
repairs after the damage has already been done.
Today, I would like to talk to you about the actions we are taking
at DOT on climate change and resilience to protect our nation's
infrastructure, and how the American Jobs Plan can help us do even
more.
At DOT, we are supporting the President's aggressive goal of net-
zero emissions by 2050 by investing in and accelerating a shift to
clean transportation, including clean transit, trains, airplanes,
ships, and vehicles, as well as making walking and biking safer and
easier. Furthermore, we have developed four key strategies to make our
infrastructure more resilient.
1) We can build stronger or better, or retrofit existing
infrastructure to prepare for and adapt to changes in the
climate, incorporating nature-based strategies that can help
protect transportation infrastructure--such as constructed
marshes to protect coastal highways--wherever possible.
2) We can add redundancy and efficiency to the transportation network
by building new links, multimodal hubs, or routes.
3) We can relocate transportation assets to less vulnerable, but
still well-connected, locations.
4) And, lastly, we can use more intensive maintenance or operational
strategies to help address disruptions.
In addition, the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit
Administration both offer emergency relief programs that are a valuable
tool for communities. These programs have provided over $15 billion for
highways since 2005 and $11 billion for transit since 2013 to rebuild
transportation assets following a declared disaster. The Department has
worked closely with your states and transit agencies to get resources
and aid on the ground quickly. We encourage agencies to take advantage
of every opportunity to use these funds to build back better and
stronger infrastructure. We recognize how important these programs are
for many of you here, and we want to make sure that we are effectively
collaborating with you.
But we also want to proactively avoid damage by building resilient
infrastructure. We are partnering with State, local, and Tribal
agencies to evaluate the climate vulnerabilities of their
transportation assets. We are piloting tools and metrics for
resilience, like DOT's ``Resilience and Disaster Recovery Tool Suite,''
which will help state and local agencies incorporate resilience into
their planning. And we are working with our partners to tailor
resilience options to each transportation facility.
However, disaster recovery and resilience efforts will require more
resources as weather and climate disasters become ever more frequent.
The President's American Jobs Plan is a chance to jump-start our
efforts to make transformational investments in projects and approaches
that build resilience. One highlight of the plan is a $50 billion
investment in infrastructure resilience across a range of sectors,
including transportation. We look forward to working with you to make
sure that these investments meet community needs.
The Plan also allocates $115 billion for a ``fix it right''
approach to repairing our highways, bridges, and main streets. The Plan
will decrease vehicle-produced greenhouse gas emissions by investing
$85 billion in transit and $80 billion in rail, as well as $174 billion
to support the nationwide adoption of electric vehicles. It calls for
$25 billion for our airports, including funding for the Airport
Improvement Program and upgrades to FAA assets, and $17 billion for
inland waterways and ports. Additionally, the plan provides $20 billion
to improve road safety for all users, including increases to existing
safety programs and a new Safe Streets for All program to fund state
and local ``vision zero'' plans and other improvements to reduce
crashes and fatalities, especially for cyclists and pedestrians.
Furthermore, the Plan will improve equity by ensuring that at least
40% of the benefits of climate investments flow to underserved
communities, who bear disproportionate impacts of transportation
pollution and are more vulnerable to negative effects of climate
change.
In totality, we believe the American Jobs Plan could be a
transformational investment in making the U.S. transportation system
more resilient and environmentally sustainable.
The AJP also makes financial sense. Investing in infrastructure
that can't withstand climate change is just throwing good money after
bad. And research indicates that the financial benefits of resilience
far outweigh the costs. The National Institute of Building Sciences
found that for every dollar of federal mitigation grants we spend to
avoid disasters before they happen, we save six dollars.
Investing in a more sustainable, equitable transportation system
will create jobs and new American industries and will help us tackle
climate change, improve safety, and increase quality of life,
especially for those most negatively impacted over the past decades.
But addressing resilience requires more than money. It requires an
interdisciplinary effort to address challenges in science, politics,
and financing. To succeed, we need to partner with you in Congress;
with state, local, and tribal transportation leaders; with industry;
with scientists and researchers; and with local communities.
I look forward to working with members of the Committee to make
that possible. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. I
am happy to answer your questions.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
Ms. Repko.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH REPKO, ACTING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Ms. Repko. Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, and
members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to
discuss how GAO's past and ongoing work can help inform options
to improve the climate resilience of our transportation
infrastructure.
The United States invests billions of dollars annually into
the Nation's surface transportation system, which is critical
to the economy and affects the lives of most Americans.
However, according to the National Climate Assessment changes
in the climate pose a risk to the safety, efficiency, and
reliability of that system. Further, the rising number of
natural disasters and increasing reliance on Federal assistance
by those in affected communities is a key source of Federal
fiscal exposure.
Since 2005, Federal funding for disaster assistance has
totaled at least $0.5 trillion, and these costs are projected
to increase as extreme weather events become more frequent and
intense due to climate change. In recognition of this fiscal
exposure, GAO has included better managing climate change risks
in its high risk list since 2013. As such, we have recommended
enhancing resilience, which includes our ability to plan for,
adapt to, and recover from adverse events.
Resilience investments upfront can reduce the need for more
costly steps in the future. This is indeed a situation in which
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. My statement
today focuses on steps the Federal government could take to
improve climate resilience in the Nation's transportation
infrastructure. Including, first, following the principles of
GAO's Disaster Resilience Framework, and second, considering
options specific to the Federal Aid Highway Program.
First, GAO issued its Disaster Resilience Framework in
October 2019. The framework is organized around three guiding
principles, information, integration, and incentives. For
instance, we have found that authoritative and accurate
information on disaster risks can help guide decisions that
promote resilience. This is particularly relevant in the area
of infrastructure or information on climate trends, such as
likely increases in precipitation or temperature may be
critical to making long-term investments.
However, the Federal government's climate data are
fragmented and no single source of authoritative information
exists. We have recommended ways to address this issue such as
by creating a national climate information system. As of
December 2020 actions have not been taken to address these
recommendations.
Similarly, we have found that Federal incentives can play a
key role in motivating climate resilience efforts. Most of the
Nation's infrastructure is owned and operated by non-Federal
actors who face competing priorities when planning projects,
the government can help encourage these actors to incorporate
resilience, to incentivizing them to use design standards based
on the best available disaster information.
As such, we have recommended that the Federal government
work to provide better climate information to organizations
that set design standards, while some action has been taken on
this recommendation, as of April 2021 agencies have not taken
sufficient action to address it.
Second, GAO's ongoing work offers preliminary insights on
options to build greater resilience into the Federal-aid
highway program. These options include integrating resilience
into FHWA's policy guidance and planning requirements. Other
options include establishing formulas to meet climate-related
goals, or the use of discretionary grant programs to assist
particularly vulnerable roads or populations.
Some of these options are similar to those that GAO has
recommended in our previous work. And others include actions
that FHWA may undertake on its own, or those that may require
congressional action. Creating the appropriate mix of options
to enhance the climate resilience of federally-funded roads is
not easy. It is a policy choice that requires complex trade-off
decisions. However, resilience offers an opportunity to help
ensure that federally-funded roads can withstand or more easily
recover from disasters. Seizing this opportunity can better
protect the billions we invest annually in highway
infrastructure, while also helping reduce our future fiscal
exposure.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Collins, and members of the
subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. Elizabeth Repko
Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the
Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our past and
ongoing work on climate resilience and transportation infrastructure.
The nation's surface transportation system-including highways, transit,
and rail systems that move both people and freight-is critical to the
economy and affects the daily lives of most Americans. However, changes
in the climate pose a risk to the safety, efficiency, and reliability
of the U.S. transportation system, according to the 2018 Fourth
National Climate Assessment.\1\ This assessment states that a changing
climate undermines the transportation system's ability to perform
reliably, safely, and efficiently. This report notes that heavy
precipitation, river and coastal flooding, heat, and changes in average
precipitation and temperature impact individual assets across all modes
of transportation. These impacts threaten the performance of the entire
network, with critical ramifications for safety, environmental
sustainability, economic vitality and mobility, congestion, and system
reliability, particularly for vulnerable populations and urban
infrastructure according to the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Global Change Research Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-606,
Sec. 103, 104 Stat. 3096, 3098, directed the President to establish the
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). USGCRP coordinates and
integrates the activities of 13 federal agencies that research changes
in the global environment and their implications for society. USGCRP
most recently released a National Climate Assessment in 2018. See
USGCRP, Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth
National Climate Assessment, vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rising number of natural disasters and increasing reliance on
federal assistance by those in affected communities is a key source of
federal fiscal exposure. As we stated in our report on the nation's
fiscal health in March of 2021, since 2005, federal funding for
disaster assistance has totaled at least $524 billion.\2\ This funding
which consists of obligations for disaster assistance from 2005 through
2014 totaling about $278 billion \3\ and select appropriations for
disaster assistance from 2015 to 2020 totaling $246 billion.\4\
Disaster costs to the federal government are projected to increase as
certain extreme weather events become more frequent and intense due to
climate change, as observed and projected by the U.S. Global Change
Research Program and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, The Nation's Fiscal Health: After Pandemic Recovery, Focus
Needed on Achieving Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability, GAO-21-275SP
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2021).
\3\ See GAO, Federal Disaster Assistance: Federal Departments and
Agencies Obligated at Least $277.6 Billion during Fiscal Years 2005
through 2014, GAO-16-797 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2016).
\4\ This total also includes $188 billion in select supplemental
appropriations to federal agencies for disaster assistance and
approximately $58 billion in annual appropriations to the Disaster
Relief Fund for fiscal years 2015 through 2020. It does not include
other annual appropriations to federal agencies for disaster
assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2013, in recognition of the federal government's significant
stake in managing climate-related disaster impacts, GAO has included
Limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing
Climate Change Risks in its High-Risk List.\5\ We and others have
recommended enhancing resilience to help limit the federal government's
fiscal exposure to climate change because it can reduce the need for
far more costly steps in the future.\6\ Enhancing climate-related
resilience means taking actions to reduce potential future losses by
planning and preparing for potential climate hazards, such as extreme
rainfall, sea level rise, and drought.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ We added Limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by
Better Managing Climate Change Risks to GAO's High-Risk List in 2013.
The High-Risk List identifies federal program areas that are at high
risk of vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or
most in need of transformation. See GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update,
GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013) and High-Risk Series:
Dedicated Leadership Needed to Address Limited Progress in Most High-
Risk Areas, GAO-21-119SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2021).
\6\ For example, see, GAO, Climate Change: Opportunities to Reduce
Federal Fiscal Exposure, GAO-19-625T (Washington, D.C.: June 2019);
Climate Change: Selected Governments Have Approached Adaptation through
Laws and Long-Term Plans, GAO-16-454 (Washington, D.C.: May 2016); and
National Research Council of the National Academies, America's Climate
Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, Adapting
to the Impacts of Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: 2010).
\7\ The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
defines resilience as the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb,
recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events. We
reported in May 2016 that two related sets of actions can enhance
climate resilience by reducing risk. These are climate change
adaptation and pre-disaster hazard mitigation. In general, the term
``adaptation'' is used by climate change professionals, and ``pre-
disaster hazard mitigation'' is employed by the emergency management
community, often to speak about the same thing: becoming better
prepared for climate change impacts. Adaptation is defined as
adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or
expected climate change. Pre-disaster hazard mitigation refers to
actions taken to reduce the loss of life and property by lessening the
impacts of adverse events. It applies to all hazards, including
terrorism and natural hazards such as health pandemics or weather-
related disasters. In this report, we use the term ``climate
resilience'' for consistency and to encompass both sets of actions as
they relate to addressing climate risks. GAO, Climate Resilience: A
Strategic Investment Approach for High-Priority Projects Could Help
Target Federal Resources, GAO-20-127 (Washington, D.C.: October 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2020, Congress authorized for fiscal year 2021 about $43.4
billion of formula funding for the federal-aid highway program through
which U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) provides the funding to the states for highway
and bridge planning, maintenance, and construction activities for
approximately 110,000 active federally funded projects.\8\ FHWA
annually distributes this funding to the states by statutory formula.
FHWA also administers a variety of discretionary grant programs,
through which it provides highway funding to grant applicants based on
the eligibility and selection criteria specific to each program. FHWA
is also authorized through its Emergency Relief Program to provide up
to $100 million annually to states to repair or reconstruct roads
seriously damaged by natural disasters or a catastrophic failure from
any external cause. Additional emergency relief funding can be made
available by Congress as needed through supplemental appropriation
acts.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act,
Pub. L. No. 116-159, div. B, tit. I, Sec. 1101, 134 Stat. 709, 725
(2020). The ``federal-aid highway program'' is an umbrella term for a
collection of FHWA-administered formula and nonformula grant programs.
Formula grant programs account for the majority of the total funding
authorized for the federal-aid highway program.
\9\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 125. See also 23 C.F.R. Sec. 668.111(c). As
described in FHWA's Emergency Relief Manual, to be considered for
Emergency Relief funding either the President must make a major
disaster declaration under the Stafford Act or the governor of the
state must issue an emergency or disaster proclamation and FHWA must
concur with that declaration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 27, 2021, the President issued Executive Order 14008 on
Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. This order states that
it is policy of the administration to deploy the full capacity of
federal agencies to, among other things, combat climate change and
implement a government-wide approach that increases resilience to the
impacts of climate change.\10\ The order directs agencies to submit and
annually update climate action plans that describe steps the agency can
take with regard to its facilities and operations to bolster adaptation
and increase resilience to the impacts of climate change, and to make
those action plans publicly available. The order's full impact will not
be known for some time and its success will depend on sustained agency
attention. As part of a government-wide effort, this order specifically
calls on the Secretary of Transportation to, among other duties,
prioritize action on climate change in policy-making and budget
processes, in contracting and procurement, and in engagement with
state, local, tribal, and territorial governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 86 Fed. Reg. 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My statement today discusses (1) GAO's disaster resilience
framework for identifying opportunities to enhance the climate
resilience of transportation infrastructure; and (2) preliminary
observations on actions taken and options to further enhance climate
resilience of federally funded roads. In addition to describing GAO's
disaster resilience framework for identifying opportunities to promote
transportation and infrastructure resilience to climate risks, we
reviewed prior GAO reports from 2014 through 2019 cited throughout the
statement. Information on our objectives, scope, and methodology for
that work can be found in the issued reports. As part of our on-going
work in this area, we reviewed relevant documents, laws, and
regulations, and interviewed FHWA officials to describe how FHWA tools
have been used to support climate resilience in the federal-aid highway
program.\11\ In addition, as part of our on-going work, we reviewed
relevant literature and interviewed knowledgeable stakeholders to
identify options to further enhance climate resilience in FHWA's
federal-aid highway program. Specifically, through a comprehensive
literature search, we found 53 relevant reports and pieces of
legislation to review for options to further enhance the resilience of
federally funded roads. We then conducted 19 interviews with
knowledgeable stakeholders that included representatives from the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
officials from several state departments of transportation, former U.S.
Department of Transportation officials, and stakeholders from academic
institutions, research organizations, think tanks, and consultancies.
We used the results of the literature search to identify stakeholders
with knowledge of both climate resilience and federal funding for
roads. When identifying knowledgeable stakeholders, we primarily
considered type of expertise, relevance of published work, and
referrals from other stakeholders as criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We have on-going work examining FHWA actions and potential
options to enhance the climate resilience of federally funded roads.
FHWA officials reviewed an early draft of the report developed as part
of this on-going work and provided comments, which we have incorporated
into this testimony. We anticipate that we will issue a report on the
results of our ongoing work in summer 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conducted the work on which this statement is based in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
gao's disaster resilience framework identifies opportunities to enhance
the climate resilience of transportation infrastructure
We have previously reported that the federal government has
primarily funded disaster resilience projects in the wake of disasters-
when damages have already occurred and opportunities to pursue future
risk reduction may conflict with the desire for the immediate
restoration of critical infrastructure.\12\ In October 2019, we issued
the Disaster Resilience Framework to serve as a guide for analysis of
federal actions to facilitate and promote resilience to natural
disasters and changes in the climate.\13\ According to the framework,
investments in disaster resilience are a promising avenue to address
federal fiscal exposure because such investments offer the opportunity
to reduce the overall impact of disasters. Users of the Disaster
Resilience Framework can consider its principles and questions to
analyze any type of existing federal effort, identify gaps in existing
federal efforts, or consider the federal role. Specifically, this
framework can be used to identify opportunities to address gaps in
federal efforts by, for example, supporting identification of options
to address government-wide challenges that are of a scale and scope not
addressed by existing programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See GAO, Disaster Resilience Framework: Principles for
Analyzing Federal Efforts to Facilitate and Promote Resilience to
Natural Disasters, GAO-20-100SP (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 23, 2019) and,
for example, GAO, Hurricane Sandy: An Investment Strategy Could Help
the Federal Government Enhance National Resilience for Future
Disasters, GAO-15-515 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2015).
\13\ GAO-20-100SP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The framework is organized around three guiding principles-
information, integration, and incentives-and a series of questions that
can help identify opportunities to enhance federal efforts to promote
disaster resilience (see fig. 1). These principles can be applied to
any federal effort-including the funding of transportation
infrastructure-to help federal agencies and policymakers consider what
kinds of actions to take if they seek to promote and facilitate
disaster risk reduction.
Figure 1: GAO's Disaster Resilience Framework
--Information. We have found that accessing information that is
authoritative and understandable can help decision makers
identify current and future disaster and climate-related risks.
Moreover, natural and climate disaster risk information that is
accurate, comprehensive, and produced or endorsed by an
authoritative source can help decision makers better assess
their risk. However, this has historically been a challenge.
For example, in November 2015, we reported that the climate
information needs of federal, state, local, and private sector
decision makers were not being fully met, while the federal
government's own climate data-composed of observational records
from satellites and weather stations and projections from
climate models-were fragmented across individual agencies that
use the information in different ways to meet their
missions.\14\ We recommended that the Executive Office of the
President direct a federal entity to develop a set of
authoritative climate change projections and observations and
create a national climate information system with defined roles
for federal agencies and nonfederal entities. As of December
2020, the Office has not yet taken action to implement these
recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ GAO, Climate Information: A National System Could Help
Federal, State, Local, and Private Sector Decision Makers Use Climate
Information, GAO-16-37 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 23, 2015).
--Integration. In addition, we have found that integrated analysis
and planning can help decision makers take coherent and
coordinated actions to promote disaster and climate-related
resilience. For example, our October 2019 report shows that no
federal agency, interagency collaborative effort, or other
organizational arrangement has been established to implement a
strategic approach to climate resilience investment that
includes periodically identifying and prioritizing
projects.\15\ Such an approach could supplement individual
agency climate resilience efforts and help target federal
resources toward high-priority projects. We recommended that
Congress consider establishing a federal organizational
arrangement to periodically identify and prioritize climate
resilience projects for federal investment. As of July 2020,
Congress has not yet taken action to implement this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ GAO, Climate Resilience: A Strategic Investment Approach for
High-Priority Projects Could Help Target Federal Resources, GAO-20-127
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have also reported on how coordination across missions and
sectors may help prioritize investments in resilience-related projects.
For example, in our December 2014 report on transit system
resilience, we found that transit agencies face challenges with placing
priorities on resilience and with certain aspects of some grant
programs.\16\ Specifically, we observed that it is difficult for
transit agencies to place priority on resilience activities because
such activities compete with other priorities for funding. We reported
that, while it is not possible to make a transit system completely
immune to catastrophic events, continued efforts by all parties to
place priority on and improve resilience through preparedness,
response, recovery, and mitigation could help our nation's transit
systems potentially better withstand and recover from such events and
reduce human and economic impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ GAO, Public Transit: Federal and Transit Agencies Taking Steps
to Build Transit Systems' Resilience but Face Challenges, GAO-15-159
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2014).
--Incentives. We have also found that incentives can lower the costs
or increase the benefits of disaster and climate resilience
efforts. Because much of the nation's infrastructure is not
owned and operated by the federal government, many resilience-
related decisions ultimately are made by nonfederal actors, and
those decision makers face competing priorities. Incentives,
such as legal or regulatory requirements attached to available
federal funding, can help promote investments in disaster risk
reduction and encourage disaster resilience decision making for
infrastructure. An example of this is requiring building codes
and standards based on the best available information for
infrastructure built or repaired with federal funds. As we
reported in November 2016, design standards, building codes,
and voluntary certifications play a role in ensuring the
resilience of federal and nonfederal transportation
infrastructure to the effects of natural disasters and extreme
weather.\17\ We recommended a government-wide approach in which
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
convene an ongoing government- wide effort to provide forward-
looking climate information to standards organizations. As of
April 2021, NIST had not yet taken action to implement this
recommendation, but in January 2021, NIST held a workshop aimed
at connecting the U.S. building codes and standards development
communities with agencies and organizations collecting and
disseminating climate change information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ GAO, Climate Change: Improved Federal Coordination Could
Facilitate Use of Forward- Looking Climate Information in Design
Standards, Building Codes, and Certifications, GAO-17-3 (Washington,
D.C. Nov. 30, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
preliminary observations on actions taken and options to enhance fhwa's
climate resilience activities
FHWA has implemented actions to encourage states to enhance the
climate resilience of federally funded roads, and there are options to
further enhance them. During the last 10 years, FHWA has developed
agency policy, provided technical assistance to states, supported
climate resilience research funding, and taken other steps to encourage
states to enhance the climate resilience of roads in the federal-aid
highway program. For example, FHWA provided states with technical
assistance aimed at improving the climate resilience of federally
funded roads. This assistance focused on developing tools that states
can use to evaluate vulnerabilities and resilience options and to
integrate climate change information into road projects. In addition,
FHWA co-funded more than 50 resilience research pilot projects to
assess vulnerabilities and options for improving resilience, evaluate
the potential for nature-based features, such as wetlands, to protect
coastal assets, and develop approaches for integrating climate
resilience into state asset management plans and other processes.
Some states have leveraged FHWA's activities to enhance climate
resilience in some federal-aid highway projects. Specifically, in our
ongoing work, we have found examples of projects that used FHWA
resilience resources and climate projection information to plan or
implement physical resilience enhancements on federally funded roads.
For example, the Delaware Department of Transportation used FHWA
resilience tools and resilience research funding to improve storm water
drainage at a project site on Delaware State Route 1-a major access
route to state beaches and tourist facilities-that closes to traffic
due to flooding a few times every year and is vulnerable to sea level
rise. Delaware Department of Transportation officials used FHWA
guidance to identify which resources and data they would need to design
a resilience project. They also used FHWA resilience research funding
to, among other things, incorporate climate change information into
site assessments. The resilience enhancements they implemented included
building a sand dune levee and tidal marsh, stabilizing a beach with
bags filled with oyster shells, repairing a rock wall, and replacing
existing drainage. See figure 2 for a photograph of flooding along
Delaware State Route 1 and a rendering of the resilience enhancements
implemented at the project site.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2: Flooding (Left) and Resilience Enhancements Made (Right)
on Delaware State Route 1.
As part of our ongoing work we identified-through a review of
relevant literature and interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders-
options that could further enhance climate resilience of projects
funded by the federal- aid highway program. (See table 1.) Some of
these options are similar to actions we have previously recommended in
our prior work. The options include both actions that FHWA might
undertake on its own and those that might require congressional action.
For example, according to FHWA officials, putting in place resilience
funding requirements or imposing conditions or providing incentives
related to resilience would likely require congressional action.
However, options such as further integrating resilience into FHWA
policy and guidance or establishing additional climate resilience
planning or project requirements are examples of activities the agency
could potentially undertake on its own, according to FHWA officials.
Table 1: Options to further enhance the climate resilience of federally
funded roads, as suggested by relevant literature and knowledgeable
stakeholders
Option
=Integrate climate resilience==
into Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) policy
and guidancea Update design
standards to account for
climate change and resilience
best practices\a\
-------------------------------
Provide authoritative,
actionable, forward-looking
climate information\a\
-------------------------------
Add climate resilience funding
eligibility requirements,
conditions, or criteria to
formula grant programsb
Expand the availability of
discretionary funding for
climate resilience
improvements\a\
-------------------------------
Alter the Emergency Relief
program by providing
incentives for, or
conditioning funding on, pre-
disaster resilience actionsb
Expand the availability of
Emergency Relief funding for
post-disaster climate
resilience improvements\b\
-------------------------------
Establish additional climate
resilience planning or
project requirementsa Link
climate resilience actions or
requirements to incentives or
penalties\b\
-------------------------------
Condition eligibility,
funding, or project approval
on compliance with climate
resilience policy and
guidance\b\
===============================
Source: GAO analysis of literature and interviews with knowledgeable
stakeholders. GAO 21-561T
\a\Generally speaking, FHWA officials said they could likely implement
aspects of this option under existing law and said specific proposals
would need to be evaluated.
\b\Generally speaking, FHWA officials said they would likely need
additional congressional direction or authority to implement this
option and said specific proposals would need to be evaluated.
The appropriate mix of options to enhance the climate resilience of
federally funded roads is a policy choice that requires complex
tradeoff decisions. These tradeoffs should be made with full
information about the strengths and limitations of different options
and involvement from stakeholders including states, localities, and
nongovernmental entities. However, these policy options may present an
opportunity to improve resilience in the nation's highway system and
help ensure that federally funded roads and bridges can withstand or
more easily recover from changes in the climate. Further, as noted in
our Disaster Resilience Framework, enhancing resilience can reduce the
need for federal disaster assistance and limit the federal government's
fiscal exposure in the future.
Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the
Subcommittee this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much, Ms. Repko.
And now we wish aloha kakahiaka to my friend, Ed Sniffen,
calling in from the State of Hawaii Department of
Transportation.
STATEMENT OF EDWIN H. SNIFFEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Sniffen. Hello, Mr. Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify regarding climate resiliency and
transportation systems.
The Hawaii Department of Transportation manages and
operates the multimodal systems that serve as the major
distribution hub for the Pacific region and lifeline for the
state. These systems are surrounded by water and we are
planning within all modes for greater impacts in the future as
sea levels continue to rise.
The Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Commission forecasts that 1 meter of sea level rise will impact
the Hawaiian Islands by the year 2100. If we take the
traditional approach of relocating transportation facilities,
we would be looking at an estimated $30 billion to move or
elevate state roads and bridges, address impacts at airports,
and protect the state's commercial harbor facilities.
In 2018 we had nearly $100 million in damages from
flooding, landslides, hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanic
eruptions that qualified for the Federal Highway Administration
Emergency Relief Program. This included the April 2018 flood
event on Kauai, when 50 inches of rain fell in the Waipa area
within a 24-hour period.
Facing the reality of these extreme events becoming more
extreme, more often, and seeing the impacts of climate change
on our neighbors in the Compact of Free Association States,
Hawaii is compelled to act.
Hawaii DOT has completed vulnerability studies, is
implementing a three-tier approach to mitigating stressors to
the system, and is considering resiliency in all of its
operations, while reducing energy consumption and greening
operations at the same time. This ties into Governor David
Ige's direction, as he has committed the state to a 100 percent
clean energy goal by 2045.
As the chair of AASHTO's Committee on Transportation System
Security and Resilience, I work with my counterparts across the
country to address climate change and energy issues. All state
Departments of Transportation struggle with the resources
needed to address resilience in systems.
I respectfully recommend three ways this subcommittee has
the ability to amplify the transportation resiliency efforts of
the states and territories. First, please support increased
investment to improve infrastructure resilience to the American
Jobs Plan. This can be accomplished through formula programs or
discretionary grant programs focused on resiliency, planning,
improvements and adaptation strategies. Additionally, I am
advocating for support of managed relocation to address the
needs of underserved and rural communities.
Next, support for increased coordination between resource
agencies, researchers, and those engaged in day-to-day airport,
port and highways operations on resilience and adaptation.
Hawaii DOT Harbors Division is pursuing funding for a
feasibility study in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for use of a lock and dam system at Honolulu Harbor
to control water levels. Estimated cost of the joint
feasibility study is $3 million, and the estimated cost of a
lock and dam system would be $3 billion.
I always will work with both agencies to address the
impacts to drainage, utilities and facilities connecting to the
harbor. Support for doing projects such as this could provide
insight into the use of similar systems to protect the seaside
populations and assets nationally.
Finally, I recommend support for expediting the Federal
project delivery processes so needed resiliency and adaptation
projects can be implemented now. Programs can be adapted to be
more efficient while maintaining integrity of purpose. For
example, programmatic agreements for Endangered Species Act and
historic preservation consultation can save months on
processing.
The American Jobs Plan is a call to action challenging and
empowering the states to identify future impacts, prioritize
transformative improvements, be innovative to improve the
quality and life of our facilities, and default to proactive
action to build our infrastructure to be safer, stronger, and
sounder now, to ensure the people and communities we serve can
count on their infrastructure and their government to support
them for years to come.
Thank you again for the honor and the opportunity to
testify today. I am happy to answer any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Edwin H. Sniffen
introduction
Chair Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding
climate resiliency within the transportation industry.
My name is Ed Sniffen. I am Deputy Director of Highways for the
Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) and I chair the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Committee on Transportation System Security and Resilience (CTSSR). As
part of the agency responsible for ensuring the people of Hawaii are
connected through our multimodal transportation system, I believe I can
provide a credible first-hand account of the need for climate
resiliency in transportation. Hawaii is separated by 2,000 miles from
the nearest state. When disasters strike, there is no trucking goods or
people across state lines.
Currently, 70 percent of the state highways system in Hawaii is
vulnerable to a stressor or hazard. In 2018, we had $94 million in
damages from flooding, landslides, hurricane, earthquakes, volcanic
eruption, and lava flow that qualified for the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Emergency Relief (ER) program. However, we're
planning within all modes for greater impacts in the future as sea
levels continue to rise.
The 2017 Hawaii Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Adaptation Report
forecasts one meter of sea level rise affecting the Hawaiian Islands by
2100. If we took a traditional approach of relocating transportation
facilities, we'd be looking at an estimated $30 billion to relocate or
elevate state roads and bridges, address impacts to airports, and
protect the state's commercial harbor facilities.
Facing this reality as well as seeing the impacts of climate change
on our neighbors in the Compact of Free Association States, Hawaii is
compelled to act. Hawaii Governor David Ige committed to a goal to
generate 100 percent clean energy by 2045. HDOT is contributing to this
effort through its energy savings performance contract and by greening
operations whenever possible.
This subcommittee possesses the ability to act to amplify the
transportation resiliency efforts of Hawaii and the other states and
territories. As the chair of the CTSSR, I work with my counterparts
across the country to address climate change and energy issues. Based
on communications with CTSSR members and my own experiences operating
and maintaining Hawaii's state highways system, I respectfully
recommend:
--Support for investment to improve infrastructure resilience through
the American Jobs Plan.
--Support for increased coordination between resource agencies,
researchers, and those engaged in day-to-day airport, port, and
highways operations on resilience and adaptation.
--Support for expediting the federal project delivery processes so
needed resiliency and adaptation projects can be implemented
now.
adaptation is crucial for the transportation industry: hawaii's case in
point
When your transportation systems are surrounded by water, climate
adaptation is a must. However, I would like to make the argument that
climate adaptation is necessary for all, regardless of their geography.
Transportation resilience is about balancing today's needs with the
future and setting the plans and processes so that addressing
adaptation is the default.
To that end, all HDOT operational divisions have initiated climate
adaption studies in response to ongoing and forecasted climate change.
airport vulnerabilities
The 15 airports managed by HDOT are an important driver for
Hawaii's economy. To plan for the needed actions to protect and
preserve these resources, HDOT studied the system's vulnerabilities to
sea level rise. Accepted sea level rise forecast is that inundation
would occur at 10 of Hawaii's airports.
Adaptation strategies considered for airports are:
1. Construct shoreline revetment/sea walls, elevate runways and
taxiways, retrofit facilities.
2. Retrofit all facilities by reconstruction and modification to at
least one foot above the projected sea-level rise elevation
over the next 100 years.
3. Relocate the airports to higher elevations.
Based on construction costs of current projects, we are looking at
a need for approximately $8 billion to address anticipated sea level
rise at Hawaii's airports.
commercial harbor considerations
Commercial harbors cannot retreat from the shoreline, so HDOT is
working with stakeholders to plan for increased pier freeboard as new
facilities such as the Kapalama Container Terminal in Honolulu are
built. The pier elevation for the new facility will be at nine feet,
which should provide 0.34 feet of clearance at high tide at the time of
projected one meter sea level rise.
Another potential strategy to address the vulnerability of Hawaii's
major port is though controlling the water level within the bay. HDOT
Harbors Division is pursuing funding for a feasibility study in
conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for use of a lock and
dam system at the harbor channels to keep water levels at desired
levels and allow ship movement. Estimated cost of the joint feasibility
study is $3 million and estimated cost of a lock and dam system would
be $3 billion.
A water control system at Honolulu Harbor would not only protect
the port where the majority of commercial goods from toilet paper to
spam enter the state, it could potentially protect surrounding
neighborhoods and provide insight into the use of such systems to
protect seaside populations and assets. Honolulu Harbor also serves as
a distribution point for goods transported to Guam, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the Compact of Free
Association nations.
For commercial harbors not suited to such modifications (e.g.,
broad bays) HDOT is also planning on replacing pile supported piers
with bulkhead piers to increase survivability of the structures. The
cost to replace all current pile supported piers is approximately $8
billion.
highways climate adaptation action plan
Highways Climate Adaptation Action Plan provides a roadmap for
HDOT's Highways Division to improve the system's resilience to climate-
related effects. It includes locations along state highway facilities
that are at risk from natural hazards and recommendations to
incorporate resilience measures into programs and policies.
Understanding and pre-emptively addressing how roads are exposed to
climate-related hazards helps inform state agencies and communities
about changing environmental conditions that may strain highways
infrastructure.
Hazards analyzed include:
--Rockfalls and landslides
--Inland floods
--Wildfires
--Coastal inundation due to sea level rise
--Storm surges
--Tsunamis
--Coastal erosion
--Groundwater inundation
--Lava flows (not climate related but a major consideration for
Hawaii)
Actions HDOT is taking going forward for resilience include
formation of working groups to consider climate adaptation and
environmental impacts before projects start and making resilience a
consideration for design. To create designs that will be more resilient
to future stresses from extreme weather or other sources, HDOT will
plan for 30 years into the future, avoid setting blanket policies, and
incorporating adaptation design making and risk based scenarios.
multimodal considerations
Examining these vulnerability studies, coastal inundation due to
sea level rise is the greatest climate adaptation consideration for
Hawaii. Given the limited land mass and considerable costs for
acquiring land and construction, relocation of the facilities that will
be inundated is cost prohibitive. Considering that airports and harbors
are not likely to be relocated, highways and connector roads leading to
these facilities must be protected to maintain service and keep the
flow of commerce going.
hawaii's resilience initiatives
Based on fuel consumption alone, transportation is a large
contributor to the release of carbon dioxide into the environment. The
carbon emissions from vehicles, ships, boats, and aircraft account for
about 28 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and have been
increasing from 2008 to 2018. With global carbon dioxide levels higher
now than at any time in the past 3.6 million years, this is an
unacceptable trend.
In 2013 HDOT entered an 18 year Energy Savings Performance Contract
to replace lighting and other infrastructure with energy efficient
technologies. To date through the contract, over 161,000 light fixtures
have been replaced with Light Emitting Diode lamps and 40,000
photovoltaic systems have been installed at state airports, harbors,
and along state highways.
Other HDOT resource savings initiatives include design of the
Consolidated Rental Car Facility at the state's second busiest airport
to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Silver standards and
the procurement of electric vehicles (EV) and charging infrastructure
as a service through a contract available to all state and county
agencies. The EV service contract will allow Hawaii agencies to convert
or right-size their fleets with minimal upfront investment.
These initiatives were only possible because of the networking,
resource sharing, and coordination encouraged at all levels of
government in Hawaii. On the national level we encourage sharing of
resilience initiatives and results through CTSSR activities such as
webinars and peer exchange. Support from the Senate for transportation
resilience would encourage more collaboration, research, and
implementation of effective resilience initiatives.
The support of this subcommittee for additional funding and an
expedited project delivery process would greatly aid in getting more
resilience initiatives out of the theoretical stages and into practice
on our streets, bridges, runways, and harbors. HDOT is currently
approaching building resilience into our systems using a variety of
approaches, including pursuing green infrastructure such as carbon
mineralized concrete and adding recycled plastics to asphalt mixes.
Investing in resilient infrastructure on a federal level will enable us
and other transportation agencies to implement better and greener
infrastructure.
recommendations for support of resilience at the federal level
As the CTSSR Chair, I believe that the definition of resilience is
critical and should not be related simply to the ability of an asset to
not fail during certain events (e.g., a bridge strike or a category
five hurricane); rather, it needs to involve the ability of a state DOT
to:
--Anticipate, plan and adapt to potential risks,
--Withstand, respond to, or recover when an event occurs, and;
--Construct and maintain assets that decrease project vulnerability
risks.
When considering funding for resilience, the current core formula
program eligibility could be expanded to consider resilience
improvements; formula funding could be set aside to focus on
resilience-related planning, coordination, and evacuation; or, a
discretionary grant program for adaptation strategies could be
established. Additionally, I am advocating for support of managed
relocation to address the needs of underserved and rural communities.
In general, AASHTO recommends avoiding new plans, programs, and
analysis processes as this increases cost and burden to state DOTs.
supporting resilience examples from aashto member states
california resilience example
A period of heavy rainfall beginning Jan. 5, 2019, resulted in the
movement of a landslide along Route 101 in Mendocino County. Continued
movement resulted in damage to the southbound lane and shoulder
ultimately requiring closure of the southbound lane. Due to signs of
continual movement, forecast of heavy rain, and to avoid further loss
of the roadway Caltrans determined that immediate ``permanent
restoration repairs as EO'' were necessary to minimize the extent of
damage, protect the remaining facilities and achieve resilience. Such
work includes providing immediate traffic control, conducting
geotechnical investigation, repairing damaged drainage system and
providing final slope and roadway stabilization via a Soldier Pile
Ground Anchor Wall. Final Geotechnical investigations indicated that
solider pile wall at 11PM 95.85 was the only possible permanent repair
solution.
Another Caltrans example comes from Rat Creek, Highway 1, Big Sur.
In the summer of 2020, the 125,000-acre Dolan Fire in Monterey County
left 20 miles of Highway 1 on the Big Sur coast downslope of the Dolan
Fire burn scar. Even before the fire was extinguished preventative work
was initiated. In anticipation of debris flow during winter rain
events, Caltrans augmented its already robust winter prep efforts along
Highway 1 and analyzed 61 drainage systems along this stretch of coast
while making improvements at 37 locations. In late January 2021, an
intense, 3-day rain event, referred to as an atmospheric river, dropped
up to 17 inches of rainfall and created post-fire debris flows that
impacted over 60 cross drainages. Of the 37 drainage sites improved
during preventative winter prep efforts, 23 performed as intended and
minimized damage to the roadway. At Rat Creek on Highway 1, the debris
flow overwhelmed the drainage infrastructure and overtopped the highway
embankment. This caused erosion and head-cutting that eventually washed
out a 150-foot long section of roadway. Once the site at Rat Creek was
assessed, a multi-functional team including engineers from all fields
of civil engineering began developing a reconstructed, enhanced
embankment to restore the highway. The repair was designed for a large
rain event such as a 100-year storm. It is also designed for a
combination of a large-scale fire (similar to the Dolan Fire) and a
large rain event such as 50-year storm. The repair design provides
increased hydraulic and bulking capacity, which incorporates a larger
diameter culvert and redundancies, which serve to make the highway more
resilient in the future. The roadway was able to be opened to traffic
just 86 days after the event occurred.
missouri resilience example
Flooding along the Missouri River in northwest Missouri resulted in
the closure of several roads and highways along with subsequent major
damages to some of those routes. This area had flooding in 2010, 2011
and 2019. The flooding for these three events cost $14.8 million in
damages to US 136, $7.8 million in damages to US 159, and $5.6 million
in damages to MO 111. Flooding events in 2011 and 2019 included
complete washouts of the pavement and roadway embankment resulting in
holes up to 60 feet deep and about 200-300 feet long.
After the second significant flood event in less than ten years,
Missouri looked at developing resiliency projects to protect these
routes from future flood events. The option that was decided on for all
three routes was to install tied concrete block mats on the
downstreamin-slopes with more robust shoulders on each side. The
estimated resiliency project costs for each route are $8.0 million for
US 136, $11.4 million for US 159, and $2.0 million for MO 111. These
projects are to be funded from the FHWA ER Program.
Missouri is also experiencing other issues with resilience. For
example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recently denied
$9.5 million in repairs of 2019 roadway flood damage due to what they
call ``deferred maintenance'' issues. Basically, since the roadway
surface was not in a condition they considered acceptable (due to lack
of available state and federal funds) they are denying all damage on
the route. In many cases this includes ditch erosion, pipe washouts and
many other non-surface related damages. This is an example of how
funding issues can compound a problem and make it even more difficult
to build resilience. Missouri may be 100 percent responsible for taking
care of the repairs, which in turn reduces ability to invest in
additional improvements or resilience projects.
With the ongoing pandemic it has taken over a year for FEMA to make
this determination. Delayed determinations can reduce a state's
confidence and ability to quickly let repair projects, especially in
cases where additional funds are being considered for resilience and
where there is a chance the state may be on the hook for 100 percent of
the cost. This is not a risk most states will be willing to take.
maine resilience example
FHWA, Army Corps of Engineers, and MaineDOT have a programmatic
Endangered Species Act consultation for effects to Atlantic salmon and
its Critical Habitat. The agreement has improved fish passage for
MaineDOT projects and also contributes to future resilience of
MaineDOT's infrastructure. In the agreement, MaineDOT committed to
specific design standards that seek to reconnect waters for endangered
salmon, with benefits to other fish and wildlife. To meet these fish
passage design standards, MaineDOT is typically required to increase
the size of culverts and bridges when the structures are replaced;
culverts sized for fish passage routinely have capacity for the 100-
year event or larger.
The increased structure size improves the ability of infrastructure
to withstand the more frequent and larger precipitation storm events
that have occurred in recent years. MaineDOT's culvert design standards
require culverts to be designed for a 100-year storm event.
Additionally, the bridge design guidance requires bridge
replacements to be designed to have at least 2-feet freeboard during
the 50-year storm event and consider effects of the 100-year storm
event or the flood of record during design. The fish passage design
standards typically exceed the size requirements of the hydraulic
standards and, therefore, result in more resilient structures.
conclusion
The American Jobs Plan provides a call to build our infrastructure-
the roads, bridges, airports, ports, and other facilities that allow us
to connect and live together as a nation-to be safer, stronger, and
sounder. My intention as a witness was to share the impacts of the
climate crisis in Hawaii and the resilience and adaptation we are
building into our system now. It is crucial that we work
collaboratively to research and implement solutions to increase our
systems' resilience to extreme weather and climate-related disaster
events.
An increased investment in infrastructure resilience could spark
innovation in engineering for sea level rise, protection of coastal
assets, stabilization of slopes to reduce landslides and rockfall risk,
decarbonization of construction materials and other potential
solutions. I would also like to take the opportunity to advocate for
increased flexibility in existing programs such as Transportation
Alternatives that encourage development of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and other small scale projects with community benefits.
Consideration of removal of the local match for community
Transportation Alternatives projects could encourage improvements for
nonmotorized users of our systems.
Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify today, and
I am happy to answer any questions.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Sniffen.
I will now turn to the ranking member to introduce our next
testifier.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Habib Dagher is a professional engineer, and professor
at the University of Maine. He has a Ph.D in Civil and
Structural Engineering. He serves as the founding executive
director of the Advance Structures and Composites Center, A
National Science Foundation-funded Research Center housed in a
100,000-square-foot laboratory at the University of Maine. And
the center has been a world leader in the development of low-
cost, high-performance structural composites for construction.
He is also the director of the Transportation
Infrastructure Durability Center, a Region 1 University
Transportation Center that the university competed vigorously
for, and I was very proud of when it was awarded to the
university. That is due to Dr. Dagher's great work. And I would
note that he has received many, many awards over the years, but
I have wanted to point out one that he received in 2015. He was
the White House Transportation Champion of Change.
So there is no one who can give us more insight, in my
view, into what is going on at the university level in research
and development in the area that is the topic of this hearing.
So it is a great honor to have him here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Schatz. Please proceed, Dr. Dagher.
Senator Collins. Doctor, I don't know that you have your
mic on, and if you do, if you could pull it closer.
STATEMENT OF DR. HABIB DAGHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ADVANCED STRUCTURES AND COMPOSITES CENTER,
UNIVERSITY OF MAINE
Dr. Dagher. Thank you, Senator Collins, for the wonderful
remarks and your leadership on this committee for so many
years.
Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, members of the
subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
and Related Agencies, I am Habib Dagher, the executive director
of the----
Senator Collins. Sir, could you, please, bring the
microphone closer to your mouth. Thank you.
Dr. Dagher. Is this better?
Senator Schatz. Yes.
Dr. Dagher. I am Habib Dagher, the director of the Advanced
Structures and Composite Center at the University of Maine. It
is the largest university-based research center in the State of
Maine. We conduct research and development on sustainable
advanced materials, on structures and construction methods
suitable for transportation, housing and defense applications.
We are also preparing the leaders that will take these
technologies to the future and implement them.
Over the last many years, we financially sponsored over
2,600 engineers who are now working in transportation
departments in other places taking these materials to practice.
I also lead the University Transportation Center funded by the
Federal DOT, called the Transportation Infrastructure
Durability Center. We are conducting currently over 40 research
projects across Maine and New England, all aimed at increasing
the life of our transportation assets and developing designs
for more durable, sustainable, and resilient roads and bridges
and ports facilities.
As you see from the four examples, I will provide
investments in R&D, such as the University Transportation
Centers are key to achieving cost-effective, resilient
transportation systems of the future.
We cannot keep building the same way and expect a different
result. As we rebuild our roads and bridges, we have a-once-in-
a-lifetime opportunity to use more durable, more sustainable
advanced materials, including composites. That is exactly what
the IMAGINE Act, introduced by Senator Collins and Whitehouse
in March would facilitate. It would fund research in new
materials and building technologies, and would spur Federal
investments and infrastructural projects, for innovative
materials focused on more durable, coastal, and rural assets.
The IMAGINE Act also is very critical to maintaining U.S.
technological leadership, because we are losing it in certain
areas, particularly in the advanced materials space, and the
stakes are very high. Next year construction will be worth
roughly $1.5 trillion in the U.S., and the construction
industry is worth more than 10 percent of the world's GDP.
I am going to show--I have four different examples,
specific examples on the ground of how we are making a
difference with these materials systems.
The first is called the ``bridge in a backpack'', and you
could see a photo on page 2 of my testimony. These are bridges
that are made with arches. They are inflated out of a hockey
bag right on site, and can be infused with a resin and within
four hours they are stronger than steel, and they can be filled
with concrete on site.
I have right here, an example of one of these tubes.
Imagine a 70-foot-long arch that can be picked up by two
people. Now the carbon footprint of these bridges is also about
a quarter that of a conventional bridge.
The second example is what we call the Composite U-Girder
technology. The U-shaped composite girders are very light, they
are about one-third to one-quarter the weight of steel, and
they are pack very well. Actually you can pack a 280-foot-long
bridge on one trailer, one stretch bed, and take it out to
site. So when you look at problems of rebuilding after a
disaster, being able to pack it light, and pack it short, and
take it out to site is very important. And that is what this
project does.
And to give you an example, on page 4 of the testimony, I
have got a 40-foot shipping container that is packing four
bridges, right, in one shipping container.
The next example I would like to cover is on page 6 of my
testimony, is how to protect existing coastal assets. We are
developing lightweight, 3D-printed portable breakwaters that
you can deploy when the storm arrives. You know the storm is
coming, you deploy these around the city and you protect the
coastal assets from the high waves. We are going to try to do
that for the first time this summer in the State of Maine, and
we will let you know how it works.
On Figure 9, you can show the simulations we have done, and
the testing we have done on Figure 8 and 9, to prove how you
can reduce the energy in the waves before it reaches the coast.
And finally, I am going to show you a very simple idea, it
is a bio-based 3D-printed culvert diffuser. You can place at
the end of a culvert that increases the flow by 40 percent, so
when the storm arrives, if you can run more water through a
culvert you can reduce the impact.
So the summary here is, please invest in R&D. That is how
we are going to build a better transportation infrastructure of
the future.
Thank you. I am happy to answer questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Habib Joseph Dagher
Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins and Members of the
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies. My name is Habib Dagher and I am the Executive
Director of the University of Maine's Advanced Structures and
Composites Center (ASCC). It is the largest university-based research
center in Maine, with 260 full and part-time employees.\1\ Over 35
years at UMaine, I have dedicated my life to develop technologies that
create jobs and protect the environment. We conduct research on the
development of sustainable advanced materials, structures, and
construction methods suitable for transportation, housing, and defense
applications. Our work on innovative construction materials has earned
national and international recognition, including the White House
Transportation Champion of Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://composites.umaine.edu/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Center through our research grants and contracts has
financially sponsored 2,600 student interns, who got paid to work on
research projects. This R&D experience transforms their education and
prepares them to become leaders in the field. I also lead the newly
established US DOT Region 1 University Transportation Center, called
the Transportation Infrastructure Durability Center (TIDC). TIDC is
currently conducting over 40 research projects across Maine and New
England, all aimed at increasing the life of our transportation assets,
and developing designs for more durable, sustainable and resilient
roads, bridges and port facilities. These research projects are enabled
by the US DOT UTC program. Each project has a designated State DOT
``Champion'', who insures that the research innovations are put into
practice within state DOTs and industry.
As you will see from the four examples that I will provide,
investment in research and development (R&D) such as the UTCs, are key
to achieving a cost-effective, resilient transportation system of the
future. We can't keep building it the same way and expect a different
result. As we rebuild our roads and bridges, we have a once-in-a-
lifetime opportunity to use more durable, more sustainable advanced
materials including composite materials. That's exactly what the
IMAGINE Act introduced by Senators Collins and Whitehouse in March
would facilitate. It would fund research into new materials and
building techniques, and would spur federal investment in
infrastructure projects that utilize innovative materials, focusing on
more durable coastal and rural assets. The IMAGINE Act will be critical
to maintaining U.S. technological leadership in the advanced materials
space, and the stakes are very high. New construction is expected to be
worth $1.5 trillion in the U.S. in 2022, and the construction industry
is worth more than 10% of the world GDP.
The following are examples of four composites materials projects
that we have carried out at UMaine, which help achieve a more resilient
transportation infrastructure: 1) The ``bridge in a backpack''
composites arch technology; 2) The Composite tub U-Girder technology;
3) Floating deployable breakwaters; and 4) Bio-based 3D printed culvert
diffusers to protect roads from storms.
1. The ``bridge in a backpack'' composites arch technology. Highway
bridges are built by inflating lightweight composite arches that can
fit in a hockey bag and can be picked up by one person. The tube is
inflated, it is bent to an arch form over a mold, infused with a resin,
and four hours later, one has a hollow tubular arch that is stronger
than steel. The lightweight arches are placed 5 or 6 ft apart, a
composite material corrugated deck is lag screwed over the arches, the
arches are filled with concrete, the bridge is backfilled with sand and
paved. These bridges have been commercialized and a company in Maine is
kitting them and sending them across country. Because they are
lightweight, the kits can be easily transported to the site after a
natural disaster, and do not need heavy equipment to build. They
require little maintenance and are designed for a 100 year life. Their
carbon footprint is about 1/2 of that of a conventional bridge.
Figure 1--Used in more than 30 bridges, the patented ``bridge-in-a-
backpack'' technology reduces life cycle costs, reduces carbon
footprint by approximately 50 percent, accelerates bridge construction
and is AASHTO approved. Arches are lightweight and can be produced near
the bridge site, which makes them suitable for disaster response. A 60
ft 2-lane bridge kit can fit on a pickup truck or in a 20 ft shipping
container.
2. The Composite U-Girder Technology. These U-shaped composite
``tub'' girders are very light, 1/3d-1/4 the weight of steel girders.
One can transport the girders for four 2-lane, 70ft long bridges, on
one stretch-bed. The girders are designed for 100 years, and they nest
together reducing the shipping volume. The concrete deck is designed to
be removable so that jack-hammering of the deck after 50 years is not
needed. The carbon foot print is reduced due to the efficient shipping,
use of small cranes, and the increased 100 years life.
Figure 2--The lightweight tub U-Girders are designed for 100 years, and
support a concrete deck that can be ``unbolted'' and replaced after 50
years, eliminating the need to Jack-hammer the deck.
Figure 3--Four 70ft long U-girder bridges fit on one truck. The heavier
steel girders require 4 trucks.
Figure 4--Four 40ft U-girder bridges fit on one truck. The heavier
concrete girders require 15 trucks.
Figure 5--3D printed U-girder mold made on the world's largest 3D
printer at UMaine.
Figure 6--Composite U-girder made on the 3D printed mold.
Figure 7--Grist Mill bridge article in ENR, Jan. 25, 2021
https://www.enr.com/articles/51086-novel-fiberglass-girders-extend-
life-of-maine-bridge
3. Modular deployable floating breakwater designs to protect
coastal assets
--Floating breakwater deployed before a storm arrives to protect
coastal assets or coastal operations, removed afterwards
--Self-adjust to water level
--Modular design, easily stored, then assembled for rapid deployment
when needed
--The breakwater technology can help reduce coastal erosion using
bio-based 3d printed materials.
--This year, a 75 ft prototype breakwater will be deployed offshore
Maine to test the ability to reduce sea-state 2 incident wave
energy by 40-50%.
Figure 8--UMaine W2 Wave-Wind ocean engineering lab where the floating
breakwaters were tested.
Figure 9--Effectiveness of floating breakwater in reducing wave energy.
Figure 10--Floating breakwater test site off the Maine coast later this
year.
4. Bio-based 3D printed culvert diffusers to reduce roadway storm
damage
--When corroded culverts are re-lined, the flow is restricted.
--Culvert diffusers can increase the flow by 40%, mitigating roads
washing-out after storms.
--Large scale 3D printing technology enables rapid manufacturing of
complex shaped culvert diffusers at half the cost, using bio-
based materials.
--Increasing the drainage flow in culvert relining projects by 40%,
avoids millions of dollars spent in complete culvert bridge
replacements.
--First 3D-printed culvert diffuser to be installed in Maine this
summer.
Figure 11--3D-printed culvert diffuser using biomaterials at UMaine
ASCC.
Figure 12--6ft long printed culvert diffuser will be installed by the
Maine DOT this summer to test protection against flooding.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much to all of our great
testifiers.
I want to start with Ms. Trottenberg. $8 billion is not
nearly enough for DOT's resiliency investments over a five-year
period. There are projects in individual cities that will chew
up that entire amount. The City of Louisiana--sorry--the City
of Houston has requested $60 billion just from this
subcommittee. Louisiana has identified $17.6 billion.
As Mr. Sniffen reports, Hawaii's airports alone could show
up $8 billion. So how should we understand $8 billion over 5
years, if you are serious about these resiliency efforts? And I
know you are, but the dollar amount seems like more of a
placeholder than anything else. And I am wondering if you could
speak to that.
Ms. Trottenberg. Yes. Thank you for the question, Mr.
Chairman. And just to contextualize, I think as I said in my
testimony, the American Jobs Plan is actually talking about a
transportation infrastructure investment of, you know, over 600
billion. And resiliency is going to be baked into a lot of
different components of those investments, the 100-plus billion
in highways and the 80 billion in transit. So it will be, in
part, baked into those figures.
I think we have also proposed a separate $40 billion across
different types of infrastructure resiliency program. But, you
know, I think as the President has made clear, and we are
seeing this week, this is obviously a proposal where we are
ready to sit down and negotiate with Congress on. And I think a
lot of good bipartisan discussions are going. I think this is
an administration that certainly wants to make big investments
in resiliency.
Senator Schatz. That is all I wanted to hear. And I take
the point that it will be integrated across all existing
programs, but as you know, the Federal Highways Program, in
particular, gives a ton of discretion to the local
transportation agencies. And that; you know, that is a good
thing if you are the local transportation agency.
But if you are trying to drive Federal policy as it relates
to climate resilience, then that worries me a bit, because you
could plus-up the highway fund all you want and say that there
is, you know, there are new opportunities for resiliency, but
it may end up just being that you do the sort of souped-up FAST
Act with some climate aspects. And that is not where we are
trying to land. And so we are going to have to, sort of,
wrangle over this over the next several months.
Ms. Trottenberg. Certainly Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely
right. It cannot just be dollars. There has to be good policy
that goes with that to make sure those dollars are spent really
wisely.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Mr. Sniffen, the DOT allows resiliency features in the
Highway Emergency Relief Program on a limited basis, and the
Hawaii Department of Transportation has been successful on this
front. What are you doing differently that gets these projects
approved? And how can this process be, sort of, scaled
nationwide?
Mr. Sniffen. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. You
know, our Federal Highways partners in Hawaii are tremendous.
They work with us directly to ensure that we can justify the
cost benefits of upgrading our facilities during our emergency
responses. We do a really good job of ensuring that we provide
all the information necessary for Federal Highways to be able
to justify on any decisions that they make.
Federal Highways, through our AASHTO Committee, has been
working with us to address this issue nationwide. They
understand that this policy is being applied differently across
the Nation. And from the state side, we understand that some
states are not providing the information that we need to be
able to justify these discussions. We are working directly with
them to put in a series of webinars to ensure that all states
and all Federal partners across the board understand the intent
of the law, the intent of the program, and how to use it.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Stiffen. I am sort of torn
between being very pleased that we, in particular, have a great
Hawaii State Department of Transportation and a great
partnership with our Federal government but, you know, that is
not scalable, and it should not depend on having, you know,
extraordinary leaders at both the state and Federal level. We
should make policy to make sure that this happens regardless of
who is in charge of the state government in a particular place,
and regardless of the----sort of, the good relationship or not.
So I look forward to talking to you a little bit longer,
Mr. Sniffen, about what you are doing right but more
importantly how to replicate this across the country, not just
through webinars, but through statutory law.
Dr. Dagher, a fascinating testimony. If you could give us
one piece of advice as it relates to the Federal Department of
Transportation being nimble enough to accommodate all of this
new technology, what would that piece of advice be?
Dr. Dagher. I think the ability to take the transportation
centers currently being funded by the DOT and extend them so
they can apply the work to the infrastructure. And that can be
done by creating grant programs for demonstration projects that
take all these wonderful ideas and put them into practice.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Dagher, I look forward to attending the upcoming ribbon
cutting at the Grist Mill Bridge, which is a 75-foot, single
span bridge in Hampden, Maine. And it is my understanding this
bridge is the first in the Nation to use composite girders with
no concrete reinforcement in the structure. Could you explain
the environmental impacts of this bridge? And also, is this
bridge going to last longer than the average bridge?
Dr. Dagher. Yes. Thank you, Senator Collins. This
particular technology packs small, packs light, and it can be
deployed very easily and very quickly. We do not need heavy
equipment to build a bridge. And that reduces its environmental
footprint significantly. You can use rental, or most rental
cranes locally to erect some of these bridges because they are
so light.
So the advantage also is they last longer. So they are
designed for 100-year life. So anytime you increase the life,
everything else being equal, you reduce your carbon footprint
significantly. So doubling the life reduces the carbon
footprint by a factor of two, everything else being equal.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I think that is a great example
of the work being done at the University of Maine's Composite
Center that is right on point for the subject of this hearing,
a bridge that lasts longer and has less of a carbon footprint.
Secretary Trottenberg, I want to talk to you a little bit
about the Colonial Pipeline disaster, the cyberattack. FISMA,
within your department, is responsible for the safety oversight
of pipelines, I have realized its role at DHS and the
Department of Energy as well. But I would like to know whether
the Department, the agency within your Department has any
standards for cybersecurity for pipelines. And whether you
would support a mandatory reporting requirement, so when there
is a cyberattack like this, there would be a requirement that
it be reported to the Federal government. This was not an issue
in this particular case, but could be in others.
Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you Senator. It is a good question.
And look, what we have seen with the cyberattack on the
Colonial Pipeline has showed us, kind of, the two worlds coming
together, cybersecurity and physical infrastructure. You know,
the Biden administration has brought a whole-of-government
approach, and I think we have obviously made some real progress
in making sure we are getting oil where it needs to go.
The pipeline is up and running again as of last night. Our
agency is working very closely with DHS, Department of Defense,
Department of energy, I think to look into this incident, to
think closely about what we might do in the future, but DHS
takes the lead on cybersecurity.
And Senator, I think you raise a good issue here, which is
obviously this is a privately-owned pipeline, a lot of our
infrastructure is privately-owned and operated and, you know,
not only do all the government agencies need to be working
together, but we need to be working closely with the private
sector as well.
Senator Collins. That last point, it is a very important,
one, 85 percent of our critical infrastructure is owned and
operated by the private sector, and that is why I think we do
need mandatory reporting and more cooperation between the
public and private sectors.
Let me follow up with you also about a point that was in
Mr. Sniffen's written testimony, and he talked about the need
to expedite the process so that we can deliver Federal projects
more quickly. Is the administration going to propose any
changes in the permitting process so that we can expedite these
important projects?
Ms. Trottenberg. I think, Senator, as you know, this has
been, I think, a good subject of discussion and negotiation
presently as--you know, the White House is talking to some of
your colleagues about a reauthorization bill. I think there is
a real desire on both sides of the aisle to do a better job on
the permitting on project delivery.
It is great to be here with some colleagues who I think
have come up with some great innovations in how we can deliver
projects faster. We can deliver them at a lower cost. We can be
more innovative. You know, I think the administration is keen
to work with you all on better ways to do that. The permitting
process is one that has grown, you know, in some cases very
complex and costly, and we can make improvements while also
maintaining environmental protections, and all the things that
the process is designed to address.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Senator Collins. I will just add
very quickly on that. Programmatic environmental review is, in
my view, one of the sweet spots maintaining the integrity of
NEPA but making things work a little bit better.
Senator Coons--I am sorry. We now have Senator Reed,
virtually.
Senator Collins. Senator Reed is used to my calling on him.
[Laughing.]
Senator Schatz. Senator Collins, did you want us--I think
we have technical difficulties. He is pending.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
question. Welcome, Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Collins, so
great to be with you for this first hearing of this Congress on
hard infrastructure at the THUD Subcommittee.
And thank you to our four amazing witnesses. I followed
your testimony closely, and I think this is an urgent and
significant issue that we are talking about. Obviously, I also
appreciate the focus, not just by our committee, but by the
Biden administration on the impact of climate change on our
Nation's transportation infrastructure.
As we have heard, whether it is the States of Hawaii, or
Maine, or also my home state of Delaware, there are places all
over our Nation that face significant risks from climate
change. Delaware happens to be the lowest mean elevation state
in the whole country. And because of subsidence, we face a
greater risk from sea level rise than many other states.
We also happen to be at a critical choke point in one of
our Nation's most critical pieces of transportation
infrastructure. The 450-mile Northeast Corridor, which runs
from New England to Washington, D.C., is an absolutely critical
lifeline for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast of our country.
Pre-pandemic, it carried 12 million passengers every year in a
single day without service on the NEC, would cost the economy
$100 million.
Ms. Trottenberg, as you certainly know from your time in
New York City, dealing with the post-Sandy recovery, big storms
pose a greater and greater threat every year to the Northeast
Corridor and Amtrak's assets all up and down the East Coast,
and certainly my home state of Delaware, vulnerable to storm
surges and sea level rise.
In 2017, Amtrak completed a study on the vulnerabilities of
a specific 10-mile section of track in Wilmington, Delaware,
and discovered half of that segment is highly vulnerable to
flooding and could result in a total shutdown because there is
no alternate route. It is a single path.
So, Ms. Trottenberg, if you might; why should the Federal
government invest in making the Northeast Corridor more
resilient to flooding from sea level rise and storm surges? I
am pleased that President Biden's American Jobs Plan includes
80 billion for Amtrak. I would be interested in hearing what
DOT is doing to prepare the NEC for climate change and how that
AJP investment would scale those efforts.
Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you for that question, Senator. In
some ways I think your question answers itself a bit. I mean,
obviously the Northeast Corridor----
Senator Coons. It is called leading the witness, ma'am.
Ms. Trottenberg. I mean, the Northeast Corridor is a
critical transportation link. And you are correct. You know,
having been on the ground in New York City and seeing the
damage that Sandy did in the Hudson River Tunnels, but did also
in a number of transit tunnels and roadway tunnels, once
saltwater intrudes in a tunnel the damage is extensive and very
costly.
And, you know, clearly given what an important lifeline the
Northeast Corridor is making some major investments I think in
the long run is--I think all of us have emphasized in our
testimony--will save us down the road. This is a lifeline we
absolutely need to maintain and, you know, as you mentioned,
Senator, unfortunately parts of the Northeast Corridor are
pretty much at sea level.
Senator Coons. Well, and as you mentioned in your
testimony, investing in infrastructure that cannot withstand
climate change is throwing good money after bad. And as someone
who routinely commutes back and forth from Wilmington to
Washington, I am very conscious that I go through a tunnel in
Baltimore that was built in the 1870s, and over bridges that
are a century old, all of which are right along the very edge
of our coastline.
Acting Director Repko, if I might? In your testimony you
highlight Del DOT's, the Delaware Department of
Transportation's work to improve climate resilience. And I
think on page 11 of your testimony, there is a graphic
demonstration. Those who have ever been to Dewey Beach,
Delaware--and I hope it is a lot of the folks in the room at
least amongst the staff if not the members--it is one of the
favorite places of folks from Washington to go in the summers.
You show how a major investment in Route 1 which connects
Delaware up and down, the whole coastline, is vulnerable to
regular flooding, and how it is relatively easy to deal with
the stormwater drainage there through that--at that access
point. How can Congress empower more states to improve climate
resilience on federally-funded highway projects like that Route
1 project in Delaware?
Ms. Repko. Thank you, Senator. And I think it is important
to note that states and locals are the folks who are
implementing. They are usually working at the project level. So
we see a Federal role being at the programmatic level, and that
is really where the Disaster Resilience Framework comes in.
We want to think about giving the right information and
consistent information to folks. The Federal government can
serve an integrative function, that is that it can reduce the
challenges related to coordination, not have several funding
streams with different timeframes or different goals coming at
people, and it can also provide incentives.
You know, there is incentive that the Federal government
can do related to reducing administrative burdens. There is
incentive that the Federal government can do in the testimony
we present related to roads. You know, it could be options
related to discretionary funding, or options related to design
standards. All of these are key Federal roles that could help
push states forward in building resilience.
Senator Coons. Well, thank you.
If I might; one last question, Mr. Chairman.
I think what I am hearing from you, what we also heard from
Deputy Director Sniffen, is that the interface between state
departments of transportation and the Federal department of
transportation needs some innovation, and needs some
flexibility if we are going to deal with climate change.
If I might, I am turning to Dr. Dagher, for my last
question. The University of Delaware also does some cutting
edge composite research. Certainly the University of Maine's
Institute is one of the Nation's leading, if not the world's
leading. I thought The New York Times article: The Totally
Tubular was fabulous. And, I would love to follow up with you
about the innovations that are being delivered, not just
developed, but delivered in Maine in terms of infrastructure,
relying on composites is fascinating.
Could you just briefly tell us what more we could be doing
to take the kinds of cutting-edge research that you are doing
in composites and materials, and actually see it deployed at
scale in our Nation's infrastructure to make it more resilient?
Dr. Dagher. Thank you, Senator Coons. This is an excellent
question. I think that the important thing when you bring in
new materials into the infrastructure, they cost more to start
with. So, oftentimes, they get set aside.
Senator Coons. Right.
Dr. Dagher. However, if you start looking at lifecycle
analysis of these systems, whether it is due to resiliency,
reducing the carbon footprint, if we can start implementing
lifecycle analysis more in our transportation infrastructure
planning systems that is when the new materials start to shine.
Senator Coons. I spent a decade as a county elected
responsible for our county sewer system and discovered that our
wonderful engineers were very cautious and not very good at
lifecycle costing. And so innovations were slow to be adopted.
I would love to work with you and with your great colleague
from Maine more on that. I appreciate your referencing the
Climate Solutions Caucus in your introduction.
And the last piece of climate resiliency I will mention
before I close, Mr. Chairman, is the Civilian Climate Corps. We
just introduced legislation to authorize it. It would put to
work thousands and thousands of young Americans in doing the
kind of natural solutions to provide resilient infrastructure
work that we need done, so the human side, as well as the
materials side.
Thank you so much for the chance to question several of our
witnesses today, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on your first
hearing as chair.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Senator Coons.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Chairman Schatz, and Ranking
Member Collins for having this important hearing. And again,
congratulations on your new assignment, posting, I know that
you and Ranking Member Collins are going to be a great team. We
miss you at VA MILCON, but like I said, I know you are going to
do a great job, and look forward to working with both of you,
continue working with you on such important issues. So
congratulations.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Senator Boozman. Secretary Trottenberg, we have a situation
in Memphis, the Memphis Bridge. I think it is a great example
that we do have significant infrastructure problems in our
country. And this has come about, as you know, in the last few
days where we have actually had the close the bridge, this is a
very, very high trafficked corridor, 30 percent of the vehicles
that go are commerce related, and actually had to close the
river as a result of this.
So it really is a high stakes thing. One thing that I would
really like for you to look at is if we could use a model like
we used in Minnesota where we, you know, actually that bridge
collapsed and we were able to rebuild it, you know, in around a
year, where it normally would have probably taken 15 years.
But by the agencies working together, not the gotcha
attitude but, you know, the attitude of, how can we help? How
can we facilitate things? So I know that you are going to be
doing that. But I would just emphasize how important that is,
not only to that region of the country, you know, being a
North-South Corridor, but really for the entire country.
Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you, Senator Boozman. And certainly
we have been following what is happening and in communication,
I think with the DOTs in Arkansas and Tennessee, and
recognizing it is affecting vehicular traffic and barge
traffic.
Senator Boozman. Right.
Ms. Trottenberg. So, you know, stand ready to work with you
and see what solutions we can come up with quickly as possible.
We agree, it is a very critical situation for a very important
route.
Senator Boozman. Right. Well, we appreciate your help. And
again, appreciate your staff's help that does a very, very good
job.
Certainly green infrastructure has a place in--you know, as
we go forward in constructing new infrastructure, taking care
of the old, I think we have to be really careful thought about
a one-size-fits-all approach. Sometimes we get ourselves in
that that situation. Communities need to do rigorous analysis
of the cost and benefits of installing various technologies and
decide for themselves the most appropriate course of action.
As we seek to build transportation assets that are more
resilient, states and communities are looking at the
interaction of different project features to improve
resiliency. As part of this, would you agree there is a role
for both gray and green infrastructure going forward? And can
you explain your reasoning in that regard?
Ms. Trottenberg. I couldn't agree more, Senator. I mean,
there is absolutely a no one-size-fits-all. And, you know,
certainly I can just speak a little bit from my recent
experience in New York City to sort of retrofit, you know,
major urban infrastructure is very, very complicated. And there
places where you can have green solutions, but that is
certainly not going to work everywhere.
In places where you can use those green or nature-based
solutions, it can often be not only less expensive, but
potentially offer some co-benefits if you are shoring up a
shoreline, it might provide beach, or fishing, or other
recreational opportunities. But there is no one size fits all.
And certainly, Senator, I think you are right. Local
communities obviously have to have, you know, a big role in
figuring out how to do this. And I can at least speak from the
New York City point of view, it is not easy. You know, coming
up with the right estimates of costs and benefits, which
technologies to use, you know, requires, I think, a lot of good
analysis and lot of expertise.
Senator Boozman. One of the areas that I think that we have
been successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions our bus
fleets that use natural gas. In Arkansas the Rock Region METRO
operates 58 buses along 26 routes each week using compressed
natural gas. The remaining buses that are powered by diesel,
but those will be converted by 2025.
Can you talk a little bit about the place for natural gas
vehicles? And it does make sense, like I say some of the huge
gains that we have made so far have been in that area. And how
does DOT plan to ensure local transit agencies can receive
funding for the types of vehicles that meet their unique needs
of the area?
Ms. Trottenberg. I apologize, Senator. There was sort of a
strange electronic noise, and you faded out there just at the
end of your question.
Senator Boozman. Well, I said, you know, how does DOT plan
to ensure that these areas that are using things like natural
gas, going forward, how can you meet their needs? Arkansas is
blessed with a lot of natural gas.
Ms. Trottenberg. Yes.
Senator Boozman. You know, it is kind of a no brainer to
use that, that technology and that fuel.
Ms. Trottenberg. I mean I think, you know, again, it is no
secret that the administration--look we are seeking as best we
can to get to a zero emissions transportation system by 2050.
There are a lot of different ways to get there. Clearly, one
focus of this administration is going to be electrification,
but of course we are looking, you know, at different regions
and different cities that are using different solutions that
can help us get there.
We are not going to electrify overnight but, you know, we
certainly want to work on the ground, particularly with local
transit systems as, you know, bus fleets can take 15, 20 years
to turn over.
Senator Boozman. Right.
Ms. Trottenberg. So as you are working through new
technologies and new procurements we want to work with you to
try and find the way to make that fleet as green as possible.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much. We appreciate you.
Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you.
Senator Schatz. I understand Senator Reed may be available
online. He is chairing an Armed Services Committee, so it is
unclear whether he is available at the moment.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed.
[No response.]
Senator Schatz. If not, Senator Murphy.
Do we have Senator Capito online?
[No response.]
Okay. I will move on to my own questions, as we work out
who is available online.
Oh, Senator Murphy, are you ready for your questions?
Senator Murphy. Go ahead.
Senator Schatz. I can vamp for a moment.
Here you go, all right. Secretary Trottenberg, your
testimony highlights that 40 percent of the climate investments
in the American Jobs Plan will flow to underserved communities.
How do you make sure that the states meet this goal given the
discretion that they have under our current statute?
Ms. Trottenberg. It is a good question. And I want to just
emphasize that that 40 percent, you know, to be clear, I think
sometimes people hear it and they think we are just talking
about perhaps urban areas, but underserved communities can be
rural areas, tribal areas. I think there are a lot of different
parts of the country that we envision these investments could
really help, parts of the country that have perhaps not shared
in, you know, the prosperity that the rest of the country has.
So I think, just to be clear, sort of a broad definition of
those underserved communities, and I think part of our work
together with Congress as we craft reauthorization and American
Jobs Plan legislation is defined how we can, you know, sort of
bake in that very important priority.
And I think it can be done in a number of ways: through how
formula funds flow, and discretionary funds, where there are
contracting opportunities. You know, I think there are a
variety of ways that we can make sure that underserved
communities get the benefits of the investments of Federal
dollars, and the climate, and mobility, and equity benefits
that flow from those investments.
Senator Schatz. Thank you. Ms. Repko, the GAO issued a
disaster resiliency, a framework to serve as a guide for the
Federal government's response to disasters. What weaknesses did
you find in the coordination of disaster recovery efforts
between DOT and FEMA, and what are the recommendations to
remedy those weaknesses?
Ms. Repko. Thank you, Senator. Broadly coordination has
been a challenge across--that we have looked at across all of
our disaster recovery work. You find it between states, locals,
tribes, and territories expressing a lot of frustrations about
how to coordinate things. Specifically related to DOT and FEMA,
our work on the 2017 hurricanes found that there were
coordination issues, some duplicate payments where DOT and FEMA
paid applicants for the same expense. It was a small amount,
and we have made recommendations that they have adapted to
change that.
But I think it shows that coordination is really a
challenge in these situations and, you know, I would go back to
the Disaster Resilience Framework as a way that the Federal
government could help here. Think about integration, think
about how we can coordinate these programs, think about how
they be on similar timeframes, that there can be one place
where people can go to ask questions because you don't want to
create more challenges for states and locals in an already
challenging situation.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
We will now move on to Senator Braun.
Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last Congress--this question is for Secretary Trottenberg--
the EPW Committee passed the largest infrastructure bill in
history. It provided 287 billion in funding over 5 years, had
several new provisions promoting resilient infrastructure.
Question: the original authorization of the FAST Act expired in
2020 and was extended through this summer, and Congress has got
to reauthorize it again this year. Why was a reauthorization
not included in the President's infrastructure bill?
Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you for that question, Senator. And
I think, as you know, the American Jobs Plan, admittedly, was
sort of assuming a reauthorization, and it was a proposal that
would go above and beyond that. But really I think that the
administration is operating on two tracks. We are putting
forward our American Jobs Plan, but also--and Senator Capito
just entered the room--I think we are--the President is in
earnest discussions with some of your colleagues on both sides
of the aisle about what a potential reauthorization bill would
look like. So I think we are pursuing both tracks.
Senator Braun. So I think it would be good, even though we
are pursuing both tracks, to make the one a certainty because
we don't know how the bigger shot in the arm is going to pan
out. Also begs the question, back in 2017 in Indiana, and you
have got states that I think are actually doing a more
responsible job for their share of infrastructure because they
are pinning it to a definitive source of funding.
Then we got stakeholders throughout our state, mostly
businesses, ended up raising the diesel tax by $0.20 a gallon,
gas by 10, put us a five-year stream of income out there that
was dependable. And the only thing dependable here that I can
see is that we are going to be borrowing money for the host of
things that are out there. We never really had that point of
view on infrastructure. We always kind of had it dedicated.
And I think the last time there has been any adjustment to
the dedicated source of funding has been 1993. A couple of
ideas: maybe that ought to be looked at again, even though most
Hoosiers want a better infrastructure, didn't want their taxes
to go up, that is common on anything, but it took political
will, and even for somebody like myself as a fiscal
conservative, to sell it. We did get 48 out of 50 of
stakeholders that said, yes, if you will spend it on roads and
bridges, roads and bridges, not a host of other things, our
fuel tax--our sales tax on fuel was being spent for everything
else. We brought all 7 percent of that back to roads and
bridges as well.
Where are you at on getting a dependable stream on a
tangible thing like infrastructure, rather than this idea that
we can keep borrowing out of the general fund when we used to
do it otherwise?
Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you. And look, Senator, it is no
secret. We have struggled here in Washington for several
decades now to sort of come together on a sustainable revenue
source. And you all know here in Congress, in the past 10
years, we have added a lot of general funds into the--into the
Highway Trust Fund, the gap between expenditures and what we
are taking in is now around $10 billion a year.
You know, admittedly, I think that there is perhaps a
difference of opinion about where we go from here. The
administration has proposed a corporate tax rate increase.
Although I think the President has signaled that, you know, it
is something he is certainly open to negotiations on. He has
not supported something like raising the gas tax, he is not
wanting to see, you know, taxes go up on middle-class families.
But, again, I think he has signaled, certainly, a readiness to
engage with you all on that hardy challenging question.
Senator Braun. So would you want to be on record today to
do what we did back in Indiana, to raise diesel taxes by $0.20
a gallon, and gas by 10?
Ms. Trottenberg. I would not be on the record on that.
Again, I will follow the lead of the President that, you know,
he has made his corporate tax proposals but, again, signaled
the willingness, I think, to negotiate and engage with you all.
Senator Braun. I brought this up in another infrastructure
discussion, and I think it is worthy of consideration too. The
Federal balance sheet, I wrestled with Chairman Sanders on the
floor last night about it, it is as bad as it has ever been.
You know, we are in debt way more deeply than we were coming
out of World War II. I cited then we were savers and investors,
we are generally spenders and consumers now.
Would you consider states, they live within balanced
budgets, generally have rainy day funds, plan ahead, and make
those tough decisions? What about giving more Federal dollars
to states that would actually carry a heavier share than their
conventional 20 percent? Is that an idea you think would maybe
be a way to stretch the Federal dollar, skin in the game for
states?
Ms. Trottenberg. Right. We actually, I think, already do
that more on transit side of the ledger. When you look at the
CIG program, sort of, the local share is, you know, one of the
factors and, typically, in transit projects the local share is
going to be more than 20 percent. We have done less of that on
the highway side. Certainly, I think those are discussions. I
know that, sort of, we are like here in the last administration
and, again, certainly worth looking at. I think as an
administration, we think skin in the game is important.
Senator Braun. Thank you. And I would consider that on
roads and bridges as well. So, thank you.
Senator Schatz. Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the hearing.
I actually want to pick up where Senator Braun left off
because I have a similar concern. You had, I think, a dialogue
earlier with Senator Coons about the Northeast Rail Corridor
which is perpetually at flood risk. We have got a 10-year-old
train station in Branford, Connecticut, that has a sign posted
outside of it, ``Parking Area, Prone to Flooding''. And there
are lots of days where you cannot get into that parking lot.
You cannot access the trains because it is underwater and there
have been exhaustive studies about the vulnerability of the
entire line, given that so much of it rests, especially in
Connecticut, right along the water.
But to Senator Braun's point, I want to make sure that when
it comes to what may be a historic investment in the Northeast
Corridor, that we ask states to do their fair share. Listen, I
think we have got a-once-in-a-lifetime chance to be able to
adapt the rail line for climate, but also to be able to improve
the experience of riders. And I am going to support as big an
appropriation as possible, but I think it would be a lot easier
to get bipartisan support and taxpayer buy-in with respect to
the rail investments, if we find some mechanisms to get state
buy-in.
And this is a little different than transit, obviously, the
Jobs Plan has a transit component to it, but then it has a
specific Amtrak component to it. And just by virtue of the fact
that the busiest stretch of Amtrak is in the Northeast, much of
that funding will find its way to our area.
So I will ask this question in the frame of resiliency,
because much of the money for Amtrak will be used to build
resiliency, and maybe it is the same answer as you had for
Senator Braun. But how do we make sure that that Amtrak money,
which is going to be spent in part on resiliency, leverages
state buy-in, and does not just replace state expenditures or
state partnerships with Amtrak to improve the reliability of
the line?
Ms. Trottenberg. A very important question. And I do just
want to make clear, I think the--excuse me--the proposal for
rail funding, although certainly a good portion of it would go
for the Northeast Corridor, it is certainly envisioned that
would be making rail investments all over the country. Just
want to be clear on that point.
And look, a good example that I know you are very familiar
with, Senator, what we are doing on the Hudson River Tunnel,
which is so important for the whole Northeast Corridor line.
And certainly, you know, calling on both New York State and New
Jersey to be, you know, financial participants and real
partners at the table. And that is clearly a model.
And as you know, in recent years, Amtrak and the states
have worked out, you know, a more thoughtful set of cost-
sharing relationships. So I think there are some good templates
in place there. You know, we should be force multipliers,
Federal dollars and state dollars as well.
Senator Murphy. Great.
A second question; and I will direct this to you, Ms.
Repko. I would love the Secretary's input as well. On the topic
of what is referred to as green infrastructure, the idea that
you can use dunes, and wetlands, and oyster reefs to protect
shorelines from flooding. Now Vice President Harris and I had a
piece of legislation called the Living Shorelines Act, which
would try to incentivize both state, and local, and Federal
funding into these kinds of projects.
And my sense is that we are really good at building gray
infrastructure, hard infrastructure, because green
infrastructure, like reefs or dunes, you know, just don't have
as much engineering experience behind them. That it is a little
bit harder to imagine because you do not have as many folks who
have done them. But they provide enormous benefit because they
are helping to protect shorelines, but they are also doing a
pretty good job at enhancing ecosystems, and protecting
habitats.
So I do not know if any of your, sort of, work has revolved
around this issue of how you incentivize green infrastructure.
And I would certainly love the Secretary's input on whether the
Department has thought about how to promote those kinds of
projects.
Ms. Repko. Thank you for the question, Senator. One of the
examples that we do cite is more of a green infrastructure
project that is happening in Delaware. I think that, really,
the Federal government has certain levers that they can pull as
it relates to disaster resilience. And some of that relates to
information, which I think is very important, having a set of
climate information that is consistent, that folks at the state
and local government can use to make their projections, and
also having design standards.
Those are two open recommendations that we have because at
the Federal government. Again, we don't build as much. We give
a lot of this to the states; we need to give them a roadmap
that helps them get to a place that is easier. Folks have been
doing other infrastructure projects that did not have
resilience in it for years. They do have experience with that.
We need to make it easier for them to make this shift.
Senator Murphy. I am over my time, Mr. Chairman. But those
design standards are something I think would be really
important to think about, especially for these projects that
happen with less frequency, but have pretty tremendous upside.
Thank you.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
for being here today. And I am sorry I was not here for the
beginning of the remarks. So if this has already been covered,
I apologize for that.
You know, we talk about mitigation, and building back
better, and mitigating natural disasters. And we have two folks
testifying, one from Maine and one from Hawaii, very different
types of disasters. Well, I am from West Virginia and, you
know, we are not going to have a tsunami--well, if we do we are
all gone, in West Virginia, but we do have very drastic and
very devastating floods. We had a flood in 2016 that killed 23
people. It was very rapid, very sad.
So I guess I would like to ask first, Ms. Repko--and by the
way, I know your sister and she is doing a great job. What
unique challenges, how do you formulate?
Or let me start with you, Ms. Trottenberg. How do you
formulate different resiliency strategies when there are so
many different types of disasters for different types of
terrains, for different types of folks? Isn't that where we
ought to really empower our states more maybe? And is that what
you are doing presently?
Ms. Trottenberg. It is a great question. And you are
absolutely right. You know, we talk a lot about coastal areas,
but you are certainly right, in West Virginia, Vermont, other
places, devastating flooding. Absolutely, it is, it is
empowering states, it is empowering localities, as I said in my
testimony, really interdisciplinary. I don't think any one part
of government holds all the answers.
You know, a lot of these projects are very complicated. You
know, as Senator Murphy was asking about things like sort of
different green infrastructure that often pulls in not just
traditional transportation agencies, but environmental
agencies. So I think it has to be quite an interdisciplinary
partnership to get it right. And, you know, I think at DOT,
between Federal Highways and Federal Transit, we are trying
very much to work with local partners on the ground, but, you
know, we also need feedback in ways that we can do that better
and be more tailored in our solutions.
Senator Capito. Ms. Repko.
Ms. Repko. Absolutely agree with you. I think one thing
that is important to think about is that resilience is not one
thing. And I think sometimes people want to think: oh, define
resilience, what is that? It is site specific, it is condition
specific and it is projects specific, depending on how long of
an investment we are thinking of having. And absolutely, I
think that we envision, through the Disaster Resilience
Framework, having the Federal government play a role where you
empower states and locals, you help them coordinate, you
provide incentives, such as reducing administrative costs, to
be able to build these projects.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Dr. Dagher, let me ask you this. I think one of the
daunting challenges here is that there is a perception--and it
may be real--that building to resilience and using green
building practices is more expensive, exponentially more
expensive. And I know you are from Maine and obviously deal
with that, but you also do a lot with the composites. Is there
any way that you can help me with that? Because I think that
would help formulate policy better if you didn't feel like,
well, we are going to be spending three times as much on this
rebuild and are we going to get back, you know, the investment
that we have? Do you have any perspectives on that?
Dr. Dagher. An excellent question. Thank you for asking
that. If you look at the decisions that we make in terms of
whether we rebuild a bridge, or build it a bit better, there
are simple examples that we will show you that you can save a
lot of money.
For example, if you could figure it out that these five
bridges are in the flood zone, and the next time around they
might be washed away, and spending some money to raise them a
little bit rather than wait until they get washed away, is an
example where investing in a long-term solution saves money.
The data has shown actually, and it has been cited a little
earlier that you can save almost $6 for every dollar you spend
on resiliency under certain conditions.
So in Maine, for example, and in our transportation center,
we are looking at working with Vermont right now to look at the
flooding that is taking place, in their bridges, and studying
the watersheds, and identifying which bridges are next to go if
there is another storm. And we are focusing on these bridges
and investing in them so that we could--we can focus the
investment, yet have the biggest bang for the buck.
Senator Capito. Well, I am glad you brought up bridges,
because we have so many deficient bridges throughout the
country. And certainly in my small state we have so many
bridges, and so many of them are--well, they are safe, but they
are deteriorating. And so that is part of what we are trying to
work on in the highway bills as we work through that.
But thank you all very much.
Dr. Dagher. Thank you.
Senator Moore Capito. Thank you.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank all of
you for your testimony.
I think we all recognize that we have to focus on stopping
climate change and the huge disruptive impact and cost of
climate change. But, I want to thank the chairman and ranking
member for holding this hearing, because at the same time we do
have to deal with the resilience piece, because we are already
experiencing the costs of climate change, and if we don't adapt
we will both lose more lives than necessary, and we also will
waste a lot of taxpayer dollars in the process.
We have seen from this attack on the Colonial Pipeline that
we have to harden our cyber infrastructure. We have to make
sure we harden our other infrastructure. And in the Obama
administration they adopted a Federal flood risk management
standard.
And, Ms. Repko, you mentioned the earlier reports in the
2019 GAO Report, GAO wrote this, ``Additionally, we have
reported that implementing the January 2015 Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard, which required all future Federal
investments in and affecting floodplains to meet a certain
elevation level, would have enhanced Federal flood resilience
by ensuring agencies addressed current and future flood risk.''
I assume the GAO still holds that position. Is that right?
Ms. Repko. Thank you, Senator. You know, part of the
Disaster Resilience Framework is you want to have the best
information that you can have about disaster risk and climate
risk, and you want to have design standards that build through
that.
Senator Van Hollen. Right. And that is what those standards
did?
Ms. Repko. Mm-hmm.
Senator Van Hollen. Is that right?
Ms. Repko. Yes.
Senator Van Hollen. And as you point out in this 2019
report, and I am just quoting, ``However, since the Executive
Order 13807 was rescinded in August 2017, the Federal
government has not taking any further action as of December
2020.''
So the Trump administration rescinded the executive order
that input in place by the Obama administration. In fact, the
chairman, Senator Schatz, and Senator Booker, and I then
introduced legislation here in Congress to codify that rule. We
introduced it last year. My hope is, and we do intend to
reintroduce that, but my hope is that the administration can
move forward.
So Deputy Secretary Trottenberg, I am just reading from a
piece that probably you saw, it is just, you know, The New York
times piece. And it points out that, on the first day of a new
presidency, the President said he was going to reinstate this
Obama rule to save taxpayer dollars, but that the
administration reversed itself last month saying that Mr.
Biden's order did not in fact reinstate the flood rule, and
that no reason was given.
I am hoping maybe today you can provide a reason, and also
assure us that the administration will reinstate that rule.
Ms. Trottenberg. I think I will be cautious in giving a
reason. Look, I am well aware, you know, having served in the
Obama administration, you know, the significance of that rule,
and what happened in the last administration. I think I would
like to come back to you Senator with a little more, I think,
clarity on what this administration's plans are going to be on
that front.
Senator Van Hollen. I would appreciate that. Because you
would agree--you were a part of the previous administration.
You would agree that this was a smart policy to implement,
would you not?
Ms. Trottenberg. Yes.
Senator Van Hollen. Yeah, yeah. It is, yeah, it is a little
confusing why this has not happened already. So I do intend to
move forward with the legislation, but hopefully that will be
more of an insurance policy, and also make sure that future
administrations, you know, cannot just reverse what has
happened.
Could you talk a little bit about how the Federal
government can use its tools to leverage states and local
jurisdictions to also contribute to this effort?
The chairman pointed out in his opening remarks, the huge
cost of doing this, right, and pointed out that, you know, the
proposal from the President, it is good, it is a lot better
than where we are, but it is not nearly sufficient. So we have
to leverage both state and private sector funding. Can you just
talk briefly about some ideas for how we might use that
leverage at the Federal level?
Ms. Trottenberg. You know, you are right, Senator, the
costs are large. And, you know, in part, I think--I am hearing
from some of my fellow panelists today, you know, part of the
challenge is making sure that we sort of get the math right,
that we are doing the right benefit-cost analysis, that we are
picking the projects that really make sense, that they are
bring the--sort of the benefits. You were mentioning it, a 6 to
1 ratio that those investments are smart, but you are also
right. And, and some of your colleagues have mentioned it
today.
You know, we always, I think want with Federal dollars, to
try and incentivize, as you point out, not just state and local
partners, but private partners to come to the table as well.
And that means I think we have to work in real partnership
also. Obviously, we have to, you know, bring our expertise and
our incentives to the table but, you know, respect our
partners, and take their views, and their priorities as well.
You know, certainly the Colonial Pipeline is a good--you
know, a good, sort of, perhaps learning experience for us and
is going to make us, I think, think in some new ways about,
particularly how we partner with private sectors, owners and
operators of infrastructure, because they are an enormous piece
of the puzzle here. They don't necessarily get Federal funds,
but we need to be working more closely with them.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. And I would appreciate it,
if you can get back to me on the reinstatement of the Obama
Flood Standard ruling
Ms. Trottenberg. Will do, Senator.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
Senator Schatz. Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To Deputy Secretary Trottenberg; in North Dakota we have
the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and in the south unit of
the park we have what we call the Scenic Loop. It is about a
23-mile loop going through the park, and you can see bison and,
you know, wild horses, and just all different kind of wildlife.
And it is very scenic and very beautiful.
Because of the Badlands out there, and the Buttes, and the
amazing topography section of that road has slid off the side
of the Canyon basically, or the side of the Butte, I should
say. We worked with Secretary Bernhardt to get going on
restoration of the road, but it is very important because that
is such a beautiful, scenic loop, and so many visitors use it
every year.
Right now it is under a design, it is in the design phase.
So the Central Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal
Highway Administration is working with the park service. They
are designing it. They hope to have that design done by the end
of year, but we need to get it repaired as soon as we can
because it is so integral to the park.
So I guess my question is: when there is a road
reconstruction project, such as the one that I have just
described, where there is minimal to no excavation, minimal
disturbance, and a preexisting right of way, how can DOT, EPA
and other Federal agencies, work together to streamline the
regulatory process and get this fixed as soon as possible?
Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you, Senator. And I am aware of that
project and the importance of it. And look, we certainly try in
projects as you are describing where, sort of, there is minimal
change in the footprint and the design to use categorical
exclusions. We also try and do that for projects involved in
emergency relief. I think it sounds like here we have some of
our sister agencies involved and, you know, happy again to
follow up with you all. You know, again, have been briefed on
the importance of that project and certainly want to make sure
we get it right, but do it quickly.
Senator Hoeven. Well, thank you. And your answer actually
anticipated my very next question, which is that, you know,
will you work with my office to make sure that we are
coordinating and doing that as rapidly as possible, so
hopefully we will get it completed by next year?
Ms. Trottenberg. Yes. Happy to do so.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Also, Senator Ron Wyden who
chairs the Finance Committee, and I, have the Move America Act
which would be a very good candidate to be part of the
infrastructure package. Essentially it allows tax--states to
use private activity bonds for tax exempt financing, or
actually they can use a tax credit to draw equity investors in
to really leverage Federal funding for infrastructure.
And so I guess my question. Do you think there is a role
for private sector to play in addressing infrastructure needs
through something like the Move America program?
Ms. Trottenberg. I mean, certainly do. And thank you. I
know you and Senator Wyden, and others here in Congress have
had some very creative ideas on that front. You know, DOT, we
have our Build America Bureau and, you know, out of that we run
our credit programs. And I think we are always looking for more
creative and innovative ways that we can bring private
investment, you know, into our infrastructure.
As we were saying earlier in this hearing, the private
sector has a big role to play here, a lot of our infrastructure
is privately owned and operated, and they can be great partners
in some of these projects.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. And if you would even expand on
that a little bit with P3, one of the P3 projects we are doing
right now is the Red River Valley Flood Protection Project,
which is actually a multi-state project between North Dakota,
Minnesota, the Red River of the North, and it is about a $3
billion project, but actually the Federal cost share is only 35
percent because we are using P3.
And a lot of it will be that it is a local state Federal
partnership along with the private sector, which is expedited
in the construction, and we hope to have it done in 6 years,
and reducing the Federal cost share to 35 percent. So, talk for
a minute about your feelings in regard to using P3, public-
private partnerships, as we undertake our infrastructure needs.
Ms. Trottenberg. I mean, I think that is a great example,
and there are certainly places, we have seen them all over the
country where, you know, bringing in a private sector partner
can reduce the public share. I will just say, you know, I want
to be cautious. One thing we do often hear, for example, in
some rural areas is, you know, those deals can be complicated
to put together. They aren't necessarily the revenue streams
that bring the private sector partners to the table. So
important tool, but I do want to be mindful. You know, there
are places where it is going to work, and places where it may
not be the right strategy.
Senator Hoeven. Exactly, that is right on. Again, then I go
back to Move America, why it is important to provide either the
financing or the tax incentive, tax credit incentive to bring
that private equity in. And so I think you make an important
point. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Schatz. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
ranking member for allowing me to arrive from the Arms Services
Committee, where I was residing.
Deputy Secretary Trottenberg, the pipeline hack has
revealed the complex regulatory structure we have for
pipelines. In your Department the pipeline has this material
safety administration, FTSA, regulates certain aspects of this,
but other responsibilities are under the Department of Homeland
Security, TSA.
Can you discuss this collaboration between your agency and
Homeland Security? Should we integrate those functions,
particularly with respect to cyber? And what can we do
ultimately about increasing security?
Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you for that question. And clearly
as we have, I think, in real time, you know, the administration
has been responding to the Colonial Pipeline situation, and it
has raised those very questions. I think I am happy to say, at
least in the case of this very urgent situation, you know,
again, we have had a whole-of-government approach. I think DOT,
Department of Energy, Department of Defense, and Homeland
Security, we have all worked very, very closely together.
But you are right, Senator, different agencies sort of have
different pieces of the puzzle. You know, DOT and FMCSA, our
pipeline administration, particularly focused on the physical
infrastructure, and to some degree the operational aspects. And
then, you know, DHS, for example, involved in the cybersecurity
piece. And in the case of this particular cyberattack, those
two pieces came together.
And I think going forward, obviously, the President has put
out an executive order for us to be taking a deep look at
cybersecurity, and we need to get it right, and we need to be
integrated. I think there will be some good thinking, you know,
in the coming weeks and months about how we do that better and
obviously, you know, interested in the views of you all here on
The Hill. We want to make sure agencies bring their relevant
expertise to the table, but that we are not stove-piped. And
that, you know, we are getting to holistic solution.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
And both to you, Madam Secretary and Ms. Repko; we
understand the challenges of climate change, seawater rise,
they particularly impact construction of infrastructure. We are
about to do, we hope, a major infrastructure plan, but one of
the problems is just understanding the risk precisely of--
particularly for planning and construction project that is
going to last 30 years.
What exactly is the highest probability prediction in terms
of the water rising? And Rhode Island, that is a critical issue
because, as Senator Theodore Francis Green says, in response to
the question, how big is your Island? It depends on high tide
or low tide. So we are very concerned about that. But could you
respond, Madam Secretary; and then Ms. Repko?
Ms. Trottenberg. I think you have asked that the million-
or the billion-dollar question, and one I grappled with as a
local official in New York, getting that math right and
understanding those probabilities is a huge challenge. And
particularly because these climate events, from what we can
see, they are growing more frequent, they are growing more
severe. So even, you know, as the years go by that modeling can
be changing pretty rapidly.
Again, I think it is bringing a lot of different
disciplines and experts to the table, local and state
knowledge, and Federal expertise. You know, we have one of the
foremost academics here. You sort of need, I think, a pretty
interdisciplinary group, but it is an ongoing challenge, and
one, I think, you know, we want--these investments can pay off,
but they have to be made wisely. They have to be made in such a
way that the benefits are going to greatly exceed the cost.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Ms. Repko. Thank you, Senator. And I would say at the
Federal level one gap that we could close is to have a more
authoritative source of disaster risk information for folks to
use. I think it is challenging when there are multiple sources
out there, the sources are fragmented and they are used for
different purposes within different agencies. And you want to
make it as simple as you can for someone who is trying to make
these changes, to know exactly what information to look at, and
to know the design standards that they should apply that
information to.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
I want to highlight and commend Senator Collins and my
colleagues in a White House for the IMAGINE Act which is
designed to improve materials and techniques for construction.
And I understand, Dr. Dagher, that your--the fiberglass
girders were in Rhode Island. So thanks a lot. I have probably
driven over them a lot. But one of the things I have noticed is
that the new construction techniques, and Rhode Island is a
small place--the Director of Transportation is my high school
classmate so we have a lot of sharing--but they have new
techniques to build a bridge by the side of the old bridge,
tear the old bridge down, slide the new one in overnight, and
voila. So thank you for that. Any comments you might have on
more that we have to do in that regard?
Dr. Dagher. Absolutely. I think the important thing is to
focus a lot of our decisions on lifecycle analysis rather than,
what is the next bridge that falls apart. In the long run if we
did that, we are going to save money, not only for ourselves,
but as children and grandchildren as well. So the focus on at
the Federal level on a policy side, to require more work in the
lifecycle analysis as we make those investments, that will make
these investments pay off better.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thanks.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is getting
confusing.
Ms. Repko, first though I want to thank you for your
testimony where GAO sets for its certain policy options for us.
Large rural, lower-income states face difficult challenges in
funding their infrastructure. Given that many rural areas
struggle to secure funding for just basic infrastructure needs,
how would GAO recommend that rural states, rural communities,
fund enhancements to infrastructure that would accomplish the
goals of increased resiliency in the face of cyber threats,
extreme weather events, and also lessen the environmental
impact? Isn't that an awful lot to put on a large, rural, low-
income state?
Ms. Repko. Thank you, Senator. I think it is an important
question to think about communities because they face some real
risks related to resilience, and also related to
infrastructure. A lot of rural communities don't have as much
redundancy in their infrastructure systems, and so if something
goes, if they lose a bridge, they lose a road, they could be
cut off. That means that people are cut off from leaving. It
also means that folks are caught off from coming to help them.
Also, there is administrative and capacity challenges, like
you talked about. You may have--you may not have a lot of folks
who are working on transportation, let alone a lot of folks who
are working on resilient transportation. And so I think that is
where parts of the framework come to place. And we asked the
Federal government to think about those two things, think about
vulnerabilities because they are very important, they are
different for rural communities than they are for other
communities. Think about capacity, and think if there are ways
that we can use incentives.
Are there ways that we can reduce administrative burdens?
Are there ways that we can coordinate our activities so that it
is easier for folks? Again, we want to make it as easy as it
can be to build in resilience. We don't want to add challenges
on top of an already challenging situation when folks may be
facing a natural disaster.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Dr. Dagher, your record of transforming research into real-
world applications is incredibly impressive. And it is one of
the reasons that I have wanted to have you here today. I have
been in your lab and I have seen the wave pool that you
developed in order to test composite materials simulated in at-
sea conditions.
I joined you when you unveiled, I believe it was the
Nation's largest 3D printer, and you actually printed a little
boat that we went out into the pool with. So one of the things
that, to me, is so important about your research is that it is
practical and you always look at the world, at the real life
implications to the work that you are doing.
Could you elaborate on the research that you are currently
conducting, particularly through the Transportation
Infrastructure Durability Center that has promise for
infrastructure applications?
Dr. Dagher. Thank you, Senator Collins. A very important
question. I am going to give you some specific examples today
that we are working on. As you know, Maine is a rural state,
and if we lose a bridge, it may be another 50 or 100 miles
before you can get to where you want to be because of that. And
we have a lot of bridges we cannot really replace today. We
just don't have the money to do so.
Some of the bridges go on, what we call the post-it bridge
list, and eventually get taken out of service. So we have a lot
of bridges like that in Maine. So we ask ourselves, can we have
a second opinion? Can we do a bit of a better job at going out
there and looking at these bridges and see if we can actually
extend their life?
So we started a program under the Transportation
Infrastructure Durability Center, where we have been able to
actually save a lot of bridges from being post-it's, so the
trucks don't have to go another 50 miles or 100 miles. And that
is happening as we speak. About two-thirds of the bridges we
have been looking at that would have been actually post-its now
no longer need to be post-its. And what we do is we go out
there and actually take a bunch of dump trucks for sand to the
bridge and put sensors on it, and load it up to see if it has
got more life than we think it is.
And we do some numerical simulations, and go back to the
DOT and say, hey, you can actually don't have to post this
particular bridge. And that has worked out quite a few times on
bridges in Canton, in Peru, Maine; in Jackson, in Alna, Maine;
in Franklin and Unity, were all saved like that, and saved
millions of dollars for the DOT.
So extending the lives of existing bridges is one example
that we are doing. We are also strengthening bridges. We are
taking composite materials to bridges and see where they are
weak, and then laminating composites under the underside of
these bridges.
The other thing we are doing, Senator Collins, is trying to
figure out which bridges are getting worse and faster by having
better inspection techniques. So we are developing drone
technologies right now. We can take some drones to inspect the
bridges, particularly the ones that are harder to get at, and
get under the bridges with the drones. They are using very
advanced sensors, including acoustic sensors that can actually
identify if there are problems in these--in these bridges.
So all of those are examples, Senator Collins, that the
Transportation Center and the University Transportation Centers
helping us do, that we appreciate the Federal DOT support, and
hope we can continue to make those kinds of investments at the
Federal level.
Senator Collins. I am sure the Secretary is taking notes on
all of this. But that is fascinating. So I think what you are
telling me is there are certain bridges that would have been
post-it, and thus big trucks would not have been allowed on
them, would have had to do very long detours to deliver their
products, or pick up their materials. And you are able to more
precisely identify which bridges truly need to be posted. And
then in some cases you are actually strengthening the bridges
using composite materials to do so?
Dr. Dagher. That is exactly correct, Senator Collins. So
bridges that otherwise would have been gone on post-it list,
now don't have to go on the post-it list. It is almost like
going to the doctor and saying, can you give me a second
opinion? Do I really need this operation or not? And we are
able to have a second-opinion team that is working with the DOT
that goes and evaluates these bridges, and oftentimes they
don't have to be replaced, at least for now--or post-it.
Senator Collins. And then that allows us to concentrate on
the ones that really do need to be replaced and are either
structurally deficient, or functionally obsolete, or both, and
focus our resources there, and using the new materials that you
have developed is just extraordinary because it is going to
extend the life of the new bridges, and in some cases I am told
to over a hundred years.
Dr. Dagher. That is exactly right, Senator Collins. And we
are developing designs from materials that will last 100 years.
And what is really important is that at the Federal policy
level, we incentivize the state to look at lifecycle analysis,
because you may pay a little bit more, or maybe you pay 10 or
20 percent more to get started. But if the bridge is going to
last twice as long, it makes economic sense.
But those decisions at the Federal--need to be incentivized
at the state level. So we start looking at lifecycle analysis.
We start looking at, for example, LEED bridges as well. So we
have LEED home, right, and agree--there is LEED and green
homes, and LEED Gold, and so on, and so forth. Could we have
LEED bridges? Could we start looking at transportation
infrastructure like we look at homes today, and look at that?
All of those long-term, if you wish, policy decisions that we
make help inform the investments that we make today and reduce
costs to society, so----
Senator Collins. Thank you so much. And given the amount of
money that we spend each year on Federal disaster assistance; I
think Ms. Repko, you said it was a 524 billion since 2005, if
we can spend a little more money upfront and avoid that cost,
as well as looking at the lifecycle costs, we may, in fact, end
up spending less money.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; a very good to hearing.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much. I have one final
question for Mr. Sniffen. And I only have a minute or two
because I have to go and preside. And so I will make it quick.
Has AASHTO developed any design or engineering standards to
make a resiliency--to make sure resiliency is incorporated into
new projects? And what recommendations do you have for shifting
the culture at state DOTs?
Mr. Sniffen. So we have not set the policies for the DOTs,
fully understanding that each state has its own needs to fill.
So what we will do is make sure that all the states have the
tools, and the techniques to make sure that they can address
their resiliency needs. So we set together, a toolbox for
everybody, that is virtual that everybody can access, and we
make sure that we pool up our resources to ensure that we test
these different approaches in the system, make sure that
everybody understands, or could share out the information that
they have, or that they have created for their states.
Now for us, we would always recommend that resiliency be
baked into your every operation. For Hawaii it does not make
sense for us to create a resiliency program that competes with
the safety system preservation, and capacity, and congestion.
It made sense for us to ensure that all of those different
programs include resiliency in there. So we don't include
resiliency projects in our portfolio; each project is
resilient.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much. I want to thank our
staff, the ranking member, all of the members, and especially
the testifiers. This was a really constructive hearing.
And it occurs to me that although we have a lot of work to
do on, on this side of the dais, one of the most constructive
things that may be able to happen, going forward, is if the
four, the testifiers would continue a dialogue because the
opportunity for cross-pollination of really smart ideas is
really extraordinary. A great hearing.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Thank you for coming to discuss this critical topic. The
record will remain open until Friday May 21st, to allow members
to submit additional questions for the record.
Questions Submitted to Hon. Polly Trottenberg
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. When Tropical Storm Irene swept through Vermont in
September 2011, seven inches of rain fell on the state over the course
of two days. In the aftermath, towns across Vermont began replacing the
nearly 1000 destroyed pipe culverts with larger culverts that could
handle higher streamflow, as required by Vermont statute. Some
municipalities who applied to have these culvert replacements financed
through FEMA's Public Assistance program had trouble accessing this
funding or had their funding applications rejected. Culverts are a
critical part of the highway network in Vermont, and culvert failures
can shut down entire highway stretches. Vermont has over 45,000
culverts with a total replacement need of approximately $500 million.
By supporting states' investments in culvert replacement, we can ensure
that our infrastructure and waterways can withstand increased rainfall
and streamflow while reducing significant hardship and rebuilding
expenses in the event of a natural disaster.
How do you plan to equip state and local transportation agencies
with culvert replacements and incentivize proactive action to make
their infrastructure more resilient?
Answer. Hurricane Irene and other recent storms have demonstrated
the toll that extreme weather events can take on our nation's
infrastructure. USDOT and FHWA support States' investments in culvert
replacement and other proactive resilience investments to reduce the
vulnerability of our transportation infrastructure to climate change.
Each State faces its own unique challenges, but many best practices
exist that can be applied nationwide.
When it comes to flooding and our roadways, the Department is
developing tools, providing technical assistance to States and
metropolitan areas, funding pilot projects, and facilitating
information exchange among local transportation agencies. The
Department serves as a resource to transportation agencies and provides
options on the many ways they can build resilience into the planning,
construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation projects. We
will continue collaborating with Federal, State, Tribal, and local
agencies on the shared goal of a transportation system that provides
safe mobility under current and future conditions, supporting the
Nation's economy and quality of life.
In addition, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes $1 billion
for a National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Program to
provide grants to States, local governments, and Tribes to address
anadromous fish passage as well as provide funding for certain
freshwater impacts to marine fish and shellfish species.
Question. Will the Department consider greater flexibility for
states when rebuilding our country's highways and roads, or is further
Congressional authorization necessary?
Answer. The FHWA's Emergency Relief (ER) Program provides funding
and flexibility for States to repair roads damaged by declared
disasters. FHWA has efforts underway to ensure that both our Division
Offices and partner agencies are aware of all existing opportunities to
improve resilience when rebuilding.
The FHWA encourages State DOTs (with FHWA Division Office support)
to consider ways to improve resilience when rebuilding assets. There
are two ways that ER funds can be used to improve resilience when
repairing or rebuilding a damaged highway or bridge following an
eligible event: (1) repair the facilities to current design standards
rather than rebuilding in-kind; and (2) rebuild with added protective
features--a ``betterment''--if economically justified to save ER
program funds over time by preventing future recurring damage. If the
State DOT plans to fund a betterment that is not economically justified
under the ER program, the State DOT may use ER funding up to the cost
of repairing to current standards; the State DOT may then elect to use
other Federal funding to make up the difference in project cost,
including Surface Transportation Block Grant program funding.
FHWA has provided guidance on ER and resilience in an Information
Memorandum entitled, ``Integration of Resilient Infrastructure in the
Emergency Relief Program.'' This 2019 memorandum provides clarity on
how States can incorporate resilience into their ER program funded
projects and details a process that FHWA and its stakeholders should
follow for integrating resilience into all ER Program decisions.
In addition, FHWA plans to compile resilience case studies from ER
repair projects nationwide. These case studies will highlight efforts
to incorporate resilience into ER eligible repair projects. FHWA plans
to publish these case studies to help FHWA Divisions and other agencies
apply best practices for resilience. Both efforts will provide
direction and promote consistency for FHWA Division offices and State
DOTs on incorporating resilience into ER programs.
In addition, FHWA already supports State DOTs considering extreme
events, climate change, and resilience in their installation and
replacement of highway assets under our existing Federal-aid programs.
For example, FHWA's asset management regulation requires identification
of risks that can affect condition of National Highway System (NHS)
pavements and bridges and performance of the NHS, including risks
associated with current and future environmental conditions, such as
extreme weather events and climate change. States are encouraged, but
not required, to include all other NHS infrastructure assets within the
right-of-way corridor and assets on other public roads in their risk-
based asset management plan. FHWA also has developed technical manuals
and training to help State DOTs to understand and apply climate and
resilience concepts and approaches.
The Department recommends that State DOTs take a proactive approach
that addresses vulnerabilities before an emergency occurs and that does
not rely on the ER Program. Rather than waiting for a disaster to
damage a facility, a proactive approach protects the traveling public,
prevents damage and disruption, and saves money. We now have a system
in place for States to identify facilities damaged multiple times by
disasters, and consider more resilient alternatives when planning
repairs or replacement. Regular FHWA program funds can be used for
activities to plan, design, and construct highways to adapt to current
and future weather events. For instance, planning and research funds
can be used to conduct a vulnerability assessment and analysis of
adaptation options. This allows State DOTs to identify and address
vulnerabilities before disasters occur.
Lastly, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law authorized the Promoting
Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient and Cost Saving
Transportation (PROTECT) program, which will provide $7.3 billion in
formula funding to states and $1.4 billion in competitive grants to
eligible entities to increase the resilience of our transportation
system. Among other eligibilities, the PROTECT program provides funding
for evacuation routes, coastal resilience, or efforts to move
infrastructure to nearby locations not continuously impacted by extreme
weather and natural disasters.
Question. In Vermont, one of the greatest challenges posed by
climate change on our surface transportation infrastructure is
flooding. As weather patterns change and rainstorms grow more intense,
water levels in rivers and stream across the state have fluctuated more
intensely and unpredictably. Often, green infrastructure can be an
effective way to mitigate the damage caused by excessive flooding.
How would you incentivize the incorporation of natural
infrastructure and other flood mitigation methods into infrastructure
repair and rebuilding projects that receive Federal funding, and how
would you help state and local governments to better assess the
feasibility and impact of green infrastructure investments to enhance
transportation resiliency?
Answer. USDOT and FHWA encourage the use of natural or nature-based
solutions, where appropriate, when rebuilding and repairing
infrastructure. Marshes, dunes, reefs, beaches, mangroves, forests, and
native vegetation can dissipate wave energy and reduce flooding.
Natural features also provide benefits beyond flood protection, such as
benefits to habitat, commercial fisheries, recreation, and water
quality.
FHWA has published an implementation guide to help State DOTs,
other Federal agencies, and local transportation authorities to deploy
nature-based solutions to address the vulnerabilities of coastal
highway assets. The implementation guide summarizes the potential
flood-reduction benefits and co-benefits of these strategies. It
follows the steps in the project delivery process, providing guidance
on how to consider nature-based solutions in the planning process, how
to conduct a site assessment to determine whether nature-based
solutions are appropriate, key engineering and ecological design
considerations, permitting approaches, construction considerations, and
monitoring and maintenance strategies.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) authorized the Promoting
Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient and Cost Saving
Transportation (PROTECT) program, which will provide $7.3 billion in
formula funding to states and $1.4 billion in competitive grants to
eligible entities to increase the resilience of our transportation
system. Among other eligibilities, the PROTECT program provides funding
for evacuation routes, coastal resilience, natural infrastructure
elements, or efforts to move infrastructure to nearby locations not
continuously impacted by extreme weather and natural disasters.
Question. Natural disasters can severely impact transportation
networks. In the hours and days following a major event, knowing the
location and extent of the damage are crucial. Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS) can play a vital role in helping transportation and
recovery officials prioritize response and recovery efforts. The
University of Vermont's (UVM's) Transportation Research Center (TRC)
has demonstrated a direct, real world application of UAS technology.
One example being how the Spatial Analysis Lab at UVM's TRC deployed
UAS to support recovery efforts after Amtrak's Vermonter derailment in
2015. UAS have additional benefits when it comes to surveying
infrastructure rural areas that are thought to be inaccessible as well
as a way to help evaluate the structural deficiencies that are plaguing
our country's bridges.
How does the Department of Transportation plan on further utilizing
UAS technology to make our Nation's transportation infrastructure more
resilient specifically in rural areas?
Answer. Through the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
Integration Pilot Program or IPP, UAS were used to support a number of
disaster response and recovery efforts. For example, the Choctaw Nation
of Oklahoma, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Virginia conducted
operations that provided aerial imagery to help assessment teams
evaluate storm impacts, identify repair efforts, direct emergency
responders, and divert traffic away from damaged roads and bridges. UAS
have also proven themselves to be invaluable tools when it comes to
linear infrastructure (rail/pipeline) and facility inspections,
especially in rural areas. However, in order to realize the full
potential of these operations, the FAA is exploring beyond visual line-
of-sight (BVLOS) operations without visual observers that are
repeatable, scalable, and economically viable across rural, suburban,
and urban environments.
Although BVLOS operations occur today, these flights are performed
under waivers or exemptions to the existing FAA regulations (14 CFR
part 107, part 91, part 135, etc.). Approvals are made on a case-by-
case basis, which is time consuming and cumbersome for operators and
the FAA. Moving from one-off approvals to the predictability of
operating by rule will encourage further innovation in this emerging
field.
On June 9, the FAA announced the formation of a new Aviation
Rulemaking Committee or ARC to help the Agency develop a regulatory
path for routine BVLOS UAS operations. This is a big step forward and
will help pave the way for routine package delivery, infrastructure
inspection, and other more complex UAS operations.
However, DOT supports the responsible use of UAS in our surface
modes as well. For instance, FHWA has supported State DOT investments
in developing their UAS Program capabilities through multiple
approaches. Over the last 3 years, FHWA has provided direct funding to
State DOTs in excess of $4 million through State Transportation
Innovation Council (STIC) and Accelerated Innovation Deployment (AID)
projects. This investment has supported 37 State DOTs in their
advancement of their capabilities, including Emergency Response and
Infrastructure Inspection activities.
FHWA has also used the Every Day Counts program to provide
technical training, publications, peer exchanges, and other outreach
activities over the last 2 years to support State, Local, and Tribal
governments as they deploy UAS focused on key activities such as
Construction Inspection, Structural Inspection, and Emergency Response.
These efforts have resulted in 45 States reporting an increase in their
UAS capabilities. FHWA plans to continue deployment of UAS to support
surface transportation activities nationwide and will continue to
engage our traditional State partners along with local. Specific uses,
including an October 2020 Webinar on this topic can be found on the
FHWA UAS website https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/uas/.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin
Question. This past weekend, a cybersecurity attack forced the
closure of the largest fuel pipeline in the United States. Colonial
Pipeline Company closed its entire 5,500 mile conduit carrying gasoline
and other fuels from the Gulf Coast to New York after it was the target
of a ransomware attack on its network. This is deeply troubling. I am
glad that the White House announced two days ago that it was forming an
interagency task force in response to the Colonial ransomware attack,
but it highlights a broader issue. The Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), though it falls under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), but is incredibly relevant to
the resiliency of our nation's transportation infrastructure. A 2019
GAO report noted that only 6 staff at TSA were responsible for
reviewing the cybersecurity performed by approximately 2.5 million
miles of pipeline and 3000 pipeline companies across the U.S. These
same weaknesses were documented by the Congressional Research Service
in 2012, and yet nothing has been done.
This glaring issue with little overview and confusion as to why
pipelines and other infrastructure fall under TSA highlights a larger
question:
What is being done to address the threat of cyber-attacks on our
existing nation's infrastructure, whether it be as small as traffic
lights being interrupted or as large as entire systems being shut down
or held ransom?
Answer. The DOT's top priority is transportation safety. Our
Nation's transportation system faces persistent and increasingly
sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns that threaten the public
sector, the private sector, and ultimately the American people's
safety, security, and privacy.
DOT regularly participates in National Security Council-led
meetings to address cybersecurity, including policy development to
address ransomware and critical infrastructure cybersecurity. DOT and
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are Co-Sector Risk Management
Agencies (Co-SRMAs) for the Transportation Systems critical
infrastructure sector. DOT and DHS jointly share information or address
actions related to the sector, including by encouraging sector
stakeholders to adopt the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (the Framework) that was
created through collaboration between industry and government, as well
as by developing or sharing cybersecurity information, tools, and
references adapted to sector needs for stakeholders' use. The Framework
consists of standards, guidelines, and practices created to promote the
protection of critical information and communications technology
infrastructure. In March 2021, DOT and DHS conducted an assessment of
stakeholders' awareness and use of the Framework. These efforts, among
other interagency coordination, help spur industry to reduce their
cyber risks and identify opportunities for enhancing their existing
cyber risk management programs.
DOT has also been collaborating with the DHS Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and NIST on establishing a common
baseline of cyber performance goals for critical infrastructure control
systems, which will be finalized in summer 2022. DOT will also be
contributing to subsequent transportation sector-specific cybersecurity
performance goals, which will build upon the common baseline. More
information can be found here:
https://www.cisa.gov/control-systems-goals-and-objectives
Further, DOT serves as a principal member of the Transportation
Security Oversight Board (TSOB), led by DHS and established under the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act, to provide guidance regarding
transportation security-related matters. As a TSOB member, DOT is
responsible for reviewing and ratifying or disapproving emergency
regulations or security directives issued by TSA, including security
directives that TSA issued in 2021 for pipelines, railroads, and rail
transit. In light of DOT's Co- SRMA role alongside DHS and TSOB
membership, DOT regularly coordinates with DHS/TSA counterparts and is
well-positioned to prompt and establish necessary interagency
coordination processes amongst key stakeholders to facilitate quick
information sharing and response.
Question. If the TSA can't do its job, and it isn't even included
in the interagency task force on this issue, why is it even in charge
of pipeline cybersecurity?
Answer. Securing and protecting our nation's critical energy
infrastructure from cyber threats and attacks requires a whole of
government approach. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) coordinates and collaborates on common issues of
concerns--including cyber and physical security, safety, and energy
supplies--with DHS, TSA, DOE, FBI, and other agencies as appropriate.
Additionally, if DOT directly receives notice of a cyberattack or a
ransomware payment from a pipeline owner or operator, the most
immediate step is to ensure that the owner or operator report such
incidents to the DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security
Agency (CISA). In addition, PPD-41 outlines the standing process
for interagency coordination among key federal agencies.
Although DOT is aware of or coordinating on numerous relevant
engagements that TSA facilitates for cybersecurity issues, DOT defers
to TSA to address the extent of its leadership on pipeline
cybersecurity issues.
Question. West Virginia has been hard hit in recent years by
extreme weather that has severely impacted local communities. In 2016,
there was a tragic 1,000-year flood that devastated West Virginia,
leaving 23 dead, thousands of homes and businesses destroyed, half a
million residents without power, and $46 million worth of damaged
roads. In the community of Elkview, the flooding caused the only bridge
that connected the Elkview Crossing mall to the town to come crashing
down, trapping people, harming the local economy, and starting a long
process of building a new bridge. Communities still feel the impact of
that flood today.
According to the US Army Corps of Engineers 2021 Infrastructure
Report Card, 21% of bridges in West Virginia are structurally
deficient, well above the national average of just over 7%. Further,
31% of West Virginia roads are in poor condition. Each motorist pays
$726 per year in costs due to driving on roads in need of repair. The
lack of resilience directly impacts both daily life and the pockets of
hard-working West Virginians.
Can you speak to any work being done to review how potential
infrastructure spending can be implemented in a way that focuses on
resilience?
Answer. The Administration is committed to rebuilding our
infrastructure to make it more resilient to weather-related challenges,
not just building roads and bridges back to the way things were. It is
important to modernize highways, roads, and main streets, not only
``fixing them first'' but ``fixing them right,'' with safety,
resilience, and all users in mind. Critical investments in our Nation's
transportation infrastructure will enable States and communities to
make infrastructure more resilient and less vulnerable to tragic events
like the 2016 flood in West Virginia.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) authorized the Promoting
Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient and Cost Saving
Transportation (PROTECT) program, which will provide $7.3 billion in
formula funding to states and $1.4 billion in competitive grants to
eligible entities to increase the resilience of our transportation
system. Among other eligibilities, the PROTECT program provides funding
for evacuation routes, coastal resilience, or efforts to move
infrastructure to nearby locations not continuously impacted by extreme
weather and natural disasters.
Moreover, both the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and
U.S. DOT Office of Inspector General (IG) have conducted reviews of how
infrastructure spending can be implemented in a way that focuses on
resilience. The GAO conducted a review that addresses actions taken and
options to further enhance the climate resilience of federally funded
roads.\1\ FHWA provided information in support of this review and
concurred with the GAO's recommendations to consider how to implement
options to enhance the climate resilience of federally funded roads
when prioritizing actions on climate change, as called for in Executive
Order 14008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more information see: https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/
714305.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is also looking beyond the GAO and IG reviews to
identify and address additional opportunities in our climate resilience
practices. For example, as part of our implementation of EO 14008, DOT
is identifying opportunities to incorporate resilience into DOT grant
and loan programs. In addition, we are working closely with our
partners at the local, state, and regional levels to determine how we
can best assist them as they make investment decisions in support of
resilience. DOT is also moving forward with implementation of the
Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS), reestablished by
Executive Order 14030. The Department is reviewing and updating, as
appropriate, DOT policies, regulations, and procedures to account for
the reinstated FFRMS, which requires all future federal investments in
and affecting floodplains to meet the level of resilience established
by the Standard.
Question. What can my office be doing to ensure that Federal,
State, and Local stakeholders are all involved in the process to review
old and new infrastructure projects?
Answer. Stakeholder participation is critical in reviewing old and
new infrastructure to identify and prioritize potential
vulnerabilities. Institutional knowledge of government agencies, on-
the-ground inspections by public agency staff, and local knowledge
andexperiences from nearby communities are all important in assessing a
transportation system's vulnerability and adaptability to climate
effects. Encouraging the State DOT, Tribal, and local transportation
agencies to take a stakeholder input approach, as described in FHWA's
Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework, allows practitioners
to capture information that may not be apparent in records or desk-
based analysis. The stakeholder input approach can help inform the
responsible agency's decisions as it considers adaptation strategies
for those assets deemed vulnerable and as it works to incorporate
resilience into work processes and programs.
In addition, public involvement remains a hallmark of the
transportation planning process. It has always been important for
transportation planners to understand the perspective of their
constituents, listen to the voices of elected officials, advocates, and
stakeholders as they devise transportation plans and programs.
In general, however, there are two opportunities for public
engagement in reviewing transportation infrastructure projects. The
first is the official Public Participation Plan typically carried out
by the Metropolitan Planning Organizations or Regional Transportation
Planning Organizations. This process establishes a framework for
relevant stakeholders to influence both long-term transportation policy
development and short-term transportation programming. The second
significant opportunity for public engagement also may be included in
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for environmental
reviews. For certain actions, NEPA requires agencies to seek input from
stakeholders and the public throughout the development of the
transportation project to better inform the evaluation of the
environmental impacts resulting from proposed Federal actions. This
would include impacts resulting from climate change.
Question. Have you identified any projects that could be used as a
model for protecting and repairing our bridges and roads, particularly
focusing on rural communities?
Answer. FHWA has partnered with upwards of 50 resilience pilot
project teams across the country to conduct climate change and extreme
weather vulnerability assessments of transportation infrastructure and
to analyze options for improving resilience. These projects vary in
scope and emphasis and include: state-wide vulnerability assessments,
analyses of engineering options for improving resilience of specific
road segments, analysis of opportunities to protect assets by mimicking
nature, incorporating climate risks into asset management, and
deploying and monitoring adaptation solutions. Many of these projects
can provide useful insights and approaches to resilience for
communities across the country. However, resilience solutions are often
dependent on the specific circumstances and characteristics of the
transportation facility and location.
Nonetheless, FHWA has identified general strategies to make
infrastructure more resilient, including:
--Building stronger or better, or retrofitting existing
infrastructure to accommodate changes in the climate.
--Adding redundancy to the network by building new links or routes
--Relocating transportation assets to less vulnerable locations.
--Utilizing maintenance or operational strategies to increase
transportation system resilience and help people cope with
disruptions.
These resilience strategies may be introduced in the transportation
planning process, and then carried through other stages of
transportation decision-making, including project development and
design. In addition, resilience strategies will often have co- benefits
with other goals. For instance, designing culverts to allow discharge
of larger floods could also improve fish passage, helping restore
aquatic ecosystems. Nature- based strategies can have co-benefits for
recreation and habitat protection--which are often meaningful parts of
rural economies.
Question. In 2015, a catastrophic failure of a mechanically
stabilized earth retention structure, known as the runway safety area,
caused a landslide at Yeager Airport in Charleston West Virginia. More
than 540,000 cubic yards of fill slid across a roadway, onto a church,
and into a creek. It took four years at $25 million to rebuild the
runway safety area.
West Virginia is not alone in fighting the impacts of either poorly
constructed transportation projects or natural disasters that have
wiped away vital lifelines for our communities.
With airports being a crucial part of both urban and rural
communities, what work is being done to review the resiliency of
airport projects in the country and mitigate potential failures like
the one we saw at Yeager Airport?
Answer. Climate change is a threat to existing and planned airport
infrastructure and operations across the country. In addition to sea
level rise and coastal flooding, shifting weather patterns, such as
extreme heat, may necessitate climate resilience measures where a need
did not previously exist.
The FAA is working to evaluate and mitigate the risks of sea level
rise and other impacts of climate change on FAA infrastructure and the
ability to safely operate the National Air Space. In response to
Executive Order 14008, USDOT, along with other Federal agencies,
developed a Climate Action Plan for Resilience. In support of this
plan, FAA will be providing preliminary recommendations regarding
identifying airports that need additional resilience investments,
including urgent hot spots such as Hawaii and Alaska. In addition, the
FAA is leading an effort to develop an implementation plan for a
national airport strategy to provide a top-down framework for
investments in airport infrastructure, including resilience.
Airport resilience is a particularly urgent issue in many rural
communities, which often lack the options and redundancy found in urban
transportation networks. For these communities, a single regional
airport may be a critical access point to the rest of the country.
Question. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee (ENR) held a
hearing last month on how to maintain reliable, resilient, and
affordable energy amid the changing mix and more frequent extreme
weather events. No source of energy is 100% immune to weather
disruptions, and we need to be investing in smart and strategic
upgrades to weatherization and infrastructure like transmission and
pipelines. While Pipelines fall under the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), the relationship between energy and transportation is
present. Whether it be its impact on prices, spills on roadways, or
train derailment, Energy and Transportation go hand in hand.
Is there interagency work and research being conducted on how to
secure our transportation networks, including the systems we use to
transport materials and our natural resources?
Answer. The DOT's top priority is transportation safety. In line
with DOT's authorities, DOT coordinates with DHS, who has the lead on
transportation security matters.
However, there are many collaborative research efforts underway
involving transportation agencies, academia, and the private sector to
better understand the vulnerabilities of our nation's transportation
networks and secure them in the face of climate change and extreme
weather events. For example, in partnership with the Transportation
Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, USDOT/FHWA has
sponsored a series of conferences to bring together transportation
practitioners from across the country to exchange information on
emerging best practices on how to adapt surface transportation networks
to the potential impacts of natural disasters and extreme weather
events. This collaboration has promoted dialogue on research,
implementation, and lessons learned on this important topic, with
benefits that are expected to extend beyond the transportation sector.
In addition, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Committee on Transportation Systems
Security & Resilience (CTSSR) coordinates national efforts, identifies
best practices, and fills research gaps to promote resilient and secure
transportation systems across the country. The TSSR Committee addresses
preparation for and response to both natural and human-made threats,
shocks, and stressors to the transportation system. The Committee
provides a forum for state DOT members to advance state-of-the-practice
and awareness of transportation infrastructure security and resilience
through training, technical assistance, and the exchange of information
and best practices. TSSR relies on the cross-disciplinary membership of
the Committee-which highlights the interdependencies of emergency
management, planning, design, environment, maintenance, and operations
in the resilience cycle-to oversee the development of technical
expertise and tools for state DOTs to perform risk-based identification
of potential impacts, plan for system adaptation needs, and prepare for
response and recovery of impacted transportation systems.
Further, DOT serves as a principal member of the Transportation
Security Oversight Board (TSOB), led by DHS and established under the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act, to provide guidance regarding
transportation security-related matters. As a TSOB member, DOT is
responsible for reviewing and ratifying or disapproving emergency
regulations or security directives issued by TSA, including the
recently issued pipeline security directives. In light of DOT's Co-SRMA
role alongside DHS and TSOB membership, DOT regularly coordinates with
DHS/TSA counterparts and is well-positioned to prompt and establish
necessary interagency coordination processes amongst key stakeholders
to facilitate quick information sharing and response.
Question. What can my office be doing to help these discussions,
reach important stakeholders and communities to ensure projects are
community-minded and are looking at long-term resilience?
Answer. DOT is committed to working with stakeholders and
communities to ensure projects are community-minded and are aimed for
long-term resilience. For certain Federal actions, DOT utilizes our
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public engagement process to
seek the maximum amount of public participation by utilizing
appropriate outreach methods to ensure that all stakeholders and
impacted communities are made aware of the project and provided an
opportunity to submit their feedback and input prior to the Department
making a final decision about a project. DOT is committed to working
with your office to ensure important stakeholders are engaged.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
Question. The U.S. Department of Transportation's University
Transportation Centers program, or UTC program, awards grants to
consortia of colleges and universities across the United States. In
2018, the UTC program awarded funding to the University of Maine to
lead the Transportation Infrastructure Durability Center, which brings
together the expertise of New England state DOTs and universities.
How can partnerships like the Transportation Infrastructure
Durability Center be further supported in order to encourage more
research in innovative transportation materials and construction
techniques or other research that assists with disaster recovery and
transportation resiliency?
Answer. DOT invests in the future of transportation through its
University Transportation Centers (UTC) Program, which awards and
administers grants to consortia of colleges and universities across the
United States-such as the Transportation Infrastructure Durability
Center led by the University of Maine. The congressionally-mandated
program has established an impressive track record in helping to
address our Nation's ever-growing need for the safe, efficient, and
sustainable movement of people and goods.
The UTC Program advances state-of-the-art transportation research
and technology, and develops the next generation of transportation
professionals. This makes the UTC Program ideally suited to assist with
the challenge of ensuring our transportation system is resilient in the
face of climate change. We will continue to encourage UTCs to conduct
innovative research and technology transfer on the topics of disaster
recovery and transportation resilience. The UTC Program already
requires a non-Federal match, which attracts support from state DOTs
and the private sector, and we continue to encourage UTCs to leverage
partnerships to increase their effectiveness.
In addition, Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's)
infrastructure research and development (R&D) is concerned with all
aspects of highway infrastructure engineering and management, including
optimization for both traditional and innovative materials and designs;
performance evaluation and prediction; construction; life-cycle cost
analysis; and the environmental and sustainability aspects and
implications of highway infrastructure. FHWA's infrastructure research
contributes to agency-wide efforts to achieve Infrastructure R&T goals
and strategic objectives.
______
Questions Submitted to Ms. Elizabeth Repko
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. Throughout the testimony you provided to the Committee,
it has become clear that greater proactive investment in data
collection and more regular structural assessments of existing surface
infrastructure can help transportation agencies avoid unnecessary
repairs and costs, as well as preventable damage in the event of a
natural disaster. How can Congress and the Department of Transportation
better design programs and better allocate funds to assist and
encourage state and local transportation agencies to collect and
utilize data more effectively and conduct proactive structural and
resilience assessments?
Answer. GAO's 2019 Disaster Resilience Framework identifies
opportunities for Congress and the Department of Transportation to
enhance the climate resilience of transportation infrastructure.
According to the framework, investments in disaster resilience are a
promising avenue to address federal fiscal exposure because such
investments offer the opportunity to reduce the overall impact of
disasters. Accessing information that is authoritative and
understandable can help decision makers identify current and future
disaster and climate-related risks. Federal efforts to provide
technical assistance to help decision makers interpret available risk
information and analyze alternatives for risk reduction are
particularly important for smaller, low- income, and historically
disadvantaged jurisdictions, which may not have other avenues to access
this kind of expertise.
However, obtaining and sharing climate information, data, and
analysis to aid in resilience efforts has historically been a
challenge. For example, in November 2015, GAO reported that the climate
information needs of federal, state, local, and private sector decision
makers were not being fully met, while the federal government's own
climate data-composed of observational records from satellites and
weather stations and projections from climate models-were fragmented
across individual agencies that use the information in different ways
to meet their missions. GAO recommended that the Executive Office of
the President direct a federal entity to develop a set of authoritative
climate change projections and observations and create a national
climate information system with defined roles for federal agencies and
nonfederal entities. As of December 2020, the office has not yet taken
action to implement these recommendations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin
Question. West Virginia has been hard hit in recent years by
extreme weather that has severely impacted local communities. In 2016,
there was a tragic 1,000-year flood that devastated West Virginia,
leaving 23 dead, thousands of homes and businesses destroyed, half a
million residents without power, and $46 million worth of damaged
roads. In the community of Elkview, the flooding caused the only bridge
connected the Elkview Crossing mall to the town to come crashing down,
trapping people, harming the local economy, and starting a long process
of building a new bridge. Communities still feel the impact of that
flood today. According to the US Army Corps of Engineers 2021
Infrastructure Report Card, 21% of bridges in West Virginia are
structurally deficient, well above the national average of just over
7%. Further, 31% of West Virginia roads are in poor condition. Each
motorist pays $726 per year in costs due to driving on roads in need of
repair. The lack of resilience directly impacts both daily life and the
pockets of hard working West Virginians.
Can you speak to any work being done to review how potential
infrastructure spending can be implemented in a way that focuses on
resilience?
Answer. GAO has work underway examining (1) efforts the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) has made to enhance the climate
resilience of federally funded roads during the past 10 years, and (2)
the strengths and limitations of options to further enhance the climate
resilience of federally funded roads, according to knowledgeable
stakeholders and relevant literature.
As part of this ongoing work GAO identified-through a review of
relevant literature and interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders-
options that could further enhance climate resilience of projects
funded by the federal-aid highway program. Some of these options are
similar to actions GAO has previously recommended. The options include
both actions that FHWA might undertake on its own and those that might
require congressional action. For example, according to FHWA officials,
putting in place resilience funding requirements or imposing conditions
or providing incentives related to resilience would likely require
congressional action. However, options such as further integrating
resilience into FHWA policy and guidance or establishing additional
climate resilience planning or project requirements are examples of
activities the agency could potentially undertake on its own, according
to FHWA officials. GAO expects to publicly issue this report in 2021.
Question. What can my office be doing to ensure that Federal,
State, and Local stakeholders are all involved in the process to review
old and new infrastructure projects?
Answer. Congressional offices can encourage all stakeholders and
the public to participate in their respective statewide transportation
processes. To receive federal transportation funding, each state, as
well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, is required to carry
out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive statewide
transportation planning process. The statewide transportation planning
process addresses both urbanized and nonmetropolitan areas of the state
and includes both highway and transit needs. For urbanized areas,
defined in statute as areas with a population of 50,000 or more, state
DOTs must coordinate planning activities with metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs)-federally recognized organizations representing
local governments that lead transportation planning activities in
metropolitan areas. For nonmetropolitan areas not covered by an MPO,
states must consult with and provide opportunities for local officials
to participate in statewide planning. Some states choose to fulfill
this requirement by designating and consulting with rural
transportation planning organizations, which are typically voluntary
planning organizations that serve as a forum for local officials to
develop consensus on regional transportation priorities. In some cases,
rural planning organizations may serve a wide geographic area
comprising multiple rural counties whose combined population may
greatly exceed 50,000. States without rural planning organizations may
consult directly with nonmetropolitan local officials with
responsibility for transportation planning to fulfill their
consultation requirements. The plans resulting from these processes are
provided to FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Although
states must comply with federal planning requirements administered
jointly by FHWA and FTA to receive federal transportation funding,
states have considerable discretion to allocate federal funds and
select projects.
Question. Have you identified any projects that could be used as a
model for protecting and repairing our bridges and roads, particularly
focusing on rural communities?
Answer. Yes. GAO has work underway examining (1) efforts FHWA has
made to enhance the climate resilience of federally funded roads during
the past 10 years, and (2) the strengths and limitations of options to
further enhance the climate resilience of federally funded roads,
according to knowledgeable stakeholders and relevant literature. In
this report, GAO plans to present information on projects that planned
or made resilience enhancements using FHWA's resources. We expect to
publicly issue this report in 2021.
Question. In 2015, a catastrophic failure of a mechanically
stabilized earth retention structure, known as the runway safety area,
caused a landslide at Yeager Airport in Charleston, West Virginia. More
than 540,000 cubic yards of fill slid across a roadway, onto a church,
and into a creek. It took four years at $25 million to rebuild the
runway safety area. West Virginia is not alone in fighting the impacts
of either poorly constructed transportation projects or natural
disasters that have wiped away vital lifelines for our communities.
With airports being a crucial part of both urban and rural communities,
what work is being done to review the resiliency of airport projects in
the country and mitigate potential failures like the one we saw at
Yeager Airport?
Answer. Airports and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are
taking initial steps to determine how local climate change may affect
airport resilience by assessing risks and vulnerabilities, developing
mitigation measures, and integrating resilience into their capital
plans. For example, Airports Council International (ACI) members
adopted a resolution in 2018 recognizing the potential impact of
climate change on airport infrastructure and operations, and encouraged
airports to conduct risk assessments, develop mitigation measures and
communication channels, and take climate resilience and adaptation into
consideration in their capital planning. Resources to help airports
accomplish these efforts include the Airport Cooperative Research
Program's (ACRP) airport climate resilience reports and tools, which
can help airports to develop an adaptation plan through setting goals,
identifying critical assets, and prioritizing risks.\1\ FAA is also
conducting research on how climate change may affect runway length.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ACRP, Airport Climate Adaptation and Resilience (2012); Climate
Resilience and Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Handbook for Airports (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airports' efforts to build greater resilience into their
infrastructure will require coordination and cooperation with airport
stakeholders and surrounding communities. For example, some measures,
such as building seawalls, may involve infrastructure located off
airport property, meaning that responses will require partnerships with
stakeholders, including the localcommunity and government entities. One
airport tackling this challenge is Honolulu International Airport
(HNL), which is working with its local transportation planning
organization to assess the potential effects of sea level rise on its
transportation assets.
Some federal funding is available to assist airports in their
efforts. For example, according to FAA guidance, airport capital
planning, including planning for improvements addressing environmental
concerns are eligible for federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
grant funding, and FAA has included resilience as part of its Benefit-
Cost Analysis for airport capacity projects eligible for AIP funding.
However, GAO's recent work on airport infrastructure funding found that
airports face challenges in funding infrastructure projects and planned
capital projects exceed revenues.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Airport Infrastructure: Information on Funding and
Financing for Planned Projects, Feb. 13, 2020 (GAO-20- 298).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee (ENR) held a
hearing last month on how to maintain reliable, resilient, and
affordable energy amid the changing mix and more frequent extreme
weather events. No source of energy is 100% immune to weather
disruptions and we need to be investing in smart and strategic upgrades
to weatherization and infrastructure like transmission and pipelines.
While Pipelines fall under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
the relationship between energy and transportation is present. Whether
it be its impact on prices, spills on roadways, or train derailment,
Energy and Transportation go hand in hand.
Is there interagency work and research being conducted on how to
secure our transportation networks, including the systems we use to
transport materials and our natural resources?
Answer. The Department of Transportation (DOT) partners with other
government agencies, academia, and private industry to carry out
research activities through its nine modal administrations and a joint
program office responsible for conducting DOT-wide research. DOT
research supports technologies and policies that can help
transportation agencies maximize the effectiveness of transportation
investments on a variety of priorities, including to increase the
resilience of the nation's transportation system. For example, DOT's
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, through its
Office of Pipeline Safety and the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety,
funds research that improves safety, supports supply reliability, and
improves business and government productivity. More broadly, Executive
Orders 14008 Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (Jan. 27,
2021) and 14030 Climate-Related Financial Risk (May 20, 2021) may
result in interagency work on research on the topic, but how these
Executive Orders are implemented will not be known for some time.
Question. What can my office be doing to help these discussions,
reach important stakeholders and communities to ensure projects are
community-minded and are looking at long-term resilience?
Answer. A key guiding principle of GAO's Disaster Resilience
Framework is that integrated analysis and planning can help decision
makers take coherent and coordinated actions. While the federal
government shares authority with and provides resources to states,
localities, and nongovernmental entities, it is these local entities
that often make the decisions that result in greater resilience. The
federal government can help these entities work toward a common vision
and ensure focus on a wide variety of opportunities to reduce disaster
risk by integrating strategic resilience goals across relevant national
strategies. For example, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, we observed
that without comprehensive strategic approaches to help Congress and
federal agencies that implement disaster resilience-related programs
prioritize, align, and guide federal investments, the federal
government's approach has been largely reactive.
In addition, efforts by all stakeholders to understand the
relationships among infrastructure components and ecosystems and how
they interact with any proposed resilience project can help ensure that
individual efforts work together effectively to maximize risk-reduction
potential. For example, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control
project may affect water levels in multiple areas of a watershed and
therefore may have an impact on multiple local jurisdictions. Moreover,
damage to one aspect of infrastructure (e.g., part of a power grid) can
trigger cascading failures, such as failures in other systems that rely
on electric power, including telecommunications, ultimately disrupting
communications, health, and other services. To help mitigate these
risks, federal agencies can work together with their nonfederal
partners to coordinate and enhance understanding of the relationship
between various risk-reduction efforts and existing infrastructure
assets.
______
Questions Submitted to Dr. Habib Dagher
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick L. Leahy
Question. Throughout the testimony you provided to the Committee,
it has become clear that greater proactive investment in data
collection and more regular structural assessments of existing surface
infrastructure can help transportation agencies avoid unnecessary
repairs and costs, as well as preventable damage in the event of a
natural disaster.
How can Congress and the Department of Transportation better design
programs and better allocate funds to assist and encourage state and
local transportation agencies to collect and utilize data more
effectively and conduct proactive structural and resilience
assessments?
Answer. State transportation agencies already engage in regular
structural assessments of their bridge and transportation assets
inventory. These assets are given ratings, and these ratings are used
as a basis for decision making such as posting a bridge, repairing it,
closing it or replacing it altogether. A major issue has been a lack of
funding to carry on these repair or replacement programs. Our
infrastructure has been aging faster than we have been fixing it.
We have today increasingly better tools to assess our
transportation inventory. With advances in drone technology, camera
technology, digital image processing, new wireless sensor technology,
AI, and massive computational power, we have an opportunity to collect
and analyze a lot more data about our transportation assets, and to do
that more safely, more frequently and potentially more cost-
effectively. We are doing some of this work at the TIDC University
Transportation Center at UMaine, but more could be done in his space.
We find that state DOTs welcome help on developing, assessing, and
implementing these new technologies.
One opportunity is to engage current Regional University
Transportation Centers (UTCs) to conduct structural and resiliency
assessment work alongside the DOTs, supplementing them with personnel
resources and technology tools. For example, The Transportation
Infrastructure Durability Center (TIDC) based at UMaine is working on
resiliency assessment of bridge inventory in New England states to
assess vulnerable bridges who are most at risk from future flooding, or
those at risk from sea level rise and coastal storms. We found that
DOTs welcome this help as they often lack resources or sophisticated
tools to conduct these studies.
By using the regional UTCs, we see an immediate opportunity where
better data can be collected and better resilience models developed to
assist state and local transportation agencies. The opportunity is to
expand the role of existing regional University Transportation Centers
so that they would work more closely with their State and local
transportation agencies on data collection and infrastructure
assessment. The regional UTCs can train and deploy hundreds of students
to work side by side with DOTs, maintenance engineers and system
planners to help in this massive data collection and development of
local resilience assessment models. As part of the UTCs, these college
students would be trained to use the newest data collection tools,
drone technology, sensors, AI, data processing. They would apply these
tools while in school by working with DOT staff, and become the trained
transportation workforce that can work with the DOTs in the future.
Under this proposal, the Regional UTCs would work together as part
of this massive data collection effort learning from one another and
from the DOTs they collaborate with. To accomplish this, we can suggest
funding each regional UTC at $2 million/year for an initial period of 5
years.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin
Question. Since 1992, West Virginia University's Constructed
Facilities Center (CFC) has been involved with the composites industry
developing a wide range of polymer composite products in transportation
infrastructure such as bridges, highways, waterways, and rail roads.
These products are not only durable but also cost effective. For
example, the East Lynne Bridge near Huntington, WV was rehabilitated
with composite materials at 20% of the replacement costs and has been
serving the public well since 2014.
With respect to workforce development, the WVU CFC has employed
low-security prisoners to help rehab Madison Avenue bridge in
Huntington, WV in 2016. These rehab-and-repair techniques are
standardized and relatively simple--to the extent that low-skilled
workers can be trained easily to work on improving the ratings of WV
bridges, school buildings and railroad and waterway systems in a short
timeframe. The team at WVU is confident they can improve the ratings of
WV bridges from D to B in 5 years at about 30 to 40 % of replacement
costs while also retraining others in new emerging industries.
Reliable and durable polymer composite technologies are readily
available at WVU to improve our nation's transportation infrastructure
in a cost effective and timely manner. What can DOT do to ensure that
there are more opportunities for demonstrations and field re/training
of our workforce labor that can lead to productivity improvements for
infrastructure and reducing carbon footprint?
Answer. Yes indeed, West Virginia University's Constructed
Facilities Center (CFC) has been involved with the composites industry
for more than a quarter century, and our teams at UMaine and WVU have
collaborated in the past.
At one point the DOT had implemented a program called IBRC, the
Innovative Bridge Research and Construction program. The goal was to
demonstrate new technologies and under the program a number of
composite bridge applications were demonstrated across the country.
Restarting and sustaining this kind of program over the long run can
lead to continued sustained innovation. A lot has been learned under
this program, and lessons learned can be used to formulate an IBRC-2
focused specifically on composite materials and other advanced
materials demonstrations. The criteria for such a program would include
lessons learned from the previous program, and a stronger emphasis on
cost reduction, construction speed improvements, and carbon footprint
reduction. One focus of the new program would be on developing scale
and mass-production capabilities for these advanced materials. So
rather than building or retrofitting a single bridge as a
demonstration, the new IBRC-2 program can emphasize projects where
multiple bridges can be constructed or strengthened.
Finally, the Imagine Act provides an excellent vehicle to bring
about continuing innovations, and help regain US leadership in the
advanced materials space.
https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/collins-whitehouse-
introduce-imagine-act-spur-use-innovative-materials-rebuilding-american
Question. West Virginia has been has been hard hit in recent years
by extreme weather that has severely impacted local communities. In
2016, there was a tragic 1,000-year flood that devastated West
Virginia, leaving 23 dead, thousands of homes and businesses destroyed,
half a million residents without power, and $46 million worth of
damaged roads. In the community of Elkview, the flooding caused the
only bridge connected the Elkview Crossing mall to the town to come
crashing down, trapping people, harming the local economy, and starting
a long process of building a new bridge. Communities still feel the
impact of that flood today.
According to the US Army Corps of Engineers 2021 Infrastructure
Report Card, 21% of bridges in West Virginia are structurally
deficient, well above the national average of just over 7%. Further,
31% of West Virginia roads are in poor condition. Each motorist pays
$726 per year in costs due to driving on roads in need of repair. The
lack of resilience directly impacts both daily life and the pockets of
hard working West Virginians.
Can you speak to any work being done to review how potential
infrastructure spending can be implemented in a way that focuses on
resilience?
Answer. One key recommendation to better address resilience is to
require a Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) in making decisions about
infrastructure projects or studying design alternatives. This will
allow limited resilience funding to be targeted in the most efficient
manner. Moreover, LCA needs to be a requirement not only to address
resiliency but also to help select the most effective design or
materials alternatives for any project.
Question. What can my office be doing to ensure that Federal,
State, and Local stakeholders are all involved in the process to review
old and new infrastructure projects?
Answer. The current process of designing and reviewing
transportation projects does include federal, State and local
stakeholders. One way to strengthen the process may be to require that
multiples alternative solutions be solicited from all the stakeholders,
which are then evaluated and ranked using a Life-Cycle Analysis metric.
Question. Have you identified any projects that could be used as a
model for protecting and repairing our bridges and roads, particularly
focusing on rural communities?
Answer. At the TIDC in Maine we have been looking at a multiprong
approach for repairing and protecting rural infrastructure:
1) Better inspection, Assessment Models and Tools: Using advanced
modeling and in-situ testing methods, we have been evaluating if one
can extend the life of existing bridges, rather than post them or shut
them down. Under this program, we used load testing and advanced
numerical modeling techniques that allowed us to keep 2/3 of the
bridges we evaluated open with no posting. These bridges would have
been otherwise posted or closed. This is a temporary fix that help to
extend the life of some eligible bridge assets for a number of years.
2) Simple Strengthening Methods. We have been developing methods to
repair/strengthen bridges using bonded or bolted composite materials.
These simple repair methods can be done with minimal assets on the site
and avoid lengthy road closures where alternative routes in rural
communities may not be readily available or nearby.
3) Accelerated Bridge Replacement Using Low-Logistics Systems.
Speeding replacement of rural bridges using low-logistics designs and
materials, such as lighter composite arches or light composite girders
have been developed by our team, please see examples below. Please see
bullets 1 and 2 in Dagher testimony for specific low-logistics
solutions and projects developed and implemented. These low-logistics
solutions allow for more rapid replacement, as this is even more
critical in rural communities due to the lack of alternative routes.
https://www.bridges.aitcomposites.com/
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee (ENR) held a hearing
last month on how to maintain reliable, resilient, and affordable
energy amid the changing mix and more frequent extreme weather events.
No source of energy is 100% immune to weather disruptions and we need
to be investing in smart and strategic upgrades to weatherization and
infrastructure like transmission and pipelines. While Pipelines fall
under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the relationship
between energy and transportation is present. Whether it be its impact
on prices, spills on roadways, or train derailment, Energy and
Transportation go hand in hand.
Question. Is there interagency work and research being conducted on
how to secure our transportation networks, including the systems we use
to transport materials and our natural resources?
Answer. Yes indeed this is an important multifaceted issue. I defer
this to other members of the panel who are closer to this issue. I am
aware of some work that the Department of Homeland Security has been
conducting along with state transportation agencies to help secure
major transportation assets.
Question. What can my office be doing to help these discussions,
reach important stakeholders and communities to ensure projects are
community-minded and are looking at long-term resilience?
Answer. As stated earlier, requiring that projects conduct a Life-
Cycle Analysis (LCA) of alternatives, by soliciting/evaluating
alternative solutions provided by a wider range of stakeholders would
be a positive step in finding better, more cost-effective and resilient
solutions.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Schatz. This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]