May 30, 2013 Full Transcript
The presenters included: Gina Filosa of the U.S. DOT Volpe Center; Rob Kafalenos of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Natural Environment, Carol Lee Roalkvam of Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Sara Polgar of San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), Stefanie Hom of Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and Jeffrey Perlman of New Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA).
Gina Filosa: Hello, everyone, and welcome to the second webinar in the Federal Highway Administration's four-part series on "Transportation and Climate Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment." This webinar series follows the general structure of Federal Highway's Climate Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment framework. The first webinar, which was held on May 16th, introduced the key steps involved in designing and implementing a vulnerability assessment. The session focused on defining objectives, determining transportation asset criticality, and developing climate input. In today's webinar, the presenters will talk about how they use information on transportation assets and climate projections to identify vulnerabilities. The third webinar, which is scheduled for June 12th, will discuss the final step in this framework, which is integrating results into decision making by identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing adaptation options and incorporating assessment results into programs and processes. That session will feature representatives from the LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Boston Region MPO, and the Chicago Transit Authority. In the final webinar in the series, staff from the New Jersey DOT and others will discuss lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy. All the webinars are being recorded and will be made available on the Federal Highway Climate Change Adaptation website.
In today's session, Rob Kafalenos from Federal Highway will give a brief introduction to vulnerability assessments. Then we'll hear examples from three agencies who have completed system-level vulnerability assessments as part of the 2011 Federal Highway pilot program. First, we'll hear from Carol Lee Roalkvam on Washington State DOT's work. Next, Stefanie Hom and Carolyn Clevenger of MTC, along with Sara Polgar from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission will talk about their work in the Bay Area. Then, finally, Jeff Perlman from the New Jersey Transportation Planning Authority will talk about his agency's effort. At the end, we'll have a question-and-answer session, where we'll open up the phone line. You can also type your questions into the chat pod on the lower left of your screen throughout the presentation, and we'll address those in the final Q&A, as well. So with that, I'll turn it over to Rob to get us started. Rob?
Rob Kafalenos: Thanks, Gina. So as Gina noted, today's session will be focusing on system-level vulnerability assessments. The purpose of the webinar series is to provide information to transportation agencies interested in assessing vulnerability of infrastructure to climate change and extreme weather events and applying the results. The focus is largely on work supported by Federal Highway and US DOT. Understanding how climate change and extreme weather will affect your transportation network is a key first step for climate change planning. Federal Highway and DOT have had a number of efforts underway to develop and test out methodologies for assessing vulnerability to climate change and extreme weather events. These include the first phase of the Gulf Coast study, which was completed in 2008. The second phase, which focuses on Mobile, Alabama, is set to be completed next spring. We discussed parts of the Gulf Coast Phase 2 study in the first webinar on May 16th. Similarly, Federal Highways developed a framework for conducting vulnerability assessments for the use of MPOs and state DOTs.
Federal Highways sponsored five pilot studies that were completed in 2011. Today, we will hear from three of the pilot areas on their results and experiences assessing vulnerability to climate change and extreme weather using the framework. Also, I should point out that both Federal Transit Administration and Federal Lands Highway have also conducted vulnerability assessment pilots using the framework. So as Becky Lupes noted in the first webinar two weeks ago, Federal Highway's Climate Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment framework was updated in December of 2012. It largely draws from the work and experiences of the first round of five pilot studies. It also draws examples from the ongoing Gulf Coast 2 study and other work. The framework is comprised of three main components-- defining the project scope, assessing vulnerability, and integrating vulnerability into decision making. The framework serves essentially two purposes. First, it is a suggested organizing tool for transportation agencies planning to conduct a climate change or extreme weather event vulnerability assessment. Second, it's a structure for us here at Federal Highways to organize resources and information on lessons learned for reference and use by transportation agencies and others interested in any aspect of the work.
On the screen you can see a graphic of the framework's process. Each box or circle on this diagram has corresponding information, examples, and other resources that go with it. It's all contained in a short 50-page document that is on our website. We will eventually have a section of our website that is devoted to the framework where you can click on the applicable part of the graphic to link directly to updated information and other resources relating to that section. So this graphic is showing the current second round of the framework that was developed in 2012. We recently started a second round of pilots here at Federal Highways using this updated framework. This time, there are 19 pilot projects, and we are funding many that are focused on adaptation, both from a programmatic standpoint and specific engineering options. Also, while the first round of pilots focused heavily on the east and west coasts, the second round includes inland areas, as well as projects involving the unsalted coasts along the Great Lakes. This map shows the locations for the second round of pilots. And this is a list of the pilot study locations. Once those pilots are completed in 2014, we plan to assess the experiences and the lessons learned by those agencies and us and to make a second update of the framework. And at that point, we will likely call it an adaptation framework rather than a vulnerability assessment framework. So that's a brief introduction on the framework in the two rounds of Federal Highway's pilots. Let's turn it over to Carol Lee Roalkvam of Washington State DOT, who will discuss Washington State DOT's Vulnerability Assessment project. Carol Lee?
Carol Lee Roalkvam: All right. Thank you very much, and I really want to extend our thanks to Federal Highways. We're really, really happy to be a part of the webinar series. Also, we're very happy to be one of the first pilots and now embarking on our second pilot. Today, I'm going to give you an overview of what we did in the Statewide Vulnerability Assessment and how we did it, but first, I want to just briefly introduce some of the leads that helped make our project, our pilot, a success. In the room with me here today we have Sandy Salisbury and Brook Hamilton. Not in the room but a very active co-lead with us is also Mark Maurer. We formed the steering committee, a very interdisciplinary team, with folks from our Sustainable Transportation team, our Environmental office, and our Design office, and we're very fortunate to draw in, in addition to the steering committee, about 10 other experts whose staff time helped contribute to the state match for the Federal Highways' pilot. In this second slid-this is kind of my in-a-nutshell slide-it lets you know the basic facts about what we did, and we were fortunate to get the $189,500 match from the Federal Highways. Then, that staff time that we used was all internal staff, so this is where the steering committee and some of our GIS analysts, our experts within our Cost Risk Assessment program, some of our hydrologists, our state hydraulics engineer, and our communications staff and others were able to apply their staff time and really help us make this really one of the broader tests of the model that Federal Highways had. We drew very heavily on our existing asset management programs within the department, and I think what you'll hear from me today is that we really worked up a fairly simple and easy-to-replicate model, and I can explain more as we get into it how that worked. Our big success is that we did achieve a ranking across all of our assets, across all of our state. So that's the in-the-nutshell there. Now, I want to just briefly touch on why we did this. We had very strong direction from our then-Governor Gregoire, and we had state laws that had paved the way for us. The state legislature had funded a downscaling of the climate data that was done by the University of Washington's Climate Impacts Group, and that was published in the spring of 2009, and that really gave all of us, all state agencies, the information about how we should look at the climate trends, what they meant for the Pacific Northwest. Within our department, we had leadership that really encouraged us to find out what does this science mean for Wash DOT, and so that was instrumental in our taking this on. I have just two slides on the report. There's too much in that climate report to really go into today, but I did pull out two of the major slides that we used as we really started studying this.
This first one is just about changes in air and water temperatures. The slides shows the changes in the historical and the 2040 air temperature scenario, and that report kind of made that real for what it means to salmon, and you can see that in the bar on the bottom there. So fatal temperatures for salmon, you start seeing those in our Eastern Washington part of the state, and that was some information that was just really easy to communicate to folks. Later I'll get into how we interpreted the information from the Climate Impacts Group to our assets. Another really instructive slide from the University of Washington report is this one that really shows that we have a lot of different basins in our state. Some basins are rain dominant and some of them are mixed rain/snow, and then some of them are snow-dominant basins. The report really explained how that current system of rain and snow mix is likely to change under these climate scenarios; what's really important about this one is Chehalis, on the left side, is one that doesn't change that much. We already have tremendous data on the history there, and it's already a rain-dominant basin. What you see here is it's not really going to change that much. The floods that we fight today are similar to those that we'll fight in 2080 and 2040. But the big kicker is when you look on the Eastern Washington side of the state. This example is in the Yakima River Basin, and you see that basically turning into a rain-dominant basin in that 2080 scenario. So that was something that we had to then figure out what does that mean for us at Wash DOT.
So we knew what the science had. We had the available information. What we didn't have within the department was a way to answer the climate question for our assets until summer 2010, when Federal Highways came out with the draft model, which is shown in this slide, and it really helped us find that path to answering the question, so what, for our assets? What does this mean? Our goal was to take the Federal Highway Administration's model and our asset management protocols and asset management frameworks within our department and provide a test of that model. Of all the five pilots, I think that we had the broadest scope in terms of looking at all the climate threats and also our geography. We looked at our entire state. What we didn't do was go external. We only looked at the assets that Wash DOT owns and manages. So we didn't look at the partner facilities. We didn't look at private railroads. We didn't look at local street networks. I want to make that point clear. But our test drive did look at the existing knowledge within the department, and we did look at 22 ferry terminals, all of our state routes and interstate for freight rail lines that we own in Eastern Washington, and 12 state-owned airports. This is a little model that shows how we adapted the Federal Highways' path, and this is where we really highlight the fact that we used a workshop tool. We modeled our assessment after how we in our department do cost/risk estimating, and they use a series of interdisciplinary workshops when they're doing that. We had some tailoring of that, and we really did most of the vulnerability assessment in that big blue box you see in the center here. We did 14 workshops throughout the state, and the folks that participated in those workshops were the local maintenance supervisors, lead techs, the field staff, the folks who really know each individual asset the very best. We, in all 14 workshops, reached out to about 200 people, and we conducted those between February and September of 2011.
I just want to get into a little bit about how we did that, and the general theme that you'll hear from me is that we did a qualitative assessment. So the first step in the Federal Highways' model was to look at how critical is the asset, and here we really did that in the workshop and with the folks in the room. This step was really about defining the character of each segment of highway, or if it was a ferry terminal, what's the character? What's the general function and use of that facility? This let us talk about things like detours and lifelines but also about the more standard measures of criticality, like functional class. But what we talked about was that criticality is in the eye of the beholder, so we just-- we talked about the character of this segment. That helped us define the beginning and endpoints of what we were assessing, but we weren't like wedded to only the highly critical. We did the assessment on all of our assets. The next thing we had to do was to look at the climate threats. So we know the assets - now, what is the threat on that asset? And here's where we really kind of laid the groundwork with the participants, with that scientific report from the Climate Impacts Group that I mentioned. We did ask the participants to watch a 20-minute video, where we had one of the scientists from that team walk through the trends, and we also had a video of a couple of our field staff talking about the changes that they've seen in their tenure with Wash DOT. The key questions that we asked to get to elucidate and discuss those climate threats are on this slide here, which are, "What do you know about that asset? What do you worry most about in doing your job, and what keeps you up at night? Then, given that climate scenario, what if it gets worse?" That's how we ended up with our rating system.
A couple slides here that show how we oriented folks in the room about what they're already experiencing, and a lot of these slides came from them, as well. This is just an example of what's happening out there with glacier melt and some of the extreme scour damage there. We also talked about things that are happening now on the drier side of our state with the dust storms and with forest fires and trestle fires and rock fall, and things like that. On the coast, we are already experiencing observed sea level rise increases in the Puget Sound. NOAA has documented nine inches of rise in the mean sea level over 110 years. We also reminded folks about what it looks like there on our extreme tides of the year, what we call king tides, so these are a couple photos of king tides. That really helped people remember and get reoriented to what we're already seeing today. Then, again, in each workshop, we created climate scenarios that worked with each group. In some cases, we would pull up the LiDAR of the coastline that showed a scenario with a two-foot or a four-foot or a six-foot sea level rise just to get people talking. We would show the soil moisture maps on Eastern Washington that project soil moisture changes between current and 2040 and 2080. Again, the basin hydrology maps were really important, as well. What we did is within these scenarios that we worked up, we said, okay, now, we're looking at these as scenarios. Assume this will happen. This is 100% probability. Then ask yourself what it means for those assets that you manage. We also brought into the room some of the asset management tools. This is a screen shot from our bridge engineering information system. We found that really useful because you could get in there and look at how many scour-critical bridges you had in that second segment. You could look at the details of a particular bridge if you wanted to really dive in and discuss how resilient that structure is or what are some of the concerns of that structure. Then again, within those key questions-- what keeps you up at night and what if these scenarios happen-- we were able to create a numbering score where they could say, "Well, I think we can put out a few cones and detour traffic; you know, close a lane, but it will just be reduced capacity, and the infrastructure is a low vulnerability. Or in the middle of the range there, it could be a temporary closure. It could take us a couple hours to weeks to fix, and it's a moderate vulnerability. Or it's in the red zone, which is the complete and catastrophic failure, where it's going to take us at least 60 days to fix and severe damage to the function of the facility. So those were how we scored.
I'm going to get to what it looks like. This is the statewide results base map, and this is the one showing the scenario where we projected a two-foot sea-level rise and those other risks, whether it was flooding or storms inland; it was at the moderate end of the risk, and that's what these show here. We also do have other maps that show the increased risk of storm surge or greater storms throughout the state. But this is the base map that shows the scores for the rail, the ferries, the state airport, and all of the state routes and interstate. This is now on a GIS database for internal use, and we're also educating our staff about what's behind this scoring. So we also captured the narrative in the room; we have little blurbs that our folks can access to see what were they really concerned about most, whether some of what they're experiencing today is in there, and again, the rationale behind the color-coded rating is in there. So far, what we've found is that the vulnerability results really underscored the value of our current asset management programs and our current retrofit programs. In particular, we have funding for some of the river dynamics to look at repeat problems with slopes and river channels and things like that. That program lines up exactly with some of the things that we're experiencing in the mountains, in the mountain passes, in particular. Also, our Fish Passage Barrier Removal program lines up very well with improving the flow and making more resilient some of the areas that are likely to experience the flashy flows from intense rains.
We did find a couple of surprises. We found a maintenance facility that is higher risk that we realized, and it's kind of a linchpin for that part of our system, and that's really good information to have. We also found that with so many of our maintenance folks who are at 30 years with the department, that we now have kind of a mother lode of great hands-on, detailed, anecdotal information about particular assets, and that is really, as I wrote here, a unique way to capture knowledge of field staff. It's really very useful. You could go in there and see what the local experts know about that, and I think that that gives our planners and some of our folks looking long-term a real asset that they didn't previously have access to.
Here's our timeline. We are right now in the middle of working to integrate this information into our project planning, our program planning work, and also working with our partners to let them know what we know about our system. We are partnering with the Federal Transit Administration's pilot with Sound Transit and working with them to leverage the information that we have on the WashDOT assets that our metropolitan transit organization in the Puget Sound area relies upon, so that's really exciting. Then as Rob mentioned, we were successful in getting a new pilot, so we're going to start working in the Skagit Basin to look at a Corps study there, an Army Corps of Engineer study. This also kind of helps show the results of our statewide assessment.
This is in the Skagit Basin. I'm going to scoot ahead just so you get oriented to this because it's been in the news so much lately. This is the very same area where we just recently had a catastrophic failure along I-5, not due to climate, I would like to say. That was not a climate-related bridge failure, but it is right in the middle of our major north/south interstate, and you can see the detour route of that bridge. I'm going to go back now to our vulnerability assessment, and you see that the detour route is actually in an area that's highly vulnerable. If you can see right there, that's the detour route for the bridge collapse. This whole area will be the subject of our second pilot, which is to work with the Army Corps of Engineers and with the local lead agency, the County, to look at the hazard mitigation proposals that the Corps and the County are working on to improve the flood hazard there. Our job is to look at what that means for the Interstate and the state routes in the area, and to look at enhancing the resilience and the opportunities to improve the preparedness in the area with regard to the state transportation system there. This will be our first rollout of the interaction of our statewide vulnerability assessment with local street networks and other assets, the diking districts and other assets there, to really look at how we can work together to create a more resilient and more integrated strategy for the long term in that basin area.
Lastly, if you want to get any more information, I know that FHWA has links to this, as well. We have a little four-page fact sheet, and myself or any of the climate steering committee would be happy to answer questions offline at any time. Now I'm going to turn it back to you so we can hear more from the other pilots.
Rob Kafalenos: Thank you, Carol Lee. I wanted to point out that each of these five initial pilots was clearly unique. Each one did things in a different way, and we learned from each, and so it was very, very useful for all of us here at Federal Highways. Washington State was the only pilot that was focused at the state level on the infrastructure across the state. Also, Washington State was one of the first areas that really highlighted for us the importance of, from the beginning, working with the engineers at the local level who know the infrastructure the best and can highlight current vulnerabilities and help you think about future vulnerabilities. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to the next discussion. Next up are Stefanie Hom and Sara Polgar, who will talk about the MTC pilot and its results. Stefanie?
Stefanie Hom: Okay, great. My name is Stefanie Hom with MTC. I'm here with Sara Polgar from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and Carolyn Clevenger, also from MTC, and we're here to talk about our Transportation Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Pilot that we did in the San Francisco Bay Area in California. The goal of the "Adapting to Rising Tides" project is to increase preparedness and resilience of Bay Area communities to sea level rise and other climate change impacts while protecting ecosystem and community assets, such as transportation. The sea level rise impacts that we looked at in this study included more frequent flooding, longer lasting flooding, frequent or more permanent inundation in new areas, overtopping and erosion of shoreline protection, and elevated groundwater and salinity intrusion. This process involved evaluating potential shoreline impacts, vulnerabilities, and risks; identifying effective adaptation strategies; and developing and redefining adaptation planning tools and resources that will be useful to the Bay Area. This is a list of the agencies that we work with. The "Adapting to Rising Tides" project consisted of several components and was a collaborative process among BCDC, MTC, and Caltrans. The portion of our project that we will be discussing is the Federal Highway Administration-funded portion. The FHWA provided funding to MTC, BCDC, and Caltrans to assess the vulnerability and risk of transportation infrastructure. The overarching project is led by BCDC, with strong financial support and involvement of a number of partners. It aims to look at the effect of sea level rise and potential adaptation for many assets, not just transportation assets. Now, I'll turn it over to Sara, who will give a discussion about the process part.
Sara Polgar: Hi, this is Sara Polgar with the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, also known as BCDC. Thank you very much, Stefanie, for introducing this. You can see that in terms of ground transportation, this pilot project was a first step in moving from a broader regional analysis of sea level rise impacts to a more focused sub-regional look for the Bay shoreline. The project area was the shoreline of Alameda County along the East Bay of San Francisco Bay, and you can see that the northern portion of the study area is very urbanized. We have development generally right up to the Bay edge. Of note is the northern study area, which includes the Port of Oakland and the Oakland Airport. Now, in the southern portion, it generally has more natural features, wetlands and former salt ponds, that are between the developed areas and the Bay.
In terms of applying the Federal Highway Administration Risk Assessment model, we followed it pretty closely. We made a few refinements under the Data Asset Inventory you can see in orange here. We determined that the asset screening and prioritization during that step was premature because we hadn't done our consequence analysis yet. So we chose assets based on whether they were exposed to the impacts and also if they were unique and critical assets. Then we chose representative assets within each asset type for things like local roads, where there are just so many of them. Between the vulnerability assessment and the risk assessment, we made a further filtering step for us to make the project manageable. We chose assets with high to medium vulnerability to bring into the risk assessment phase. Then again when we looked at the adaptation options, we looked at a few examples of very high to medium- high and medium-risk assets. Listed here are the transportation assets that our team identified in the study area. You can see there's a huge variety, a lot of modes. We have BART, which is the Bay Area Rapid Transit, our transit system that operates both above and below ground. Then we organized all of these different assets and assessed them in four categories. We had road network, transit network, transportation facilities, and pedestrian and bicycle networks. As I mentioned earlier, a key criterion for inclusion in the vulnerability and risk assessment was the predicted exposure to sea level rise at mid and/or end of century; so, we used that. Then, the team summarized information that was collected for each of the assets, and we organized it into physical and functional characteristics, as well as jurisdictions and socioeconomic functions to determine where there were unique and critical assets in the study area; for example, where the Bay Bridge touches down in Oakland, major freeways, socioeconomically important transit stations, and then also identified representative assets among the many local streets and roads. You can see here that despite being a sub-regional assessment, there are a lot of jurisdictions in this area, so it's a pretty busy area to look at even though we pared it down a bit. Even with this asset selection, we ended up with a huge number of assets that we were looking at.
Another important part of the pilot project involved understanding the current shoreline in the study area. This shoreline work that I'm going to talk about was led by Kris May of AECOM with assistance from Arcadis, and she reviewed the climate information and then developed very simple, distinct shoreline categories based on the primary function of the shoreline and its potential to protect against inland inundation. Using these categories really helped us make sense of a very diverse shoreline; so we used the shoreline categories in combination with new inundation maps that showed depth of inundation, as well as the potential for shoreline overtopping. We used those together to improve our understanding of vulnerability and risk, and here is an example of the shoreline category map. You can see the five different categories mapped for the north versus the south. You can actually see there's a big difference between the north and south portions of the study area.
We also developed new sea level rise maps for six scenarios. These were based on two sea level rise projections of 16 inches to represent mid-level- mid-century sea level rise, and 55 inches to represent end of century. We used three water level conditions, one to represent a new daily high tide, another representing a water level with a big storm, 100-year storm event, and another representing that water level of 100-year storm with wind waves, as well. And these allowed us to develop new inundation maps. Here's an example of the inundation maps. The color represents different depths of inundation. That helped set the stage for our vulnerability assessment.
So for our vulnerability assessment we used the widely accepted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change definition of vulnerability, which is essentially made up of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. But in applying these to the transportation analysis, the team found that it had to refine the definitions a little bit. First of all, we're talking about sea level rise exposure to impact from sea level rise. Then for sensitivity, we found that the best way to do this was to use the condition of the transportation asset as a proxy for its likely sensitivity to impacts. The ability to reroute traffic or passengers or use comparable facilities if a transportation asset is not functioning, then served as a proxy for adaptive capacity. Those are the ways we applied definitions of sensitivity and adaptive capacity for this assessment. Here is an example of an exposure map with some of the assets that were looked at in the assessment culled out. This is actually going to be one of our focus areas that we'll be looking at in more detail in the next phase when we look at adaptation responses. This is an interesting area. You can see that the area up here is Emeryville, and then this area down here is, to the south of where the bridge is coming in from the west, is Oakland, and the bridge is actually touching down right there in Oakland. To the south in the picture is the Port of Oakland, with major freeways heading through there. So it's a really busy area with a lot of different transportation infrastructure, and this is an area, again, we'll be looking at in more detail. So that's an example of a detailed exposure map that helped us identify exposure for our vulnerability assessment.
Then, to look at asset sensitivity, we took the unique and representative assets that we identified earlier, and the team collected the data that you see here about the asset conditions to really enable us to understand the potential sensitivities to sea level rise impacts, including things like level of use and age. If it's the maintenance regime, the foundation conditions, liquefactions susceptibility, these are the things that we use as a proxy to understand sensitivity of the assets. Then, lastly, we've also looked atthe adaptive capacity. We used our applied definition, where we said, that's the ability for rerouting or finding comparable, available facilities to maintain all or part of the original functionality of the transportation asset that was disrupted, and that's how we defined whether there was any adaptive capacity. Then when we moved into the risk assessment, which is really looking at the threat posed by the impact or hazard, we took into account, of course, likelihood that the climate impact would occur, as well as the economic, environmental, social, and legal consequences if the impact did occur. To provide a little more detail on that, for likelihood, we considered this mid-century sea level rise to be highly likely, and the end-of-century sea level rise to be likely. Then we asked ourselves what's the expected impact or consequence to society if the asset is affected-- not just inundated but affected. The criteria that we selected for this included the cost of and time to replace the asset; the economic impact, for instance, the goods movement; the socioeconomic impact for transit-dependent communities, for example; public safety-- is it a lifeline like the Bay Bridge is; and the degree of redundancy in the system, so the ability to reroute was also considered.
All of this information was summarized into risk profiles, asset risk profiles, and these included the asset characteristics and the vulnerability and risk analysis information, and they're really intended to help inform the development of adaptation strategies for these unique and critical assets, as well as the assets that are related to our representative ones. Aa key thing to note about these risk profiles is their role in making the outcomes of the vulnerability risk assessment more accessible. The profiles really organize and communicate a great deal of the key findings in a format that is much more usable than the report on its own would be. For example, I use the risk assessment profiles in helping me assess sea level rise vulnerabilities and risk to other types of shoreline assets that are linked to ground transportation; for example, Oakland Airport. People are human, and if they're faced with a big report, and they've got limited time, even though the report is excellent, they're likely to flip straight to inundation maps, and they might not delve further, and that might leave them with the impression that the exposure maps really tell the whole story of vulnerability and risk for transportation, which is not actually the case This makes a case for having some easily referenced summaries of key vulnerabilities and risks. Then, the last step that the team went through was looking broadly at adaptation strategies. They looked at different types, but broad types, like structural and nonstructural adaptation strategies, ones that could be completed at the asset-specific level, and broader regional ones. Then the team also identified the types of criteria that could be used to identify and evaluate appropriate adaptation strategies. The pilot project identified criteria that fell within four categories-- economic, ecological, equity, and governance criteria. Of note, these are the same criteria that we really thought about earlier on in this pilot project, but they're also the same that the other portions of the "Adapting to Rising Tides" project is considering throughout. So it's very consistent with how this whole broader adaptation planning effort is happening for this subregion of San Francisco Bay.
Next steps for the project are more detailed adaptation planning in specific focus areas, which Stefanie's going to talk about. I'm just going to wrap up with some lessons learned. I think I've already mentioned, for instance, number two, the prioritizing the assets early on, was really premature prior to understanding the consequences. It wasn't acceptable to our stakeholders; but, again, the exposure was a very important early filter for which assets we would pull into the vulnerability and risk assessment. Our existing climate information, our shoreline analysis and mapping, was not sufficient for us to really understand exposure and vulnerability and risk, so that part of the project, the shoreline analysis, was really important to our vulnerability and risk assessment. Then also number five, we needed those definitions of sensitivity and adaptive capacity. It took our team a while to really figure out what those meant for our transportation assets that we were looking at, and it'd be great to have more specific, robust definitions that could be applied without having to reinvent the wheel. So those would be a lesson learned for us is to have; that and just apply it. Lastly, we definitely found that in terms of defining the consequence criteria, it was really important to have stakeholder input early on to make that portion, that risk assessment, transparent both in the process and then afterwards. It was really important to work with stakeholders early on on what we were going to consider as the consequences. Those are the major lessons learned, and I'm going to turn it back over to Stefanie now to talk about next steps.
Stefanie Hom: Thanks, Sara. We have the opportunity to get another grant from FHWA to continue work on the "Adapting to Rising Tides" project. The second phase continues to be a collaborative process with MTC, BCDC, Caltrans, and now BART. This process looks at the adaptation options for transportation assets in select focus areas. These focus areas include the West Oakland/Emeryville/Bay Bridge Peninsula, the Oakland Coliseum area, and the State Route 92 corridor. The focus areas that were selected were based on risk and vulnerability identified in the original FHWA pilot, and also includes the confluence of major regional transportation assets interwoven with other important regional and community assets. The adaptation strategies will include structural measures, nonstructural measures, asset-specific measures, and regional measures. The overall goals of this pilot are to develop a regional and multimodal climate change adaptation plan that will increase the resiliency and sustainability of the Bay Area transportation system; to evaluate multimodal adaptation strategies at various scales that reduce the risk from sea level rise and storms from community and ecological assets; to identify adaptation strategies that each of the four agencies involved can perceive both independently and as part of a coordinated effort across the region responding to climate change scenarios and asset types included in the proposal; and to develop a strategy development process that can be replicated elsewhere. That concludes our presentation. If you have any questions, feel free to contact either myself or Sara at BCDC, and our contact information is listed there. Additionally, materials can be found at the links provided.
Rob Kafalenos: Thank you very much, Stefanie and Sara. I did want to point one thing that Sara noted. The asset risk profiles that are included in the report are really a great detailed look at how they looked at individual assets, and I think it's one of the strengths in that report is that you can go to those things and get a really down-to-earth understanding at a very basic level. In addition to looking at the whole report, looking at those asset profiles is a really great way to clear up and to form one's understanding of what they did. Next, we'd like to hand it off to our last speaker, to Jeff Perlman, who will talk about the results from the New Jersey pilot.
Jeffrey Perlman: Thanks. Yes, I will, what I'll do is take you through our agency and the partnership that we formed to conduct this study and try to highlight, where I can, some differences between what NJTPA and the partnership did with what MTC and Washington did. With the FHWA's inception model-- and the MPC showed how that was structured-- the steps we used to identify a vulnerable transportation asset were: we first articulated what objectives we had in terms of what we would want to get out of the study, and we were coming at it from a perspective starting in 2010, which was we didn't have good detailed climate modeling, and we had to do a good deal of that during the study. Joel Smith from Stratus presented some of that work. He was a sub-consultant for some of this work that I'm going to show you today; but he had done much of the climate modeling for us, and I think he talked about that during the first webinar. I'm not going to go too much into that, but to say we needed to do some climate modeling to understand what the climate impacts were.
We did spend some time selecting and characterizing some of the relative transportation assets. We could not do our entire region, and I'll show you briefly the study area that we did decide to focus our effort on. We looked at assessing assets' criticality, what transportation assets were most critical to the study areas, and I won't spend too much time on that today, but in our report, we go into detail about how we did that and what we did, which was slightly different than what Washington State did. We tried to do something a little more quantitative, and there are some positives and negatives to taking that approach, as opposed to talking with engineers out in the field. We did not have the opportunity to do that for this study, although we are hoping to do that for future efforts. I mentioned identifying key climate variables, and then identifying and ranking vulnerabilities, and I'll show you some results from that work.
You've already seen this, and I think Wash DOT did a great job of explaining the stressors and the affected assets. Clearly, New Jersey has learned quite a lot. I'd say that as a result of this study and as a result of real events on the ground, we've had a crash course in understanding what our vulnerabilities are with respect to extreme weather and climate change. Both Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Sandy have taught us a lot, and we are trying to learn and to take what we've learned into the next steps, and I'll show you a little bit of what we're going to do in the future. For the most part, in terms of climate stressors for this study, we were looking at certain extreme precipitation, including drought. We were cognizant of the fact that we would see more extreme storms- more frequent storms and more extreme storms, and we'd see temperature increases. We have seen temperature increases across New Jersey over the last several decades. We have also experienced some sea level rise, and we're very cognizant of the fact that we will see a lot more sea level rise in the future. In terms of the assets that, generally speaking, will be affected by these climate stressors are clearly, roads and bridges and rail infrastructure; we've already seen the effects of the storms that we've had recently on these assets. While we didn't focus too much on them in this study, we do realize aviation and navigation, because we have a lot of port facilities, are assets we will have to study moving forward.
Showing you the study area, given the timeframe and the scope that we had, we focused on two areas. One is our coastal area, and this really-- the area in yellow is what we call our coastal area -- the boundaries are from Raritan Bay to Cape May, and the Garden State Parkway is our western boundary. Obviously, the Atlantic coast, the Atlantic Ocean, is on our eastern boundary. And the orange is what we call our inland study area. That is essentially a portion of the I-95 corridor from where the Parkway and Turnpike intersect, down to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. I should say that the study area is kind of unique in the sense that the study area was determined by our partnership, which other than NJTPA, included the two other MPOs in New Jersey, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, which is a bi-state MPO that includes five Pennsylvania counties and four New Jersey counties, including Mercer, Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, as well as the South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization, which has Atlantic, Cape May, and the other two southern New Jersey counties. We wanted a study area that included part of geography from all three jurisdictions, As well, we partnered with New Jersey DOT, the New Jersey Transit, and the New Jersey DEP. Also, I should acknowledge Cambridge Systematics, who was the lead consultant on this work and did a great job with Stratus Consulting as a subconsultant. Briefly, in this study area, clearly Hurricane Sandy has done tremendous damage to our Jersey shore. We now are looking at the analysis of the damage there, the storm surge that came onshore and damaged a lot of our infrastructure and our community with some of the modeling that we did for the study, and I'll show you one result of that, which is pretty eye opening.
In terms of assets, similar to MTC, we did look at a variety of assets. We looked at roadways, and we weren't able to delve down into local roadways. We limited our assessment to the congestion management system at DOT, so we had volumes of data, and that was important for our criticality. But we looked at bridges, both roadway and rail bridges. We looked at passenger rail lines, Amtrak and the New Jersey Transit line. We did also look at freight rail for portions of our study area, since we have some pretty important freight corridors. We looked at some local airports, Atlantic City, for example, which is now actually being taken over by the Port Authority, so that's an interesting development. We did look at some wetlands. Again, NJDEP was one of our partners, and they are certainly very concerned about some marshland and rising sea level that would precipitate the migration of certain wetlands. They wanted to see what happened, so we definitely put it in as well. As we developed our criticality, it was quasi-quantitative. Qualitatively, if there are roads that are determined as evacuation routes, they became automatically pretty critical. If the roadway links were important, access to jobs, we deemed that as being very critical and then the volume coming from the CMS network looking at volumes. That was the quantitative aspect. Then, when you look at passenger rail and working with our New Jersey Transit partners, they deemed that all passenger rail was very critical. I think there was reticence to elevate one rail line above another, and in terms of freight rail, the class one freight we deemed very critical. Class two and class three freight was less critical, although we certainly acknowledge that there are some important class two and class three freight rail, and there we say less critical. It's just one tier below very critical.
So determining the impacts, we were looking to study changes in sea level rise and storm surge impact on the coast, also looking at temperature and precipitation for both inland and coastal; but in terms of precipitation, we'd really focused that analysis in our inland study area. Then you're looking at the flooding impacts from changes in precipitation. In terms of developing scenarios, climate scenarios-- and I'm just brushing past this because I know Joel Smith from Stratus Consulting had covered this already-- we looked at three global emission scenarios, GHG emission scenarios, what we're calling low, medium, and high, and those referred to the IPCC report, looking at several different scenarios. The low is what we call the B1 scenario. That's the low scenario. Our medium scenario was A1B, and the high scenario was the A2. If you're familiar with the IPCC's report, you'll know what those refer to. We looked at the projected climate impacts for two different timeframes, 2050 and 2100. Again, we were looking in the out years to see potential changes in inundation for assets that have been around for a long time and are likely to be around for a long time to come. We've heard from engineers that we'd speak to is that it's critical, whenever possible to have local data-- looking at the changes in precipitation and temperature at a local level. The way we tried to do that was to collect historic weather data from our weather stations, and then use those as inputs to the climate models to get outputs or changes for a particular weather station. That would, again, help engineers and planners at the local level figure out what their vulnerabilities are. In terms of looking at the threshold as results, we were really interested in days above 95 degrees. We had a stakeholder meetings with New Jersey Transit and DOT, and what they were telling us was that 95 degrees is a key threshold for their rail operation, and so we wanted to know how many days above 95 degrees Fahrenheit we might be experiencing in the future. We also looked at a maximum precipitation over a five-day period. We looked at changes- whether drought would be increasing, and we looked at the number of consecutive dry days. So we're also concerned about not just increase in precipitation but in what form might that precipitation take, and that tells us about the number of frost days. That's what was really important, to get that information.
I'll show you some illustrative results-- and again, for those of you who have seen this already, I do apologize, but for those who've not, this is showing you what some of the outputs look like by the weather station. What's really important to note is to look at the bottom chart, which is the extreme. If you take Atlantic City, for example, the days above 95 degrees, it currently is about four, but the midrange scenario, the A1B, at 2100, it could be as many as 23 days. That's a very large difference. If you look across the frost days, the number of frost days decreases significantly, 40 percent, which indicates or suggests that the precipitation that does fall would be more in rain than snow, and then again, the number of very cold days decreases and by a significant number. So this is to show you just some of the illustrative outputs that we're getting from the climate model.
We collected a lot of data from New Jersey Transit and DOT and started building our GIS database this work; all the vulnerability assessment is done through GIS. So what allowed us to do that kind of work was that we were able to use digital elevation maps. There was some new LiDAR data that we were able to obtain as part of the study that was very important, particularly for our coastal region. So we had the high-resolution LiDAR data. We were able to use that and bring in our roadway and rail network, and then using the sea level rise and storm surge projections that we developed, we can show those assets that might be vulnerable to flooding. That is something we think is a very powerful tool that we can use for planning in the future. In terms of the sea level rise and storm surge, we focused on three different scenarios for sea level rise-- a half a meter, a meter, and a meter-and-a-half. Again, the partnership decided on those different scenarios. The NJDEP has been looking at those different scenarios in the past, and so it made sense to continue to use those. One of the things we did that made this analysis a little bit more robust was that we were able to obtain local subsidence data from across the Jersey shore. We were able to then look at not just the global sea level rise but were able to determine local changes. There's new information indicating that sea level rise along the Atlantic Seaboard is going to be greater than it is globally, and that information we were able to embed a little bit into the analysis. Then, what we also did was look at storm surge, and using the SLOSH model, we were able to determine storm surge impacts from a category-one hurricane.
Illustrating some of the results-- this is what we call our inundation mapping, this sort of roadway network, potentially vulnerable to sea level rises and storm surge, using the medium scenario for 2100. What you're seeing here is anything in blue is determined to be inundated, and then the roadways that were inundated through this analysis are highlighted in different shades of green, and that different shades of green referred to the criticality. So an olive green or a dark green indicates a very high vulnerable- high criticality, and the lighter shade of green is less vulnerability, again, sort of medium vulnerability type of analysis. What's interesting to note is, of course-- and I'll get back to that, Route 35 that got washed away during Hurricane Sandy. It was also indicated here to be vulnerable to flooding. But zooming in, just to show you a representative area of what some of this inundation mapping looks like with the LiDAR data; this is Atlantic City, again, same scenario, sea level rise and storm surge for the year 2100. What you see here is that parts of the Atlantic City expressway, which are deemed highly critical, are anticipated to be flooded, as well as other redundant roadways that provide access to the rest of New Jersey. What's interesting here is that hrough this modeling and having the LiDAR data, we were able to see that the Absecon Bay Area floods first, and then the inundation really comes in from behind. So it's not so much the Boardwalk in Atlantic City gets destroyed; it's more of the flooding on the back side; and we did see that. It was something that was illustrated during Hurricane Sandy. So even Atlantic City didn't get the worst of it, but this just showed, I think, a little bit of it confirmed our analysis. Then in terms of looking at the inland flooding, what we tried to do was estimate changes to the peak 100-year storm or the 1 percent annual storm event, and for this, what we did was look at the outputs. The outputs we got from the climate models became inputs for this analysis. We used the number of frost days, the number of consecutive dry days, which really did not change very much in the analysis that we looked at, as well as the maximum five-day rainfall. We kept the same timeframes and emission scenarios, and we also tried to look at changes to impervious coverage within our study area. That was-- again, the number of assumptions made, you know, what's the population in 2100? Well, that's really hard to know, but we did try to anticipate a population growth at 2100. We were also able to use the updated DFIRMS from FEMA, and I'm not sure if all of them have been released. I know the coastal areas, the new advisory-based flood elevation maps have been released, but we were able to use some of the DFIRMS from FEMA for the inland study area.
To show you what some of that looks like; this is again a medium scenario for 2100. We're looking in this case at rail infrastructure. What you're seeing here is there's an area in the dark olive, going from upper right to lower left, that's part of the Northeast corridor, and there's definitely parts of the corridor that appear to be vulnerable to flooding, as well as south of there, along the Delaware and the border with Pennsylvania, is our light rail line. And then there are other areas that are identified as freight, where there's some flooding or areas that are vulnerable to inundation.
Now, that's where the Federal Highway-sponsored research project ended, but since then, we have had a number of events. Our first was Hurricane Irene in August of 2011, and what we've been trying to do is pulldata from TRANSCOM and other sources where we were able to geo-reference areas of a road network that had been inundated and that had been recorded as being inundated. So this is an example of that. This first one is from Irene, but you can see areas in brown where inundation has been greater than three days. The Passaic River Basin, in this case, got hammered during Hurricane Irene, and so the largest damage occurred in Passaic County and parts of Essex County, and along Route 3 and Route 46, some important east/west corridors saw some significant damage. Then if I show you from Sandy, you can see the spatial difference with Sandy, which was more of a coastal storm, and the impacts were more related to a storm surge. You can see that areas that are in red are where there was inundation or roads were impassable for more than three days. And so you can see the Jersey Shore, Route 35, all roads closed. Monmouth County and Ocean County saw some of the worst damage. You can see some of the greatest damage located in those areas, as well as a storm surge came up through the Passaic, through Newark Bay, and so places that are at the lower part of the Passaic Basin saw flooding as well, which some communities were not particularly prepared for, as well as flooding in Hoboken and other areas.
This damage was extraordinary, and what we thought to do, and we've only done this recently, is say, given the modeling - that sea level rise and storm surge modeling that we anticipated for the future, 2015, 2100. How does Sandy match up with our modeling? This is some of the projected sea level rise and storm surge modeling for the extreme scenario at 2050, and the areas in black indicate flooding, and the darker the color, the more depth at water from the inundated area. What you can see is that they match up fairly well. Areas of the parkway, for example, that were inundated, we projected to be inundated for a storm in the year 2050 with a meter-and-a-half of sea level rise. Well, that got flooded now, and so you can see that it matched up fairly well, and in fact, some places, there was flooding where we didn't anticipate flooding. What was eye opening about this was our climate modeling underestimated the vulnerability, and this is something that we definitely understand now. We did try not to be too alarmist in our models, but Sandy overwhelmed, in some senses, our modeling on what we thought would be the worst-case scenario.
So where do we go from here? There are a couple things we're going to be doing as a result of the first pilot. We have been working very hard with Federal Highway to do a three-state four-MPO vulnerability assessment and adaptation analysis. This has been something that's been ongoing since about four days after the hurricane in October. Right now, we are teaming up with NYMTC, the Southwestern Regional Planning Agency, and the Greater Bridgeport Regional Council in Connecticut. We're working with New Jersey DOT, New York State DOT, and Connecticut DOT, and some of those folks are in the audience listening to this webinar. So we're all going to be working together to do an 18-month or two-year study, where we're going to look at the lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy, what we knew, what didn't we know, what new information do we need to have? Also, we'll be looking at certain assets that got damaged through Hurricane Sandy, and what different specific adaptation strategies might we employ to make these assets more resilient to more extreme storms in the future. Then we'll really step back and as a larger region identify the vulnerabilities and risks for the assets region-wide, it's a larger region that you're seeing here in this map, and we'll start to look at those areas where there are the most vulnerabilities. Okay, what kind of adaptation strategies can we employ to make those areas less vulnerable to storm surge and sea level rise in the future? This is probably going to be underway this summer, but it's going to be a big effort for all the agencies involved. Then, just one last thing that's specific to the NJTPA is, we haven't forgotten about Hurricane Irene, and we will be doing a Passaic River Basin resilience and adaptation plan. This is going to be very specific to the six counties within the NJTPA region and address a lot of the repetitive flooding issues that have been seen in that area. And this is where we're going to adopt a little bit of some of the methodologies that Wash DOT did and really go out and talk to the county engineers about vulnerabilities. Again, this is going to be more of a qualitative, assessment in looking at those areas that repeatedly experience flooding and talk to those engineers about how we might be able to address those problems. This is going to be another 18-month study. If you're interested in learning more about this study, you can get it online from our website.
Rob Kafalenos: Thanks, Jeff. Certainly all of the studies have been very interesting, and one of the kind of innovative things in the New Jersey data, they really pushed hard in terms of developing downscaled climate information and then applying it. Jeff gave the example of what they did with a 100-year storm event. I should point out that -- and I think all three have talked about this-- all three are continuing on with future analysis of vulnerability and really a focus on adaptation options, the next important wave of this kind of work. For all the studies, we have links on the Federal Highway website. With that, I'll turn it over to Gina, who will moderate the questions.
Gina Filosa: Great. Thanks, Rob. Operator, if you can open up the phone lines for questions, and we'll also start looking at the questions in the chat line.
Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ask a question via the phone line, please press star one on your touchtone telephone at this time. You will hear a tone indicating you have been placed in the queue, and a voice prompt on your phone line will indicate when your line has been opened. Once again, that is star one if you have a question today.
Gina Filosa: Great, thanks. While we're waiting for the questions over the phone, we'll start with the questions from the chat pod. This one's for Carol Lee. Could you elaborate on the surprise you mentioned from your initial pilot, the maintenance facility that was found to be vulnerable and that's a linchpin in your maintenance system? Can you talk about how it's vulnerable and what way is it a linchpin in your system.
Carol Lee Roalkvam: Yes. Thank you, Cindy, for your question. I definitely want to let folks know that we do have a report to Federal Highways, and you can find more information specifically about that on page 50, and so I encourage you to look there if you want more detail. But the short story is that when we looked at our ferry system-- we have 22 ferry terminals-- all ferries are serviced at one maintenance facility, and the harbor that that is in is, obviously, subject to sea level rise. It's also got a number of contaminated sediment caps in place, so it's got a fairly small footprint in terms of where it can grow or where it can evolve over time, so when we looked at that and we looked at the sea level rise projections in that harbor, we realized that that maintenance facility was something that the Department needs to take a long look at and consider maybe having some other strategy, and we don't have that strategy yet, but looking at how else we might be able to service all of our our vessels.
Gina Filosa: Great, thanks. So I will add that, like Rob said, the reports for each of these pilots are available on the website, and we also have them listed here in the file share pod. You can download directly to your computer through this file share by just highlighting on the name and then clicking "Save to my computer." So the next question, I guess, is for everyone, or Rob, you may be able to start. Is there a blank template for some of the flowcharts the pilot study areas used to select their transportation assets?
Rob Kafalenos: This is Rob. I don't think that we actually have blank versions. I'm just trying to remember what's in our current version of the framework. There might be things there. There might be some blank documents, some blank pieces within that. But you can send me an e-mail, and I could see if there's something else that we have tied to that. I don't know if maybe some of the pilots have some thoughts on that?
Stephanie Hom: From MTC, we're not aware of any template that we developed for this project.
Jeffrey Perlman: This is Jeff from NJTPA. We don't have a template either. I think it was just something where you talk to your stakeholders and apply the assets that you want to apply.
Gina Filosa: Okay, the next question for MTC BCDC, is there a science indicating a link between sea level rise and seismic risk?
Sara Polgar: Well, there isn't actually-- we don't have the science to understand exactly how sea level rise will affect groundwater rise and salinity intrusion. However, there's a likelihood that with higher groundwater, areas that are susceptible to liquefaction will expand. There will be more areas susceptible to it, and so that was an important consideration in understanding the vulnerabilities and risks to different transportation infrastructure. It doesn't change the frequency of the seismic events that happen, but it would certainly affect the transportation infrastructure, and how well it would hold up during an event. If sea level rises, increasing groundwater level, which is again expanding areas that could liquefy during a seismic event, they're very much linked in terms of our assessment of vulnerabilities and risk.
Gina Filosa: Thanks. The next questions are to Jeff, but I guess anyone could answer, as well. What is subsidence as it relates to sea level rise? I thought subsidence is land sinking.
Jeffrey Perlman: Yes, that is right. That is correct. When we looked at the subsidence data, which was was given to us by NJDEP, that it actually increased the overall total relative sea level rise. So it actually made the situation worse, right? We were looking at something on the order of 3.2 millimeters a year in certain parts of the Jersey shore, so that, you add that on top of the global sea level rise, and the overall rate of increase is even greater. So it's pretty significant.
Rob Kafalenos: This is Rob, I would just add that it's like Jeff referred to, it's really great to kind of work with your local environmental agency and get an idea of what the estimates are for the historic change in vertical motion of the land. In some areas we see subsidence. In other areas, we actually see uplift of the land that can moderate the effect of sea levels. Thanks.
Gina Filosa: Okay, are there any questions from the phone line?
Operator: I have no questions at this time. As a reminder to everyone, that is star one if you have a question.
Gina Filosa: Okay. Another question through the computers. Do you know of and can you discuss what studies any private entities are conducting, including entities such as Class One railroads.
Jeffrey Pearlman: So maybe that's me. We've been starting-- we have a freight initiative committee at NJTPA because in our region, we have the Newark facilities. We started working with them about their needs, and we've been doing rail infrastructure studies for 2040, after 2040, and so forth, and we're starting to talk to them about how climate change could impact their operations. I think it's at the beginning stages, but we're working with those folks and the rail companies that operate those rail lines.
Gina Filosa: Rob, I don't know if you want to talk about the Gulf Coast 2. I believe that includes some rail lines in their work?
Rob Kafalenos: Yes, in Gulf Coast 2, which is focused solely on Mobile, we are including rail as one of the transportation modes that we're looking at. There is some information that will be coming out later this year in our vulnerability assessment for Mobile tied to the rail. We've had some difficulty getting as much information as we'd like out of private sector entities. That includes private sector ports and private sector rail, but there is some that will be included in their report, which we're still working on right now.
Gina Filosa: So those are the questions so far on the chat pod. Looks like maybe some people are typing in. I guess if people have additional questions, please either type them in or request to open your phone line.
Operator: As a reminder to everyone, that is star one if you have a question on the phone line.
Gina Filosa: Okay, well, it doesn't look like there are any more questions coming in, so again, we're recording this session, and it will be available along with the presentation materials on Federal Highway's website, along with the other webinars. Rob, do you have any closing remarks for the group?
Rob Kafalenos: Firstly, just to thank our speakers. It's really great to hear about their past work and their current and future work, as well. We really appreciate and have benefited from the work that they've done. The other aspect is just that there will be another webinar in 13 days, I think. Is that right, Gina?
Gina Filosa: It's on June 12th.
Rob Kafalenos: June 12th. And that will be focusing on applying the results. That's it.
Gina Filosa: All right. Well, thanks, everyone, and if you do want to get on that waiting list for the next couple sessions, you can feel free to e-mail me directly.