The CRC was awarded funds by DHS to provide research support on a joint study on Port Resilience by the DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC). The project was established to develop a Port Resilience Assessment and Decision Guide to provide a holistic understanding of port operations, the infrastructure systems that support these operations, and analysis methods that can be utilized to understand functional resilience and support investment and other decisions.

Thomas Richardson, CRC Executive Director, provided overall support to the project. Dr. Sandra Knight of WaterWonks, LLC, was tasked to serve as study advisor for the overall decision guide and inland waterway case study, and to provide support to a Guide review workshop. Drs. Janey Camp and Craig Philip of Vanderbilt University and Dr. Austin Becker of Rhode Island University executed the major components of the CRC support. A description of their respective roles in the project is below.

Waterwonks LLC- Workshop and Guide Review

Progress during the period from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022:  Dr. Sandra Knight provided advisory input and support to the development, review and transition of the Joint Port (MTS) Resilience Assessment Guide. 

She worked with CISA/ERDC to plan and convene a workshop of port and waterways subject matter experts and decision makers to review the content of the Guide that was held virtually on October 5 and 7, 2021.  The SME workshop pulled together 21 Guide team members and more than 30 SMEs including port practitioners, federal program leads, port and inland organizations and academia.

The workshop objectives were to:

• Identify potential technical improvements and/or gaps to the content and process presented in the Guide
• Discuss and recommend uses and users of the Guide
• Identify opportunities to transition and institutionalize the Guide. 

The workshop also provided the opportunity to share the Guide and showcase the research and case studies of other CRC partners including Vanderbilt and the University of Rhode Island. The workshop helped to strengthen and expand the network of experts and decisions makers working to make our ports and waterways more resilient.  These interactions have led to follow-up opportunities by CISA/ERDC to disseminate the Guide and find viable transitions partners.

The key takeaways from the workshop were provided in a report to the study leads and included:

• The guide adds value to the body of knowledge about port resilience
• The technical components provide a logical process for conducting a resilience assessment.
• The case studies were effective in demonstrating its use.

Dr. Knight was instrumental in helping convene a US Section PIANC Webinar on June 15, 2022.   While the Guide has been going through internal executive DHS reviews and the finalization of its Main report and Appendices, transition concepts and ideas have been shared during meetings with the Program lead who is working to institutionalize the Guide.

---

Contributions from Vanderbilt University

The Vanderbilt team conducted a case study demonstration of the application of the Port Resilience Guide approach to the inland system of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers with a specific focus on supply of petroleum products in the region and consideration of three disruption scenarios.  This activity supported the mission of the Guide in providing an example approach and guidance to port decision makers who aim to build resilience for the maritime transportation system. 

The research was completed during this review period, though publications are still in development beyond the Case Study Annex which is currently in review.

Background and Objectives 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and others are working to develop a Port Resilience Guide for the inland and coastal systems of the Marine and Inland Waterway Transportation System (MIWTS).  Disruptions and delays in cargo movement often occur on the inland waterway system due to the linear topography and non-redundant functionality. In support of the overall development of the Guide, the Vanderbilt team is performing a case study of the Tennessee and Cumberland River Couplet.  The project involves several tasks to characterize the system, engage stakeholders in the process, identify resilience options for the region for a set of disruption scenarios, and ultimately demonstrate how one would approach conducting a resilience assessment of an inland waterway system. The objective of this case study is to analyze and demonstrate potential resilience strategies for navigable portions and associated infrastructure of the Cumberland/Tennessee River Couplet system.

Progress to Date

The research team began by gathering relevant information to characterize the two river systems including, but not limited to the following: (i) infrastructure assets within the region such as ports and terminals and locks; (ii) commodity data from the US Army Corps of Engineers moving through the locks in the region; (iii) key industries operating terminals, carriers, and shippers to help identify potential stakeholders.  In parallel, a list of potential stakeholders was assembled including public and private sector organizations.  Of note is that the project team had a few key opportunities to present information about the study at meetings such as the Tennessee DOT Freight Advisory Council, Tennessee River Valley Association, and The American Waterways Operators, which resulted in connecting with additional stakeholders.  The team has participated in regular meetings with DHS sponsors and the working group for the overall Guide and received assistance from others on those calls in identifying potential stakeholders from DHS regional offices, etc.  The first stakeholder meeting was held in September 2020 and over 30 individuals participated in the meeting where the key assets in the region were discussed limitations of the region, and Jamboard was used to collect input from the stakeholders during the interactive session.  The meeting was recorded and a summary developed.

The team worked to consider system resilience/flexibility for disruption scenarios.  Using a published directory of terminal operators, etc., a database/spreadsheet with characteristics of each terminal was created.  Each terminal was mapped along with road and rail infrastructure data for the region.  Proximity analysis using geographic information systems (GIS) was performed to locate all terminals on the river system that had multi-modal access to one or both other modes within 1- and 5-mile ranges.  Terminals that had potential connectivity to both modes within a 5-mile radius were identified as those most likely to be able to provide additional service in times of disruption.  We have also begun developing the data and code to perform a priority/dependency analysis of the terminals in the region similar to what has been done by USACE ERDC members of the Guide development team as part of another case study.  The project team had meetings with ERDC staff and obtained the code from them and began developing the input data to run the analysis.  This is still in progress.

The project team worked with DHS CiSA representatives to get redacted Resilience Enhancement Opportunity (REO) information from prior RRAPs that have been conducted with a focus on either an inland wateway system, a port or terminal, or with energy/petroleum considerations.  The respective REOs were consolidated, synthesized and commonalities identified.  These are being leveraged in an survey effort to gather stakeholder preference and priorities for similar resilience opportunities for the Cumberland-TN River system.

The project originally aimed to consider three natural scenarios – flood, drought, and earthquake.  However, as we investigations into prior disruptions in the region, etc were conducted, it was determined that drought would have a low probability of significantly impacting the region and any waterway closure (due to flooding or maintenance) would be more impactful.  Additionally, the project team learned of a planned series of lock closures on the Cumberland planned for 2020 and 2021, which would allow for evaluation of a real-world event.  In place of drought considerations, the team was looking into a pipeline disruption scenario and then the Colonial Pipeline experienced a cyber security attack which led to a significant disruption and at the same time, a bridge on the Mississippi River was closed due to a crack – creating a similar but much less severe situation than a New Madrid Earthquake event.  Therefore, the scenarios were shifted a bit to include a Colonial Pipeline disruption, a waterway closure (flood or maintenance), and a New Madrid event.  Data on historic disruptions has been assembled and is in the process of being synthesized to better understand the impacts of such disruptions.  In preparation for the second stakeholder meeting in June 2021, individuals representing various sectors and perspectives were asked to speak to each of the three disruptive scenarios. 

The second stakeholder meeting included approximately 30 individuals and six speakers excluding the project team.  The three disruption scenarios were presented and speakers provided information about the potential impacts, lessons learned from the recent disruptions, and suggestions for what can be done to improve resilience to the region. 

Findings from the analysis and stakeholder meetings were summarized in a report and submitted to DHS for review.   

Key Takeaways

This study was intended to demonstrate how one might apply the processes and approach outlined in the Port Resilience Guide to undertake a resilience assessment for an inland waterway system and assets within that system.  Several potential REOs for the region were identified as part of the study with stakeholder input.  However, additional exploration and consideration is needed to explore the actual feasibility of each REO’s potential implementation and develop associated resilience plans.  The REO’s presented are by no means all encompassing, but what was arrived at for the region with the stakeholders that were involved in the process.  Additional scenarios and REOs could and should be considered in partnership with stakeholders as was demonstrated in the Case Study. 

Stakeholder Engagement

The research was supported by a stakeholder team including representation from USACE, TN Department of Environment and Conservation, private industry partners, consultants, THRIVE Chattanooga, the Greater Nashville Regional Council, TN Department of Transportation, Central US Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC), and others.

Presentations

The research that supported the Cumberland/Tennessee Case Study was featured in the following presentations:

• Philip, C. and M. Moravec. 2022. Marine Transportation System Resilience Assessment Guide: A MULTI-AGENCY EFFORT. PIANC Webinar. June 15, 2022. Virtual.
• J. Camp. 2021. TRB Webinar: The Mighty River—Inland Waterway Resilience Analysis. December 15, 2021, Virtual.
• J. Camp, M. Moravec, and C. Philip. 2021. Case Study: Cumberland and Tennessee River Inland Waterway Resilience Analysis. Tennessee DOT Freight Advisory Committee Meeting, Nashville, TN, September 29, 2021.
• C. Philip, M. Moravec, and J. Camp. 2020. Case Study: Cumberland and Tennessee River Inland Waterway Resilience Analysis. TRVA Annual Meeting, October 14, 2020.
• C. Philip, M. Moravec, and J. Camp. 2020. Case Study: Cumberland and Tennessee River Inland Waterway Resilience Analysis. AWO Virtual Roundtable, September 16, 2020.
• J. Camp, M. Moravec, and C. Philip. 2021. Case Study: Cumberland and Tennessee River Inland Waterway Resilience Analysis. THRIVE Freight Mobility Coalition Meeting. November 9, 2021. Virtual.
• Philip, C. and others. Assessing Resilience: Case Studies and a Path Forward for the Marine and Inland Waterborne Transportation System, PIANC Sponsored Webinar, August 26, 2021.

---

Contributions from the University of Rhode Island

Dr. Austin Becker of URI provided a summary of lessons learned to the Hazard Resilience Guide for Ports and the Marine Transportation System. This activity supported the mission of the Guide in providing resources, tools, and guidance to port decision makers who aim to build resilience for the maritime transportation system. Specifically, the work examined through interviews and surveys the impact that resilience assessment activities have on port planning and investments.

The research was completed during this review period, though publications are still in review. Other DHS-funded projects were leveraged, including Becker’s Hazard Consequence Modeling work supported by CRC. The deliverable for this work is an appendix for the Guide that focuses on lessons learned on implementing resilience assessment recommendations, as well as one or more peer-reviewed publications in relevant journals.

Background and Objectives: Resilience assessments can aid the management of complex critical infrastructure systems in the face of the evolving risks and uncertainties associated with climate change and other threats and hazards. Yet, resilience assessment methodologies are relatively new, and hence there are currently no best management practices for undertaking resilience assessments that are available to practitioners. This is particularly true for seaports and other constituents of the maritime transportation system. Hence, the objectives of this study were threefold: (1) to elucidate the key benefits and challenges associated with undertaking resilience assessment interventions; (2) to identify the resilience enhancement options that seaports pursue after completing resilience assessments; and (3) to determine the extent to which resilience assessments enhance seaports’ capacities to manage and adapt to climate hazards.

Approach: In consultation with a steering committee composed of personnel from the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the research team searched for seaports that had completed resilience assessment interventions based on several criteria, such as the geographic scope of their planning and the hazards they addressed. All 115 U.S. ports within 10 miles of the coastline were invited to participate. Ten ports had completed a resilience assessment approach and were selected for this study. The completed studies were reviewed to determine the methodology used, the key findings, and the resilience enhancement strategies recommended to the seaport. We synthesized the experiences of 10 U.S. seaports that have undertaken resilience assessments using a qualitative research approach.

Key takeaways

Through survey and interview responses from 26 seaport decision-makers at the 10 seaports, we identified four key themes:

• Resilience assessments offer more than just a nuanced understanding of vulnerabilities: Resilience assessments provide a suite of co-benefits beyond identifying vulnerabilities in infrastructure and management systems. Key among these is enhanced social capital between the port organization and its internal and external stakeholders as a result of the collaborative processes that resilience assessments require.
• The most widespread challenge of resilience assessments was engaging stakeholders in the process: Unlike the benefits, challenges associated with resilience assessments were often case specific, though several overarching challenges should be expected by organizers of future resilience assessments. For example, engaging stakeholders in various phases of the assessment stymied processes such as selecting sea level rise projections to plan for or getting consensus on what resilience means for their seaport. Communicating vulnerabilities that were discovered through the resilience assessment was also a challenge for decision-makers who were concerned about how such information would impact the seaport’s marketability to potential tenants and investors.
• Seaports prioritized infrastructure-related investments as a result of their resilience assessment findings: We identified 155 resilience enhancement strategies that were prescribed to seaports, which we categorized into six different strategy typologies. Of these, “infrastructure enhancements”, such as stormwater management infrastructure, were most frequently implemented following resilience assessments. By contrast, strategies falling under building codes and land use regulations (e.g., basing design flood elevations on sea level rise projections) were both prescribed to and implemented by seaports the least.
• Resilience assessments improved their organizations’ capacities to manage their seaports’ resilience and adapt to climate change: Decision-makers indicated that their organizations’ capacities to manage resilience improved as a result of undertaking a resilience assessment.

Other Relevant Information

Additional takeaways captured in this research provide valuable insights that can inform users of this guidebook on how to undertake their resilience endeavors in a calculated manner and how to plan for obstacles along the way. This research constitutes a valuable contribution to practitioner audiences on resilience planning and adaptive management of climate change risks by exploring how seaports and stakeholders operationalize resilience planning and assessment practice. Seaports, with their importance to regional and national transportation services, their complex ownership and governance context, and climate change challenges, present an important setting for evaluating largely normative resilience planning and adaptive management theories for managing complex social and ecological systems. Although most of the selected cases were undertaken by the port authorities and not the larger set of stakeholders, and were initially focused on protecting business operations, the perceived benefits supported adaptive management and resilience assessment premises—that planning builds social capital that is essential to adapting to climate change and other threats across a complex system. Resilience assessment practices enhanced social capital developed between the seaport and its stakeholders and seemed to result in shared information and political will needed for implementation of resilience enhancement alternatives. Seaport leaders reported improved awareness of the exigence of resilience-building, which has important implications for seaport adaptive capacity, as supported by existing research. Survey results capturing decision makers’ perceptions of their resilience assessments’ institutional impacts, further complemented our findings regarding the adaptive capacity impacts of resilience assessments. Findings suggest that organizers of future assessments should strategize how to transcend anticipated stakeholder-related obstacles early in the process.

Steering Committee Engagement

The research was supported by a steering committee composed of members from ERDC (Margaret Kurth and Katherine Chambers) and CISA (Jevon Daniel and Sandra Pinel).

Publications

The research that supported the Hazard Resilience Guide is featured in the following publications during this revie period:

1. Kalaidjian, E., Becker A., & Pinel, S. (In Revision). Operationalizing resilience planning, theory, and practice: Insights from U.S. Seaports. Frontiers in Sustainability
2. Kalaidjian, E., Becker A., & Pinel, S. (In Review). Insights from Ten Seaport Resilience Assessment Interventions. An Annex to the Resilience Guide for Ports and the Marine Transportation System.
3. Kalaidjian, E. (2021). Institutionalizing resilience: Insights from assessment initiatives at 10 U.S. seaports. Open Access Master’s Theses.

Presentations

The research that supported the Hazard Resilience Guide was featured in the following presentations:

• Becker, A., (2022), Coastal Resilience Research Overview. USGS Panel Discussion on Coastal Social Science, July 12.
• Becker, A., (2022), An assessment of port resilience assessments. PIANC Annual Conference, June 15.
• Becker, A., (2022), Port challenges to climate change. 18th Biennial National Harbor Safety Committee Conference: Maritime Strong: Navigating Diverse Growth and Change, June 13-15.
• Becker, A., (2022), Insights from Seaport Resilience Assessments. DHS Center of Excellence for Coastal Resilience Annual Meeting. March 29.
• Becker, A., (2022), Resilience initiatives at the Port of Providence: 2010 – present. Envision Resilience Rhode Island, Feb. 2.
• Becker, A., Kallaidjian, E. (2021), Resilience planning for transportation organizations: Insights from the U.S. Seaport Sector. 34th Rhode Island Transportation Forum, Oct. 29.
• Becker, A., Kallaidjian, E. (2021), Resilience planning for transportation organizations: Insights from the U.S. Seaport Sector,” Maritime Transportation System Resilience Assessment Guide Workshop- Oct. 5 and Oct. 7.
• Becker, A. Hallisey, N. (2021), Geospatially Inventorying Critical Coastal Infrastructure: A Case Study in the Caribbean. CARIGEO Webinar # 3​, Best Practices on Data Sharing​, Sept. 21.
• Becker, A. Session Moderator, (2021), Assessing Resilience: Case Studies and a Path Forward for the Marine and Inland Waterborne Transportation System. Webinar presented by PIANC and the World Ocean Council. Aug. 25.

Other

Ellis Kalladjian, the graduate student on this project, graduated and was awarded an ORISE Fellowship with the Engineer Research and Development Center.