Dropdown items
My Academies

Personal Library

Account settings

Flood Forecasting for Transportation Resilience: A Guide (2024)

Chapter: Appendix A: Capability Maturity Model

Visit NAP.edu/10766 to get more information about this book, to buy it in print, or to download it as a free PDF.

Previous chapter Next chapter
Page of 82
Search this publication

Page 70

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: Capability Maturity Model." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Flood Forecasting for Transportation Resilience: A Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/28022.

APPENDIX A

Capability Maturity Model

Page 71

	Level 1 (Lowest)	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4 (Ideal)
Welcome to the floodcasting Capability Maturity Model tool. This tool enables state DOT self-evaluation of current flood forecasting capabilities. Instructions: In this tab, check the box that most closely reflects your agency’s current capability level for each of the capability dimensions.	Limited capabilities and participation in developing, maintaining, and disseminating flood forecasting data/information; transportation system has minimal ability to respond to flooding and weather-related hazards.	Beginning to develop capabilities to allow for participation in operational flood forecasting; key technology and core capacities under development, but limited ability to disseminate meteorological and hydrologic data to inform flood event decision-making; flood monitoring system not yet fully integrated into agency’s existing operational framework.	On the verge of participating in advanced flood event forecasting and decision-making; in the process of developing software and communication systems that incorporate hydrologic and meteorologic information into agency’s existing operational framework; somewhat constrained by ability to invest resources in innovative research and new, possibly expensive technologies.	Fairly advanced predictive weather and flood monitoring in place; software and communication systems incorporate hydrologic and meteorologic information into agency’s existing operational framework; data/technology limitations and model run times still pose limitations.
	Agencies at this level of flood event decision-making:	Agencies at this level of flood event decision-making:	Agencies at this level of flood event decision-making:	Agencies at this level of flood event decision-making:
Meteorological Capabilities to leverage local, state, or federally-operated meteorological monitoring and forecasting resources to support state DOT flood planning, risk management, mitigation, preparedness operations, and emergency response activities.	• Become aware of forecasted high-rainfall events through television, online forecasts, and general NWS alerts. • Do not download or analyze weather data independently. • Have limited or nonexistent real-time monitoring.	• Track weather proactively using online forecasts, television, and SMS weather alert services. • Sometimes use supplementary products from NOAA and NWS (e.g., when a hurricane is forecasted). • Real-time monitoring such as through the Road Weather Information System (RWIS) is nascent but has been initiated.	• Have a daily protocol for reviewing forecasts and planning agency response. • Use reliable mid- and long-range forecasting products (such as NOAA QPF maps) to increase amount of lead time to prepare and respond to rainfall flood events. • Consult the NWS flash-flood guidance estimates. • Some use of real-time data (e.g., rain gauges, radar, or sensors) to update forecast data, but temporal and spatial coverage or resolution limits use.	• Leverage reliable mid- and long-range forecasting products (such as NOAA QPF maps or NWS meteorological forecasts) to increase amount of lead time for rainfall flood events and generate distant early warnings. • Are comfortable with identifying, downloading, analyzing, modifying, and exporting meteorological data as well as creating new map products • Supplement national meteorological datasets with local, more complete, or higher-resolution products, where available (such as DOT-maintained RWIS networks). • Meteorological monitoring network has high spatial and temporal resolution (for example, data are available every 5 minutes or less) and includes multiple meteorological variables. • Invest in test beds and other research to continuously develop new technology capabilities of forecasting rainfall intensity (such as probabilistic QPF and innovative flood sensor technology). • Continuously focus on locations throughout the state that require better meteorological

Page 72

	Level 1 (Lowest)	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4 (Ideal)
				monitoring/forecasts, due to adverse effects on local transportation-related infrastructure (either by developing relationships with existing monitoring stations or installing new gauges). • In addition to using existing NWS flash flood guidance estimates, are working with other agency and academic partners to actively developing new ways to forecast the timing, location, and extent of flash flooding at a finer scale. • To confirm or adjust models, use real-time meteorological monitoring data that come from sources such as rain gauges, radar, and sensors.
Hydrology and Hydraulics Capabilities to use forecast information on the timing, extent, and depth of coastal and riverine flood events to identify potential vulnerabilities of the transportation network.	• Poor temporal resolution and spatial coverage of stream and tidal gauge data limits ability to use this information in decision-making. • Lack of awareness or personnel to make use of available data, tools, and models used to forecast riverine or coastal flooding. • For road closures prior to the event, primarily use permanent or temporary signage or rules of thumb.	• Use forecasts that predict stream discharges, but do not uses visualizations of associated inundation extents. • Have limited ability to flag potentially threatened assets. • Spatial and temporal resolution of hydrologic monitoring network better, but does not cover entire land area and not all stations are available in real-time. • Use stream and tidal gauges, where available, to anticipate and implement road closures.	• Use forecasts that predict both stream discharges and riverine extents to visualize potentially threatened assets. • Leverage real-time national and state hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) monitoring networks (such as USGS stream/river gauges and NOAA tidal gauges). • Have a consistent protocol in place to use stream and tidal gauges to anticipate potential damage to infrastructure assets. • Have a consistent protocol in place to use stream and tidal gauges to anticipate and implement road closures throughout the road network.	• Comfortable with identifying, downloading, analyzing, modifying, and exporting H&H (both riverine and coastal) data as well as creating new map products. • Supplement national and state H&H datasets (such as USGS stream/river gauges and NOAA tidal gauges) with local, more complete, or higher-resolution products, where available. • Use forecasts that predict the timing, extent, and depth at both gauged and ungauged locations to visualize potentially threatened assets. • System integrates flood advisory warnings from local NWS offices. • Monitoring network includes elevation of water levels in hydrologic features to determine if a dam/water control structure may be overtopped. • Use real-time hydrologic monitoring data, which comes from sources such as stream/river/tidal gauges, to confirm or adjust models. • Invest in research or innovative flood sensor technology (such as hydrologic monitoring stations at key transportation locations). • Meteorological monitoring network has high spatial and temporal resolution (for example, data are available every 5 minutes or less) and includes multiple variables on weather.

Page 73

	Level 1 (Lowest)	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4 (Ideal)
Asset Management Capabilities relating to the quality and completeness of agency’s asset management database as well as technical understanding of design parameters and fragility characteristics of assets related to flooding.	• Efforts to capture asset locations and condition in GIS format are ongoing. • Key infrastructure data, such as elevation (e.g., low chord for bridges), are not consistently digital and are not consolidated. • Key asset data reside within separate agency sections (e.g. bridge vs. highway) and data-sharing protocols are unclear, confusing, or not yet established.	• While a greater amount of asset data are available, DOT asset database may be incomplete, not entirely in GIS format, and with partial or no topology enforcement. • Asset elevation data are incomplete, resulting in a limited ability to develop damage estimates. • Cross-agency data-sharing mechanisms have been established, and consolidation is ongoing.	• Maintain an up-to-date asset management database and all data are in GIS format with partial topology enforcement. • Most assets have associated elevation information in digital format. • Routinely make rough damage estimates for all assets based on location, elevation, and expected or actual flooding.	• Complete GIS-based asset management system where all assets have elevation information (both DOT and non-DOT assets) with strict topology enforcement. • Asset management database updates automatically from live DOT field reports. • Asset data quality issues are automatically tracked, reported, and responded to by field personnel. • Asset database incorporates non-DOT critical assets. • Assets have associated footprints and base flood elevations. • Connectivity and dependency are mapped between assets and other systems (e.g., power). • Internal system easily integrates with traffic models showing real-time traffic conditions. • Analytical capabilities exist to map and anticipate system-level problems and cascading failures due to flooding. • Use fragility curves, such as depth-damage curves, for buildings and roads to produce damage estimate for forecasted or actual flooding.
Communications Capabilities related to dissemination of flood event information to multiple platforms (e.g., in-house, partner agencies, the public, and traffic alert systems).	• Little to no integration with social media, map apps, or local, state, or federal warning systems. • Flood warnings include current weather conditions as opposed to both current and potential threats. • No mechanism in place to transfer data collected by field teams and public crowdsourcing. • Limited communication with partner agencies or other relevant entities (e.g., power utilities).	• Are integrated with at least some channels of social media, map apps, or local, state, and federal warning systems. • Are taking steps toward integrating public crowdsourcing and field team data, but data are not posted quickly enough (e.g., in real-time) to inform decision-making. • Deliver warnings to key staff and partner agencies about current and potential threats, but communication is not automated.	• Are integrated with multiple sources of social media, map apps, or local, state, and federal warning systems. • Deliver automated warnings and updates to key staff and partner agencies. • Beginning to use new technologies (such as tablets and Internet-dependent text message functionalities) to automate data transfer from field crews and public crowdsourcing.	All of the elements in Level 3, in addition to: • Flood forecasting system accepts location-based information: sensors, field crew, and crowdsourced damage data are posted in real-time and routed and prioritized by staff. • Automated list of prioritized tasks with geospatial information sent to field crews to expedite response time. • Data collected comply with Open Geospatial Consortium guidelines for geospatial data dissemination so that DOT-collected data can be seamlessly transferred to external users such as partner agencies, the public, traffic alert systems, and other relevant agencies.

Page 74

	Level 1 (Lowest)	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4 (Ideal)
Incident Management Capabilities related to flood event incident tracking, storing and reporting to facilitate early recovery, post-disaster grant application, and hazard mitigation.	• Have minimal incident tracking or recordkeeping of past events.	• Maintain a database for incident tracking with date-time stamp of event and general location information; location information is not in GIS format. • Recordkeeping of past events does not include detailed information about specific assets that were affected and associated damage analytics.	• Incident tracking database is in GIS format and contains information about the specific location of the flood event and affected assets. • Database is formatted to capture field-collected information (such as high-water marks and debris quantity estimates) and damage estimates.	• Use incident tracking and summary tools to allow for rapid synthesis of flood event analytics to facilitate both active flood event response as well as assist with post-disaster recovery and reimbursement activities. • Event record includes how long the infrastructure was inundated, severity of damage and estimated cost of damage, passibility determinations, repair or cleanup priorities, and staffing needs to handle repair/cleanup. • Incident database automatically captures relevant details from a flood event, including the assets affected; modeled flood extents, which can be updated with field-collected information (such as high-water marks and debris quantity estimates); and damage estimates. • Data collected are appropriate for supporting post-disaster funding requests [such as the FHWA Emergency Relief (ER) program].