Case Study: MnDOT Resilience Improvement Plan

Climate concerns and planning for change

Over the last 20 years, precipitation and temperature changes and resulting hazards have affected MnDOT's infrastructure, including its roads, bridges, culverts, and stormwater pipes. For example, landslides have been experienced in every part of the state, and a catastrophic landslide in southern Minnesota even resulted in the abandonment of a state highway.

Understanding vulnerability: risk + sensitivity

Assessing vulnerability requires finding the intersection of risk and sensitivity. 

To assess risk, or an asset's exposure to climate hazards [2], MnDOT hired an environmental consulting team from WSP to look at statistically downscaled climate projections for the mid-century (2040–2059) and end-of-century (2080–2099). They assessed precipitation-related risks with projections from CMIP5, the 5th generation of Global Climate Models (GCMs), and temperature-related risks with projections from CMIP6, the 6th generation of GCMs.

To assess sensitivity, or the likelihood that a climate hazard will cause damage to an asset, the consultants compared projections to existing observational datasets from MnDOT. These datasets included the locations of agency-owned assets (roads, bridges, culverts, stormwater ponds, pump stations, etc.), a map of the statewide road network, a statewide landslide vulnerability assessment, and other previous analyses. 

MnDOT found collecting its internal data to be more challenging than finding appropriate climate data, and spent several months doing so before climate projection analysis could begin. Agency datasets were managed by various owners, making it difficult to obtain sharing permission. Moreover, data were collected for different purposes at inconsistent time intervals and stored in a variety of formats, which complicated cross-comparisons. 

Internal and external engagement

Drafting the Plan required both internal and external communication and collaboration. Within the agency, Operations has a separate leadership structure from Planning and Program Management, but both must reach consensus on all statewide plans. It was therefore imperative to involve all agency leadership to align Plan priorities, collect relevant non-climate data, and identify resilience challenges to overcome.

MnDOT also convened a group of climate experts from the Upper Midwest, including from the Minnesota State Climatology Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, University of Minnesota Climate Adaptation Partnership, Great Lakes Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments, and the Minnesota Association of Floodplain Managers.