Not sure if posting in this forum is necessary for submitting this credit, but I felt I had some useful takeaways/feedback after completing the pilot credit survey and wanted to share:

I'm part of a project team pursuing this pilot credit for an airport maintenance building project in the midwestern US. Local hazard mitigation plans weren't completely applicable to my project due to it's location on airport property, and local resources for climate-related hazards varied in robustness due to the project's location and exemption from many of these hazards. Therefore, I utilized national resources linked in the credit language to effectively evaluate the capability of airport and local hazard mitigation plans and assess the hazard level, exposure, sensitivity, and vulnerability associated with each climate-related threat in a way satisfactory to GBCI. While filling out the workbook I noticed most of the links in the credit language were broken or didn't directly lead to the resource they described, so I provided the intact/direct links below:

Hazard Assessment:

Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge: SLOSH Model - MDL - Virtual Lab (noaa.gov)

Wildfire: Wildland Fire Trends Tool | U.S. Geological Survey (usgs.gov)

Landslides: U.S. Landslide Inventory | U.S. Geological Survey (usgs.gov)

Extreme Heat/Other Categories: Monthly Report | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) (noaa.gov)

Climate Assessment:

Climate Explorer (applicable to nearly all categories assessed): Climate Explorer (nemac.org)

I also want to highlight how we approached discussions for Step 3. The local hazard mitigation plan for this project's region was obviously very reflective of the needs, interests, and vulnerabilities within the community surrounding the airport, yet this complicated this assessment as airport operations/emergency planning don't always align with needs and interests of surrounding communities. The credit workbook for my project attempts to bridge the gap between airport priorities and vulnerabilities and those of the surrounding community. I feel that sharing this thought process could be helpful for other airport projects:

Steps 1 and 2 provided the foundation for design parameter recommendations generated in Step 3:

Step 1 (hazard assessment) allowed us to compare the surrounding community's emergency preparedness plans with airport emergency planning. This helped contextualize the airport as a valuable transit hub and point of connectivity in the region, pinpointing strengths and weaknesses in airport emergency planning by juxtaposing airport priorities with vulnerabilities within the surrounding community.

Step 2 builds on Step 1 by addressing how the airport can continue to fulfill its role as a regional transit hub and economic driver in the face of climate change. Step 2 also highlighted how airport infrastructure/emergency planning is detached from certain escalating climate threats that will have major impacts on the surrounding community.

Step 3 builds on Step 2 by facilitating discussion on how the airport can better serve the surrounding community from a holistic standpoint via resilient infrastructure. Community stakeholders identified in Steps 1 and 2 are accounted for along with the airport's priorities related to maintaining airport operations. Recommendations produced by discussion in Step 3 ultimately articulate how the project can simultaneously serve the surrounding region and the airport while adapting to evolving climate conditions.