NIST GCR 15-981

Community Resilience Workshop 

October 27-28, 2014

David R. Mizzen

Peter J. Vickery

Applied Research Associates, Inc.

Kent Yu

SEFT Consulting Group

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.15-981
NIST GCR 15-981

Community Resilience Workshop 

October 27-28, 2014

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Commerce

Engineering Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 

By

David R. Mizzen

Peter J. Vickery

Applied Research Associates, Inc.

Kent Yu

SEFT Consulting Group

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.15-981

January 2015

U.S. Department of Commerce

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Willie E. May, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Acting Director
This publication was produced as part of contract SB1341-13-CN-0084 with the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or 

policies of the National Institute of Standards and Technology or the US Government.
Community Resilience Workshop

Acknowledgements

iii

Acknowledgements

The Community Resilience Workshop, held at the NCED Conference Center and Hotel on October 27-28, 

2014, was organized by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to inform 

development of the Disaster Resilience Framework. Both the workshop and this report benefitted from 

the efforts of many individuals. The authors of this document would like to express their gratitude to the 

following individuals, who made significant contributions to the planning, organization, and execution of 

a successful workshop:

 Tonia Bohnen, Advanced Innovations and Marketing, LLC 

 Stephen Cauffman, NIST

 Erica Kuligowski, NIST

 Therese McAllister, NIST

 Nancy McNabb, NIST

The authors are also grateful to their team and additional NIST staff who assisted in developing breakout 

sessions, authoring chapters of the 50% draft of the framework, and collecting input from stakeholders

during the breakout sessions:

 Erin Ashley, URS

 Howard Harary, NIST

 Jeffery Kotcamp, TRC Solutions

 Robert Pekelnicky, Degenkolb Engineers

 Chris Poland, Chris D. Poland Consulting Engineer

 Adrienne Sheldon, URS 

 Scott Tezak, TRC Solutions

 Kent Yu, SEFT Consulting Group

The breakout session facilitators did an excellent job leading the discussions, collecting information and 

transcribing stakeholder input into the tables in this workshop summary. We thank them for their efforts 

and professionalism:

 Katie Jereza, Energetics Incorporated

 Mauricio Justiniano, Energetics Incorporated

 Paget Donnelly, Energetics Incorporated

 Walter Zalis, Energetics Incorporated

 Ann Terranova, URS

The workshop also benefitted from an interesting interview session. We are thankful to these individuals 

who shared their insightful input with attendees:

 Keith Stammer, Joplin/Jasper (MO) County

 Deidre Ebrey, City of Moore (OK)

Most importantly, the authors are thankful to the participants who attended the workshop and provided 

input based on their expertise. The quality of the discussions and input was excellent. The workshop 

would not have been a success without you. We look forward to your continued input at future 

workshops. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Table of Contents

iv

Community Resilience Workshop

NCED Conference Center and Hotel

Norman, OK

October 27-28, 2014

Meeting Summary

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................1

2. Opening Session – October 27, 2014 ................................................................................4

3. Afternoon General Session – October 27, 2014...............................................................9

4. Breakout Session #1: Framework Chapters 3 and 10 – Community Disaster 

Resilience for the Built Environment and Metrics .......................................................11

5. Breakout Session #2: Framework Chapter 5 – Buildings Sector ................................21

6. Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems................25

7. Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 2 – Social Aspects of Resilience .............40

8. Breakout Session #5: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel Charter...........................47

9. Morning General Session – October 28, 2014 ...............................................................51

10. Closing General Session ..................................................................................................54
Community Resilience Workshop

Introduction

1

1. Introduction

Presidential Policy Directive 21 defines resilience as the ability to “prepare for and adapt to changing 

conditions and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions.” Many communities have developed 

disaster response plans to prepare for disaster events. These disaster response plans will help save lives, 

protect property and limit economic damage. However, community disaster resilience also includes 

identifying local hazards, determining vulnerabilities, assessing the risks and improving performance of 

the built environment during a disaster event, and minimizing recovery times and economic losses.

Buildings and lifelines (transportation, water, energy and communications) play an important role in any 

community. Historically, buildings and lifelines have been designed and treated as separate entities 

without much consideration for one another. However, as seen in recent events (e.g., Superstorm Sandy, 

Hurricane Katrina, and the Joplin Tornado), the interdependencies of buildings and lifelines play a huge 

role in a community’s ability to recover in both the short and long term. 

To address this problem, NIST is leading a team to convene quarterly workshops in different regions of 

the country to inform development of a comprehensive, community-based disaster resilience framework. 

The goal of the workshops is to engage a diverse group of stakeholders and obtain their input for 

developing the framework. Version 1.0 of the Disaster Resilience Framework will provide regional, state, 

local and tribal authorities with a general methodology, and best practices to plan for and support 

community resilience. NIST will convene a Disaster Resilience Standards Panel (DRSP) in 2015 to 

expand on and refine Version 1.0 of the framework. The DRSP will also develop Model Resilience 

Guidelines to catalogue and disseminate standards, codes, best practices and case studies for resilience. 

NIST held the first stakeholder workshop at the NIST Gaithersburg, MD Campus to kick-off framework 

development. NIST held the second workshop at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ on 

July 30, 2014. The third workshop, summarized in this document, was at the NCED Conference Center 

and Hotel in Norman, OK. Between the second and third workshops, the authors developed a 50% draft 

of the Disaster Resilience framework, incorporating stakeholder input from previous workshops. The 

draft was posted to the NIST website for stakeholder review prior to the workshop. The Norman, OK 

workshop served as the third of a series of workshops to obtain input from stakeholders on a working 

draft of the framework. 

Figure 1 shows the agenda for the October 27-28 NIST Community Resilience Workshop held at the 

NCED Conference Center and Hotel in Norman, OK. This document summarizes content from the 

October 27-28 workshop and stakeholder input. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Introduction

2

Figure 1. Agenda for October 27th NIST Community Resilience Workshop
Community Resilience Workshop

Introduction

3

Figure 2. Agenda for October 28th NIST Community Resilience Workshop
Community Resilience Workshop

Opening Session – October 27, 2014

4

2. Opening Session – October 27, 2014

The Opening Session for the Third Stakeholder Workshop of the NIST Community Resilience Program 

began at 8:30 a.m. Mr. Stephen Cauffman (NIST) delivered introductory remarks and welcomed 

participants. Mr. Cauffman introduced Dr. Howard Harary, NIST Director of the Engineering Laboratory, 

where this resilience program is housed. 

Summary of Dr. Harary’s Remarks

[The prepared text of Dr. Harary’s comments is located on the NIST.gov website.]

Norman, Oklahoma is a fitting location for a disaster resilience workshop. Unfortunately, this part of the 

United States has experienced many disasters, particularly tornadoes, from which its communities have 

had to recover. Some of the most notable disasters in this region are the 2013 Moore EF5 tornado, the 

Joplin, Missouri tornado in 2011 that is the deadliest tornado on record, and the Oklahoma City bombing 

in 1995. 

Norman is also home to the National Weather Service’s Forecast Center and National Severe Storms 

Laboratory, of which there will be a tour of at the end of this workshop.

In recent years, the economic impact of natural disasters has been significant. Specifically, in 2011, there 

were 14 weather-related events that each resulted in over $1 billion dollars in damages. Moreover, in 

2012, Superstorm Sandy resulted in over $65 billion in damage and economic losses. These events 

illustrate the need for us to work towards reducing the impact of natural and manmade hazards in terms of 

both cost and recovery time.

Although building resilient communities will protect lives and property, it will do much more than that. 

Resilient communities will rapidly return to their normal functionality following a disruptive event. The 

ability to become resilient will allow businesses to stay open, and keep workers employed. Moving 

forward, resilient communities will be able to remain competitive in business and industry across the 

country and globally.

We are focused on performance of the built environment for resilience. When considering resilience of 

the built environment, it is important to understand: 1) the interdependencies among buildings and 

infrastructure systems, 2) the importance of building and infrastructure to the social needs of the 

community, and 3) when functionality of these systems is needed in the recovery process for a given 

community.

NIST is leading several initiatives to advance resilience concepts so that communities can assess their 

infrastructure and become more resilient. These programs include the following major components:

1. Development of the Disaster Resilience Framework

2. Stakeholder Workshops to inform development of Disaster Resilience Framework

3. Formation of a Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

4. Development of Model Resilience Guidelines

5. Research to develop models to assess effects of disaster events on the built environment of 

communities

6. Selection of nine Disaster Resilience Fellows with expertise in areas essential to resilience.

7. Formation of a Disaster Resilience Center of Excellence Program. 

This workshop, which falls under item #2, is the third in a series of workshops to inform development of 

the Disaster Resilience Framework (item #1). Working drafts of the framework are released on the NIST 

website so stakeholders can review, comment on, and contribute directly to the framework at any time.

In 2015, NIST will form the Disaster Resilience Standards Panel (item #3). This stakeholder organization 

will further develop the framework and develop Model Resilience Guidelines (item #4) to aid 

communities in implementing the framework.

NIST is also leading a research effort to develop science-based tools to assess resilience at the community 
Community Resilience Workshop

Opening Session – October 27, 2014

5

level, and economics-based tools that can be used to plan investments in making their infrastructure more 

resilient (Item #5).

NIST recently selected nine Disaster Resilience Fellows who are experts in their domains to contribute to 

development of the framework (Item #6). NIST will select a second group of Fellows next year to support 

the research program. 

Lastly, NIST is currently reviewing many proposals submitted in response to a Federal Funding 

Opportunity for a Disaster Resilience Center of Excellent (CoE). The goal of the CoE (Item #7) will be to 

increased NIST’s capability and capacity in areas key to disaster resilience, focusing on 3 research topics: 

1) Computational Modeling Environment for Community Resilience; 2) Data Management Tools for 

Community Resilience Systems; and 3) Resilience Data Architecture Validation Studies. 

Stakeholder input is critical to the success of these initiates. Thank you for your participation. We expect 

to receive great input from all participants. We encourage you to reach out to your colleagues in different 

parts of the country and ask that you inform us of stakeholders who should be involved in these 

workshops. 

Mr. Cauffman then provided background to participants on the NIST Community Resilience Program. 

Summary of Mr. Cauffman’s Remarks

[The slides referenced in the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

The approach we currently take to responding after natural and man-made disaster events is inefficient. 

As seen in past events, such as Superstorm Sandy, billions of dollars in losses occur every year due to 

natural and man-made disaster events. Moving forward, we need to consider the changing nature of 

hazards, interconnectedness of buildings and infrastructure, and the impact of performance of the built 

environment on social institutions. 

Our country has exposure to a wide variety of disaster events due to its size and varying geography. Every 

year, 45 to 81 Presidential Disaster Declarations are made, illustrating the need to make our communities 

more resilient.

For the purposes of this program, we are using the definition of resilience that is presented in Presidential 

Policy Directive-21: Resilience is the ability to prepare for and adapt to changing conditions and 

withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. When we refer to community resilience, the emphasis is 

not just on mitigating risk, but planning and implementing strategies so a community recovers to near 

normal functionality in a reasonable timeframe.

The social needs of a community drive the need for infrastructure performance (i.e., the built 

environment). The community’s social needs include those of individual citizens, government, 

businesses, and industry. These social systems need buildings, energy, transportation, communications, 

and water to function properly.

A number of forces can cause disruptions in a community, including natural hazards and manmade 

hazards. Degradation is not specifically addressed in the framework; however, the degradation of our 

country’s aging infrastructure does impact the performance of the built environment. Communities, 

particularly coastal communities, also need to consider climate change. To offset these potential sources 

of disruption, we can reconsider our performance goals for the built environment. By establishing more 

advanced performance goals, we must take actions related to mitigation, and plan for improved response 

and recovery plans.

There are several key attributes of resilience. Social systems drive a community’s needs. Buildings and 

other infrastructure must be functional to support these social systems. Resilience must also consider the 

complexities of increasingly interdependent building and infrastructure systems, as well as the 

relationship of individuals and organizations with the built environment. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Opening Session – October 27, 2014

6

Resilience should not consider just a design level event. For the framework, we are considering a routine 

event (a smaller magnitude event that occurs relatively frequently), an expected event (the design level 

event), and an extreme event (an event that is greater than a design level event). 

Communities should set their own performance goals for their buildings and infrastructure systems. The 

methodology provides an approach to resilience that begins with performance goals that establish 

timeframes, days, weeks or months/years, in which buildings and infrastructure need to be functional to 

meet the social needs of the community.

NIST is convening highly diverse stakeholders to obtain input to be included in Version 1.0 of the 

Disaster Resilience Framework. In 2015, we will establish a Disaster Resilience Standards Panel to 

further develop the Disaster Resilience Framework (Version 2.0), and develop Model Resilience 

Guidelines that will help communities implement the framework by using model codes, standards, and 

best practices. 

Stakeholder input is critical to the success of this effort. As seen on this slide [Slide 10], there is a wide 

cross-section of stakeholders that should be involved in this process. This list is not exhaustive. The 

Federal Government also has a number of entities involved in resilience efforts, including the Executive 

Office of the President, the Departments of Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, Energy, 

Transportation, and the National Science Foundation.

The Disaster Resilience Framework focuses on the role of the built environment (i.e., buildings and 

infrastructure). The framework will: 1) Provide guidance to communities on the types of performance 

goals that can be used and ways to express them; 2) Identify existing codes, standards, and best practices 

that address resilience; 3) Identify gaps that must be addressed to achieve resilience; and 4) Capture 

regional differences in perspective on resilience. 

The DRSP will be a self-governing organization representing the broad spectrum of stakeholders. It will 

be open to anyone interested in participating and focus on developing: 1) Disaster Resilience Framework, 

Version 2.0 and 2) Model Resilience Guidelines.

The framework is being informed by these stakeholder workshops. The first workshop, held in April 

(2014) at NIST, kicked off the effort and allowed us to gather information. The second workshop, held in 

Hoboken, NJ, was used to obtain feedback on the 25% draft. Prior to this workshop, we posted the 50% 

draft. We welcome feedback on these drafts at any time. We will prepare the 75% draft for the next 

workshop in San Diego, CA, and the draft for public comment will be released in April 2015.

We thank you for being here today and encourage you to continue participating in development of the 

Disaster Resilience Framework by attending these workshops, reviewing drafts of the framework as they 

are posted to our website, and making others aware of the framework, DRSP, and workshops.

NIST is investing a lot of time and effort to help communities become more resilient. We are currently in 

the Stakeholder Engagement Phase of the program, which includes using these workshops to inform 

development of the Disaster Resilience Framework and finding stakeholders interested in participating in 

the DRSP, which will develop Version 2.0 of the framework and Model Resilience Guidelines. Our 

research initiative to develop models and tools to support decision making and investments in resilience is 

also underway. As previously mentioned, we recently selected nine Disaster Resilience Fellows who will 

contribute their expertise to areas important to making communities more resilient. We are also reviewing 

proposals for a Center of Excellence, which will further develop models for decision makers and look at 

pilot studies for communities. 

If you wish to contact me, you can do so via email (stephen.cauffman@nist.gov or resilience@nist.gov) 

or phone (301-975-6051). Our website will also be updated regularly and is the source of a lot of useful 

information for this program (http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/resilience/). 

Mr. Cauffman was followed by Dr. Therese McAllister who provided information regarding the plan for 

the day. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Opening Session – October 27, 2014

7

Summary of Dr. McAllister’s Remarks

[The slides referenced in the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

The 50% draft of the framework was posted to our website about one week before this workshop. In this 

draft, all chapters except Chapters 1 (Introduction), 10 (Existing Tools and Metrics), and 11 

(Recommendations) have been developed. We will include the final three chapters in the 75% draft. 

Chapter 2 discusses the social systems needed within a community. Chapter 3 lays out a methodology to 

set performance goals for the infrastructure that supports the social systems in Chapter 2, and evaluates

the existing built environment of a community. Chapter 4 focuses on the interdependencies of the 

different infrastructure systems, which are a very important part of the framework as our infrastructure 

systems become more reliant on one another. Chapters 5-9 focus on the individual sectors (buildings, 

transportation, energy, water, communications and information, water and wastewater). Each chapter has 

a similar format, discussing: 1) systems; 2) performance goals; 3) regulatory environment, codes and 

standards; and 4) tools and strategies to assess resilience of the systems. An outline of a companion 

document for Economic Considerations for Community Resilience has also been developed. A draft of 

this document will be available with the 75% draft. 

Today, we will have five breakout sessions that will focus on 1) Community Resilience and Metrics 

(Chapters 3 and 10); 2) Buildings (Chapter 5); 3) Infrastructure Systems, including Transportation 

(Chapter 6), Power (Chapter 7), Communication (Chapter 8), and Water/Wastewater (Chapter 9); 4) 

Social Aspects of Resilience (Chapter 2); and 5) the DRSP Charter. The breakout sessions will discuss 

and develop example community performance goals for recovery, identify key interdependencies, and for 

the framework writing team to learn about concerns and issues for community resilience.

In considering resilience, it is important to maintain acceptable levels of functionality during and after a 

disaster event. A resilient community will focus on recovering full functionality within a reasonable 

timeframe. The example performance goals in the framework [see slide 12] can be used to consider a 

given type of hazard, hazard level, affected area, and disruption level. Given these variables, performance 

goals, which are specified in terms of recovery time (days, week, months/years), can be set by a 

community using different levels of desired restoration times, such as 30%, 60%, and 90% recovery.

We include three hazard level definitions:

1. Routine – A hazard below the design level that occurs relatively frequently

2. Expected – Design level event

3. Extreme – Maximum considered event based on historic record and/or changes anticipated due to 

climate change

The affected area represents the area that is directly impacted by the event, and will likely depend on the 

type of hazard being considered. The three levels of affected areas are:

1. Localized – Damage and loss of functionality within an isolated area of the community.

2. Community – Significant damage and loss of functionality within a community that warrants the need 

for assistance from neighboring communities

3. Regional – Significant damage beyond community boundaries

We also use three levels of disruption:

1. Minor – Response and recovery handled within the community with little to no disruption.

2. Moderate – Community Emergency Operations Center (EOC) activates so response and recovery 

assistance is orchestrated locally.

3. Severe – Response and recovery efforts are beyond the capability and authority of local communities 

and outside coordination is needed to meet the needs of multiple jurisdictions.

In setting performance goals, communities will need to think about the acceptable level of damage for 

their buildings and infrastructure systems. There are four building categories identified in this 

methodology. Category A refers to buildings that must be safe and operational (e.g., hospitals). Category 
Community Resilience Workshop

Opening Session – October 27, 2014

8

B refers to buildings that can tolerate some damage as long as the building is usable. Category C refers to 

buildings that can lose functionality, but still protect life safety. Category D refers to structures that 

experience partial or full collapse. For infrastructure systems, three levels of performance are considered: 

1) resume 100% service within days; 2) resume 90% of services within weeks and 100% within months; 

and 3) resume 90% within months and 100% within years.

The interdependencies of social systems, buildings and infrastructure systems are a key consideration in 

setting performance goals and understanding the restoration needs following a disaster event. In San 

Francisco, CA, a Lifelines Council was formed and conducted a study using a scenario event – a 7.9 

magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. The plot in the slide [slide 20] illustrates the nature of 

interdependencies for that particular scenario event in that community.
Community Resilience Workshop

Afternoon General Session – October 27, 2014

9

3. Afternoon General Session – October 27, 2014 

The afternoon plenary session was conducted using an interview format. Mr. Stephen Cauffman of NIST 

moderated the discussion with Mr. Keith Stammer of the Joplin/Jasper (Missouri) County Emergency 

Management Agency and Ms. Deidre Ebrey, Director of Development and Marketing for the City of 

Moore (Oklahoma). Mr. Cauffman asked the guests questions regarding their experiences during and after 

two of the most notable recent disaster events in the region: the May 2011 Joplin, MO tornado, and the 

May 2013 Moore, OK tornado. 

Summary of Discussion

The text provided herein does not provide exact quotes.

1. Mr. Cauffman: Can you each give everyone some background on your communities and their 

geographic location?

Ms. Ebrey: Moore is a typical suburban community that is a bedroom community for Oklahoma City. 

It is landlocked on three sides by Oklahoma City and by Norman on the fourth.

Mr. Stammer: Joplin is located in the southwestern corner of Missouri. It was originally a mining 

town and its citizens are still very much blue collar. It is the largest community in its area. 

Interestingly, it has more rental units than owned homes.

2. Mr. Cauffman: Can you each describe your role in the aftermath of the tornado events you 

experienced?

Ms. Ebrey: My role was unofficial. To give some background, I was also here during the 1999 

Moore, OK tornado, and served as a consultant to the City of Moore. In the 2013 tornado, I was in 

charge of business relocation and was a contact for resources since we had a lot of outside help.

Mr. Stammer: My role was with the emergency management team. 

3. Mr. Cauffman: Can you each describe the impact of the storms? Also, can you discuss what went 

well and what went wrong?

Mr. Stammer: As a result of the 2011 tornado, about 17,000 people were impacted, including 

approximately 9,200 who were displaced. In terms of what went well, we knew all the exercises ahead 

of time and were well-prepared for the first 72 hours after the event. In terms of what went wrong, the 

scale of the disaster was beyond anything we would have anticipated. We were prepared for disasters 

that had taken place in the past, but this was something that (in terms of scale) had not been seen 

before.

Ms. Ebrey: In Moore, we are about 18 months out from the event, so we are still in the recovery 

phase. Moore had experienced two tornadoes prior to May 2013, so we felt we knew a lot about how 

to handle the recovery phase. In fact, after the Joplin, MO tornado occurred, we were giving Joplin 

information on how to deal with the situation. Then when Moore was struck again in 2013, we went 

from the “all-knowing” community to the community that was in need of help. 

One of the problems for Moore was that a high percentage of Moore’s residents commute to work. 

Since the tornado occurred during the daytime, people were trying to get back into the community to 

get to school, home, and could not because of all of the debris.

The residents were well-prepared for a tornado. A large percentage of residents have their own storm 

shelters, and that has increased even more after the most recent tornado. Many citizens also had 

enough insurance to deal with the disaster financially.

4. Mr. Cauffman: How much time did you have to prepare for the tornado?

Ms. Ebrey: We had about 20-30 minutes to prepare for the storm, but we were warned about one day 

before that there would be severe storms in the area and tornadoes were possible.
Community Resilience Workshop

Afternoon General Session – October 27, 2014

10

Mr. Stammer: We had about 60 seconds – more if you were on the east side of town, but there was 

very little warning before the tornado struck. 

5. Mr. Cauffman: How do you prioritize recovery?

Mr. Stammer: Deciding what to do is probably one of the more challenging steps in the recovery 

process because people in the community all have different ideas of what they want to do. We 

established the Citizens Advisory Recovery Team (CART) to allow the citizens to have a voice in 

deciding how to rebuild and do what is best for the community. 

There needs to be an extreme amount of communication to be able to move forward, particularly in 

the immediate aftermath of a large tornado.

Ms. Ebrey: In Moore, people wanted to rebuild the next day. Nobody wanted to wait around for 

government grants to rebuild. The design wind speed for the area was increased from 90 to 135 mph. 

The cost to rebuild to a higher standard was only about $1 per square foot and there was not really 

any push-back from the local residents. However, in other communities, there may be some push back 

on that additional expense.

6. Mr. Cauffman: What tools and metrics do you feel are needed to prepare for and respond to disasters 

like the ones you have experienced?

Mr. Stammer: Citizens were desensitized from tornado sirens, which were tested every week prior to 

the tornado. Now, they are tested every month. Changes in construction are also being made: homes 

are starting to use hurricane clips and bricks filled with concrete. 

Ms. Ebrey: We need to incentivize citizens to put storm shelters in homes. Many home builders are 

now including safe rooms in homes and using them as a selling point. 

7. Mr. Cauffman: When a tornado comes through, do different codes-built homes perform differently?

Both: No. What really makes a difference is how much people are willing to invest in their homes.

8. Mr. Cauffman: How did being on the edge of a large city help Moore? And how did not having a 

similar large city nearby Joplin impact the recovery process?

Ms. Ebrey: It was advantageous for Moore because the resources were only minutes away and since 

the type of storm has local damage, our neighbors were able and willing to help almost immediately. 

We did have help from other communities in the rebuilding process 

Mr. Stammer: Joplin was in a different situation because it is really the largest community in the 

area. Although most people only heard about Joplin, our neighboring town, The extent of damage to 

Duquesne, being a much smaller community, was disproportionately greater than that of Joplin. So, 

we were trying to help them while also recovering ourselves, which was very challenging. We also 

asked for help from other communities in the rebuilding process. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Framework Chapters 3 and 10 – Community Disaster Resilience for the Built 

Environment and Metrics

11

4. Breakout Session #1: Framework Chapters 3 and 10 – Community Disaster 

Resilience for the Built Environment and Metrics

The breakout session began by the facilitator, Mr. Walter Zalis, explaining that the session would be 

conducted using a story boarding approach. Mr. Zalis led introductions around the room. He asked 

everyone to give their name, affiliation, and their area of interest in disaster resilience. He also explained 

why we were there – To provide input that will help NIST develop a Disaster Resilience Framework that 

will help guide communities in disaster planning. Then, he reviewed definitions of resilience and disaster 

resilience as listed below:

 Resilience: The ability to “prepare for and adapt to changing conditions and withstand and 

recover rapidly from disruptions.”

 Disaster resilience: Includes determining vulnerabilities, improving the performance of the built 

environment during disaster events, and reducing recovery times and costs.

 Goal: To develop a comprehensive, community-based resilience framework and provide 

guidelines for consistently safe buildings and infrastructure – products that can inform 

development of private-sector standards and codes.

The author of Chapter 3, Mr. Chris Poland, gave a quick overview of the relationship between social 

needs and the built environment. He explained that chapters are being developed and are inter-related. He 

mentioned that the Resilient City Initiative in San Francisco was initiated by a group of concerned 

citizens (i.e., a bottom up/grassroots approach), and the Oregon Resilience Plan started from the state 

legislature (i.e., a top down/government led approach). Mr. Poland went through Chapter 3 using Figure 

3.1 from the 50% draft framework, Flow Chart for Developing Resilience Plan. The facilitator then led 

the participants’ discussion. 

Question 1: “Who should be involved in developing a resilience plan for a community and what are their 

roles and perspectives? Who initiates in the community?” 

The participants agreed that public/private partnership is a good approach. The parties involved in 

development of a resilience plan for a community should include representatives from 

utility/infrastructure system sectors, local planners, community leaders (e.g., religious, educational), 

political leaders, the local emergency planning committee, someone speaking for business continuity,

disaster-related volunteers [such as Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD)], NonGovernmental Organizations (NGOs)/community based organizations, social scientists, engineers (or 

experts knowledgeable of hazards and infrastructure performance), community policy makers, community 

decision makers, representatives from finance and insurance industry, public representative(s), especially 

those representing vulnerable population in an aging community, and federal agencies, as appropriate.

Some felt we should get managers for utility systems involved because of their overall perspective of their 

system and their ability to analyze and understand their system performance. If local emergency planning 

committee members are involved, we need to keep in mind that their perspectives are generally focused 

on mitigation and emergency operations as opposed to recovery and reconstruction. However, some local 

emergency planning committees might have expanded their scope to address all hazards, and gone 

beyond dealing with emergencies to addressing recovery. Some participants felt it is important to engage

NGOs or community-based organizations because some of them (e.g., Red Cross) focus on providing 

emergency housing, while others focus on recovery. Oklahoma City relied on NGOs for meeting their 

short- and long-term social needs. As private sectors own the majority of infrastructure in America, their 

involvement will be critical. In general, they care about restoration as “no services” translates to “no 

revenue” for them. Although they are also interested in mitigation and quick restoration, they are 

sometimes resistant to certain recommendations due to potential high costs. The participants agreed that 

we need to get political leaders and decision-makers involved as they will push the process forward. We 

need to engage representatives from the financial sector to understand long range funding for the 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Framework Chapters 3 and 10 – Community Disaster Resilience for the Built 

Environment and Metrics

12

community as well as funding mechanisms to pay for the cost for building community resilience. Since 

FEMA requires local communities to develop a natural hazards mitigation plan for their community, it is 

ideal to have the same group of people involved in working on a resilience plan. However, this may not 

be applicable to communities that hire consultants to write the plan with minimum engagement of the 

community. Since resilience is about building capacity and being adaptive to changing environment, we 

need to get everyone involved, and we need to make a transition from “make policy for the people” to 

“make policy with the people.” A summary of the community resilience planning roles discussed and 

identified by the breakout group appears in Table 1.

Table 1. Community Resilience Planning Roles

Community Resilience Planning Roles

Involved: All City/County Planning 

Departments

Emergency Managers NGOs

 (Role) Recovery

Business Organizations Decisions Maker  Needs (Perspective)

 Government

 Planning

 EOC

Private Sector 

 Role (Infrastructure)

 Restoration $$$

 Stake Holders

 Local Authorities

 Local planning agencies

 Community leaders (depends 

on type of cluster)

Business Continuity 

(Perspective)

Volunteer Organizations (e.g. 

churches, civic clubs)

Who: Citizen 

Role: Represent disadvantaged 

groups and associations

Perspective: The otherwise 

unprotected

Leaders/Initiators

(Must have authority)

Local Emergency Planning 

Committee -Enter planning 

business leaders (Pay for it)

 School/community leaders 

Finance

Funding (Role)

How to pay for it?

What’s it going to cost us? 

(Perspective)

Leaders: Decision makers 

outside of Gov. AT 

LOCAL Level

Initiate/Implement(Gov.)

Leader: Different for 

each community

 Has connection to local 

Gov. 

Social Scientist, civil engineers, 

policy makers, public/residence 

community planners

 Environmental groups

 Ecosystem services 

(Importance of marshlands)

Considerations

 Representatives of the different 

Systems

 Perspective: Overall Systems 

 Role: Ensure subsystem is 

covered

 Lead: someone who the 

community trusts

Communities should look 

to leaders – they may be 

people affected by events

Need a regional focus

People intimately familiar with 

the type of disasters that might 

occur

Community resilience is an 

emerging 

property/characteristic

Bottom-up/ top-down: 

can come either way, but 

both sides need to be 

involved to continue 

People who are good at team 

building and who recognize 

interdependences

Building and Planning 

departments

Decisions with, not for, the 

people:

 Whole-of-government 

 Whole-of-community

There must be a carrot to 

get people involved

(Incentives)

Utilities Managers – Individual 

system performance

Civic/Faith based Organizations

Engineers – Specifics of a 

system 

Community political leaders
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Framework Chapters 3 and 10 – Community Disaster Resilience for the Built 

Environment and Metrics

13

Question 2: “Who should lead the community resilience planning effort”?

The participants felt that someone independent from local government should lead the planning effort. 

Although we need local government to own and implement a resilience plan, we do not want the same 

organization to develop the plan as they might easily be persuaded by local resources and what they can 

or cannot do. 

Decision makers and policy makers should provide leadership/guidance to promote resilience. A 

community-based organization needs to organize and lead the efforts.

Who should lead depends on who is interested and motivated, and may vary, depending on a 

community’s situation. We have to recognize every community is different, and we need to look at each 

community on a case-by-case basis. San Francisco used a bottom up/community-led approach while 

Oregon used a top down/government-led approach.

The participants felt that someone outside government needs to lead planning. However, resilience 

planning efforts need endorsement from local government to ensure all relevant parties come to the table.

Building and Planning Departments are important and should be engaged. The Building Department will 

do the initial inspection before the people can move back into their homes. The Planning Department 

understands zoning and has the right people and skill sets.

Question 3: “Should building-back-better principles be used to achieve performance goals? If so, what 

principles need to be in place and why?

 If you adopt building-back-better principles, you need to be in front of the event 

 Should we list some principles?

 Learn from the past and avoid unnecessary damage to future recovery

 Agencies must be accountable to the people they seek to assist

 People in the affected area should be the decision-makers rather than external people or 

groups

 Recovery of the local economy and livelihoods must be a priority

 Reconstruction and recovery efforts must recognize diversity

 Communities should be allowed to use their own resources wherever possible

 Reconstruction must take account of future hazards and risks.

Participants stated that there have been two schools of thinking. On one side, owners of existing 

buildings/systems affected by a disaster believe it is their right to build back as before. They feel it is 

always good enough. The problem is that these buildings/systems are vulnerable for the next event. The

great opportunity of building something better ahead of the next event is wasted when the owners spend 

money and resources on rebuilding them. On the other hand, if damage surpasses a certain threshold, 

buildings/systems should be required to build back better, meet modern standards, and have resilience 

built into the systems. This will certainly improve community resilience. The question is, if the 

buildings/systems are required to build back better, who pays for the difference? And, who is required to 

build back better?

The group felt the building back better principles should be used. The rationale is that, to be better 

prepared for the next event, we will have to build back better.

Currently, insurance companies are not required to pay for building back better. The question, again, is 

who should pay for it? Some felt that the customers who use these systems should pay. A dialogue is 

needed to make that happen, but it may not be enough. We need a visionary leader who can reach out to 

the community to make it work. Building back better does not mean building back more expensively. We 

can use the same resources and build better. Some engineering system analyses can help optimize the use 

of the same resources and build better without much additional cost. Building codes and zoning are 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Framework Chapters 3 and 10 – Community Disaster Resilience for the Built 

Environment and Metrics

14

evolving already. We need to adopt current codes and standards to build better over time. After 

Superstorm Sandy, some learned from their recovery efforts that it was challenging to find qualified 

contractors, get permits, and have inspections done in time. To build better, we need active support from 

the government to augment its capacity as needed to move the project review/permit/inspection process 

more quickly.

The group agreed that building back better is not enough. We need better planning. In addition to 

improving building construction, we can reduce our risk by changing the exposure.

Assuming that adopting all codes will make the community resilient is not true. Part of the problem is that 

when each sector developed their codes and standards independently, we didn’t consider dependencies 

between different sectors. 

The goal is to attract people (including business) back to the affected area. We need to use resilience as an 

effective marketing tool (just like talking about features in the real estate arena). Also, another benefit of 

building resilience is to increase long-term cost savings (e.g., get discount on insurance), and if there is 

another similar event, a community as a whole will suffer much less damage, and be able to recover more 

quickly. The group also felt that we need to educate the public so that they will make better decisions.

Some participants felt that using a carrot and stick strategy is appropriate so we can implement continuous 

requirements to improve infrastructure (to address “grandfather” situations). 

Others felt that we need to figure out a way to market and communicate the value of resilience. There 

needs to be a marketing campaign and communication tool (e.g., rating system) for resilience value. It 

may be effective to start a social voluntary movement, motivating and influencing some political leaders. 

When there is enough support/social demand and an opportunity is present, political leaders can pass a 

law to adopt a mandatory policy similar to other policies for cigarettes and seat belts.

Although we can communicate the benefits to the public, one challenge is measuring the benefits/value of 

resilience (with appropriate tools and metrics) so that a community can account for them properly and 

justify their pre-event investment. Table 2 presents a summary of the participants’ discussion. 

Table 2. Building-Back Better Principles to Achieve Resilience

Building-back better Principles

 Consider insurance comps. 

 Should be used specifically for infrastructure systems

 Those that need to be immediately serviceable

Building codes & zoning are evolutionary- should 

have adopted more recent standards before an event

Yes, but who pays?

 Should gov. be able to force private to spend? Need Leader Augment inspection staff to 

speed/streamline approval

Improve/ 

speed process

Being anti-fragile

 -Learning from near hits Principle Planning-(Back)-better (Not just building-backbetter)

Building-back-better: yes

 Continuous x interactive improvement

 New future standards

 Part of the planning process

Attract people to return or move to area

Risk communication Long term cost savings

 Higher return on investment

 Look at not only cost but damage avoided

Market and communicable value of resilience 

Question 4: “How should communities approach the implementation of their plan? We know the 

stakeholders – what steps will ensure success of the plan? 

A summary of the input from the participants is shown in Table 3. Similar to sustainability coordination, 

the participants felt we need to establish an office of resilience or a resilience coordinator, not EOC, to 

handle resilience issues. An emergency plan is often used as a dumping ground to house challenging 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Framework Chapters 3 and 10 – Community Disaster Resilience for the Built 

Environment and Metrics

15

issues in a community. Resilience planning requires a multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted approach, and we 

need to have the right kind of people with appropriate knowledge and expertise to do that. 

Table 3. Implementing Community Resilience Planning

Community Resilience Planning Implementation

Adopt and Enforce a 

building code

Plan→ action 

→assignment 

→ Time frame

Insurance issues 

with high risk areas Non Construction

↓

Retrofit 

Programs

↓

Resilience: 

Make it part 

of the 

culture

Culture of 

risk 

mitigation

Issues with 

funding, 

schedule of 

funding

Ability 

to get in 

front of 

disasters

What 

do we 

prepare 

for?

Continuity of 

business

 Individual family 

preparedness

Stakeholder 

forum

 Community 

Process

Inspection on 

some 

buildings

Where?

Land-use policy Community 

process to 

define/develop:

 Vision/ goals

 Outcomes

Planning Department Not EOC? Office of 

Sustainability

Make flood 

insurance not 

federal subsidy

Not EOC

How: Evolving 

planning process for 

continuously 

improving resilience 

performance

Perspective: 

Current state of

resilience standards

How: 

Annual/regular 

inspection (Like 

vehicles)

Public 

Knowledge of 

exposure

Office of Resilience/ 

Coordinator (like 

sustainability 

coordinators) 

Targeted land buyback program to 

improve resilience

Rebuilding for 

resilience

Question 5: “What non-construction programs could be instituted? Who should be involved in these 

programs and what are their roles and perspectives? What would the role of a resilience implementation 

office in a community and where should it be located? Government function? City builders? Mayor’s 

office?”

The participants felt that some hazards (e.g., tsunami and flooding) can be avoided. Land use policy can

reduce risk exposure. Additionally, we need to have a policy in place to disclose hazards prior to a real 

estate transaction. However, land use policy in some areas might be politically charged. Following the 

1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, California passed the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act of 1990. This Act 

directs the Department of Conservation to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, landslides, etc., 

and requires mitigation measures prior to permitting development for human occupancy as needed. Land 

use policy can be especially effective for two scenarios: 1) undeveloped land; and 2) reconstruction after 

an event.

The group felt it would be appropriate to ask the federal government to stop subsidizing flood insurance 

such that insurance premiums truly reflect the hazards and costs. The participants felt that hazards need to 

be clearly communicated to the public. If someone chooses to build in a high hazard area, they need to 

pay high insurance premiums instead of being subsidized by the government. Currently, public bailout 

and government subsidy may make it harder for the public to change their behavior.

Participants felt there would be value in getting all businesses in a community to do business continuity 

planning and preparation. A lot of businesses do not plan and prepare for business disruption. If every 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Framework Chapters 3 and 10 – Community Disaster Resilience for the Built 

Environment and Metrics

16

business in a community does continuity planning and preparation, this will significantly improve 

community resilience. Similarly, homeowners need to prepare so they reduce demand on city systems and 

services if they can do more for themselves at home. We need to educate the public about why they need

to prepare at home, just like why business continuity plans are needed.

Emergency response after an event is critical for any community. Emergency managers tend to focus on 

the first three to seven days after an event. Community resilience is more than just emergency response. It 

requires our attention to look at needs of the recovery and reconstruction phases. We need to look at longterm (e.g., 50-year) planning for a better future. If we don’t have a plan in place, communities will not be 

ready, and will miss opportunities to rebuild better when funds are available to invest. 

For many of the cities selected as one of the hundred resilient cities by the Rockefeller Foundation, they 

have Chief Resilience Offices that head an umbrella organization to bring all the pieces together. Some 

participants felt that planning departments may be good candidates for implementing a resilience plan

because they have the right people, skill sets, and understand zoning, planning, and infrastructure. 

Having a resilience office makes sense for a community with a lot of resources. But for many small rural 

communities with limited resources, participants pointed out that it will be a challenge to establish a 

resilience office. The participants suggested that it may be more realistic to have a regionally shared 

solution by grouping mid-sized and small-sized communities to pool their resources.

Question 6: “Do mandatory retrofit programs make sense for your community? If so, what programs need 

to be in place and why?”

First, participants discussed the need to adopt/enforce building codes. They also stated that it is cost 

effective for small communities to build resilience over time. Institutionalizing resilience to make it a part 

of community culture and a paradigm shift would be key to success of a framework/program. It is 

important to convince people that resilience is not something short term – it is a long-term goal.

The group felt there is a parallel between sustainability and resilience. We can learn a lot from 

sustainability on how to move forward in promoting resilience. Sustainability professionals make a good 

economic case. We need to figure out a way to calculate the value of resilience so we can justify 

investments, as is done in sustainability practice.

To address the challenge associated with rural communities, we may want to consider pairing 

communities with lots of resilience planning experience with communities beginning the planning 

process so they can develop their resilience plan more efficiently.

Participants felt that getting businesses to the table is imperative. We need to get big and small businesses 

to see lifeline services beyond their buildings. Many big businesses have a very good handle on their risk 

management. However, they tend to only focus on their own facilities. Once they understand their 

business risk, they will be more likely to support community resilience and even contribute to resilience 

planning and implementation.

The afternoon session discussed tools and metrics that could be used to measure resilience of a 

community. The group discussed if it would be better to develop and use an all-encompassing single 

tool/metric for an entire community or whether a suite of metrics would be more appropriate. The general 

consensus was that a suite of metrics was preferred. 

The group also discussed what could be used as a metric. Some of suggestions provided for metrics by the 

participants included:

 Tracking building and demolition permits

 Percentage of households/businesses without power

 Tracking property and sales taxes

 Number of households/businesses displaced
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Framework Chapters 3 and 10 – Community Disaster Resilience for the Built 

Environment and Metrics

17

 Unemployment percentage

 Network redundancy

A participant also noted that in Christchurch, New Zealand, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 

measured monthly, which may be a good idea, particularly in communities in the recovery process after a 

disaster event. Others felt that monetary values were important metrics for resilience, including return on 

investment, benefit-cost analysis, life cycle costs, and losses avoided. The group also discussed the 

potential to measure a community’s resilience after a disaster event by recording the number of 

businesses that re-establish vs. the number that are replaced with something else. 

One of the challenges the group discussed, associated with metrics relating to economic losses, was that 

there are many different views regarding what are direct losses and what are indirect losses. This is an 

issue that needs to be clear in establishing a tool/metric, including the use of indirect losses. Furthermore, 

the economic impact for a community is not always restricted to just the community impacted by a 

disaster event. There are some communities that have national importance and disruption to those 

communities can have regional or even national economic impacts. For example, significant disruption to 

a community with a major port will have economic impact beyond that particular community. 

The breakout group also discussed how to account for some counter-intuitive concepts. For example, 

participants felt that “higher-end” communities sometimes demand/expect more assistance than 

communities with fewer resources. 

Participants discussed the idea of “brittle vs. ductile” communities. A brittle community is one that easily 

breaks down during or after a disaster event and has difficulty recovering. A ductile community is one 

that can cope with disaster events and come back even stronger than before in a relatively short 

timeframe. One key factor that may allow a community to be more ductile, and thus more resilient, is 

having economic diversity. A brittle community may have few employers that employ the majority of the 

population.

The group also discussed the need to have recovery plans in place pre-event rather than scrambling after 

an event to put something together. At the end of the discussion, the participants were given “dots” so that 

they could vote on what they felt were the most important considerations for resilience metrics. As seen in 

Table 4, the participants felt that a post disaster economic recovery model was needed. The group also felt 

strongly about ensuring recovery plans were in place before a disaster occurred and cost-benefit analysis 

could be performed to justify and sell the investment in becoming more resilient. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Framework Chapters 3 and 10 – Community Disaster Resilience for the Built Environment and Metrics

18

Table 4. Tools and Metrics for Evaluating Disaster Resilience

Tools/Metrics for Evaluating Disaster Resilience

Tools

Community Level Examples Sector Level Examples Sociological Examples

SPUR Resilient City Hazus-MH (REMA GIS Tool) 

Earthquake, flood, hurricanes

US Resilience Council Rating System (Building Sector) Canterbury Wellbeing Index (N2-post quake)

Oregon (Policy 

options)

UN Disaster Resilience 

Scorecard

RAMCAP (DHS-water& wastewater) Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) (Predicted bounce-back)

CARI CRS Optimal recovery sequencing for enhanced resilience Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities 

Metrics

Measure Recovery

Post 

Event

←Recovery Time 

(Measure) → 

Prioritize Resilience Alternatives

Pre and During 

Event

Requires a Culture 

Change (Terrorism 

example)

Capacity of what’s 

left vs. alternative 



Post 

economic 

recover model 





Coupled 

resilience 

metrics e.g. 

social and 

infrastructure



Social/economic 

impact on 

neighboring 

communities and 

nation 

Distinguish

-Leading

-Concurrent

-Post-event indicator 

Pre-stress, Precapabilities Level of Redundancy  What are interdependences 

Coded standards 

community resources: 

Recovery at different 

levels 

More detailed 

metric – multidimensional 

metric

Avoiding Silo Service availability 



Identify 

“essential 

variables” to be 

measured

Scenario-based planning tools-

“what if” measurement

 An ability for user to change 

parameter and examine 

outcomes 

How fast can we clear 

debris? How much is 

removed? 

Sector level can be quantitative level 

of damage - infrastructure, 

subsystems (buildings, roads, 

bridges, power) 

Recovery Plans in place 

(governance)



Return on 

investment/ 

value of 

mitigation

Quantitative measure of resilience

Ratio of 

fatalities/damage to 

affected/ at risk 

Building-back-better: 

Need to be in front of the 

event

Cost-Benefit 

analysis

Compare socio-economic impact 

pre-event

Debris-Before: Amount 

After: Rate of cleanup
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Framework Chapters 3 and 10 – Community Disaster Resilience for the Built 

Environment and Metrics

19

On the second day of the workshop (October 28, 2014), the breakout group reconvened. The facilitator 

then asked the following topic questions to continue with the same storyboarding process. 

 “Communities are different – what do they consider to be their community/economic plan? What 

kind of long range plans do communities have? Where should resilience plans go? 

 How can a resilience plan be integrated into the community economic development plan? What 

steps need to be taken?”

The participants felt that a resilience plan needs to be a standalone plan. However, the resilience plan 

should be integrated into most community plans – natural hazard mitigation plan, emergency operations 

plan, disaster recovery plan, economic plans, comprehensive plans, etc. An emergency operations plan is 

also closely related to a resilience plan for phase 1 of response activities. There is also some overlap 

between the 50% draft resilience framework phases 2 and 3 and a disaster recovery plan. Economic 

development, comprehensive, and capital improvement plans should be linked with resilience plans so 

that these plans will lead to building the infrastructure capacity we need to meet our social needs in the 

response and recovery phases. 

Some participants felt that resilience plans have to be developed at the regional rather than the community 

level. Participants also felt there is a need to reach across state and county lines. Some felt that what we 

are doing is critical for the long-term; however, it may not be used as it may be challenging to get 

communities to buy-into its use politically. One of the strongest long-term tools is codes and standards. 

Codes and standards are moving toward nationally based codes and standards. One key outcome of this 

initiative is to make recommendations on how to change codes and standards. In the long-term, we will 

start to build better and become more resilient as a result. 

The group re-iterated the need to ensure inclusion of both urban and rural areas with an adaptable 

framework. Rural communities generally have limitations due to a lack of resources, and may not have 

community plans. Some felt that a rural regional economic plan might be a viable conduit. Since some 

multi-county organizations are looking at regional economic development plans, they would probably be 

open to looking at resilience plans as local communities may not have resources to develop their own 

resilience plans.

To finish off the two days of breakout sessions, the group worked to identify the key concepts discussed 

that would be presented to the rest of workshop participants. The agreed upon summary is discussed in 

Section 10. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Framework Chapters 3 and 10 – Community Disaster Resilience for the Built Environment and Metrics

20

Table 5. Resilience Planning Integration

Resilience Planning Integration

Strategies Stakeholder 

Access San Francisco Model Parking Lot

Develop codes and standards 

that support the resilience plan, 

then laws to enforce.

Evolve/adapt existing rules, 

plans, and permits

Utility/Services 

managers

Organize a citizens 

advisory committee for 

resilience planning

Add resilience 

needs to the capital 

plan

Climate and disasters are 

changing- we should look more to 

how things are evolving vs/ 

disasters in the past

Funding for disaster resilience 

not always for plan itselfoften for tools to define plan 

itself. 

Resilience plan needs to go 

with an agency/office with 

resources and positional 

authority to enact its 

recommendations

Business, 

commerce, 

interest/rep groups

Form a lifelines council for 

planning and 

interdependency 

identification

Create a resilience 

improvement office 

with Chief 

Resilience officer 

Concern: Will/how this 

framework will be 

introduced/implemented

Standalone plan

Link it to existing plans

 Hazard mitigation

 EOP

 Recovery 

 Comprehensive Plan

 Capital Improvements Plan

Must allow for an updated 

plan process (Continuous)

Community, 

stakeholder, citizen 

groups

Add key resilience 

concepts to the general 

plan

Work where necessary, live where 

it’s safe

Resilience plans = Economic 

development plans (No new 

label)

Permitting units

Plans: City vs. Rural

Solid waste management (not just 

waste water)

Resilience plans 

should be 

regional

 Will not work 

by city or 

Community

National 

Codes 

and 

Standards 

to help 

facilitate 

process?

Resilience needs own track, 

but other plans should tie 

to/draw from the plan

Development 

planning Units

Require Resilience plans for all committees Human supports:

 -Counselors (post) 

 -Education (pre)

Resilience offices produces

annual scorecard of resilience 

metrics in primary plans

Urban vs. Rural differences Provisions for law enforcement in 

the event of insufficiencies 

Resilience “Plan” is part of 

all plans 

 Looks at the long-term

Rural (regional) economic development plans 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #2: Framework Chapter 5 – Buildings Sector

21

5. Breakout Session #2: Framework Chapter 5 – Buildings Sector 

The buildings sector began with the facilitator, Ms. Ann Terranova of URS, leading introductions of the 

breakout group participants. The chapter author, Mr. Robert Pekelnicki, then provided an overview of the 

chapter and how it is being developed. He discussed development of the example performance goals and 

informed the group that much of the conversation during the breakout would be guided by the example 

performance goals. The facilitator then laid out how the breakout sessions would be formatted. The 

participants would use worksheets that showed the example performance goals from the 50% draft 

framework (see Table 6), and comment on what considerations might be needed for communities to 

accomplish those goals. The group was reminded that the example goals were for an expected event, with 

moderate disruption. The intention of this exercise was not to help establish performance goals for use by 

all communities in the country. Rather, the exercise was intended to obtain stakeholder input on what 

factors an individual community should consider to achieve advanced performance goals.

Within the buildings sector breakout, participants were split into sub-groups to discuss the various 

functional categories. Once the sub-groups discussed the example performance goals and what 

considerations might be taken into account by communities, the sub-groups discussed their thoughts with 

the larger group. 

When discussing the Critical Facilities building cluster, the participants felt a large amount of funding 

would be needed to achieve advanced performance goals. When discussing the Emergency Housing 

building cluster, the group felt that using performance goals in the context of being hazard neutral was 

difficult to do realistically. For example, sheltering-in-place may be reasonable with certain types of 

hazards, but not others. It was also discussed that hazards may dictate the expected performance of 

buildings (i.e., design philosophies and types of damage are not the same for all hazard types).

In terms of identifying recovery levels for the performance goals, the group felt that using 25%, 50%, 

75%, and 90% may provide more flexibility to communities rather than 30%, 60%, and 90% as is

currently used in the 50% draft of the framework.

When discussing the Housing/Neighborhoods building cluster, the group felt that “Neighborhoods” was a 

more appropriate title because the infrastructure was dealing with an entire neighborhood, not just 

housing. Some participants felt that spiritual centers, such as churches, should have less stringent 

performance goals because they are not typically designed to be strong buildings and there are often no 

fire alarms in sanctuaries. The group did feel that performance goals for schools should be more advanced 

because vulnerable populations occupy these facilities frequently. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #2: Framework Chapter 5 – Buildings Sector

22

Table 6. Example Performance Goals Worksheet for Building Sector Breakout Group

Disturbance Restoration times

(1) Hazard Any (2) 30% Restored

Hazard Level Expected 60% Restored

Affected Area Community 90% Restored

Disruption Level Moderate (3) X Current

Functional Category: 

Cluster (4) Support Needed (5) Target Goal

Overall Recovery Time for Hazard and Level Listed Comments on 1) functional 

category clusters; 2) desired 

performance goals; 3) tools and 

capabilities needed to achieve 

performance goals

Phase 1 -- Response Phase 2 -- Workforce Phase 3 -- Community

Days 

0

Days

1

Days

1-3

Wks

1-4

Wks

4-8

Wks

8-12

Mos

4

Mos

4-36

Mos

36+

Critical Facilities A

Emergency Operation Centers 90%

First Responder Facilities 90%

Acute Care Hospitals 90%

Emergency Housing B

Temporary Emergency Shelters 90%

Single and Multi-family Housing 90%

Housing/Neighborhoods B

Critical Retail 30% 60% 90%

Churches and Spiritual Centers 30% 60% 90%

Schools 30% 60% 90%

Community Recovery C

Businesses 30% 60% 90%

Footnotes:

1 Specify hazard being considered

Specify level -- Routine, Expected, Extreme

Specify the size of the area affected - localized, community, regional

Specify severity of disruption - minor, moderate, severe

2 30% 60% 90% Restoration times relate to number of elements of each cluster

3 X Estimated restoration time for current conditions based on design standards and current inventory

Relates to each cluster or category and represents the level of restoration of service to that cluster or category

Listing for each category should represent the full range for the related clusters

Category recovery times will be shown on the Summary Matrix

"X" represents the recovery time anticipated to achieve a 90% recovery level for the current conditions

4 Indicate levels of support anticipated by plan

R Regional

S State

MS Multi-state

C Civil Corporate Citizenship 

5 Indicate minimum performance category for all new construction. 

See Section 3.2.6
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #2: Framework Chapter 5 – Buildings Sector

23

The group also felt that the Community Recovery building cluster could just be named “Recovery.” 

Participants felt that it would be important for communities to distinguish between small and global 

businesses because their needs and resources are both different. Furthermore, the group also stated that 

the impact on the supply chain was a key consideration in establishing performance goals. 

Once the breakout group had discussed the example performance goals and what communities would 

need to consider in setting their own performance goals, the group discussed the dependencies on other 

sectors (power, water, transportation, and communications). The participants were asked to identify the 

key dependencies on other sectors so the building sector could achieve its performance goals. 

Furthermore, the key dependencies on other sectors were to be identified for each of the recovery phases 

presented in the performance goals table: Phase 1 – Response, Phase 2 – Workforce, and Phase 3 –

Community. 

For the response phase, the participants identified a number of dependencies on social systems, including 

emergency care, food and medical distribution, and shelters that accommodate pets. The group also felt 

transportation was needed to get from point A to B for first responders and as a means to evacuate if 

necessary. Participants felt that water was needed for critical facilities, fire suppression, and steam. They

also discussed the need for communications systems to be online to communicate with EOCs, emergency 

dispatch and first responders.

When discussing the second and third phases, participants felt that the dependencies were largely the 

same. The group felt that planning/building department permits would be needed to start the rebuilding 

process. In many disaster events, debris removal is an important issue to allow transportation system use. 

Furthermore, getting public transportation up-and-running was seen as important. Participants also felt 

that power was essential in the longer-term. The group discussed the need for critical facilities beyond 72 

hours after an event because back-up power (e.g., generators) is not often provided beyond that 

timeframe. Participants also discussed power for housing and retail. Participants felt the need for potable 

water and a source for fire suppression were very important as well as wastewater capabilities for 

residences. For retail and other businesses to become fully operational again, functioning internet was 

also seen as a necessity.

After the group identified dependencies on other sectors, the participants were given “dots” to vote on the 

top 3 dependencies on other sectors for each recovery phase. For the response phase, the results were:

 Communications for EOC (5 votes)

 Open roadways for transportation (4 votes)

 Emergency care (3 votes)

 Food and medical distributions (3 votes)

 Water and steam for critical facilities (2 votes)

 Shelters and accommodating events (2 votes)

For the second and third recovery phases, the results were as follows:

 Power needed for critical facilities after 72 hours (5 votes)

 Potable water for housing (3 votes)

 Start rebuilding (3 votes)

 Water for fire suppression (2 votes)

 Debris removal so transportation system can be used (2 votes)

On the second day of the workshop (October 28, 2014), the breakout group reconvened after the 

discussion of interdependencies with all the participants (see Section 9). The facilitator instructed the 

participants to return to the subgroups that were formed on the first day of the workshop. Within those 

subgroups, participants were asked to revisit the example performance goals from the first day and 

discuss the impacts of the dependencies from other sectors on the building sector. Specifically, do the 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #2: Framework Chapter 5 – Buildings Sector

24

dependencies of other sectors indicate that the example performance goals need to be adjusted to support 

other systems?

Once the sub-groups discussed the impacts of the dependencies of other sectors, the group discussed the 

changes as a whole. With respect to the Critical Facilities building cluster, the group felt that the buildings 

themselves relied more on other infrastructure than the other way around. Specifically, the group 

identified the need for water, wastewater, power, and other services. Participants felt other sectors must 

consider the need for an EOC in their dependency assessment. Overall, the participants felt the example 

performance goals for the Critical Facilities building cluster were reasonable.

When discussing the Emergency Housing building cluster, the group discussed that some temporary 

emergency shelters would need to be in place on Day 0 to meet the needs of social systems. However, the 

group did feel that performance goals for single family homes could be relaxed somewhat depending on 

the type of hazard and expectations within a given community given a particular disaster event.

When discussing the Neighborhoods building cluster, participants felt other sectors did not impact most 

of the buildings considered. However, for manufacturing industry, participants noted that communities 

would need to assess power/utility provider goals to determine if a shift was required. 

For the Recovery building cluster, the groups felt a timeframe of 4-36 months was too long. Some 

participants felt taking longer than 24 months to recover would mean your community was not resilient 

and many businesses, stadiums, conference centers, etc., would not return.

To finish off the two days of breakout sessions, the group worked to identify the key concepts discussed 

that would be presented to the rest of workshop participants. The agreed upon summary is discussed in 

Section 10. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

25

6. Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

The infrastructure systems breakout group was unique in that it contained participants from multiple 

sectors: Transportation, power/energy, communication and information systems, and water/wastewater. 

The session began with the facilitator, Mr. Mauricio Justiniano of Energetics Inc., leading introductions of 

the participants. 

One of the chapter authors, Mr. David Mizzen (co-author of the communications chapter), then presented 

an overview of how the infrastructure system chapters are being developed. The other chapter authors, 

Ms. Erin Ashley (transportation), Mr. Scott Tezak (energy), and Ms. Adrienne Sheldon 

(water/wastewater), each provided the specifics of how their individual chapters are being developed and 

where they are looking for input from stakeholders. Mr. Mizzen then gave an overview of the goals of the 

breakout sessions and emphasized that participants were encouraged to provide feedback directly on the 

50% draft chapters at any time. 

The facilitator explained to the breakout group that subgroups would be formed for each of the sectors 

and they would be provided with worksheets that showed the example performance goals from the 50% 

draft framework, as shown in Table 7 through Table 11. The participants formed subgroups 

corresponding to their sector of expertise/interest and worked with the chapter authors to evaluate the 

example performance goals for an expected event with moderate disruption. Worksheets were provided to 

the subgroups, which used the performance goals as a guide to discuss what communities need to 

consider when setting their own performance goals. The performance goals presented to the subgroups 

were not intended for adaption by all communities in the country. Rather, they were used by the chapter 

authors to get input from the stakeholders as to what resources, interdependencies and/or barriers exist in 

communities and what tools would be needed to accomplish performance goals for resilient infrastructure 

systems. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

26

Table 7. Example Performance Goals Worksheet for Transportation Sector Breakout Group

Disturbance Restoration times

(1) Hazard Any (2) 30% Restored

Hazard Level Expected 60% Restored

Affected Area Community 90% Restored

Disruption Level Moderate (3) X Current

Functional Category: 

Cluster

(4) Support 

Needed

(5) Target 

Goal

Overall Recovery Time for Hazard and Level Listed Comments on 1) functional 

category clusters; 2) desired 

performance goals; 3) tools 

and capabilities needed to 

achieve performance goals

Phase 1 -- Response Phase 2 -- Workforce Phase 3 -- Community

Days 

0

Days

1

Days

1-3

Wks

1-4

Wks

4-8

Wks

8-12

Mos

4

Mos

4-36

Mos

36+

Ingress (goods, services, disaster relief) A

Regional Airport 90% X

National/International Airport 90% X

Marine Port 90%

Ferry Terminal 90% X

Subway Station 90% X

Rail Station, Local 90% X

Rail Station, Regional 90% X

Rail Station, National 90% X

Egress (emergency egress, evacuation, etc) 1

Bridge 90% X

Tunnel 90% X

local freeway 90%

state freeway 90%

National freeway 90%

Subway 30% X

Ferry 90% X

Regional Airport 30% X

National/Int'l Airport 30% X

Rail Local 30% X

Rail Regional 30% X

Bus 90% X

Community resilience

Critical Facilities A

Hospitals 60% 90%

Police and Fire Stations 60% 90%

Emergency Operational Centers 60% 90%
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

27

Functional Category: 

Cluster

(4) Support 

Needed

(5) Target 

Goal

Overall Recovery Time for Hazard and Level Listed Comments on 1) functional 

category clusters; 2) desired 

performance goals; 3) tools 

and capabilities needed to 

achieve performance goals

Phase 1 -- Response Phase 2 -- Workforce Phase 3 -- Community

Days 

0

Days

1

Days

1-3

Wks

1-4

Wks

4-8

Wks

8-12

Mos

4

Mos

4-36

Mos

36+

Emergency Housing B

Residences 60% 90%

Emergency Responder Housing 90%

Public Shelters 90%

Housing/Neighborhoods B

Essential City Service Facilities 90%

Schools 60% 90%

Medical Provider Offices 90%

Retail 90%

Community Recovery C

Residences 30% 60% 90%

Neighborhood retail 30% 60% 90%

Offices and work places 90% X

Non-emergency City Services 30% 60% 90%

All businesses 30% 60% 90%
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

28

Table 8. Example Performance Goals Worksheet for Power/Energy Sector Breakout Group

Disturbance Restoration times

(1) Hazard Any (2) 10% Restored

Hazard Level Expected 30% Restored

Affected Area Community 60% Restored

Disruption Level Moderate 90% Restored

(3) X Current

90% At Goal

Functional Category: 

Cluster

(4) 

Support 

Needed

(5) 

Target 

Goal

Overall Recovery Time for Hazard and Level Listed Comments on 1) functional category 

clusters; 2) desired performance 

goals; 3) tools and capabilities needed 

to achieve performance goals

Phase 1 --

Response

Phase 2 --

Workforce

Phase 3 --

Community

Days 

0

Days

1

Days

1-3

Wks

1-4

Wks

4-8

Wks

8-12

Mos

4

Mos

4-36

Mos

36+

Power - Electric Utilities

Generation 1

Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Systems R/C 10% 30% 60% 90%

Emergency Housing and Support Systems R/C 10% 30% 60% 90%

Housing and Neighborhood infrastructure R/C 30% 60% 90%

Community Recovery Infrastructure R/C 30% 60% 90%

Transmission (inculding Substations) 1

Critical Response Facilities and Support Systems

Hospitals, Police and Fire Stations 10% 30% 60% 90%

Emergency Operations Centers 10% 30% 60% 90%

Disaster debris/recycling centers 10% 30% 60% 90%

Related lifeline systems 10% 30% 60% 90%

Emergency Housing and Support Systems

Public Shelters (General Population, Animal, etc.) 30% 60% 90%

Food distribution centers 30% 60% 90%

Nursing homes, transitional housing 30% 60% 90%

Emergency shelter for response/recovery workforce 30% 60% 90%

Related Lifeline Systems including recharging stations/banking facilities 30% 60% 90%

Housing and Neighborhood infrastructure

Essential city services facilities 30% 60% 90%

Schools 30% 60% 90%

Medical provider offices 30% 60% 90%

Houses of worship/meditation/ exercise

Buildings/space for social services (e.g., child services) and prosecution 

activities

Food distribution from local grocery stores (location known by community) 30% 60% 90% X

Community Recovery Infrastructure 

Residential housing restoration 30% 60% 90%

Commercial and industrial businesses 30% 60% 90%

Non-emergency city services 30% 60% 90%
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

29

Functional Category: 

Cluster

(4) 

Support 

Needed

(5) 

Target 

Goal

Overall Recovery Time for Hazard and Level Listed Comments on 1) functional category 

clusters; 2) desired performance 

goals; 3) tools and capabilities needed 

to achieve performance goals

Phase 1 --

Response

Phase 2 --

Workforce

Phase 3 --

Community

Days 

0

Days

1

Days

1-3

Wks

1-4

Wks

4-8

Wks

8-12

Mos

4

Mos

4-36

Mos

36+

Distribution

Critical Response Facilities and Support Systems 1

Hospitals, Police and Fire Stations 10% 30% 60% 90%

Emergency Operations Centers 10% 30% 60% 90%

Disaster debris/recycling centers 10% 30% 60% 90%

Related lifeline systems 10% 30% 60% 90%

Emergency Housing and Support Systems

Public Shelters (General Population, Animal, etc.) 30% 60% 90%

Residential Shelter-in-place 30% 60% 90%

Food distribution centers 30% 60% 90%

Nursing homes, transitional housing 30% 60% 90%

Emergency shelter for response/recovery workforce 30% 60% 90%

Related Lifeline Systems including recharging stations and banking facilities 30% 60% 90%

Housing and Neighborhood infrastructure

Essential city services facilities 30% 60% 90%

Schools 30% 60% 90%

Medical provider offices 30% 60% 90%

Houses of worship/meditation/ exercise 30% 60% 90%

Buildings/space for social services (e.g., child services) and prosecution 

activities 30% 60% 90%

Food distribution from local grocery stores (location known by community) 30% 60% 90% X

Community Recovery Infrastructure 

Residential housing restoration 30% 60% 90%

Commercial and industrial businesses 30% 60% 90%

Non-emergency city services 30% 60% 90%

Related lifeline systems 30% 60% 90%
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

30

Table 9. Example Performance Goals Worksheet for Communications Sector Breakout Group

Disturbance Restoration times

(1) Hazard Any (2) 30% Restored

Hazard Level Expected 60% Restored

Affected Area Community 90% Restored

Disruption Level Moderate (3) X Current or At Goal

Functional Category: 

Cluster

(4) 

Support 

Needed

(5) 

Target 

Goal

Overall Recovery Time for Hazard and Level Listed Comments on 1) functional category 

clusters; 2) desired performance goals; 

3) tools and capabilities needed to 

achieve performance goals

Phase 1 --

Response

Phase 2 --

Workforce

Phase 3 --

Community

Days 

0

Days

1

Days

1-3

Wks

1-4

Wks

4-8

Wks

8-12

Mos

4

Mos

4-36

Mos

36+

Nodes/Exchange/Switching Points A

Central Offices 90% X

Buildings Containing Exchanges 90% X

Internet Exchange Point (IXP) 90% X

Towers A

Free Standing Cell Phone Towers 90% X

Towers Mounted on Buildings 90% X

Distribution lines to ...

Critical Facilities 1

Hospitals 90% X

Police and fire stations 90% X

Emergency Operation Center 90% X

Emergency Housing 1

Residences 60% 90% X

Emergency responder housing 60% 90% X

Public Shelters 60% 90% X

Housing/Neighborhoods 2

Essential City Service Facilities 30% 90% X

Schools 30% 90% X

Medical Provider Offices 30% 90% X

Retail 30% 90% X

Community Recovery Infrastructure 3

Residences 30% 90% X

Neighborhood Retail 30% 90% X

Offices and Work Places 30% 90% X

Non-Emergency City Services 30% 90% X

Businesses 30% 90% X
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

31

Table 10. Example Performance Goals Worksheet for Water Sector Breakout Group

Disturbance Restoration times

(1) Hazard Any (2) 30% Restored

Hazard Level Expected 60% Restored

Affected Area Community 90% Restored

Disruption Level Moderate (3) X Current

Functional Category: 

Cluster

(4) 

Support 

Needed

(5) 

Target 

Goal

Overall Recovery Time for Hazard and Level Listed Comments on 1) functional category 

clusters; 2) desired performance 

goals; 3) tools and capabilities needed 

to achieve performance goals

Phase 1 –

Response

Phase 2 --

Workforce

Phase 3 --

Community

Days 

0

Days

1

Days

1-3

Wks

1-4

Wks

4-8

Wks

8-12

Mos

4

Mos

4-36

Mos

36+

Source 1

Potable water at supply (WTP, wells, impoundment) 30% 60% 90% X

Water for fire suppression at key supply points 90% X

Transmission (inculding Substations) 1

Backbone transmission facilities (pipelines, pump stations, and 

reservoirs) 90% X

Distribution

Critical Facilities 1

Hospitals, EOC, Police Station, Fire Stations 60% 90% X

Emergency Housing 1

Emergency Shelters 60% 90% X

Housing/Neighborhoods 2

Drink water available at community distribution centers 60% 90%

Water for fire suppression at fire hydrants 90% X

Community Recovery Infrastructure 3

All other clusters 30% 90% X
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

32

Table 11. Example Performance Goals Worksheet for Wastewater Sector Breakout Group

Disturbance Restoration times

(1) Hazard Any (2) 30% Restored

Hazard Level Expected 60% Restored

Affected Area Community 90% Restored

Disruption Level Moderate (3) X Current

Functional Category: 

Cluster

(4) 

Support 

Needed

(5) 

Target 

Goal

Overall Recovery Time for Hazard and Level Listed Comments on 1) functional 

category clusters; 2) desired 

performance goals; 3) tools 

and capabilities needed to 

achieve performance goals

Phase 1 – Response Phase 2 -- Workforce

Phase 3 --

Community

Days 

0

Days

1

Days

1-3

Wks

1-4

Wks

4-8

Wks

8-12

Mos

4

Mos

4-36

Mos

36+

Treatment Plants

Treatment plants operating with primary treatment and disinfection 60% 90%

Treatment plants operating to meet regulatory requirements 30% 60% 90% X

Trunk Lines

Backbone collection facilities (major trunklines and pump stations) 30% 60% 90% X

Collection Lines

Critical Facilities 

Hospitals, EOC, Police Station, Fire Stations 30% 90% X

Emergency Housing

Emergency Shelters 30% 90% X

Housing/Neighborhoods

Threats to public health and safety controlled by containing & 

routing raw sewage away from public

30% 60% 90% X

Community Recovery Infrastructure 

All other clusters 30% 60% 90% X

Footnotes:

1 Specify hazard being considered

Specify level -- Routine, Expected, Extreme

Specify the size of the area affected - localized, community, regional

Specify severity of disruption - minor, moderate, severe

2 30% 60% 90% Restoration times relate to number of elements of each cluster

3 X Estimated restoration time for current conditions based on design standards and current inventory

Relates to each cluster or category and represents the level of restoration of service to that cluster or category

Listing for each category should represent the full range for the related clusters

Category recovery times will be shown on the Summary Matrix

"X" represents the recovery time anticipated to achieve a 90% recovery level for the current conditions

4 Indicate levels of support anticipated by plan

R Regional

S State

MS Multi-state

C Civil Corporate Citizenship 

5 Indicate minimum performance category for all new construction. 

See Section 3.2.6
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

33

Performance Goal Discussions

Transportation Sector. The transportation subgroup discussed the need to understand the transportation 

system as a network to address resilience. For example, national and state highways serve more than just 

individual communities by serving as links between communities. Arterial roads serve counties and large 

municipalities, while local roads allow people and goods to be transported to their final destinations. 

Furthermore, communities must also consider road capacity to determine the overall capacity of the road 

network and understand what will happen if links in the network are lost during a disaster event.

Participants thought that pipelines should be included in the transportation chapter, with a different set of 

performance goals being developed for pipelines. The group also discussed making changes to the 

clusters within the functional categories. They felt that buses could be removed from the performance 

goals table because it was a method of transportation rather than supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, 

there was discussion of the need to add military airports, particularly for extreme disaster events.

With respect to the ability to measure resilience, the group discussed the need for communities to 

document the infrastructure conditions. The participants also felt that changing conditions/hazards should 

be accounted for in predicting the performance of transportation infrastructure in a disaster event. In the 

response phase, the ability to complete rapid damage assessments is vital to recovery of transportation 

infrastructure. 

Power/Energy Sector. The power subgroup thought that the example performance goals shown in the 

50% draft framework were not advanced enough for an expected event. The participants believed that the 

expectation should be for power generation to be recovered within the response phase of recovery for an 

expected event. 

The group also was of the opinion that that another functional category, called “critical industry,” with 

more advanced performance goals should be listed to support recovery of industries critical to a 

community’s recovery process. The building clusters categorized as critical industry would vary by 

community. For example, in a town where a manufacturer employs a large percentage of the residents and 

drives the economy, the restoration of power to that manufacturer would be a high priority that required 

an advanced performance goal to support community recovery.

When discussing the Emergency Housing and Support Systems cluster, participants discussed the need 

for different tools that supported different energy sources. The main point was that measures are different 

for gas and electric energy. Participants also cautioned the author about producing prescriptive language 

in the document because it would not work for resilience and reliability – there needs to be room for 

innovation.

Communication Sector. In the communications subgroup, participants agreed that the example 

performance goals shown in the 50% draft framework were reasonable. However, the group suggested 

that the functional levels be revised to more accurately represent of the structure of a service provider’s 

network. The participants felt that the functional categories could be separated into four levels: 1) Core, 2) 

Central Offices, 3) Distribution Nodes, and 4) Last Mile. 

“Core” represents the backbone of Service Providers’ systems that contain important information for the 

company to function, including customer data and information. Core facilities are usually geo-redundant 

so that a disaster event in one part of the country will not impact the entire network. Central Offices are 

the regional centers that connect different networks. These include data centers, cable head end facilities, 

and colocation hotels. Outages at these centers can cause regional failures in the communications and 

information network. “Distribution Nodes” includes cellular towers that collect and distribute phone calls 

and text messages to customers. The final category, “Last Mile” (or first mile), deals with the 

infrastructure used to distribute services to the customer.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

34

When considering the core facilities and central offices, participants believed that these facilities should 

not experience any downtime during an expected event. They stated that because service providers either 

own these structures or choose which buildings they lease to house switches, they should be able to 

support the example performance goals.

Participants thought that cell towers should also have a very small percentage of outages during an 

expected event. They did note, however, that cell towers on top of buildings may be more susceptible to 

failure due to building performance, because buildings are not owned by service providers. Furthermore, 

the group also discussed the potential impact of shared equipment such as standby generators. They stated 

that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) currently encourages sharing of generators and 

other equipment between service providers for cost savings. However, they noted that this may also 

impact redundancy because if multiple towers are connected to a single generator, failure of the generator 

could impact multiple networks. 

While participants agreed that the example performance goals associated with last mile delivery to the 

customers of the different building clusters were reasonable, they did point out a key concern that needs 

to be addressed. The group felt that service providers and owners need to work together more to achieve 

the level of redundancy/resilience desired by the customer. Although the service provider can distribute 

services to customers, the user may not realize that they only have one wire coming into their building 

and that failure of that wire results in loss of the service. Moreover, the service provider is not responsible 

for the communications system within the building and owners should do what they can to maintain a 

redundant system within the building.

Participants also discussed the need for service providers and community planners to work together to 

help plan for evacuation situations. The group noted that in past disasters evacuation centers and routes 

had resulted in communications use that exceeded network capacity. In an evacuation from a disaster 

event, communication is critical. Working with community planners so that service providers can 

improve their capacity along evacuation routes and around evacuation centers is needed for future disaster 

events. 

Water/Wastewater Sector. The breakout group first looked at water supply sources. The participants 

thought that raw/source water and reservoirs should be addressed as they are a major water source. They 

also suggested that raw water conveyance to water treatment plants via pump stations be included in the 

performance goals. The group discussed the challenges of meeting the example performance goals in the 

50% draft of the framework and stated that generally, the whole water/wastewater system works or 

nothing works. It was noted that water is required for fire suppression immediately after a disaster event 

takes place, but potable water is not available in the example performance goals until the workforce 

recovery phase. The participants also discussed the challenges of controlling the source (e.g., dams, lakes, 

etc.) because they are natural resources. 

The group also discussed whether droughts should be addressed because they impact the levels of 

nutrients in the system and can affect the level of water treatment needed. Droughts can lead to water 

quality and health issues, particularly near creeks and lakes where pollution can be added to the water. 

The participants also discussed the challenges of an aging infrastructure system, which causes inflow and 

infiltration of pollutants.

When discussing the challenges of setting and achieving performance goals, participants discussed 

problems faced by communities adjacent to the community that experienced the disaster. Although a 

second community may not have been directly impacted by a disaster event initially, if it shares the same 

water system as the community directly impacted by the event, the water supply may be cutoff or 

otherwise impacted.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

35

Dependencies Discussion

After discussing performance goals within each sector, the facilitator provided each subgroup with 

another worksheet to identify their key dependencies on other sectors for the three recovery phases: 

Response, workforce, and community. Once each subgroup identified their sector’s dependencies on 

other sectors, the subgroups were asked to identify the three most important dependencies for each of the 

three phases. 

Transportation Sector. The transportation subgroup identified dependencies on all of the other sectors for 

the three recovery phases presented in the 50% draft framework. 

In the response phase, the group identified Emergency Operation Centers, gas stations, and control towers 

at airports as facilities on which the transportation system depended. Participants also identified 

power/energy as a key transportation system dependency. Most importantly, fuel is needed to power 

almost all modes of transportation – cars, trucks, buses, ferries, airplanes, etc. Power is also needed at gas 

stations to pump fuel into automobiles. The failure of power lines can impede road traffic if they fall onto 

roadways. Transportation hubs, such as airports, bus stations, train stations, and subway stations also 

require power to function properly. Water is also needed for fire suppression in airports, and other 

transportation hubs for safety. Moreover, clean water and functional wastewater systems are needed to 

allow transportation hubs to function. The communications system is needed to communicate between 

transportation hubs. 

In the workforce phase, power is needed for all transportation systems. Water is needed to allow DOT 

offices to be functional. The participants thought that it was critical in this phase of recovery to complete 

rapid damage assessments of all infrastructure, and coordinate and complete debris removal so roadways 

could be reopened. The group also thought that long-term needs included rebuilding the transportation 

infrastructure to help in rebuilding the workforce.

Power/Energy Sector. The power/energy subgroup identified dependencies on all other sectors to support 

recovery for each of the three phases. 

When discussing the response phase, the group thought that buildings were needed for command and 

control. The participants also identified transportation as critical for repair crews to assess and repair 

failures, as well as to refuel generators in the field. Water is needed for cooling of generation and data 

centers. 

The group also identified the communications sector as being critical in the response phase because they 

are a key element of command and control of the electric system. Participants also noted the need for 

communications to identify, locate, and efficiently dedicate resources to failure locations and their repair. 

With respect to the workforce phase of recovery, many dependencies remained the same. However, the 

group felt that potable water was important to support technicians in this phase. Furthermore, participants 

identified needs for major asset reconstruction (when necessary), coordination with other entities, 

emergency housing, and support from the National Guard for fuel, safety, security. In the long-term 

recovery phase, participants also identified the opportunity to develop a long-term resource management 

plant that would help make networks more resilient. 

The group felt that, given the importance of energy to other sectors, the timeframes for the second and 

third recovery phases were too long for their sector. The participants suggested that the workforce phase 

be changed to 1-4 weeks, and the community recovery phased be changed to 4+ weeks. 

Communication Sector. The communications subgroup thought that a number of important dependencies 

on other sectors applied to all phases of recovery. Participants also felt that the first phase of recovery was 

the most important because customers expect to have their services restored almost immediately since 

communication is critical to their daily lives and functioning. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

36

First, the group stated that power was critical because nothing in the communication system works 

without power. Although many service providers use generators for standby power, they are only 

intended to work for a limited period of time. Generators are not intended as a long-term solution. 

The group also thought that water was a key dependency because central offices could not be entered if 

the building did not have a functioning water system. This means that even if a simple fix was required to 

get the critical equipment within the central office back online, technicians could not do so, keeping 

services to customers down. The group also discussed the need to ensure the safety of workers entering 

buildings or sites. This means having building inspectors available and/or security when necessary so 

workers are not put in dangerous situations.

Transportation was important to allow repair crews to assess damage and make repairs to the system. The 

group discussed telling the FCC that the three things they need to restore services after a disruptive event 

are “access, fuel, and security.” That is, service providers need access to the sites for repairs, fuel for 

standby generators, and security for their technicians.

Although the group felt it was important to focus on restoring communications within the first recovery 

phase, participants did note that certain long-term initiatives could help improve performance in the next 

disaster. For example, the group discussed the need to work with community planners to add additional 

network capacity along emergency evacuation routes. The group also discussed the long-term goal of 

hardening buildings or portions of buildings that house critical equipment. Lastly, participants felt 

changes to regulations, particularly building and zoning regulations, could lead to improvements in the 

resilience of the communications infrastructure system. 

Water/Wastewater Sector. The water/wastewater subgroup worked to identify their sector’s dependencies 

on other sectors. Participants thought that during the response phase, the transportation, power, and 

communication sectors were critical. Transportation would be needed for delivering water treatment 

chemicals, emergency equipment or parts, and allowing personnel to get to water treatment plants or other 

critical facilities. Furthermore, transportation routes are needed for repair crews to access transmission 

and distribution lines.

Power is needed in the response phase because electricity is key for water treatment processes such as 

supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), and functionality of pump stations. Fuel is also 

needed for utility trucks and refueling standby generators. Similarly, the need for communications in the 

response phase was also desired for SCADA and service providers.

During the workforce phase, the water system would also rely on large water customers’ buildings to be 

functional to help support the community and economics of the water utility. Smaller water utilities may 

also rely on buildings with water quality testing labs for monitoring. Similar to the response phase, 

transportation was also a dependency. However, for the workforce phase, transportation for repair crew 

access to distribution line flushing was considered most important. Participants also discussed the need 

for ingress to allow consulting and contractor staff to reach water treatment plants. 

Power/energy in the workforce phase is needed for testing water quality. Participants also discussed the 

need for natural gas in wastewater treatment plant processes. Participants also thought that 

communications would be needed between key points of the water infrastructure system, including water 

treatment plants, pump stations, and tanks. Beyond the needs of each infrastructure sector, the water 

sector depends on recovery of the government, businesses, and residents to pay fees so the utility can 

operate and cover costs.

The community phase was seen to have the same dependencies as the workforce phase. However, the 

group thought that the long-term recovery of the water utility would depend on recovery of all 

buildings/customers to pay fees rather than just the large, more critical customers. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

37

Adjusting Performance Goals Discussion

After the discussion of interdependencies with all of the workshop participants on the second morning of 

the workshop (October 28, 2014), the breakout group reconvened and broke into their subgroups again. 

The facilitator explained that the goal of the second day was for each subgroup to discuss the 

dependencies other sectors have on their sector and identify whether communities would need to adjust 

performance goals to accommodate the needs of the other sectors. Table 12 summarizes the sector 

dependencies provided to the subgroups so they could discuss how the dependencies impacted the 

performance goals.

Table 12. Sector Dependencies

Sector: 

Dependent Sector

Overall Recovery Time for Hazard and Level Listed Dependencies

Phase 1 – Response

0-3 Days

Phase 2 – Workforce

1-12 Wks

Phase 3 – Community

4-36+ Mos

Buildings and Facilities

Power/Energy Critical facilities - Power after 72 hours Power/Energy 

Water Critical facilities – steam Potable water – shelter (housing) 

Fire suppression 

Water 

Wastewater Wastewater

Communication and 

Information 

EOC Communication and Information 

Transportation Open roadways Debris removal Transportation

Social Emergency care 

Food and Medical Distribution 

Shelters accommodating pets 

Start rebuilding Social

Power/Energy Systems 1-4 Wks 4+ Wks

Buildings and 

Facilities

Water and 

Wastewater

Communication and 

Information 

Command and control and telemetry

Response and recovery

Command and control and telemetry

Transportation Ability for crews to repair; and staff at 

command

Ability for crews to repair; and staff at 

command

Social National Guard Long-term resource management

Major asset reconstruction/replacement

Water and Wastewater Systems

Buildings and 

Facilities

Housing recovery to support fees/bills

Smaller, less-critical 

buildings/businesses up and running

Power/Energy Electricity is key for treatment 

processes

Electricity for pump stations

Water quality testing needs

Communication and 

Information 

Communications between treatment 

plans, pump stations, tanks, etc.

Transportation Ingress for emergency equipment and 

parts

Access to system for water quality 

monitoring

Social Smaller/less critical businesses up and 

running

Communication and Information Systems

Buildings and 

Facilities 

Power/Energy Nothing works without power

Water and 

Wastewater

Communication and 

Information 

Transportation Need access to assess and make repairs

Social Access, fuel, security

Transportation Systems

Buildings and 

Facilities

Facilities associated with transportation 

reconstruction/restorations
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

38

Sector: 

Dependent Sector

Overall Recovery Time for Hazard and Level Listed Dependencies

Phase 1 – Response

0-3 Days

Phase 2 – Workforce

1-12 Wks

Phase 3 – Community

4-36+ Mos

Power/Energy Fuel Power to systems and transportation 

facilities

Water and 

Wastewater

Water to airports and other 

transportation systems

Communication and 

Information 

Phone and Internet

Social Damage Assessors/bridge inspectors

Debris Removal

Workforce to rebuild

Social Systems

Buildings and 

Facilities

Emergency and temporary housing Prioritized resources open*

Power/Energy 

Power for critical facilities

Water and 

Wastewater

Prioritized restoration of clean water 

and wastewater infrastructure*

Restoration of potable water/wastewater 

infrastructure

Communication and 

Information 

Reliable communications for 911, first

responders, and info on family 

safety/status

Transportation

Supply chain restoration

Buildings and 

Facilities

Emergency and temporary housing Prioritized resources open*

Transportation Sector. The transportation subgroup discussed the impact of the dependencies of other 

sectors on the transportation sector. Participants felt that as a result of the dependencies discussed by all 

workshop participants, the transportation sector would need to be functional within the response recovery 

phase (0-3 days). Participants noted that it was unclear which transportation systems were needed by the 

other sectors, but assumed the other sectors focused on roads. However, the group pointed out that many 

needs of other sectors on transportation can be met in a number of ways.

The group discussed the impact of regional characteristics and needs. It was also felt that the hazard type 

also affected the performance goals. The participants felt that the percentage restoration needed to be 

clarified as a percentage of the system functionality. For critical facilities, it may not be necessary to have 

90% recovery. However, it would be essential for communities to prioritize recovery so critical facilities 

could be accessed. 

Power/Energy Sector. The group thought that the discussion of dependencies of other sectors confirmed 

their initial thought that the example performance goals in the 50% draft were too conservative for 

communities given an expected event. Participants shifted the example performance goals to the response 

recovery phase to support the needs of the other sectors. However, they did note that there were a number 

of challenges that were preventing networks from achieving these goals currently. The participants noted 

that lack of maintenance in some regions leads to poor performance. Some participants also felt that 

competition, though good from the cost perspective for customers, also leads to price-driven service 

rather than quality/reliability-driven services. Thus, a lower cost for customers may result in less 

maintenance and hardening on the network infrastructure. 

Communication Sector. When the communications group reconvened and reviewed the dependencies of 

other sectors on communications, the group noted that the other sectors generally needed communications 

in the first recovery phase to support emergency functions. Therefore, the group felt that the example 

performance goals in the 50% draft of the framework were reasonable and that communities would want 

to ensure that advanced performance goals are set for the communications systems within their 

communities to support recovery of other sectors. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapters 6-9 – Infrastructure Systems

39

Water/Wastewater Sector. After the dependencies discussion with all of the workshop participants, the 

group thought that the example goals may have to accommodate the performance goals of the energy 

sector to support recovery of the water system. For the example goals in the 50% draft, either the fire 

suppression performance goals for critical facilities had to be less stringent or the power performance 

goals had to be more advanced. The group felt that communities will have to be careful about setting 

overly aggressive performance goals if supporting infrastructure systems, particularly energy, could 

hinder its ability to meet the goals.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 2 – Social Aspects of Resilience

40

7. Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 2 – Social Aspects of Resilience

At the start of the first breakout session, the facilitator, Ms. Paget Donnelly of Energetics Inc., led 

introductions of the participants and explained how the session would operate. Chapter author, Dr. Erica 

Kuligowski, introduced herself and summarized development to-date and sources being used. Dr. 

Kuligowski emphasized the need for participant input to push chapter development forward. Dr. 

Kuligowski defined a community as “a cluster of people who live, work, learn, and/or play under the 

same jurisdiction of a governance structure, such as a town, city or county.” She also explained the 

hierarchy of human needs (Figure 3) and how it relates to resilience of the built environment. 

Response Workforce

Community

Figure 3. Hierarchy of Human Needs (Adapted from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs) 

The group brainstormed and discussed social systems that are critical to a community, in that they can 

exist to meet the human needs previously discussed. Participants identified many different social systems

(e.g., schools, neighborhoods, religious centers, healthcare, business and commerce, first responders, 

socializing centers, etc.). Some participants felt communication was a life support and people in this era 

of technology are lost when not “plugged-in.”

Growth

&

Achievement

Survival

Safety and Security

Belonging

Family/friends/neighborhood

Achievement, recognition, 

fulfillment

Life, food, water, shelter, clothing

Law and order, stability, employment, health

Growth

&

Achievement

Survival

Safety and Security

Belonging

Family/friends/neighborhood

Achievement, recognition, 

fulfillment

Life, food, water, shelter, clothing

Law and order, stability, employment, health

Growth

&

Achievement

Survival

Safety and Security

Belonging

Life, food, water, shelter, clothing

Law and order, stability, employment, health

Family/friends/neighborhood

Achievement, recognition, 

fulfillment
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 2 – Social Aspects of Resilience

41

The group then discussed the recovery times shown in the 50% draft of the framework and worked to 

define a community’s social needs within each phase. The group felt it was difficult to understand when 

the 0th hour occurred for different types of hazards. For example, the question was asked: “For a 

hurricane, is the 0th hour when damage occurs or when the storm is gone and the recovery process can 

commence?” As a result, when considering the response phase, the group sub-divided the phase into three 

groups: 1) Pre-zero hour, 2) Zero hour, and 3) 0-3 days.

Table 13 shows stakeholder input with respect to the example performance goals developed in the 50% 

draft for the response phase. Prior to an event, the discussion focused on the need to clearly communicate 

evacuation plans, hubs, and systems. When the event occurs, the group felt it was important to share 

knowledge with others and communicate via mass messaging or social media. In the response phase, 

participants felt it was critical to provide immediate assistance to vulnerable populations, including those 

who are seriously injured, via emergency responders. The group discussed the need for communication, 

availability of emergency shelters and food/water, the provision of mass/critical care (including crisis 

counseling), reuniting families who were separated before or during the disaster event, and providing 

shelters for animals.

Table 13. Social Performance Goals for Response Recovery Phase

Response Phase Performance Goals (0 – 3 Days)

Phase 1 Response 0-3 Days Pre-Zero Hour Zero Hour

 Provide Emergency Response

 Life safety

 Food/water

 Provide mass care/critical care

 Provide communications

 Manage public perceptions 

 Pay attention to messaging

 Quality of information

 Tone/style to reassure public

 Coordinate services 

 Gather info on damage/impacts in residential/commercial sectors

 Identify/communicate danger zones (various geographic levels)

 Limit access to dangerous and at-risk areas

 Assure safety of surroundings (downed power lines, etc.)

 Provide emergency shelters

 Establish social(izing) centers

 Physically reunite family members

 Provide crisis counseling, including for first responders

 Provide meals to displaced/incapacitated citizens 

 Establish counseling centers

 Provide pet/animal sheltering and central info center on status

 Streamline volunteer and donations management

 Plan and 

communicate 

evacuation systems

 Establish immediate 

emergency survival 

requirements

 Minimize lives lost

 Establish location and 

status of health 

emergencies in critical zone

 Establish awareness level/ 

knowledge of significant 

others

 Drive social media 

messaging by government

 911 services

Table 14 summarizes the example social performance goals that participants thought were important for 

the workforce recovery phase. The group divided the social performance goals into four categories: 

Housing, open business/commercial, schools in session, and re-establishing community traditions. 

Participants felt it was essential to provide housing for both owners and renters because it is key to 

workforce retention and economic stability within a community. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 2 – Social Aspects of Resilience

42

Table 14. Examples of Social Performance Goals for Workforce Recovery Phase

Workforce Phase Performance Goals* (1 – 12 weeks)

Housing Open Business/Commercial

 Immediately provide housing for transient workers and renters: 

key to workforce retention and economic stability of 

businesses in the community

 Transition citizens from emergency to temporary and 

permanent housing

 Provide housing that delivers physical safety and sense of 

security for residents

 Rebuild permanent housing to help reestablish neighborhoods/ 

community (societal norm) and to restore citizens’ 

economic/financial equity

 Determine whether business facilities are operational. 

Assess potential alternative locations and the 

implications.

 Encourage/facilitate rebuilding by key employers

 Focus on/prioritize reopening of small businesses

Rationale:

 Personal dignity is tied to having a job/paycheck

 Businesses provide essential tax bases for communities

Schools in Session** Reestablish Community Traditions

 Resume classes as soon as safely possible, at alternate location 

if necessary**

 Alternate procedures may meet schedules

 Rationale:

 Functions as safe daycare 

 Enables adults to work on recovery or go back to work

 Provides meals and nutrition for many students

 Provides sense of normalcy for students and their families

 Helps meet minimum annual school days required for 

promotion to next grade or graduation

 Enables continuance of education

 Organize community events (catharsis)

 Appropriate activities will be community-specific

* Expedited by prior alternate location planning ** Assumes safe transportation/access to class meeting sites

Participants also thought that re-establishing normal school schedules was important for children and 

parents to feel that life is returning-to-normal. Business is also an important consideration. The example 

goals of re-establishing households and schools allow residents to return to work. Small businesses cannot 

survive if closed for extended periods of time. Larger employers that are essential to the economic base of 

the town are also critical to re-establish so the population will be sustained or grow. Some participants 

also pointed out that part of getting “back to normal” is organizing traditional events within the 

community. 

Table 15 shows other example social performance goals the group thought were important in the second 

recovery phase, including healthcare, law and order, financial services, food, government services and 

transportation. 

Table 16 summarizes the example social performance goals for the third recovery phase. The participants 

categorized their input into six categories: Buildings, business/commercial, government services, 

healthcare, restorative stepping stones, and recovering a sense of community. The group thought that 

reoccupying homes and places of business was important in the long-term in order to preserve a sense of 

normalcy within the original neighborhoods. It was stated that the rebuilding process needed to be 

simplified and streamlined to support this goal. Similarly to the second phase, the ability to re-establish a 

business/commercial sector is critical to sustaining a tax base and growing the community. Government 

initiatives to improve social and infrastructure systems to become more resilient in the long-term will lead 

to a stronger community. 

After discussing example performance goals of social systems, the focus switched to dependencies on the 

built environment. It was noted that the framework focuses on the built environment; however, social 

systems (that meet the needs of individuals within the community) drive the need for adequate 

performance of the built environment. Hence, participant input on the dependencies among various 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 2 – Social Aspects of Resilience

43

physical infrastructure sectors (buildings, power/energy, communications, transportation, 

water/wastewater) was important.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 2 – Social Aspects of Resilience

44

Table 15. Examples of Social Performance Goals for Workforce Recovery Phase

Workforce Phase Performance Goals (1 – 12 Weeks)

Healthcare Law and Order Restore Financial Services

 Provide crisis counseling

 Make provisions to deliver long-term 

medications and chronic care (e.g., 

dialysis)

 Handle births safety

 Restore full emergency room care

 Restore full healthcare services in nursing 

homes or alternative facilities (assess 

implications of alternatives)

 Provide a police presence

 Control re-entry to disaster zone as 

needed (checkpoints)

 Provide back-up traffic guidance (e.g., 

for road closures and non-functioning 

signals)

 Secure prisons

 Reopen courts

 Provide access to credit to help 

citizens address their needs and 

start repairs

 Protect money and savings

Food Government Services Transportation

 Enable food distribution

 Reopen groceries and resume commerce

 Resume issuing food stamps

 Expedite building permits to aid 

recovery; foster improvements to 

mitigate future disaster impacts

 Enable personal mobility

 Enable distribution & commerce

Table 16. Examples of Social Performance Goals for Community Recovery Phase

Community Phase Performance Goals: 4 to 36 Months

Buildings Business/Commercial Government Services

 Original structures reoccupied

 Rebuild on historical footprint to 

preserve historical continuity

 Return to full housing stock

 School buildings reopen in original 

neighborhoods

 Rebuilding approval process 

simplified or streamlined

 Provide permanent housing solutions 

for low-income citizens

 Stimulate economic growth 

 Attain stable or growing 

population/population distribution

 Provide capital outlay (government 

funding to support rebuilding of 

community)

 Restore parks and recreation 

opportunities

 Provide environmental restoration 

(debris management to assist 

citizens in mental recovery from 

disaster mode)

Healthcare Restorative Stepping Stones Recovering Sense of Community

 Provide long-term counseling 

(PTSD)

 Facilitate review/revive former or new 

community plans or dreams

 Restore/promote public access to beauty 

and art

 Engage citizens in planting trees and 

vegetation to restore public and private land 

and instill sense of growth

 Provide leisure activities

 Provide respite/rejuvenation opportunities 

to overwhelmed citizens

 Plan/build disaster-related memorial and 

hold event as an opportunity for gathering 

and healing.

 Achieve sense of normalcy or 

adaptation to the new normal

 Retain sense of historical 

continuity

 Become a model for other 

communities by building success 

upon success

 Promote sustainability of 

community

Table 17 shows all dependences of the social systems on the sectors of the built environment. Once 

dependencies were listed and agreed upon, the facilitator provided participants with “dots” to vote on the 

top three dependencies for each phase. The top three dependencies for the response phase were the 

following:
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 2 – Social Aspects of Resilience

45

 Buildings and facilities for emergency and temporary housing (5 votes)

 Power/energy for critical facilities (5 votes)

 Reliable communications for contacting 9-1-1 and emergency responders (4 votes)

In the second phase, the most important dependencies were identified as:

 Water restoration to critical and large facilities, and residences (4 votes)

 Reopen buildings to have access to resources, such as groceries (3 votes)

 Transportation is needed for supply chain restoration (2 votes)

In the community phase of recovery, the group thought that the key dependency was on the water sector 

to provide potable water.

Table 17. Sector Dependencies of Social Systems

Sector

>

Phase

Building and

Facilities Transportation Power/Energy

Water/

Wastewater

Communication and 

Information

0-3 

Days

 Provide emergency 

and temporary 

housing 

 Assess damaged 

buildings 

 Set up 

Reunification 

Center (and 

provide 

counseling)

 Provide access 

for emergency 

vehicles 

 Provide 

transport to 

deliver essential 

healthcare, food, 

and water 

 Provide public 

transport 

 Provide access 

to damage areas

 Provide power 

for critical 

facilities 



 Provide 

standalone 

renewable 

power 

 Provide cell 

phone charging 

stations

 Provide access to 

clean drinking 

water 

 Provide portable 

sanitation 

facilities

 Provide interim 

wastewater 

processing to 

avert disease

 Assure quality, reliable 

communications for 

first responders & 911 



 Communicate 

information on family 

status and safety

 Assure radio and text 

services

 Provide 

Communications on 

Wheels (COW) or 

other communications 

support 

(1 – 6 weeks)

 Phone and internet.

1-12 

Weeks

 Reopen major 

places of 

employment 

 Provide meeting 

places for 

community and 

religious groups

 Reopen 

government 

facilities and 

provide access to 

social services 

 Reopen priority 

resources 

 Supply chain 

restoration 

 Provide power 

to priority 

resources 

 Provide power 

to functional 

needs users 

 Resume normal 

operations 

(90%) 

 Provide 

prioritized 

restoration of 

clean water to 

critical, large 

facilities and 

residences 



 Restore 

wastewater 

processing 

facility 

operations 

 TV, cable

 Local resources, 

news, information

4-36 

Months

 Preserve local 

industries 

 Restore major 

thoroughfares 



 Restore potable 

water 

infrastructure 



 Normal operations 

The breakout group reconvened on the second day of the workshop, focusing on vulnerable populations.

Disasters can create vulnerabilities within groups, but often times, disasters exacerbate vulnerabilities that 

previously existed.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 2 – Social Aspects of Resilience

46

The group discussed what characteristics make 

populations vulnerable during and after a disaster 

event. As shown in Table 18, people/groups that 

lack mobility, protection, resources, finances, 

secure shelter, and/or situational awareness can 

be more vulnerable than others. 

The group used these traits to identify groups of 

people that may be vulnerable after disaster 

events. For example, the participants thought that 

children could be vulnerable after disasters 

because they have little/no experience with 

disaster events, rely on their parents or authority 

figures for directions, and have not fully 

developed physically, mentally, or emotionally. 

Participants also identified those with medical 

needs as potentially vulnerable, if after an event, they require special medical assistance that is not 

available within the community. Renters were also identified as potentially vulnerable after an event, 

since they may rely on the landlord/home owner to make decisions on home repairs and restoration.

Table 18. Characteristics of Vulnerable Populations

Vulnerable Populations

Characteristics

 Unable to live their life as usual

 Physically vulnerable to the event

 Lack of mobility, protection, resources, finances

 Lack of a secure shelter

 Lack of information/knowledge/situation awareness

 Functional limitations

 Lack of trusted leader/source

 Access to conflicting information

 Medical dependency

 Attachments/responsibilities

 Fear of authority, disorientation
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #5: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel Charter

47

8. Breakout Session #5: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel Charter

Ms. Nancy McNabb (NIST) provided an overview and background of the Disaster Resilience Standards 

Panel (DRSP), pointing out that the framework is designed to be implemented as a community-based 

approach to resilience rather than a hazard or sector-based approach. The DRSP charter was initially 

based on the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel charter, but has been modified to include comments 

received from earlier workshops. The DRSP will take ownership of the framework and develop model 

resilience guidelines to achieve the goals. The panel will inform NIST of research needs and will work 

with standards and codes developing organizations to include more resilience in the codes. Ms. McNabb

showed the conceptual model and noted that the panel will be formed in June 2015.

One participant suggested that to be effective and to engage the folks who create standards, the panel 

needs to have groups or individuals involved with economics.

Ms. McNabb responded to the question of what will happen as a result of this group (the DRSP), noting 

the panel will provide guidance, access to resilience information and work to coordinate resilience 

stakeholders, i.e. engineers, economists, building officials, etc. The panel will identify gaps in codes and 

standards and may suggest enhancements. The group thought that the panel should ensure there is a 

consistent set of metrics (definitions) between sectors.

The group suggested a vision statement: “the panel creates a process to encourage and support resilience, 

identify impediments and gaps and initiate closing the gaps.” The participants felt the objectives of the 

DRSP should include:

1. Set priorities

2. Identify/develop disaster resilient standards

3. Develop/update disaster resilience conceptual model (performance and recovery goals)

4. Develop and maintain a disaster resilient knowledge base

5. Adopt, maintain and update the framework

6. Develop and implement guidance to assist communities to utilize the framework

7. Establish clear and consistent definitions 

Model guidelines will be developed by standing committees comprised of different sectors and the 

Disaster Resilience Coordinating Committee will ask the standing committees to develop guidance 

documents and create multi-sector subcommittees or work groups to address interdependencies. The 

panel will approve documents that are approved by the Coordinating Committee. Chairs of the standing 

committees will sit on the Coordinating Committee

Activities to Meet Mission and Objectives

The participants brainstormed to develop what activities would need to be taken by the DRSP to meet its 

mission and objectives. The participants summarized the activities into the following list:

1. Develop priority action plans including a gap analysis, definition of resilience metrics, data, and 

tools.

2. Define terms common among groups (i.e., consistent terminology)

3. Review and update the framework as needed to adapt to changing technologies, climate change,

and the economic environment

4. Collect data to improve modeling future events

5. Establish criteria to decide how the panel will recognize standards, best practices, etc.

6. Plan for implementation (incentives) to adopt resilience (e.g., insurance incentives)

7. Bring outside stakeholders together to provide information to assist prioritization

8. Establish why people should join the panel 

9. Develop a decision tree describing the implementation of the framework
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #5: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel Charter

48

10. Develop a method for resolving conflicts and addressing differences (among standing 

committees)

11. Develop criteria for inclusion and establishing a system for organizing the knowledge database

12. Develop templates (e.g., disaster recovery policies) to help communities develop their own plans.

13. Identify current level of resilience and what to implement to improve resilience.

Governance Principles

The participants developed governance principles of the DRSP as openness and transparency, balance of 

stakeholders, harmonization, and consensus. The following summarizes the main points/considerations 

for each governance principle: 

Openness and Transparency

1. All meeting minutes posted on the internet

2. All meetings open to the public

3. All information as to how decisions were made will be publically available

Balance

1. For voting, no interest group is allowed to dominate the DRSP or the standing committees.

Working groups do not need to be balanced because they will be asked to provide information 

specific issues or technical matters.

2. Every sector will have representation on the DRSP

3. The DRSP and standing committee members must be geographically balanced

4. Each committee must achieve balance.

Harmonization

1. Publish terms and definitions for consistency throughout the document

2. Avoid gaps, overlaps and conflicts with other resilience guidance

3. Develop mechanisms to respond/resolve conflicts and address differences

4. Ensure decisions are relevant to current markets, existing technologies and current regulations

Consensus

1. Valid votes will require a sufficient number of votes (e.g., 2/3 for a quorum) and a certain % (e.g., 

50%) of valid votes. Exact numbers were not determined. 

Disaster Resilience Coordinating Committee (DRCC)

The participants felt that a Disaster Resilience Coordinating Committee (DRCC) should be formed to 

oversee and coordinate between the standing committees of the DRSP. As illustrated in Figure 4, the 

participants felt that there should be standing committees for the communications and information sector, 

power/energy sector, transportation sector, buildings and facilities sector, water and wastewater sector, 

data, metrics and tools, social and economic goals, and a nominating committee.

To oversee and govern/lead these standing committees, the participants felt the DRCC will have the 

following responsibilities:

1. The DRCC will have the authority to create, dissolve and combine standing committees

2. Each standing committee chair (or another designee appointed by the standing committee) will 

serve on the Disaster Resilience Coordinating Committee.

3. Members will approve standing committee products and provide recommendations to the full 

panel for ratification of a standing committee document.

4. The DRCC has the power to create combined standing committees to address interdependencies 

or other issues that need to be resolved 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #5: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel Charter

49

5. The DRCC will be responsible for coordinating the standing committees’ work, e.g., building and 

infrastructure standing committees

6. The DRCC can authorize standing committees to create subcommittees.

7. The DRCC will create and define community resilience guidelines including lists of standards or 

recommended thresholds to implement actions to enhance community resilience.

8. The Standing Committees will have the power to create working groups.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #5: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel Charter

50

Figure 4. Participants Proposed DRSP Structure 
Community Resilience Workshop

Morning General Session – October 28, 2014

51

9. Morning General Session – October 28, 2014

The morning plenary session on the second day of the workshop began with remarks from Mr. Chris 

Poland regarding the interdependencies of buildings and infrastructure systems. 

Summary of Mr. Poland’s Remarks

Typically, we think about resilience within the silos of our individual sectors. However, we need to 

consider how our communities function as a system, which makes the interdependencies of buildings and 

the infrastructure systems needed to support them an important consideration. Furthermore, we also need 

to consider the interdependencies within those infrastructure systems so they can function and support 

each other.

In the 50% framework draft, you see example performance goals. This slide [slide 3] shows an example 

of performance goals tables for the buildings sector. The next slide [slide 4] shows a plot of restoration 

times for San Francisco for a scenario earthquake. As can be seen, the San Francisco community wanted

some buildings to be 90% functional immediately after an event occurs. However, that means they will 

need to recover the functionality of some of the other sectors more quickly.

The 50% draft of the framework considers interdependencies using the performance goals tables. In each 

sector chapter, we present example community performance goals as seen here [slide 5] for the water and 

wastewater sector. You can see that the worst case of the performance goals for a given building cluster 

translates directly to the performance goals in Chapter 3 [slide 6]. So, using the summary matrix, you can 

see how the interdependencies play a role in recovery times. For example, if a community determines that 

they want 90% recovery of the buildings for critical facilities to be functional immediately, after a 

disaster, but power/energy is not restored for 8-12 weeks, we know that they will need to develop 

solutions to close that gap in functionality. 

Now, we understand that everything will not change overnight. Changes to infrastructure systems take 

time and funding. However, understanding the interdependencies within the built environment provides

opportunities for communities to better define their performance goals, develop options for providing 

temporary services, and plan for upgrades to the utility system. Communities can use their performance 

goals and assessment of their infrastructure to identify solutions for both the short and long term, and use 

long term reconstruction opportunities to move toward/achieve their performance goals.

Following Mr. Poland’s remarks on interdependencies, the lead facilitator, Ms. Katie Jereza of Energetics 

Inc., led a discussion of all participants about the interdependencies of the sectors. During the afternoon 

of the first workshop, each sector discussed their dependencies on other sectors in terms of needs within 

three phases: Phase 1) Response (0-3 days); Phase 2) Workforce (1-12 Weeks); and 3) Community (4-

36+ Months).

The buildings sector breakout group presented its dependencies first. Within the first phase, participants 

felt that the most important building sector dependencies were:

 Water (including for steam) for critical facilities such as hospitals and emergency responder 

facilities

 Communications infrastructure so Emergency Operations Centers can be contacted by those in 

need

 Roadways to get from one building to another, particularly critical facilities.

The participants also felt buildings were needed in the recovery phase for emergency care, food and 

medical distribution system, and pet shelters. In the second and third recovery phases, participants in the 

building sector breakout group felt the dependencies on other sectors were the same. Specifically, they 

felt the most important dependencies were:
Community Resilience Workshop

Morning General Session – October 28, 2014

52

 Power for critical facilities because emergency power is typically required for only 72 hours after 

a disaster event

 Potable water and water for fire suppression for any building

 Debris removal for transportation so people can return to school, work, and get from point A to B

The power/energy sector group followed with a discussion of their dependencies on other sectors. During 

the first recovery phase, participants in the power/energy breakout group felt the most important 

dependencies were:

 Transportation so that repair crews can access sites causing outages

 Communication and information infrastructure for command and control of operations, and 

telemetry

 Communication and information infrastructure for coordinating response and recovery processes

Participants in the power/energy sector breakout group felt the first two points listed above were needed 

in all three phases of recovery. However, in the second phase, the group felt the National Guard may be 

needed for support if there is an extreme event. Participants also felt that for energy, a timeframe of 1-4 

weeks may be more appropriate for the second recovery phase. Beyond four weeks after the event, 

participants in the energy breakout group felt long-term resource management and major asset 

reconstruction/replacement were the primary needs. 

The water and wastewater systems breakout group followed. The water and wastewater participants felt 

the most important during the recovery phase dependencies were:

 Electricity for treatment processes

 Electricity for pump stations to function

 Transportation systems, namely roads, highways, and bridges, for ingress of emergency 

equipment and parts

When the breakout group considered the second recovery phase, it felt the most important dependencies 

of the sector changed to:

 Power to ensure water quality testing can be conducted properly

 Communications and information systems to ensure communication between treatment plants, 

pump stations, tanks, etc.

 Transportation systems for access to system for water quality monitoring

The water and wastewater breakout group also felt the most important dependencies on other sectors for 

the third phase of recovery were different than previous phases. The group felt the most important

dependencies on other sectors during the third recover phase were:

 Housing recovery to support fees/bills

 Smaller, less-critical buildings/businesses up and running

Communication and information systems breakout group participants felt the sector’s most important 

dependencies were the same regardless of the recovery phases. However, the group did feel that other 

issues should be considered in the longer term. The communication and information systems breakout 

group felt the key dependencies for the sector were:

 Power, otherwise nothing else works within the sector

 Transportation for repairs crews to assess damage and make repairs to the infrastructure system

 Access, fuel, and security to enable service providers to do their jobs 

Though the group identified these three issues as the most important dependencies, they also noted that 

other considerations are important for the longer-term. Specifically, changes in regulations (e.g., zoning) 

could allow improved resilience of the infrastructure systems, and planning for evacuation routes and 
Community Resilience Workshop

Morning General Session – October 28, 2014

53

critical infrastructure so service providers can work with communities to improve capacity in areas that 

have large demands in disaster scenarios. 

The transportation sector breakout group followed the communication and information sector group. 

Participants in the breakout group identified the most critical dependencies for transportation in the first 

recovery phase as:

 Power/energy in the form of fuel for automobiles and to be able to pump from gas stations

 Water supply for airports and other transportation hubs for fire suppression and consumption

 Communication and information systems (telephone and internet) to relay information about 

traffic routes, as well as to coordinate with emergency repair personnel

Breakout group participants felt the most important dependencies of the transportation sector second 

recovery phase changed to:

 Power to systems and transportation facilities

 Debris removal

 Damage assessments and bridge inspections.

Participants felt these three dependencies were important during the third recovery phase as well. 

However, they also noted that ensuring the workforce could be rebuilt, and construction/rehabilitation of 

transportation facilities was essential for long-term recovery and becoming more resilient. 

The final breakout group to present their dependencies was the social systems participants. Participants

felt that the most important dependencies for a community’s social systems during the first recovery 

phase were:

 Emergency and temporary housing for citizens who are displaced

 Power for all critical facilities to be operational

 Reliable communications for 9-1-1, first responders, and information on status of family members

During the second phase of recovery, participants felt the most important dependencies on the built 

environment changed to:

 Opening of prioritized buildings, such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, grocery and 

hardware stores, nursing homes, and government facilities

 Prioritized restoration of clean water, and wastewater infrastructure for critical facilities

 Transportation sector to restore the supply chain

The social systems breakout group felt these dependencies remained largely the same for the third 

recovery phase. However, participants also noted that restoration of potable water/wastewater 

infrastructure was a key dependency for the long-term.

After each group presented the dependencies it felt were most important for its sector, there was some 

discussion about the dependencies and why they were selected. Following the discussion, participants reconvened with their breakout groups to discuss the dependencies presented by the other sectors. Groups 

then used these interdependencies to assess whether the expected performance of their sector was 

sufficient or if more advanced performance goals would be necessary. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Closing General Session

54

10. Closing General Session

The closing session was led by Mr. Cauffman, who invited a representative from each breakout group to 

summarize the main points discussed during the 2-day workshop. 

Buildings sector participants felt the challenge of hazard neutrality needs to be further discussed. The 

group also saw a need to consider differences in construction (old vs. new), and region of the country. 

Incentives to encourage resilience also must be addressed for the framework to be successful. Building 

sector breakout group participants also felt that transportation is a key dependency to be considered for 

businesses because without transportation, employees cannot return to work, shop, and distribution of 

goods may be delayed or impeded.

When considering performance goals in the framework, the power/energy sector felt that adding another 

cluster of “critical industry” should be considered. Breakout group participants felt that communities 

should strive for more advanced performance goals for energy/power than presented in the 50% draft 

framework example to support building clusters and other infrastructure systems in their recovery. The 

group also discussed the need to coordinate with transportation sector SMEs the regarding pipelines/fuels.

The water and wastewater sector breakout group discussed the challenges associated with routing fire 

suppression to critical facilities only. In the participants’ experience, either the entire system works or 

nothing works. The group also discussed the challenges of communities that are near to those impacted by 

a disaster event. Since water systems are not always confined within the borders of an individual 

community, water supply to a community not directly impacted by the disaster may be cutoff. With 

regards to the wastewater infrastructure, the breakout group discussed the need for good relationships 

with regulators to discuss flexibility during emergency situations. In terms of the example performance 

goals presented in the 50% draft framework, the breakout group discussed, after the dependencies 

discussion in the morning plenary, that the dependence of the power/energy should be considered by 

communities in setting their performance goals for some water source elements. 

The communication and information systems breakout group felt the example performance goals tables 

need to be reorganized so they more accurately depict the systems. The categories they developed were: 

1) Core – geo-redundant buildings that house equipment and data critical to service providers businesses; 

2) Central Offices – buildings that house critical equipment and switches/exchanges that allow customers 

to connect to one another; 3) Distribution nodes – switching nodes/hubs and cell towers that distribute to 

the last mile of the communications system; and 4) Last mile – the portion of the systems that connects to 

each individual customer. One of the other key concepts that the breakout group felt was important for 

resilience was the need to coordinate with community planners to understand where evacuation centers 

and routes are going to be so that additional capacity can be implemented by service providers in these 

areas for when a disaster event occurs. The participants also emphasized the need for service providers 

and owners of critical facilities to work together to provide redundancy in their services.

The transportation sector breakout group felt a separate performance goals matrix needs to be developed 

for pipelines. The group also discussed adding military airports to the list of critical infrastructure. The 

group felt that the sector needs tools that allow changes in weather conditions and future hazards, and to 

improve the methodologies for assessing infrastructure. After the discussion of dependencies in the 

morning plenary session, the breakout group discussed that communities need to ensure that 

transportation be available with 0-3 days after a disaster event to support recovery of buildings and other 

infrastructure sectors. The group noted that performance goals would vary by community based on 

several factors, including the type of hazard identified for that community. 

The social systems breakout group followed with an interesting discussion of whether the social 

performance goals of a community should focus solely on the social systems that could be influenced by 

government/public policy because other critical systems, such as schools and healthcare could fall outside 

the public domain. Participants felt that defining the 0th hour for different types of events, such as 
Community Resilience Workshop

Closing General Session

55

droughts, can be difficult. The group felt a pre-0

th hour may be needed. Considering the second phase of 

recovery, i.e., the workforce phase, communities must define what normalcy is when setting performance 

goals. The breakout group also discussed special considerations for many different types of vulnerable 

populations within their communities.

One key takeaway from the Community Resilience Planning breakout group was that each community is 

different in how it is defined and how it prepares/plans for disaster events. The breakout group felt that 

each community needs an established leader and initiating body to ensure success in implementing the 

framework. Participants also felt there are key principles communities need to consider to become more 

resilient, including better planning, funding programs used as incentives, education on avoided costs, 

building above current code requirements, and developing cost-effective methods to achieve resilience. 

There was also discussion about ways to implement and integrate disaster resilience plans into long-term 

planning for a given community. The group felt communities need to be more proactive, rather than 

reactive, in planning for disasters. The framework needs to continuously evolve as we learn more about 

implementation. Participants also felt the framework needs to do a better job of including both urban and 

rural communities. 

The same breakout group also discussed tools and metrics used to measure resilience and recovery. The 

group felt models are needed to: 1) Evaluate economics of post-event recovery; 2) Perform cost-benefit 

analysis on incorporating resilience into buildings and infrastructure systems; 3) Measure the level of 

redundancy and understand interdependencies; 4) Evaluate recovery plans; and 5) Evaluate scenario 

events.

The Disaster Resilience Standards Panel Charter breakout session discussed outcomes of the workshop. 

The group worked on a draft charter directly to modify language and concepts to include in the mission 

and vision statements of the DRSP. Within the breakout group, participants also worked to identify the 

governance principles that should be established for the DRSP, including openness/transparency, balance 

between stakeholder groups, consensus decisions, and harmonization. The group worked to identify a 

structure that would be appropriate for the DRSP. Participants agreed that a Disaster Resilience 

Coordinating Committee (DRCC) should be formed to oversee and coordinate between several standing 

committees, focusing on different areas important to community disaster resilience. Each standing 

committee would then have working groups to focus on making advancements within each sector for a 

future draft of the framework, model resilience guidelines, recommendations for codes and standards 

development, etc. The standing committees envisioned by the breakout group participants included those 

for:

 Building and Facilities Sector

 Transportation Sector

 Power/Energy Sector

 Communication and Information Sector

 Water and Wastewater Sector

 Data, Metrics and Tools

 Social and Economics 

 Nominating Committee