NIST Special Publication 1190

Community Resilience Planning Guide 

for Buildings and Infrastructure 

Systems 

Volume II

This Publication is available free of charge from: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1190v2

May 2016 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Contributors 

i 

Disclaimer No. 1 

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document to describe an experimental 

procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or 

equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

Disclaimer No. 2 

The policy of NIST is to use the International System of Units (SI) in all publications. In this document, however, 

units are presented in the system prevalent in the relevant discipline, although in some cases more than one system 

of units may be presented. 

Copyright

This NIST publication is a work of the United States Government not subject to copyright protection within the 

United States under Title 17 United States Code § 105. This publication may include copyrighted content (such as 

photographs) used with permission of the credited copyright holder. Reproduction, redistribution or reuse of such 

copyrighted content apart from this publication may require permission, which should be sought from the credited 

copyright holder. Where no copyright holder or source is credited for a figure or table in this publication, the source 

is NIST, which would appreciate attribution.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 1190-1

258 pages (May 2016) 

CODEN: NSPUE2

This Publication is available free of charge from: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1190v2
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Contributors 

ii

Contributors

NIST

David Butry

Steve Cauffman

Stanley Gilbert

Erica Kuligowski

Therese McAllister

Nancy McNabb

Doug Thomas

Applied Research Associates (ARA), Inc. – Prime Contractor

Ryan Anthony

Jessica Colopy 

Bill Judge 

Frank Lavelle

David Mizzen

Janet MacKenzie 

Sebastian Penedo 

Peter Vickery

NIST Disaster Resilience Fellows

Don Ballantyne (Ballantyne Consulting)

Erich Gunther (EnerNex)

Joe Englot (HNTB)

George Huff (The Continuity Project)

Stuart McCafferty (GridIntellect)

Kevin Morley (American Water Works 

Association)

Chris Poland (Chris D. Poland Consulting Engineer)

Steve Poupos (AT&T)

Liesel Ritchie (University of Colorado at Boulder)

Jay Wilson (Clackamas County, OR Office of 

Emergency Management)

Ted Zoli (HNTB)

Contractor Team

Erin Ashley (AECOM)

Andrew Cairns (AECOM)

Chris Chafee (AECOM)

Jay Doyle (AECOM)

Mat Heyman (Impresa Management Solutions)

Alan Klindworth (AECOM)

Jeffrey Kotcamp (TRC Solutions)

Lauren O‘Donnell (TRC Solutions)

Robert Pekelnicky (Degenkolb Engineers)

Nick Rubino (AECOM)

Kathy Schaefer (AECOM)

Larry Studdiforf (AECOM)

Adrienne Sheldon (AECOM)

Scott Tezak (TRC Solutions)

Simon Van Leeuwen (TRC Solutions)

Kent Yu (SEFT Consulting)

Voluntary Contributors

Jim Castagna (Verizon)

Robert Jakubek (US Cellular)

Rosemary Leffler (AT&T)

Alexis Kwasinski (University of Pittsburgh)

John Plodinec (CARRI)

Jim Shortal (Cox Communications)
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Revision History 

iii

Revision History

Version Release Date Updated

SP 1190 October 2015 Initial Release

SP 1190-1 May 2016 Correction of typographic and formatting errors 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Table of Contents 

iv

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

10. Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community .............................................................. 9

Social Community Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 9

10.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 10

10.2. Social Capital and Community Engagement ........................................................................... 11

10.3. Community Members and Their Needs (Now and in the Future) ........................................... 12

10.3.1. Social Vulnerabilities ................................................................................................. 12

10.3.2. Needs of Community Members ................................................................................. 13

10.4. Social Institutions within the Community ............................................................................... 14

10.4.1. Family and Kinship .................................................................................................... 15

10.4.2. Economic .................................................................................................................... 15

10.4.3. Government ................................................................................................................ 16

10.4.4. Health ......................................................................................................................... 19

10.4.5. Education .................................................................................................................... 20

10.4.6. Community Service Organizations ............................................................................ 21

10.4.7. Religious, Cultural, and Other Organizations that Support Belief Systems ............... 22

10.4.8. Media .......................................................................................................................... 22

10.5. Dependencies among and within Social Institutions ............................................................... 23

10.5.1. Dependencies among Social Institutions .................................................................... 23

10.5.2. Dependencies within Social Institutions .................................................................... 24

10.6. Social- and Economic-Based Community Metrics ................................................................. 24

10.7. Links between the Social Institutions and the Built Environment .......................................... 26

10.7.1. Links between Buildings and Social Institutions ....................................................... 26

10.7.2. Links between Transportation and Social Institutions ............................................... 32

10.7.3. Links between Energy and Social Institutions ........................................................... 32

10.7.4. Links between Communications and Social Institutions ............................................ 32

10.7.5. Links between Water and Wastewater and Social Institutions ................................... 33

10.7.6. Links between Social Institutions and the Built Environment after a Disaster .......... 33

10.8. Community Performance Goals Based on Community Member Needs ................................. 33

10.9. References ............................................................................................................................... 35

11. Dependencies and Cascading Effects ............................................................................................ 39

Dependencies Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 39

11.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 39

11.2. Dimensions of Dependency ..................................................................................................... 40

11.2.1. Internal and External Dependency ............................................................................. 40

11.2.2. Time ........................................................................................................................... 44

11.2.3. Space .......................................................................................................................... 46

11.2.4. Source Dependency .................................................................................................... 48

11.3. Planning for Infrastructure System Dependencies .................................................................. 48
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Table of Contents 

v 

11.4. References ............................................................................................................................... 53

12. Buildings ........................................................................................................................................ 54

Buildings Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 54

12.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 55

12.1.1. Social Needs and Systems Performance Goals .......................................................... 55

12.1.2. Reliability vs. Resilience ............................................................................................ 55

12.1.3. Dependencies ............................................................................................................. 56

12.2. Building Categories and Functions ......................................................................................... 56

12.2.1. Government ................................................................................................................ 58

12.2.2. Health Care ................................................................................................................. 59

12.2.3. Schools and Daycare Centers ..................................................................................... 59

12.2.4. Religious and Spiritual Centers .................................................................................. 60

12.2.5. Residential and Hospitality ........................................................................................ 60

12.2.6. Business and Services ................................................................................................ 61

12.2.7. Conference and Event Venues ................................................................................... 61

12.2.8. Detention and Correctional Facilities ......................................................................... 62

12.3. Performance Goals .................................................................................................................. 62

12.4. Regulatory Environment ......................................................................................................... 67

12.5. Codes and Standards ............................................................................................................... 68

12.5.1. New Construction ....................................................................................................... 69

12.5.2. Existing Buildings ...................................................................................................... 72

12.6. Strategies for Implementing Plans for Community Resilience ............................................... 73

12.6.1. Available Guidance .................................................................................................... 73

12.6.2. Solutions for Future Construction .............................................................................. 73

12.6.3. Solutions for Existing Construction ........................................................................... 75

12.6.4. Strategy Prioritization................................................................................................. 77

12.7. References ............................................................................................................................... 77

13. Transportation Systems .................................................................................................................. 81

Transportation Systems Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 81

13.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 83

13.1.1. Social Needs and System Performance Goals ............................................................ 84

13.1.2. Dependencies ............................................................................................................. 85

13.2. Transportation Infrastructure ................................................................................................... 88

13.2.1. Roads, Bridges, Highways, and Road Tunnels .......................................................... 88

13.2.2. Rail ............................................................................................................................. 91

13.2.3. Air............................................................................................................................... 93

13.2.4. Ports, Harbors, and Waterways .................................................................................. 94

13.2.5. Pipelines ..................................................................................................................... 97

13.3. Performance Goals ................................................................................................................ 101

13.4. Regulatory Environment ....................................................................................................... 107

13.5. Standards and Codes ............................................................................................................. 110

13.5.1. New Construction ..................................................................................................... 112

13.5.2. Existing Construction ............................................................................................... 116
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Table of Contents 

vi

13.6. Strategies for Implementing Plans for Community Resilience ............................................. 117

13.6.1. Available Guidance .................................................................................................. 117

13.6.2. Solutions for Future Construction ............................................................................ 118

13.6.3. Solutions for Existing Construction ......................................................................... 120

13.7. References ............................................................................................................................. 122

14. Energy Systems ............................................................................................................................ 129

Energy Systems Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 129

14.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 130

14.1.1. Social Needs and System Performance Goals .......................................................... 130

14.1.2. Reliability, Resilience, and Energy Assurance ......................................................... 131

14.1.3. Dependencies ........................................................................................................... 132

14.2. Energy Infrastructure ............................................................................................................. 133

14.2.1. Electric Power .......................................................................................................... 133

14.2.2. Liquid Fuel ............................................................................................................... 140

14.2.3. Natural Gas ............................................................................................................... 143

14.2.4. Emergency and Standby Power ................................................................................ 143

14.3. Performance Goals ................................................................................................................ 146

14.4. Regulatory Environment ....................................................................................................... 148

14.4.1. Federal ...................................................................................................................... 149

14.4.2. State .......................................................................................................................... 149

14.4.3. Local ......................................................................................................................... 150

14.5. Codes and Standards ............................................................................................................. 150

14.5.1. New Construction ..................................................................................................... 151

14.5.2. Existing Construction ............................................................................................... 152

14.6. Strategies for Implementation of Plans for Community Resilience ...................................... 155

14.6.1. Available Guidance .................................................................................................. 155

14.6.2. Solutions for Future Construction ............................................................................ 157

14.6.3. Solutions for Existing Construction ......................................................................... 158

14.7. References ............................................................................................................................. 159

15. Communication Systems ............................................................................................................. 164

Communication Systems Executive Summary................................................................................... 164

15.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 165

15.1.1. Social Needs and System Performance Goals .......................................................... 165

15.1.2. Availability, Reliability, and Resilience ................................................................... 166

15.1.3. Dependencies ........................................................................................................... 167

15.2. Communication Infrastructure............................................................................................... 168

15.2.1. Core Infrastructure and Wireline System ................................................................. 169

15.2.2. Wireless Systems ...................................................................................................... 175

15.2.3. Cable and Broadcast Systems ................................................................................... 176

15.2.4. Emergency Communications ................................................................................... 177

15.3. Performance Goals ................................................................................................................ 178

15.4. Regulatory Environment ....................................................................................................... 182

15.4.1. Federal ...................................................................................................................... 182
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Table of Contents 

vii 

15.4.2. State .......................................................................................................................... 183

15.4.3. Local ......................................................................................................................... 183

15.4.4. Overlapping Jurisdiction .......................................................................................... 184

15.5. Codes and Standards ............................................................................................................. 184

15.5.1. New Construction ..................................................................................................... 184

15.5.2. Existing Construction ............................................................................................... 188

15.6. Strategies for Implementing Plans for Community Resilience ............................................. 190

15.6.1. Available Guidance .................................................................................................. 190

15.6.2. Solutions for Future Construction ............................................................................ 190

15.6.3. Solutions for Existing Construction ......................................................................... 192

15.7. References ............................................................................................................................. 195

16. Water and Wastewater Systems ................................................................................................... 198

Water and Wastewater Systems Executive Summary ........................................................................ 198

16.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 199

16.1.1. Social Needs and Systems Performance Goals ........................................................ 199

16.1.2. Dependencies ........................................................................................................... 200

16.2. Water and Wastewater Infrastructure .................................................................................... 202

16.2.1. Water Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 202

16.2.2. Wastewater Systems ................................................................................................. 209

16.3. Performance Goals ................................................................................................................ 213

16.4. Regulatory Environment ....................................................................................................... 217

16.4.1. Federal and State Primacy ........................................................................................ 217

16.4.2. Other State ................................................................................................................ 217

16.5. Codes and Standards ............................................................................................................. 217

16.5.1. New Construction ..................................................................................................... 218

16.5.2. Existing Construction ............................................................................................... 220

16.6. Strategies for Implementing Plans for Community Resilience ............................................. 221

16.6.1. System Assessment Approaches .............................................................................. 221

16.6.2. Solutions to Improve System Performance .............................................................. 224

16.7. References ............................................................................................................................. 226

17. Community Resilience Metrics .................................................................................................... 230

Community Resilience Metrics Executive Summary ......................................................................... 230

17.1. Background ........................................................................................................................... 230

17.2. Desirable Characteristics for Community Resilience Metrics .............................................. 231

17.3. Types of Metrics .................................................................................................................... 231

17.3.1. Time to Recovery of Function .................................................................................. 231

17.3.2. Economic Vitality .................................................................................................... 232

17.3.3. Social Well-Being .................................................................................................... 233

17.3.4. Environmental Resilience......................................................................................... 235

17.3.5. Hybrid Metrics ......................................................................................................... 236

17.3.6. Other Metrics ............................................................................................................ 236

17.4. Examples of Existing Community Resilience Assessment Methodologies .......................... 236
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Table of Contents 

viii 

17.4.1. SPUR Methodology ................................................................................................. 236

17.4.2. Oregon Resilience Plan ............................................................................................ 237

17.4.3. UNISDR Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities .................................................. 237

17.4.4. CARRI Community Resilience System ................................................................... 238

17.4.5. Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit (CART) ............................................. 238

17.4.6. Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC) ........................................ 239

17.4.7. Rockefeller Foundation City Resilience Framework ............................................... 239

17.4.8. NOAA Coastal Community Resilience Index .......................................................... 240

17.4.9. FEMA Hazus Methodology ..................................................................................... 241

17.4.10.Comparison Matrix .................................................................................................. 241

17.5. Economic Evaluation of Community Resilience Investment Portfolio ................................. 242

17.5.1. Portfolio Considerations ........................................................................................... 243

17.5.2. Economic Decision-Making Involving Risk and Uncertainty ................................. 244

17.6. References ............................................................................................................................. 244

Glossary .................................................................................................................................................... 247

List of Terms ...................................................................................................................................... 247

List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ 251

References .......................................................................................................................................... 258
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

List of Figures 

ix

List of Figures

Figure ES-1: Downtown Cedar Rapids, Iowa, during the 2008 floods [Source: FEMA 2009] .................... 2

Figure ES-2: Cedar Rapids, Iowa Resilience Plan [adapted and redrawn, Cedar Rapids 2014] .................. 3

Figure ES-3: Six-step planning process for community resilience ............................................................... 4

Figure 10-1: The social and economic functions of a community define the functional 

requirements of the community‘s buildings and infrastructure systems. ....................................... 10

Figure 10-2: The hierarchy of human needs (Adapted from Maslow‘s Hierarchy of Needs – a 

psychological perspective [Maslow 1943]) ................................................................................... 13

Figure 10-3: Alignment of the Government and health institutions with Maslow‘s Hierarchy of 

Needs [Adapted from Maslow 1943] ............................................................................................. 34

Figure 10-4: Alignment of the economic and family/kinship institutions with Maslow‘s Hierarchy 

of Needs [Adapted from Maslow 1943] ........................................................................................ 35

Figure 10-5: Alignment of all the social institutions with Maslow‘s Hierarchy of Needs [Adapted 

from Maslow 1943]........................................................................................................................ 35

Figure 11-1. Example of infrastructure internal and external dependencies for emergency services 

[Source: Pederson et al. 2006]. ...................................................................................................... 41

Figure 11-2. Example of external dependency relationships [Adapted and redrawn, Rinaldi et al 

2001] .............................................................................................................................................. 42

Figure 11-3: Power system internal dependence cascading failure in the 2003 Northeast Blackout ......... 43

Figure 11-4: External dependence cascading failure in the 2003 Northeast Blackout ............................... 43

Figure 11-5: Four impact zones for M9.0 Cascadia earthquake scenario [Source: OSSPAC 2013] .......... 47

Figure 11-6: Example of infrastructure co-location .................................................................................... 47

Figure 11-7: Portland, OR liquid fuel tank farm is vulnerable to failures in pipelines in 

Washington State. (Source: Yumei Wang [DOGAMI 2012] ........................................................ 48

Figure 11-8: Potential service restoration timeframes following a scenario M 7.9 earthquake on 

the San Andreas Fault estimated in City of San Francisco Study .................................................. 49

Figure 11-9: GIS map of infrastructure systems around Portland, Oregon [Source: USGS] ..................... 51

Figure 11-10: Pre-event simulation of LADWP restoration of pump stations and power supply .............. 52

Figure 12-1: Failure of unreinforced masonry wall during an earthquake event ........................................ 64

Figure 12-2: Non-structural damage to interior finishes following an earthquake event ........................... 65

Figure 12-3: Floodwaters reached just under the first floor on this building .............................................. 65

Figure 12-4: Damage to roof covering, vinyl siding and fascia as the result of wind ................................ 65

Figure 12-5: Significant nonstructural damage inside structurally stable building after earthquake 

event ............................................................................................................................................... 65

Figure 12-6: As a result of an estimated 0.9-1.2 m (3-4 ft) of flooding, interior walls had to be 

replaced as well as an exterior door and window [Source: FEMA] .............................................. 66
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

List of Figures 

x 

Figure 12-7: Siding loss and minor envelope damage on low-rise building from a wind event 

[Source: FEMA] ............................................................................................................................ 66

Figure 12-8: Apartment building with damaged structural members that is structurally stable ................. 66

Figure 12-9: Fractured brace connection in a building damaged in an earthquake .................................... 66

Figure 12-10: Foundation wall collapse due to hydrostatic pressure from floodwaters [Source: 

FEMA] ........................................................................................................................................... 67

Figure 12-11: Wind and wind-borne debris resulted in considerable damage to glazing on this 

building. [Source: FEMA] ............................................................................................................. 67

Figure 12-12: Collapse of five-story building due to undermining (from flooding) of shallow 

foundation [Source: FEMA] .......................................................................................................... 67

Figure 13-1: Road undercutting in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene (Source: Photo by Elissa Jun 

[FEMA 2014a]) .............................................................................................................................. 89

Figure 13-2: Local road blocked by fallen trees after remnants of extra-tropical storm struck 

Kentucky [Source: Kentucky Public Service Commission 2009] ................................................. 89

Figure 13-3: Bridge sections knocked off their supports during Hurricane Katrina due to wave 

action (Source: Photo by Win Henderson [FEMA 2014d]) ........................................................... 90

Figure 13-4: A railroad bridge in New Orleans was washed out by flooding during Hurricane 

Katrina (Source: Photo by Marvin Nauman [FEMA 2014c]) ........................................................ 92

Figure 13-5: Flooding in 1993 closed the Chester County Airport and moved planes (Source: 

Photo by Andrea Booher [FEMA 2014b]) ..................................................................................... 94

Figure 13-6: Shipping containers are displaced by high winds and storm surge following Katrina 

in 2005. (Source: Photo by Win Henderson [FEMA 2014e]) ........................................................ 95

Figure 13-7: Iowa DOT comparison chart .................................................................................................. 96

Figure 13-8: Natural gas crew shuts off gas after Hurricane Sandy. [Source: Liz Roll, FEMA 

2012] .............................................................................................................................................. 97

Figure 13-9: Fire damage from broken gas lines [Source: Christopher Mardorf, FEMA 2014] ................ 98

Figure 13-10: Timeframes for transportation systems‘ functionality and potential climate change 

impacts [Source: Michael Savonis, FHWA 2009] ....................................................................... 117

Figure 13-11: Airtrain seismic isolation bearing ...................................................................................... 118

Figure 14-1: NASEO [2009] Energy Assurance Guidelines .................................................................... 132

Figure 14-2: NIST smart grid conceptual model [Source: NIST 2014] .................................................... 134

Figure 14-3: Energy assurance flowchart developed by CaLEAP [Source: CaLEAP 2015] ................... 156

Figure 15-1: Trees fallen across roads due to ice storm in Kentucky slowed down recovery efforts 

[Source: Kentucky Public Service Commission 2009] ................................................................ 168

Figure 15-2: Overview of services and applications supported by communication infrastructure 

systems (Source: [DHS 2008, Used with Permission]) ............................................................... 169

Figure 15-3: Large standby portable power unit used when basement generators failed [Source: 

FEMA 2013] ................................................................................................................................ 171

Figure 15-4: Failure of CATV cable due to wind effects ......................................................................... 173
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

List of Figures 

xi

Figure 15-5: Elevated DLC RT with natural gas standby generator installed after Hurricane 

Katrina ......................................................................................................................................... 174

Figure 15-6: Placement of UPS systems is an important consideration for resilience and periodic 

maintenance ................................................................................................................................. 177

Figure 15-7: Watertight door used on central office in Kamaishi, Japan ................................................. 191

Figure 16-1: Water dependencies with other infrastructure systems ........................................................ 200

Figure 16-2: Water transmission pipeline bridge damaged by landslide .................................................. 204

Figure 16-3: Santa Clara Valley Water District, water treatment plant clarifier launders damaged 

due to sloshing, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake ............................................................................ 205

Figure 16-4: Liquefaction caused differential settlement between pile-supported structures and 

buried pipe during the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake ......................................................................... 205

Figure 16-5: Collapsed water tank in Buras, LA near Hurricane Katrina landfall location [Source: 

FEMA] ......................................................................................................................................... 206

Figure 16-6: Steel tanks damaged due to Tohoku, Japan Tsunami in 2011.............................................. 206

Figure 16-7: Tank moved, severing connecting pipe in 1994 Northridge Earthquake ............................. 207

Figure 16-8: Steel tank elephant‘s foot buckling in 1994 Northridge Earthquake ................................... 207

Figure 16-9: Exposed (left) and broken(right) distribution lines resulting from flooding in 

Jamestown, CO [Source: Environmental Protection Agency] ..................................................... 208

Figure 16-10: Ground cracking (left) and joint separation in ductile iron pipe (right) due to 

liquefaction during 1995 Kobe Earthquake ................................................................................. 208

Figure 16-11: Non-pile supported structures failed due to liquefaction in 1995 Kobe Earthquake ......... 212

Figure 16-12: Higashinada WWTP Channel offset by liquefaction in 1995 Kobe Earthquake ............... 212

Figure 16-13: Sendai WWTP Effluent Pump Station damaged by Tsunami in 2011 Tohoku 

Earthquake ................................................................................................................................... 212

Figure 16-14: Sendai WWTP equipment and piping damage from the 2011 earthquake ........................ 212

Figure 17-1: Preliminary summary assessment of nine existing community resilience 

methodologies .............................................................................................................................. 242
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

List of Tables 

xii 

List of Tables

Table ES-1: Planning steps and key activities for community resilience ..................................................... 8

Table 10-1: U.S. employment characteristics, 2013 [Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015] ................ 17

Table 10-2: Consumption expenditures as a percent of total, by type of product [Source: Bureau 

of Economic Analysis 2013] .......................................................................................................... 18

Table 10-3: Industry size and inter-industry relevance in the United States [Source: World InputOutput Database 2011; Timmer 2012]........................................................................................... 25

Table 10-4: Links between social institutions and buildings ...................................................................... 27

Table 10-5: Links between social institutions and transportation systems ................................................. 28

Table 10-6: Links between social institutions and energy systems ............................................................ 29

Table 10-7: Links between social institutions and communications systems ............................................. 30

Table 10-8: Links between social institutions and water and wastewater systems ..................................... 31

Table 11-1: Infrastructure system dependencies identified by the City of San Francisco‘s Lifelines 

Council following a scenario M7.9 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault [Adapted from 

Laurie Johnson, CCSF Lifelines Council 2014] ............................................................................ 50

Table 12-1: Risk categories for buildings [ASCE/SEI 2010] ..................................................................... 57

Table 12-2: Performance level definitions for building clusters ................................................................. 58

Table 12-3: Example table for building performance goals to be filled out by the community and 

its stakeholders ............................................................................................................................... 63

Table 12-4: Hazard levels for buildings and facilities ................................................................................ 70

Table 13-1: The American Lifelines Association high-level performance metrics for pipeline 

systems [Adapted from ALA 2005] ............................................................................................... 99

Table 13-2: Qualitative Ranking of Hazard Vulnerability for Typical Pipeline System 

Components and Facilities [Adapted from ALA 2005] ............................................................... 100

Table 13-3: Example transportation infrastructure performance goals table to be filled out by a 

community and its stakeholders ................................................................................................... 102

Table 13-4: Example pipelines performance goals table to be filled out by community and its 

stakeholders ................................................................................................................................. 104

Table 13-5: Transportation infrastructure ownership and governing regulatory agencies ....................... 108

Table 13-6: Role of transportation oversight agency ................................................................................ 109

Table 13-7: Surface transport codes, standards, or guidelines .................................................................. 113

Table 13-8: Rail surface transport codes, standards, or guidelines ........................................................... 114

Table 13-9: Multimodal Value of Time Units (VOTU) for calculating cost of delay [Farokhi et al. 

2015; Englot 2011] ...................................................................................................................... 120

Table 14-1: The American Lifelines Association high-level performance measures and 

performance metrics for pipeline systems [Adapted from ALA 2005] ....................................... 141
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

List of Tables 

xiii 

Table 14-2: Qualitative ranking of typical pipeline system components and facilities vulnerability 

to hazards to [Adapted from ALA 2005] ..................................................................................... 142

Table 14-3: Example electrical energy infrastructure performance goals table to be filled out by 

community and its stakeholders ................................................................................................... 147

Table 15-1: Example communications infrastructure performance goals table to be filled out by 

community and its stakeholders ................................................................................................... 180

Table 15-2: Example communication codes and standards discussed in this chapter .............................. 184

Table 15-3: Example best practices for communications infrastructure ................................................... 186

Table 16-1: Common hazards and their potential related consequences [Adapted from 

Preparedness, Emergency Response, and Recovery CIPAC Workgroup 2009].......................... 203

Table 16-2: Example water infrastructure performance goals table to be filled out by community 

and its stakeholders ...................................................................................................................... 214

Table 16-3: Example wastewater infrastructure performance goals table to be filled out by 

community and its stakeholders ................................................................................................... 215

Table 16-4: Codes, standards, and guidelines related to resilience at drinking water and 

wastewater facilities ..................................................................................................................... 219
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Executive Summary, Social Community Executive Summary

1

Executive Summary

Community Resilience: The Big Picture. In the United States, there are always communities working to 

recover from a disaster. Although communities cannot stop natural hazards and have only limited ability 

to prevent technological and human-caused hazards, they can minimize disastrous consequences. 

The extent of recovery and the ultimate outcome depend upon the nature and severity of the event and the 

community‘s preparedness to prevent incidents, mitigate risk, protect assets, respond in a timely and 

coordinated way, and recover community functions. Together, these measures determine the community‘s 

resilience. 

This Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems (Guide) has been 

developed to help communities address these challenges through a practical approach that takes into 

account community social goals and their dependencies on the ―built environment‖ – buildings and 

infrastructure systems.

The Guide recognizes that most 

communities have limited resources to 

devote to resilience-related actions and 

that improving resilience is a process that 

likely will be achieved over many years. 

The Guide‘s six-step planning process 

provides a way to align priorities and 

resources with community goals to jumpstart or boost the community resilience 

process. The Guide can help communities 

build back better in ways that reflect their 

unique cultures, conditions, and capabilities.

Community Resilience Goals and this Guide. Community resilience, which spans activities ranging from 

preparing for hazard events, risk mitigation, and post-event recovery, should be proactive, continuous, 

and integrated into other community goals and plans. Traditional activities, such as disaster preparedness

will help and are part of resilience planning when they include prevention, protection, mitigation, 

response, and recovery.

Some communities are well on their way to achieving resilience. These communities incorporate

continuity planning, risk management, and long-term community resilience goals. But many others can 

do more to improve their resilience to hazards by incorporating more comprehensive and purposeful 

planning that engages a broad set of stakeholders.

The National Preparedness Goal, developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 

response to a Presidential Policy Directive, envisions ―a secure and resilient nation with the capabilities 

required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from 

the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk‖ [FEMA 2015a]. The Guide supports that goal by 

addressing the role buildings and infrastructure systems play in assuring the health and vitality of the 

social and economic fabric of the community. 

Resilience planning and actions do not happen overnight and should be part of a comprehensive, 

thoughtful process. The Guide offers a six-step planning process for local governments, the logical 

conveners, to bring stakeholders together and incorporate resilience into their short- and long-term 

planning. This process will enable communities to improve their resilience over time in a way that is cost 

effective and consistent with their development goals. 

 Community resilience is the ability of a 

community to 

 Prepare for anticipated hazards

 Adapt to changing conditions

 Withstand and recover rapidly from 

disruptions
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Executive Summary, Social Community Executive Summary

2

Having a plan in place and undertaking steps to improve resilience before a hazard strikes increases the 

ability of communities to recover quickly in a way that better prepares them for future events. Even if an 

extreme event occurs, a resilient community likely will experience reduced disruption and recovery time.

Communities that do not prepare well are more likely to be overwhelmed when hazard events strike. 

Communities are often not prepared to recover from hazard events, as evidenced by the number of 

Presidential Disaster Declarations each year [FEMA 2011a]. Poor performance may result from aging 

infrastructure, dependencies between physical systems, poor siting, or lack of maintenance. Truly 

transformative planning for resilience is often assigned a low priority unless a recent event grabs 

community interest. Even then, communities tend to focus on restoration to previous conditions and 

capacities rather than building back better.

Some communities have taken significant steps 

to develop, implement, and update their plans to 

improve resilience. Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for 

example, developed and exercised an evacuation 

plan for dealing with a potential incident at an 

upstream nuclear power plant. Cedar Rapids 

executed that plan during 2008 flooding, when 

the Cedar River crested well above its predicted 

500-year flood level (Figure ES-1). No lives 

were lost, despite the tremendous economic 

damage. 

Realizing the benefit and importance of 

resilience planning, in the following four months 

the City Council and City Manager instituted a 

community engagement process and developed a 

broader Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, being 

implemented today, that is receiving national 

recognition. Figure ES-2 shows a community plan with floodways, levees, floodwalls, and dams to 

improve the resilience of the community to flood events. That plan aims to improve overall quality of life 

within the community, including resilience to flooding events. Communities with a vision for growth, 

stability, and resilience encourage economic development, as Cedar Rapids has, even as they recover 

from a disaster. 

The Community Resilience Planning Guide: How can it help? While more and more organizations –

domestic and international, public and private – are promoting community resilience to lower disaster 

tolls, transforming this important concept to practice remains a work in progress. Working with public 

and private stakeholders, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) developed this 

voluntary Guide as a component of the President‘s Climate Action Plan. It offers a process for 

communities to incorporate short- and long-term measures to enhance resilience. 

This Guide helps connect good ideas and constructive actions for long-term community prosperity. In 

addressing the how of resilience, the Guide is a tool that will help communities unify disaster risk 

management, emergency response planning, and long-term community and economic development 

planning.

Figure ES-1: Downtown Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 

during the 2008 floods [Source: FEMA 2009]
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Executive Summary, Social Community Executive Summary

3

Figure ES-2: Cedar Rapids, Iowa Resilience Plan [adapted and redrawn, Cedar Rapids 2014] 

The Guide describes a six-step planning process that helps communities develop customized resilience 

plans by bringing together all relevant stakeholders, establishing community-level performance goals, and 

developing and implementing plans to become more resilient. This approach focuses on the roles 

buildings and physical infrastructure systems play in assuring social functions resume when needed after 

a hazard event. (Social functions include government, business, healthcare, education, community 

services, religion, culture, and media communications.) If a catastrophic event does occur, resilience 

planning encourages and enables the community to have plans in place to recover and rebuild in a 

thoughtful way. Such plans include coordinating with nearby communities as well as with state, regional, 

and federal agencies. 

The Guide can help a community take specific actions:

 Build on, broaden, bridge, and integrate its current plans (e.g., economic, emergency 

preparedness, land use) with community resilience plans, particularly for the built environment. 

 Identify risks, priorities, and pre- and post-event costs, including the consequences of not taking 

certain actions.

 Prioritize resilience actions for buildings and infrastructure systems, based on the specific hazards 

the community is most likely to face and the importance of these buildings and infrastructure 

systems in supporting key social functions.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Executive Summary, Social Community Executive Summary

4

How do resilience plans fit in with other 

community plans? Many disaster plans are 

not well integrated with other community 

plans, including the community‘s 

comprehensive general plan or the 

emergency operations plan. Planning for 

resilience can and should build on other 

community plans that are already in place. 

A general plan addresses the long-range 

goals and objectives for the local 

government; emergency operations plans 

prepare the community response to 

emergencies. An integrated communitylevel resilience plan seamlessly 

incorporates steps for disaster preparedness 

and recovery actions that will help them to 

be resilient. Communities should ensure 

that resilience is a common goal for all of 

their planning.

Incorporating resilience planning as a 

common goal usually will involve adding 

specific performance goals for buildings 

and infrastructure systems, and much more. 

It requires detailed input and development 

by a broad cross section of leaders and 

stakeholders, both public and private. It 

calls for understanding the community‘s 

social, political, and economic systems, and 

an understanding of how they are supported 

by the built environment. What are their 

vulnerabilities? How will damage to 

buildings and infrastructure systems impact 

community recovery? For buildings and 

infrastructure systems, which may be either 

publicly or privately owned and operated, 

understanding their exposure to prevalent 

hazards, and their anticipated performance 

or possible improvement, is key. 

Who should lead? Who should be 

involved? Community resilience should be 

championed by a planning team that 

provides leadership and engages public, 

non-profit, and private stakeholders, along 

with the broader community throughout the 

process (Figure ES-3). Much of the 

building stock and infrastructure systems, 

particularly in the energy and 

communication sectors, are privately 

owned, so stakeholder collaboration is 

essential to successful planning. 

Figure ES-3: Six-step planning process for community 

resilience
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Executive Summary, Social Community Executive Summary

5

The local government is the logical convener for coordinating interests related to community resilience

because it is responsible for implementing community building codes, statutes, and community plans, and 

can collaborate and coordinate with other entities. Many of the successful community resilience efforts to 

date have been led by a community official who works with a resilience team, established by the local 

government that collaborates with other public, non-profit, and private entities. Working groups with 

representative stakeholders and subject matter experts develop recommendations. A dedicated community

resilience office, with a leading official who has supporting staff, can provide strong and consistent 

leadership. But every community has different capabilities and resources, and each should approach this 

process in a way that fits best within its style and means. In all cases, community leadership buy-in and 

community stakeholder engagement are vital.

How does this Guide link a community’s social needs to its built environment? In the context of this 

Guide, communities are places (such as towns, cities, or counties), designated by geographical 

boundaries, that function under the jurisdiction of a governance structure. It is within these places that 

most people live, work, find security, and feel a sense of belonging so they can grow and prosper. All 

communities have social institutions to support the needs of individuals and households. They include 

family, economic, government, health, education, community service, religious, cultural, and media 

organizations. 

Users of the Guide will assess their social 

institutions and built environment, focusing on 

their role and importance in community 

resilience. Understanding how a community‘s 

people, social institutions, and needs depend on 

the built environment is key. When considering a 

community‘s institutions and its reliance on the 

built environment, it is important to consider the 

vulnerabilities and needs of all segments of the 

population. Using this Guide, resilience planners 

will identify how people in their communities 

depend on buildings and infrastructure systems to 

support community recovery. They will establish 

goals to sequence the recovery of functions after 

a hazard event. 

The built environment can suffer significant 

damage during a hazard event. Depending on the 

event‘s severity, many people could be illprepared to manage on their own, especially for 

an extended period of time. To support vital social needs, such as emergency response and 

acute/emergency healthcare, communities need to determine in advance which buildings and 

infrastructure systems are most essential and must be functional during and immediately after a hazard 

event. They also need to determine if and how the rest of the built environment can return to functionality 

in the subsequent days, weeks, and months of recovery. 

Determining Community Resilience Goals and Objectives. Communities should establish long-term 

resilience goals to guide resilience planning, prioritize activities, and develop implementation strategies. 

For example, a community may wish to develop improved infrastructure to attract new business. Or, it

may want to increase social well-being by redeveloping a floodplain to become a community park, while 

also providing natural protection from flooding. With long-term community resilience goals identified, 

communities can identify related performance goals for those buildings and physical infrastructure 

systems that are relied upon for important social services. 

Examples of how community members depend on 

the built environment: 

 The need for housing and healthcare is 

universal. 

 Children need school buildings.

 Neighborhoods need retail districts. 

 Businesses need suitable facilities, 

functioning supply chains, delivery 

networks, and a workforce that is readily 

available. 

 Everyone needs a transportation network, 

electricity, fuel, water, wastewater 

systems, and communication/information 

access. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Executive Summary, Social Community Executive Summary

6

One key question that this Guide prompts and helps community leaders to answer is, ―When do the 

buildings and infrastructure systems that support each social institution need to be restored before 

adversely affecting the community‘s longer-term ability to serve its members?‖ The Guide assists in 

determining the desired time and sequence for restoring community functions. 

To determine how the community‘s built environment would fare, planners need to estimate the 

anticipated performance of the community‘s existing buildings and infrastructure systems for the most 

likely hazards. Many communities may have identified prevailing hazards when developing plans for 

natural hazard mitigation, emergency operations, continuity of operations, or Threat and Hazard 

Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). 

This Guide encourages communities to use three 

hazard levels – routine, design, and extreme – to 

address a range of potential damage and 

consequences. Evaluation of these three hazard 

levels help communities to develop 

comprehensive resilience plans. When codes do 

not define design hazard levels (e.g., wildfire or 

tornadoes), the community may establish a 

hazard level or scenario based on available 

guidance. A community‘s resilience plan should 

be anchored around the design event, but routine 

and extreme events also should be evaluated to 

ensure that the community is planning 

comprehensively for a range of possibilities.

The difference between the built environment‘s 

anticipated performance today and its desired performance in the future constitute the critical gaps in 

performance. Those gaps, then, guide development of solutions and strategies to meet long-term 

community goals and specific desired performance goals for the built environment. Simply identifying 

those gaps is an important outcome for users of this Guide. 

Determining feasible, effective solutions to fill those gaps is critical. This Guide encourages considering 

administrative options, like incorporating resilience principles into other community plans (e.g., land use 

planning and mutual aid agreements). Such options frequently cost less and often can be put into place 

more quickly than construction options, which take longer to implement but can be equally important. 

Once they identify, evaluate, and recommend potential solutions, users of this Guide will prepare a formal 

community resilience plan based on the information gathered by the planning team and present that plan 

for review and discussion by stakeholders and the community. When it is finalized and approved, the 

resilience plan should be put into action, reviewed periodically, and maintained.

Community Resilience in Six Steps: Figure ES-3 summarizes the six basic planning steps recommended 

by this Guide, with additional detail available in Table ES-1. Volume I further develops these six basic 

planning steps and other key activities. The Community Resilience Planning Example in Chapter 9 

(Volume I) provides an example of community planning in Riverbend, USA, a fictional city that uses the 

Guide. That example walks through each of the six steps and illustrates how communities can effectively 

use the Guide. Volume II presents supporting information and resources regarding the social dimensions 

of resilience and dependencies between and among buildings and infrastructure systems (e.g., energy 

systems, transportation systems, communication systems, and water and wastewater systems).

Essential ingredients: time, commitment, and engagement. Improving community resilience takes time 

to plan and implement and for benefits to accrue – sometimes decades. Because priorities differ from one 

community to another, resilience should be addressed at varying levels of detail to suit the size, 

Three hazard levels used in this Guide: 

 Routine hazard events are more frequent, 

less consequential events that should not 

cause significant damage.

 Design hazard events are used to design 

structures; design loads are specified in 

building codes for many natural hazards. 

 Extreme events may also be defined in 

building codes for some hazards; they are 

the most likely to cause extensive 

damage. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Executive Summary, Social Community Executive Summary

7

capability, and uniqueness of each community. However, resilience also is furthered when communities 

cooperate with neighboring and regional jurisdictions, especially when services are shared. 

Above all, identifying goals and objectives and achieving community resilience requires initiative and 

support from community leadership; broad community engagement that includes focus and persistence; 

and a willingness of public and private stakeholders to assess candidly the interplay of hazard events, 

social institutions, governance, economics, and the community‘s buildings and infrastructure systems. 

This Guide offers a practical way forward for community leaders. They should review this approach with 

potential stakeholders – and then take action. Simply beginning the process will advance a community‘s 

understanding of its situation, what is possible, and how its resilience can be improved.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Executive Summary, Social Community Executive Summary

8

Table ES-1: Planning steps and key activities for community resilience

Planning Steps Key Activities

1. Form a 

Collaborative 

Planning Team

(Chapter 2)

 Identify resilience leader for the community 

 Identify team members and their roles and responsibilities

 Identify key public and private stakeholders for all phases of planning and 

implementation 

2. Understand the 

Situation 

(Chapter 3)

 Social Dimensions –

 Identify and characterize functions and dependencies of social institutions, including 

business, industry, and financial systems, based on individual/social needs met by 

these institutions and social assets and vulnerabilities

 Identify how social functions are supported by the built environment

 Identify key contacts and representatives for evaluation, coordination, and decision 

making activities

 Built Environment –

 Identify and characterize buildings and infrastructure systems, including condition, 

location, and dependencies between and among systems 

 Identify key contacts/representatives for evaluation, coordination, and decision 

making activities

 Identify existing plans to be coordinated with the resilience plan

 Link social functions to the supporting built environment

 Define building clusters and supporting infrastructure

3. Determine 

Goals and 

Objectives 

(Chapter 4)

 Establish long-term community goals 

 Establish desired recovery performance goals for the built environment at the community 

level based on social needs, and dependencies and cascading effects between systems

 Define community hazards and levels 

 Determine anticipated performance during and after a hazard event to support social 

functions

 Summarize the results

4. Plan

Development

(Chapter 5)

 Evaluate gaps between the desired and anticipated performance of the built environment 

to improve community resilience and summarize results 

 Identify solutions to address gaps including both administrative and construction options

 Prioritize solutions and develop an implementation strategy

5. Plan 

Preparation, 

Review, and 

Approval

(Chapter 6)

 Document the community plan and implementation strategy

 Obtain feedback and approval from stakeholders and community 

 Finalize and approve the plan

6. Plan 

Implementation

and 

Maintenance

(Chapter 7)

 Execute approved administrative and construction solutions 

 Evaluate and update on a periodic basis 

 Modify short or long-term implementation strategy to achieve performance goals as 

needed
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Social Community Executive Summary

9

10. Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community

Social Community Executive Summary

In the context of this Guide, communities are places designated by geographical boundaries, such as 

towns, cities, or counties, that function under the jurisdiction of a governance structure. People are the 

foundation of any community. Within these places, people live, work, find security, and feel a sense of 

belonging so they can grow and achieve. A community consists of individuals and households, each with 

unique characteristics and needs. 

Communities attempt to organize themselves to meet the needs of their members. Social institutions are 

one way to view a community‘s organization. A community typically consists of eight different social 

institutions that exist to meet community member needs: 1) family/kinship; 2) the economy; 3) 

government; 4) health; 5) education; 6) community service organizations; 7) religious, cultural and other 

organizations that support belief systems; and 8) the media. 

The built environment in any community includes its buildings and infrastructure systems. When a hazard 

event occurs, damage to the built environment can make it difficult for a community‘s institutions to 

function and meet members‘ needs. While some social institutions rely more heavily on the built 

environment than others, there are linkages between the social and built environments that need to remain 

strong for a community to thrive. This Guide is based upon the foundation that the social and economic 

functions of a community drive the requirements of the built environment. 

The Guide outlines a methodology to plan for resilience by prioritizing buildings and infrastructure 

systems based on their importance in supporting social and economic functions in the community. 

Characterizing the community, including both the community‘s social and built environments, is an 

integral stage of this process. This chapter provides the context and tools to guide the community‘s 

planning team in characterizing the social dimensions of their community.

Before a community begins to characterize its social dimensions , it should identify leaders from the 

community‘s population, groups, and organizations for inclusion into the planning team. This chapter 

begins by discussing the importance of community engagement in this process. 

Understanding and characterizing the social community first involves characterizing its members and 

their needs, now and in the future. Information on the types of data that can be gathered about the 

population is used to construct a snapshot of current conditions and of the future. Information on the 

needs of community members is also required. This chapter discusses needs of community members in 

the context of Maslow‘s hierarchy, acknowledging that some needs are more urgent than others. 

Additionally, the importance of identifying social capacities and vulnerabilities among the population is 

discussed. The needs of everyone likely to be affected in a hazard event (or on a day-to-day basis) may 

not be equitably addressed, such as older adults, people living in poverty, racial and ethnic minority 

groups, people with disabilities, and those suffering from chronic illness. 

This chapter also focuses on the social institutions that exist within a community to meet the needs of 

community members. Each chapter section is devoted to one of the eight institutions listed above –

summarizing the socially-based purposes and functions each serves in communities, as well as the human 

needs it meets. The chapter also guides communities through the process of identifying the ways in which 

dependencies exist among and within social institutions, and the links between social institutions and the 

built environment. Linkages between the social and built environments are particularly important since 

they guide the team to develop community-wide resilience goals for their social institutions that will, in 

turn, drive development of similar performance goals for the built environment. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Introduction

10

10.1. Introduction 

Achieving community resilience is a social process. This Guide gives communities a methodology to plan 

for resilience by prioritizing buildings and infrastructure systems based on their importance in supporting

the social and economic functions in the community. Figure 10-1 illustrates this concept.

Figure 10-1: The social and economic functions of a community define the functional requirements of 

the community’s buildings and infrastructure systems.

The Guide describes a six-step process communities can follow to increase community resilience. The 

first step is forming a collaborative planning team (see Chapter 2 of Volume I). Therefore, Section 10.2

discusses the importance of community engagement when planning for resilience. In the second step, the 

planning team, which includes community leaders, characterizes the social dimensions of the community 

– i.e., the social and economic functions of a community that are in place to meet community member 

needs (see Chapter 3 of Volume I). This chapter provides context and tools to guide the planning team in 

characterizing the social community. The steps to characterize the social community are:

1. Characterize community members and their needs (current and future). This process includes 

identifying community population demographics and their geographic locations within the 

community, social vulnerabilities and inequities within the population, the needs of community 

members, and the community‘s economic profile. Additionally, the community should project the

long-term growth/needs of community members.

2. Identify social institutions/systems within the community, including their functions, the needs 

they meet, and any gaps in capacity that can be reduced by a change/improvement to the built 

environment. 

3. Identify any dependencies among and within social institutions.

4. Identify key social- and economic-based community metrics; i.e., methods of tracking success of 

planning efforts and improvements made to achieve community resilience.

Once both the social and built communities are characterized, it is important that the planning team 

identify the dependencies of the social institutions on the built environment (discussed in Section 10.7).

This chapter ends by offering examples of resilience goals communities might set for their social 

institutions that can be used to develop performance goals for the built environment (Section 10.8 and

Chapter 4 of Volume I).
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Social Capital and Community Engagement

11

10.2. Social Capital and Community Engagement

The report, Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative, highlights the need for a paradigm shift in the 

United States to a new ―culture of disaster resilience‖ [The National Academies 2012]. In this report, 

social capital is included among other social factors, such as health and socioeconomic status that 

influence a community‘s ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disaster. Since 2006, 

published research on the importance of social capital in disaster resilience has increased dramatically 

[Aldrich and Meyer 2014; Ritchie and Gill 2007].

The term ―social capital‖ refers to social networks, the reciprocity and trust generated by them among 

individuals, groups, and communities, and the value of these social networks for achieving mutual goals 

[Schuller, Baron, and Field 2000]. Similar to cultural capital, social capital reflects the convergence of 

shared values in a community. It is especially valuable because it enhances a community‘s ability to work 

toward collective goals—many of which include an increase in other forms of capital. As Putnam [2000]

notes, social capital ―greases the wheels that allow communities to advance smoothly.‖ At the most basic 

level, social capital facilitates information sharing, serves as a conduit for providing social support, and 

enhances the capacity for collective action. Recently, the importance of social capital has been 

demonstrated in hazard and disaster research.

Social capital can contribute to resilience by enhancing the sense of belonging and strengthening bonds 

between individuals and groups within communities. This potential increases when civic engagement 

involves multiple and diverse sets of stakeholders. As noted in the 2012 National Academies report, 

―Building resilience in the face of disaster risk can also have benefits for a community even in the 

absence of a disaster in advancing social capital for dealing with more mundane community challenges‖ 

[The National Academies 2012].

Community engagement is an important aspect of a community‘s social capital. It is important that the 

planning team identify and actively engage with individuals in the community planning process who 

represent the diverse views and needs within the community. People live, work, learn, and play within a 

community and, therefore, need to have a voice in the community‘s planning process. Communities may 

wish to invite individuals who are already actively engaged in other community-based activities, not 

necessarily related to resilience. In addition, communities may wish to identify individuals who are highly 

connected and engaged with neighborhood, business, or community groups. These individuals can help 

represent particular group perspectives/interests that become important as resilience improvements are 

proposed through the planning process. 

For communities to become engaged in the pursuit of resilience, there needs to be a collective belief in 

the potential threat from hazard(s) and the value of investing in resilience. These beliefs and values also 

reflect the level of risk a community is willing to tolerate. This level of risk is usually based on experience 

and available science. Communities rely on science and engineering to present hazard probabilities and 

design options for reducing or avoiding exposure to community hazards. Scientists, engineers, and 

decision makers need to have a common understanding of purpose, roles, responsibilities, and limitations 

as they relate to potential disasters and the means to plan, detect, notify, and respond to threats. 

By going through the resilience planning process, communities can better understand how their decisions 

result in an increased or decreased level of risk from potential hazards. They can also identify 

opportunities to reduce future losses through mitigation and recovery strategies. Ideally, resilience

planning will help communities demonstrate credible investments toward improved quality of life during 

and after design-level hazards. Planning can support expedited recovery following extreme hazard events

and take advantage of recovery and reconstruction opportunities. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Community Members and Their Needs (Now and 

in the Future)

12

10.3. Community Members and Their Needs (Now and in the Future)

The Community & Regional Resilience Institute‘s (CARRI) Community Resilience System (CRS)

[CARRI 2013] equates characterizing the social community to defining the community‘s identity. 

Characterization involves:

 Analyzing existing data, or possibly collecting data, on community demographics and their 

geographic locations, and economic indicators

 Identifying social assets, capacities (i.e., social capital), vulnerabilities, and inequities within the 

population

 Recognizing the needs of different groups in the community

Since resilience involves long-term planning and decision-making, community leaders could begin by 

identifying the ways in which community demographics, capacities, vulnerabilities, and specific local 

needs may change over time.

A population‘s identity, from a social perspective, may differ greatly from one community to another. It is

important that a community examine data on the demographics of their community members, including 

age, education, gender, income, ethnicity, employment rates, rates of insurance coverage, special needs 

groups, and other important variables. Much of these data are available without cost from federal 

agencies, e.g., U.S. Census Bureau [2015], but locally-specific data can also be collected via surveys, 

questionnaires or interviews, or focus groups with community members. Data should also be used to 

create a business or industry profile of the community, e.g., the percentage of the community‘s economy 

occupied by each type of industry. By understanding these aspects of their community, community 

leaders can begin to identify local capacities, as well as social vulnerabilities, and in turn, the specific 

needs of community members.

10.3.1. Social Vulnerabilities 

When assessing a community‘s population, it is important to recognize and address social vulnerability. 

Not all people use community systems or have access to community systems in the same ways. Therefore, 

the needs of everyone likely to be affected in a disaster (or on a day-to-day basis) – such as older adults, 

people living in poverty, racial and ethnic minority groups, people with disabilities, and those suffering 

from chronic illness – may not be met. In addition, renters, students, single-parent families, small 

business owners, culturally diverse groups, and residents of historic neighborhoods may not be adequately 

represented [Phillips et al. 2009]. Therefore, interactions of individuals/households with community 

systems can introduce inequities among certain subpopulations of a community. 

These inequities tend to worsen in and following a hazard event. Specifically, a large and growing body 

of empirical research on hazards and disasters shows that risk is not distributed or shared equally across 

all groups [Bullard and Wright 2009; Phillips et al. 2009; Tierney 2014; The National Academies 2012; 

The Institute of Medicine 2015]. Pre-disaster vulnerability, inherent in social institutions, may negatively 

impact response, recovery, and resilience following a disaster event. For example, some individuals and 

groups face greater risks than others based upon where they are located in the community, the buildings in 

which they live or work (e.g., inferior housing), or have to rely only on public transportation. These 

groups are also less likely to be included in the political process, and often have little voice in disaster 

planning, response, and recovery activities.

Vulnerability is highlighted here to ensure all community members and their resources (or lack of 

resources) are considered when planning for resilience. Community leaders should identify those 

populations who are most affected – not only in and after a disaster, but also on a day-to-day basis – to 

make resilience-based decisions that improve the life-safety and well-being of all community members. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Community Members and Their Needs (Now and 

in the Future)

13

Communities can assess their social vulnerability using a variety of tools, including the Social 

Vulnerability Index [University of South Carolina 2013]. Further information on vulnerable populations 

is available in Phillips et al. [2009] and Tierney [2014]. 

10.3.2. Needs of Community Members

Individuals and households in any community

have a set of needs they strive to meet on a daily 

basis. Figure 10-2 presents a generalized 

hierarchy of individual and household needs, 

which may require further adaptation and 

specification by each community. The figure 

shows the most fundamental needs at the bottom 

(survival), followed by safety and security, 

belonging, and growth and achievement needs 

[Maslow 1943]. While all needs are important, the 

hierarchy shows that some needs are more urgent 

or time sensitive than others, a concept that is 

particularly useful in the context of recovery and 

resilience. Although there are more detailed 

conceptual models that discuss human needs [e.g., 

see Max-Neef, Elizalde, and Hopenhayn 1991],

this approach – adapted from Maslow‘s Hierarchy 

of Needs – captures the most essential dimensions 

with which this chapter is concerned. 

The first and most fundamental need is that of 

survival. Survival includes necessary physical 

requirements, such as air, water, food, shelter, and 

clothing. If these needs are not met, the human body cannot sustain life – people cannot live longer than 5 

days without water and 6 weeks without food, assuming an adequate water supply [Lieberson 2004].

Survival also includes protection of life from hazard events.

The second need, safety and security, includes all aspects of personal, financial (economic) security, and 

health and well-being. People require safety and security in their personal lives from situations of 

violence, physical and verbal abuse, war, etc. They also must know their family and friendship networks

are secure. Individuals need financial safety (e.g., job security, a consistent income, savings accounts, 

insurance policies, and other types of financial safety nets). Studies of disasters during the recovery phase

[Dickenson 2013; Binder 2014] show that people are likely to relocate to another community in search of 

new employment [Sanders et al. 2003; Fraser et al. 2006; Hunter 2005] or economic gain, such as higher 

wages [Belcher and Bates 1983], or because they lost access to their non-liquid assets, such as farmland 

or fishing boats [Black et al. 2008; Gray et al. 2009]. These studies emphasize the importance of 

providing employment and financial security to those within a community. Finally, people require safety 

from negative health conditions, so they can enjoy life and consistent well-being in their communities.

The third need is belonging. This need represents belonging and acceptance among various groups of 

people (e.g., family, friends, school groups, sports teams, work colleagues, religious congregation) or 

belonging to a place or location. In relation to groups of people, experts often discuss the concept of 

social capital within a community. Social capital describes the networks and relationships that connect 

members of a community, including the extensiveness and interconnectedness of social networks within 

the community, levels of civic engagement, and interpersonal, inter-organizational, and institutional trust

Figure 10-2: The hierarchy of human needs 

(Adapted from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – a 

psychological perspective [Maslow 1943])

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 Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Social Institutions within the Community

14

[The National Academies 2006; Aldrich and Meyer 2014]. The importance of a sense of belonging within 

a community has been demonstrated by research into community recovery, which shows that the 

likelihood of people leaving a community increases when social networks are lost [Sanders et al. 2003].

Research also demonstrates that individuals benefit from a strong sense of belonging to a place, which 

inhibits their desire to relocate after a hazard event [Groen and Polivka 2010; Cutter et al. 2014]. A strong 

place attachment or sense of belonging to a place can be influenced by, for example, home ownership or

having strong, extensive social networks within the community. 

The fourth need is growth and achievement. Humans need to feel a sense of achievement and that they are 

respected in society. In Figure 10-2, this need is accompanied by continual growth and exploration within 

society, including an individual‘s ability to realize his/her full potential – to accomplish all that he/she can 

– within his/her lifetime. Although this need may seem less tangible than others, growth and achievement 

are as important as other needs, often being accomplished through educational achievement and 

participation in arts and recreation.

Maslow‘s hierarchy, supported by research studies of hazard event recovery, identifies the functions that 

must be maintained in a resilient community [Arup 2014]. For example, based on the hierarchy of needs, 

a resilient community: 

 Safeguards human life

 Delivers basic needs

 Provides safety and security from a personal, financial, and health/well-being perspective

 Facilitates human relationships and identification (with groups and to a place)

 Supports growth and achievement

However, all communities are different and meet these needs in different ways through their social 

institutions. 

10.4. Social Institutions within the Community

Characterizing the social community also involves identifying the social institutions, including their 

functions, the needs they meet, and any gaps in capacity that can be remedied by a change or 

improvement to the built environment. A social institution is a complex, organized pattern of beliefs and 

behaviors and can include family, education, government, religion, or economy, each of which is 

overlapping and interdependent. The purpose of social institutions is to meet the basic individual and 

household needs. 

This section describes eight social institutions to guide communities in understanding their own set of 

social institutions. Sections 10.4.1 through 10.4.8 summarize the socially based purposes and functions 

each institution serves in communities, as well as the human needs they meet in the context of Maslow‘s 

hierarchy. The eight institutions described in this chapter include:

1. Family and Kinship

2. Economic (i.e., business and commerce)

3. Government 

4. Health 

5. Education

6. Community Service Organizations
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Social Institutions within the Community

15

7. Religious, Cultural, and Other Organizations that Support Belief Systems

8. Media

Although ad hoc groups can form both within and outside of these social institutions after a hazard event, 

this section presents the ways a community is typically organized for its day-to-day functions.

10.4.1. Family and Kinship

Family is the first institution to which we are exposed. Within a family, an individual can learn about the 

world and the importance of love, care, and a sense of belonging. The family unit is typically defined as 

―a relationship between two or more people who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption.‖ However, it 

is difficult to define fully what is meant by the term ―family,‖ since our understanding varies across 

cultures and over time. We might consider only those within our family of origin as part of our family 

unit, even limiting the family unit to those living in the same residence [Nam 2004]. More often, 

however, our definition of family broadens to include extended family members (e.g., grandparents, 

aunts, uncles, and cousins), or even long-time friends, friends of family, or other individuals who are not 

related by blood or marriage. Tight, close-knit bonds are developed within family/kinship units that, 

among other factors, can determine a community‘s level of resilience in response to a hazard event.

Proximity of family members to one another is also an important consideration. Family members may 

live within the same residence or different residences within the same community, providing larger 

numbers of close-knit groups within a community to respond to and recover from an event. In other cases, 

family members may live in different geographical parts of the world. While such distance may decrease 

the opportunity for social capital, it provides additional sheltering options to family members who wish to 

evacuate a community that has been disrupted by a hazard event, either temporarily or permanently. 

Family or kinship units exist to support all human needs in Maslow‘s hierarchy, from very basic needs to 

the need for growth and achievement. The family or kinship unit is responsible for providing support and 

resources to meet survival, safety/security, belonging/acceptance, and growth/achievement needs.

10.4.2. Economic

Economic institutions facilitate allocation of scarce resources across society. Producers and suppliers 

combine factors of production (e.g., land, labor, and capital) to create goods and services that meet the 

needs and desires of consumers. The availability of production factors, along with the demand of 

consumers, determines the final mix of goods and services produced, supplied, and consumed.

The economy is a mechanism by which most human needs are satisfied. While not all needs are provided 

for, the economy produces goods and services that fulfill some element of survival, safety and security, 

belonging, and growth and achievement from Maslow‘s hierarchy. Some needs are met through the direct 

consumption of goods and services, such as food and shelter. Other needs are satisfied as a result of a 

functioning economy. For example, employment affords individuals the means to provide, but also can 

afford opportunities for career growth and achievement. Further, many commercial and for-profit venues,

such as shopping malls, barbershops, and restaurants, facilitate the social gatherings of individuals with 

shared interests and life experiences, providing people with a sense of belonging. It is obvious then, that 

the pursuit of economic interests also creates values that have no market; yet, it is also vulnerable to 

disruptive events. 

Good Production and Service Supply. Industries within the economy are classified by their production or 

supply role. Three economic sectors exist: 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Social Institutions within the Community

16

 Primary Economic Sector – Producers of raw materials, such as the agriculture, forestry, fishing, 

and mining industries. In 2011, these industries represented 3.9 % of U.S. gross domestic 

product.1

 Secondary Economic Sector – Producers of goods, such as the manufacturing and construction 

industries. In 2011, these industries represented 15.8 % of U.S. gross domestic product.

 Tertiary Economic Sector – Suppliers of services, such as utilities, wholesale and retail trade, 

transportation and warehousing, information, financial activities, professional and business 

services, education services, health care and social assistance, leisure and hospitality, other 

services, and federal, state, and local government. In 2011, these industries represented 80.3 % of 

U.S. gross domestic product.

Labor Supply. Of the 316 million people in the U.S. reported by the U.S. Census Bureau‘s 2013 

Population Estimates, approximately 144 million were employed (Table 10-1). According to the 2013 

American Community Survey, 96.3 % of employees worked in their state of residence, however 23.8 %

worked outside their county of residence [United States Census Bureau 2015]. For some communities 

(located within a county), an even larger percentage of employees may work outside their communities‘ 

jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, it is likely that a hazard event that affects a particular community 

will not affect the community‘s entire workforce. 

Around 11 million persons aged 16 and over were unemployed (Table 10-1). Industries that have low 

unemployment and/or require highly trained and skilled employees, might find it difficult to handle a 

disruption from a hazard event that displaces their employees. 

Consumer Demand. In 2013, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and 

Product Accounts Tables on Gross Domestic Product, personal consumption expenditures amounted to 

$11.5 trillion or 68 % of GDP, investment amounted to $2.6 trillion (16 % of GDP), government 

consumption amounted to $3.1 trillion (19 % of GDP), and net exports were -$508.2 billion [Bureau of 

Economic Analysis 2013]. As seen in Table 10-2, approximately a third of personal consumption 

expenditures went toward goods, while the rest went towards services. Consumers purchase and use 

goods and services from vendors within their community, while away on business or vacation (tourism), 

and online.

A hazard event may affect consumer demand. Those sectors that serve tourism may experience a decrease 

in consumption expenditures. Additionally, the economy might see an increased demand in the 

construction industry, if a significant number of commercial or residential buildings require repair or a 

rebuild.

10.4.3. Government

Laws, regulations, and services provided by the government protect life and property, preserve peace and 

well-being, strengthen group identity and norms, and define social and economic goals for the future. In 

response to a disruptive event, for example, the government may provide for many of Maslow‘s needs, 

starting with the necessities of food, water, and shelter and extending through safety and security. (See 

Section 1.6 in Volume 1, Other Federal Activities Supporting Resilience, for a broader discussion of 

current federal programs that support community resilience.) However, the governmental entity providing 

service may shift following a hazard event, to support recovery from federal to local (or vice versa), or 

even necessitate change from private to public, for example. Such shifts could alter local reliance on the

built environment. 

 

1 Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of goods and services produced by labor and capital in a country. In 2011, 

U.S. GDP measured $15.5 trillion (Bureau of Economic Analysis 2013)
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Social Institutions within the Community

17

Table 10-1: U.S. employment characteristics, 2013 [Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015]

Employed 

(Thousands)

Unemployed 

(Thousands)

Average

Weekly 

Hours

Average Hourly 

Earnings

(Dollars)

Agriculture and related 2 130 141 - -

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 1 065 64 43.90 29.73

Construction 9 271 935 39.00 26.12

Manufacturing 14 869 1 019 40.80 24.35

Wholesale and retail trade 19 653 1 463 35.05* 22.13*

Transportation and utilities 7 415 406 40.45 ** 28.77 **

Information 2 960 175 36.70 32.90

Financial activities 9 849 424 37.10 30.15

Professional and business services 16 793 1 284 36.10 28.52

Education and health services 32 535 1 098 32.70 24.44

Leisure and hospitality 13 554 1 379 26.00 13.50

Other services 7 127 445 31.70 21.40

Public administration/government 6 708 851 - -

Self-employed, family, and other - 1 774 - -

Total 143 929 11 458 - -

* Average of wholesale trade and retail trade ** Average of transportation/warehousing and utilities
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Social Institutions within the Community

18

Table 10-2: Consumption expenditures as a percent of total, by type of product [Source: Bureau of 

Economic Analysis 2013]

Goods 34% Services 66%

 Durable goods: 11%  Household consumption: 64%

Motor vehicles and parts 4% Housing and utilities 18%

Furnishings and household equipment 2% Health care 17%

Recreational goods and vehicles 3% Transportation services 3%

Other durable goods 2% Recreation services 4%

 Nondurable goods: 23% Food services and accommodations 6%

Food and beverages (off-premises) 8% Financial services and insurance 7%

Clothing and footwear 3% Other services 9%

Gasoline and other energy goods 4%  Consumption expenditures of nonprofit 

institutions serving households

3%

Other nondurable goods 8%

Local governments, which are the focus of this Guide, are made up of general- and specific-purpose 

entities and vary in terms of autonomy. For instance, some communities have complete autonomy to 

adopt codes and develop statutes, while others are restricted by state regulations. General-purpose entities 

include county, municipal, and township governments. Specific-purpose entities are more singular in 

function (e.g., school districts). In 2012, there were 90,059 local governments, with 43 % serving a 

general purpose [Hogue 2013].

Community Development. Community development is a major issue for local communities, as local 

governments strive for a vibrant and thriving economy. Community development largely consists of 

attracting and retaining businesses and jobs, enhancing local amenities, addressing poverty and inequity, 

and maintaining the quality of the local environment. Often communities hope that improving local 

amenities will indirectly attract and retain businesses and jobs. Providing local services, such as schools, 

roads and public safety, is a core function of local governments. Public safety and roads directly impact 

the resilience of a community in the face of hazards. Quality schools serve as an amenity that can attract 

jobs and businesses. Communities that cannot attract and retain businesses and jobs tend to fare more 

poorly after hazard events than communities that can do so.

For most cities, local revenue sources consist of some combination of property and sales tax. A sales tax 

revenue base is maintained by attracting commercial businesses and jobs. The property tax revenue base 

is dependent on property values, which can be supported by improving disaster resilience, since disaster 

risk is negatively correlated with home sale prices [Gilbert 2010].

Poverty. Poverty is also a major concern for local communities. Many projects communities pursue are 

aimed at decreasing poverty in their neighborhoods; and many external funding sources available to 

communities are aimed at alleviating poverty. These issues intersect with disaster resilience in that the 

disadvantaged are often most vulnerable to the consequences of hazard events. Improving resilience often 

starts with protecting the disadvantaged.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Social Institutions within the Community

19

Environmental Stewardship. Local governments are often interested in ensuring their communities are 

good environmental stewards by protecting and improving their environments. Being green and 

maintaining a small ecological footprint are important to many local communities. In turn, these efforts

can impact community resilience (see Chapter 17).

10.4.4. Health

Health is a ―state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of 

disease or infirmity‖ [World Health Organization 1948]. There are differences in the unit (or level) of 

health care. Public health focuses on health at the community level, whereas health care services typically 

are provided to individuals and families within a community. This section discusses both levels of health 

services.

Public health involves the actions taken as a society to collectively ―... assure the conditions in which 

people can be healthy‖ [Division of Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine 1998; Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention 2014]. Overall, the goals of public health are to: 1) prevent epidemics and the 

spread of disease; 2) protect people from environmental hazards; 3) prevent injury; 4) promote and 

encourage healthy behavior; 5) assist communities in disaster response and recovery; and 6) assure 

quality and accessible health services. The public health system provides many essential services, 

including: monitoring health status of a community, informing and educating individuals on health risks 

and protective behaviors, developing policies and plans to promote healthier communities, enforcing laws 

and regulations, fostering community partnerships, evaluating current health services, and conducting

research. 

Public health departments exist at the federal, state, local and tribal levels. This chapter addresses the 

local and tribal health departments. In some places, local health departments exist as an entity within the 

local government, and may make most of the decisions for community public health. However, in other 

places, local health departments are led by state governments or governed by both state and local 

authorities. Frequent activities engaged in by local health departments include immunization provisions, 

infectious disease surveillance, tuberculosis screening, food service establishment inspection, and food 

safety education, some of which may become increasingly important after a hazard event occurs. 

At the individual or family level, health care services promote, monitor, maintain, and restore health. 

According to the World Health Organization, regardless of how they are organized, all health systems 

need to address six basic functions: 1) provide health services; 2) develop health workers; 3) develop a 

functioning health information system; 4) provide equitable access to essential medical products, 

vaccines, and technologies; 5) mobilize and allocate finances; and 6) ensure leadership and governance 

[World Health Organization 2007].

The health care institution primarily meets the survival, and safety and security needs of Maslow‘s 

hierarchy. However, a community may consider that, through obtaining a higher level of well-being for 

its members, a strong community-based health care system can assist with the need for belonging as well 

as growth and achievement.

Health care systems consist of a complex and diverse set of players. Many individuals and organizations 

are involved in the health care system, including educational and research institutions, medical suppliers, 

insurers, health care providers, payers (e.g., commercial insurers and employers), claims processers, 

regulators, and policy makers [Shi and Singh 2008]. Within the health care system, many of these groups 

can fall under other institutions that are discussed in this section, including education, the economy, and 

government. 

The different types of services delivered by health care providers within a community, however, are 

unique to the healthcare institution [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2014; Association for 

Prevention Teaching and Research 2015]: 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Social Institutions within the Community

20

 Preventative care. Aims to prevent future injury or illness, including blood pressure screening, 

diabetes and cholesterol tests, cancer screenings, counseling on topics such as quitting smoking or 

losing weight, routine vaccinations, counseling, screening and vaccinations to ensure healthy 

pregnancies, and flu shots [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2015]

 Primary care. Provides integrated health care services aimed at providing the patient with a broad 

spectrum of preventative and curative care over a period of time [MedicineNet.com 2015]

 Specialized care. Provides specialized care by physicians trained in a particular field (e.g., 

neurology, cardiology, dermatology, etc.), usually upon referral from primary care [Johns 

Hopkins Medicine 2015]

 Chronic or long-term care. Addresses pre-existing or long-term illness 

 Sub-acute care. Provides care for patients who do not require hospital care (acute care), yet need 

more intensive skilled nursing care [California Department of Health Care Services 2014]

 Acute care. Addresses short-term or severe illness with a shorter timeframe (i.e., emergency care)

 Rehabilitative care. Aids a person in restoring lost skills or function from an injury or illness 

(physical or mental)

 End-of-life care. Provides care for those facing a life-limiting illness or injury

 Mental or behavioral health care. Treats health conditions that ―are characterized by alterations 

in thinking, mood, or behavior (or some combination thereof) associated with distress and/or 

impaired functioning,‖ [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1999] including 

treatment for addiction/substance abuse

 Home health care. Provides a wide variety of services for illness and injury that can be given to 

individuals within their home.

Elements of each of these services can include prescribing medication to patients, highlighting the 

increasing importance of pharmacy services and staff, which also provide individual care in many cases, 

and the provision of durable medical equipment. 

The urgency of care is one important difference among all health care services. Some services, for 

example, acute and chronic or long-term care (i.e., assisted living facilities, nursing homes, adult homes), 

provide patients with critical, life-saving care on a day-to-day basis. Each community should assess health 

care services provided to its members, with an understanding that a hazard event may affect the demands 

and provision of services for injuries and emotional trauma of residents and the labor force, and assign 

priority to those services rated as most critical.

10.4.5. Education

Education is the primary social institution dedicated to the transfer of knowledge, skills, and values from 

one individual or group to another. Typically, when one thinks of education, formal education comes to 

mind. Formal education can begin in nursery school, and continue through primary and secondary school,

often referred to as elementary, middle, and high schools. This education may take place in public, 

private, or home school settings. Formal education also includes higher education in colleges and 

universities. 

Knowledge, skills, and values transfer in other ways within the education institution, including adult 

education (or continuing education), special education, and informal education. Adult education ranges 

from basic literacy to personal fulfillment (e.g., culinary or language classes) to attainment of an 

advanced degree [About Education 2015]. Special education provides ―specifically-designed instruction 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Social Institutions within the Community

21

to meet the unique needs of a child (or adult) with a disability‖ [U.S. Department of Education 2004]. 

Finally, informal education can include any other means of knowledge, skills, or value transfer, including 

visiting museums, reading books, attending book clubs, or participating in recreational classes or 

demonstrations. 

The functions of the educational institution described in this section focus on the day-to-day. After a 

disruptive event, the educational institution within a community provides a venue to educate the public 

about current hazards the community faces. Additionally, the education institution can provide a support 

system for the students and their teachers to regain a sense of normalcy after an event occurs.

The educational institution primarily meets the growth and achievement needs of Maslow‘s hierarchy. 

However, participating in any of the forms of education, described in the preceding paragraphs, satisfies 

an individual‘s need for belonging. Additionally, formal educational institutions often provide meals to 

children in nursery, primary, and secondary schools, meeting the survival need.

10.4.6. Community Service Organizations

Community service organizations (CSOs) are non-profit and non-governmental entities of varying sizes 

and missions that provide services to individuals around the U.S. While CSOs, such as the Red Cross and 

the Salvation Army, are active in response and recovery efforts, this section also considers organizations 

that do not have such a focus as part of their mission. Such organizations may take on such roles after a 

hazard event. Generally speaking, these organizations tend to operate at a local level, often relying on 

volunteers to support minimal full-time staff. CSOs typically focus on human services, natural 

environment conservation or restoration, and urban safety and revitalization [PBWorks 2015]. CSOs may 

assist individuals in meeting basic needs, such as shelter, food, and clothing, as well as provide emotional 

and mental health support. They may also enhance the overall quality of life in a community by engaging 

in work related to neighborhood revitalization, affordable housing, food security, accessible 

transportation, senior citizens associations, community sustainability, humanitarian response, medical 

relief funds, after school programs, youth homes and centers, skill building and education, and civic 

engagement. 

During and after a disruptive event, the role of CSOs, particularly those that provide essential services, 

becomes even more critical. As noted by Ritchie et al. [2008] in a comprehensive study of preparedness 

among community-based organizations:

After major disasters, frail elderly people living alone still will need meals and other 

services; low-income disaster victims will need assistance from community clinics; 

services for people with AIDS and for those with chronic mental illness will need to 

remain operational; and immigrants still will need aid and support from the same 

organizations that provide assistance during non-disaster times.

In many cases, demands for the types of assistance provided by CSOs increase substantially following a 

disaster, as more people seek assistance. In post-disaster contexts, CSOs of almost any type may adapt 

and expand their roles and services to support community disaster response and recovery efforts. 

Apart from organizations that provide essential services, CSOs such as civic, social, and recreational 

clubs (e.g., Rotary Clubs, Boys and Girls Clubs, after school programs) become increasingly important in 

community recovery processes by providing opportunities and physical settings to draw upon, maintain, 

and build social capital. For example, buildings that house CSOs may provide a place for recovery 

planning. This consideration is important with respect to understanding the needs of CSOs as related to 

the built environment in terms of broader community resilience.

With respect to Maslow‘s hierarchy, CSOs address human needs related to survival, safety and security, 

belonging, and growth and achievement. The nature of the needs met by any given CSO depend on its 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Social Institutions within the Community

22

mission and the people it serves. In many cases, CSOs fulfill daily needs of survival, safety and security, 

belonging, and growth and achievement for older adults, people living in poverty, racial and ethnic 

minority groups, people with disabilities, and those suffering from a chronic debilitating illness. These 

needs may not otherwise be met by traditional family and kinship groups. Other types of CSOs, such as 

civic, social, and recreational clubs are more likely to address, on a regular basis, the needs associated 

with belonging and growth and achievement, rather than meeting basic needs. CSOs provide 

opportunities and physical settings to draw upon, maintain, and to build social capital. 

10.4.7. Religious, Cultural, and Other Organizations that Support Belief Systems 

This section addresses social institutions, including religious and cultural organizations, as well as other 

groups that support various belief systems, such as philosophies, ideologies, and science. From a 

traditional sociological perspective, religion is one of society‘s fundamental institutions. 

As an institution, religion involves shared patterns of beliefs and behaviors that bring people together, 

helping them understand the meaning and purpose of life. Religion is additionally characterized as groups 

that provide a sense of solidarity and common purpose [Witt 2013]. Generally, the institution of religion 

facilitates social cohesion, emotional support, and social control, in addition to serving as an instrument 

for socialization and providing answers for unexplained natural phenomena. Other organizations that 

support belief systems serve a similar function. 

As with community service organizations, the roles of religious and other organizations may change in 

the context of a hazard event. The demands for their day-to-day services may increase to provide 

additional social (e.g., emotional and mental health) support for members. In addition, their services may 

change based on the physical needs of their members; for example, providing food and shelter. 

As a social institution, organizations that support belief systems primarily meet the belonging and growth 

and achievement needs identified by Maslow. In some cases, they also address basic survival needs.

10.4.8. Media

Media refers to the channels of communication that, in some way, disseminate information to large

markets (e.g., the entire population of a country) and smaller markets (e.g., a community or specific 

demographic within a larger population). A channel or form of communication is often referred to as oneto-many in that one person (for example, the author of a book) communicates his/her information to an 

audience of many. The communication is one-way, as there is rarely an ability to provide feedback to the 

author [Sociology Central 2011], and requires a medium, e.g., newspaper, books, and magazines for print 

media; and radio, television, cable, and the Internet for broadcast media.

Within the last 25 years, the opportunity for many-to-many communication was created with the 

development of computer networks. Internet chatrooms, peer-to-peer networks, and social network media 

provide means for mass audiences to simultaneously interact and communicate with each other.

The media institution has four main functions and four additional sub-functions. The four main functions 

are: dissemination of information, education (directly or indirectly, via documentaries, interviews, etc.), 

entertainment, and persuasion. Additional sub-functions include surveillance (watching society to warn 

about threatening actions); interpretation (supplying data and facts, explaining and interpreting events and 

situations); linkages, joining together other types of social institutions (Section 10.7); and socialization or 

the transmission of culture [The Online Media 2012].

The media institution connects individuals with information from around the world, the nation, the state, 

and the local community. Most communities have local media outlets that disseminate information about 

local conditions on a daily basis, via local newspapers, websites, magazines, radio stations, and/or 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Dependencies among and within Social 

Institutions

23

television. Additionally, some local communities house main offices or headquarters of world-, national-, 

or state-level news outlets. 

When a hazard event occurs, it is often the role of the media to relay information on the physical and 

social consequences of the event, as well as details on recovery assistance to community survivors. In 

addition to their own sources, the media relies on other sources to disseminate recovery information, 

including the local government (i.e., emergency management agencies), businesses, health departments, 

community groups, and the public. Information about an event can come from any level of media, 

including the public itself, often within moments of the disaster occurring. Depending upon the hazard 

event‘s lead or warning time, news outlets often rush to the location to provide coverage. For hazard 

events with little or no lead-time, local media broadcasters and writers are often first on the scene; 

however, within hours or days, media outlets from around the world converge to cover the story. It is 

often not until days – or even weeks – after an event, when all larger-scale media outlets have left the area

for the dissemination of response and recovery information to fall primarily to local media sources.

The media institution, at all levels, meets many of Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs. First, it meets safety and 

security needs by providing information, interpretation, and surveillance to the audiences. Additionally, 

via its socialization function, it can promote belonging among its audience. Finally, the media institution 

meets the need for growth and achievement by educating and entertaining society.

10.5. Dependencies among and within Social Institutions

Characterizing the social community also includes identifying the dependencies among and within social 

institutions. 

10.5.1. Dependencies among Social Institutions

A disruption in the built environment that affects one social institution will likely affect others. It is 

important for a community to identify the ways social institutions are connected with each other, referred 

to here as dependencies. Since each community is different, it is impossible to provide an exhaustive list 

of all the ways social institutions are dependent on one another. Instead, examples of dependencies among 

social institutions are provided here [Holistic Disaster Recovery 2006], using the following template

phrase: Institution A relies on Institution B for (insert function). Note: their reliance on each other is

likely to vary over time and depends on the nature of their connection.

 The government relies on the economic institution for local taxes (e.g., sales taxes)

 The government relies on the economic institution (i.e., law firms) to conduct legal cases

[Cassens Weiss 2008]

 The family/kinship institution relies on the economic or government institutions for jobs

 The economic institution (i.e., suppliers of goods and service [e.g., restaurants, staff]) relies on 

the family/kinship institution for a customer base; at the same time, the family/kinship institution

relies on the economic institution for places to shop for goods and services [Phillips 2009]

 Each social institution relies on the family/kinship institution for labor supply or workforce. 

There are additional instances where dependencies may include more than two social institutions. The 

examples below show dependencies that involve three or more social institutions: 

 The family and kinship institution relies on the media to provide information on what is 

happening within the government, health, and educational institutions [The Online Media 2012].
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Social- and Economic-Based Community Metrics

24

 The family and kinship institution relies on the education or government institutions to provide 

childcare, in order for adults to return to work within the economic or government institutions. 

 The family and kinship institution relies on the government and/or economic institutions for food

and water at home, and financial assistance (for example) before they can return to work within 

the economic or government institutions.

10.5.2. Dependencies within Social Institutions

Within particular institutions, such as the economic or government institutions, industries/entities rely on 

each other to perform their functions. Therefore, dependencies also exist among services located within

each institution. An example is shown here for dependencies within the economic institution. 

Industries can be important drivers of the economy due to their size (e.g., contribution to GDP), 

proportion of the workforce they employ, or their importance to other industries (e.g., as producers and 

consumers of intermediate goods from other industries). A disruption to the built environment has the 

potential to affect several, seemingly unrelated industries across the economy through these inter-industry 

relationships. National and regional input-output models capture the inter-industry linkages.

Table 10-3 presents each industry‘s (1) size in millions of dollars of GDP, (2) percent contribution to total 

GDP, (3) impact per dollar demand, and (4) impact of dollar supply. The percent contribution of GDP

shows the total flows from an industry as a percent of all flows in the economy. The impact per dollar 

demand is the value of GDP from other industries needed to produce one dollar of GDP from the listed

industry – it shows what happens when flows to an industry are disrupted. The impact per dollar supply is

the change in GDP that results from a dollar change in GDP from the listed industry – it shows what 

happens when the flows from an industry are disrupted [World Input-Output Database 2011]. For 

example, the Wholesale and Retail Trade industry added $1.96 trillion dollars to the U.S. economy in 

2011, which constituted 13 % of U.S. GDP. To produce $1.0 million of GDP in Wholesale and Retail 

Trade required $1.4 million of GDP produced by the other industries in the economy. To produce $1.0 

million of GDP from other industries in the economy requires $1.94 million of GDP produced by 

Wholesale and Retail Trade. 

A smaller impact per dollar demand value implies a larger potential for an industry to be affected by 

disruptions in other industries. For example, the electricity, gas, and water supply industry is the most 

sensitive to production value changes from the rest of the economy. A smaller impact per dollar supply 

value implies a larger potential for other industries to be affected by a disruption from an industry (e.g., 

the economy is most sensitive to production value changes from the finance and real estate industry).

The example in Table 10-3 details data on industry size and inter-industry relevance at a national level. 

This example can help communities think about the ways their industries interconnect at the local level 

and provide some guidance on how to quantify dependencies, if the industry size and relevance data 

exists at the local level.

10.6. Social- and Economic-Based Community Metrics

Another aspect of characterizing the social community is identifying what success may look like in terms 

of resilience for the community. In other words, what methods (or metrics) will they use to track success

of planning efforts and improvements made to achieve community resilience? The overall questions that 

community metrics will help to answer are:

 How resilient is my community?
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Social- and Economic-Based Community Metrics

25

 Will my community‘s decisions and investments improve resilience? If so, how significant a 

difference will be made?

Table 10-3: Industry size and inter-industry relevance in the United States [Source: World InputOutput Database 2011; Timmer 2012]

Industry GDP 

($ million) % GDP Impact $/ Demand

Impact $/ 

Supply

Agriculture and mining 466,194 3.1 1.74 1.92

Food, beverages and tobacco 221,187 1.5 3.36 2.48

Other manufacturing 1,627,644 10.8 2.08 1.66

Electricity, gas and water supply 246,896 1.6 1.21 2.62

Construction 549,011 3.6 1.69 2.70

Wholesale and retail trade 1,960,689 13.0 1.40 1.94

Hotels and restaurants 473,854 3.1 1.71 2.68

Inland transport 191,587 1.3 1.82 2.51

Water transport 14,819 0.1 2.14 2.99

Air transport 65,468 0.4 2.07 2.97

Other supporting and auxiliary transport activities; 

activities of travel agencies

142,442 0.9 1.44 2.33

Post and telecommunications 370,637 2.5 1.62 2.33

Finance and real estate 5,034,867 33.4 1.50 1.36

Public admin and defense; compulsory social security 1,853,704 12.3 1.54 2.68

Community, social and personal services 1,869,079 12.4 1.57 2.35

Social and economic metrics are important, specifically for the purposes of this Guide, because 

community decision-makers will be interested in predicting the economic and social implications (either 

positive or negative) of community decisions (either active or passive) made with respect to planning, 

siting, design, construction, operation, protection, maintenance, repair, and restoration of the built 

environment. Social and economic-based resilience metrics can be quantitative or descriptive in nature. 

The output or result can be presented as an overall resilience-related score or as a set of separately 

reported scores across a broad spectrum of physical, economic, and social dimensions. Examples of 

resilience metrics for social and economic systems and existing community resilience assessment 

methodologies are provided in Chapter 16 of this Guide.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Links between the Social Institutions and the Built 

Environment

26

10.7. Links between the Social Institutions and the Built Environment

Some social institutions rely more heavily on the built environment than others. An example of this is 

within the health institution where, for the most part, emergency services are often difficult to provide 

outside of hospitals or other buildings on a longer-term basis. The study conducted by the Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGMI), in partnership with the Oregon Health 

Authority, examined the dependencies that hospitals had on infrastructure systems. After a Cascadia 

earthquake, damage to the local water systems and transportation networks will slow response and 

recovery of hospitals, and impair hospital services for community members [Wang 2014]. 

However, not all social institutions rely on the built environment in the same way. Information, skills, and 

values may be transferred through the Internet or virtually within the education institution. However, even 

in remote situations, where the need for a particular building is absent, we rely on communications 

systems to function.

The built environment supports many functions of social institutions within a community. It is important 

that a community identify the ways in which the built environment supports each social institution‘s 

functions. Sections 10.7.1 through 10.7.4 offer examples of linkages between social institutions and the 

built environment, specifically buildings, transportation, energy, communication, and water and 

wastewater systems under normal circumstances. Examples are provided in Section 10.7.6 to explore 

additional links between social institutions and the built environment in the event of a hazard event.

Table 10-4 to Table 10-7 provide examples of day-to-day linkages between the social institutions and the

built environment. For each social institution, the tables offer examples of the purpose of the built 

environment for the social institution, how that purpose is actualized, and the direct and indirect 

consequences that may occur to individuals, groups, and the community after a design or extreme event.

10.7.1. Links between Buildings and Social Institutions

Buildings provide places to live, work, learn, access health services, obtain goods and services, conduct 

business, and produce and package raw materials and goods. In addition, buildings provide shelter and 

storage locations, and house technology for a number of different purposes within a community.

These purposes are actualized through construction and maintenance of different types of building stock, 

including residential, commercial, industrial, educational, institutional, and storage buildings. Without 

buildings to support social functions within a community, the community can be exposed to direct or 

indirect consequences that can impact individuals, families, businesses, or the broader community. 

Examples of possible direct consequences include disruption of governmental services (such as 

emergency response), loss of employment or shelter for community members, loss of revenue for 

businesses or the community, and increased mental distress for community members. Examples of 

indirect consequences include loss of workforce, shortages of supplies, and an increased number of 

people at risk of further harm (labeled in the tables as ―at-risk populations‖). 

Table 10-4 provides examples of the ways the eight social institutions rely on buildings on a day-to-day 

basis. More specifically, examples are provided to present the purpose of buildings within each social 

institution, the ways in which these purposes are actualized among building types, and the impact to 

individuals, businesses, and community if buildings were damaged. Additional information on buildings 

and the methods used to create performance goals for buildings can be found in Chapter 12.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Links between the Social Institutions and the Built Environment

27

Table 10-4: Links between social institutions and buildings

Purpose of Buildings within each Social 

Institution

How Purpose is Actualized within Built 

Environment

Possible Impacts if Buildings are Damaged

Direct Indirect

Family Provide a place to live; build a family; 

provide shelter, safety and security; 

provide a place for belonging (among 

family/friends)

Housing (e.g., single-family; multi-family) Loss of shelter, personal possessions; 

displaced population; increased 

causalities; increased mental distress

Overcrowding; inability to locate and 

communicate with others; increased 

unrest/crime; loss of workforce

Economic Prepare materials for transport; store 

materials and products; house equipment 

and machinery; design and develop goods 

(buildings and manufactured products); 

process raw materials; production 

location; point of sale; locations for

employment, commerce/exchange, 

recreation

Processing facility; warehouse; commercial office; 

processing plant; manufacturing facility; warehouse; 

goods (buildings and manufactured products) for 

sale; stores; malls; restaurants; banks; hotels; 

schools and colleges; hospitals and medical 

facilities; arenas/stadia; salons and barbershops; 

Internet cafes; online storefronts; gas stations; 

airports; houses and apartments

Loss of revenue; loss of employment; 

loss of materials on-hand; loss of 

goods and services for sale; loss of 

income; loss of means of production

Loss of taxes; loss of market share; 

price increases; shortages; decreased 

spending; increased demand of 

substitutes; decreased demand of 

complements; increased demand for 

unemployment benefits; increased 

supply of labor in  ̳like‘ industries; 

loss of residents

Government Provide work and meeting space for 

leaders and staff; serve as a document 

repository; protect communication 

systems; house public safety and 

emergency response capabilities (people; 

equipment; vehicles); provide public 

spaces for recreation

Offices; police stations; fire and EMS stations; 

emergency operations centers (EOCs); military 

installations; jails and prisons; government 

chambers; courts and courthouses; libraries and 

archives

Diminished emergency response; 

disruption to government continuity; 

loss of archived materials

Increased causalities and economic 

damage; increased opportunity for 

social disorder and crime; inability to 

respond to emergent issues and needs; 

loss of residents

Health Provide places to receive emergency care; 

to address short- and long-term health 

needs (physical and mental); store medical 

records, equipment, and pharmaceuticals

Hospitals; clinics; mental health agencies;; urgent 

care centers; poison centers; dialysis centers; 

rehabilitation centers; hospices; assisted living 

facilities; nursing homes; pharmacies; 

residential/housing (e.g., home health care)

Decreased ability to treat; increased 

causalities; increased mental distress

Increased long-term causality rates; 

increased disease transmission; loss 

of residents

Education Provide places to learn; to 

interact/connect; storage for equipment 

and books

Schools; universities (campus and dormitories); 

educational offices; museums; libraries

Loss of shelter; displaced student 

population 

Decreased economic productivity; 

lower wages; loss of residents

Community 

Service 

Organization

Provide places where basic needs can be 

met (in some cases; shelter and 

sustenance); locations where people can 

interact with others

Housing and provision of sustenance, offices Loss of food, water; shelter for atrisk populations; increased mental 

distress

Increased at-risk population; 

increased crime; loss of 

residents/volunteers

Religious 

Organization

Provide places of worship; social 

interaction; education; daycare; and other 

basic services; provide places to house 

and protect religious and cultural artifacts/ 

documents (the buildings themselves may 

be considered sacred or have symbolic 

meaning)

Churches; synagogues; other places of worship; 

meeting places

Loss of shelter; loss of cultural value; 

increased mental distress

Increased at-risk population

Media Provide places to gather and disseminate 

news and information; protect all media 

technology and equipment

News and broadcasting stations; television stations; 

radio station; newspapers/ magazine publishing; 

publishers‘ headquarters; offices; equipment/ 

computer storage

Loss of information; loss of the 

dissemination of information

Increased uncertainty; increased 

threat exposure
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Links between the Social Institutions and the Built Environment

28

Table 10-5: Links between social institutions and transportation systems

Purpose of Transportation within 

each Social Institution How Actualized within Built Environment

Possible Impacts if Transportation Systems are Damaged

Direct Indirect

Family Access to and from housing, i.e., to 

and from locations for employment, 

social events, shopping, and other 

locations important to the family.

Roads and bridges; airports; railways and rail 

stations; seaports; pipelines; tunnels; subways; 

public transit

Displaced population (lack of 

access); inability to physically 

connect with others

Demand for short-term and 

nearby shelter alternatives

Economic Distribute goods for processing; 

obtain labor and capital; distribute 

intermediate goods; distribute final 

goods and products for sale; bring 

sellers (providers) and consumers 

together; transport of products; 

getting to and returning from work

Supply chain disruptions; loss of 

employment; consumers unable 

to obtain survival goods

Loss of taxes; decreased demand 

of complements; increased 

demand of substitutes; decreased 

spending; increased demand for 

unemployment benefits; 

increased supply of labor in  ̳like‘ 

industries

Loss of market share

Government Provide access to services; facilitates 

delivery of services (including 

emergency response, patrol, and 

surveillance); provide physical access 

to lawmakers and law-making bodies; 

provide physical access to legal 

venues; Transport of products

Diminished emergency response; 

disruption to government 

continuity 

Increased causalities and 

economic damage; increased 

opportunity for social disorder 

and crime;

Understaffing; inability to 

respond to emergent issues and 

needs

Health Provide access to and from health

services for patients, staff; Delivery 

of equipment, materials, and supplies

Longer travel times for 

care/delivery of supplies; 

increased causalities; increased 

number of acute patients; 

increased mental distress

Equipment and supply shortages; 

understaffing; overloading of 

health care system

Education Provide access to and from 

educational services for

students/parents; teachers

Displaced student population 

(lack of access)

Increased reliance on distance 

learning

Community 

Service 

Organization

Provide access to and from CSO 

services for clients, staff, volunteers; 

transport of products

Inability of at-risk population to 

obtain food, water and shelter; 

increased mental distress

Increased at-risk population

Religious 

Organization

Provide access to and from religious 

and cultural services for leaders, 

staff, congregation, community 

members

Increased mental distress Increased at-risk population

Media Provide access to and from media 

services; also to news sites

Inability to obtain information Spread of misinformation
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Links between the Social Institutions and the Built Environment

29

Table 10-6: Links between social institutions and energy systems

Purpose of Energy within each 

Social Institution

How Actualized within Built 

Environment

Possible Impacts if Energy Systems are Damaged

Direct Indirect

Family Lighting; heating; cooling; use of 

appliances, equipment; charging 

of electronics; fuel for vehicles

Generation facilities; grids; substations; 

lines; supply, distribution and collection 

pipelines; pump stations; valves

Displaced population; 

increased difficulty to 

maintain food, water, and 

shelter security; 

communication ability 

limited

Increased exposure to risk 

from displacement or 

searching for those unable to 

contact; increased fire risk 

and reduced indoor air quality 

from use of alternative 

lighting/heating sources

Economic Ability to operate machinery; 

lighting; power for point of sale 

devices; heating and cooling; 

power for point of non-sale; 

service use area; fuel for vehicles

Supply chain disruptions; loss 

of employment; reduced 

availability to distribute 

survival goods; decreased 

security

Loss of taxes; increased 

waste; decreased spending

Government Lighting; heating; cooling; fuel 

for vehicles

Increased reliance on 

temporary power supply; 

reduced response 

effectiveness

Increased security risks for 

public officials

Health Lighting; heating; cooling; power 

for technology, equipment, 

appliances (e.g., life support 

systems); fuel for vehicles

Increased reliance on 

temporary power supply; 

increased causalities

Increased cost; reliability 

concerns

Education Lighting; heating; cooling; power

for technology, equipment (e.g., 

computers; appliances)

Displaced student population; 

communication ability 

limited, including long 

distance learning

Decreased economic 

productivity; lower wages

Community

Service 

Organization

Lighting; heating; cooling; power 

for technology, equipment, 

appliances

Inability of at-risk population 

to obtain food, water, and 

shelter; increased mental 

distress

Increased at-risk population

Religious 

Organization

Lighting; heating; cooling; power 

for technology, equipment, 

appliances

Increased mental distress Increased at-risk population

Media Lighting; heating; cooling; allow 

for use of broadcasting/ media 

equipment; fuel for vehicles

Increased reliance on 

temporary power supply

Spread of misinformation
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Links between the Social Institutions and the Built Environment

30

Table 10-7: Links between social institutions and communications systems

Purpose of Communication within 

each Social Institution How Actualized within Built Environment

Possible Impacts if Communications are Damaged

Direct Indirect

Family Develop/strengthen ties with 

family/friends; Promote a sense of 

belonging

Telephones (landlines and cell/mobile); 

computers; Internet; TV and radio media; 9-1-

1

(Critical Nodes [Central Offices, Internet 

Exchange Points, Mobile Switching Centers], 

and distribution [i.e., the last mile])

Increased mental distress; Loss 

of situation awareness on status 

of family

Increased exposure risk from 

searching for those unable to 

communicate

Economic Obtain market signals; support 

production and safety activities; 

advertising; recruiting new 

employees; transmit and receive 

financial transactions; offer and 

deliver services; obtain information 

on goods and services available; 

process payments

Supply chain disruptions; loss of 

employment/clients; loss of 

business continuity; shortages of 

food, water, and shelter; inability 

to access finances to purchase 

goods 

Large price adjustment due to 

over- or under-supply of goods 

and services (from incorrect 

market signals); decreased 

spending

Government Transmission of information; 

including emergency broadcast 

messaging; provide public access to 

government employees, programs, 

messages, etc.

Telephones; computers; Internet; TV and radio 

media; 9-1-1 call centers; reverse 9-1-1; social 

media; community alert and warning systems

(Critical Nodes [Central Offices, Internet 

Exchange Points, Mobile Switching Centers], 

and distribution [i.e., the last mile])

Diminished emergency response; 

increased causalities and 

economic damage; disruption to 

government continuity; increased 

opportunity for social disorder 

and crime

Decreased trust of government; 

increased voter apathy

Health Transfer of information among heath 

staff; access information/ resources 

(e.g.; medical records); 

Facilitate/strengthen ties between 

patients, staff, and families/friends

Telephones; computers; Internet; TV and radio 

media

(Critical Nodes [Central Offices, Internet 

Exchange Points, Mobile Switching Centers], 

and distribution [i.e., the last mile])

Increased inability to access 

patient records, inability to 

prepare for patient influx

Increased causalities due to 

incorrect self-treatment

Education Transfer of information among 

educators, staff; access 

information/resources (e.g.; online); 

Facilitate/strengthen ties between 

students, staff, families

Limited use of long-distance 

learning; Loss of situation 

awareness on status of 

students/children

Decreased economic productivity; 

lower wages

Community 

Service 

Organization

Facilitate/strengthen ties between 

clients, staff, volunteers with CSO 

and between CSOs

Increased mental distress Increased at-risk population

Religious 

Organization

Facilitate/strengthen ties between 

leaders, staff, congregation, 

community members, others outside 

of org

Increased mental distress Increased at-risk population

Media Facilitate/strengthen ties among staff; 

access information/ resources (e.g.; 

online); broadcast information 

Limited ability to obtain and 

disseminate information

Spread of misinformation; poor 

decision making
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Links between the Social Institutions and the Built Environment

31

Table 10-8: Links between social institutions and water and wastewater systems

Purpose of Water/Wastewater 

within each Social Institution

How Actualized within Built 

Environment

Possible Impacts if Water/Wastewater Systems are Damaged

Direct Indirect

Family Drinking; cooling; cleaning

(bathing, laundry, washing); 

waste disposal; fire protection; 

irrigation, drainage

Supply, distribution and collection 

pipelines; pump stations; valves; fire 

hydrants; treatment facilities; 

finished water storage 

Increased health risk; displaced 

population; unsanitary conditions; 

increased likelihood of disease 

outbreak; loss of public 

confidence

Loss of neighborhoods, 

workforce, social capital

Economic Processing; manufacturing; 

production; fire protection; 

drinking; cooling; cleaning 

(bathing, laundry, washing); 

waste disposal; fire protection; 

irrigation, drainage; recreation 

Supply chain disruptions; 

Workforce & production 

disruption; reduced facility 

function

Increased environmental 

degradation; reduced 

productivity due to workforce 

disruption; decreased 

spending

Government Drinking; cooling; cleaning 

(bathing, laundry, washing); 

waste disposal; fire protection; 

irrigation, drainage; recreation 

Diminished emergency response; 

increased causalities and 

economic damage; increased fire 

risk; disruption to government 

continuity and loss of public 

confidence

Diminished fire suppression 

capability; inability to respond 

to emergent issues and needs

Health Drinking; cooling; cleaning 

(bathing, laundry, washing); 

waste disposal; fire protection; 

irrigation, drainage; ability to use 

specific medical equipment and 

processes that require water (e.g.; 

dialysis, laundry)

Unsanitary conditions; increased 

likelihood for disease 

transmission; loss of medical 

facility functionality; patient 

displacement

Increased at-risk population

Education Drinking; cooling; cleaning 

(bathing, laundry, washing); 

waste disposal; fire protection; 

irrigation, drainage; recreation 

Displaced student population; 

unsanitary conditions

Increased reliance on distance 

learning

Community 

Service 

Organization

Inability of at-risk population to 

obtain food, water, and shelter; 

increased mental distress

Increased at-risk population

Religious 

Organization

Increased mental distress Increased at-risk population

Media Limit ability to obtain and 

disseminate information

Spread of misinformation and

loss of public confidence
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Links between the Social Institutions and the Built 

Environment

32

10.7.2. Links between Transportation and Social Institutions

Transportation systems include roads and bridges, airports, railways and rail stations, seaports, 

waterways, pipelines, tunnels, subways, and other public transit systems. Transportation systems provide 

access to the buildings discussed in Table 10-4, as well as allow for other vital activities, including the 

distribution of raw materials and intermediate goods to producers and final goods to consumers. For 

example, roads and bridges support the transport of raw materials to production facilities, final goods to 

retail stores, and ultimately, to consumers, and workers to their places of employment. Rail networks

support the same types of functions. The transportation assets available within the community and the 

ways these assets support the functions of the community‘s social institutions need to be characterized.

Table 10-5 provides examples of the purpose of transportation systems within each social institution and 

the possible consequences to these social institutions if the transportation systems were damaged within a 

community. Additional information on transportation systems and the methods used to create 

performance goals for these systems is found in Chapter 13.

10.7.3. Links between Energy and Social Institutions

Energy systems allow for use of buildings (i.e., lighting, heating, and cooling) as well as operation of 

equipment, appliances, and technology vital to the functions of each social institution. For example, 

hospitals rely on energy to operate life-saving technology in intensive care units. Energy is also used to 

operate machinery within manufacturing plants and facilities to produce materials and goods for the 

economic institution.

Table 10-6 gives examples of the purpose of power/energy systems within each social institution and the 

possible consequences to these social institutions if the energy systems were damaged within a 

community. Additional information on power and energy networks and the methods used to create 

performance goals for these systems is in Chapter 13. 

10.7.4. Links between Communications and Social Institutions

Communication systems transmit information, allowing recipients to achieve situational awareness on a 

specific subject or event. For example, the media and government institutions are often tasked with 

communicating information to the public in the event of an emergency. Often this information is urgent, 

in that it has to be disseminated in a timely manner, to ensure safety. 

Almost all social institutions use communication systems to access or transmit records or other 

information among relevant parties. Within the economic institution, communication systems can be used 

to obtain market signals, support production and safety activities, advertise products and services, 

transmit and receive financial transactions, offer and deliver services, obtain information on goods and 

services available, and process payments.

Many different types of technology can be used to disseminate or transmit information between parties. 

For example, technologies can include phones, computers, television, radio, Reverse 9-1-1, social media, 

and community alert and warning systems for emergencies (for example, public siren systems). These 

technologies are included in Table 10-7. 

Table 10-7 provides examples of the purpose of communication systems within each social institution and 

the possible impacts to these social institutions if these systems were damaged within a community. 

Additional information on communication networks and developing performance goals can be found in 

Chapter15.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Community Performance Goals Based on 

Community Member Needs

33

10.7.5. Links between Water and Wastewater and Social Institutions

Water and wastewater systems support many functions within social institutions, including the safe use 

and operation of various types of buildings. Water and wastewater systems allow drinking, cooking, 

cleaning (including bathing, laundry, washing), cooling (for air conditioning), irrigation, drainage, as well 

as the ability to eliminate personal waste. Within the economics institution, and more specifically, in the 

production of raw materials and goods, water is also used to create goods and services, and wastewater 

systems are important in the elimination of production waste from equipment operation. Additionally, the 

water distribution system provides fire suppression capabilities at a neighborhood level, as well as 

internal building fire suppression systems.

Table 10-8 gives examples of the purpose of water/wastewater systems within each social institution and 

the possible impacts to these social institutions if the water/wastewater systems were damaged within a 

community. Additional information on water and wastewater networks and the methods used to create 

performance goals for these systems can be found in Chapter 15. 

10.7.6. Links between Social Institutions and the Built Environment after a Disaster

After a hazard event, new linkages between social institutions and the built environment may develop, or 

existing linkages may change for a period of time. 

A building‘s use may change to support critical functions within the community. Examples of buildings 

that have been used as shelters include schools, hospitals, community service organizations, and houses of 

worship. Other community buildings, like libraries, might also be repurposed for government offices. 

Additionally, there is often a need to connect or reconnect with family members and friends after a hazard 

event occurs. In these cases, buildings have been used as reunification points. Church buildings or 

schools, in particular, tend to emerge as central meeting locations in the days and weeks during response 

and recovery activities. It is important, however, for communities to consider buildings supporting critical 

and recovery functions as a system of systems that need to be supported with services from infrastructure 

systems. 

The transportation system is needed to physically access critical buildings and locations throughout the 

community. Access is required by decision-makers who assess the damage; staff, volunteers and key 

personnel who provide essential services; and members of the public who are in need of these essential 

services. Transportation systems can also be used to evacuate people from the area as well as a way to 

reunite family members following an event.

The communication system allows communication between emergency agencies and the public prior to, 

during, and after a hazard event to disseminate response and recovery information. Communication 

systems support situational awareness, so that family and friends know the status of their loved ones‘ 

safety and their location. With many of the social institutions, especially those that are required to 

function immediately after the event occurs, e.g., health and government, it is critical that decisionmakers can reach their staff, volunteers, emergency providers, and those they serve. 

Most of the examples discussed in this section occur during the short-term or intermediate periods of the 

recovery timeline. As the community rebuilds and recovers, and begins to function again, the reliance of 

the social systems on the built environment returns to the desired day-to-day status.

10.8. Community Performance Goals Based on Community Member Needs

Once the community‘s social dimensions and the built environment are characterized, and linkages are 

identified between the two, communities can see the consequences of damage to or degradation of the 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, Community Performance Goals Based on 

Community Member Needs

34

built environment on the social environment. Examples of consequences are given in the last two columns 

of Table 10-4 to Table 10-8.

Characterization of the social and built environments provides an informed basis upon which to establish 

long-term community goals for resilience, the third step of the six-step Guide methodology. This section 

contains examples of long-term community performance goals for social institutions. These goals can 

help communities prioritize resilience investments in their buildings and infrastructure systems. 

Examples of community performance goals for the social institutions that meet urgent or time sensitive 

needs of community members include the following:

 Goal 1: Strengthen the ability for government to function continuously after an event

 Goal 2: Strengthen ability for critical health care to function continuously before and after an 

event

Specific government functions (e.g., police, fire, 

medical, and emergency management), as well as 

critical health care functions (e.g., acute, subacute, chronic, and mental health care), among 

other institutions (e.g., CSOs), provide services 

that meet survival and urgent safety and security 

needs of community members, as shown in Figure 

10-3. Therefore, it may be an important goal for 

communities to strengthen the buildings and 

infrastructure systems that support the continuous 

functioning of government and/or health 

institutions before and after a hazard event occurs.

Communities may also wish to develop long-term 

community goals that meet safety and security 

needs of community members, i.e., 

employment/jobs, in addition to supporting the 

longer-term needs of a community to grow and 

prosper, economically. Two examples are:

 Goal 3: Improve current employment 

rates within the community

 Goal 4: Attract new businesses to the 

community 

A community‘s local economy provides jobs to people within the community, allowing them to achieve 

the financial security they require (as shown by Maslow‘s hierarchy, Figure 10-4). A growing economy 

provides not only additional jobs to community members, lowering the unemployment rate and increasing 

their changes for financial security, it also provides a stable flow of taxes into the community‘s reserves, 

potentially allowing them to provide additional services for individuals and families living within the 

community. Therefore, it may be an important goal for communities to strengthen the buildings and 

infrastructure systems that support the economy after a hazard event occurs.

Numerous additional examples can be developed by communities for education, media, CSOs, and 

religious/belief organizations. All of these organizations meet various needs of individuals and families 

within communities along the Maslow continuum, as shown in Figure 10-5. It will be up to individual 

communities to identify the specific community-wide goals for social institutions – and from these goals, 

begin to prioritize changes and/or improvements to the buildings and infrastructure systems that support 

them.

Figure 10-3: Alignment of the Government and 

health institutions with Maslow’s Hierarchy of 

Needs [Adapted from Maslow 1943]

Growth

&

Achievement

Survival

Safety and Security

Belonging

Government Health
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, References

35

10.9. References

Aldrich, D.P. and M.A. Meyer (2014) ―Social Capital and Community Resilience,‖ American Behavioral 

Scientist, published online, 1 October 2014.

Arup (2014) City Resilience Framework, The Rockefeller Foundation and Ove Arup & Partners 

International Limited, April, 

http://www.arup.com/~/media/Publications/Files/Publications/C/City_Resilience_Framework_pdf.ashx.

Viewed December 28, 2014.

Association for Prevention Teaching and Research (2015) Module 5: Healthcare Systems,

http://www.aptrweb.org/?page=module5. Viewed January 5, 2015.

Belcher, J.C., and F.L. Bates (1983) ―Aftermath of natural disasters: Coping through residential 

mobility,‖ Disasters, June, 7 (2): 118-128.

Binder, Sherri Brokopp (2014) Resilience and Postdisaster Relocation: A study of New York‘s home 

buyout plan in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Quick Response Grant Final Report: New York‘s Home 

Buyout Plan after Hurricane Sandy, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/research/qr/submitted/binder_2013.pdf.

Black, R.; D. Kniveton; R. Skeldon; D. Coppard; A. Murata; and K. Schmidt-Verkerk (2008)

Demographics and Climate Change: Future Trends and their Policy Implications for Migration, 

Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty, 

http://www.migrationdrc.org/publications/working_papers/WP-T27.pdf.

Bullard, R.D. and B. Wright, ed. (2009) Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane 

Katrina: Struggles to reclaim, rebuild, and revitalize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Westview Press, 

Boulder, CO.

Figure 10-4: Alignment of the economic and 

family/kinship institutions with Maslow’s 

Hierarchy of Needs [Adapted from Maslow 1943]

Figure 10-5: Alignment of all the social 

institutions with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs 

[Adapted from Maslow 1943]

Growth

&

Achievement

Survival

Safety and Security

Belonging

Economic

Family

Growth

&

Achievement

Survival

Safety and Security

Belonging

Government Health

Education

Media

Economic

CSOs Family Belief Systems
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, References

36

Bureau of Economic Analysis (2013) Personal Consumption Expenditures by Major Type of Product,

www.bea.gov. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) Current Population Survey, www.bls.gov. 

California Department of Health Care Services (2014) Subacute Care,

http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/provgovpart/Pages/SubacuteCare.aspx. Viewed January 5, 2015.

Cassens Weiss, D. (2008) ―Cedar Rapids Law Firm Opens Offices in Nearby Middle School,‖ ABA 

Journal, 

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/cedar_rapids_law_firm_opens_offices_in_nearby_middle_schoo

l. Viewed January 10, 2015.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2014) ―The Public Health System and the 10 Essential 

Public Health Services,‖ National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS), Atlanta, GA, 

http://www.cdc.gov/nphpsp/essentialServices.html. Viewed February 26, 2015.

Community & Regional Resilience Institute, Community Resilience Team (CARRI 2013) Building 

Resilience in America‘s Communities: Observations and Implications of the CRS Pilots, Community & 

Regional Resilience Institute (CARRI), Washington, DC, http://www.resilientus.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/CRS-Final-Report.pdf.

Cutter, S.L.; K.D. Ash; C.T. Emrich (2014) ―The geographies of community disaster resilience,‖ Global 

Environmental Change, Volume 29, Pages 65-77.

Dickinson, Simon Bernard (2013) Post-Disaster Mobilities: Exploring household relocation after the 

Canterbury Earthquakes, M.S. Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Canterbury, 

Christchurch, NZ.

Division of Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine (1998) Measuring the Quality of Health Care,

Molla S. Donaldson ed., National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Fraser, J. C.; M.W. Doyle; and H. Young (2006) Creating Effective Flood Mitigation Policies, Eos, 

87(27): 265–270. 

Gilbert, Stanley W (2010) Disaster Resilience: A Guide to the Literature, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 1117, October 13.

Gray, C.; E. Frankenberg; T. Gillespie; C. Sumantri; and D. Thomas (2009) Population Displacement and 

Mobility in Sumatra after the Tsunami, August, http://iussp2009.princeton.edu/papers/90318. 

Groen, J.A. and A.E. Polivka (2010) ―Going Home after Hurricane Katrina: Determinants of Return 

Migration and Changes in Affected Areas,‖ Demography, 47(4):821-844.

Hogue, Carma (2013) Government Organization Summary Report: 2012, United States Census Bureau, 

http://www2.census.gov/govs/cog/g12_org.pdf. Viewed January 15, 2015. 

Holistic Disaster Recovery (2006) Holistic Disaster Recovery: Ideas for Building Local Sustainability 

After a Natural Disaster (2006), Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, 

CO, http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/holistic/holistic2006.html.

Hunter, L.M. (2005) ―Migration and Environmental Hazards,‖ Population and environment, 26(4): 273–

302. doi:10.1007/s11111-005-3343-x.

Johns Hopkins Medicine (2015) Tertiary Care Definition,

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/patient_care/pay_bill/insurance_footnotes.html. Viewed January 5, 

2015.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, References

37

Lieberson, Alan D. (2004) ―How Long Can a Person Survive without Food?‖ Scientific American, 

November 8, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-a-person-sur/. Viewed October 1, 

2014.

Maslow, A.H. (1943) ―A Theory of Human Motivation,‖ Psychological Review, 50 (4) 370–96.

Max-Neef, M.A.; A. Elizalde; and M. Hopenhayn (1991) Human Scale Development: Conception, 

Application and Further Reflections, The Apex Press, New York and London, http://www.areanet.org/fileadmin/user_upload/papers/Max-neef_Human_Scale_development.pdf.

MedicineNet.com (2015) Definition of Primary Care,

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5042. Viewed January 5, 2015.

Nam, C.B (2004) "The Concept of The Family: Demographic and Genealogical Perspectives,‖ Sociation 

Today, 2(2), http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v22/family.htm.

PBWorks (2007) CBOs – Introduction, public wiki, 

http://eder671nonprofit.pbworks.com/w/page/18541471/CBOs%20-%20Introduction. Retrieved April 7, 

2015.

Peterson, D. (2015) ―What is Adult Education?‖ About Education,

http://adulted.about.com/od/whatisadultlearning/p/whatisadulteducation.htm. Viewed January 7, 2015.

Phillips, Brenda (2009) Disaster Recovery, Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis CRC Press.

Phillips, Brenda; Deborah S.K. Thomas; Alice Fothergill; Lynn Blinn-Pike (2009) Social Vulnerability to 

Disasters, Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis CRC Press.

Putnam, Robert D (2000) Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community, Simon & 

Schuster, New York, NY.

Ritchie, L.A. and D.A. Gill (2007) ―Social Capital Theory as an Integrating Theoretical Framework in 

Technological Disaster Research,‖ Sociological Spectrum, 27:103-129.

Ritchie, L.A.; K. Tierney; D. Austin; M. Beres; C. Bevc; B. Gilbert; and J. Sutton (2008) Disaster 

Preparedness Among Community-Based Organizations in the City and County of San Francisco,

Boulder, CO: The University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, Natural Hazards Center.

Sanders, S.; S. Bowie; and Y.D. Bowie (2003) ―Lessons learned on forced relocation of older adults: The 

impact of Hurricane Andrew on health, mental health, and social support of public housing residents,‖

Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 40(4), pp. 23-35

Schuller, T.; S. Baron; and J. Field (2000) ―Social Capital: A Review and Critique.‖ Social Capital: 

Critical Perspectives, edited by Stephen Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, Oxford: Oxford University 

Press, pp. 1-38. 

Shi, Leiyu and Douglas A. Singh (2008) Delivering Health Care in America: A systems approach, Jones 

& Bartlett Publishers, Inc. Sudbury, MA. 

Sociology Central (2011) Defining the Mass Media,

http://www.sociology.org.uk/media_defined.pdf.Viewed January 8, 2015.

The Institute of Medicine (2015) Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: 

Strategies, opportunities, and planning for recovery, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

The National Academies (2006) Facing Hazards and Disasters: Understanding human dimensions, 

National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

The National Academies (2012) Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative, National Academies Press, 

Washington, DC.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Understanding and Characterizing the Social Community, References

38

The Online Media (2012) Functions of Mass Media, 

http://theonlinemedia.blogspot.com/2012/06/functions-of-mass-media.html. Viewed January 9, 2015. 

Tierney, Kathleen (2014) The Social Roots of Risk: Producing Disasters, Promoting Resilience, Stanford 

University Press, Stanford, CA. 

Timmer, Marcel P. ed. (2012), The World Input-Output Database (WIOD): Contents, Sources and 

Methods, WIOD Working Paper Number 10, http://www.wiod.org/publications/papers/wiod10.pdf.

United States Census Bureau (2015) United States Census Bureau, United States Department of 

Commerce, Washington, DC, http://www.census.gov/.

United States Department of Education (2004) Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004,

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,regs,300,A,300%252E39. Viewed January 8, 2015.

United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS 1999) Mental Health: A Report of the 

Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, 

National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, MD, http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBBHS.pdf.

United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS 2015) Preventive Care, United States

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-thelaw/preventive-care/index.html. Viewed January 5, 2015.

University of South Carolina (2013) Social Vulnerability Index for the United States 2006-10, Hazards 

and Vulnerability Research Institute, University of South Carolina, 

http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/products/sovi.aspx.

Wang, Yumei (2014) Hospital and Water System Earthquake Risk Evaluation: Report to the Oregon 

Health Authority, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 

Witt, Jon (2013) SOC, 3

rd Edition, New York: McGraw Hill.

World Health Organization (1948) Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as 

adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June, 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by 

the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no (2, p. 100) and 

entered into force on 7 April 1948, World Health Organization (WHO).

World Health Organization (2007) ―Everybody‘s Business: Strengthening Health Systems to Improve 

Health Outcomes,‖ WHO‘s Framework for Action,

http://www.who.int/healthsystems/strategy/everybodys_business.pdf. Viewed December 15, 2014.

World Input-Output Database, http://www.wiod.org/new_site/database/wiots.htm.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects, Dependencies Executive Summary

39

11. Dependencies and Cascading Effects

Dependencies Executive Summary

A community resilience plan requires an understanding of building and infrastructure system 

dependencies and potential cascading effects. An overview is provided of possible dependencies between 

social systems and buildings and infrastructure systems for consideration when setting performance goals 

for community response and recovery times. Available tools for identifying dependencies, predicting the 

impact, and mitigating or managing dependencies are also presented. The term ―dependency‖ is used in 

the Guide to indicate one-way dependencies. The term ―interdependency‖ can indicate one-way 

dependencies, reciprocal dependencies, or multiple-level dependencies. 

Cascading failures occur when one failure triggers those of other components or systems. They can occur 

within one system or between systems when the failure of one system triggers failures in other systems. 

Dependency between infrastructure systems needs to be understood to restore infrastructure services in an 

appropriate sequence, and to avoid cascading delays in restoration of critical services.

To determine the performance needed for clusters of the built environment and to protect a community 

from significant and non-reversible deterioration, communities need an orderly and rapid process for 

managing recovery. The recovery sequence should address the desired number of buildings in each 

designated cluster and the infrastructure systems that support them. Each cluster‘s performance depends 

not only on its primary function, but also on dependencies between clusters and the infrastructure systems 

that support them. 

This chapter presents multiple dimensions of dependency: internal and external, time, space, and source 

dependencies. Due to the complex nature of infrastructure system interactions, these dimensions of 

dependency may not be decoupled. 

As part of the planning process, private and non-profit stakeholders, such as utilities, businesses, and 

organizations, should be encouraged to develop their own emergency and continuity of operations plans 

that include identifying dependencies, and the impacts of those dependencies on their operations. 

With knowledge of dependencies, stakeholders can have an informed discussion about the anticipated 

performance of buildings and infrastructure systems for the prevailing community hazards and desired 

service restoration times, and short and long-term resilience goals. It is important that all stakeholders are 

included in these discussions, including: elected officials, emergency managers, first responders, service 

providers, business leaders, civic organizations, community services organizations, etc. 

A community may use maps with a Geographic Information System (GIS) overlay of infrastructure 

systems and hazard data to coordinate the potential temporal and spatial dependencies of infrastructure 

systems. Such an assessment may include scenario-based assessment of infrastructure system 

depencencies or optomized prioritization of recovery of infrastructure function. 

11.1. Introduction

An orderly and rapid process for managing recovery is needed for the designated clusters and 

infrastructure systems. Each cluster‘s performance and primary function may be affected by dependencies 

between clusters. Considering dependencies can avoid potential cascading failures of multiple systems. 

Cascading failures can occur within one system, such as a power grid, when one component fails, causing

an overload and subsequent failure of other components. They can also occur between systems, such as 

when loss of power causes failure in the cell phone system after emergency power for cell towers is 

expended.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects, Dimensions of Dependency

40

Identifying dependencies and potential cascading failures is the first step. Reducing the effect of 

dependencies and consequences, where possible, and setting performance goals that consider the role of 

dependent systems in community recovery can be achieved through multiple approaches. For example, 

dependencies can be reduced by adding redundancy, increasing capacity, and installing weak links that 

constructively isolate portions of a system. Governance processes and public policies also play a key role 

in developing plans for mitigation, response, and recovery management of dependencies.

11.2. Dimensions of Dependency

Interactions within and between infrastructure systems depend on a number of factors. Traditionally, 

dependencies consider the physical and functional relationship between different systems (i.e., drinking 

water systems require electricity to operate pumps). However, this is only one dimension that illustrates 

system interaction. This section presents multiple dimensions of dependency that can be considered in 

planning for community resilience: internal and external, time, space, and source dependencies.

11.2.1. Internal and External Dependency

Disruption to the normal operating state of the built environment reveals that infrastructure systems are 

interconnected through a web of external dependencies. Additionally, within a given system (i.e., an 

individual service provider) operations are dependent on a similar web of internal dependencies. Failure 

of a single critical system component can result in cascading failures within an individual system, as in 

the case of lost electrical power to an estimated 50 million people in the 2003 Northeast Blackout [NERC 

2004]. External dependencies can also lead to cascading failures of other infrastructure systems, as in the 

shutdown of train service in and out of New York City and loss of cell sites after batteries were drained in 

the 2003 Northeast Blackout.

Internal Dependency. Within a given system, certain components are critical to the successful operation 

of the system. An example of a critical component in a water system is a pump that delivers water to a 

water tower to distribute onto customers by gravity feed. If the pump stops working, then customers in the 

pressure zone served by that pump are without water – unless there is redundancy built into the system. 

This pump example represents an infrastructure-related dependency internal to a single water utility. In 

addition to physical infrastructure-related internal dependencies, each infrastructure system depends on a 

number of other factors, such as workforce availability, to sustain normal operations. 

Figure 11-1 shows an example of internal and external dependencies for emergency services [Pederson et 

al. 2006]. Solid lines that connect nodes within each service, as indicated by the lined boxes, represent 

internal dependencies. The dashed lines represent external dependencies between emergency services and 

supporting infrastructure systems. For instance, delivery of ambulance, fire, and police services all

depend on telecommunications and roads. Identifying and understanding internal and external 

dependencies and potential cascading effects provides an informed basis for setting performance goals for 

community response and recovery.

Infrastructure systems are typically dependent on other external systems for continued successful 

operation. The water pump described above is dependent on electrical power for operation; therefore, it is 

dependent on the energy system that is external to the water system. The pump may be able to operate for 

a short period with an emergency generator, but the generator would be dependent on refueling during an 

extended power outage. Refueling is, in turn, dependent on an available supply of fuel and a 

transportation system to deliver the fuel. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects, Dimensions of Dependency

41

Solid lines that connect nodes within each service, as indicated by the lined boxes, represent internal dependencies. 

Dashed lines represent external dependencies between emergency services and supporting infrastructure systems. 

For instance, delivery of ambulance, fire, and police services all depend on telecommunications and roads.

Figure 11-1. Example of infrastructure internal and external dependencies for emergency services 

[Source: Pederson et al. 2006]. 

External Dependency. Figure 11-2 illustrates other examples of interdependent relationships among 

infrastructure systems. These relationships can be characterized by multiple connections among 

infrastructure systems. The behavior of a given infrastructure system may be initially evaluated in 

isolation from other infrastructure systems, but planning for resilience requires understanding of the 

integrated performance of the physical infrastructure. Wang [2014] conducted a specific study that 

evaluates the interdependencies of a hospital and the supporting infrastructure that illustrates this topic. 

Cascading Effects. Internal dependency-related cascading failures can affect power transmission, 

computer networking, mechanical and structural systems, and communication systems. External 

dependency-related cascading failures can affect all buildings and systems. Figure 11-3 and Figure 11-4

illustrate how internal and external dependencies caused cascading failures in the 2003 Northeast 

Blackout. The Blackout resulted in widespread societal and economic disruption. It started when an 

electricity generating plant went offline, and took less than three hours to propagate across an area with a 

population of some 50 million. The outage impacted buildings and other power-dependent infrastructure 

systems, including transportation, energy, communication, and water [NERC 2004]. Failures in physical 

infrastructure can also have cascading impacts on social institutions. For example, prolonged loss of 

critical services following a disaster may drive small businesses to relocate or go out of business entirely.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects, Dimensions of Dependency

42

Figure 11-2. Example of external dependency relationships [Adapted and redrawn, Rinaldi et al 2001]
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects, Dimensions of Dependency

43

Figure 11-3: Power system internal dependence cascading failure in the 2003 Northeast Blackout

Figure 11-4: External dependence cascading failure in the 2003 Northeast Blackout

External dependencies among various infrastructure systems that serve other systems means that 

infrastructure services need to be restored in sequence. For example, the roads that lead to the electrical 

system components that serve the water system that needs repair must be cleared to create access for 

repair crews. Such dependency could lead to significant cascading delay in restoring critical services. For 

example, delays in restoration of liquid fuel could impact restoration of roads and bridges. Delays in 

restoration of roads could impact transport of repair crews, equipment, and restoration of the electric 

power system, which, in turn, could impact restoration of water services. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects, Dimensions of Dependency

44

11.2.2. Time 

Recovery Phases. After a hazard event, the time required to restore services depends on how rapidly 

supporting infrastructure systems recover. Rail transportation systems, such as the Bay Area Rapid 

Transit (BART) system in the San Francisco Bay area, require electrical power for operation. No matter 

how resilient the rail infrastructure system, recovery of service depends on restoration of electrical power.

There may also be operational dependencies that impact a utility provider‘s ability to perform repairs. 

Crews typically rely on roads and bridges to access repair sites, liquid fuel for trucks and equipment, 

cellular phones for communication, availability of repair supplies through the supply chain, etc. 

Disruption in any one or a combination of these systems can increase delays in recovery of service.

The Guide organizes the community resilience plan around three phases of recovery using four categories 

of building clusters (see Chapter 4 in Volume I). The nature of the dependency issues differs for each 

phase. The first phase, focused on immediate response and labeled ―short-term,‖ is expected to last for 

days. This phase requires critical facilities and provisions for emergency housing. The second, 

intermediate recovery phase, is expected to last for weeks to months. The second phase can include 

restoration of housing and neighborhood services, such as retail, healthcare, and schools. The third, longterm recovery phase, is expected to last from months to years and focuses on full recovery of the 

community‘s economic and social base.

Short-Term Recovery Phase. During the short-term phase (days), the normal operation of infrastructure 

systems may be impaired. Individual system operators will activate their emergency response plans. 

Internal dependencies (such as staff, operations center, data, repair supplies, etc.) and key external 

dependencies (such as transportation) will be critical in defining the pace of the initial response. A welldefined governance process, between and among government emergency managers and system providers, 

will be essential to coordinate system restoration priorities that are best for the community, especially 

when the recommended restoration sequence might not be optimal for an individual system provider. A 

report by the City and County of San Francisco Lifelines Council indicated that a top planning and 

preparedness priority for system providers is to develop communication and employ priority decisionmaking strategies to aid in post-event response [The Lifelines Council, City and County of San Francisco

2014].

Critical facilities, as defined in Chapter 4 (Volume I), are a small number of building clusters and 

supporting infrastructure systems that need to be functional immediately after an event to support the 

emergency response and provide a safe environment for emergency responders. During this early phase, 

the degree of dependence on other infrastructure systems depends on the facility‘s ability to operate with 

emergency power, an independent communication network, and possibly onsite housing and subsistence 

for the staff. Critical transportation routes need to be established prior to the event and made a high 

priority in post-event cleanup and debris removal. These routes enable replenishment of onsite supplies 

including fuel, water, food, medical supplies, etc. Performance goals for recovery need to balance the 

supplies needed to operate independently for a short period and achievable restoration times.

For example, some hospitals have stored water that can supply drinking water for three to four days. This 

supply may represent about 5 % of total water usage. Some hospitals‘ total water usage may exceed 

300,000 gal/day. Many hospitals do not have onsite storage capacity for wastewater and have limited 

storage capacity for medical waste. Such limitations would impair hospital functionality after a hazard 

event. In California, the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development is implementing 

requirements to provide three days of an operational supply of water (including water for drinking, food 

preparation, sterilization, HVAC cooling towers, etc.), wastewater storage, and fuel for emergency 

generators [CBC 2013].

The timing of a hazard event may also impact the resources available for response. Availability of 

hospital beds is often seasonally dependent. For instance, during the winter flu season, hospitals may 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects, Dimensions of Dependency

45

operate at or near capacity, limiting the number of patient beds available for response (even after 

discharge of less critical patients and canceling elective procedures).

Temporary housing for emergency responders and displaced individuals and animals, as discussed in 

Chapter 10, is often met by using schools, shelters, hotels, conference centers, residences that are safe to 

shelter-in-place, etc. Food, water, security, and sanitation needed to protect public health are usually 

provided at centralized locations. 

An inability to provide sufficient emergency housing can lead to a mass exodus from the community, 

which could cascade into a permanent loss of residents and inability to restore the economic base of the 

community. Performance goals need to realistically estimate both the number of displaced residents and 

emergency responders to be accommodated and the availability of adequate facilities within or adjacent to 

the community.

Intermediate Recovery Phase. In the intermediate recovery phase (weeks to months), the dependency 

focus is expected to shift more to external dependencies (electricity, liquid fuel, transportation, etc.) along 

with key internal dependencies (funding for payroll and repair supplies, contractors, etc.).

Restoring neighborhood functionality is key to maintaining the workforce needed to restore the economic 

vitality of the community after a hazard event. During this period, it is important that special attention be 

paid to the needs of the disadvantaged and at-risk populations who require a higher level of assistance. 

Functioning residences, schools, healthcare facilities, and businesses are needed to give the population 

confidence to stay and help support community recovery. If people cannot return to their neighborhoods, 

small neighborhood businesses will likely lose their client base and relocate or close. This, in turn, may 

cascade into delays for recovering the community‘s economy or permanent losses. See Section 10.5 for 

additional social institution dependencies.

Commercial services also support recovery of a community. If the primary economic engine of a region is 

based on a manufacturing plant that requires water, wastewater, and power to operate within two weeks 

after a design hazard event, then the intermediate recovery phase should address restoration of those 

dependent systems. 

The condition of the built environment that supports residences, neighborhoods, and businesses is one key 

factor that determines recovery time. Significant structural damage to buildings and infrastructure systems 

cannot be repaired within a few weeks; it takes months or longer, depending on the damage. Buildings 

need to be safe to use while being repaired for minor damage or temporary facilities will need to be 

provided, especially for damaged residences. The components of the transportation, energy, water, 

wastewater, and communication systems that support these facilities need to be restored within the same 

timeframe.

Long-Term Recovery Phase. In the long-term recovery phase (months to years), it is anticipated that 

utility services will be restored, at least with temporary fixes. If a community is in the early stages of 

developing its resilience, the recovery time may take longer due to needed repairs or rebuilding. As a 

community achieves resilience, a similar event should cause less damage and have shorter, less costly 

recovery times. The key dependencies at this point are related to supplies, equipment, and resource 

availability for repairs and reconstruction.

Construction activities to repair and rebuild after major event will provide a significant, short-term 

stimulus to the economy and offer an opportunity to improve the built environment according to a 

community‘s plan for resilience. The restoration may be financed by the government, insurance 

companies, large businesses, private savings, and/or developers. For the recovery process to successfully 

improve community resilience, a governance structure needs to be in place that approves reconstruction 

rapidly and in accordance with the community‘s interests and resilience plans. Any stall or stalemate in 

decision-making will delay the construction activities needed to restart the economy.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects, Dimensions of Dependency

46

It is important that communities develop a resilience plan that addresses how to manage the logistics of 

recovery. For example, logistics include expedited building permit processes and adequate resources for 

building inspections during a post-event construction boom. Logistics also include land use planning 

decisions that will guide rebuilding. If the process is delayed, then people and businesses may move out 

of the region and the opportunity to build back a better, more resilient community is lost. The Oregon 

Resilience Plan indicated that businesses are only able to accommodate approximately two to four weeks 

of business interruption before they would need to relocate or go out of business [OSSPAC 2013]. This is 

particularly troubling to a state like Oregon where a large portion of the economy relies on small 

businesses and where the current expected level of resilience for a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake 

does not meet this four-week time window. Japan experienced small business losses because of delayed 

decisions in land use planning to rebuild in the tsunami-impacted region after the 2011 Tohoku 

earthquake [Mochizuki 2014].

11.2.3. Space

Hazard Impact Region. Hazard events can have variable impacts across affected regions. Hurricanes or a 

Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake may impact a large multi-state region, while tornadoes may only 

impact a portion of a community. 

Communities need to consider the potential geographic area of impact for their expected hazards as part 

of the planning process. The Oregon Resilience Plan [OSSPAC 2013] was developed for a scenario 

Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake that would likely impact a region including Northern California, 

Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia (Figure 11-5). The plan discusses a strategy where the central 

and eastern portions of the state would provide assistance to the Willamette Valley/I-5 Corridor region 

(area including the state‘s largest population centers) and then the Willamette Valley/I-5 Corridor would 

provide assistance to the coastal region. Other mutual aid assistance would likely be mobilized from 

Idaho, Montana, and other adjacent states. This is in contrast to a Midwest tornado, which may cause 

significant devastation to a particular community, but assistance in response and recovery is available 

from the surrounding communities.

Location of Critical Infrastructure. The location of physical infrastructure within a community impacts 

how it is expected to perform in a hazard event. For example, wastewater treatment plants are often 

located close to rivers, bays, or other bodies of water for system operation reasons, making them 

particularly vulnerable to flooding, sea level rise, and tsunami hazards. In the resilience planning process, 

communities need to consider how the prevailing hazards and location of existing infrastructure systems 

impact system performance. Resilience plans could include land use planning policies that consider the 

dependence between physical location and system performance, when evaluating upgrades to existing 

buildings, construction of new infrastructure systems, and rebuilding after a hazard event.

Co-location. Infrastructure systems are often co-located along transportation or other utility corridors. 

The close proximity of these different systems can lead to unintended damage to these co-located systems 

[O‘Rourke 2007]. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects, Dimensions of Dependency

47

Figure 11-5: Four impact zones for M9.0 Cascadia earthquake scenario [Source: OSSPAC 2013]

Pipelines and conduits are often co-located 

on bridges or other crossing structures and 

can be significantly impacted by earthquake 

and inundation (flood and tsunami) events. 

Figure 11-6 shows an example of bridge 

displacement during the 2011 Christchurch 

New Zealand earthquake. A sewer pipeline, 

supported by the bridge, failed and spilled 

raw sewage into the river below. The new 

black sewer line on the bridge deck was 

temporarily installed after the earthquake. 

Telecommunications wires are often 

supported by electrical power poles, so if the 

pole breaks, both systems are impacted. 

Water and wastewater pipelines are often colocated near other buried infrastructure under 

or adjacent to roadways. Failure of pipelines 

may result in damage to the roadway (i.e. 

sinkhole from water main break or collapsed sewer pipeline) and impacts to traffic when repairs are being 

made. Co-located infrastructure not only results in potential damage to multiple systems, but also often 

requires significantly more coordination between service providers during repair. 

Figure 11-6: Example of infrastructure co-location
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects, Planning for Infrastructure System Dependencies

48

11.2.4. Source Dependency

Communities depend on goods and services that may or may not be available locally. Hazard events that 

impact the source of these goods and services can have far-reaching downstream consequences.

In the Pacific Northwest, Oregon is 

dependent on refineries in the State of 

Washington for a supply of liquid fuel.

Figure 11-7 shows the Portland, OR liquid 

fuel tank farm that relies on pipelines 

running from just south of the Canadian 

border to this storage site. A Cascadia 

Subduction Zone earthquake would likely 

disrupt refinery operation and limit available 

liquid fuel supplies in Washington and 

Oregon. If not identified and addressed, this 

could cripple restoration of roads and 

bridges, which, in turn, would paralyze 

restoration of electric power and water 

services. Similarly, a Gulf Coast hurricane 

could damage offshore drilling platforms 

and oil refinery facilities, disrupting the liquid fuel supply for the hurricane-impacted region and other 

regions of the U.S.

Regional utility systems provide another example of source dependency. The Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA) supplies power to over 150 municipal utility companies and several large industrial users in 

Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee [TVA 2014]. A hazard event, such as an ice storm, that 

damages one or more TVA power generation facilities or transmission lines has the potential to disrupt 

electric power over a large geographic area.

A wildfire can impact the drinking water supply with high post-fire sediment loads. These sediment loads 

can damage reservoirs and treatment plants, resulting in increased treatment costs to remove suspended 

solids from drinking water. The impact of sediment is highest in the burned area, but data from the 

Southern California wildfires in the fall of 2003 indicated increased sediment loads at treatment plants up 

to 160 km (100 miles) from the fire [Meixner and Wohlgemuth 2004].

11.3. Planning for Infrastructure System Dependencies 

As part of the planning process, utility providers, businesses, and other community organizations should 

be encouraged to refresh or develop their own emergency and continuity of operations plans and address 

internal dependencies. As organizations are conducting internal planning activities to achieve resilience, 

they can compile a list of external dependencies and how they may impact their operations and recovery 

process. With informed stakeholders, a discussion can be held that develops an understanding of the 

desired and anticipated performance of the built environment for prevailing hazards, including 

dependencies. 

Understanding the dependencies within and between physical infrastructure systems is a developing area 

of planning related to resilience and recovery from significant disruptions. However, there is an 

immediate need for a process to identify dependencies in the built environment, and an empirical method 

based on historical data seems to be the most achievable at this point. Such a method was used for the 

City and County of San Francisco Lifelines Council in 2013 and it may be applied to other communities. 

San Francisco reported their findings and recommendations (Figure 11-8) in February 2014 [The

Lifelines Council, City and County of San Francisco 2014]. The steps in their process were:

Figure 11-7: Portland, OR liquid fuel tank farm is 

vulnerable to failures in pipelines in Washington State.

(Source: Yumei Wang [DOGAMI 2012]
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects, Planning for Infrastructure System Dependencies

49

Figure 11-8: Potential service restoration timeframes following a scenario M 7.9 earthquake on the 

San Andreas Fault estimated in City of San Francisco Study

 Form a service provider council of private and public infrastructure owners and plan a quarterly 

forum for them to meet, share current planning activities, and discuss response and recovery 

issues, their dependencies on other systems, and methods to improve the existing conditions.

 For the extreme level of all prevailing hazards, characterize the expected level of damage in terms 

related to infrastructure system performance from the view of the infrastructure provider. Figure 

11-8 illustrates restoration times estimated by the providers in the San Francisco study. While 

most utilities get progressively better over time, the loss of battery power and fuel in the first few 

days causes the decrease in service restoration for some systems. Once electricity is restored, the 

service restoration of other infrastructure systems increases, some more rapidly than others.

 For each infrastructure system, document the planned response and restoration process, likely 

dependencies on other systems, and the understanding of other system dependencies on them. 

 Process the information and determine overall interactions between systems and the related 

dependencies. Identify areas with potential for cascading effects, occurrences of co-location, 

overlaps, and hindrances related to restoration and recovery plans. Table 11-1 illustrates the 

dependencies identified in the San Francisco Study, as well as the nature of the interaction.

 Develop a series of recommendations related to the next steps needed to better define the needs, 

advance collaborative planning where needed, prioritize the needed mitigation projects and 

identify funding sources for pre- and post-event needs.

Table 11-1 lists infrastructure systems along both axis of the table. The type of dependencies and 

significance of the dependency is indicated, with significant dependencies (yellow) needing to be resolved 

first. For example, the dependency between electric power and city streets can be significant. Streets and 

power are co-located when power lines are within the right-of-way of the streets, and each system may 

hinder the restoration of the other. Roads are needed to transport the power crews and debris on the roads 

will delay repairs to the electrical system.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects, Planning for Infrastructure System Dependencies

50

Table 11-1: Infrastructure system dependencies identified by the City of San Francisco’s Lifelines Council following a scenario M7.9 

earthquake on the San Andreas Fault [Adapted from Laurie Johnson, CCSF Lifelines Council 2014]

The overall interaction and dependency on a particular system (read down each column)

Regional 

Roads City Streets Electric Power Natural Gas Telecom Water Auxiliary Water

WasteWater Transit Port Airport Fuel

Infrastructure System Operators‘ dependency on other Infrastructure systems 

(read across each row) 

Regional 

Roads General Restoration 

Substitute Restoration Restoration Restoration Restoration Restoration Substitute Restoration Restoration

City 

Streets

Substitute 

Restoration General Co-location, Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration Restoration

Electric 

Power Restoration Co-location, 

Restoration General Restoration Co-location, Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration Co-location Restoration Restoration

Natural 

Gas Restoration

Functional, 

Co-location, 

Restoration

Substitute General Restoration Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration Co-location Restoration Restoration

Telecom Restoration Co-location, 

Restoration

Functional, 

Restoration Restoration General Co-location, Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration Restoration Restoration

Water Restoration Restoration Restoration Restoration General Co-location Restoration

Auxiliary 

Water Restoration

Functional, 

Restoration Restoration Restoration Functional, 

Restoration

General Co-location, 

Restoration Restoration

WasteWater Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Functional, 

Restoration Restoration Functional, 

Restoration

General Co-location, 

Restoration

Restoration

Transit Substitute, 

Restoration

Functional, 

Substitute,

Co-location, 

Restoration

Functional, 

Restoration Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

General

Co-location, 

Restoration

Functional, 

Restoration

Port Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration

Co-location, 

Restoration Co-location Co-location Co-location General Restoration

Airport Restoration Restoration Restoration Restoration Restoration Co-location, 

Restoration General Functional, Restoration

Fuel Restoration Restoration Functional, 

Restoration Restoration Restoration Restoration Restoration General

Legend: Key to terms used in the matrix:

Significant interaction and dependency on this infrastructure system 

for service delivery and restoration efforts

Functional disaster propagation and cascading interactions from one system to another due to dependence

Co-location interaction, physical damage propagation among infrastructure systems

Moderate interaction and dependency on this infrastructure system 

for service delivery and restoration efforts

Restoration interaction, various hindrances in the restoration and recovery stages

Substitute interaction, one system‘s disruption influences dependencies on alternative systems

Limited interaction and dependency on this infrastructure system for 

service delivery and restoration efforts

General interaction between components of the same system. (All systems would have general interaction issues, but some 

issues are more crucial for the system‘s potential disruption and restoration.)
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects

51

Figure 11-9 shows a map of Portland, Oregon with a GIS overlay of infrastructure systems that are 

contained in the Earthquake Response Appendix to the City‘s Basic Emergency Operations Plan 

[Portland Bureau of Emergency Management 2012]. The city used this information to coordinate the 

potential spatial dependencies of its infrastructure sytems. 

Figure 11-9: GIS map of infrastructure systems around Portland, Oregon [Source: USGS]

The Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, MCEER [Shinozuka et al. 2004],

investigated earthquake effects on the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) combined

water and power systems, and showed that GIS assisted modeling could effectively illustrate the temporal 

and spatial aspects of the combined system performance. Figure 11-10 shows a pre-event simulation of 

the progression of the restoration process after a scenario event. The state of the restoration is 

demonstrated in GIS format at 0 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours after the scenario earthquake. 

This type of restoration simulation is useful for assessing infrastructure system dependencies and 

developing/validating solutions to minimize cascading effects.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects

52

a. 0 hours b. 12 hours

c. 24 hours d. 48 hours

© Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) at the State University of New York at Buffalo. 

Used with Permission.

Figure 11-10: Pre-event simulation of LADWP restoration of pump stations and power supply 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Dependencies and Cascading Effects

53

11.4. References

California Building Standards Commission (CBC 2013) California Building Standards Code, California 

Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA, http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/Current2013Codes.aspx.

Meixner, T. and P. Wohlgemuth (2004) ―Wildfire Impacts on Water Quality,‖ Southwest Hydrology, pp. 

24-25, September/October, http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V3_N5/feature7.pdf.

Mochizuki, J. (2014) ―Decision-Making, Policy Choices and Community Rebuilding after the Tohoku 

Disaster,‖ Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management, 4 (2): 11-26.

North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC 2004) Technical Analysis of the August 14, 2003, 

Blackout: What Happened, Why, and What Did We Learn? Princeton, NJ, North American Electric 

Reliability Council.

O‘Rourke, T. (2007) ―Critical Infrastructure, Interdependencies, and Resilience,‖ The Bridge, vol. 37, no. 

1, Spring, National Academy of Engineering of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 

https://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7405.

Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC 2013) The Oregon Resilience Plan, 

Reducing Risk and Improving Recovery for the Next Cascadia Earthquake and Tsunami, Salem, OR: 

Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission.

Pederson, P.; D. Dudenhoeffer; S. Hartley; and M. Permann (2006) Critical Infrastructure 

Interdependency Modeling: A Survey of U.S. and International Research, INL/EXT-06-11464, Idaho 

National Laboratory.

Portland Bureau of Emergency Management (2013) City of Portland Basic Emergency Operations Plan, 

Earthquake Response Appendix. Portland, OR, https://www.portlandoregon.gov/pbem/article/135813.

Rinaldi, S.M.; J.P. Peerenboom; and T.K. Kelly (2001) ―Identifying, Understanding, and Analyzing 

Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies,‖ IEEE Control Systems Magazine, December.

Shinozuka, M.; S.E. Chang; T-C. Cheng; M. Feng; T.D. O‘Rourke; M. Ala Saadeghvaziri; X. Dong; X.

Jin; Y. Wahg; and P. Shi (2004) ―Resilience of Integrated Power and Water Systems,‖ Research Progress 

and Accomplishments 2003-2004, MCEER, Buffalo, NY.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA 2014) Tennessee Valley Authority Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2014-

2018, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Knoxville, TN.

The Lifelines Council, City and County of San Francisco (2014) Lifelines Interdependency Study/Report,

San Francisco, CA, http://www.sfgsa.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=12025.

Wang, Y. (2014) Hospital and Water System Risk Evaluation, Report to the Oregon Health Authority, 

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, September.

Wang, Y.; S. Bartlett; S. and Miles (2012) Earthquake Risk Study for Oregon's Critical Energy 

Infrastructure Hub, Final Report to Oregon Department of Energy & Oregon Public Utility Commission,

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, August.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

54

12. Buildings

Buildings Executive Summary

Buildings support many social needs from the most basic, such as providing shelter, to providing services 

like medical care and education. Following a disruptive hazard event, some buildings need to be 

functional immediately, while others need to remain stable to protect occupants. Building stock within a 

community varies widely, in terms of use, occupancy, ownership, age, construction type, and condition. 

These factors can affect the performance of existing buildings during hazard events, as well as the ability 

to restore their intended function within a reasonable time.

The Guide groups buildings that have similar functions and performance goals into clusters to focus on 

the role of buildings at the community level rather than individual buildings. Accordingly, performance 

goals are expressed in terms of time to recovery of function for building clusters following a hazard event. 

Building clusters are buildings and supporting infrastructure systems that support a social need or 

function in the community that have a common performance goal. Recovery of function is affected by the 

condition of the buildings and supporting infrastructure systems (including their design, mitigation, and 

maintenance) as well as damage levels, resources for repairs and rebuilding, and temporary measures, 

such as interim power sources. Functionality across a building cluster may be restored incrementally 

during recovery phases. For example, critical facilities like emergency care centers in hospitals are needed 

immediately following hazard events. Other less critical hospital functions can be restored as needed. 

Another example is residential clusters that need to be stable and safe for occupancy immediately after the 

event, so residents can remain in the community to support its recovery. 

The community resilience plan addresses gaps between the desired (future) performance of buildings to 

support recovery of function and the anticipated (current) performance of the existing building stock and 

supporting infrastructure systems. Much of the building stock may not meet the desired performance 

goals. A community resilience plan can address gaps between the desired and anticipated performance

with prioritized solutions and strategies. For example, updated or improved codes and standards can be 

adopted. This approach has limited short and intermediate term impact because existing buildings and 

infrastructure systems are replaced slowly in most communities. Only new construction or significant 

renovations will conform to the new standards. When existing buildings pose a substantial risk to 

occupants during a hazard event, retrofit requirements are an option, but often a challenging one, due to 

potential costs and occupant disruption.

The Guide encourages communities to consider multiple hazard levels: routine, design, and extreme. 

Consideration of multiple hazard levels supports fuller understanding of potential consequences and 

recovery actions for community resilience. The performance of buildings is anchored around the design 

hazard. For a design hazard event, desired performance could be that buildings are functional within days 

to weeks, depending on their role in the community. For a routine hazard event, desired performance 

could be that all buildings are functional within a few days. For an extreme hazard event, desired 

performance could be that certain critical facilities are functional after the event, most residents can

shelter in their own homes, and businesses essential for recovery are open within several weeks. 

Most of the building codes and standards adopted by communities are based on model building codes. 

Model building codes are developed at the national or international level and primarily address minimum 

requirements for life safety of occupants, not comprehensive community resilience. States and local 

municipalities may modify the model building codes to achieve specific goals that are more stringent for 

local or regional hazards. Other states and localities adopt model building codes, but amend or remove 

requirements to make them less stringent. Other states adopt model building codes, but do not allow 

amendments by local jurisdictions.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

55

Enforcing building codes and construction standards is as important as their adoption. Even if the most 

up-to-date building code and standards are in effect, buildings designed and constructed in a substandard 

manner are likely to have substandard performance. The level of enforcement can significantly impact 

resilience. A properly trained building department, to review designs for code conformance and inspect 

construction for conformance with the approved plans, is an essential component of community 

resilience.

Making a community more resilient is a long-term proposition. Communities can develop short, medium 

and long-term goals for resilience. Short-term goals typically include creating a resilience plan and 

adopting improved building codes and standards. Short-term goals support long-term goals by gradually 

adding more resilient buildings. Medium and long-term goals typically relate to improving the existing 

building stock, such as incentivized or mandated retrofit of specific building types. 

All solutions that make communities more resilient have associated costs. Communities need to balance 

resilience plans against their available resources. The Guide offers a six-step method to identify gaps 

between desired and anticipated performance and prioritize solutions to address the gaps. Prioritization 

and participation by all stakeholders helps communities develop plans that can achieve their community 

resilience goals within their means.

12.1. Introduction

Community building stock can vary widely. Differences in occupancy, use, age, and condition can present 

challenges in meeting desired performance goals. Public and private ownership can also present

challenges in implementing resilience solutions and strategies. This chapter discusses building categories 

and functions, performance goals, regulatory environment, codes and standards, and possible solutions 

and strategies for buildings that support community resilience. 

12.1.1. Social Needs and Systems Performance Goals

Buildings play a central role in our communities, as they fulfill a multitude of social needs from providing 

shelter to providing locations for services such as health care, education, and grocery stores, as discussed 

in Chapter 10. Therefore, desired performance goals for buildings depend specifically on what the 

buildings house or the functions they serve. Some buildings should be functional immediately, or soon 

after, the hazard event, while other buildings need to be stable so they do not collapse or place the life 

safety of the occupants at risk. Section 12.2 discusses building categories and uses; Section 12.3 provides 

guidance for developing performance goals based on the methodology in Chapter 4 (Volume I). Current 

building codes adopted and enforced by the community may not achieve the desired performance goals.

12.1.2. Reliability vs. Resilience

Buildings are an integrated set of systems – structural, architectural, utilities, etc. – that perform together 

to serve the intended function of the building. Structural systems provide a stable frame that carries 

gravity loads and resists forces imposed by hazard events. Architectural systems supply protection from 

outside elements through the cladding systems (e.g., roof, exterior walls or panels, doors, windows), life 

safety systems (e.g., sprinklers, fire alarms), and interior finishes. Utility systems deliver services that 

support the building function and occupants (e.g., electric power, communication, water, wastewater).

Buildings are designed based on provisions in building codes and engineering design standards to meet

their intended purpose and provide occupant safety for fires and prevailing hazard events. Most 

provisions in building codes and standards are prescriptive (i.e., rules or regulations are specified for 

design). However, most codes and standards also permit the use of alternative products, systems or design 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

56

methods if equivalent performance is demonstrated through engineering analysis, testing, or performancebased design. 

Structural systems are typically designed for the required minimum level of hazard intensity, which is 

based on a target performance level based on reliability for a 50-year service period (see Chapter 4 in

Volume 1). Structural reliability refers to the probability that a structural member or system will not fail

during the service period in a specified fashion, such as member buckling or fracture. For gravity, wind, 

snow, and flood design loads, structural design is based on member performance, so that structural 

members are designed to have a low probability of failure during a design hazard event. For seismic 

design hazard events, structures are designed for system performance, where the structural system is

expected to remain stable, but individual members may fail. Thus, for wind, snow, and flood events, a

structure is expected to sustain little or no damage during a design event. For seismic events, the structure 

is expected to remain stable, but localized structural damage may occur. Depending on the degree of 

damage, a building may not be functional afterwards and may even need to be demolished.

Hazard events may disrupt services, such as water and electric power, which are required for building 

functionality. If water pressure cannot be maintained, then fire hydrants, fire suppression, and sanitary 

systems are out of service, and buildings may not be suitable for occupancy. 

Designing a building that supports its role in a resilient community requires understanding the social 

functions that building supports in the community and the building performance needed to ensure those 

functions during or after a hazard event. Some requirements for resilience may exceed those required by 

model building codes and standards.

12.1.3. Dependencies

A community‘s resilience strongly depends on the performance of its buildings. The functionality of most 

buildings, in turn, depends on services provided by utilities (e.g., energy, communication, water, and 

wastewater) and transportation systems. Conversely, some buildings support the utility systems. 

Community resilience requires that dependencies between buildings and supporting infrastructure systems

have compatible performance goals to achieve the desired performance. For example, emergency 

operation centers and hospitals are needed during and immediately after a hazard event. However,

supporting power and water infrastructure systems may be damaged. To support community needs during 

short-term recovery, critical facilities need to plan to operate without external power and water until those

services are expected to be recovered. Alternatively, the functionality of specific buildings can depend on

the occupants as well. First responders need accessible routes to reach the buildings where equipment is 

housed to provide emergency services. 

12.2. Building Categories and Functions 

Design and construction criteria in building codes and standards are organized according to the desired 

performance of the building, based on its intended use, occupancy, and public health, safety, and welfare

considerations. Many buildings are designed according to the building occupancy classifications in the 

International Building Code [IBC 2015] and the National Fire Protection Association codes [NFPA 

2015], and the risk categories in the American Society of Civil Engineers Standard 7 [ASCE 2010]. 

The term ―occupancy‖ in building codes refers to the nature of the activities that occur inside the 

buildings; fire and life safety provisions are based on the activities. Occupancy classifications can include

assembly, business, day care, education, factory/industrial, high hazard, institutional, mercantile, 

residential, storage, utility, and miscellaneous.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

57

Risks associated with structural failure are addressed separately by risk categories, which relate 

exceeding the design loads and associated criteria to the consequence of failure for the structure and its 

occupants. Risk categories are distinct from occupancy groups in building codes. Risk categories reflect a 

progression of the anticipated seriousness of the consequence of failure from lowest risk (Risk Category 

I) to the highest (Risk Category IV). Buildings and other structures are assigned the highest applicable

risk category based on the risk to human life, health, and welfare associated with their damage or failure 

by nature of their occupancy or use [ASCE/SEI 2010]. 

Risk categories are shown in Table 12-1. Risk Category II includes the majority of building types, such as 

residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, as well as all other buildings not designated to the other 

risk categories. Essential buildings fall under Risk Category IV, which requires the highest level of 

reliability. In ASCE/SEI [2010], essential buildings are intended to remain operational in the event of an

extreme flood, wind, snow, or earthquake event. Some buildings that a community may deem as essential 

are classified as Risk Category III, which includes buildings and structures that house a large number of 

people in one place or those people with limited mobility or ability to travel to a safe haven, including 

healthcare facilities, elementary schools, and prisons. This category also includes structures associated 

with utilities that protect the health and safety of a community, including power generating stations and

water and sewage treatment plants. Risk Category III requires a higher level of reliability than Risk 

Category II. Minimum design loads for structures are modified by importance factors for each risk 

category.

Table 12-1: Risk categories for buildings [ASCE/SEI 2010]

Risk Category Definition

I. Buildings and other structures that represent low risk to human life in the event of failure.

II. All buildings and other structures except those listed in Risk Categories I, III, and IV.

III. Buildings and other structures, the failure of which could pose a substantial risk to human life.

Buildings and other structures, not included in Risk Category IV, with potential to cause a 

substantial economic impact and/or mass disruption of day-to-day civilian life in the event of 

failure.

Buildings and other structures not included in Risk Category IV (including, but not limited to, 

facilities that manufacture, process, handle, store, use, or dispose of such substances as hazardous 

fuels, hazardous chemicals, hazardous waste, or explosives) containing toxic or explosive 

substances where the quantity of the material exceeds a threshold quantity established by the 

authority having jurisdiction and is sufficient to pose a threat to the public if released.

IV. Buildings and other structures designated as essential facilities.

Buildings and other structures, the failure of which could pose a substantial hazard to the 

community.

Buildings and other structures (including, but not limited to, facilities that manufacture, process, 

handle, store, use, or dispose of such substances as hazardous fuels, hazardous chemicals, or 

hazardous waste) containing sufficient quantities of highly toxic substances where the quantity of 

the material exceeds a threshold quantity established by the authority having jurisdiction and is 

sufficient to pose a threat to the public if released.

Buildings and other structures required to maintain the functionality of other Risk Category IV 

structures.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

58

Building use and occupancy classifications and risk categories are important parameters for design, but do 

not address a key aspect of resilience: time to recovery of function. Four building performance categories 

that address recovery are defined in Table 12-2. The reference to tags in Table 12-2 are based on a 

methodology established initially for building safety inspections following earthquakes, but is also used 

following other hazard events to evaluate structures [ATC 2003]. A red tag indicates severe structural

damage, such that it will likely need to be replaced and is unsafe for occupancy. Similarly, a yellow tag is 

used for buildings that are significantly damaged and occupancy of the building will be delayed until it is 

repaired. A green tag means there is minimal to no damage and the building can be occupied while minor 

repairs are made.

Table 12-2: Performance level definitions for building clusters

Performance Level Definition

A. Safe and 

operational

These facilities incur minor damage and continue to function without interruption. 

Essential facilities need this level of function.

B. Safe and usable 

during repair

These facilities experience moderate damage to their interior finishes, contents and 

support systems. They receive green tags when inspected and are safe to occupy after a

hazard event. This performance is suitable for shelter-in-place residential buildings, 

neighborhood businesses and services, and other businesses or services deemed important 

to community recovery.

C. Safe and not 

usable

These facilities meet minimum safety goals, but are not otherwise functional, and remain 

closed until they are repaired. These facilities receive yellow tags. This performance may 

be suitable for some of the facilities that support the community‘s economy. Demand for 

business and market factors will determine how soon they need to be functional.

D. Unsafe – partial or 

complete collapse

These facilities are dangerous because the extent of damage make occupancy unsafe. 

These buildings receive red tags.

The following sections discuss performance considerations for various building clusters. Performance 

goals are set during the resilience planning process (Chapter 4, Volume 1) and summarized in the 

performance goals table as discussed in Section 12.3.

There is no established correlation between performance categories and risk categories, although 

communities can consider them together for resilience planning. For instance, a building cluster designed 

to Risk Category IV criteria may be designated to have Category A performance during recovery. 

Achieving such performance will require understanding of the design and maintenance of individual

buildings within the cluster. 

12.2.1. Government

In most communities, emergency operations centers, first responder facilities, airports, prisons, and water 

and wastewater treatment facilities are government-owned buildings. These buildings provide essential 

services, shelter occupants, and shelter equipment that supports essential services. Therefore, essential 

buildings should remain operational, as defined by Category A (safe and operational).

Other government buildings may not need to be functional immediately following a hazard event (e.g.,

City Hall or county administrative building, public schools, mass transit stations and garages, judicial 

courts, and community centers). However, these buildings may be needed during the intermediate 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

59

recovery phase. An appropriate performance goal for these types of buildings might be either Category A 

(safe and operational) or Category B (safe and usable during repair), depending on their role in the 

community recovery plan. 

12.2.2. Health Care 

Emergency medical facilities are critical to response and recovery efforts. Therefore, hospitals, essential

health care facilities, and their supporting infrastructure, should be functional (Category A) during and 

following a hazard event. While the entire facility may not need to be fully operational, critical functions, 

such as the emergency room and life support systems, should be operational as other functions are

restored. Hospitals are designed to Risk Category IV requirements. Some local communities or federal 

agencies impose additional requirements. For example, California requires that all hospital designs, 

regardless of location or ownership (municipal or private), be reviewed and construction overseen by a 

state agency, in addition to review by local building officials. 

Nursing homes and residential treatment facilities that house patients who cannot care for themselves 

should be functional immediately after a hazard event. Communities can determine which subset of 

doctors‘ offices, pharmacies (for access to medicines), and outpatient clinics (for dialysis or other urgent, 

ongoing treatments) will also be need to remain functional. Some medical office buildings and 

pharmacies may need to be designed to perform to Performance Category A or B, depending on their role 

in community recovery and resilience. In most cases, buildings for these types of medical offices are 

currently designed as Risk Category II buildings. 

12.2.3. Schools and Daycare Centers

Many schools (K-12) are designed to a higher performance level (Risk Category III) because they house 

large assemblies of children. Additionally, school gymnasiums or other areas often are designated as 

emergency shelters during hazard events. Schools may also be designated as emergency staging areas 

after a hazard event. Additionally, the SPUR [2009] Resilience City Initiative found that when children 

return to day care and school, the community is perceived as returning to normal and parents can return to 

work. Thus, expeditious resumption of function is important for schools across a community. 

There can be a mix of performance requirements for schools or other designated buildings. For normal 

use, a school may be designed for Risk Category III and Performance Category B. However, if the school 

or some portion of the school is used as an emergency shelter, that requires Risk Category A

performance. Depending on the hazard, the Risk Category III provisions to which most primary schools 

are designed may provide Performance Category A or B performance. Therefore, any school designated 

as an emergency shelter should be evaluated to ensure it is appropriately designed for its intended use. 

Higher education facilities are generally regulated as business (Risk Category II) or assembly (Risk 

Category III) occupancies with exceptions for specific uses, such as laboratory and other research uses. 

Research universities may be concerned with protecting their research facilities, long-term experiments, 

associated specimens and data. However, such facilities may not have been initially designed for

protection of data and specimens during hazard events, or timely recovery of function. 

Daycare centers house young children that require mobility assistance and are unable to make decisions, 

but daycare populations may not meet assembly requirements of Risk Category III. Therefore, such 

centers may be located in buildings that meet Risk Category II requirements. In some communities, there 

are additional requirements for daycare occupancies. In other instances, there are few constraints beyond 

basic code requirements for Risk Category II buildings. Communities may decide to require that daycare 

centers be designed to a higher level of performance, similar to school buildings.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

60

12.2.4. Religious and Spiritual Centers

Religious and spiritual centers play a special role in communities. They can offer a safe haven for people 

with emotional distress following a hazard event. Often, these buildings play a role in post-event 

recovery. Many religious organizations operate charity networks that provide supplies to people following 

a hazard event. In past disasters, many religious institutions opened their doors to provide temporary 

housing. Newer buildings may be designed as Risk Category II or III buildings. These buildings can also 

be among the oldest in a community, and built with materials and construction methods that perform 

poorly in hazard events. 

If these facilities fill an important role in the community recovery plan, Performance Category B would 

be desired. However, a number of factors could influence their role in community recovery. First, most of 

these institutions are nonprofit entities, with little funding for infrastructure improvement. Second, many 

that are historic buildings would have to be modified to meet desired performance goals. Therefore, a 

community should understand the anticipated performance of its religious and spiritual centers and their 

role in community recovery. 

12.2.5. Residential and Hospitality

Communities should consider whether residential buildings and neighborhoods would shelter a significant 

portion of the population following a hazard event. Houses, apartment buildings, and condominiums need 

not be fully functional, like a hospital or emergency operation center, but they should safely house 

occupants to support recovery and re-opening of businesses and schools. However, higher performance 

goals should be developed for facilities that house vulnerable residents, such as nursing homes and senior 

living centers. A house or apartment may be without power or water for a reasonable period of time (e.g.,

days to 1-2 weeks), but can be safely occupied. The significant destruction of neighborhoods and the 

supporting built environment led to the migration of a significant portion of the population following 

Hurricane Katrina‘s impact on New Orleans [Plyer 2015]. Such a shelter-in-place performance level is 

key to the SPUR [2009] Resilient City initiative and prompted the City of San Francisco to mandate a 

retrofit ordinance for vulnerable multi-family housing. 

Currently, multi-unit residential structures are typically designed to Risk Category II provisions, except 

where the number of occupants is quite large (e.g., > 5,000 people); then the designs should meet Risk 

Category III criteria. For multi-family residential structures, there are two dominant construction types:

light frame (wood and cold-formed steel) construction and structural (hot rolled) steel or reinforced 

concrete construction. Light frame residential structures have different performance issues than structural 

steel or reinforced concrete buildings, which are typically larger. 

Most new one and two-family dwellings are constructed in accordance with the International Residential 

Code [IRC 2015]. The prescriptive provisions of the IRC are mostly consistent with those required for a 

Risk Category II building. One- and two-family dwellings constructed in accordance with a building code 

have generally performed well in earthquakes at the routine or design hazard level. In some cases, such as 

the Loma Prieta and Northridge earthquakes, one and two-family dwellings performed as well as or better 

than engineered buildings. However, their performance in design-level windstorms can be quite variable, 

depending on construction features, such as a continuous load path, type of cladding, or roof geometry.

An effective response to some hazard events may require first responders and personnel from outside the 

community. If most residential buildings are not functional or safe to occupy, demand for temporary

shelter for residents may compete with the need to temporarily house response and recovery workers.

Hotels and motels can support response and recovery efforts if they are operational shortly after the event.

Typically, these buildings are designed to meet Risk Category II criteria, like multi-family residential

structures, and may need to be evaluated for their anticipated performance if they are needed for 

community recovery.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

61

12.2.6. Business and Services 

While it would be ideal to have all community businesses open shortly after a hazard event, such an 

outcome may not be practical. Many business offices, retail stores, and manufacturing plants are located 

in older buildings that may not perform well during a hazard event. If constructed more recently, the 

buildings may be designed to Risk Category II criteria. However, some commercial buildings may be 

designed to higher performance levels. 

Each community should select design and recovery performance goals for its businesses and services, 

depending on their role in community recovery. Certain types of commercial buildings may be critical to 

the recovery effort. The community needs to identify businesses that are critical to community recovery 

and able to meet the desired performance level. Some businesses and services that are commonly essential 

to recovery include:

 Grocery stores and pharmacies – People need food, water, medicine, and first aid supplies 

following a hazard event. Regional or national grocery stores and pharmacies typically have 

robust distribution networks that can replenish supplies. Although the common preparedness 

recommendation is for people to have 72 hours of food and water on hand, no assumptions should 

be made about actual adherence to this 72-hour guidance. Moreover, the potential for disruption 

beyond three days should be evaluated based on the prevalent hazard and the condition of 

buildings and physical infrastructure. For example, the Oregon Resilience Plan [OSSPAC 2013]

recommends that people have two weeks of food and water on hand for a Cascadia earthquake 

event. 

 Banks or financial institutions – Banks or structures that house automated teller machines 

provide access to money if they have an independent power source and internet communications. 

 Hardware and home improvement stores – These businesses provide building materials for 

repairs, reconstruction, and emergency shoring of damaged buildings. 

 Gas stations and petroleum refineries – Many communities rely on automobiles and trucks for

most transportation functions. Gasoline may be difficult to obtain for a period of time. Some 

homes and businesses may rely on emergency generators during electrical outages if they have 

fuel. A disruptive event may impact fuel delivery systems, which can be significant during cold 

weather when heating is also required.

Buildings and other structures containing toxic or explosive substances may be classified as Risk 

Category II structures if it can be demonstrated that the risk to the public from a release of these materials 

is minimal. However, communities should verify that the risk management plan addresses community 

hazards, and any potential releases that may occur during or after a hazard event.

The resilience needs of other types of businesses, and the buildings that house them, depend to a large 

extent on the business and community‘s tolerance for those businesses to be delayed in reopening or 

closed. Many professional service businesses can rely on employees working remotely from home or 

alternate office spaces. Manufacturing, retail, and food service businesses may not have that luxury. 

Customers and their employees need to travel to their location. If a restaurant or store cannot serve the 

public or a factory is unable to manufacture its product, then the business may fail. Losing these 

businesses can adversely impact the community‘s recovery and long-term resilience because of lost jobs

and other economic impacts. 

12.2.7. Conference and Event Venues 

Convention centers, stadiums, and other large event venues can be important for the long-term recovery 

of many communities because of the revenue these types of events can generate. Typically, these venues 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

62

are designed to meet Risk Category III criteria because of the large number of occupants. However, they 

may need additional improvements before being considered for temporary use as a shelter or recovery 

staging area, including requirements beyond structural considerations if they are to be used for these 

purposes. Supporting physical infrastructure systems as well as the viability of supplying food and water 

should be taken into account.

12.2.8. Detention and Correctional Facilities

Many communities have standalone detention centers and prisons. Building codes typically require higher

performance and risk categories for these types of facilities because the people housed in them cannot 

evacuate without supervision. The level of enhanced design requirements varies based on the facility 

requirements and federal, state, or local jurisdiction. It is suggested that these types of facility clusters be 

designed to Category A or B performance.

12.3. Performance Goals 

The desired and anticipated performance of a building cluster, and its timely recovery of function, need to 

be considered from a community resilience perspective. A summary of the gaps between the desired and 

anticipated performance for building clusters can be summarized using a resilience table. Table 12-3

shows an example resilience table for building clusters that were evaluated for a specific hazard type 

(e.g., wind, flood, earthquake, etc.) and hazard level (e.g., routine, design, or extreme). The disturbance

criteria and restoration levels listed at the top of Table 12-3 summarize the anticipated overall impact on 

the community. They are further discussed in Chapter 4 of Volume 1. 

Since communities are constructed for prevailing hazards, the design hazard level provides the foundation 

for resilience planning. Examining the response of buildings and infrastructure systems to multiple levels 

of a hazard (i.e., routine, design, and extreme) can provide insight and understanding regarding system 

performance. For example, a building or infrastructure systems may not perform well at the routine level, 

especially older systems developed with older codes and methods or those that are not well maintained. If 

the building or infrastructure system has an important role in the community, it may trigger cascading 

effects in other buildings or systems. Such performance indicates that mitigation or retrofit options may 

be required to improve community functionality for routine events. 

For buildings, a community should identify clusters for which the same performance goals are desired. 

The example table can be used by any community, whether large, small, urban, or rural, as the assignment 

of buildings to clusters is decided by each community. The building clusters listed in the left column of

Table 12-3 are grouped as critical facilities, emergency housing, housing/neighborhoods, and community 

recovery. These groups are intended to reflect a typical sequence for recovery of function following a 

hazard event. 

The desired rate of recovery is indicated by percentages, 30 %, 60 %, and 90 %, to indicate how many

buildings within the cluster are recovered and functioning during the three recovery phases (e.g., shortterm, intermediate, and long-term) across the top row of the table.

Anticipated performance of the existing construction for each building cluster is estimated (at the 90 %

level) for the selected hazard event and also recorded in the table. The difference between the desired 

90 % restoration level and the anticipated 90 % performance level indicates the gap that needs to be 

addressed to improve community resilience.

In Phase I of recovery, building function may initially be restored at a minimum or interim level to 

support essential tasks that start the recovery process. For example, an emergency operations center

(EOC) in city hall may have enough power to support lighting, phones, and computers for the EOC, but 

not the entire building.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

63

Table 12-3: Example table for building performance goals to be filled out by the community and its 

stakeholders

Disturbance 1 Restoration Levels 2,3

Hazard Type Any 30% Function Restored

Hazard Level Routine, Design, Extreme 60% Function Restored

Affected Area Localized, Community, Regional 90% Function Restored

Disruption Level Usual, Moderate, Severe X Anticipated Performance

Building Clusters Support 

Needed4

Design Hazard Performance

Phase 1

Short-Term

Phase 2

Intermediate

Phase 3

Long-Term

Days Weeks Months

0 1 1-3 1-4 4-8 8-12 4 4-24 24+

Building Performance Category

A B C D

Critical Facilities

Emergency Operation Centers

First Responder Facilities

Acute Care Hospitals

Non-ambulatory Occupants (prisons, nursing 

homes, etc.)

Emergency Housing

Temporary Emergency Shelters

Single and Multi-family Housing (Shelter in 

place)

Housing/Neighborhoods

Critical Retail

Religious and Spiritual Centers

Single and Multi-family Housing (Functional)

Schools 

Hotels & Motels

Community Recovery

Businesses - Manufacturing

Businesses - Commodity Services

Businesses - Service Professions

Conference & Event Venues

Footnotes:

1 Specify hazard type being considered

Specify hazard level – Routine, Design, Extreme

Specify the anticipated size of the area affected – Local, Community, Regional

Specify anticipated severity of disruption – Minor, Moderate, Severe

2 30% 60% 90% Desired restoration times for percentage of elements within the cluster

3 X Anticipated performance for 90 % restoration of cluster for existing buildings and infrastructure systems 

Cluster recovery times will be shown on the Summary Matrix

4 Indicate levels of support anticipated by plan

R = Regional; S= State; MS=Multi-State; C = Civil (Corporate/Local)
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

64

It is difficult for designers to specify repair 

times for anticipated damage, as there are 

numerous sources of uncertainty. However, 

based on best practices, historical events, 

and expert judgment, designers can estimate 

anticipated levels of damage and, based on 

that, assign a likelihood that the buildings 

within a cluster will be functional. 

Existing buildings in suburban and urban 

communities were designed and constructed 

under the building codes enforced at that 

time, potentially creating a range of 

performance levels for the same type of 

buildings. Rural towns or unincorporated 

areas may have large stocks of buildings not 

constructed to any code, or at least predating 

modern building codes. Sometimes, older 

buildings were designed using provisions 

that were later found to be inadequate, but rarely are new provisions retroactively applied. Figure 12-1

shows a partially collapsed unreinforced masonry building following a major earthquake. This type of 

construction performs poorly in earthquakes, but many communities have not mandated retrofitting these 

types of buildings to avoid damage or collapse. 

As part of developing desired performance goals for building clusters, the community should identify 

whether any types of buildings pose a significant safety hazard to occupants or the public. Mitigation or 

retrofit programs can be developed to address buildings that pose a significant safety hazard, such as 

unreinforced masonry building retrofit ordinances, requirements for elevated construction in a flood plain, 

or requiring storm shelters in new homes. 

The following paragraphs summarize expected performance for seismic, flood, and wind events for each 

Performance Category.

Performance Category A buildings should require little repair to return to function. Often recovery of 

function is limited by outside factors such as the availability of power or water. Essential facilities should 

have plans for providing onsite power and water after a hazard event. 

Seismic events: There may be some damage to a Category A building, but the damage can easily be 

addressed (i.e., toppled shelves or cosmetic damage to the structure) as shown in Figure 12-2. 

Flood events: Category A buildings are expected to have damage limited primarily to the exposed 

portions of the building exterior. If buildings are properly elevated, floodwaters may reach subflooring 

and building infrastructure systems but should not overtop the first floor or wet the interior. Figure 12-3

shows an example of minor flood damage.

Wind events: Buildings may experience minor damage to roof coverings, openings (e.g., less than 10 % of 

doors and windows broken), and exterior finishes. Figure 12-4 illustrates minor wind damage.

Performance Category B buildings are expected to sustain damage to building contents, finishes, and 

cladding systems, but the building should be structurally stable. There may be significant nonstructural 

damage, but the building can be used while repairs are made. 

Seismic events: Figure 12-5 shows pictures of significant nonstructural damage inside a building that was 

structurally stable following an earthquake event. It may take up to several weeks to repair minor damage 

to walls or cladding systems and clean up fallen contents. 

Figure 12-1: Failure of unreinforced masonry wall 

during an earthquake event
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

65

Figure 12-2: Non-structural damage to 

interior finishes following an earthquake event

Figure 12-3: Floodwaters reached just under the first 

floor on this building

Figure 12-4: Damage to roof covering, vinyl 

siding and fascia as the result of wind

Figure 12-5: Significant nonstructural damage 

inside structurally stable building after earthquake 

event

Flood events: Buildings may sustain moderate damage for a limited depth of flooding over the first floor.

The foundation may have minor undermining or scour. Exterior and interior walls may have water stains

and possible contamination that requires replacement. Floors and electrical systems may require 

replacement if wetted. While the building may be structurally stable, it may not be safe for use until 

properly dried and cleaned to prevent mold growth, or the drywall is replaced. Figure 12-6 show 

examples of moderate flood damage.

Wind events: Moderate wind damage may include moderate to major damage to roofing systems and 

exterior finishes. There may be some interior water damage from wind-driven rain. Figure 12-7 shows

moderate wind damage. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

66

Figure 12-6: As a result of an estimated 0.9-1.2 m (3-4 

ft) of flooding, interior walls had to be replaced as well 

as an exterior door and window [Source: FEMA]

Figure 12-7: Siding loss and minor envelope 

damage on low-rise building from a wind 

event [Source: FEMA]

Performance Category C buildings are expected to have significant nonstructural and some structural 

damage. The structural damage should not cause structural instability, but may require shoring while 

repairs are conducted. This level of damage may take weeks to months to repair.

Seismic events: Figure 12-8 shows structural damage, but the structure remains stable. Figure 12-9 shows 

one of ten fractured brace connections in one story of a four-story building after a seismic event. Repairs 

took over three months before the building could be reoccupied.

Figure 12-8: Apartment building with damaged 

structural members that is structurally stable

Figure 12-9: Fractured brace connection in a 

building damaged in an earthquake

Flood events: For flood depths above the first floor or floods with moving water, foundation damage that 

could include settlement and severe scour and undermining may occur. Exterior walls may be severely 

damaged with large missing sections. Interior floor and wall finishes will need replacement. Limited 

deformation of the structural frame may be evident, though the structure remains stable. Proper drying 

and cleaning is necessary prior to prevent mold growth, or the drywall is replaced. Figure 12-10 shows

severe damage as the result of flooding.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

67

Wind events: Building damage may include major roof sheathing loss, extensive interior water damage, 

and minor to major cladding damage. Additionally, roof damage may occur where the roof framing is 

uplifted from the walls. Extensive repairs and replacement of interior finishes and cladding systems may 

be required. Figure 12-11 shows severe wind damage. 

Figure 12-10: Foundation wall collapse due to 

hydrostatic pressure from floodwaters [Source: 

FEMA]

Figure 12-11: Wind and wind-borne debris 

resulted in considerable damage to glazing on this 

building. [Source: FEMA]

Performance Category D buildings cannot be 

used or occupied after a hazard event. Severe 

damage or collapse may occur. This level of

damage may require removal and new 

construction.

The example in Figure 12-12 shows structural 

collapse as the result of flood and wind events.

Such severe damage requires demolition and 

rebuilding, possibly in a new location.

12.4. Regulatory Environment

Building construction throughout the United 

States is regulated by each community (the local 

jurisdiction) based on the building codes they 

adopt. These building codes are based on model 

codes and amended as needed to match the local 

conditions. Amendments to the model code are often governed by state regulations, which vary widely. 

Some states do not permit modification by local jurisdictions.

Typically, the local jurisdiction should assure initial construction provides a reasonable degree of safety 

to building users and occupants. After a certificate of occupancy is issued, there are generally no 

inspection or maintenance requirements for residential properties, and generally only annual fire safety 

inspections for commercial buildings. Some building owners voluntarily monitor the condition of their 

buildings and upgrade them as needed. Buildings owned or leased by the federal government are designed 

and constructed to federal government standards. 

Model building codes are developed at the national level for adoption across the country. In the U.S., two 

organizations publish model building codes for adoption by federal agencies or state and local 

Figure 12-12: Collapse of five-story building due 

to undermining (from flooding) of shallow 

foundation [Source: FEMA]
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

68

governments. One is published by the International Code Council, which formed as a merger of three 

organizations that published regional model building codes. The other code is published by the National 

Fire Protection Association. The ICC‘s International Building Code is the most widely adopted model 

building codes; and the International Fire Code [ICC 2009] is the most widely adopted model fire code in 

the U.S. Most federal agencies also use these codes, with agency-specific amendments, as the basis for 

their building requirements. These codes contain many reference standards that are typically published by 

non-profit standards development organizations, professional societies, and industry groups. Model 

building codes and the referenced standards may be modified by federal, state, and local agencies for their 

specific purposes. 

While the model building codes specify minimum requirements that are applicable throughout the 

country, states and local municipalities may modify the model building codes to achieve specific goals for 

local or regional hazards. For example, in areas of Florida, building codes were changed to require more 

hurricane-resilient construction following Hurricane Andrew [Tsikoudakis 2012]. Code changes included

requiring certain types of roofing materials, stronger windows and doors, and greater inspection and 

enforcement. 

Alternatively, some states and local jurisdictions adopt, but amend or remove requirements in model 

building codes, to make them less stringent. Some states have codes that restrict or preclude modifications 

by local jurisdictions. Communities may need to coordinate with state officials to facilitate local adoption 

of code criteria that are more stringent than those of the statewide code. Similarly, jurisdictions may be 

limited from imposing requirements on regulated systems (e.g., energy, communication). Some 

jurisdictions only adopt the model code for government-owned or specific occupancy buildings, but not 

for all buildings in their community. Some communities do not adopt or enforce any building code.

Enforcing building codes and construction standards is as important as adopting building codes and 

standards. The level of enforcement can significantly impact resilience. Even if the most up-to-date 

building code and standards are in effect, buildings designed and constructed in a substandard manner 

negatively impact community resilience. Therefore, having a properly trained building department to 

review designs for code conformance and inspect construction for conformance with the approved plans, 

is an essential component of community resilience.

12.5. Codes and Standards

The International Building Code [IBC 2015], a commonly adopted model building code, was developed 

to provide design requirements that ―safeguard public health, safety and general welfare through 

structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy 

conservation, safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the building 

environment, and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency 

operations.‖ 

The International Residential Code [IRC 2015] is widely adopted for residential construction not more 

than three stories in height. The IRC consists of prescriptive code provisions, tables, and figures that can 

be used to construct a dwelling without requiring a registered design professional.

The International Existing Building Code [IEBC 2015] is used for modifying existing structures, 

including alterations, repairs, additions, relocation, or changes in occupancy. The IEBC provides 

flexibility in the use of alternative approaches to achieve compliance with its requirements.

The International Code Council Performance Code [ICC 2015] provides a procedure to address design 

and review issues associated with the alternative materials and methods sections of the IBC, IRC, and 

IEBC codes for new and existing buildings.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

69

The expected performance of each building depends upon the codes and standards enforced at the time of 

construction, as well as the level of enforcement and maintenance. Building codes and standards are 

dynamic and improved on a regular basis. Many changes to codes and standards are due to development 

of new materials and technologies, in response to disasters, or new research on perceived weaknesses. 

The evolving nature of building codes and enforcement, combined with the degradation that occurs over 

time, results in a building stock with variable capacities to resist hazard events. Unless buildings undergo 

major renovation, they generally are not expected to upgrade to current building codes. See Section 12.6.3

in this chapter.

Building codes and standards for new construction are based on consensus of best practices and design 

methods at the time they are written. After a significant hazard event, the building code may be modified 

based on observed damage or failures. Some provisions, when changed, become retroactive or are 

enforced during renovations. Examples of these are egress protection, accessibility for differently abled 

persons, and fire suppression system requirements. 

Codes and standards also play an important role when evaluating the performance of a community‘s 

existing building stock. The mix of building types, construction, and age can create significant challenges 

when developing plans for a resilient community. Knowledge of past adoption and enforcement of codes 

and standards will improve understanding of anticipated performance of building clusters and the 

associated time to recovery of function. 

12.5.1. New Construction 

Appropriate design criteria for new construction are needed to achieve long-term community resilience

goals. Revisions to the model codes may be needed to achieve a community‘s desired performance. Such 

changes may add incremental costs, but they are minor relative to costs associated with repairs, 

retrofitting existing buildings, or rebuilding. 

Table 12-4 shows hazard levels for buildings and other structures (copied from Chapter 4, Volume I). The 

table is based on ASCE 7-10 [ASCE/SEI 2010]. The hazards are listed in two ways that convey the same 

probability of occurrence: as an average interval of occurrence over time between events with the same 

intensity or magnitude (mean recurrence interval, MRI) or as the probability the event level occurring 

over a 50-year time period. The probability of occurrence description helps convey the relative likelihood 

of hazard event occurrence for the same time period. For each prevailing hazard, communities are 

encouraged to determine three hazard levels for planning: routine, design, and extreme. 

The routine hazard level is below the design level for the built environment and occurs more frequently. 

This event has a high probability of occurring (on the order of 50 % over a 50-year period). At this level, 

resilient buildings and infrastructure systems should remain functional and not experience any significant 

damage that would disrupt social functions in the community.

The design hazard level is used in codes and standards for buildings, bridges, and similar physical 

infrastructure systems. Design-level events tend to have a probability of occurring on the order of 10 %

over a 50-year period for ordinary structures, and corresponds with Risk Category II design criteria for 

buildings. The design hazard level for a specific building or infrastructure component may be greater, 

based on its occupancy and risk category classifications. To support community resilience, buildings and 

infrastructure systems should remain sufficiently functional to support the response and recovery of the 

community. 

The extreme hazard level exceeds the design level for the built environment. (Seismic ground motion 

hazards refer to the maximum considered event, which has a probabilistic basis that is supplemented with 

historical data). Extreme events have a small probability of occurrence, on the order of 2 % to 3 % over a 

50-year period. The extreme hazard level should include rare hazards, which may plausibly impact a 

community, and may include anticipated long-term changes in hazards due to climate change. Critical 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

70

facilities and infrastructure systems should remain partially functional, with ability to support the 

response and recovery of the community. Other buildings and infrastructure systems should perform at a 

level that protects the occupants, though they may need to be rescued and the buildings may not be safely 

occupied until major repairs are completed – or may need to be demolished and rebuilt. 

Where hazard levels are not defined by code, the community may establish a scenario or hazard level 

based on available guidance or predicted frequency of occurrence. This case is indicated in Table 12-4 by 

locally determined.

Table 12-4: Hazard levels for buildings and facilities

Hazard Routine Design Extreme

Ground Snow 50 year MRI or 

64% in 50 years

300 to 500 year MRI1or 

15 to 10% in 50 years

TBD 4

Rain Locally determined 2 Locally determined 2 Locally determined 2

Wind – Non-Hurricane 50 to 100 year MRI or

64 to 39% in 50 years

700 year MRI or

7% in 50 year

1,700 year MRI 3or

3% in 50 years

Wind – Hurricane 50 to 100 year MRI or

64 to 39% in 50 years

700 year MRI or

7% in 50 years

1,700 year MRI 3or

3% in 50 years

Wind – Tornado Locally determined 3 Locally determined 3 Locally determined 3

Earthquake4 50 year MRI or

64% in 50 years

500 year MRI or

10% in 50 years

2,500 year MRI or

2% in 50 years

Tsunami Locally determined3

Locally determined3Locally determined3

Flood Locally determined 100 to 500 year MRI or

39 to 10% in 50 years

Locally determined

Fire – Wildfire Locally determined 4 Locally determined 4 Locally determined 4

Fire –Urban/Manmade Locally determined 4 Locally determined 4 Locally determined 4

Blast / Terrorism Locally determined 5 Locally determined 5 Locally determined 5

1

For the northeast, 1.6 (the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) factor on snow load) times the 50-year 

ground snow load is equivalent to the 300 to 500 year snow load. 

2 Rain is designed by rainfall intensity of inches per hour or mm/h, as specified by the local code. 

3 Tornado and tsunami loads are not addressed in ASCE 7-10. Tornadoes are presently classified by the EF scale. 

See FEMA 361 [2015] for tornado EF-scale wind speeds.

4 Hazards to be determined in conjunction with design professionals based on deterministic scenarios. 

5 Hazards to be determined based on deterministic scenarios. 

Wind hazards. ASCE 7-10 [ASCE/SEI 2010] prescribes design wind speeds for each Risk Category. For 

Risk Category I, the mean return period is 300 years for facilities that have a low risk to human life and 

are typically unoccupied buildings. For Risk Category II facilities, that include typical buildings and other 

structures, the return period is 700 years. For Risk Category III and IV facilities, the return period is 1,700 

years. The wind speeds derived from these return periods are based on extratropical (non-hurricane) 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

71

winds and hurricane winds. Tornado wind loads are not currently required to be considered in building 

design except for the design of tornado shelters. FEMA P-361 [2015a] and ICC-500 [2014] both provide 

tornadic wind loading and design guidance for these shelters.

The majority of wind design requirements address the structural frame and cladding systems. 

Requirements for functionality are indirectly addressed through design methods and requirements, such as 

attachment strength of nonstructural components (e.g., piping systems or exterior panels). The IBC

requires consideration of a drift (i.e., lateral displacement) limit between stories under a reduced wind 

load (the factor approximates a 100-year MRI). There are no explicit structural design requirements for

the building envelope to ensure post-event function, but there are some prescriptive requirements for

doors and windows. 

Snow hazards. ASCE 7-10 snow design loads are based on a 50-year mean recurrence interval for ground 

snow loads. It is increased with an importance factor for higher Risk Category structures. 

Rain hazards. ASCE 7-10 rain design loads are based on a 100-year rainstorm with a time dependent 

(usually 60 minutes) rainfall rate as the design hazard, with loads increased by 60 % to account for 

uncertainty in predicting rainfall in a major event. However, the majority of rain provisions relate to 

providing proper drainage and stiffness to the roof to prevent ponding (i.e., sagging of the roof surface 

that results in a pond of water). There are no code requirements for the building envelope to maintain its 

ability to prevent water infiltration. 

Flood hazards. Flood design provisions for all buildings are typically based on a 100-year MRI for flood 

elevation, though 500-year flood elevations are recommended for design of critical facilities. 

Recommended practice is to locate buildings out of the 100-year flood zone. If they must be within the

flood zone, floodplain management provisions and building codes require that they be elevated above the 

design flood elevation. Buildings with nonresidential uses may be dry flood-proofed up to the design 

flood elevation if they are not subject to wave forces or high velocity floods. For structures subject to 

flood, the current provisions provide methods to avoid or resist flood forces, but may not be sufficient to 

preserve functionality of the building during a flood event. 

Flood design provisions are neither fully prescriptive or performance based. Instead, they are a mixture of 

the two. Elevation requirements are considered prescriptive because the elevation is mandated by flood 

maps and local codes. Other requirements, such as building designs that resist flotation, collapse, and 

lateral movement, design will be performance based. 

Seismic hazards. It has long been recognized that designing for seismic events requires a different 

approach from other hazards. ASCE 7-10 seismic forces and design requirements allow buildings to be 

damaged, but not collapse. Following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, hospitals were required to be 

designed to a higher standard, significantly improving their likelihood of remaining functional following 

the design earthquake. 

The emphasis placed on the design requirements for nonstructural systems is an important distinction 

between seismic design provisions and design provisions for other natural hazards [FEMA 2009a, ASCE 

2010]. Many nonstructural systems have bracing requirements. In addition to the bracing requirements, 

nonstructural systems in essential facilities or systems that support life-safety should maintain function or 

immediately return to function following the design seismic hazard. 

Fire hazards. The performance of buildings during fires is addressed through building and fire codes. The 

height, area, design, and construction materials for a building as well as its separation distance from other 

structures are all limited by fire considerations in the building code. Building officials regulate the design 

and construction of new construction, but typically, fire officials at the state and local levels enforce the 

fire code. A fire code is primarily intended to advance fire and life safety for the public and first 

responders as well as for property protection. Requirements cover a range of fire and life safety issues 

related to the operation and use of the building after it has been constructed, including the maintenance 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

72

and use of fire protection systems and equipment, occupant safety and hazards management. Fire codes 

also reference many standards that address inspection and maintenance requirements of fire protection 

systems, equipment, flammable and combustible liquids, liquefied petroleum (LP) gas, hazardous 

processes, and other related issues.

Building codes originated as local regulations to address fire and public health. Passive fire protection

requirements include limitations on construction materials and interior finishes, and compartmentation, as 

well as providing paths of egress for building occupants. Requirements for active fire protection systems, 

such as automatic fire sprinkler systems in residential, health care, and assembly buildings, are also 

provided. After the WTC disaster, the scope of the building codes was expanded to include protection for 

emergency responders following a major event.

Fire threats that originate outside the building have traditionally been addressed through provisions for 

exterior fire separation and exterior finish materials. More recently, as the number of structures located in 

the wildland-urban interface (WUI) has increased, the threat of fire spread from wildfires is being 

addressed. Some state and local municipalities have guidelines or code requirements that limit or prohibit 

the use of combustible exterior materials and surrounding vegetation for buildings located in wild fire 

hazard areas. Examples of requirements are prohibition on specific roof and siding materials. Additional 

guidance may be found in the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code [ICC 2011] and the National 

Fire Protection Association (NFPA) FireWise Communities Program [NFPA 2015].

Human-caused hazards. Codes and standards do not have explicit structural design requirements for 

human-caused hazards (e.g., arson, explosions or impact events), although some nominal provisions 

attempt to provide robustness to arrest the spread of damage, so disproportionate collapse does not occur.

Many requirements in the IBC require facility layout and hazard mitigation measures to prevent 

explosions of building contents. Guidelines for design of human-caused hazards do exist for specific

buildings [FEMA 2003, FEMA 2005], federal buildings [DoD 2008] and industrial facilities. Such

guidelines may have restricted distribution because they contain proprietary or security-sensitive 

information. 

12.5.2. Existing Buildings

Existing buildings often pose greater challenges than new buildings. For new buildings, codes can be 

amended or re-written. Although construction costs may increase somewhat, new buildings would be 

designed for the state-of-the-practice. Retrofit of existing buildings to the desired level of resilience, in 

contrast, can require significant financial commitment and necessitate major disruption to the building‘s 

function, which tends to dissuade building owners from retrofit. 

The cost and disruption associated with retrofit can also make mandating retrofit measures a politically 

unpopular decision. In California, for example, only unreinforced masonry buildings have had widespread 

support as a building type that should be mandated for retrofit since they are most vulnerable to collapse

during an earthquake.

For buildings constructed prior to development of flood provisions or a community‘s adoption of flood

provisions, there is a trigger in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requiring retrofit to meet 

current flood provisions. Buildings within designated flood hazard areas (generally the 100-year 

floodplain) that sustain damage of any origin, for which the cost to repair the building to its pre-damage 

conditions equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the building, must be brought into 

compliance with current flood provisions. 

The same is true for improvements or rehabilitation of buildings when the cost equals or exceeds this 

threshold. The International Existing Building Code (IEBC) regulates repairs, alterations, additions, and 

change of occupancy dictates various triggers of this type for when retrofit must be done. However, 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

73

enforcement of this requirement can be challenging, particularly in a post-disaster environment when 

communities are anxious to support building owners in reconstruction.

12.6. Strategies for Implementing Plans for Community Resilience

12.6.1. Available Guidance

Current engineering standards provide tools to support assessment of the structural safety of buildings. 

ASCE/SEI 41 [2013], the seismic standard for evaluating and retrofitting existing buildings, provides a 

methodology to assess the performance of buildings for both safety and reoccupation following an 

earthquake. FEMA P-420 Engineering Guidelines for Incremental Strengthening provides information 

related to retrofitting buildings over a period of time. Applied Technology Council (ATC)-45 [2004]

provides an assessment methodology and re-occupancy guide for damage related to wind and flood 

events. Similar standards do not exist for other hazards. 

Building code provisions can be used to determine whether a building has sufficient fire resistance, 

egress, and other occupant safety-related issues. These methodologies are useful for individual building 

safety, but do not address damage levels and recovery time to function. 

Hazus [FEMA 2015b] provides a tool for communities to assess their vulnerability to earthquakes, 

hurricanes, and other hazards. Hazus is useful for assessing effects of a disaster on a community. 

However, the existing building stock should be adequately reflected in the model, which can require 

significant data gathering. 

Several resources exist for property owners, designers and communities to use to better understand best 

practices for wind and flood resistant design and construction including:

 FEMA P-55 (Volumes I and II [2011]), Coastal Construction Manual: Principles and Practices of 

Planning, Siting, Designing, Constructing, and Maintaining Residential Buildings in Coastal 

Areas 

 FEMA P-259 [2012a], Engineering Principles and Practices for Retrofitting Floodprone 

Buildings

 FEMA P-312 [2014], Homeowner's Guide to Retrofitting Six Ways to Protect Home Flooding

 FEMA P-424 [2010a], Design Guide Improve School Safety EQ, Floods, and High Winds

 FEMA P-499 [2010b], Home Builder‘s Guide to Coastal Construction: Technical Fact Sheet 

Series

 FEMA P-550 [2009b], Recommended Residential Construction for Coastal Areas: Building on 

Strong and Safe Foundations 

 FEMA P-804 [2010c], Wind Retrofit Guide for Residential Buildings

 FEMA P-936 [2013], Floodproofing Non-Residential Buildings

 ICC 600 [2008], Standard for Residential Construction in High-Wind Regions

 ATC [2009] Design Guide 2, Basic Wind Engineering for Low-Rise Buildings.

12.6.2. Solutions for Future Construction

For future construction, desired performance goals and current adopted building codes should be 

evaluated to determine if additional local requirements are required. Risk categories currently in the 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

74

building codes can support the desired levels of performance and resilience goals. By establishing desired 

building performance for a hazard event in terms of performance and recovery of function, communities 

can add provisions to local building codes and standards that support specific resilience goals. As 

communities rebuild or build new, there is an opportunity to capture the resilience goals of the 

community through building code modifications.

Some communities may also need to address changing conditions, such as sea level rise, that increase the 

impact of design events, such as coastal floods. For example, some coastal areas are predicted to be below 

sea level by 2100. 

Flood Solutions. For flood-resistant design and construction, best practices exist for communities or 

individuals to implement in addition to code minimum requirements. One basic, but effective, practice is 

locating all new construction outside of flood zones. Additionally, using additional height, or freeboard,

in building design can also be effective. 

The risk associated with existing flood-prone construction can be addressed primarily through retrofitting:

 Elevation – Elevation is one of the most common flood retrofitting techniques because it provides

a high level of protection and does not require the owner to relocate. Elevation involves raising 

the lowest floor or lowest horizontal structural member to be at or above the regulated flood level. 

Common elevation techniques include elevation on piles, piers or columns, and elevation on 

extended foundation walls. 

 Floodproofing – There are two types of floodproofing. 

 Wet floodproofing allows floodwaters to enter the building and quickly reach the same level 

as the floodwaters on the building exterior. Equalizing the water level greatly reduces the 

damaging effects of hydrostatic pressure and buoyancy. Wet floodproofing is generally used 

to limit damage to enclosures below elevated buildings, basements, crawlspaces, or garages. 

Wet floodproofing is not practical for areas used as habitable space.

 Dry floodproofing involves making a dry floodproofed enclosure substantially impermeable 

to floodwaters, and providing a sump pump to address minimal seepage that can be expected.

Due to large hydrostatic pressures, dry floodproofing is practical only for buildings with 

reinforced concrete or masonry walls; it is typically not practical for residential buildings or 

for buildings where flood depths exceed 0.6 to 0.9 m (2 to 3 ft). Additional information is

found in FEMA P-936 [2013].

Wind Solutions. Stronger design and construction practices for wind resistance are encouraged through a 

variety of existing resources with primary goals of improving continuous load path connections, 

strengthening building envelopes, and protecting openings.

For buildings subject to a wind hazard, the following solutions are widely accepted as among the most 

effective to address potential damage:

 Improving roof and wall coverings – Roof and wall coverings are important components of the 

building cladding. If the building cladding is breached during a storm, wind pressures can 

drastically increase internal pressures and cause the failure of the structural system. Wind driven 

rain through breached cladding may cause extensive water damage to interior contents. 

Improving roof coverings may involve reinforcing the roof deck or removing the existing 

covering, securing the roof deck, and installing a new roof covering. Improving wall coverings 

may involve installing moisture barriers and ensuring proper fastener spacing is used or removing 

the existing covering and installing a new wall covering that is rated for high winds. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

75

 Protecting openings – Openings (e.g., windows, doors, skylights, soffits, and vents) are

important to the integrity of the building cladding. Glazed openings, such as windows, are often 

vulnerable to debris impact and wind-driven rain intrusion. Protecting openings usually involves 

installing an impact-resistant covering (such as a storm shutter) over an unprotected opening or 

installing impact-resistant products (such as a window or door assembly).

 Continuous load path – The term ―continuous load path‖ refers to construction that resists all 

loads – such as lateral and uplift wind pressures. A continuous load path starts at the point or 

surface where loads are applied, moves through the framing, continues to the foundation, and 

transfers the loads to the soils that support the building. To be effective, each link in the load path 

– from the roof to the foundation – must transfer loads without failure. Continuous load path 

design typically involves a series of approved connections, such as the roof sheathing to roof 

framing, roof framing to wall, wall to floor, and floor to foundation.

Rain Solutions. Rain primarily damages buildings through retention on low slope roofs through two 

mechanisms that result in water collection on the roof: inadequate drainage and ponding. 

 Provide proper drainage – Building roof failures due to rain are often the result of blocked or 

undersized drains. Drains should be kept clean. The primary and secondary drain system can be 

evaluated based on current building code requirements to determine if they are sufficient for the 

rain loads. 

 Provide sufficient roof slope or stiffness – Another common manner in which roofs fail from 

rain is due to ponding that occurs when the roof deflects. If there is not sufficient slope or 

stiffness, rainwater can accumulate in ponds created as the roof framing deflects. As the rainwater 

increases, the framing deflects more, allowing for more water to accumulate until the roof 

member is overstressed. The stiffness of roof members against ponding can be assessed. 

Typically, it is easier to provide additional slope to mitigate ponding than to stiffen the framing 

members. 

Fire Solutions. Fire is a secondary risk from many other hazards, such as seismic and wind. Retrofit of 

existing structures with automatic sprinkler systems is often an effective way for many communities to 

reduce the immediate threat of fire risk in existing construction.

For fire hazards, active fire protection through automatic extinguishing systems (AES) to provide 

occupant safety and property protection may not be sufficient during or after some hazard events. Other 

measures may be considered for cases where sprinkler systems fail to extinguish fires. However, firefighting solutions may also be affected by the loss of power, water supply, or adequate fire department 

access.

12.6.3. Solutions for Existing Construction

Building codes and standards evolve, but little retroactive compliance is required because the cost of 

retrofit can be significant relative to property values. There can be strong resistance to building retrofit 

because it can result in challenges due to cost, inconvenience to building occupants, and disruption of 

operations. However, when retrofit needs are identified as part of community resilience planning, which 

includes long-term goals, the need for such improvements can be supported. For instance, unreinforced 

masonry buildings in high seismic zones can threaten the life safety of occupants. Older buildings may 

also be used for important infrastructure components, such as a base for communication antenna for cell 

phones or to house data centers.

When deemed necessary, retrofit requirements can be prioritized. The most significant community 

consequences of failure for various types of buildings should be identified for the prevailing hazard. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

76

Then, the community can make decisions as to whether the best solution is to provide incentives for 

retrofits, establish mandates, criteria to demolish buildings, or other alternatives. 

Given the aforementioned challenges with existing construction, community resilience planning should

take a long-term view to achieve resilience. For example, the City of Los Angeles instituted an ordinance 

requiring older concrete buildings that present significant collapse hazard in major earthquake be retrofit 

within the next 30 years. 

Flood Solutions. Elevation and floodproofing can also be applied to existing buildings. However, 

relocation may be a more effective option over time.

 Relocation – Relocation offers the greatest protection from flooding. It involves moving an 

existing building to an area that is less vulnerable to flooding or completely outside the 

floodplain. Relocation includes lifting a building off its foundation, hauling it to a new site, and 

lowering it onto a pre-constructed foundation. Additional information is found in FEMA P-259 

[2012a].

Wind Solutions. In some states, existing programs reward wind retrofit measures via homeowners‘ 

insurance discounts. FEMA P-804 [2010c], Wind Retrofit Guide for Residential Buildings, provides 

additional information on specific techniques for wind retrofitting residential buildings. For instance, an 

existing building may be retrofitted if load paths are incomplete or if the load path connections are not 

adequate. Additionally, the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety developed a program called 

―Fortified‖ that encourages wind retrofits for both new and existing construction [IBHS 2013]. 

Snow Solutions. For buildings subjected to snow hazards, the most effective approach is to evaluate and 

strengthen the roof as required. Older building codes did not properly characterize drift effects or rain on 

snow surcharge. This can be accomplished by using the current building code snow load design 

provisions to determine the loads the roof should be able to resist. Also, rooftop equipment added after 

the building was designed can create drifts, which add load to the roof. Strengthening the roof or moving 

the equipment can mitigate this issue. 

Seismic Solutions. For buildings subjected to earthquake, many resources are available that describe 

seismic retrofit methods. Typically, retrofit methods rely on augment deficient structural components,

adding new structural framing systems, or walls to supplement the existing lateral force resisting system. 

 Augment structural interconnection – In older construction, connections between structural 

members and to foundations commonly have deficiencies. In older masonry buildings and 

concrete tilt-up buildings, the anchorage of the roof to the wall is a common deficiency. In those 

buildings, the walls pull away from the roof in an earthquake, leading to collapse of the wall and 

roof. Mitigation of that is straight forward, by adding supplemental connections between the roof 

and the walls. In older steel-braced frame buildings, brace connections typically do not have the 

strength required due to use of weaker materials and less advanced connection details, which 

results in fracture. In older steel moment frame buildings the beam-to-column connections have 

the potential to fracture, which occurred during the 1994 Northridge earthquake [FEMA 2000a, 

2000b]. In such cases, mitigation typically involves strengthening the connections or adding new 

structural elements to take load off the frames that have weaker connections [FEMA 2000a, 

2000b]. 

 Adding new lateral force elements – Many older buildings do not possess the strength or 

ductility to resist earthquake forces. This is especially common in some older concrete buildings, 

where code minimum reinforcement requirements were found to be inadequate after the 1971 San 

Fernando earthquake. Another example is the unbraced cripple walls under light frame residential 

construction. For these buildings, it is advisable to construct new walls or braced frames to stiffen 

the structure to reduce demands on the older members. For light frame construction, plywood can 

be used to provide bracing.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

77

 Augmenting existing members – In some cases structural members do not possess the required 

strength or ductility to resist earthquake forces. One possible solution may be to augment existing 

elements to provide additional strength, which is less invasive than adding new structural 

elements. Common ways this augmentation occurs is by adding more concrete and reinforcement 

to concrete walls and columns, wrapping concrete elements with fiber reinforced polymer 

elements or steel jackets. 

Example publications that provide direction on how to retrofit building for earthquake resilience are:

 ASCE 41-13 [ASCE 2013]– Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. This is a 

consensus standard that allows users to perform an evaluation and retrofit using performancebased provisions, which match a given earthquake shaking intensity with a specific performance 

level. It is referenced by many building codes and jurisdictions.

 FEMA 549 [FEMA 2006]– Techniques for Seismic Retrofit. This publication provides examples 

of methods to seismically retrofit various types of construction materials and structural 

configurations. It contains example retrofit strategies and details to address identified 

deficiencies.

 FEMA P-807 [FEMA 2012b]– Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit Wood-Frame 

Buildings with Weak First Stories, Federal Emergency Management Agency

12.6.4. Strategy Prioritization

Gaps in desired performance should be prioritized based on either the most significant gaps, the beneficial

gaps to mitigate, or impact to the community. Even small improvements in building‘s performance may

have major positive impacts on community resilience. 

Making a community more resilient is a long-term proposition. Communities can develop short, medium 

and long-term goals for addressing resilience. Typically, the shorter term goals relate to creating a

resilience plan and changing building codes and standards. This can have the positive affect of not adding 

any more non-resilient buildings to a cluster. Medium and long-term goals typically relate to incentivized 

or mandated retrofit of specific building clusters. Often the differentiator between medium and long-term 

retrofit or replacement goals is based on the amount of cost associated with the retrofit or replacement. 

As an example, the city of San Francisco created a comprehensive Earthquake Safety Implementation 

Plan [The City and County of San Francisco 2011]. The plan sets forth a variety of goals to improve the 

city‘s resilience to a major earthquake. Retrofit of large wood framed multi-family buildings was deemed 

important enough and had somewhat lower costs associated with it (when compared to retrofit of other 

buildings), so it was deemed a medium term goal. Retrofit of large, older concrete buildings, while still a 

significant hazard was identified as a long-term goal in part because the cost and disruption of retrofit to 

those buildings was significantly greater. Also, mandating retrofit of the large concrete buildings would 

not have protected as many residents as mandating retrofit of wood frame residential apartment buildings.

12.7. References

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2010) ASCE 7-10: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings 

and Other Structures, Second Edition, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural 

Engineering Institute (SEI), Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2013) ASCE 41-13: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of 

Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), 

Reston, VA.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

78

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2013) ASCE 41-13: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of 

Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), 

Reston, VA.

Applied Technology Council (ATC 2003) ATC-58-2: Preliminary evaluation of methods for defining 

performance, Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood City, California.

Applied Technology Council (ATC 2004) ATC-45: Field Manual: Safety Evaluation of Buildings after 

Windstorms and Floods, Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood City, California.

Applied Technology Council (ATC 2009) ATC Design Guide 2: Basic Wind Engineering for Low-Rise 

Buildings, Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood City, CA. 

Department of Defense (DoD 2008) Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC): DoD Security Engineering 

Facilities Planning Manual, UFC 4-020-01. DoD, Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2000a) FEMA-351: Recommended Seismic Evaluation 

and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2000b) FEMA-355F: State of the Art Report on 

Performance Prediction and Evaluation of Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2003) FEMA-426: Reference Manual to Mitigate 

Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings. Risk Management Series, December, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2005) FEMA-452: Risk Assessment A How-To Guide to 

Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against Buildings, Risk Management Series, January, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2006) FEMA 549, Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf 

Coast: Mitigation Assessment Team Report, Building Performance Observations, Recommendations, and 

Technical Guidance, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2009a) FEMA P-750: NEHRP Recommended Seismic 

Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 

Washington, DC

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2009b) FEMA P-550: Recommended Residential 

Construction for Coastal Areas: Building on Strong and Safe Foundations, Second Edition, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2010a) FEMA P-424: Design Guide for Improving 

School Safety in Earthquake, Floods, and High Winds, Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2010b) FEMA P-499: Home Builder‘s Guide to 

Coastal Construction: Technical Fact Sheet Series, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 

Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2010c) FEMA P-804: Wind Retrofit Guide for 

Residential Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2011) FEMA P-55 (Volume I and II): Coastal 

Construction Manual: Principles and Practices of Planning, Siting, Designing, Constructing, and 

Maintaining Residential Buildings in Coastal Areas, Fourth Edition. Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA), Washington DC.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

79

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2012a) FEMA P-259: Engineering Principles and 

Practices for Retrofitting Flood-Prone Residential Structures, Third Edition, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2012b) FEMA P-807: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit 

of Multi-Unit Wood-Frame Buildings with Weak First Stories, Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), Washington DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2013) FEMA P-936: Floodproofing Non-Residential 

Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2014) FEMA P-312: Homeowner‘s Guide to 

Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect your Home from Flooding, Third Edition, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2015a) FEMA P-361: Safe Rooms for Tornadoes and 

Hurricanes, Third Edition, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2015b) Hazus Multi-Hazard Program. Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC, https://www.fema.gov/hazus.

IBC (2015) International Building Code, International Code Council, http://shop.iccsafe.org/codes/2015-

international-codes-and-references/2015-international-building-code-and-references.html.

Insurance Institute of Business & Home Safety (IBHS 2013) FORTIFIED Overview, Tampa, FL, 

https://disastersafety.org/fortified/fortified-home/. Last viewed April 18, 2015.

International Code Council (ICC 2009) International Fire Code, Country Club Hills, IL.

International Code Council (ICC 2011) International Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Country Club 

Hills, IL. 

International Code Council (ICC 2014) ICC 500-2014: ICC/NSSA Standard for the Design and 

Construction of Storm Shelters, Country Club Hills, IL. 

International Code Council (ICC 2015) ICCPC: 2015 International Code Council Performance Code for 

Buildings and Facilities, International Code Council, Country Club Hills, IL.

International Code Council, Inc. (ICC 2008) Standard for Residential Construction in High-Wind 

Regions, Country Club Hills, IL.

IRC (2015) International Residential Code, International Code Council, 

http://shop.iccsafe.org/codes/2015-international-codes-and-references/2015-international-residentialcode-and-references.html.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 2015) FireWise Communities, National Fire Protection 

Association, Battery Park, MA. http://www.firewise.org/?sso=0.

Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC 2013) The Oregon Resilience Plan: 

Reducing Risk and Improving Recovery for the Next Cascadia Earthquake and Tsunami, Report to the 

77th Legislative Assembly from the Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission, Salem, OR.

Plyer, A. (2015) ―Facts for Features: Katrina Impact,‖ The Data Center, Nonprofit Knowledge Works, 

August 28, http://www.datacenterresearch.org/data-resources/katrina/facts-for-impact/.

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR 2009) The Resilient City: What San 

Francisco Needs from its Seismic Mitigation Policies, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research 

Association (SPUR), San Francisco, CA.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Buildings

80

The City and County of San Francisco (CAPSS 2011) Earthquake Safety Implementation Program, San 

Francisco, CA.

Tsikoudakis, M. (2012) ―Hurricane Andrew prompted better building code requirements: Some regions 

seeing new building codes,‖ Business Insurance, Crain Communications, August 19, 

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20120819/NEWS06/308199985.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

81

13. Transportation Systems

Transportation Systems Executive Summary

Community Dependence. Transportation systems are critical to communities. People use various 

transportation systems daily to travel to and from work and school, visit family and friends, attend 

business meetings, and reach medical facilities during emergencies. Businesses use trucks, ships, trains, 

and airplanes to transport goods from their point of production to their point of use or consumption. 

While roads and bridges are a critical part of the transportation network, communities also rely upon other 

systems of transportation, including:

 Airports to transport people and goods long distances in a short period of time

 Passenger and freight rail lines to transport people and goods regionally/nationally

 Subway lines or light rail corridors in large urban centers to transport people to/from work and 

entertainment/leisure activities

 Harbors and ports to import/export goods globally and distribute them on inland waterways

 Inland waterways, such as the Mississippi River, to transport people and goods

 Ferry terminals/waterways to transport the workforce to/from work (e.g., New York , San 

Francisco, Seattle)

 Pipelines to transport natural gas and petroleum nationally and regionally to utilities and 

refineries

Complexities. The transportation system as a whole is complex because people and businesses often rely 

on multiple transportation modes. When one connection point between modes is negatively affected, it 

can result in trip delays or delivery interruptions. Multi-modal systems and connection points add to the 

challenge of coordinating activities to build resilience of the transportation system and the communities it 

supports.

Transportation infrastructure can play an important role when preparing for natural hazard events for 

which there is advanced warning and supporting recovery after an event. Prior to an event, families may 

need to travel home and then follow evacuation routes to safe shelters. After an event, transportation 

infrastructure is critical for first responders to reach those in need, for electric power and communication 

crews to restore utility lines, and for ingress of critical supplies needed by community members.

Vulnerabilities. When planning for a hazard event and beginning the recovery process after an event 

occurs, communities should consider any vulnerability in the transportation network that may seriously 

affect the ability of the community to achieve full recovery in the intermediate and long-terms. 

Communities should also consider improving the level of transportation network performance in future 

hazard events. Intermediate community transportation needs may include: the ability of public sector 

employees to get to their posts, the ability of community members to get to work, school, retail stores,

and hospitals, and the ability to access airports, ports and harbors, and railway stations for travel and 

commerce. In the long-term, communities should strive to go beyond simply recovering by prioritizing 

improvements to the transportation network, particularly parts that failed or were the source of stress on 

the network. 

Dependencies. Infrastructure systems critical to community recovery and restoration, both pre- and postevent, have significant dependencies on transportation systems. These critical infrastructure systems 

include energy systems, communications systems, buildings, and water/wastewater systems. For example, 

electric power plants rely on bulk shipments of coal or fuel by barge and freight rail and gas-fired plants 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

82

rely on natural gas pipelines. The energy system also relies on transportation systems so repair crews can 

reach areas where power failures have occurred and bring services online quickly. 

Community Resilience. Infrastructure for roads and highways, rail, air travel, ports, harbors, waterways 

and pipelines all have known vulnerabilities to hazard events. Community resilience performance goals 

for the transportation system in this Guide are defined by how quickly the functionality of infrastructure 

systems recover after a hazard event. Minimizing downtime can be achieved during design or by 

developing and implementing well-prepared recovery plans (ideally both). Performance goals for the 

transportation system should be established by a panel of key stakeholders from within the community 

system owners and operators, engineers, planners, regulators, codes and standards representatives, and 

representatives of other infrastructure systems.

Performance Goals. Performance goals for transportation systems are necessary to support prioritization 

of system components that are most critical to community response and recovery. Prioritization relative to 

performance goals ensures that efforts to improve resilience focus on actions that will bring the most 

benefit to the community. Priorities for each system that supports ingress, egress, and community 

transportation functions depend on the system‘s role in the community. The ability of each system to 

effectively serve these functions is a balance of the volume of people or goods that the system has the 

capacity to move and its ability to interface with both the local community and surrounding region.

Codes and Standards. The transportation industry uses standards to establish the minimum acceptable 

criteria for design and construction. Transportation codes and standards are typically adopted and 

enforced by each state‘s Department of Transportation, though many local jurisdictions may also impose 

additional local requirements. While practice varies somewhat, for the most part state DOT design 

manuals and practices closely follow the guidance in the AASHTO Policy. The FHWA is responsible for 

approving the design of highways on the National Highway System. FHWA has adopted the AASHTO 

Policy as the applicable set of design values and criteria that apply to such facilities. Although adoption of 

standards is important, enforcement is key to ensure compliance of the built environment with these 

standards.

For new transportation construction, current federal and state project development guidelines require an 

environmental study at the early stages of projects to identify potential environmental impacts and 

state/federal permitting requirements. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Environment 

Assessment (EA), and other similar processes require local community input. Such processes can be an 

important opportunity for the community to discuss the resiliency performance criteria and goals for the 

project, regardless of whether or not they are covered by the codes. For example, a community could 

request that the performance goal exceed the 500-year flood criteria for an interstate highway project to 

assure continued operation in an extreme flood event.

The design of transportation systems has been refined over time; however, existing transportation systems 

are usually bound by the codes and standards for which they were initially designed. Typically, there is no 

requirement that transportation infrastructure be upgraded to meet the new standards as they develop, 

with the exception of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines for seismic retrofit of 

bridges promulgated in the 1980s. However, it is possible to make improvements to meet the criteria of 

current standards during retrofits. For example, when planning rehabilitation of a highway bridge or 

tunnel, the community should consider upgrading other system features to meet the current performance 

goals and to protect the investment being made.

Resilience Solutions. Resilience solutions for new and future construction should start in the project 

planning phase. Selection of site location, alignment, and grade level can increase resilience with the 

lowest cost and schedule impacts. For new surface transportation projects, placing roadways, tracks and 

tunnel portals at a naturally high grade, locating bridge foundations outside of a waterway when feasible, 

and avoiding roadways cut into unstable side slopes are options that should be taken advantage of when 

they are available. Likewise, for airports near bodies of water and seaports, elevating critical 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

83

infrastructure components and avoiding soils that are unstable during earthquakes will improve system 

performance.

To increase the resiliency of existing transportation infrastructure, a good strategy is to first prioritize the 

transportation assets by their degree of criticality for supporting community resilience and their 

vulnerability to damage or loss from a hazard. After prioritizing assets, a plan to improve resilience can 

be developed to meet both short-term and long-term needs.

13.1. Introduction

Transportation systems are critical to our daily lives. People use transportation systems to travel to and 

from work, school, visits to family and friends, attend business meetings, and manage their health. 

However, the transportation network meets many needs beyond those of individuals. Businesses use 

trucks, ships, trains, and airplanes to transport goods from the point of production to the point of use or 

consumption. For example, food is often transported from the producer (e.g., a farm) to a processing and 

packing plant, then to a regional or national distribution center, and finally to the local stores where it can 

be purchased by consumers. All steps in this product distribution example rely heavily on transportation 

systems. 

Traditionally, people think of transportation systems as roads and bridges for moving both goods and 

people. Although roads and bridges are a critical part of the transportation network, communities also rely 

upon other transportation systems, including:

 Airports to transport people and goods long distances in a short period of time

 Passenger and freight rail lines to transport people and goods regionally/nationally

 Subway lines or light rail corridors in large urban centers (e.g., New York, D.C., Chicago, Los 

Angeles) to transport people to and from work, entertainment, and leisure activities

 Harbors and ports to import/export goods globally and distribute them on inland waterways

 Inland waterways, such as the Mississippi River, to transport people and goods

 Ferry terminals and waterways to transport the workforce to and from work (e.g., San Francisco, 

New York, Seattle)

 Pipelines2to transport natural gas and petroleum nationally and regionally to utilities and 

refineries 

The transportation system is complex, with multiple modes, each having its own complexities. These 

complexities can make coordinating activities between systems for community resilience challenging. 

Examples of complexity include:

 Within a small geographical area (i.e., a community), many stakeholders may be responsible for 

design, operation, maintenance and funding of the road network, including federal, state, and 

local public agencies, as well as private operators of toll ways. 

 The rail system includes both freight networks, which are key to support economic activity, and 

passenger rail services within cities and across states, which may have multiple private and public 

stakeholders.

 

2

Pipelines are included in the transportation chapter because they are regulated by the Department of Transportation. Water 

pipelines are discussed in Chapter 15.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

84

 Marine transportation includes domestic and international movement of passengers and goods 

across regions. The various regions may have their own standards and guidelines for design, 

operation and maintenance for marine transportation systems. In the case of passenger ferries, a 

lack of docking requirement standardization limits the transferability of vessels to support 

recovery from hazard events. 

 The aviation system includes public and private airports of varying sizes, with public and private 

stakeholders, supporting air freight and commercial air passenger services. Air fields are sized to 

accommodate aircraft landing needs, and larger aircraft may not be able to land at smaller 

airports.

Many people rely on multiple modes of transportation (i.e., intermodal transportation) every day. 

Businesses use multiple systems of transportation to move goods efficiently and cost effectively. 

Similarly, goods may be imported using ships; however, to get the goods from the ship to the next step in 

the supply chain trucks or rail are requires. Section 13.1.2 contains more discussion on intermodal 

transportation.

This chapter addresses the role of the transportation system in community resilience. To address 

resilience of their infrastructure, communities need to first understand how the transportation system 

supports the community and characterize the existing transportation systems. This step includes 

identifying the parties responsible for the condition and maintenance of the infrastructure, regulatory 

bodies, and other key stakeholders. Communities should work with stakeholders to determine desired 

performance goals for the transportation infrastructure and evaluate the anticipated performance of the 

existing infrastructure for prevailing hazards. Determining differences between the desired and 

anticipated system performance will identify weak nodes and links in the network, and aid communities 

to prioritize proposed upgrades to improve resilience of individual network components and, 

consequently, the transportation network as a whole. Section 13.3 provides a performance goal table that 

communities can use to identify the desired and anticipated performance of transportation systems, and 

the gaps in performance.

13.1.1. Social Needs and System Performance Goals

The social needs of the community drive the performance goals to be defined by each community, its 

infrastructure owner, and stakeholders, as discussed in Chapter 10. The social needs of the community 

include those of community members, local businesses, supply chains of large national and multi-national 

businesses, industry, and government. Each community should define its own performance goals based 

on the time needed for its infrastructure to be restored following a hazard event for three levels of hazard: 

routine, expected, and extreme, as defined in Chapter 4 (Volume I).

While not all natural hazard events can be forecast, the transportation system may play an important role 

prior to a natural hazard event with advanced warning (e.g., hurricane), and after a hazard event. Prior to 

an event, transportation systems enable:

 Transport of residents to their homes from work, school, or daycare 

 Ability to evacuate to shelters or distant safe communities

Following a hazard event, the community may have short-term (0-3 days), intermediate (1-12 weeks), or 

long-term (4-36+ months) recovery needs. For transportation, short-term needs may include:

 Access for emergency responders (firefighters, paramedics, police) to reach people in need

 Access for workers to restore critical facilities and supporting infrastructure (energy, 

communications, water, wastewater)
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

85

 Access to facilities for shelter, medical care, banks, commerce, and food

 Egress or evacuation from a community immediately after a hazard event, if needed

 Ingress of goods and supplies immediately after event to provide aid

Communities need to also consider vulnerabilities in the transportation network that may seriously affect 

full recovery. Resilience plans should consider ways to improve the level of transportation network 

performance for the next hazard event. Intermediate and long-term transportation needs may include:

 Ability of public sector employees (who run government, direct traffic, respond to emergencies, 

run transit systems, and teach or work in schools) to reach their posts 

 Ability for community members to get to work, school, medical facilities, sports and 

entertainment venues, and places to gather for religious or cultural events

 Access to businesses (both small and large), banks, retail, manufacturing, and similar facilities so 

they can receive supplies and serve their customers

 Access to key transportation facilities (airports, ports/harbors, railway stations) so goods can be 

transported and the supply chain restored

Communities should strive to go beyond simply recovering by prioritizing and planning for 

improvements to the sections of the transportation network that address their current and project social 

needs.

13.1.2. Dependencies

Chapter 11 details the dependencies of all critical infrastructure systems in a community. As the built

environment within communities grows more complex and different systems grow more dependent on 

one another to provide services, addressing the issue of dependencies becomes an increasingly critical 

aspect of resilience. 

Transportation systems play a critical role in supporting each other, as well as critical services and other 

infrastructure systems. Hospitals, fire stations, police, and other emergency response systems depend on 

transportation before, during, and after a hazard event. Evacuation depends on the capacity of roads,

waterways, airports, and rail, as well as the government‘s ability to manage them. Relief efforts are 

hindered until damage to transportation systems is repaired. 

Specific dependencies on the transportation system include:

 Energy – Many power plants rely on bulk shipments of coal or fuel via barge and freight rail for 

their operation. Gas fired plants rely on natural gas pipelines. Resource recovery plants rely on 

bulk shipments of refuse via truck. Interruption to barge, freight rail, and truck routes from a 

hazard event can affect power generation if fuel at these power plants is not stockpiled in 

advance. 

 Communication and Information – As fiber networks are expanded, many are routed through 

leased conduits over bridges and through tunnels to cross waterways or other geographic features. 

This makes them vulnerable if those transportation assets are damaged from flooding, 

earthquakes, or storm surge, which can knock out portions of the fiber communications network. 

Postal services delivering letters, documents, and packages also rely entirely on the transportation 

network.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

86

 Buildings/Facilities – Large transportation terminals or stations, airline terminals, and port cargo 

facilities cease to function when transportation systems are shut down by a hazard event. Mixeduse transportation facilities that are integrated with retail, businesses, and hotels are also impacted 

when transportation stops.

 Water/Wastewater – The pipelines used by water and wastewater systems are often located 

within the right-of-way of roads and bridges, and are considered part of the transportation system.

Water and wastewater treatment plants also rely on transportation to deliver chemicals used for 

treatment.

Specific interdependencies of transportations systems with the other infrastructure systems addressed in 

this Guide include: 

 Energy – The transportation system depends on the power and energy grid. Gas stations need 

electricity for vehicle owners to access fuel. Following Hurricane Sandy, gas stations, utilities, 

and other entities that fuel transportation vehicles could not operate without power, which

hindered both evacuation and recovery. Electric power is also necessary for traffic signals to 

function. During the northeast blackout of 2003, New York City‘s 11,600 traffic signals were 

inoperable due to the loss of power, resulting in mass gridlock [DeBlasio et al. 2004]. Airports, 

rail stations, moveable bridges, vehicular tunnels and ports rely on electric energy for lighting, 

functionality of mechanical components, fire and life safety, and for functionality of the buildings 

themselves (see Chapter 12). Regional passenger rail, subways, and light rail rely on electric 

energy to function as well as for fire/life safety inside the tunnels. However, the energy industry 

also relies on transportation systems to allow repair crews to reach areas where failures have 

occurred and bring services online quickly. The logistics of deploying repair crews often starts 

with clearing roads to provide access to utility repair crews.

Transportation systems also include natural gas and petroleum pipelines that supply fuel storage, 

generation, and distribution systems. Pipelines also transport jet fuel to major airports. Most 

pipelines in the continental United States are buried beneath the ground and can rupture from 

earthquakes or wash out due to flooding. 

 Communication – The communications system relies on roads and bridges so repair crews can 

get into areas where restoration is needed for telephone and cable lines, cell towers, and fiber 

optic networks. Conversely, transportation systems depend on communications to relay 

information. Airports use communications for instrument-controlled aircraft operations to relay 

logistical and scheduling information to passengers and to communicate with other air traffic via 

air traffic control. Light rail, train, and bus stations rely on communication systems to coordinate 

and schedule inbound/outbound times for users. Highways depend on Intelligent Transportation 

Systems (ITS) to monitor traffic levels, direct traffic around areas of congestion, and respond to 

accidents and emergencies. ITS cameras, sensors, and variable message signs are supported on 

fiber networks, some owned and some leased by Departments of Transportation (DOTs). Tolled 

highways and bridges rely on communication systems for electronic toll collection.

 Building/Facilities – Buildings are rendered useless if people cannot reach them. Transportation 

systems allow people to travel to critical facilities, businesses, and to other homes and facilities to 

check on the safety of friends, family and vulnerable populations. When transportation systems 

are not available to get community members to buildings and facilities, such structures also 

cannot contribute to the recovery. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

87

 Water and Wastewater – Water and wastewater lines are often buried beneath roads (i.e., below 

grade). Moreover, leaks and failure of waterlines under roads can damage road foundations and 

sinkholes may form. Consequently, access to roads is needed to reach points of failure. 

Conversely, critical facilities in the transportation system require water and wastewater for 

maintenance, sanitation, disposal, and emergency services (e.g., firefighting). 

 Intermodal Transportation. Due to the nature of our large, diverse transportation network and 

how it is used today, intermodal transportation is a key consideration for communities. 

Intermodal transportation varies by community, depending on the community‘s size, needs, 

structure, and complexity. Individuals in some communities may function well using only the 

road network. However, the community needs access to the larger transportation network. Hence, 

other methods of transportation are needed to get food and supplies to local retailers in these 

communities. 

In today‘s global environment, goods are imported via airplane, ship, truck, or train. Goods imported by 

airplane or ship, are then loaded onto either trains or trucks. Depending on the goods being transported, 

the next stop in the supply chain may be a manufacturing or processing plant, national or regional 

distribution center, or a warehouse. Retailers often use warehouses or regional distribution centers to 

manage products and provide goods to local stores via truck in a short time period. Therefore, 

coordination is needed between the different methods of transportation used by businesses to ensure their 

products can be delivered to the customer. 

People also use multiple methods of transportation, particularly in large urban centers, to get to and from 

work, school, entertainment facilities, homes, banks, etc. People who work in large cities often rely on 

mass transit, such as bus transit for most of their commutes. However, to get to their bus stop, rail station, 

or final destination, individuals may rely on the roadway system, including buses, taxis, bicycles, or 

walking. 

Although several methods of transportation are available to individuals and businesses, providing 

redundancy to the overall network, failures in one system can put significant stress on other transportation 

systems. For example, even partial loss of use of the subway system in Chicago, New York, or 

Washington, DC would cause significant congestion and gridlock in the roadway network.

Freight transportation systems in the U.S. have less redundancy than systems that transport people. The 

freight rail lines currently have detours of hundreds of miles around certain critical routes that follow 

riverbeds and cross large rivers. With the reduced number of freight trains and the high costs for 

maintaining the right of way of freight tracks, railroads have reduced the number of redundant lines. 

Many of the abandoned rail lines have been converted to recreational paths for pedestrians and cyclists.

However, there is redundancy in the freight system due to the ability to choose between barges, rail, and 

trucks.

Freight transportation by barge moves very large volumes at relatively low energy costs, but has very 

limited system redundancy since it depends on navigable waterways. River flooding or a damaged or 

collapsed river crossing can lead to major delays of large volumes of freight.

In general, freight transported by truck has more redundancy than rail or barge freight; however, the 

national highway system has certain critical river crossings that, if damaged in a hazard event, can lead to 

long detours and heavily congested highway bottlenecks. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

88

13.2. Transportation Infrastructure

Transportation systems in the United States are large and complex. This section is divided into five main 

categories: 

 Section 13.2.1 – Roads, Bridges, Highways, and Road Tunnels

 Section 13.2.2 – Rail

 Section 13.2.3 – Air

 Section 13.2.4 – Ports, Harbors, and Waterways

 Section 13.2.5 – Pipelines

These sections discuss the components of their network, potential vulnerabilities, and solutions used in 

the past to successfully mitigate failures. The first four sections deal with systems of the larger 

transportation network used to move both people and goods. The fifth section, Pipelines, discusses a 

system used to move resources alone (e.g., natural gas). 

13.2.1. Roads, Bridges, Highways, and Road Tunnels

Roads and Highways. Roads and highways are vital to the nation‘s transportation infrastructure. The 

nation‘s 6.5 million km (4 million miles) of public roadways supported 4.8 trillion km (3 trillion miles) of 

vehicle travel in 2011 [ASCE 2013]. The large network of roads and highways serves as the primary 

transportation infrastructure used by most people and businesses. Although other methods of 

transportation, such as subways and airplanes, move a mass amount of people and goods to specific hubs 

or nodes of the transportation network, roads and highways are most frequently used to get people and 

goods to their final destinations. Loss of a road, bridge, or tunnel can dramatically increase the time 

required for emergency responders to reach an area or reduce the ability for individuals to evacuate after 

the event.

When considering the road network, communities need to think about not only cars and trucks, but other 

methods of transportation, including buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. Locally, communities (particularly 

large communities with a stressed road system) should consider developing a long-term transportation 

plan that encourages people to use other methods of transportation (e.g., bicycles and buses) in addition to 

personal vehicles. Bicycle lanes, for example, can be added by widening the road by approximately 1.2 m 

(4 ft) in a planned construction project. Note, however, that the usefulness of making such changes will 

vary by community based on average commute time and accessibility to alternative methods of 

transportation. Regardless, a goal of the road system for a community may be to encourage and support as 

many methods of transportation as possible to make it more efficient, rather than relying on just cars and 

trucks. Increasing the transportation efficiency of a community in a resilient manner may be an alternative 

to just focusing on one mode of travel [Cities21 2015, Sustainable Cities 2010].
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

89

In addition to moving people and goods on roads 

and highways, essential utilities distribute services 

either alongside, above, or below the grade of 

roads. Therefore, the failure of roads and 

highways not only disrupts the ability to move 

people and goods, it can leave the necessary utility 

services vulnerable to both initial and secondary 

hazards (e.g., uprooting of a tree or other debris 

falling on a power or communication line). For 

example, flooding can undercut roadbeds. Figure 

13-1 provides an example of interdependency. In 

the figure, a pipe that lay directly underneath the 

road shoulder was vulnerable to damage as a 

result of road failure. 

Roads are also susceptible to damage from 

earthquakes. The force of earthquakes can cause 

roads to split, as seen after the Loma Prieta 

earthquake [Duwadi 2010]. Moreover, secondary 

effects of earthquakes, such as landslides and fires can also damage roadways or other transportation 

infrastructure.

Failure or loss of service of individual roads does 

not typically cause a major disruption for a 

community, because redundancy is often built into 

the road network. Major disruptions occur when a 

significant portion or critical component of the 

road/highway network fails, such that people and 

goods cannot get to their destinations. Flash 

flooding in mountain communities, where roads 

typically follow riverbeds with multiple bridge 

crossings, has left entire communities cut off 

when roads and bridges collapsed from scour (i.e., 

erosion of bank material around foundations, 

particularly for bridges). For example, a dozen 

towns in Vermont were completely cut off from 

emergency aid in 2011 when Hurricane Irene 

dumped 280 mm (11 inches) of rain over a 

weekend, washing out roads and bridges [Dolak 2011]. Similarly, in Boulder, Colorado, search and 

rescue teams could not reach stranded communities after 150 mm (6 inches) of rain fell over 12 hours in 

September 2013, cutting off mountain towns after recent wildfires depleted the terrain of vegetation

[Frosch and Williams 2013]. Large areas of the road and highway system can be impacted by debris from 

high wind events (e.g., hurricanes, extra-tropical storms, tornadoes), flooding (as seen in Hurricane 

Sandy), earthquakes, and ice storms. In the short-term, tree fall (see Figure 13-2) on roads slows-down 

emergency response and repair crews from getting to locations where their assistance is needed, and may 

also damage electric power and communication systems. 

Ice storms, as previously discussed, can also cause road blockages by tree fall, as seen after the January 

2009 ice storm in Kentucky [Kentucky Public Service Commission 2009]. However, ice itself can also 

shut down the road network because even relatively small amounts of ice make driving conditions 

dangerous, particularly in those areas where communities are not well prepared for snow and ice storms 

due to their infrequent occurrence. In states that are well prepared for these events and experience them 

Figure 13-1: Road undercutting in the aftermath 

of Hurricane Irene (Source: Photo by Elissa Jun 

[FEMA 2014a])

Figure 13-2: Local road blocked by fallen trees 

after remnants of extra-tropical storm struck 

Kentucky [Source: Kentucky Public Service 

Commission 2009]
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

90

regularly, ice storms or large snowfall events do not typically cause significant disruptions to 

transportation. 

Bridges. Bridges are important components of the road and railway networks because they traverse 

significant geological features such as canyons, rivers, and bodies of water. Bridges are the most costly 

part of a roadway or railway system to build and maintain. Temporary closure of a bridge may lead to 

significant detour travel distances. 

Bridges, like roads, are impacted by the harshness of their respective environmental conditions (e.g., 

freeze-thaw cycles). Many bridges include expansion joints that may allow water and other debris to 

infiltrate the road surface, leading to corrosion and deterioration of both the superstructure (i.e., beams 

and deck) and substructure (e.g., piers, bearings, and abutments), and degradation of bridge performance. 

However, some short bridges (i.e., less than 90 m [300 ft]) are designed using integral abutments to

eliminate expansion joints and reduce this source of degradation [Johnson 2012].

Scour is a leading cause of bridge failures [FHWA 

2011]. Scour occurs when a combination of water 

velocity and soil characteristics lead to erosion of 

the streambed around a foundation. Scour can be 

resisted through proper design and construction. 

Flooding and wave action from hurricane storm 

surge (or tsunamis) can damage bridges in other 

ways. During Hurricane Katrina, wave-induced 

forces lifted and displaced multiple spans of the I10 twin bridges over Lake Pontchartrain off their 

bearings (Figure 13-3) [Duwadi 2010]. 

Earthquakes in San Fernando Valley, Loma Prieta, 

and Northridge, CA resulted in bridge collapses 

through failure of piers and decks [Duwadi 2010]. 

Longer bridges tend to have relatively lightweight 

superstructures (decks and girders) to span long 

distances. Historically, their relatively low natural 

frequencies made some of these bridges susceptible to damage by high winds, because such low natural 

frequencies could be excited by high winds. If resonance of the bridge occurred, large oscillations and 

failure followed in some cases. However, modern long span bridges are designed with aeroelastic wind 

tunnel testing that confirms design features and final aerodynamic properties to avoid failure during high 

wind events [FHWA 2015a]. Some older long span bridges were tested and retrofitted to ensure they were 

not vulnerable to wind failures. 

Similar to roads, failure of an individual bridge causes a disruption to the local road network, but does not 

always cause a major disruption of an entire community‘s road network because there are often 

alternative routes. However, the driver‘s commute time might increase. Failure of a bridge puts additional 

stress on other parts of the road network locally, because the bridge is a choke point, which could cause 

people to avoid certain areas and thus businesses. Therefore, when communities evaluate the design and 

functionality of their bridges, they should consider the purpose of the structure and redundancy of the 

surrounding road network. For example, if the bridge is the only road through which commuters and 

goods can access an area of the community that has many businesses and critical facilities, the bridge 

should be designed for the extreme event, as defined in Chapter 4 (Volume I). However, given that bridge 

failures are not common in hazard events, most bridges should be designed and built for the expected 

event. 

Figure 13-3: Bridge sections knocked off their 

supports during Hurricane Katrina due to wave 

action (Source: Photo by Win Henderson [FEMA

2014d])
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

91

Road Tunnels. Road tunnels serve a similar purpose to bridges in the road network. They connect links of 

the road network by passing under water, through mountains, or under other roads or highways. In 

general, tunnels present more risk to life safety when failures occur than other transportation systems, 

which have more accessible methods of egress. Fires in tunnels are deadly hazards because fire in an 

enclosed space decreases oxygen levels, contains toxic gases, and radiates heat like a furnace [Meng &

Qu 2010]. Precipitation is another threat: flooding in surrounding areas can lead to dangerously high soil 

moisture levels that compromise structural integrity of tunnels through mountains [Meyer et al. 2014]. 

Tunnels beneath rivers are not affected by moisture through the walls but by surrounding flooding 

through the tunnel portal. During long-term inundation inside a tunnel, corrosion is a major mode of 

damage, especially to any ventilation, electrical, or communications systems within the structure. More 

resilient designs and novel protection measures, such as inflatable tunnel plugs, may need to be employed 

to adequately mitigate the risk associated with tunnels [U.S. DHS 2013].

13.2.2. Rail

Rail systems consist of mass transit systems, such as subways, that operate within large high-density 

cities; regional commuter rail systems, which connect suburban communities to the city core; intercity 

passenger rail systems; and freight rail systems that transport cargo both regionally and across the nation. 

Light rail systems that operate within cities and airports are also included.

Rail systems, which typically carry bulk commodities and assist in commuter services, have seen a boom 

in recent years. Amtrak reported more than 31.2 million passengers in 2012, double the reported figure

from 2000. Freight railroads transport almost half the nation‘s intercity freight and approximately a third 

of its exports with both numbers projected to increase. Freight and passenger railroads invested $75 

billion into freight rail systems since 2009. In 2010, freight railroads renewed enough miles of track to go 

from coast to coast. This investment policy supports the rail system capacity to meet future needs and 

represents an opportune time to build resilience into the system [ASCE 2013].

Since rail systems tend to be less interconnected than roadway systems, key juncture points may become 

bottlenecks following system damage or failure [Lazo 2013]. One example is the Virginia Avenue tunnel 

in Washington D.C., through which 20 to 30 cargo trains travel each day. The tunnel, now 110 years old 

with structural issues estimated to cost $200 million to repair, has a single rail line that requires freight 

trains to wait while others pass through [Lazo 2013]. Bottlenecks like this cost the U.S. about $200 billion 

annually, or 1.6 % of GDP, and are projected to rise if rail capacity is not added along significant 

corridors [ASCE 2013]. Any disruption to these key points in the system could cause significant 

economic disruptions, indicating a need to build alternate routes to increase redundancy in the system.

Freight rail systems in the U.S. also play an important role in the intermodal transportation of 

containerized cargo and imported automobiles from ports on both coasts to points in the Midwest. 

Containers are double stacked on rail cars and transported to interior distribution hubs that then transfer

cargo to trucks, which is then taken to a final destination.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

92

The railway network is similar to road and 

highway infrastructure; both rely on bridges and 

tunnels. However, the railway network is not as 

redundant as local road networks. Thus,

disruptions in the railway network can have a 

significant impact. During Hurricane Katrina, 

flooding caused railway tracks to be impassible 

and some railway bridges failed, as shown in 

Figure 13-4. Careful planning can ensure tracks 

are appropriately elevated and mitigated for 

potential natural hazards. Relocating transit lines 

to newer tracks reduces natural hazard risks and 

vulnerability, as does keeping older tracks in good 

repair for redundancy. Since railways, like 

roadways, are replaced every 20 years on average, 

resilience can be built into the system over time 

[Field et al. 2012].

Rail systems have other vulnerabilities. Most 

regional and intercity passenger rail systems rely either on electrified overhead catenaries or on third-rail 

power. While overhead catenary systems are more vulnerable to damage in storms from winds, falling 

trees, and branches, both are vulnerable to flooding, ice storms, and blizzards. Passenger rail in rural areas 

uses diesel locomotives and is more resilient. Some railroads have invested in hybrid locomotives that can 

be powered by diesel or electric power and be deployed to restore limited service when there is loss of 

electric power. Freight rail cargo is transported by diesel locomotives and so is less affected by storms, 

ice and flooding. 

An early warning system prior to a hazard event allows time for trains are to be moved to safer locations 

to avoid damage. As with other forms of transportation, damage and recovery assessments will enable 

better prioritization of resources and lead to faster recovery in a post-hazard environment [The World 

Bank 2012]. 

Subway Systems. Subway systems effectively 

transport many people for work, school, 

entertainment events, or other leisure 

activities. Because subways are largely located 

underground, flooding is especially 

problematic. During Hurricane Sandy, the 

New York City subway system experienced 

heavy flooding; some tunnels filled up 

entirely. Where protective measures, such as 

barriers and elevated openings, were in place, 

they were overtopped. The subway pumps 

were overwhelmed and the flooding damaged 

utility equipment, including electrical systems 

(transformers, switchgear, distribution panels, 

etc.), communication and data/IT systems, and 

electronic controls and equipment [FEMA 2013]. The severe damage to the subway system will require

years of repair and rebuilding before every station is reopened [City of New York 2013].

Figure 13-4: A railroad bridge in New Orleans 

was washed out by flooding during Hurricane 

Katrina (Source: Photo by Marvin Nauman

[FEMA 2014c])

Resilience Example: The New York City Transit 

(NYCT) subway system, despite being one of the 

oldest transportation infrastructures in the city, 

showcased adaptability in its response to the 9/11 

attacks. Decision making was dispersed 

throughout the system. As a result of empowered 

leadership throughout the system, trains were 

quickly rerouted around the disrupted area. When 

the nature of the event became clear, the subway 

system brought more trains to outgoing tracks for 

evacuation. During the recovery, the system was

adapted to transport emergency personnel and 

supplies into and around the city [PWC 2013]. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

93

13.2.3. Air

The nation‘s air infrastructure provides the fastest way for freight and people to travel long distances. The 

airport system moves over $562 billion in cargo each year, in addition to providing 728 million passenger 

flights [ASCE 2013]. Commercial flights increased by approximately 33 million from 2000 to 2011 

[ASCE 2013]. By 2040, it is projected that air cargo will triple and over a billion passenger flights will 

traverse the nation‘s skies [ASCE 2013]. Studies already show that disruptions to this massive system 

have significant economic implications. The estimated cost of congestion and delays was almost $22 

billion in 2012 and is projected to rise to $63 billion by 2040 if national spending levels on air 

infrastructure remain stagnant [ASCE 2013].

Airports are a key component of supply chain for commerce activities. Internet purchases in particular

result in tons of overnight air cargo transferred to trucks at airports and delivered to communities. There is 

a strong dependency between airports and roadway systems for timely delivery of high priority and 

perishable goods. Airport closures cause re-routing to other airports with longer truck travel times,

delaying goods.

Large airports are communities in themselves where many people are employed and there is significant

retail business and real estate development, such as hotels. When an airport is closed, it does not just 

impact air travelers. People employed at airports are significantly affected by disruptions to normal air 

operations.

There are many dependencies between airports and other modes of transport. Passengers access airports 

by roadways or rail networks. Freight services and the provision of fuel to airports rely on roadways. In 

addition, when airports are disrupted, people and cargo are typically re-routed to road and rail networks. 

Military airbases typically have facilities similar to those of a civilian airport, such as traffic control and 

firefighting. Airbases are located throughout the U.S. and its territories and provide a variety of services 

for the military such as refueling, storage and maintenance, training centers, and mission launch points. 

As with civilian air infrastructure, military air infrastructure provides the fastest way to transport 

personnel, cargo, arms, supplies, and other physical assets. As such, airbases play a critical role in 

supporting national security. 

Disaster response is not a primary role of the armed forces; however, after major events, military airbases 

may double as launch points and staging areas for recovery operations. When federal, state, and local 

agencies respond to hazard events that have become disasters, the military may be called on for support. 

Increased air transportation capabilities are particularly needed after hazard events that hinder ground 

transportation, such as floods, earthquakes, wildfires, and major snowstorms, or after hazard events in 

areas with prohibitive terrain. Common response-related uses for military aircraft include evacuation, 

search and rescue, supply delivery, and personnel mobilization. Airbases are governed by the branch of 

the military they serve, though assets may be provided to civilian governments under civilian control after 

a major event.

Unfortunately, airports are sensitive to hazard events and prone to disruptions. Seventy percent of airport 

delays are due to severe weather events, which may become more frequent in some locations [ACRP 

2012]. This sensitivity is partly attributed to system complexity, which can include more risks than are 

immediately obvious [PWC 2013]. Thus, completely assessing all vulnerabilities for an airport can be 

difficult. Nevertheless, valuable lessons can be learned from past events. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

94

Runways are vulnerable to the same hazards as 

roads, but typically have a higher threshold for 

safe operating conditions. Runways can be shut 

down by flooding (Figure 13-5), ice, and snow. 

Additionally, runways are vulnerable to soil 

liquefaction during seismic events [ACRP 2012]. 

In 2011, the area around the Dallas Fort Worth 

airport received 6.6 cm (2.6 inches) of snow 

before the Super Bowl. The airport was 

underprepared and suffered significant disruptions. 

Their equipment cleared a single runway one hour 

after de-icer was applied, leading to cancellation 

of over 300 flights. In response, the airport 

invested over $13 million in equipment to clear 

three runways of 5 cm (2 inches) of snow in 14 

minutes. Although this is a good example of steps 

taken to create a more resilient airport, it also 

showcases how easily an unexpected weather event can cause disruptions [TRB 2014].

Airport terminals are vulnerable to the same hazards as other buildings (see Chapter 12). Energy, fuel, 

communications, water, and wastewater services are all critical to the safe operation of airports. Chapters 

14, 15 and 16, respectively, discuss the resiliency of these infrastructure systems.

Airports play an integral role in moving people and supplies before and after a hazard event. If airports in 

an area close, other airports must handle redirected flights and increased loads [ACRP 2012]. Federal and 

state aid is most quickly administered by air. These factors mean that airports are most needed when they 

are most vulnerable – directly before and after a hazard event. Therefore, increasing resilience in airports 

is essential to increasing overall community resilience. 

13.2.4. Ports, Harbors, and Waterways

Ports, harbors, and waterways are primarily used for import/export of goods and materials. The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers estimates that over 95 % of U.S. trade, by volume, moves through ports [ASCE 

2013]. The U.S. has over 300 commercial harbors that process over 2.3 billion tons of cargo per year and 

over 600 additional smaller harbors [ASCE 2013]. In 2010, $460 billion worth of goods were exported 

and $940 billion were imported through ports [ASCE 2013]. Although most ports are in good condition, 

terminals need further investment to accommodate larger vessels following the scheduled 2015 Panama 

Canal expansion. Due to the increasing size of commercial ships, many ports with shallow waterways are 

already inaccessible. Once the Panama Canal expansion is complete, more ports in the United States will 

be unable to service the larger ships that may have double the capacity of cargo ships in use today 

[NOAA 2014]. The need for further investment, as with the other transportation systems, provides an 

opportunity to plan for resilient improvements to this critical infrastructure [ASCE 2013].

Maritime infrastructure also provides waterborne transport of passengers and vehicles, which is another 

important component of domestic trade [MARAD 2015]. Ferries provide a safe and reliable link across 

bodies of water for commuters in major metropolitan areas where tunnels and bridges are not available or

traffic is congested. Additionally, ferries can support emergency evacuations of metropolitan areas when 

other transportation networks are inundated, gridlocked, or otherwise non-functional. According to the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there were 231 ferry operators across 37 states and territories in 2009.

It is estimated that U.S. ferries carried close to 103 million passengers and over 37 million vehicles in 

2009 [RITA 2009]. In New York City, the Staten Island Ferry carries approximately 70,000 passengers 

on a typical weekday [NYC DOT 2015].

Figure 13-5: Flooding in 1993 closed the Chester 

County Airport and moved planes (Source: Photo 

by Andrea Booher [FEMA 2014b])
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

95

Water transportation systems are, by nature, located in vulnerable areas. Port placement and design can 

reduce vulnerability to some hazards or reduce recovery time. Early warning systems for ship owners and 

port authorities give facilities and watercraft time to prepare or evacuate [The World Bank 2012]. 

Hurricanes and other heavy precipitation events 

can lead to extreme flooding and overtopping 

and damage to structures, dislodge containers 

(Figure 13-6), undermine foundations, and 

destroy buildings outright. Hazardous chemical 

and oil spills are also a risk. Flooding can also 

deposit silt and debris, which may restrict or 

close navigable channels. 

Overwhelmed or failed drainage systems can 

lead to flooding in areas that would otherwise 

be unaffected by storm surge or riverine 

flooding. This vulnerability may be caused by 

existing infrastructure that has inadequate 

capacity. High winds associated with these 

types of events can damage critical equipment, 

such as cranes and structures [URS 2012]. 

Port managers reported after Hurricane Sandy 

that storm surge caused the significant damage. 

The storm surge, combined with debris, slammed facilities and equipment and made road and rail access 

impossible. Administrative offices located on the first floors of buildings were shut down, resulting in a 

loss of port management. In addition, flooding damaged new technology, such as electric motors to move 

cranes. The loss of electric power affected night lighting for operations, nuclear detection for incoming 

and outgoing cargo, and traffic signals around the port. When power did return in stages, the grid voltage 

combined with generators running a few critical systems repeatedly tripped circuit breakers. In parking 

lots, approximately 16,000 cars belonging to cruise passengers were flooded. Piers and wharves 

performed well, because they are designed to withstand a ship impact laterally and the weight of a 

shipping container vertically, which are forces that far exceed loads imposed by the storm. Although there 

was no loss of life at the ports during the storm, this event illustrated how a number of systems can be 

damaged that affect operations during or after a hazard event. Details like moving offices to the second

floor, raising crane motors or constructing watertight housing for them, and having a system for recovery 

coordination with key utilities can make a huge difference [Wakeman 2013].

Drought can also stress shipping routes and maritime infrastructure. Inland waterways are particularly 

susceptible to drought. As water recedes during a drought, the navigable portion of a waterway may be 

restricted or completely cut off, which creates congestion for shipping traffic [U.S. FTA 2013]. Even 

when drought-affected waterways remain navigable, reduced depth may require vessels to reduce loads 

and speed, which hampers efficiency and increases shipping costs. Drought can also threaten commercial 

and municipal infrastructure that is specifically designed for fresh water. As freshwater discharge from a 

river‘s mouth decreases, coastal salt water may enter upstream freshwater areas, and corrode 

infrastructure [Elliott 2013].

Sea level rise (SLR) can potentially cause severe damage or loss of functionality to maritime 

infrastructure. Globally, the sea level is estimated to rise by 178 to 584 mm (7 to 23 inches) by 2099. As 

SLR combines with high tides or storm surge events, there is an increasing threat to port infrastructure. 

Resulting changes in sediment movement may lead to siltation along channel entrances, affecting 

accessibility for some ships. The risk of corrosion increases as more infrastructure comes into contact 

with the water. Susceptibility to scour and flooding may be exacerbated by SLR [Wakeman 2013].

Figure 13-6: Shipping containers are displaced by 

high winds and storm surge following Katrina in 

2005. (Source: Photo by Win Henderson [FEMA 

2014e])
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

96

As with other transportation modes, there are dependencies on other infrastructure systems. For example, 

road and rail infrastructure transport goods and people to and from ports and harbors to their final 

destination. Ferries can provide a temporary replacement for bridge infrastructure. However, the lack of 

docking requirement standardization limits the transferability of vessels and infrastructure to support 

efforts following a hazard event.

Inland waterways in the U.S. move large volumes of bulk cargo through a system of rivers and lakes 

interconnected by locks. As shown in Figure 13-7, one barge, which can carry 1,500 tons of cargo, moves 

the equivalent tonnage of 13.4 jumbo freight rail hopper cars or 58 large semi-trucks. A large barge tow, 

consisting of 15 barges, can transport the equivalent of 870 large semi-trucks. When the inland waterways 

flood or there is a bridge collapse blocking a key river on their route, there is tremendous delay to bulk 

cargo movement that cannot be made up by other modes of freight transportation.

Figure 13-7: Iowa DOT comparison chart

Inland navigable waterways are crucial to the health of the U.S. trade economy. Shallow draft navigation 

(e.g., barges) serves 87 % of all major U.S. cities, which accounts for 79 % of all domestic waterborne 

freight [MARAD 2015]. In 2005, inland waterways handled over 624 million tons of freight valued over 

$70 billion [Kruse et al. 2007]. The U.S. Maritime Administration estimates that if inland waterways 

became unavailable for transport, truck traffic on rural highways would increase by approximately 33 %

(58 million truck trips annually) and rail transport, by tonnage, would increase by 25 %. Increases of these

magnitudes would put tremendous stress on land-based infrastructure, resulting in increased maintenance 

costs, fuel consumption, congestion, and decreased safety. As waterways are maintained and improved, 

resilience to lasting drought conditions should be a chief consideration in affected areas of the country. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

97

13.2.5. Pipelines

Pipelines are a key component of the U.S. transportation and energy supply infrastructure, delivering 

natural gas, crude oil, refined products such as gasoline and diesel, and natural gas liquids such as ethane 

and propane. Because the engineering standards for pipeline safety and design are administered by the 

U.S. Department of Transportation‘s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 

pipelines that transport natural gas and liquid fuels are discussed here as part of the transportation system. 

The regulation and enforcement of safety for all types of pipelines are the responsibility of the PHMSA. 

A combination of federal, state, and local agencies are responsible for siting pipelines and their economic 

regulation (e.g., rates and tariffs). 

Pipelines are generally grouped into three categories based on function: gathering (small pipelines in an 

oil or gas production area), transmission (larger, longer pipelines transporting products from supply areas 

to market areas), and distribution (pipelines delivering the product to residential, commercial or industrial 

end users). Including both onshore and offshore lines, there are approximately 482,000 km (300,000 

miles) of natural gas transmission pipelines, and 3.4 million km (2.1 million miles) of distribution 

pipelines delivering over 730 million cubic meters (26 billion cubic feet) of natural gas. Over 306,000 km 

(190,000 miles) of liquids pipeline delivered nearly 15 billion barrels of crude oil and petroleum products 

in 2013. Over the last 10 years, liquids pipeline has increased by 41,404 km (25,727 miles) or 15.4 %, 

with crude oil pipeline mileage growing 18,744 km (11,647 miles) or 23.6 % since 2004 [AOPL 2014].

Pipelines connect to compression and pumping stations, processing 

facilities, production platforms, wells, storage facilities and end 

users, such as power plants and residential or commercial customers. 

Disruptions of the pipeline system by hazards complicate, hinder, 

and prolong response and recovery by communities. 

Pipelines and associated aboveground facilities are vulnerable to 

damage by flooding and storm surge, impact from flood or 

windborne debris, and movement of land both on and offshore 

(earthquakes, subsidence, mudslides). Impacts to, or movement of, a 

pipeline can cause the line to rupture and spill contents into the soil 

or a body of water, or some products may ignite or explode. 

Cascading effects of pipeline disruptions include delays and fuel 

supply loss for the transportation system and natural gas to the 

energy infrastructure. Such losses can affect 1) the movement of 

responders and goods into affected areas and 2) power distribution to 

residents, businesses, and industry.

Hurricanes can laterally displace or expose buried offshore pipes, 

which can cause leaks at clamps, welds, flanges, and fittings, and 

can cause pipes to be pulled apart and rupture. Earthquakes can 

damage pipes by ground deformation – landslides, liquefaction and 

lateral movement of pipes – and by ground wave propagation or 

ground shaking [Ballantyne 2008]. Such displacements and forces 

can result in pipe compression or wrinkling, and cracking and separation at joints, welds, flanges, and 

fittings [Ballantyne 2008].

Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage to offshore natural gas facilities that resulted in releases of 

gas from pipelines in 72 locations [DNV 2007]. Damage to fuel refining and natural gas processing 

facilities from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in a loss of about 8 % of the nation‘s capability to 

refine and process fuels, which significantly reduced the domestic supply [DNV 2007]. In addition, the 

Figure 13-8: Natural gas crew 

shuts off gas after Hurricane 

Sandy. [Source: Liz Roll, 

FEMA 2012]
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

98

damage also caused the equivalent of nearly an 11 % loss of an average day‘s total gas consumption for 

the entire country [DNV 2007]. 

By comparison, Hurricane Sandy damaged petroleum refineries, not pipelines. Because the refineries 

were offline, petroleum movement was significantly slowed in the pipelines to compensate for the loss of 

the supporting facilities. Fuel supplies were reduced from the Gulf Coast up the East Coast to New Jersey 

and New York, creating a supply chain problem in New Jersey and New York. Yet, the facility damage 

did not result in the long-term effects that the damage from Hurricane Katrina caused in 2005 [EIA 2012]. 

The Northridge (1994), Washington State (1997), 

and the Napa, California (2014) earthquakes 

damaged pipelines for natural gas. The damage led 

to a fire (Northridge, Napa) and an explosion 

(Washington State), causing additional property 

damage [Ballantyne 2008]. Figure 13-9 shows an

example of property damage caused by fire from 

broken gas lines.

The PHMSA identified five areas for local 

governments to develop mitigation strategies to 

improve protection of pipelines and increase the 

resiliency of the transmission system: 1) pipeline 

awareness (education and outreach), 2) pipeline 

mapping, 3) excavation damage prevention, 4) land 

use and development planning near transmission 

pipelines, and 5) emergency response to pipeline 

emergencies [PHMSA 2013]. Identifying pipeline locations and entering the information into the National 

Pipeline Mapping System is part of Step 2, characterizing the built environment (see Volume 1). 

Knowing where pipelines are located is important to comprehensive resilience planning. Design or 

placement of pipes to avoid liquefaction zones, seismic faults, areas of subsidence, and floodplains are 

only possible if the pipeline location and the hazards are known and mapped. Similarly, local government 

can create a buffer zone around pipelines to provide an additional margin of safety for nearby residents 

and businesses and to provide improved access for repair or emergency response equipment. Structural 

mitigation measures can help to mitigate seismic damage, such as replacing older pipes with modern steel 

piping and electric arc welded joints, avoiding use of anchors to allow the pipe movement with the 

ground, applying a coating or covering to minimize soil friction and improve pipe movement, installing 

an automated control system for quick shutdown of damaged pipeline systems, and constructing parallel 

pipelines to add redundancy in the system [Ballantyne 2008].

The American Lifelines Association [ALA 2005] identified the high-level performance metrics for 

pipeline systems shown in Table 13-1. A qualitative ranking of hazards to typical pipeline system 

components and facilities from the ALA [2005] study is reproduced in Table 13-2.

It should be noted that over the last several years, cybersecurity issues for pipeline systems have become 

an increased concern. Federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, work with 

companies to improve security of computer-based pipeline control systems.

Figure 13-9: Fire damage from broken gas lines 

[Source: Christopher Mardorf, FEMA 2014]
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

99

Table 13-1: The American Lifelines Association high-level performance metrics for pipeline systems

[Adapted from ALA 2005]

Desired Outcomes 

(Performance Goals)

System Performance Metrics

Capital 

Losses ($)

Revenue 

Losses ($)

Service Disruption 

(% Service 

Population)

Downtime 

(hours)

Casualties 

(Deaths, 

Injuries)

Lost 

Product

Protect public and utility 

personnel safety X X

Maintain system reliability X X

Prevent monetary loss X X X X X

Prevent environmental damage X
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

100

Table 13-2: Qualitative Ranking of Hazard Vulnerability for Typical Pipeline System Components and 

Facilities [Adapted from ALA 2005]

Hazards

Degree of Vulnerability

Transmission PipelinesPump StationsCompressor StationsProcessing FacilitiesStorage TanksControl SystemsMaintenance Operations Buildings and EquipmentPressure Regulations / Metering StationsDistribution PipelinesService Lines or Connections

Natural Hazards

Earthquake Shaking L M M M H M H L L M

Earthquake Permanent Ground 

Deformations (fault rupture, 

liquefaction, landslide and 

settlement)

H - - - L - - L H 

(Buried)

M

Ground Movements (landslide, 

frost heave, settlement)

H - - - L - - L H 

(Buried)

M

Flooding (riverine, storm surge, 

tsunami and seiche)

L H H H M H H H L M

Wind (hurricane, tornado) L 

(Aerial)

- - - - L L - - -

Icing L - - - - - - - L -

Collateral Hazard: Blast or Fire M H H H H M L L L M

Collateral Hazard: Dam 

Inundation

L H H H M H H H L M

Collateral Hazard: Nearby 

Collapse

- L L L - L L L M L

Human Threats

Physical Attack (biological, 

chemical, radiological and blast)

M M M M - M M - M -

Cyber Attack - L L L - H L - L -

Note: Degrees of vulnerability: H = High, M = Moderate, L = Low. When a component or system is located within a 

building, the vulnerability of both the building and component should be considered. For example, where there is a 

potential for building collapse or mandatory evacuation, the equipment housed within is at risk. The entries in this 

table assume that the component was constructed after 1945.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

101

13.3. Performance Goals

Performance goals for the transportation system should align with the broader community goals 

established (see Step 3, Determine goals and objectives in Volume 1). Key stakeholders within the 

community, including owners, engineers, planners, regulators, codes and standards representatives, and 

representatives of other infrastructure systems (e.g., power and water/wastewater) should help develop or 

review the performance goals. Transportation system users may include commuters, school districts, 

emergency response services, local businesses, and other private and commercial property owners. 

Transportation stakeholders may include state DOT, city DOT, township engineer, transit authorities, 

highway authorities, airport authorities, Amtrak, freight and short line railroads, independent taxi, bus, 

marine, airline and truck operators, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), FHWA, Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), United States Coast Guard (USCG), state, city and township code officials, American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), American Railway Engineering and 

Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA), state, city and township Office of Emergency Medical 

Services (EMS). 

For transportation systems, it is imperative that other infrastructure systems be involved in establishing 

the performance goals, because they have strong dependencies on transportation systems, as discussed in 

Section 13.1.2. For example, both overhead and underground distribution lines for power and 

communication systems are often within the right-of-way of roads and bridges, thus are subject to DOT 

requirements. Water, gas, and wastewater utilities may also have buried lines within the road right-ofway. Passenger and light rail systems are heavily reliant on energy systems. 

The example performance goals table in Table 13-3 allows communities to summarize the desired (future) 

and anticipated (current) performance of transportation systems for the hazard event specified in the 

Disturbance table (top left table in Table 13-3). Performance goals in this Guide are defined as ―time to 

recovery of function‖ after a hazard event. Example performance goals for the fictional community of 

Riverbend, USA, are provided Volume I. These example performance goals are intended to illustrate the 

six-step process. 

The example table for performance goals has three functional categories for general transportation 

services that support ingress, egress, and community resilience. Ingress refers to transportation of goods, 

services and first responders into a community immediately after a hazard event and in the period of 

rebuilding and recovery. Egress refers to the need to evacuate the population before and immediately after 

a hazard event. The transportation network must be viable and able to provide safe egress for all people

located in the affected community. Community recovery addresses transportation systems that support 

recovery of building clusters and other community needs. For example, segments of the transportation 

network will need to provide passage to the critical facilities directly after an event. Additional segments 

will need to support businesses when they re-open several days or weeks later. 

Recovery times are broken down into three main phases: short-term, intermediate, and long-term. The 

short-term phase (0-3 days) supports immediate recovery of the community. The intermediate recovery 

phase (1-12 weeks) supports the return of individuals and businesses to their daily functions. The longterm recovery phase (4-36+ months) supports the need to rebuild, retrofit, and strengthen the 

transportation network.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

102

Table 13-3: Example transportation infrastructure performance goals table to be filled out by a 

community and its stakeholders

Disturbance 1 Restoration Levels 2,3

Hazard Type Any 30% Function Restored

Hazard Level Routine, Design, Extreme 60% Function Restored

Affected Area Localized, Community, Regional 90% Function Restored

Disruption Level Usual, Moderate, Severe X Anticipated Performance

Transportation Infrastructure Support 

Needed4

Design Hazard Performance

Phase 1

Short-Term

Phase 2

Intermediate

Phase 3

Long-Term

Days Weeks Months

0 1 1-3 1-4 4-8 8-12 4 4-24 24+

Ingress (goods, services, disaster relief)

Local Roads, Bridges and Tunnels

State Highways, Bridges and Tunnels

National Highways, Bridges and Tunnels

Regional Airport

National/International Airport

Military Airports

Marine Port

Ferry Terminal

Subway Station

Rail Stations

Egress (emergency egress, evacuation, etc.)

Local Roads, Bridges and Tunnels

State Highways, Bridges and Tunnels

National Highways, Bridges and Tunnels

Regional Airport

National/Int'l Airport

Military Airports

Subway Station

Ferry Terminal

Rail Stations

Community Recovery

Critical Facilities

Hospitals

Police and Fire Stations

Emergency Operational Centers

Emergency Housing

Residences

Emergency Responder Housing

Public Shelters

Housing/Neighborhoods

Essential City Service Facilities

Schools

Medical Provider Offices

Retail

Community Recovery

Residences

Neighborhood retail

Offices and work places

Non-emergency City Services

All businesses

Footnotes:

1 Specify hazard type being considered

Specify hazard level – Routine, Design, Extreme

Specify the anticipated size of the area affected – Local, Community, Regional

Specify anticipated severity of disruption – Minor, Moderate, Severe

2 30% 60% 90% Desired restoration times for percentage of elements within the cluster

3 X Anticipated performance for 90 % restoration of cluster for existing buildings and infrastructure systems 

Cluster recovery times will be shown on the Summary Matrix

4 Indicate levels of support anticipated by plan

R = Regional; S= State; MS=Multi-State; C = Civil (Corporate/Local)
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

103

Each community should identify and plan for prevailing hazards that may have significant negative 

impact on the built environment. A full discussion of hazard types and level is given in Chapter 4 

(Volume I).

The affected area of a given hazard event, which often depends on the type and intensity of the hazard, is 

identified to support resilience planning. For example, earthquake and hurricanes typically have large 

affected areas, whereas tornadoes and tsunamis have relatively small affected areas. The affected area 

indicates the extent of potential damage by the hazard event, including surrounding communities, which 

will impact the duration of the recovery process. 

The disruption level, on the other hand, is a general estimate of potential disruption to the existing 

transportation infrastructure system as a whole, and should be specified as minor, moderate, or severe. 

Table 13-4 provides an example performance goals table for pipelines. The pipeline systems most likely 

to affect a community are distribution systems for liquid fuels and natural gas, rather than production or 

transmission systems. Because natural gas and oil serve similar functions as electric power in the 

residential and commercial markets, the functional categories listed in Table 13-4 are essentially the same 

as the corresponding performance goal tables for electric transmission and distribution systems in Chapter 

13.

To establish performance goals for transportation systems, it is necessary to prioritize the transportation 

systems and components that support the desired community response and recovery based on its role in 

the community. The ability of each system to effectively serve its function is a balance of the volume of 

people or goods that the system can move and its interface with the local community it serves. For 

example, highways are designed as networks for evacuation and egress. Local streets feed state county 

routes, which feed state highways, which feed interstate highways. The capacity of each branch is 

commensurate with the demand. If a local street is blocked, a detour to another street can be found and 

the impact on traffic congestion is small. If a major interstate highway is blocked, the consequences are 

more significant because detour routes will be needed for large traffic volumes.

In turn, highway design standards are most stringent for interstate highways because they are critical for 

movement of people and goods. They are graded to be above flood plains, trees are cut back from the 

shoulders, rock slopes are well back of shoulders, and they are well maintained. State highways are next 

in the level of performance standards and numbered county routes follow.

When establishing performance goals for transportation system infrastructure, adherence to state, federal 

and industry standards may pose some limitations. In most cases, design standards and specifications for 

transportation infrastructure establish minimum requirements that can be exceeded. However, in some 

states, legislation prevents local jurisdictions from exceeding state standards and specifications.

Each performance improvement has an associated financial cost, timetable, and possible inconvenience to 

the community to modify existing infrastructure. Obtaining funds from the state or federal government 

will require supporting documentation to establish community benefits that justify the cost expenditures. 

Solutions that serve the interests of multiple stakeholders and lead to win-win situations are more likely to 

gain widespread community support and the support of elected officials.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

104

Table 13-4: Example pipelines performance goals table to be filled out by community and its 

stakeholders

Disturbance 1 Restoration Levels 2,3

Hazard Type Any 30% Function Restored

Hazard Level Routine, Design, Extreme 60% Function Restored

Affected Area Localized, Community, Regional 90% Function Restored

Disruption Level Usual, Moderate, Severe X Anticipated Performance

Pipelines Support 

Needed4

Design Hazard Performance

Phase 1

Short-Term

Phase 2

Intermediate

Phase 3

Long-Term

Days Weeks Months

0 1 1-3 1-4 4-8 8-12 4 4-24 24+

Distribution

Critical Response Facilities and Support Systems

Hospitals, Police and Fire Stations

Emergency Operations Centers

Debris/recycling centers

Related lifeline systems

Emergency Housing and Support Systems

Public Shelters (General Population, Animal, etc.)

Food distribution centers

Nursing homes, transitional housing

Emergency shelter for response/recovery workforce

Related lifeline systems

Housing and Neighborhood infrastructure

Essential city services facilities

Schools

Medical provider offices

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)

Community Recovery Infrastructure 

Residential housing restoration

Commercial and industrial businesses

Non-emergency city services

Community Recovery Infrastructure 

Residential housing restoration

Commercial and industrial businesses

Non-emergency city services

Related lifeline systems

Footnotes:

1 Specify hazard type being considered

Specify hazard level – Routine, Design, Extreme

Specify the anticipated size of the area affected – Local, Community, Regional

Specify anticipated severity of disruption – Minor, Moderate, Severe

2 30% 60% 90% Desired restoration times for percentage of elements within the cluster

3 X Anticipated performance for 90 % restoration of cluster for existing buildings and infrastructure systems 

Cluster recovery times will be shown on the Summary Matrix

4 Indicate levels of support anticipated by plan

R = Regional; S= State; MS=Multi-State; C = Civil (Corporate/Local)
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

105

Similarly, highway bridges and road tunnels are part of the highway infrastructure and cannot be 

prioritized separately from the highway they connect. Bridges on interstate highways are more important 

than bridges on state highways and county routes when it comes to egress and ingress. Bridges or tunnels 

that are part of a subway or rail system that relies on them cannot be prioritized separately.

The logic for prioritizing roadways may be extended to all transportation infrastructure serving a 

community. The following transportation systems and their role in supporting community functions are 

summarized for consideration when setting transportation system performance goals:

1. Evacuation routes and emergency access routes are designated to function as a network that 

transfers vehicles from local streets, to county routes, state highways, and interstate highways, 

moving travelers to higher ground or away from other hazards, such as a nuclear power plant. 

Highways may have intelligent transportation systems (ITS) to alert travelers of travel times, 

detours, and potential traffic congestion that can be avoided. ITS devices like cameras, sensors 

and variable message signs let traffic command centers communicate with travelers in vehicles to 

direct them. Evacuation plans may reverse the direction of highways, so all travel lanes are 

outbound, away from the hazard.

2. Interstate highways are constructed to higher standards and carry the highest volume of vehicles, 

which makes them critical in the road system.

3. State highways are important for similar reasons to those listed above.

4. Numbered county routes (numbered parts of complete systems).

5. Pipelines serving energy systems in the community. In the short-term phase, ruptured natural gas, 

fuel, water, and wastewater lines need to be repaired to support recovery.

6. Buses use all the highway routes described above. Bus fleets should be protected, fueled, and 

strategically located and staged to support egress. They can move the greatest volumes of people, 

especially those in communities who do not own vehicles. In the short-term phase, they can also 

move the largest volume of relief and recovery workers to an area. In evacuation planning, it is

preferable that people who do not have access to automobiles use buses instead of taxis or livery 

vehicles, since it results in less highway congestion.

7. In large cities, subway mass transit systems are generally designed to collect commuters traveling 

to the city center from their local communities via walking, bicycle, bus, regional rail, park and 

ride lots, and livery vehicles. Subway lines also connect at transfer stations, which serve as hubs 

to allow commuters to get to the specific destination station closest to where they work. At the 

end of the business day, they perform these functions in reverse. Subway systems are capable of 

moving large volumes of people for egress purposes away from a hazard in the city center. When 

used for ingress purposes, the subway routes will likely allow passengers to use transfer stations 

to reach a point close to their destinations if their normal destination station is closed. Subways 

may not be useful for egress or ingress for events other than those described here. For this reason,

they follow buses in priority.

8. Light rail transit systems often link communities, the town center, and other modes of 

transportation, such as airports or passenger rail stations. They transport much lower volumes of 

passengers at lower speeds than mass transit systems, but provide more frequent service with 

shorter headways between trains. In general, light rail systems are not as resilient as other rail 

systems. They do not operate in high winds and have problems with icing, since they are either 

powered by overhead electric catenaries or have electric bus bars similar to, but less robust than, 

third rails.

9. Regional rail is generally designed to collect commuters traveling to the city center from local 

suburban communities via local stations or distribute them in the reverse direction. Travel to 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

106

stations is by automobile, taxi, livery car, walking, or bicycle. Some stations are hubs with larger 

park and ride lots or garages. Regional rail usually feeds a multimodal train terminal station in the 

city or town center where passengers extend their trip to their ultimate destination by intercity 

rail, subway, bus transit systems, or taxis. Examples of regional rail are Penn Station in New 

York City and Union Station in Washington, DC. Regional rail can serve for egress or ingress; 

however, travelers evacuating from the suburbs need to know if other transportation systems they 

rely on for connections are functioning.

10. Intercity rail, such as Amtrak, can be used for egress of travelers who need to return to their 

community, or residents evacuating to other communities. In the ingress mode, it can bring 

recovery workers from distant cities unaffected by the hazard event. Intercity rail stations are 

generally in the town center or city center and are well connected to the regional rail or local 

subway or bus transit system with taxi and rental car service.

11. Freight rail lines connect to major distribution centers in inland cities and to major port facilities 

on the coasts. Use for egress would include removal of debris and refuse. Use for ingress would 

include recovery supplies, bulk cargo, and heavy equipment.

12. National or international airports can be used by travelers returning home, or community 

residents evacuating to other cities. In the ingress mode, they can receive large volumes of 

emergency aid as air cargo and bring recovery workers from large distances unaffected by the 

hazard event. Airports are generally well connected to the regional highway network, which is 

likely to be the first local transportation system functioning after a hazard event. They may also 

be connected to regional rail, subway systems, or light rail systems.

13. Regional airports can function similar to national or international airports to serve communities 

that are outside of large cities. The highway networks that support these airports should be sized 

according to the lower volumes of cargo and passengers they transport.

14. Marine ports are comprised of docks, waterways, locks, and supporting upland facilities, which 

include cargo storage and distribution centers, cargo and container cranes, intermodal freight rail 

yards, and truck transfer and inspection facilities. Egress at these facilities involves scheduling 

large container ships and cargo vessels to divert to other ports, and diverting rail and truck 

exports to other ports. Ingress for recovery supplies and bulk and container cargo can only take 

place after restoration of the docks, waterways, locks, supporting upland facilities, and the 

connecting highways and rail yards.

15. Large ferry vessels move significant volumes of people across bodies of water that otherwise 

would require long travel distances by other modes of transportation. Examples are the ferry 

system in San Francisco and the Staten Island Ferry in New York City. They can perform this 

function well on an emergency basis for egress or ingress. Their operation, however, is limited in 

storm conditions when they are required to shut down. Large ferry systems have robust ferry 

terminal docking systems that are less likely to suffer damage during an expected storm event; 

however, in more extreme storm events they may suffer significant damage. 

16. Ferry terminals for smaller vessels carrying lower volumes of travelers do not have a big impact 

on egress, except where they may serve waterfront communities that are otherwise isolated 

(island communities). In addition, during the recovery phases, temporary ferry operations can be 

quickly established to serve communities cut off by bodies of water after the wash out of roads 

and bridges.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

107

13.4. Regulatory Environment

Multiple regulatory bodies at various levels of government (federal, state, and local) have authority over 

the transportation system. The transportation system is not regulated by a single regulatory body, even 

within a single transportation mode. This section discusses regulatory bodies of transportation 

infrastructure at the federal, state, and local levels.

Federal. Federal regulatory agencies oversee transportation networks and methods of transportation used

within those networks. These agencies promulgate policies and regulations to maintain the safety and 

security of the infrastructure and its operations. The transportation industry is overseen by a number of 

regulatory agencies that assess and monitor the diverse transportation systems, methods, and operating 

environments. Chapter 15 on water and wastewater systems covers environmental aspects including 

water, air quality, and waste management and sites environmental acts pertaining to regulations. 

Table 13-5 summarizes the methods of transportation used, typical ownership (private or public), and the 

oversight authorities involved in their regulation. Table 13-6 lists the role of key Federal agencies that 

oversee the transportation industry.

Regional, State, and Local. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) were encouraged to review the 

safety and security of their regional transportation network following the enactment of the Safe 

Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005.

FHWA funded and encouraged MPOs across the U.S. to look into ways to foster safety and security 

planning, including resilience efforts, in the long-term capital plans that MPOs develop and fund. 

Roads, Bridges, Highways, and Road Tunnels. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP21) is a bill signed into law in July 2012 [FHWA 2015b]. MAP-21 makes funds available for studies

related to the effects of weather and natural hazards, to improve the dissemination of research products, to 

accelerate deployment of new technologies, and to ensure existing programs are informed and updated. 

MAP-21 requires the U.S. DOT to create a bureau that will oversee a national transportation library, an 

advisory council on transportation statistics, and a national database. The bill gives the option for 

developing a national data center for transportation agencies, including weather related information and 

the development of codes and standards.

Air. The FAA regulates commercial service airports under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 14 

CFR Part 139, Certification of Airports. This regulation prescribes rules governing the certification and 

operation of airports in any U.S. state, the District of Columbia, or any U.S. territory or possession 

providing scheduled passenger service of an aircraft configured for more than 9 passenger seats. Advisory 

Circulars (AC) contain methods and procedures that certificate holders use to comply with the 

requirements of Part 139. 

FAA AC 150/5200-31C, Airport Emergency Plan, provides guidance to the airport operator in the 

development and implementation of an Airport Emergency Plan (AEP) that should address essential 

actions in the event of possible emergencies, including natural hazards. The guidance includes mitigation, 

such as zoning and earthquake-resistant construction, as an important component of comprehensive 

emergency management.

Ports, Harbors, and Waterways. State regulatory agencies oversee the ports, harbors, and waterways. 

Coastal Zone Management Federal Consistency is a process that requires federal agencies to follow state 

coastal management policies when conducting a project or issuing a permit that could affect coastal 

resources. It also enables increased coordination between government agencies. 

Natural hazard mitigation may be addressed by local regulations, independent of the codes and standards 

selected. These regulations would apply to a project, such as a pier or bulkhead, whether it is proposed as 

part of development of upland property or to protect upland property from sea level rise for an extended 

period. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

108

Table 13-5: Transportation infrastructure ownership and governing regulatory agencies

IndustryInfrastructure

Type Method of 

Transportation

PublicPrivate

Oversight Authority

DHSFEMANTSBUSDOTFRAFTATSAFMCSAFHWAUSCGEPAFAA1+ state agencies

Surface Transport

Rail

Passenger Inter-City Rail 

(Amtrak)

X X X X X X X X

Commuter Rail X X X X X X X X X X

Subway X X X X X X X X

Light Rail X X X X X X X X

Inclined Plane X X X X X X X X

Trolley/ Cable Car X X X X X X X X

Freight Class 1 Freight Carriers X X X X X X X X

Roads, Bridges and Tunnels

Passenger Inter-City Motor coach X X X X X X X X X

Intra-City Bus/Motor 

coach

X X X X X X X X X X X

Paratransit/ Jitneys X X X X X X X X X X X

Taxis X X X X X X X X X X

Personal Cars X X X

Freight Commercial Trucking X X X X X X X X

Maritime

Passenger Ocean Lines X X X X X X X

Ferries X X X X X X X X X X X

Commercial Boats X X X X X X X

Personal Boats X X X X X X X

Freight Freighters X X X X X X X X X

Barges X X X X X X X X X

AirAir

Passenger Commercial Airplanes X X X X X X X

Blimps X X X X X X X

Drones X X X X X X X X

Freight Commercial Air Freight X X X X X X X
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

109

Table 13-6: Role of transportation oversight agency

Agency Role and Website

U.S Department of 

Transportation (DOT)

Provides oversight of transportation networks. It includes agencies such as FHWA, 

FTA, FRA, FAA, Surface Transportation Board, and Maritime Administration 

(www.dot.gov).

Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA)

Supports state and local governments in the design, construction and maintenance 

of the roadway system (www.fhwa.dot.gov).

Federal Transit Admiration 

(FTA)

Provides financial and technical support to local public transit systems 

(www.fta.dot.gov).

Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA)

Oversees heavy rail freight, commuter and inter-city passenger rail systems 

(www.fra.dot.gov).

Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA)

Oversees all civil aviation in the country (www.faa.gov)

Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA)

Prevents the intentional destruction or disablement of all transportation modes. 

Imposes security oversight and regulation in aviation, highway, mass transit, 

passenger and freight rail, pipeline and maritime where it shares oversight with the 

U.S. Coast Guard (www.tsa.gov).

Federal Emergency 

Management Agency 

(FEMA)

Coordinates the response to a disaster that has occurred in the United States and 

that overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities, and supports planning 

to reduce vulnerabilities (www.fema.gov).

United States Coast Guard 

(USCG)

Oversees safety and security of national waterways, including commercial freight 

and passenger service, and public transportation such as municipal ferry service, 

boaters, and kayakers (www.uscg.mil).

United States Corp of 

Engineers (USACE)

Provides support in the emergency operation and restoration of inland waterways, 

ports, and harbors under the supervision of DOD/USACE, including dredging 

operations and assists in restoring the transportation infrastructure 

(www.usace.army.mil).

United States 

Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA)

Protects human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations 

based on laws passed by Congress (www.epa.gov). 

Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Administration 

(PHMSA)

Identifies and evaluates safety risks, develops and enforces standards for 

transporting hazardous materials and for the design, construction, operation, and 

maintenance of pipelines carrying natural gas or hazardous liquids.

(www.phmsa.dot.gov).

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC)

Oversees the transmission and wholesale of electricity and natural gas in interstate 

commerce and regulates the transportation of oil by pipeline in interstate commerce 

(www.ferc.gov).
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

110

Pipelines. The nation‘s pipeline safety programs are overseen by Congress and administered by PHMSA. 

However, PHMSA delegates the majority of these responsibilities for intrastate (generally the gathering 

and distribution pipelines) lines to the states. PHMSA retains the role as primary safety inspector for 

interstate pipelines (generally, the transmission pipelines), except in 11 states (Arizona, California, 

Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Washington, Virginia, and West Virginia). 

State pipeline safety personnel represent more than 75 % of the state/federal inspection workforce, 

although state employees account for less than 40 % of the federal pipeline safety budget. This means that 

the bulk of the safety and inspection responsibility lies at the state level. Under existing law, states opt 

into this relationship with PHMSA. If a state decides not to participate, PHMSA does the safety 

inspection on its own. At present, this applies only to Alaska and Hawaii.

All state programs must certify to DOT that they will adopt regulations that are as stringent as the Federal 

Pipeline Safety Regulations. States are allowed to adopt pipeline safety regulations that are stricter than 

federal government regulations and the overwhelming majority of states do have more stringent 

requirements. State regulations were developed over the years based on specific results of state

inspections, changing public priorities, and increased safety expectations of the local public. A 2013 

report issued by the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), with assistance 

and support from the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), found that 

most states have adopted pipeline safety regulations more stringent than the federal regulations. The 

report also contains a compendium of state regulations and identifies those that exceed federal 

requirements. [NAPSR 2013]. 

PHMSA has separate safety and design standards for natural gas and liquids pipelines (49 CFR Part 192 

for natural gas and 49 CFR Part 195 for liquids). The regulations also provide guidance for proper 

management and operation of these pipelines.

13.5. Standards and Codes

Codes and standards are used by the transportation industry to establish minimum acceptable criteria for 

design and construction. Although adoption of codes is important, enforcement is a key factor in ensuring 

compliance of the built environment with codes and standards. The following sections discuss some of 

the standards and codes for each transportation system: 

Transportation Facilities. Stations, terminals, maintenance facilities, substations, cargo storage facilities, 

and other buildings supporting the transportation system are governed by adopted state and local building 

codes, which are often based on model codes. Many cities and states are adopting international model 

building codes. More information on codes and applicable standards is found in Chapter 12 (Buildings).

Roads, Bridges, Highways, and Road Tunnels. AASHTO is a standards-setting body that publishes 

specifications, test protocols, and guidelines used in highway and bridge design and construction 

throughout the United States. AASHTO specifications for the design of bridges consider waterfront 

effects, since bridges often span waterways. Hence, the provisions of these specifications are often used in 

the design of similar waterfront structures. 

Rail. The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) authors a 

Manual for Railway Engineering (MRE) [AREMA 2015a], and a Communications and Signals Manual, 

among other guides. The MRE is updated annually with new design standards for fixed railway.

Air. For airports, FAA can accept state standards for construction materials and methods. Under certain 

conditions, the use of state dimensional standards that differ from the standards in FAA Advisory 

Circulars are acceptable for federally obligated or certificated airports.

Many communities have zoning ordinances, building codes, and fire regulations that may place additional 

requirements on airport development and operations. For example, if a new hangar or other structure is to 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

111

be built at an existing airport, approval and/or permits must be received from the local building 

department or planning authority. For example, the Borough of Lincoln Park, New Jersey has strict storm 

water management requirements due to high flood hazard potential.

The FAA issues advisories that govern engineering, design, and construction standards for various 

airport-related equipment, facilities, and structures. Their Series 150 AC Library has a complete listing of 

current advisory circulars. If a project is funded wholly or partly through FAA, it will comply with these 

standards.

ACs cover standards for general airport design, specifying construction, design and installation of visual 

aids, drainage design, approach path systems, runway and taxiway pavement and lighting design, and 

planning and design guidelines for airport terminals and facilities. ACs define design criteria for most 

details of an airport‘s facilities, including terminal buildings, lighting, and navigational aids. These 

documents define standard criteria for design and construction, but do not specifically address extreme 

weather events beyond drainage construction for a 50-year storm. 

Ports, Harbors, and Waterways. In the purpose and need statement for a proposed project, the basis of 

design should state the standards and codes used, and the regulations and guidelines that apply to the 

project. Organizations that provide codes, standards, and guidelines commonly used in maritime 

infrastructure design and construction include:

 American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO)

 Permanent International Association of Navigation Congress (PIANC)

 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

 American Concrete Institute (ACI)

 U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

 American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)

 British Standards Institution (BSI)

 International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

 Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan (OCDI)

The American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, maintains ASCE 61 [2014a] Seismic Design Standard 

for Piers and Wharves, which defines a displacement-based design method to establish guidelines for 

piers and wharves to withstand the effects of earthquakes [Meng and Qu 2010].

Many organizations have guidance documents based on industry expertise to supplement codes and 

standards and to support designers.

The American Concrete Institute (ACI) developed and maintains ACI 357.3R [2014] Guide for Design 

and Construction of Waterfront and Coastal Concrete Marine Structures. This guide addresses the

durability and serviceability of concrete waterfront structures, as well as analysis techniques and design 

methodologies.

The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure [PIANC 2012] provides expert guidance, 

recommendations and technical advice for design, development, and maintenance of ports, waterways and 

coastal areas. Two guidelines of frequent interest in port design are Seismic Design Guidelines for Port 

Structures [International Navigation Association 2002b] and Guidelines for the Design of Fender Systems

[International Navigation Association 2002a].
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

112

The DoD initiated the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) program to unify all technical criteria and 

standards pertaining to planning, design, and construction of facilities, which were previously issued by 

individual Defense agencies [NIBS 2015]. They cover military harbors, coastal facilities, waterfront 

construction, and design of piers, wharves, berthing and mooring facilities. 

The USACE published an extensive library of Engineering Manuals [USACE 2015] covering the design 

of a variety of major civil works along waterways and coastal environments. The manuals, typically used 

for waterfront design, cover flood walls, navigation locks, cofferdams, and coastal design and engineering 

of revetments, seawalls and bulkheads – none of which specifically incorporate adaptation policies that 

support resilience [NYC DOT 2015].

BSI standards for waterfront construction, BSI 6349, Maritime Structures [BSI 2013], cover general 

criteria, materials, design of quay walls, jetties, dolphins, shipyards and sea locks. They also include a 

code of practice for the design of fendering and mooring systems, and design of roll-off and roll-on 

ramps, linkspans and walkways.

Pipelines. PHMSA employees participate in more than 25 national voluntary consensus standards-setting 

organizations that address pipeline design, construction, maintenance, inspection, and repair. PHMSA 

then reviews and approves standards for incorporation by reference into its regulations. PHMSA currently 

incorporates by reference all or parts of more than 60 voluntary standards and specifications developed 

and published by technical organizations, including consensus engineering standards from the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Gas 

Association, the National Fire Protection Association, and the American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) International. For example, ASME Standard B31.8S establishes risk assessment 

practices for identifying pipelines (primarily older pipelines) that could possibly be susceptible to material 

and construction-related integrity concerns. In addition, many agencies – federal, state and local – share 

responsibility for developing and enforcing other codes and standards applicable to pipeline 

infrastructure, such as erosion control requirements, noise ordinances, and building codes.

13.5.1. New Construction

Current federal and state project development guidelines require an environmental study at the early 

stages of transportation projects to identify potential environmental impacts and state/federal permitting 

requirements. The study must provide a sufficient level of understanding of the projected routing and 

locations to enable engineers and planners to identify likely impacts. 

If federal funding is used for the project, it will be subject to environmental review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [EPA 2008]. Projects go through a scoping process to establish 

general parameters of the work and the potential for impact. The scoping process leads to a Class of 

Action determination establishing whether the project is Categorically Exempt from NEPA review, or 

will need either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or the highest level of review, which is an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS requires local community input and is an important 

opportunity for the community to discuss the alignment of their resilience goals and those of the project.

With the exception of highways that are owned by either toll authorities or by public private partnerships 

and pipelines that are owned by private industry, major new transportation projects in a community will 

generally have a large portion (more than 50 %) that is federally funded by agencies such as the FAA, 

FTA, FHWA, or USCG. While the majority of new freight rail construction projects are privately funded, 

FRA supports passenger and freight railroading through a variety of grant and loan programs to improve 

safety, relieve congestion, and encourage the expansion and upgrade of passenger and freight rail 

infrastructure and services. The U.S. DOT publishes codes, standards and guidelines, such as FAA 

advisory circulars, and works in close collaboration with organizations like AASHTO and AREMA,

shown in Table 13-7 and Table 13-8.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

113

Table 13-7: Surface transport codes, standards, or guidelines

Component Organization Codes, Standards or Guideline

General AASHTO Road Design Guide, 4th Edition [AASHTO 2011b]

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition

[AASHTO 2011a]

General AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition [AASHTO 2014]

AASHTO Highway Drainage Guidelines [AASHTO 2014]

AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 4th Edition [AASHTO 

1998]

Design Standards Interstate System

A Policy on Design Standards – Interstate Systems, January 2005

FHWA Highways in the Coastal Environment, 2nd Edition [FHWA 2008]

Highways in the Coastal Environment: Assessing Extreme Events, HEC25, Volume 2 [Douglas et al. 2014]

Specific to 

Severe 

Weather/ 

Hazards

AASHTO Guide Specifications for Bridges Vulnerable to Coastal Storms [AASHTO 

2008]

Transportation Asset Management Guide [AASHTO 2013]

Integrating Extreme Weather Risk into Transportation Asset Management

[Meyer et al. 2012]

NCHRP Climate Change, Extreme Weather Events, and the Highway System

[NCHRP 2014]

FHWA Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and 

Infrastructure, The Gulf Coast Study, Phase 2, Task 3.2 [FHWA 2014]

FHWA Order 5520: Transportation System Preparedness and Resilience to 

Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events [FHWA 2014]

United States DOT 2014 DOT Climate Adaptation Plan [USDOT 2014]

U.S. Global Change 

Research Program

National Climate Assessment [US Global Change Research Program 2014]
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

114

Table 13-8: Rail surface transport codes, standards, or guidelines

Component Organization Codes, Standards or Guideline

General AREMA

Manual for Railway Engineering [AREMA 2015a]

Communications and Signals (C&S) Manual

[AREMA 2014]

Portfolio of Track Work Plans [AREMA 2014]

General AREMA

Practical Guide to Railway Engineering [AREMA 

2003]

Bridge Inspection Handbook [AREMA 2015b]

Design of Modern Steel Railway Bridges, First 

Edition [Unsworth 2010]

Specific to 

Natural Hazard 

Mitigation

AREMA None identified

AAR None identified

United States DOT 2014 DOT Climate Adaptation Plan [USDOT 2014]

U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment [US Global Change 

Research Program 2014]

Roads, Bridges, Highways, and Road Tunnels. The interstate system with roads, bridges, highways, and 

road tunnels, and virtually all other state and local roadways and bridges in the U.S. are owned and 

operated by the public sector. Toll roads are typically owned and operated by public/private partnerships, 

but are subject to the same federal and state design standards issued primarily by FHWA and state 

Departments of Transportation (DOT). State DOTs establish standards within the framework of 

AASHTO specifications and standards. AASHTO‘s most recent bridge design manual, the Load Factor 

and Resistance Design (LFRD) Bridge Design Specifications [AASHTO 2012], incorporates a risk factor 

into load bearing calculations to address effects due to deflection, cracking, fatigue, flexure, shear, 

torsion, buckling, settlement, bearing, and sliding. 

After Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina, FHWA began recommending that design of major interstate structures

in coastal regions consider a combination of wave and surge effects, as well as other site specific risks 

from coastal flood events. Additionally, FHWA also suggested that a flood frequency surge and wave 

action (500-year storm) may be appropriate to consider in some cases [Meyer et al. 2014]. Some of the 

codes, standards, and guidelines for surface transportation are shown in Table 13-8. 

Rail. The freight rail network in the United States is primarily owned and operated by the private sector. 

This network consists of national freight railroads and short line railroads that connect national lines to 

local industrial areas. Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) primarily owns the national 

passenger rail network and hosts regional commuter rail lines in some areas, such as the Northeast 

Corridor. Many regional commuter lines (under public authorities) have their own large rail networks. 

There are many sections of rail lines where freight trains, Amtrak, and even commuter rail lines share 

tracks. In the railroad industry, AREMA establishes and updates design standards for track, structures, 

and facilities. Operating standards in the rail industry pertaining to safety are under the jurisdiction of 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

115

FRA. Additionally, the industry trade organization, Association of American Railways (AAR), has a role 

in the development of operating standards and policies pertaining to railroad operations. Some codes, 

standards, and guidelines for rail are listed in Table 13-8.

Ports. New maritime construction needs to follow the local codes and standards for design and 

construction. Natural hazard impacts are usually incorporated by local authorities by utilizing the 

guidance documents issued by various local and federal authorities, such as USACE and IPCC. For 

example, the City of New York adopted specific guidelines in regards to the effects of natural hazards

through an authorized panel, New York Panel on Climate Change [2010]. 

Pipelines. New pipelines are subject to current federal and state design and safety guidelines. Liquids 

pipelines and intrastate natural gas pipelines are regulated at the state level; therefore, regulations and risk 

evaluations for assessment of hazards will vary depending on location.

13.5.1.1. Design Hazard Levels

National codes do not specify hazard levels for all hazards or situations, but many provide guidance on 

how they should be developed for such circumstances. Some hazards, such as flood elevations and wave 

conditions, need to be evaluated locally, as they depend on local topography and soil conditions. For 

example, rail codes stipulate various flood levels for which a structure may need to be designed, as a 50 

or 100-year flood event. Similarly, for wave loads, various codes (e.g., USACE Coastal Engineering 

Manual [USACE 2002]) advise that waves should be considered, but a design professional needs to

determine appropriate local wave characteristics. Similarly, the FHWA lists three approaches for 

determining site-specific design water levels in Highways in the Coastal Environment [FHWA 2008]. 

These include use of available analyses, historical data, and numerical simulations with historic inputs, or 

some combination of these approaches. These are general guidelines, but they apply to all regions of the 

country and ensure the process is data driven.

When describing Drainage Channels, the AASHTO Road Design Guide [AASHTO 2011b] states that 

―channels should be designed to carry the design runoff and to accommodate excessive storm water with 

minimal highway flooding or damage.‖ No specific hazard levels are mentioned, leaving hazard 

specification up to state regulations and engineering judgment. AREMA provides more specific 

requirements than AASHTO in regards to hazard levels, but still leaves room for site-specific decisions. 

To continue the drainage example, the Manual for Railway Engineering [AREMA 2015a] states, ―the 

100-year base flood elevation is the most commonly regulated storm water elevation associated with 

rivers, streams and concentrated flow areas.‖ It goes on to describe how, ―any change to the flood plain 

will generally result in extensive studies and computer modeling to be submitted for approval.‖ Again, 

these regulations are not quantitative regulations, but a guidance that ensures proper steps are taken by the 

appropriate agency to mitigate risk.

State and local legislative bodies are not obligated to adopt model building codes and may write their own 

code or portions of a code. For example, New York City Building code describes the requirement for 

flood-resistant construction, referencing FEMA flood maps and ASCE 24 [2014c] for ―dry floodproofing.‖ The Design Flood Elevation for certain structures, such as terminals, air traffic control towers, 

and electrical substations, is the 100-year floodplain plus one-foot of freeboard, or additional foot of 

elevation above the floodplain level. 

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) conducted a study on natural hazard

adaptation strategies in 2013 and provided some specific examples of dealing with increasing severity of 

weather events. For example, precipitation event modeling may be improved by using climate-dependent 

input parameters, or using relative increases in precipitation amounts following the Clausius-Clapeyron 

relationship [Meyer et al. 2014].
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

116

Interstate natural gas infrastructure is regulated by FERC, which is responsible for compliance with 

NEPA. The NEPA document addresses potential impacts resulting from the project and natural hazard 

impacts on the project. As stated previously, impacts on pipelines are generally limited because they are 

buried, but aboveground facilities such as compressor stations could be affected by storm-related 

incidents. Input from state and local governments is a key component of the review process at FERC.

Local knowledge of environmental conditions and concerns about inter-relationships with other critical 

infrastructure should be identified to FERC at the earliest point in any project review. For example, there 

may be resiliency and reliability concerns if a new pipeline‘s proposed route would be adjacent to a 

critical electric transmission line.

13.5.1.2. Recovery Levels

For roadway and rail transportation, no specific criteria for recovery levels are identified in codes or 

standards. However, at state and local levels there may be operational or performance goals with regards 

to recovery of function.

There is minimal description of required recovery levels for airports. Language for storm water drainage 

requires surface runoff from a design storm be disposed of without damage to facilities, undue saturation 

of the subsoil, or significant interruption of normal traffic. ―The drainage system will have the maximum 

reliability of operation practicable under all conditions, with due consideration given to abnormal 

requirements, such as debris and annual periods of snowmelt and ice jam breakup.‖

Marine infrastructure is critical to the transportation industry (commercial, public, and private) and the 

full recovery will be necessary for proper functionality. However, no specific guidance was identified. 

13.5.2. Existing Construction

A model code does not have legal standing until it is adopted as law by a legislative body (state 

legislature, county board, city council, etc.). Because codes are updated regularly, existing structures and 

infrastructure systems are traditionally required to only meet the code that was enforced at the time of 

design and construction unless it undergoes significant reconstruction, rehabilitation, alteration, or if the 

occupancy of an existing building changes. In such case, provisions are often included in adopted codes to 

require partial to full compliance [ASCE 2014b].

Existing transportation systems are similarly bound by the codes and standards for which they were 

initially designed. Typically, transportation infrastructure is not required to be upgraded as new codes are 

adopted. However, AASHTO and the FHWA have seismic retrofit standards for existing bridges and

transportation infrastructure systems. Thresholds for enforcement are established by each state DOT or 

local jurisdiction to determine if a rehabilitation project should require a full seismic upgrade of the 

existing structures to the current codes and standards. For example, in New York and New Jersey, bridge 

structures that undergo rehabilitation generally require a full seismic upgrade if the project includes a 

replacement of the concrete bridge deck slab.

There are similar policies in place for transportation facility buildings such as stations, terminals, and 

maintenance facilities. Most building codes require full seismic compliance for building renovation 

projects if the value of the project improvement is equal to or greater than a threshold percentage of the 

buildings replacement value (usually 50 %).

Airport codes and standards do not address retrofit of existing construction. Several advisory circulars 

outline procedures for maintaining existing facilities:

 AC 150/5380-6C, Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airport Pavements [FAA 2010]

 AC 150/5380-7B, Airport Pavement Management Program (PMP [FAA 2014a])
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

117

 AC 150/5340-26C, Maintenance of Airport Visual Aid Facilities [FAA 2014b]

 AC 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports [FAA 2007]

For rail, roadway, and maritime systems, codes and standards that specifically address evaluation or 

improvements to existing construction have not been identified.

Figure 13-10 compares the time frame of transportation projects and expected service periods against the 

possible future climate impacts, such as drought or sea level rise. According to Moritz et al. [2012], 

infrastructure planned and built with current design criteria may not be adequate for future operation and 

resilience. Hence, communities should consider the desired functions and environmental conditions that 

may be needed over the service life during transportation planning process.

Figure 13-10: Timeframes for transportation systems’ functionality and potential climate change 

impacts [Source: Michael Savonis, FHWA 2009]

13.6. Strategies for Implementing Plans for Community Resilience

13.6.1. Available Guidance

Section 13.2 describes the various components of the transportation systems and case studies of where 

these systems may have failed in the past. The performance of transportation systems depends on the age 

of the system, the type and intensity of natural hazard, the codes and standards to which it was designed, 

maintenance levels, and operational decisions made immediately before and after the hazard event. 

Current engineering standards and guidelines provide tools to assess the performance of bridges and 

roadways, such as the Manual for Bridge Evaluation [AASHTO 2010]. Similar standards exist for other 

transportation system components, such as airports, rail, subways, etc. 

AASHTO‘s Transportation Asset Management Guide [AASHTO 2011c] applies to both roads and rail

systems, as it encourages agencies to include life-cycle planning, operations, and maintenance into state 

and local resource management programs. The guide recommends processes and tools for life cycle 

management, incorporating effects due to weather events, and monitoring the assets to continually 

improve performance forecasting. 

The Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) uses the PIEVC (Public Infrastructure Engineering 

Vulnerability Committee) Protocol from Engineers Canada to assess risk and identify preliminary needs 

(such as storm water facilities).
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

118

AC 150/5200-31C [FAA 2009], Airport Emergency Plan, provides guidance on conducting a hazard risk 

analysis to help determine what hazards exist and how to address them. In addition, the FAA Airport 

Sustainable Master Plan Pilot Program includes a baseline inventory or assessment of each defined 

sustainability category (which will vary by airport), establishment of measurable goals, and development 

of specific sustainability initiatives to help the airport achieve each goal. This approach could be adopted 

for evaluating resilience of the airport facility.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 31000:2009, Risk management – Principles and 

guidelines [ISO 2009], provides principles, a framework, and a process for managing risk. It can be used 

by any organization regardless of size, activity, or sector. Using ISO 31000 can help organizations 

increase the likelihood of achieving objectives, improve identification of opportunities and threats, and 

effectively allocate and use resources for risk treatment. ISO 31000 cannot be used for certification 

purposes, but does provide guidance for internal or external audit programs. Organizations using it can 

compare their risk management practices with an internationally-recognized benchmark, providing sound 

principles for effective management and corporate governance. The guidelines for establishing sound risk 

assessment programs can be applied to the development of resilience assessment and mitigation plans

[ISO 2009].

13.6.2. Solutions for Future Construction

Resiliency for future construction should be addressed in the project planning phase. Appropriate site 

selection, alignment, and grade level can greatly improve community resilience. For new surface 

transportation projects, placing roadways, tracks and tunnel portals at a naturally high grade, locating 

bridge foundations outside of a waterway and avoiding roadways with unstable side slopes are options 

that should be preferred when they are available. Likewise for airports near bodies of water and seaports, 

higher finished grade levels and avoiding locations with unstable soils during earthquakes is fundamental.

Rail. When the Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey (PANYNJ) planned their 

Airtrain JFK project, a light rail system for 

JFK International Airport, they decided that 

given the investment, they required that the 

system ―could be readily restored to service 

after the occurrence of a seismic event.‖ This 

performance goal supports its critical role in 

airport access. The presence of liquefiable 

soils in a seismic event led to this decision to 

exceed the code required seismic design 

criteria in AASHTO and AREMA. The 

consortium that designed and constructed the 

project provided seismic isolation bearings at 

all the elevated guideway pier columns to 

achieve the performance goal (Figure 13-11). 

The system began operation in 2003 [Englot and Bakas 2002]. 

The FTA advocates for designs that include larger drainage capacity, stronger structures to withstand 

winds, and materials suited for higher temperatures. Potential solutions for subways include requiring 

flood gates, high elevation entrances, and closable ventilation grates (requiring new fan-driven 

ventilation). A FEMA-commissioned study determined that flood protection savings are, on average, four 

times greater than prevention costs.

Figure 13-11: Airtrain seismic isolation bearing
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

119

Localized flooding for transit and other transportation facilities can be prevented by establishing proper 

stormwater management. Best practices include rain gardens, stormwater ponds, increased vegetation, 

green roofs, rain barrels, and pervious pavements. These solutions allow stormwater to be absorbed 

through natural processes, reducing, or preventing flooding altogether [FTA 2013]. 

Transportation Facilities. PANYNJ has Sustainable Infrastructure Guidelines that are implemented for 

projects such as terminal building construction, building demolition, electronics systems, communications 

systems, airfield construction or rehabilitation, and landscaping [PANYNJ 2011]. The guidelines require 

the protection of the ecological health of wetlands, floodplains, and riparian buffers, protection and 

maintenance of absorbent landscapes, mitigation of the heat island effect, and implementation of storm

water best management practice, implementation of sustainable landscape maintenance. LAWA‘s 

Sustainable Airport Planning, Design, and Construction Guidelines are similar, identifying many 

technical approaches to natural hazard adaptation planning such as increasing the capacity of storm water 

conveyance and storage (e.g., design for 100-year and 500-year storms) and using heat-resistant paving 

materials.

New buildings and infrastructure systems, particularly those adjacent to coastal resources or within a 

floodplain, should implement flood hazard mitigation as part of the design. PANYNJ established a 

requirement for additional elevation of 457 mm (18 inches) higher than the current code requirement for 

flood elevations, based on an anticipated increase of the mean sea level. If the requirement is not feasible, 

then it could perhaps be met for all critical project elements (electrical equipment, communications, etc.).

San Diego International Airport incorporated low impact solutions (e.g., pervious pavement, infiltration 

storage chambers, bio-retention swales, modular wetlands, riprap energy dissipater) into their north side 

improvements to reduce flooding risks. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) issued a series of policy statements [ASCE 2015]

supporting resilient and sustainable reconstruction of areas devastated by hazard events. ASCE 

specifically supports the following actions:

 Redesign and reconstruction of hazard protection systems for affected communities at a level 

appropriate for protection of the population, critical infrastructure and the environment; and

 Reconstruction that incorporates appropriate studies, urban design, application of technology, 

land use, zoning, and utilization of natural systems to recreate communities that are resilient, 

sustainable, more livable and less vulnerable to accidental, intentional and/or natural hazard 

events.

The challenges include evaluation of the prior conditions and effects caused by the hazard(s) to determine 

if reconstruction of the affected infrastructure is viable, feasible and beneficial to facilitate the task of 

protecting life, property, and national critical infrastructure.

To better protect lives, property, and infrastructure systems, the affected areas cannot always be rebuilt to 

match prior conditions. Reconstruction and recovery includes considering the existing conditions that

may have facilitated the destruction. It also includes considering the principles of resilience and 

sustainability.

The Transportation Research Board (TRB) serves the research and practice needs of the U.S. 

transportation systems. TRB has members from the U.S. DOT, state DOTs, practicing transportation 

professionals, and transportation experts. Committee TRB ABE40: Committee on Critical Transportation 

Infrastructure Protection [TRB 2015a] considers threats and hazards to transportation infrastructure. This 

includes terrorist threats and large-scale or complex and catastrophic hazards. The committee that deals 

with extreme weather events is TRB A0020T: Special Task Force on Climate Change and Energy [TRB 

2015b]. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

120

13.6.3. Solutions for Existing Construction

The role of a transportation system within a community determines when its function needs to be restored 

following a hazard event. Evaluation criteria should include vulnerability of existing systems and the 

direct and indirect costs a community will incur with partial or full loss until it is repaired, replaced, or 

recovered, and service is restored after a hazard event. 

An evaluation of existing transportation systems to prevailing hazards can be used to determine the most 

critical and vulnerable systems and components. In the 1980s, most state DOTs in earthquake prone 

regions in the U.S. went through a similar process with FHWA guidance for determining priorities for 

retrofitting the highway bridges in the state for seismic vulnerabilities. 

Consideration of the transportation system role in community resilience and an assessment of gaps in 

desired transportation performance following a hazard event are needed before solutions can be 

developed. A prioritized list of transportation needs and solutions will support a comprehensive 

community resilience strategy. After determining the criticality and vulnerability of the transportation 

systems in a community, mitigation projects can be identified to reduce the recovery period and increase 

resilience in a cost effective manner. To rank the value of each project investment, a cost-benefit analysis 

can be used to prioritize the projects for planning purposes. 

A study conducted by the State of New Jersey DOT [Englot 2011] evaluated the vulnerability of its 

transportation systems. It involved prioritizing all 6,600 bridges and tunnels in the state of New Jersey for 

roads, passenger rail, transit lines, and freight rail lines. The agency identified their top 50 most critical 

and vulnerable state owned bridges and established potential vulnerability mitigation projects that reduced 

the recovery period and user costs. They put the mitigation projects into a long-term plan that included a 

rehabilitation project for each of these bridges. They have been following that plan since 2010.

User costs were developed by assuming that the loss of a bridge will lead to a longer detour, usually at 

slower speeds. The increase in daily travel time due to the detour, multiplied by the number of days until 

the bridge is functional and open, times the number of travelers that are detoured daily, results in a total 

traveler time delay. When multiplied by the traveler‘s value of time ($/hr) it equals the monetary cost of 

the recovery period. Table 13-9 shows ratios of value of time that were used in the study for various 

modes or travel for goods and people. The $30 per hour value was taken from a reference (rounded from 

$29.82) and is in 2012 dollars [Farokhi et al. 2015].

Table 13-9: Multimodal Value of Time Units (VOTU) for calculating cost of delay [Farokhi et al. 

2015; Englot 2011]

Travel Mode Unit VOTU Value ($/hr.) Travel Mode Unit VOTU Value ($/hr.)

1 Passenger 1 $30 1 passenger train (10 cars) 700 $21,000

1 Auto (avg. 1.2 passengers) 1.2 $36 1 subway train (8 cars) 1,120 $33,600

1 truck w cargo & driver 2.4 $72 1 rail hopper car 9.6 $288

1 Bus (45 passengers) 45 $1,350 1 cargo container 2.4 $72

User costs due to partial or full loss of transportation assets are well documented in the literature since 

they are routinely calculated to determine the impacts of transportation construction projects on a

community (lane closures, bridge closures, etc.). These user costs may also be used to reflect the 

inconvenience to the community and its social institutions of unavailable transportation methods and 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

121

delays in travel when forced to take alternate means of transportation. However, such indirect costs are 

not well documented. Most state DOTs have a manual for determining user costs due to highway 

construction. 

The same type of calculation can be used to determine user costs for the recovery period of a subway 

tunnel, an airport closure, or a container port facility. This simplified methodology yields costs in dollars 

that can be easily understood by the community to measure the value of a strategy to improve resilience 

(reduce the time to recovery of function) of any transportation asset.

Additional Solutions. Sea level rise strategies may need to be applied to existing buildings as well as new 

building projects for many coastal transportation systems. For example, Key West International Airport in 

Florida is vulnerable to hurricanes and sea level rise. They have been retrofitting existing infrastructure by

installing flapper valves inside drainage structures to avoid standing water on runways and taxiways. In 

addition, they have adapted their wildlife hazard mitigation strategies to handle new animals that are 

encroaching on the airport as a result of changing habitat. Additional solutions are outlined in the Monroe 

County Climate Action Plan [Monroe County Climate Change Advisory Committee 2013]. 

USACE employs a 3-tier process for screening projects that need to address sea level rise [Moritz 2012]. 

Tier 1 establishes a Strategic Decision Context, Tier 2 involves Project Area Vulnerability and Tier 3 

evaluates Alternative Development, Evaluation, and Adaptability. As sea levels rise, both the frequency 

of flooding and associated loads on structural may increase. Structural loads may need to consider:

 Increased variability of load factors

 Tidal and wave height range

 Local sea level change rate

 Frequency of events

 Key project processes

 Short and long-term erosion and land recession

 Cumulative impacts with other natural drivers

The FTA identifies four strategies for adaptation that are broad enough that they apply to a range of 

transportation facilities [FTA 2013]:

 Maintain and manage – adjust budgets for increased maintenance cost and improve severe event 

response times. Utilize technologies that detect changes such as pressure and temperature in 

materials as a precaution against structure damage or rising water levels. 

 Strengthen and protect – existing infrastructure should be retrofitted to withstand future weather 

conditions. Ensure facilities can stand up against high winds and extreme temperatures, and 

assure flood prevention and adequate drainage. 

 Enhance redundancy – identify system alternatives in the event of service interruption and 

develop a regional mobility perspective that includes all transportation modes. 

 Retreat – Abandon at risk infrastructure located in vulnerable or indefensible areas. Potentially 

relocate in a less vulnerable location. 

For subways, many solutions have been implemented to address rain events that may otherwise result in 

tunnel flooding, such as increasing the number of pumps or pump capacity. New York City implemented 

raised ventilation grates to prevent runoff into subway lines. Tokyo ventilation shafts are designed to 

close when a heavy rain warning is issued, and can be closed by remote control or automatically in 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

122

response to a flood sensor. The PANYNJ raised floodgates at station platforms to account for sea level 

rise and sealed all gates below the 100-year floodplain. 

For open railways, track buckling results from increased temperatures and are costly as well as a safety 

hazard. Slow orders (mandated speed reductions) are typically issued on sections of track in areas where 

an elevated rail temperature is expected and risk of track buckling is increased. Replacement track has a 

higher lateral resistance to combat buckling forces. FRA has created a model for predicting rail

temperatures, allowing proper replacement before an incident occurs [FRA 2014].

13.7. References

Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP 2012) ACRP Synthesis 33: Airport Climate Adaptation 

and Resilience – A Synthesis of Airport Practice, Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration, 

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_syn_033.pdf.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 1998) AASHTO Guide 

for Design of Pavement Structures, Fourth Edition (with Supplement), American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 2008) Guide 

Specifications for Bridges Vulnerable to Coastal Storms, American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 2010) Manual for 

Bridge Evaluation, Second Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), Washington, DC.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 2011a) A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Sixth Edition, American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 2011b) AASHTO Road 

Design Guide, Fourth Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), Washington, DC.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 2011c) AASHTO 

Transportation Asset Management Guide: A Focus on Implementation, First Edition, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 2012) AASHTO LRFD 

Bridge Design Specifications, Sixth Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO), Washington, DC.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 2013) AASHTO 

Transportation Asset Management Guide: A Focus on Implementation, FHWA-HIF-10-023, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Transportation Research 

Board (TRB), Washington, DC. 

American Concrete Institute (ACI 2014) ACI 357.3R-14: Guide for Design and Construction of 

Waterfront and Coastal Concrete Marine Structures, American Concrete Institute (ACI), Farmington 

Hills, MI.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

123

American Lifelines Alliance (ALA 2005) Draft Guideline for Assessing the Performance of Oil and 

Natural Gas Pipeline Systems in Natural Hazard and Human Threat Events, American Lifelines 

Alliance(ALA), Washington, DC, 

http://www.americanlifelinesalliance.com/pdf/PipeguideFinalPosted061705.pdf.

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA 2015a) Manual for 

Railway Engineering, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association AREMA), 

Lanham, MD.

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA 2015b) Bridge 

Inspection Handbook, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association AREMA), 

Lanham, MD.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2013) 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2014a) ASCE 61-14: Seismic Design Standards for Piers 

and Wharves, Standards Committee on Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves of the Coasts, Oceans, 

Ports, and Rivers Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2014b) ASCE Policy Statement 525: Model Building Codes, 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), http://www.asce.org/issues-and-advocacy/publicpolicy/policy-statement-525---model-building-codes/. Viewed: April 18, 2015. 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2014c) ASCE 24: Flood Resistant Design and Construction, 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), Reston, VA. 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2015) Public Policy Statements, American Society of Civil 

Engineers (ASCE), http://www.asce.org/public_policy_statements/. Viewed April 24, 2015.

Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL 2014) U.S. Liquids Pipeline Usage & Mileage Report, Association 

of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL) and American Petroleum Institute (API), Washington, DC. 

Ballantyne, D. (2008) The ShakeOut Scenario, Supplemental Study: Oil and Gas Pipelines, USGS 

Circular 1324; California Geological Survey Special Report 207, version 1.0, 

http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/shakeout/pipelines.pdf. Viewed October 1, 2014.

British Standards Institute (BSI 2013) Maritime works: Part 1-4: General – Code of practice for 

materials, BS 6349-1-4:2013, British Standards Institute (BSI), February 28.

Cities21 (2015), Cities21, http://www.cities21.org/cms/. Viewed July 22, 2015.

DeBlasio, A.J.; T.J. Regan; M.E. Zirker; K. Lovejoy; and K. Fichter (2004) ―Learning from the 2003 

Blackout,‖ Public Roads, United States Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway 

Administration (FHA), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/04sep/04.cfm Viewed 

October 14, 2014. 

Det Norske Veritas (DNV 2007) Pipeline Damage Assessment from Hurricane Katrina and Rita in the 

Gulf of Mexico, Report No. 448 14182, Revision No. 1, Prepared for the Minerals Management Service, 

January 22. 

Dolak, Kevin (2011) ―Irene: Flooding Cuts off Towns in Vermont, New York,‖ ABC News, August 29, 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hurricanes/hurricane-irene-flooding-cuts-off-towns-vermontyork/story?id=14402696. Viewed October 24, 2015.

Douglas, Scott L.; Bret M. Webb; and Roger Kilgore (FHWA 2014) Highways in the Coastal 

Environment: Assessing Extreme Events, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 25 – Volume 2, FHWANHI-14-006, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), October, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/nhi14006/nhi14006.pdf.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

124

Duwadi, Sheila Rimal (2010) Hazard Mitigation R&D Series: Article 1: Taking a Key Role in Reducing 

Disaster Risks, FHWA-HRT-10-004, United States Department of Transportation (DOT)/Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), Vol. 73 No. 6, May/June, 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/10mayjun/04.cfm. Viewed October 16, 2014.

Elliott, Debbie (2013) ―Drought Causes Ripple Effect Along Mighty Mississippi River,‖ All Things 

Considered, National Public Radio (NPR), http://www.npr.org/2013/01/30/170286658/drought-causesripple-effect-along-mighty-mississippi-river.

Englot, J. (2011) Case Study of Bridge and Tunnel TVAs: Since the Blue Ribbon Panel Recommendations 

for Bridge and Tunnel Security Were Issued, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.

Englot, J. and P. Bakas (2002) ―Performance/Design Criteria for the Airtrain JFK Guideway,‖ 

Proceedings AREMA 2002 Annual Conference & Exposition, Washington, DC, September 22 – 25.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2008) Environmental Review Guide for Special Appropriation 

Grants, EPA Publication No: 315-K-08-001, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC.

Farokhi, K. et al. (2015) Value of Travel Time Reliability in Transportation Decision Making: Proof of 

Concept—Maryland, SHRP 2 Report S2-L35B-RW-1, Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP). 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA 2007) ―Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports,‖ FAA 

Advisory Circular, AC 150/5200-33B, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Washington, DC.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA 2009) ―Airport Emergency Plan‖ (Consolidated AC includes 

Change 2), FAA Advisory Circular, AC 150/5200-31C, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

Washington, DC.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA 2010) ―Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airport 

Payments,‖ FAA Advisory Circular, AC 150/5380-6C, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, 

DC.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA 2011) ―Development of State Standards and Nonprimary 

Airports,‖ FAA Advisory Circular, AC 150/5100-13B, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

Washington, DC.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA 2014 b) ―Maintenance of Airport Visual Aid Facilities.‖ FAA

Advisory Circular, AC 150/5340-26C, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Washington, DC.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA 2014a) ―Airport Pavement Management Program (PMP),‖ FAA

Advisory Circular, AC 150/5380-7B, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2013) Mitigation Assessment Team Report Hurricane 

Sandy in New Jersey and New York Building Performance Observations, Recommendations, and 

Technical Guidance, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2014a) ―Damaged Roads from Hurricane Irene,‖ 

FEMA, last updated March 19, 2014, https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/images/61278. Viewed 

October 24, 2015.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2014b) ―Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 07/09/1993 in 

Missouri,‖ FEMA, last updated March 19, 2014, https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/images/38000. Viewed 

October 24, 2015.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2014c) ―Photograph by Marvin Nauman taken on 

09/27/2005 in Louisiana,‖ FEMA, last updated March 19, 2014, https://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/images/46394. Viewed October 24, 2015.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

125

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2014d) ―Photograph by Win Henderson taken on 

09/20/2005,‖ FEMA, last updated March 19, 2014, https://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/images/46243. Viewed October 24, 2015.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2014e) ―Photograph by Win Henderson taken on 

09/20/2005 in Louisiana,‖ FEMA, last updated March 19, 2014, https://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/images/46290. Viewed October 24, 2015.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2008) Highways in the Coastal Environment, Second Edition, 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC, June.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2011) Expanded FHWA Hydraulics Laboratory to Conduct 

Major New Bridge Scour Studies, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/focus/11aug/11aug02.cfm. Viewed April 24, 2015. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2015a) Aerodynamic Design of Highway Structures Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96winter/p96wi46.cfm. FHWA.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2015b) MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st

Century. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/. Viewed April 23, 2015. FHWA, Washington, DC.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA 2013) Transit Climate Change Adaption Assessment/Asset 

Management Pilot for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. FTA, Washington, DC.

Field, C. B., Barros V., Stocker T. F., Qin D., Dokken D. J., Ebi K. L., Mastrandrea M. D., Mach K. J., 

Plattner G. -K., Allen S. K., Tignor M. and Midgley, P. M. (2012) Managing The Risks of Extreme Events 

and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of 

the Intergonvernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Frosch, Dan and Timothy Williams (2013). ―Colorado Towns are Left Stranded in Deadly Floods,‖ The 

New York Times, September 12, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/us/colorado-towns-are-leftstranded-in-deadly-floods.html?_r=0. Viewed October 14, 2015. 

International Navigation Association (2002b), Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures, CRC Press, 

Brussels.

International Navigation Association (2002a) Guidelines for The Design of Fender Systems: 2002, Report 

of Working Group 33 of the Maritime Navigation Commission, PIANC.

ITS International (ITS 2012) Success of Kuala Lumpur's dual purpose tunnel, ITS International, 2012.

Johnson, Karl (2012) Abutments, MnDOT Bridge Office LRFD Workshop.

Kentucky Public Service Commission (2009) Ike and Ice: The Kentucky Public Service Commission

Report on the September 2008 Wind Storm and the January 2009 Ice Storm, November 19, 

https://psc.ky.gov/IkeIce/Report.pdf. 

Kruse, C. J.; A. Protopapas, L.E. Olson; and D.H. Bierling (2007) A Modal Comparison of Domestic 

Freight Transportation Effects on the General Public, Prepared by Center for Ports and Waterways, 

Texas Transportation Institute for United States Department of Transportation Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) and National Waterways Foundation, December, 

http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Phase_II_Report_Final_121907.pdf.

Lazo, L. (2013) ―Upgrading D.C.‘s Virginia Avenue tunnel is key to growing East Coast rail freight, 

officials say,‖ The Washington Post, p. 1, 16 Februrary.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

126

Mardorf, Christopher (2014) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) August 30,. Napa, CA,

http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1409613757983-

e7cfcdc60d36a0bc2aabef089f34d080/Napa_CA_Earthquake_V0A6397.jpg. Viewed October 1, 2014.

Meng Q. and Qu, X. (2010) Quantitative Risk Assessment Model for Fire in Road Tunnels, University of 

Singapore, Singapore, 2010.

Meyer, M., Rowan, E., Savonis, M., and Choate, A. (2012) ―Integrating Exteme Weather Risk into 

Transportation Asset Management,‖ American Association of State and Highway Officials (AASHTO), 

November 1, http://climatechange.transportation.org/pdf/extrweathertamwhitepaper_final.pdf. Viewed 

October 28, 2015.

Meyer, M., Flood, M., Keller, J., Lennon , J., McVoy, G., Dorney, C., Leonard, K., Hyman R. and Smith, 

J. (2014) ―Climate Change, Extreme Weather Events, and the Highway System: A Practitioner's Guide 

and Research Report,‖ Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 2 NCHRP Report 750, 

Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, DC.

Monroe County Climate Change Advisory Committee (2013) Monroe County Climate Action Plan, 

Monroe County, FL, March.

Moritz, H., White, K., Langlois, H., Simm, J., Schrader, M., Engle, J., Smith, T., Harper, B., and Gill, S. 

(2012) Procedures to Evaluate Sea Level Change; Impacts; Responses and Adaption: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers‘ Approach, prepared by HR Wallingford Lts. Oxon, UK, January. 

National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR 2013) Compendium of State Pipeline 

Safety Requirements & Initiatives Providing Increased Public Safety Levels Compared to Code of 

Federal Regulations, Second Edition. Washington, DC. 

National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS 2015) ―Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC),‖ WBDG: Whole 

Building Design Guide, National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Washington, DC, 

https://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_cat.php?c=4.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 2014) Coastal Services Center (NOAA 2014) 

Port Tomorrow: Resilience Planning Tool. NOAA, 2014, http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/port. 

Viewed 15 June 2014.

New York City Department of Transportation (NYC DOT 2015) Ferries & Buses: Staten Island Ferry,‖ 

NYC Resources, The City of New York, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/ferrybus/staten-islandferry.shtml.

New York City Panel on Climate Change. (NPCC 2010) Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: 

Building a Risk Management Response, C. Rosenzweig and W. Solecki, eds, Prepared for use by the New 

York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, New 

York, NY.

Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA 2013) Pipelines and Hazard 

Mitigation for Emergency Managers, Draft, February 8, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA), Washington, DC.

PWC (2013) Rebuilding for resilience: Fortifying insfrastructure to withstand disaster, September.

RITA (2009) (USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics), 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/ncfo/highlights.

Roll, Liz (2012), FEMA, November 1, 2012. Long Beach Island, NJ. http://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/images/65917. Viewed October 1, 2014.

Rosenzweig, C.; A. DeGaetano; W. Solecki; R. Horton; M. O‘Grady; and D. Bader (2011) Climate 

Adaption Guidebook for New York State, State of New York. Albany, NY.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

127

Savonis, Mike (2009) ―Association of State and Territorial Soid Waste Management Officials,‖ The Guld 

Coast Study, April 16, http://www.astswmo.org/Files/Meetings/2009/2009MidYearMtg/SAVONIS2009mym.pdf. Viewed April 24, 2015. FHWA

Sustainable Cities International (SCI 2010) Sustainable Cities: Our Cities are Our Future, Sustainable 

Cities International (SCI) http://sustainablecities.net/. Viewed July 22, 2015. 

The City of New York (2013) A Stronger, More Resilient New York, The City of New York, New York.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO 2009) ISO 31000:2009, Risk Management –

Principles and Guidelines, The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Geneva, 

Switzerland.

The Port Authority of NY & NJ (PANYNJ 2011) Sustainable Infrastructure Guidelines Sustainable 

Infrastructure Guidelines, The Port Authority of NY & NJ (PANYNJ), 

https://www.panynj.gov/about/pdf/Sustainable-infrastructure-guidelines.pdf. 

The World Bank (2012) Building Urban Resilience: Principles, Tools and Practice, The World Bank, 

Washington, DC, 2012.

Transportation Research Board (TRB 2014) Critical Issues in Aviation and the Environment, 

Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, DC, 2014.

Transportation Research Board (TRB 2015a) Critical Transportation Infrastructure Protection (ABR10), 

Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, DC, http://www.trb.org/ABE40/ABE40.aspx. 

Viewed Apirl 24, 2015. 

Transportation Research Board (TRB 2015b) Special Task Force on Climate Change and Energy, 

Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, DC, http://www.trb.org/A0020T/A0020T.aspx. 

Viewed April 24, 2015.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 2002) Coastal Engineering Manual, Engineer Manual 

1110-2-1100, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Washington, DC.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 2015) Flood Risk Management Program, United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Alexandria, VA, 

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Contact/ContactUs.aspx. Viewed October 27, 2015. 

United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS 2013) 35,000 Gallons of Prevention: Containing a 

Tunnel Flood with an Inflatable Stopper, United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 

http://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/35000-gallons-prevention.

United States Department of Transportation (DOT 2012) Climate Adaption Plan: Ensuring 

Transportation Infrastructure and System Resilience, 

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/DOT%20Adaptation%20Plan.pdf. 

United States Department of Transportation (DOT 2014) ―Facts & Stats,‖ Pipeline Safety Awareness, 

United States Department of Transportation (DOT)/Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, https://opsweb.phmsa.dot.gov/pipelineforum/facts-and-stats/pipeline-101/. Viewed 

October 1, 2014.

United States Energy Information Administration (EIA 2012) New York/New Jersey Intra Harbor 

Petroleum Supplies Following Hurricane Sandy: Summary of Impacts Through November 13, 2012, 

United States Department of Energy (DOE), Washington, DC, 

http://www.eia.gov/special/disruptions/hurricane/sandy/pdf/petroleum_terminal_survey.pdf. Viewed 

October 1, 2014.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Transportation Systems

128

United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC 2004) Presentation to the Association of 

Oil Pipe Lines, April, Washington, D.C., http://www.ferc.gov/industries/oil/gen-info.asp. Viewed 

October 1, 2014.

United States Federal Transit Administration (USFTA 2013) 2013 Status Report of the Nation‘s 

Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance, Report to Congress by the United States 

Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Federal Transit 

Administration, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2013cpr/pdfs/cp2013.pdf.

United States Maritime Administration (MARAD 2015) Inland Waterways Gateway (St. Louis), United 

States Department of Transportation (DOT), United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), 

http://www.marad.dot.gov/about-us/gateway-offices/inland-waterways-gateway/. 

URS Corporation (URS 2012) Port of Houston Authority Bayport Climate Change Study, URS and 

AECOM, http://www.urs.com/projects/port-of-houston-authority-greenhouse-gas-and-climate-change/.

Wakeman, T. H. (2013) Final Report: Lessons from Hurricane Sandy for Port Resilience, The City 

College of New York, New York.

World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC 2012) PIANC USA, World 

Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC), Alexandria, VA, http://www.pianc.us/.

Viewed on October 28, 2015.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

129

14. Energy Systems

Energy Systems Executive Summary

This chapter discusses electric power systems, natural gas and liquid fuels systems as they relate to 

electric power, and emergency and standby power systems. Pipelines that transport natural gas and liquid 

fuels are discussed as part of the Transportation System (Chapter 13) because the engineering standards 

for pipeline safety and design are administered by the U.S. DOT.

The energy performance expectations and needs of society have increased dramatically over the past 35 

years. However, the aging U.S. infrastructure is a major issue for all communities. Electrical grid and 

pipeline distribution systems have evolved considerably since they were first constructed in the late 

1800s. The energy system continues to be upgraded to improve the existing electric power and fuel 

pipeline infrastructure systems, with focused efforts on energy efficiency, reliability, and reduced

vulnerability to hazard events. However, permitting issues for new construction, weather events, and 

limited maintenance have contributed to power interruptions and failures. Demands for energy are 

expected to increase in the near future as the population increases.

The reliance of communities on energy systems leads to public expectations of readily available and

reliable services. The electric utility and liquid fuel industries are highly regulated to ensure energy 

availability with the goals of low consumer costs, safe delivery and use, and reliable service. Regulations, 

codes, and standards can help improve the performance of new and existing energy systems during storms 

and hazard events. Moving forward, the new challenge is to balance the goals of low pricing and safe 

delivery with energy systems that are both reliable and resilient.

To build resilient and flexible energy systems there needs to be understanding by all stakeholders of the 

options and constraints that need to be balanced to achieve the desired level of community resilience, the 

expected benefits resilience may bring, and the estimated costs associated with improving and replacing 

the energy infrastructure. 

Achieving resilient energy systems within a community will not happen overnight. As part of the broader 

six-step planning process for resilience, community leaders, energy system representatives, and other 

stakeholders need to discuss what performance levels are desired, the current condition of the existing 

infrastructure systems, and what gaps exist between the desired performance and the anticipated 

performance of the various electric power and fuel systems. 

Working together to achieve resilience, each stakeholder group within the community (consumers, 

regulators, providers, and others) can identify meaningful solutions to address the resilience gaps. This 

Guide is focused on how the buildings and infrastructure systems support social needs and institutions 

within the community. This chapter is focused on improving the performance and hazard resistance of 

energy infrastructure systems while not adversely affecting service reliability and costs. 

Energy facilities and infrastructure systems for generation, transmission, and distribution functions can be 

sited, designed, and constructed to provide improved performance during hazard events. However, many 

of the codes and standards first used to ensure the safety and reliability of the infrastructure systems did 

not consider hazards, as modern codes and standards do now, leaving the physical infrastructure with 

some vulnerabilities. Codes and standards are being updated to address hazard events and are expected to 

also significantly improve resilience. 

A community that is successful in improving its resilience will likely do so through a combination of 

changes to the built environment as well as through adoption and implementation of regulatory, planning, 

and maintenance programs that are developed with buy in from all stakeholders. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

130

14.1. Introduction

Societal expectations and needs for electric power and fuels have increased dramatically over the past 35 

years. In fact, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that the total demand for 

residential electricity has increased by approximately 57 % since 1980 [EIA 2015]. However, as demand 

has increased, the condition of the energy infrastructure systems has become an issue for all communities. 

The electric power system includes power generation, transmission, and distribution facilities, some of 

which date back to the early 1800s. This system of generating plants, power lines, and substations is a 

mix of new and older systems and technologies that needs to operate cohesively. There are thousands of

plants and systems across the U.S. and almost 400,000 miles of electric transmission lines. With the 

addition of new gas-fired and renewable generation, the need to add new transmission lines has become 

even greater [ASCE 2013].

Many transmission and distribution system outages have been attributed to system operations failures, 

although weather-related events have been the main cause of major electrical outages in the United States 

from 2007 to 2012. Reliability issues are also emerging as new energy sources replace older infrastructure

[ASCE 2013].

The fuel industry includes oil and gas wells, processing plants (e.g., refineries), and pipeline systems. 

There are nominally 150,000 miles of crude oil and product pipelines and over 1,500,000 miles of natural 

gas transmission and distribution pipelines in the United States. Fuel infrastructure systems are primarily 

owned by private industry. Since 2008, a series of oil and gas pipeline failures led to new federal safety 

requirements in 2011 to address the increase in the number of incidents due to aging infrastructure and 

maintenance concerns [ASCE 2013].

Energy capacity is forecast to be a potential problem after 2020, particularly power generation capacity. 

The adequacy of energy pipelines and related operations is also a growing concern, partially due to

capacity constraints in refineries and oil and gas transmission systems [ASCE 2013].

Electricity and fuel are essential, and cross-cutting services for community resilience. They support 

society‘s most basic human needs for food, water, and shelter. In a hazard event, electricity and fuel 

supply are critical to supporting human life and restoration of services. Having available fuel is essential 

for local generators in managing recovery and for emergency service and supply vehicles.

The energy industry is making progress in upgrading the existing electric infrastructure, with focused 

efforts on energy efficiency and reliability, and to reduce system vulnerability to hazard events. Grid 

modernization is a major effort nationwide that is projected to continue for years to come. For example, 

many utility providers are installing smart grid technologies.

This chapter discusses electric power systems, natural gas and liquid fuels systems as they relate to 

electric power, and emergency and standby power systems. Pipelines that transport natural gas and liquid 

fuels are discussed as part of the transportation system (Chapter 13) because the engineering standards for

pipeline safety and design are administered by the U.S. DOT.

14.1.1. Social Needs and System Performance Goals

Reliable, inexpensive power has become a basic societal necessity. Even in day-to-day power delivery, 

utilities may struggle to meet consumer expectations. Preparing for and responding to hazard events can 

be challenging when utilities are repairing infrastructure while experiencing revenue losses when electric 

power delivery is suspended. Regulatory authorities consider such issues when addressing utility rate 

recovery cases and setting public expectations for post-event recovery timelines and quality of service.

As communities address issues related to energy system performance and improving grid resilience, it is 

important that they prioritize and balance end user needs, public safety, and restoration requirements 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

131

relative to community resilience goals. Designers and operators of energy systems need to adapt to everchanging technologies and applications, as well as minimize vulnerabilities in the system and incorporate

the ability to rapidly restore the system after hazard events. Communities and utility operators should 

consider options that protect, maintain, and recover the system while controlling costs.

When events occur and recovery efforts are required, emergency-related societal needs are addressed 

first, and other priorities are addressed through a tiered response. Although details of recovery planning 

can be complex, the general sequence of recovery is often organized as critical facilities and services, 

emergency housing, housing and neighborhoods, and community. Section 14.3 discusses performance 

goals for energy infrastructure systems based on these restoration stages. Recovery levels for new and 

existing infrastructure are discussed in Section 14.5.1.2.

14.1.2. Reliability, Resilience, and Energy Assurance

Reliability and resilience are related but distinct concepts with different performance goals and metrics. In 

many cases, projects and investments that improve day-to-day reliability contribute to resilience.

In August 2013, the President‘s Council of Economic Advisers released a study on the benefits of 

investing in grid resilience. The study [Executive Office of the President 2013] explained the difference 

between resilience and reliability as: 

―A more resilient grid is one that is better able to sustain and recover from adverse 

events like severe weather – a more reliable grid is one with fewer and shorter power 

interruptions.‖

In September 2012, Maryland‘s Grid Resiliency Task Force [Office of Governor Martin O‘Malley 2012]

adopted similar definitions for resilience and reliability.

―[R]eliability refers to the ability of the bulk power and distribution systems to deliver 

electricity to customers during normal  ̳blue sky‘ operations...Resiliency refers to the 

ability of the distribution system to absorb stresses without experiencing a sustained 

outage.‖

The electric power industry is beginning to address resilience and the recovery of service after hazard 

events in addition to reliability of service during normal operations. The Public Service Enterprise Group 

[PSEG 2014] in New Jersey states in its Energy Strong Program that:

―Reliability remains fundamental but is no longer enough now that extreme storms have 

become increasingly common and people are more dependent on electricity than ever 

before.‖ 

An analysis of the stakeholder input gathered at the California Local Energy Assurance Planning 

[CaLEAP 2015] workshops concluded that a resilient energy system would include the followings goals 

and steps:

 Includes planned, modeled, and prepared infrastructure; ready for immediate and reliable 

deployment; robust (hardened) where appropriate

 Supports emergency response, life safety, restoration effectiveness, and socio-economic 

continuity during a major event

 Recovers rapidly after hazard events

 Incorporates redundancy and spare capacity

 Supports a diversity of energy sources 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

132

 Includes modular or loosely-coupled architecture

 Is aware and responsive to electrical and environmental conditions

 Is actively monitored and maintained

 Operates efficiently in non-emergency conditions

 Provides economic and societal benefits to the communities and stakeholders served

In addition to reliability and resilience, the energy industry has 

developed energy assurance concepts, which also align with resilience 

concepts. A report (Figure 14-1) by the National Association of State 

Energy Officials, the State Energy Assurance Guideline [NASEO 

2009], refers to the ―4 Rs‖ of resilient qualities for infrastructure 

systems:

 Robustness – the inherent strength or resistance in a system to 

withstand external demands without degradation or loss of 

functionality

 Redundancy – system properties that allow for alternate 

options, choices, and substitutions when the system is under 

stress

 Resourcefulness – the capacity to mobilize needed resources 

and services in emergencies

 Rapidity – the speed with which disruption can be overcome and safety, services, and financial 

stability restored

A resilience strategy may address each of these qualities to achieve the desired performance of an energy 

system. In addition, resilience of an energy system may be evaluated according to physical,

organizational, social, and economic systems, where:

 Physical – the ability of physical systems (including all interconnected components) to perform 

to acceptable/desired levels when subject to hazard events

 Organizational – the capacity of organizations - especially those managing critical facilities and 

hazard event-related functions - to make decisions and take actions that contribute to resilience

 Social – consisting of measures specifically designed to support social institutions and lessen the 

extent to which communities and governmental jurisdictions suffer negative consequences due to 

loss of critical services due to a hazard event

 Economic – the capacity to reduce both direct and indirect economic losses resulting from a 

hazard event

Reliability of energy systems refers to providing uninterrupted service during normal operations and is a

core goal of electric power operators. As energy systems have become essential to daily life, resilient 

energy systems that can recovery rapidly from hazard events are also needed.

14.1.3. Dependencies 

In general, buildings and infrastructure systems depend on electric power to conduct business and provide 

their services. For example, although a hospital or emergency operations center may not be physically 

Figure 14-1: NASEO [2009]

Energy Assurance 

Guidelines
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

133

damaged by a hurricane, flood, or earthquake, loss of power largely equates to loss of services. 

Emergency power may be used to support critical services until commercial power is restored if fuel is 

available for standby systems.

Energy systems depend on other systems as well. Some examples are:

 Operation and control centers of utilities rely on communication and information systems to send 

and receive operational information to the generation, transmission, and distribution components 

of the grid. Operational control needs to be maintained or the performance of the grid will be 

affected.

 Liquid fuels rely on the transportation system to distribute liquid and natural gas by truck and rail. 

Disruptions to the transportation system can affect the supply chain and resilience of the energy 

system (see 13.2.5 Pipelines for additional information).

 The ability to restore infrastructure in the electric power system can be seriously hampered if 

plant facilities or roads are damaged, and staff cannot perform response and recovery activities. 

14.2. Energy Infrastructure 

Energy infrastructure systems nationwide are designed for reliable service. While they are designed to 

meet National Electric Safety Codes [IEEE 2012] requirements (and often beyond the minimum criteria), 

the level or magnitude of hazard events that these systems can withstand without damage is not clearly 

defined. Over the years, improvements in technology have addressed some vulnerabilities or risks in the 

system, but may also have inadvertently introduced some new ones.

The electric power industry has primarily focused on energy assurance goals and reliability of service for 

normal operations. The energy infrastructure continues to be improved, with some improvement 

following hazard events. 

As communities and energy providers begin to address resilience, guidelines are needed for design of 

energy systems – generation, transmission and distribution - and understanding of improvements needed 

to meet desired performance goals. Some questions to consider when evaluating existing systems might 

include:

 Why did previous failures occur?

 Were the design criteria adequate for the hazard event? 

 Was the extent and impact of the failures disproportionate to the magnitude of the event that 

occurred? 

 If so, was the failure or impact due to the design and construction or a poor operational response?

 Can other technologies or approaches be used to improve performance and recovery?

This section describes the electric power system and its generation, transmission, and distribution systems 

and emerging technologies in these systems. Liquid fuel systems and natural gas systems, with a focus on 

how they are used to support electric power systems, are presented. The use of emergency and standby 

power systems for recovery of services after hazard events are also discussed.

14.2.1. Electric Power

The electric power system produces and delivers electricity through a grid connection to customers. 

Electric power can be generated by central power stations or by distributed generation. Once generated, 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

134

power is delivered to customers through transmission and distribution systems. The electric power system 

is illustrated in Figure 14-2 [NIST 2014]. 

Figure 14-2: NIST smart grid conceptual model [Source: NIST 2014]

In 2009, NIST established the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP) and developed the Smart Grid 

Conceptual Model shown in Figure 14-2. This model is a simple mechanism for graphically describing 

the domains within the Smart Grid. The model reflects advances in smart grid technologies and 

developments from NIST‘s collaborative work with industry stakeholders.

For simplicity, and to remain focused on the primary components within the bulk electric power network, 

this Guide focuses primarily on generation, transmission, and distribution systems. Note that the natural 

gas delivery system has a similar architecture and terminology.

14.2.1.1. Generation

Traditional power generation is supported through bulk power plants that incorporate large electrical 

generators. In the U.S., this power is 3-phase alternating current (AC). The generation system is evolving 

and has been for some time. Prior to deregulation of electricity in certain states, public utilities owned and 

managed both the generation and transmission grid over which electricity was delivered. Deregulation 

separated generation and transmission, with most deregulated states allowing independent power 

producers (IPP) to competitively develop generation projects. The term ―deregulation‖ does not imply 

these utilities are not regulated, simply that consumer choice exists. IPP developers negotiate contracts to 

sell power to the utilities, who maintain their responsibility to manage and deliver the electricity through

the grid. There is a patchwork of regulated and deregulated states so, depending on the state, a utility 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

135

could control transmission, generation, or both. A similar patchwork of regulation and deregulation at the 

state level also applies to the distribution of natural gas by utilities.

Renewable power projects, distributed generation by commercial entities, and demand-side management

(such as demand response, energy efficiency, and energy storage) are alternate methods available to the 

traditional energy systems. The term ―generation‖ increasingly includes virtual generation, resulting from 

load-reduction to offset power demand or the use of energy storage rather than developing new generation

capacity. Additionally, alternate methods are evolving behind the meter at homes and businesses, such as 

rooftop solar panels and smart meters.

Renewable power comes in many forms – wind, solar, biomass, hydropower. In some states energy-fromwaste plants also meets the definition of renewable power. Renewable power has rules that vary from 

state to state in the same way the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), with goals for the percentage of 

power to be generated from renewables, vary by state.

―Distributed generation‖ is an umbrella term typically describing power plants developed for a specific

company or industrial location, also known as ―in-the-fence‖ power, that serve the needs of a particular 

commercial plant, manufacturing facility or industrial park. These plants must be developed in 

accordance with requirements for their particular state, but are typically single or small group loadserving entities. An example might be an industrial facility that builds its own on-site power plant to serve 

its electric power needs. Often these generating plants are also cogeneration facilities, providing steam for 

heat or another industrial process use. Many of these smaller facilities are also referred to as ―CombinedHeat and Power‖ or CHP plants.

In regulated states, Demand Side Management (DSM) is defined by the Energy Information 

Administration as ―the planning, implementation, and monitoring of utility activities designed to 

encourage consumers to modify patterns of electricity usage, including the timing and level of electricity 

demand.‖ Thus, DSM includes both energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) to reduce electric 

power demand.

Energy efficiency at the utility level is a method or program by which the utility manages or reduces the 

demand for power. Otherwise, a utility may need to build or contract for new generation plants or 

purchase additional power on the spot market, which can be expensive. These programs can be state-wide 

improvements to public buildings (efficient light bulbs, improved insulation, etc.) or can entail energy 

efficiency programs for residential users, which may include advanced meters and thermostats.

Demand Response (DR) is sometimes implemented by a non-utility company that enters into a contract 

with electric power users, usually large users such as universities, high-rise office buildings, or chains of 

retail stores. The DR company pays the contracted users to lower their electric use during times of peak 

demand, such as hot summer days. The DR company then sells the reduced-load to the utility during peak 

demand periods. Large users of electricity can lower their annual electric power costs through the DR 

payment and the utility can avoid brown-outs or black-outs, spot market purchases, or the need to develop

new generation capacity. 

Energy storage comes in many forms, from large batteries to pump storage, fly wheels, and compressed 

air. In the case of pump storage, which has a long history in electrical power systems, water is pumped up 

to a dam or holding basin during periods of low demand (non-peak periods) and is released during periods 

of high demand to meet the energy load. The use of pump storage is being expanded to use compressed 

air and other methods, such as flywheels, that can delay release of energy.

Traditionally, power generation was the primary means of meeting electric power demand. Today,

alternative methods reduce, offset, or delay peak demand and play a larger role in the grid. Traditional 

and alternate methods need to be considered as a part of the system that delivers reliable and efficient 

power.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

136

14.2.1.2. Transmission

In the traditional bulk power system, 3-phase power exits the generator and enters a transmission 

substation. Voltages are transformed to travel long distances along three separate transmission lines, each 

carrying a single phase. The transmission infrastructure is primarily wire and towers carrying high voltage 

power from generators to distribution substations. It is the middle-man of the electric power delivery 

network.

The vulnerability of the transmission infrastructure primarily stems from aging physical assets. As

customer load requirements grow and the various federal and state regulations change, there is a need for 

more robust and flexible electric power delivery systems to keep up with demand. The emergence of the 

renewable generation market and the transition from coal generation to natural gas generation has stressed

the power grid beyond its original design. Electrical flows that were designed to be in one direction are 

now in multiple directions, depending on the location of the power generation at any particular time of 

day. Transmission constraints, which affect cost and reliability, have become common in operations. 

Over the last 10 years, transmission planning has evolved from relatively few new transmission lines 

being built nationwide to many new transmission lines being planned by most major utilities. The cost 

and time to build new transmission lines has increased significantly due to acquisition of new routes, and

meeting regulatory and environmental requirements.

Electric power demands impact transmission system reliability. Cyber-based monitoring systems are 

being developed to reduce the impact of hazards. As new systems are engineered and constructed, there is 

also a need to evaluate current performance and maintenance. The performance of transmission lines has 

improved with NERC‘s FAC-003-3 Transmission Vegetation Management Program. The purpose of 

FAC 003-3 is to provide the guidance needed ―to maintain a reliable electric transmission system by 

using a defense-in-depth strategy to manage vegetation located on transmission rights of way (ROW) and 

minimize encroachments from vegetation located adjacent to the ROW, thus preventing the risk of those 

vegetation-related outages that could lead to Cascading.‖ 

Many efforts are underway to strengthen the nation‘s transmission systems, including over 170 

transmission projects by members of the Edison Electrical Institute that are anticipated to occur in the 

next decade [EEI 2015]. Several major Smart Grid transmission projects have been initiated and, in some 

cases, recently completed to improve power supply across the nation. Other efforts to increase grid 

resilience and efficiency include developing and deploying new technologies (e.g., Demand Response, 

Micro-grid/Islanding, Synchrophasers (PMU), Dynamic Transfer, Energy Imbalance Markets (EIM) and 

Dynamic Line Rating (DLR)). FERC also issued Order 1000 [FERC 2011] to help reduce capital costs of 

transmission by introducing competition between utilities and transmission developers.

Transmission infrastructure is vulnerable to hazards. Flooding can damage low-lying electrical 

infrastructure, such as substations, as was the case with Hurricanes Sandy and Irene [DOE 2013]. Flowing 

water can scour pole foundations and expose underground cables. Flood hazards can also inundate 

underground electrical conduits, vaults, substations, and splices.

Wind events, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and thunderstorms, can damage electrical infrastructure. 

Thunderstorms can topple trees and damage structures. Ice may form around transmission lines and

increase the loads on the transmission systems, particularly when accompanied by high winds, sometimes 

leads to failure of the system. Lightning and geo-magnetically induced currents in transmission lines are 

additional hazards to be managed.

Depending upon the wildfire risk, communities may need measures to protect transmission systems for 

exposure to fire. Every year, wildfires burn thousands of acres and destroy homes and other structures. 

Alternatively, electrical lines have been implicated in starting wildfires, as was the case in the 2007 San 

Diego Witch Creek, Guejito and Rice wildfires [SDUT 2007].
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

137

14.2.1.3. Distribution

In the traditional power delivery system, the distribution system begins at the distribution substation. The 

substation takes high voltage power and transforms it to less than 10 000 volts (typically 7200 volts). The 

distribution substation is critical to the power delivery system and is a focus area for mitigation and rapid 

recovery. It supports a variety of operations technology (OT) and information technology (IT) equipment 

and systems that connect the utility operation center to the endpoint loads. The distribution system is by 

far the largest component of the electric power system. During post-event recovery, the majority of 

repairs are normally within the distribution network. Distribution systems are typically located along 

roadsides but may also go through less accessible lots and other right-of-ways. 

Maintaining distribution systems can be challenging. The poles and key equipment are subject to 

overloading by addition of other wires and system components by local service providers. These additions 

may overload electrical system components or increase their vulnerability to wind and ice loads. High 

ambient temperatures can also reduce cable lifetimes and insulation integrity.

The distribution system is vulnerable to a number of hazard events. Overhead distribution lines are 

particularly vulnerable to tree-related damage during wind events. Trees often fall and damage the 

distribution network. Therefore, vegetation management is critical to minimizing vulnerability of 

distribution lines to high wind events [EPRI 2013]. Most utilities have tree management programs, but 

failure to adequately implement these programs has been a leading cause of outages [FERC 2013, NERC 

2015a]. The reason for this failure is not always simple. Even though the utility may have a vegetation 

management program, public and private land owners may not allow removal of trees or limbs on their 

private property. Other jurisdictions and environmental organizations have stopped tree trimming and 

clearing programs. The aggregate impact of these actions results in failed implementation of tree 

trimming programs, which can increase distribution system vulnerability.

Winds that change direction throughout a storm, such as hurricanes and tornadoes, can cause extensive

damage, including failure of poles. As a result of observations after the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons,

Florida now requires inspections to look for poles that are overloaded from mounted equipment, are

degraded at the ground interface, or have other weakness [Florida Public Service Commission 2007, 

NextEra Energy Inc. 2013]. Instead of a 15-year pole inspection cycle, Florida has implemented an 8-year 

inspection cycle [NextEra Energy Inc. 2013]. Poles that look perfectly fine from a visual inspection may 

not be fine internally or underground. Therefore, new inspection tools and techniques have been 

developed to help with pole inspection.

Lightning is a particular concern for the electrical power infrastructure. When a transformer is 

overloaded, either by a lightning strike or by an overload on the circuit, it typically catches on fire. The 

resulting blaze can consume the transformer, the pole to which it is attached, and nearby vegetation as 

flaming oil falls to the ground. Poles that have filled with water can explode when the water inside flashes 

to steam.

Lightning can travel along conductors, even when a line is down and de-energized. Lightning can strike a 

downed line and travel along it, until it reaches a lightning arrestor or a fusible link. Damage to home 

appliances and consumer electronics can occur when lightning strikes a line beyond an outage point. 

Surge protectors, uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems, and other protection equipment can help

protect equipment, but only unplugging equipment from power sources ensures that a lightning strike will 

not disable it.

Earthquakes may cause widespread damage to distribution systems, with little or no warning, through

strong ground shaking, landslides, liquefaction, or ground shifting. Additionally, they can lead to other 

failures and cascading events, such as fires and ruptured water mains, which in turn may damage 

electrical infrastructure systems. These events may damage poles or break electrical lines. Unless 

carefully designed for potential earthquake ground movement, distribution lines may fail if there is 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

138

insufficient slack in the lines to allow them to accommodate the ground movement, particularly near fault 

lines. Overhead lines tend to perform better than underground lines near fault lines because the lines have 

some slack and their supporting structures flex as well. Top loaded poles (those with transformers, 

voltage regulators, etc.) tend to fail first in an earthquake.

Many efforts are underway to improve distribution systems. There are mitigation programs and projects 

underway across the nation, such as lightning arresters. Some utilities are encasing fuses so hot metal 

pieces will not fall and potentially cause fires. There has also been a movement away from wood poles.

Where wood poles are still being used, some utilities are increasing the size and class to meet design 

criteria. 

14.2.1.4. Emerging Technologies

Many smart grid technologies available today are targeted to help electric utilities improve reliability, 

operating efficiency, and power quality, and to identify potential opportunities to improve circuits. Many 

utilities are working on smart grid integration to support better prediction of performance, as well as 

identify corrective actions. 

Technology has also helped utilities rapidly correct power outages. Many utilities have implemented

some form of distribution automation, and other technologies to improve the reliability and resilience of 

the electric power system. 

This section examines the potential role of microgrids, renewable energy, fuel cells/energy storage, and 

demand side management in improving resilience in communities and the electric power system. 

Microgrids. With regards to energy resilience, microgrids are one of the most profound emerging 

technology opportunities. Microgrids connect customer loads with distributed energy resources (DERs) 

within a defined boundary. The electric grid, or macro grid, treats the DER as a single entity; the 

microgrid manages the DERs and loads independently. Microgrids can be connected or disconnected 

from the grid and can operate independently in an island mode. They can help meet organizational 

mission requirements, participate in electric power markets, increase energy reliability and resilience, and 

incorporate renewable energy resources.

Microgrids can be implemented at numerous points in the electric power system. The most fundamental 

division is customer-side or utility-side implementation. Customer-side microgrids can be designed and 

implemented for specific operational and business requirements, and may even be designed to operate as 

an extension of an emergency generator backup system. The difference is that a microgrid is designed to 

provide full energy services for an extended period of time. A customer-side microgrid can be 

implemented to ensure business continuity during a disruptive hazard event. Recently, a major Fortune 

100 corporation included a microgrid as part of its new company campus headquarters to allow full 

operation of the facility for an unlimited time after an earthquake. A clear business case could be made 

for implementing a microgrid by extracting value from the technology during normal operations. 

In contrast, a utility-side microgrid has the challenge of balancing utility regulatory requirements with the

technology investment. Many stakeholders are involved in such decisions. Microgrids have been studied 

as a potential solution by New York, Connecticut, and California, as well as the U.S. Department of 

Energy. These studies consider how some of the regulatory frameworks may influence the ability to 

incorporate microgrids.

Microgrids are not simple, interchangeable systems. They should operate and provide value when the grid 

is operational, but require long-term operational expertise and maintenance commitment. However, in 

some cases the value for microgrids may occur when loss of critical operations poses a significant risk to 

public safety or security. Facilities essential to community recovery that may benefit from considering or 

implementing microgrid solutions include:
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

139

 Critical facilities (City Hall, Police, Fire, 911, etc.)

 Hospitals and medical centers

 Government facilities

 Key businesses for recovery, such as grocery stores, drug stores, large employers, gas stations

Renewable energy generation. Renewable energy comes from natural sources that are frequently and 

sustainably replenished. When power is interrupted, renewable energy generation can support 

uninterrupted or reduced capacity service to energy consumers. The use of renewable energy is not new, 

but emerging technology, equipment, software, and systems are evolving at a fast pace. The two primary 

emerging renewable energy generation resources are solar and wind power generation systems. 

 Solar photovoltaic (PV). The photovoltaic process converts light into direct current (DC) 

electricity. Solar cell modules supply DC electricity at a certain voltage (e.g. 12 VDC). The 

amount of current depends on the amount of light that enters the module. When multiple modules 

are strung together, a solar PV array is constructed that can produce more electricity. PV arrays 

are configured in series or in parallel to provide different voltage and current combinations. PV 

systems are being used in a variety of scenarios, ranging from small rooftop units that provide 

supplemental power to large solar farms that provide megawatts (MW) of power. The technology 

continues to improve with better efficiency conversions of light into electricity and improved 

materials. A high percentage of PV systems in the local distribution system need to be

coordinated with and managed by the utility as variable distributed resources.

 Wind power. Wind power is one of the oldest forms of renewable energy and has been harnessed 

by man for many centuries. The basic process uses turbines to capture the wind‘s energy and 

convert it into mechanical power. The mechanical power has been used to pump and move water, 

and to grind grain and corn in mills. It can also be used to create electricity through a generator. 

Although the same basic principles apply, wind generation today occurs on a large scale. Farms 

of wind turbines and generators are found throughout the Midwest, Texas, the coasts, offshore, 

and deserts. Some wind farms produce many megawatts (MW) of power. 

Fuel cells and energy storage. Fuel cells and batteries are two new technologies being developed to 

increase the number of methods available for energy storage.

 Fuel cells. Fuel cells create electricity through chemical reactions. The reaction is controllable 

and can be tuned to manage the amount of electricity produced. The types of fuels vary, but 

require oxygen and hydrogen in their chemistry. The waste from fuel cells is clean, producing 

water. Fuel cells have a variety of uses and have been popular concepts in the automotive 

industry to support environmentally-friendly hydrogen vehicles. The technology continues to 

evolve with different fuel sources, cheaper solutions, and higher capacities.

 Battery energy storage. Battery storage systems are the next innovation for energy resiliency, 

power quality, and energy efficiency. The concept is simple: when demand is low, charge the 

batteries, but when demand is high, use battery power. Batteries are often big, expensive, and do 

not last as long as desired. Also, there are very few incentives for investment in battery 

technology. The landscape is slowly changing and states like California and New York are 

performing battery studies and pilots. This emerging technology could have an enormous impact 

on how the grid is managed and combined with renewable energy generation. 

Demand side management. Demand side management (DSM) systems can modify patterns of customer 

electricity usage, including the timing and level of demand. The ability for customer loads to respond to 

external controls during an energy system emergency supports energy system performance during the 

event and afterwards when restorative actions are underway. This is especially important when microgrids 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

140

are used on either the customer side or utility side of the meter. A key challenge in managing a microgrid 

is maintaining load and generation balance to keep the system stable.

Customer side backup generation solutions, which are not intended for long-term operation or support of 

normal business operations, typically only meet emergency loads. More sophisticated systems may 

integrate renewable energy sources, fuel cells, and energy storage and interact with building automation 

systems to control building loads and optimize the performance of the system for short or long-term 

operation. 

Utility-side microgrids may also use DSM to effectively manage local feeder and substation level 

microgrids to ensure system stability and maximize the number of customers that can be served by 

systems that remain intact after a hazard event or are restored. DSM techniques can also be used at the 

bulk level to manage transmission loading constraints that may exist during or after a hazard event.

14.2.2. Liquid Fuel

The most common liquid fuels are gasoline, diesel, and kerosene-based products, such as jet fuels, that are 

produced from petroleum. Other liquid fuels include compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas 

(LPG), synthetic fuels produced from natural gas or coal, biodiesel, and alcohols. For resilience, liquid 

fuels are critical to back-up power generation and nearly all modes of transportation. In addition, 11 % of 

U.S. homes rely on heating oil or propane, with heating oil usage concentrated in the Northeast and 

propane usage concentrated in rural areas [USEIA 2009].

Although less than 1 % of all electricity in the U.S. is generated in oil-fired plants, there are some isolated 

markets in which petroleum remains the primary fuel. The leading example is Hawaii, where more than 

70 % of electricity generation is fueled by petroleum [USEIA 2014a]. 

U.S. refineries tend to be geographically concentrated and operate at 90 % or more of capacity during 

periods of strong economic growth [USEIA 2014b]. The reliability and resilience of U.S. refinery 

capacity is both a national security issue and a major regional economic issue in those areas of the U.S. 

where refinery capacity is concentrated.

Liquid fuel production, storage, and distribution systems include:

 Production fields

 Transport systems between production sites, refineries, and regional distribution centers, which 

may include ports, pipelines, and rail

 Refineries, which may include storage vessels, facilities, equipment, and power supplies

 Regional distribution systems, including storage facilities such as tank farms, pipelines, trucks, 

and pumping stations 

Regardless of where production and refinery capacity are located, all communities need to understand 

their fuel systems, including transport, storage, and distribution of fuel products. Damage to ports, tank 

farms, pipelines, railways or roadways can cause serious delays to the distribution of liquid fuels which, 

in turn, can lead to loss of backup power generation when onsite fuel supplies are exhausted. During cold 

weather periods, disruption to heating fuel supplies also has the potential of becoming a significant issue.

An example of vulnerabilities associated with the transport, storage, and distribution of fuel product can 

be seen in the energy portion of the Oregon Resilience Plan, which was developed for a magnitude 9.0 

earthquake event on the Cascadia subduction zone. The Oregon study identifies the northwest industrial 

area of Portland as Oregon‘s Critical Energy Infrastructure (CEI) Hub. More than 90 % of Oregon‘s 

refined petroleum products pass through this area before being distributed throughout the state. Potential 

hazards to liquid fuel storage and distribution networks include ground shaking, sloshing, liquefaction, 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

141

lateral spreading, landslides, settlement, bearing capacity failures, fire, seiches in the CEI Hub area, and 

tsunami damage along the coast. Fuel is transported to the site via a liquid fuel transmission pipeline from 

the north and marine vessels. Alternative modes of transporting fuel from the east or south or by air are 

limited. Key recommendations for improving the resilience of the Oregon energy system include 

conducting vulnerability assessments, developing mitigation plans, diversifying transportation corridors 

and storage locations, providing alternate means fuel delivery to end users, and coordinated planning for 

future systems and recovery [OSSPAC 2013].

The American Lifelines Association [ALA 2005] identified the performance measures and metrics for 

pipeline systems shown in Table 14-1.

A qualitative ranking of typical pipeline system components and facilities vulnerability to hazards from 

the ALA [2005] study is reproduced in Table 14-2.

Table 14-1: The American Lifelines Association high-level performance measures and performance 

metrics for pipeline systems [Adapted from ALA 2005]

Desired Outcomes 

(Performance Targets)

System Performance Metrics

Capital 

Losses 

($)

Revenue 

Losses 

($)

Service Disruption 

(% service 

population)

Downtime 

(hours)

Casualties 

(deaths, 

injuries)

Lost 

Product

Protect public and utility 

personnel safety

X X

Maintain system 

reliability

X X

Prevent monetary loss X X X X X

Prevent environmental 

damage

X
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

142

Table 14-2: Qualitative ranking of typical pipeline system components and facilities 

vulnerability to hazards to [Adapted from ALA 2005]

Hazards

Degree of Vulnerability

Transmission PipelinesPump StationsCompressor StationsProcessing FacilitiesStorage TanksControl SystemsMaintenance Operations Buildings & EquipmentPressure Regulations / Metering StationsDistribution PipelinesService Lines or Connections

Natural Hazards

Earthquake shaking L M M M H M H L L M

Earthquake permanent ground deformations (fault 

rupture, liquefaction, landslide and settlement)

H - - - L - - L H 

(Buried)

M

Ground movements (landslide, frost heave, 

settlement)

H - - - L - - L H 

(Buried)

M

Flooding (riverine, storm surge, tsunami and seiche) L H H H M H H H L M

Wind (hurricane, tornado) L (Aerial) - - - - L L - - -

Icing L - - - - - - - L -

Collateral hazard: blast or fire M H H H H M L L L M

Collateral hazard: dam inundation L H H H M H H H L M

Collateral hazard: nearby collapse - L L L - L L L M L

Human Threats

Physical attack (biological, chemical, radiological 

and blast)

M M M M - M M - M -

Cyber attack - L L L - H L - L -

Note: Degrees of vulnerability: H = High, M = Moderate, L = Low. For a component or system located within a 

building, the vulnerability of both the building and component should be considered. For example, where there is a 

potential building collapse or mandatory evacuation, the equipment housed within is at risk. The Table 14-2 entries 

assume the component is of recent vintage, i.e., post 1945.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

143

14.2.3. Natural Gas

Natural gas pipelines and storage facilities comprise a vast infrastructure that services 65 million homes, 5 

million businesses, 193,000 factories and 5,500 electric generating facilities [McDonough 2013]. There 

are nominally over 3.9 million km (2.4 million miles) of natural gas pipelines in the continental U.S., with

pipelines running along roads and private easements under both urban and rural lands [McDonough 

2013].

Natural gas pipelines are buried structures and, therefore, predominantly damaged by events that affect 

the soil, such as ground shaking, liquefaction, and ground rupture. Specific points of failure may be 

predicted when rupture or liquefaction occurs, but the most damaging event on a wide scale is ground 

shaking [Nadeau 2007]. Existing weaknesses or aging effects, which may be the first points of failure, can 

include corrosion, poor welds, and weak or strained material. Regular maintenance can have a beneficial 

effect, as can upgrading piping from iron (used in older pipeline) to plastic (for low-pressure distribution 

lines) or steel pipe. 

Fuel cells are being used as a power source to achieve a more resilient natural gas infrastructure. Fuel 

cells provide a decentralized, reliable source of power that has proven useful in hazard events. They are 

considered a distributed resource by IEEE. For example, during Hurricane Sandy, one manufacturer put 

60 fuel cells in place to provide backup power to cell phone towers. These were the only cell towers that 

remained operational during and after the storm [Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association 2014].

Aboveground facilities that support processes such as compressor stations, processing plants, meter 

stations, and wells are the most vulnerable parts of the natural gas system. For example, unusually cold 

weather in 2011 caused interruptions in natural gas service in the Southwest, which, in turn, caused 

outages at gas-fired electric generating facilities that were experiencing high demand for electricity. A 

joint report by FERC and NERC [FERC and NERC 2011) concluded these outages and disruptions of 

service were caused by weather-related mechanical problems such as frozen sensing lines, equipment, 

water lines and valves. The report recommended adopting minimum winterization standards for natural 

gas production and processing facilities, and suggested that additional underground natural gas storage 

capacity in the region could have ameliorated the impacts of natural gas supply shortages.

14.2.4. Emergency and Standby Power

Emergency and standby power are often used to improve recovery of functions and community resilience. 

Some infrastructure elements are required by code provisions to have emergency or standby power. For 

others, it is a non-mandated option available to provide a service.

IEEE [1995] defines an emergency power system as ―an independent reserve source of electric energy 

that, upon failure or outage of the normal source, automatically provides reliable electric power within a

specified time to critical devices and equipment whose failure to operate satisfactorily would jeopardize 

the health and safety of personnel or result in damage to property.‖

The National Electric Code, or NEC [NFPA 2014], defines emergency systems as ―those systems legally 

required and classed as emergency by municipal, state, federal, or other codes, or by any governmental 

agency having jurisdiction. These systems are intended to automatically supply illumination, power, or 

both, to designated areas and equipment in the event of failure of the normal supply or in the event of 

accident to elements of a system intended to supply, distribute, and control power and illumination 

essential for safety to human life.‖
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

144

The NEC [NFPA 2014] divides standby power systems into two categories:

 Legally Required Standby Systems. Those systems required and so classed as legally 

required standby by municipal, state, federal, and other codes or by any 

governmental agency having jurisdiction. These systems are intended to 

automatically supply power to selected loads (other than those classed as emergency 

systems) in the event of failure of the normal source. Legally required standby 

systems are typically installed to serve loads, such as heating and refrigeration 

systems, communications systems, ventilation and smoke removal systems, sewage 

disposal, lighting systems, and industrial processes that, when stopped during any 

interruption of the normal electrical supply, could create hazards or hamper rescue 

and fire-fighting operations.

 Optional Standby Systems. Those systems intended to supply power to public or 

private facilities or property where life safety does not depend on the performance of 

the system. Optional standby systems are intended to supply on-site generated power 

to selected loads either automatically or manually. Optional standby systems are 

typically installed to provide an alternate source of electric power for such facilities 

as industrial and commercial buildings, farms, and residences and to serve loads 

such as heating and refrigeration systems, data processing and communications 

systems, and industrial processes that, when stopped during any power outage, could 

cause discomfort, serious interruption of the process, damage to the product or 

process, and the like.

Emergency and standby power systems are essential for continuous operation of critical facilities, such as 

hospitals and emergency operations centers. Emergency and standby power are also needed to mitigate 

cascading failures of transportation and 

infrastructure systems that depend on electric 

power, including: communications networks, 

wastewater lift stations, wastewater treatment 

plants, water treatment plants, water distribution 

pumps, transportation fueling stations, traffic 

signals, traffic monitoring systems, and railway 

signals [ALA 2006]. Guidance exists as to what 

size and type of systems could provide 

alternative power sources on the customer-side 

of the meter. The Emergency Power Facility Assessment Tool (EPFAT), described in the sidebar, is an 

example of a tool that can help owners of critical facilities remain up to date with the most recent 

guidance for generators. 

Considerations for safe and reliable operation of onsite emergency and standby power include:

 Proper ventilation of combustion products and cooling system components

 Availability of adequate uninterruptable power supply (UPS) to support critical systems until 

emergency or standby power comes on line

 Ability to start emergency or standby power generation without power from the grid

 Prioritization of power needs and proper sizing of generators and circuits to safely meet essential 

requirements

 Installation of permanent quick-connect hookups to accept power from temporary generators 

 Ability to safely transfer back to the grid when primary power is restored

The USACE [2015] developed a tool called the 

Emergency Power Facility Assessment Tool

(EPFAT). The EPFAT allows public entities to input 

generator and bill of material requirements into an 

online database with the intention of expediting the 

support of temporary power installations after events. 

There are currently over 16,000 facilities in the 

database.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

145

National Fire Protection Association Standards 110 and 111 provide performance standards for 

Emergency and Standby Power Systems [NFPA 2013a] and Stored Electrical Energy Emergency and 

Standby Power Systems [NFPA 2013b], respectively. NPFA 110 recognizes two classification levels: 

critical to life and safety (Level 1) and less critical (Level 2). Level 1 applications include life safety 

illumination, fire detection and alarm systems, elevators, fire pumps, public safety communications 

systems, industrial processes where current interruption would produce serious life safety or health 

hazards, and essential ventilating and smoke removal systems. Level 2 applications include heating and 

refrigerating systems, other communications systems, other ventilating and smoke removal systems, 

sewage disposal, lighting, and industrial processes.

Key considerations for having adequate fuel for emergency and standby power system include an on-site

fuel supply to support essential power loads and a fuel that can be delivered by truck. Alternative fuel

sources, such as solar arrays, can be considered for functions such as maintaining lighting for emergency 

exit paths, providing water pressure in buildings, or operating transportation signals or pumps at fueling 

stations [Andrews et al. 2013].

Diesel generators range from small mobile generators to larger permanently installed systems. Small

generators can be easily deployed to power traffic signals, rail crossing signals, or critical circuits in 

residential or small commercial buildings, but they require frequent refueling, pose safety hazards to 

inexperienced operators, and may not be reliable if poorly maintained or used infrequently. Permanently 

installed generators have more substantial fuel capacities and may be safer to operate and more reliable if 

tested and maintained on a regular schedule.

Following Hurricane Sandy, the State of New Jersey used FEMA HMGP funds to establish a Retail Fuel 

Station Energy Resiliency Program [NJOEM 2014]. Eligibility requirements for the program include:

 Stations must be located within 1⁄4-mile of an identified evacuation route

 Stations with gasoline storage capacity of 30,000 to 35,000 gallons were eligible for up to a 

$15,000 grant to purchase quick-connect technology or to offset a portion of the cost of 

purchasing a generator

 Stations with gasoline storage capacity of more than 35,000 gallons were eligible for up to a 

$65,000 grant toward the purchase and installation of an onsite generator

 Stations must sell both gasoline and diesel fuel (except in limited instances)

The program requires a maintenance contract be in place for at least five years from the date of final 

approval of municipal building inspector. 

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is a highly efficient method of providing uninterrupted power and 

thermal (heating or cooling) services to a host facility. CHP systems are typically powered by natural gas 

fueled turbines or reciprocating engines. Over a dozen case studies of successful CHP system 

performance during Hurricane Sandy and other recent large-scale power outages have been documented 

by Hampson et al. [2013]. Key advantages of CHP systems over conventional diesel generators include 

better reliability, lower fuel costs, lower emissions, and the ability to address thermal demands in addition

to power demands. Texas and Louisiana now require that all state and local government entities identify 

which government-owned buildings are critical in an emergency and that a feasibility study on CHP is 

conducted prior to constructing or extensively renovating a critical government facility. In New York, the 

State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the State Office of Emergency 

Management have partnered to educate emergency managers about the benefits of CHP systems in 

emergency facilities; and the governor has announced a $20 million investment towards CHP projects, 

with added incentives for projects serving critical infrastructure, including facilities of refuge [Hampson 

et al. 2013].
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

146

The technologies described in this section are mature and widely deployed. All of these technologies may 

be employed and coupled with a sophisticated control system to support a microgrid.

14.3. Performance Goals

Table 14-3 presents an example performance goals table for the energy system that is to be filled in by the 

community and its stakeholders. Communities can use the example table to track desired (future) 

performance goals and anticipated (current) performance of existing infrastructure for the electric power

system for hazard events. Performance goals in this Guide are defined as ―time to recovery of function‖

after a hazard event. The desired performance goals for the energy system are indicated in stages, as the 

time to provide 30 %, 60 %, and 90 % of the desired functions to the community after a hazard event. 

Example performance goals for the fictional community of Riverbend, USA, are provided in Volume I to 

illustrate the six-step planning process. 

Performance goals for the energy system should align with the broader community goals (see Step 3, 

Determine goals and objectives in Volume 1). Key stakeholders within the community, including owners, 

engineers, planners, regulators, codes and standards representatives, and representatives of other 

infrastructure systems (e.g., communication, transportation, and water and wastewater) should help 

develop or review the performance goals.

There needs to be extensive collaboration when establishing the performance goals for energy systems, as

most buildings and other infrastructure systems are strongly dependent on energy. For example, both 

overhead and underground distribution lines for power and communication systems are often within the 

right-of-way of roads and bridges. Water, gas, and wastewater utilities need power for pumps and 

treatment plants.

Table 14-3 has examples of functional categories within the electric power infrastructure system 

(generation, transmission, and distribution) and specific support to community building clusters that 

provide services (see Chapter 4 in Volume I). Many communities do not have bulk generation plants 

within their jurisdiction, and receive power generated outside the community. Distributed generation

refers to small distributed sources of energy, such as microgrids, solar power, and wind power. 

Transmission and distribution systems exist in all communities, and are the systems that may be damaged 

during a hazard event. These systems play a key role in community recovery by supporting recovery of 

building clusters, other infrastructure systems, and community needs. 

Recovery times are broken down into three main phases: short-term, intermediate, and long-term. The 

short-term phase (0-3 days) supports immediate recovery of the community. The intermediate recovery 

phase (1-12 weeks) supports the return of individuals and businesses to their daily functions. The longterm recovery phase (4-36+ months) supports the need to rebuild, retrofit, and strengthen the 

transportation network.

Each community should identify and plan for prevailing hazards that may have significant negative 

impact on the built environment. When developing the performance goals, the community should 

evaluate three different event levels (routine, design, and extreme events) that were presented and

discussed in Chapter 4 (Volume I). As a reference point, the design event is generally synonymous with 

hazard magnitudes or intensities defined by the building codes and standards. A full discussion of hazard 

types and levels is given in Chapter 4 (Volume I) and Chapter 12.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

147

Table 14-3: Example electrical energy infrastructure performance goals table to be filled out by 

community and its stakeholders 

Disturbance 1 Restoration Levels 2,3

Hazard Type Any 30% Function Restored

Hazard Level Routine, Design, Extreme 60% Function Restored

Affected Area Localized, Community, Regional 90% Function Restored

Disruption Level Usual, Moderate, Severe X Anticipated Performance

Communications Infrastructure Support 

Needed4

Design Hazard Performance

Phase 1

Short-Term

Phase 2

Intermediate

Phase 3

Long-Term

Days Weeks Months

0 1 1-3 1-4 4-8 8-12 4 4-24 24+

Power - Electric Utilities

Community Owned or Operated Bulk Generation

Generation Requiring Fuel Transport (Coal, Gas, 

Oil fired)

In Place Fueled Generation (Hydro, solar, wind, 

wave, compressed air)

Storage (Thermal, Chemical, Mechanical)

Community Owned or Operated Distributed Generation

Generation Requiring Fuel Transport (Coal, Gas, 

Oil fired)

In Place Fueled Generation (Hydro, solar, wind, 

wave, compressed air)

Storage (Thermal, Chemical, Mechanical)

Transmission and Distribution (including Substations)

Critical Facilities

Hospitals, Police and Fire Stations / Emergency 

Operations Centers

Debris / recycling centers/ Related lifeline 

systems

Emergency Housing

Public Shelters / Nursing Homes / Food 

Distribution Centers

Emergency shelter for response / recovery 

workforce/ Key Commercial and Finance

Housing/Neighborhood

Essential city services facilities / schools / 

Medical offices

Houses of worship/meditation/ exercise

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

services) and prosecution activities

Community Recovery 

Commercial and industrial businesses / Nonemergency city services

Residential housing restoration

Footnotes:

1 Specify hazard type being considered

Specify hazard level – Routine, Design, Extreme

Specify the anticipated size of the area affected – Local, Community, Regional

Specify anticipated severity of disruption – Minor, Moderate, Severe

2 30% 60% 90% Desired restoration times for percentage of elements within the cluster

3 X Anticipated performance for 90 % restoration of cluster for existing buildings and infrastructure systems 

Cluster recovery times will be shown on the Summary Matrix

4 Indicate levels of support anticipated by plan

R = Regional; S= State; MS=Multi-State; C = Civil (Corporate/Local)

The affected area of a given hazard event, which often depends on the type and intensity of the hazard, 

helps define the area that may need resilience planning. The affected area indicates the extent of potential 

damage by the hazard event, including surrounding communities, which will impact the duration of the 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

148

recovery process. The disruption level, on the other hand, is a general estimate of potential disruption to 

the existing transportation infrastructure system as a whole, and should be specified as minor, moderate, 

or severe. 

Community stakeholders, including representatives from the utility providers, need to work together to 

determine the functions needed during recovery and the performance goals tailored to their community 

needs and energy systems. This process will guide the resilience conversation between the users and 

providers and help to establish common vocabulary and expectations of system performance both in the 

current state and in the desired, future resilient community.

Note that for energy systems, the local owner operator (e.g. investor owned electric utility (IOU), 

municipal electric utility, cooperative electric utility, gas utility) has responsibility for the prioritization of 

service restoration based on federal, state and local laws and regulations, as well as ensuring the safe, 

reliable operation of the power system. The local community and owner operators can develop restoration 

priorities outside of those required by regulation for safety and reliability. 

To develop performance goals for Table 14-3, community stakeholders should identify desired 

performance of the energy systems to support a community in a manner that is considered resilient. The 

desired (future) performance goals should be based on the needs of social institutions after a hazard event. 

The anticipated performance (i.e., the ―X‖) should be based on the expected performance of the existing 

infrastructure system, which may include data and response times from recent hazard events. 

As such, much of the current infrastructure and response efforts managed by larger utilities may meet the 

90 % restored metric identified and therefore the blue shaded box can be marked with the 90 % to show 

that they are overlapping. However, the target performance levels proposed may not currently be achieved 

by utilities and providers. 

Community performance goals cannot address the restoration of the generation or transmission 

capabilities when these infrastructure assets are heavily damaged by an event. For hazard events, it is 

generally expected that the grid will be able to respond and absorb some level of infrastructure failure. 

Short- and long-term solutions to disruptions, outages, and interruptions need to be part of the recovery 

planning process. The ability of the sub elements and functions to be operational soon after an event may 

be achieved through a variety of solutions, including deployment of distributed generation and microgrids 

on both utility and consumer sides of the meter. Restoration prioritization and solutions chosen to work 

around restoration time constraints are highly dependent on the nature of the event, level and location of 

the damage, geography, and electrical characteristics of the affected systems. Some may require capital 

investments, while others are operational responses that are labor and personnel dependent. 

The percentage of the electric power infrastructure the utilities can quickly restore will vary from 

community to community. The sub elements presented in the table are a representative set. Communities 

may have a greater or smaller number of elements and functions than depicted here. The local planning 

process should evaluate and establish the sub elements and functions that should have desired 

performance goals.

As examples, previous work to establish performance goals can be found in the efforts undertaken by 

SPUR [SPUR 2009], the California Energy Assurance Planning [CaLEAP 2015] program, and the State 

of Oregon Resilience Plan [OSSPAC 2013].

14.4. Regulatory Environment

The electric utility and liquid fuel industries are highly regulated with the goals of keeping prices low, 

keeping delivery safe, and providing reliable, quality products to consumers. Regulation occurs at the 

federal and state levels. Regulations, codes, and standards can help improve new and existing 

infrastructure performance and recovery from hazard events, while addressing these societal goals.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

149

14.4.1. Federal 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the U.S. national regulatory body responsible for 

interstate transmission of oil, natural gas, and electricity [FERC 2015]. They are also responsible for 

reviewing interstate gas pipeline proposals, licensing hydropower plants, and reviewing proposals for 

developing liquefied natural gas terminals. FERC regulates the interstate wholesale sales and transmission 

of electricity, reviews and makes decisions on utility mergers and acquisitions, monitors and investigates 

energy markets, and provides rulings on transmission siting applications. FERC has the authority to 

impose civil penalties and fines for non-compliance to regulatory rules.

The Western Energy Crisis, the Enron scandal, and a historic East Coast blackout, led Congress to grant 

broad new authority to the FERC in 2005. A joint U.S.-Canada task force studied the causes and effects 

of the 2003 blackout and identified the need to make reliability standards mandatory and enforceable with 

penalties for noncompliance. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 [EPAct 2005] entrusted FERC with a new 

responsibility to oversee mandatory, enforceable reliability standards for the nation‘s Bulk Power 

System—that is, the wholesale power grid. The business of reliability became not just a set of industry 

best practices; it became a matter of national policy importance. 

Through Section 215 of the Federal Power Act [1920], Congress authorized FERC to certify a national 

Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), which is the North American Electric Reliability Corporation

(NERC). NERC is a non-profit entity whose mission is to ensure the reliability of the Bulk Power System 

in North America. NERC develops and enforces reliability standards and annually assess seasonal and 

long-term reliability, monitor the BPS through system awareness, and educate, train, and certify industry 

personnel. NERC‘s area of responsibility spans the continental United States, Canada, and the northern 

portion of Baja California, Mexico. NERC is subject to oversight by FERC and governmental authorities 

in Canada [NERC 2015b].

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), another federal regulator, is responsible for licensing and 

inspecting nuclear reactors, and providing regulations, guidelines, and best practices for their operation. 

They are also responsible for any nuclear fuel manufacturing oversight and for coordinating and 

participating in nuclear energy research and development.

Each of the various state and federal authorities regulates different and overlapping aspects of the electric 

system. The requirements, standards and codes for each are lengthy, complex, evolving and are part of the 

process seeking refinements to facilitate reliability and resilience improvements.

14.4.2. State 

Each state has a regulatory commission with responsibility to represent the electric power consumers in 

their jurisdiction. State commissions regulate retail electricity and gas, approve physical construction of 

infrastructure projects, rule on local distribution of electricity and gas, and provide general regulatory 

oversight of local utilities and gas distribution companies. The commission meets regularly with state 

utilities and conducts performance assessments. If performance metrics are not met, utilities may be 

punished or fined. 

Utilities and state public service commissions (PSC) work to balance regulations and rules governing 

utility roles and responsibilities. For instance, there is evolving regulation of rooftop solar systems and 

behind the meter load, and the ability of solar companies to sell power back to the utility. This is referred 

to as ―net metering‖ and the rules vary from state to state. Utilities need to account for the additional 

operating costs associated with planning, maintaining, and operating the infrastructure system as well as 

ensuring that failure of one customer‘s equipment does not cause other service disruptions.

The rules and regulations are primarily administered by state PSCs and utilities, but the oversight roles of 

the regional Independent System Operators (ISOs) and the Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

150

are also important, particularly with respect to cost and reliability. The ISOs and RTOs have similar

functions, though the RTOs have greater responsibility for the regional transmission network, as 

established by FERC. However, both the ISOs and RTOs operate regional electricity grids, administer the 

wholesale electricity markets, and provide reliability planning for the bulk electric system. Some of these 

systems such as the New York ISO (NYISO) are single state systems, and some are more regional such as 

the ISO New England (ISO-NE) system and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP). Due to the interrelatedness of the North American grid, the ISO/RTO systems may be international and include for 

example, the Alberta Electric System Operator.

14.4.3. Local 

At the State and Local levels, codes and standards are adopted by the cities, municipalities, counties, other 

local government entities, state PSCs, PUCs, ISOs, and RTOs to govern design and construction of the 

infrastructure. There is a wide variation in the level of design guidance that is provided by the codes and 

standards adopted by these entities. While some have best practices, others reference ANSI-approved, 

consensus codes and standards. 

14.5. Codes and Standards

A variety of codes and standards are used in the electric power industry for the design and construction of 

generation, transmission, and distribution systems. While ASCE 7 is now incorporated by reference and 

used more frequently than in the past, most of the Transmission and Distribution assets are designed to 

the National Electric Safety Code (NESC) or the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) design manuals/standards, 

respectively. There are many variables related to design and construction of these assets. Not all elements 

may be addressed here or will require additional cross-checking with additional codes, standards, and 

regulations.

In 2009, NIST established the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP). The SGIP is a private-public 

partnership that identifies electricity delivery standards gaps, fills the gaps through requirements analysis, 

and coordinates with Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs) to create or modify interoperability 

standards and guidelines. The SGIP maintains a Catalog of Standards (SGIP 2015) that lists many 

standards that have been vetted through a regimented process with regards to cybersecurity and 

architectural integrity.

The National Electric Safety Code (NESC) is the electric code that is adhered to by the Investor-Owned 

Utilities (IOUs) who design and construct the Transmission assets; Sections 24 (Grades of Construction), 

25 (Loading Requirements) and 26 (Strength Requirements). NESC Rules 215 (grounding) and 218 

(trees) present information important to vegetation management. While this is a safety code, it is used as 

an engineering design code in lieu of other guidance. Each utility also has a standards department that 

evaluates the various codes and standards that are applied during design and construction of their assets. 

They evaluate any new equipment to ensure it meets or exceeds these standards. From the baseline set 

forth in the NESC, it is important to note that all IOUs have developed their own standards for their 

respective systems. While most of these standards exceed the minimums set forth by the NESC, 

performance desired for resilience may exceed the baseline set forth when considering hazards (e.g., 

flood, wind, seismic, ice, and other natural hazards and human-caused threats).

In a similar fashion, the co-operatives and municipalities responsible for distribution assets use the design 

manuals and standards from the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). The RUS distribution line design manuals 

consist of RUS bulletins 1724-150 [USDA 2014] through 1724-154 [USDA 2003]. These refer to the 

identification of critical loads and customers and of poles and equipment. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

151

The information in the following sections is provided to help communities better develop their own 

performance goals for new construction by identifying performance criteria that have been considered in 

the design of these assets.

14.5.1. New Construction

For some elements of the energy system, the design criteria for hazards have been aligned with building 

standards, such as ASCE 7. However, performance goals for these systems are not well defined. 

Definitions are also less clear regarding what are considered routine, design, and extreme events.

The following summarizes hazards considered by the NESC (Part 2, Section 25):

 250B – combined ice and wind – This is the basic loading criterion and is known as the ―District 

Loading.‖ It incorporates both wind and ice with overload and strength factors. This applies to all 

structures and references the map presented in Figure 250-1 [IEEE 2012]. The boundaries of the 

districts follow county lines. Data were obtained from a small number of weather stations, which

were far apart. While the industry has discussed replacing this map with appropriate maps from 

ASCE 7, this issue is still being evaluated. 

 250C – extreme wind – These criteria account for the higher winds typically found along the 

coastline and during extreme events. These criteria are only used for structures that are higher 

than 60‘ above ground (70‘ pole and longer [IEEE 2012]). Appropriate maps are Figures 250-2a 

through 250-2e [IEEE 2012]. Due to their typical tower height, transmission lines are designed to 

these criteria. The overload and strength factors used are generally 1 since this is an extreme 

event map (note, the nomenclature of ―extreme wind‖ used here is not consistent with the extreme 

wind event used for the design and construction of buildings or storm shelters per the ICC-500 

[2014]). These criteria were first introduced into the NESC in 1977 [IEEE 2015]. The 2002 

NESC [IEEE 2002] incorporated the wind maps from ASCE 7-98. The 2012 NESC [IEEE 2012] 

uses the wind maps from ASCE 7-05. The ASCE 7-10 wind maps were revised to better represent 

the wind hazard for the range of design conditions required for buildings and structures. The 

maps now are based on new and updated modeling efforts, refinements to understanding of wind 

performance, and incorporation of risk and reliability factors into the maps for building Risk 

Categories (see Chapter 12). However, these maps are not used by the NESC based on a decision 

by their code committee to retain the use of the ASCE 7-05 wind maps and not update the NESC 

engineering coefficients for the new map assumptions. Currently, NESC is working with ASCE 

to determine how to incorporate the new maps being prepared for the 2016 update of ASCE 7. 

 250D – combined ice and wind – This criterion was added in the 2007 NESC to account for

extreme ice events [IEEE 2015]. This criterion is similar to the extreme wind load. Most 

transmission assets will be designed to this criterion while distribution assets will not. Over the 

years, most utilities had their own extreme ice loading for the design of transmission assets. The 

maps from ASCE 7-05 have been retained and referenced for this criterion.

 Additional Standards related to hazard-resistant design include:

 ASCE 7-10 [ASCE 2010] exempts electrical lines from seismic design

 ASCE 113 [ASCE 2008] applies design criteria for stations. Seismic design is addressed in 

this standard

 ANSI O5 [ANSI 2008] applies to wood poles

 ANSI C29 [ANSI 2013] applies to insulators
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

152

Most distribution structures are shorter than the 18 m (60 ft) height limitation. Therefore, most utilities 

will not design their distribution lines to the ASCE 7 criteria. This criterion may need to be reconsidered 

given the performance of electric power systems during hurricanes and tornadoes. Utilities can consider 

additional design criteria beyond the required minimums to meet desired performance goals. 

14.5.1.1. Implied or Stated Performance Levels for Design Hazard Level

As discussed in the previous section, structures greater than 18 m (60 ft) tall are designed for ASCE 7 

wind and ice hazards. Though the NESC defines this as an extreme loading case, these loads are 

consistent with the design event as defined in this Guide. Therefore, future energy infrastructure greater 

than 18 m (60 ft) tall should have very few failures in a design event. However, energy infrastructure less 

than 18 m (60 ft) tall (i.e., most distribution structures) is not required to be designed to the NESC 

extreme loads. Rather, they can be designed to Rule 250B criteria, which is less than a design event as 

defined in Chapter 4 (Volume I). Therefore, failures in the energy distribution system are more likely to 

occur in a design ice or wind event than for buildings and structures designed according to ASCE 7 

criteria. For instance, some failures in the distribution system may occur during routine wind or ice 

events, depending on the system design criteria relative to the event magnitude. Designing and 

constructing distribution system elements to standards used for buildings and other structures to which 

they provide service, as well as an effective tree-trimming program, would improve the performance of 

the distribution system when a hazard event does occur. 

Overhead structures and their supporting foundations that are designed to take into account local soil 

characteristics would be anticipated to perform well during earthquakes due to their flexibility. However, 

actual performance during a design earthquake event for these systems is not well characterized. Buried 

distribution lines may fail due to liquefaction or if there is not enough slack in the lines to resist the 

displacements and forces from design earthquake events. Flooding may also lead to failure of 

underground infrastructure, if not adequately designed for inundation or protected from scour or 

landslides.

14.5.1.2. Recovery Levels

The time to recover and restore service of energy infrastructure less than 18 m (60 ft) in height will 

depend on a number of factors, such as whether distribution lines are overhead or underground, mobility 

of emergency repair crews, availability of resources for repair, and extent of the affected area. Overhead 

distribution lines may fail more frequently due to wind or ice events. However, these failures are easier to 

access and repair than underground lines, which may fail during flood or earthquake events. 

Underground infrastructure damage is more difficult to access and repair. Therefore, while overhead 

distribution infrastructure may have more widespread failures that will likely take days to weeks to 

recover, a few underground failures may result in the same recovery time. However, widespread 

underground failures may result in a number of weeks to restore full functionality of the system. 

14.5.2. Existing Construction

For existing infrastructure elements of the energy system, the design criteria used for performance and 

hazards varies greatly. In many cases, little to no consideration was given to the forces and loads imparted 

to the infrastructure by hazard events because the design pre-dated design standards, such as ASCE 7

[ASCE 2010], that provide criteria to calculate and apply such loads. In some instances, hazard resistance 

was incorporated through anecdotal information, such as siting of critical infrastructure based on past 

storms or through conservative design approaches and use of materials that provide some level of 

resilience. Further, performance goals for these systems were likely never considered or defined. As a 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

153

result, older infrastructure may have vulnerabilities. This section discusses the anticipated or implied 

performance for existing infrastructure elements to help develop better estimates of anticipated 

performance during hazard events. 

Examples of these vulnerabilities may include:

 Clustered, below grade transformers. Transformers tightly clustered in underground vaults and 

small substation yards, many at or below grade, often fill with water and debris during floods, 

mudslides, and earthquakes. System redundancy can mitigate the loss of service provided or time 

to restore service.

 Single pole substation high and low voltage feeds. Using single poles to take both the incoming 

and outgoing lines from substations creates a potential single point of failure. If the lines are 

separated and the incoming high voltage pole or tower fails, distributed generation may still be 

able to feed the station. If a low side feeder exit pole fails, the incoming high voltage feed 

remains functional, as do other low voltage feeder poles.

 Fuses, not breakers in many locations. Using fuses rather than breakers or reclosers in different 

parts of a distribution system is largely a cost-based decision. Using more breakers and reclosers 

may be a new best practice when considering resilience. Also, the lack of sectionalizers in many 

utility systems can mean that a single fault results in a loss of service to all customers while the 

damaged circuit is being repaired.

 Underground ducts run close together and crossing in many shallow manholes. The proximity 

of many ducts is a potential common failure mode not generally considered in existing design 

practices.

 Lack of automation. Most switching in the distribution grid today is local and manual, such that

restoration of power using alternate configurations requires a person to physically access the gear.

Vulnerabilities in existing communications and control equipment used to support the energy system may 

include:

 Single communications card/frequency in devices. A single communication card or frequency

can create a point of failure and potential interference issue with increased radio traffic during

event response.

 Single encryption key or default passwords for all devices in a system. Encryption and password 

issues are a well-known security issue being addressed in critical infrastructure, but this issue is 

not considered for most distribution systems.

 Very small batteries and super capacitors in devices. Small energy storage devices have a short 

communications window on a few channels, which can progress to a number of dropped or 

missed communications during outages, limiting the ability to optimize crew dispatch.

 Mesh networks performance on cold start. Some mesh network implementation plans being used

for field area networks may be fragile when the system starts to have outages. It takes time to 

reform an implementation plan after an outage, and plans may be limited by small batteries, deep 

mesh designs, lack of stored cold start parameters, etc.

 Common right of ways. Fiber and other communication circuits tend to run in the same rights of 

ways (on the same poles) as the electrical service – breaking one normally breaks both. 

 Telecommunications Route Diversity. Diversity of routes may not exist because of a small 

number of telecomm switches or central offices.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

154

 Cellular Communications Emergency Operating Practices. While cellular towers offer coverage 

in many locations, without adequate emergency or standby power, the towers revert to emergency 

calling only when the grid goes down, and can affect electric power communications that rely on

cellular systems for backhaul.

 Digital Phone System Powering Requirements. Unlike the Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS)

system, digital phone systems require power at each street box. 

Most of these issues do not have explicit codes and regulations, but some do. Most come under the 

category of best practices on both the customer and utility sides of the meter. These vulnerabilities will 

remain until new construction (undertaken using new codes and best practices that consider resilience)

replaces the older infrastructure.

Some utilities on the east coast are starting to look at protection or mitigation of stations after Hurricane 

Sandy. Design or retrofit options might include elevating structures and control buildings above design 

flood levels, or relocating the station outside the flood zone. While NESC rules address vegetation 

management, there is a lack of best management practices to guide the industry.

14.5.2.1. Implied or Stated Performance Levels for Design Hazard Level

As discussed in Section 14.3, the 90 % desired performance goals may already be met by the anticipated

performance of some electric utilities. For routine hazard events, most consumers of electricity and fuel 

expect restoration within minutes or hours, not days.

Some existing utility infrastructure is up to 30 years in age, and most infrastructure systems 10 years or 

newer are highly dependent on communications and control networks to operate effectively in adverse 

conditions. This is especially true for those systems with some level of automation that permit automatic 

or remote controlled circuit switching, sectionalizing, and reconfiguration. The availability and 

operational state of field assets is also directly impacted by the availability of communications equipment.

There are multiple failure modes for communications and control equipment. One that is addressed by 

codes and standards for new construction is the ability of electronic equipment to operate correctly in 

harsh environmental conditions. Early implementations of network gear in substations were based on 

consumer gear that had very low tolerance for temperature, humidity, shock, vibration, and the 

electromagnetic environment. Even first generation industrial quality gear intended for utility applications 

did not consider the environment found in substation and feeder applications. New standards, such IEC 

61850-3 [IEC 2013] and IEEE 1613 [IEEE 2009], address some of these issues. The IEC standard that is 

used around the world, but especially in Europe, has good environmental (temperature, shock, and 

vibration) guidelines, but the equivalent IEEE standard used primarily in North America does not. In 

North America, there is presently no code or regulation that requires communications and control 

equipment to comply with any standard, and best practices are still emerging. Standards defined for 

communication facilities, as described in Chapter 15, do not apply to other industries or utilities that may 

implement or utilize similar equipment to support the functioning of their business. These systems may be 

vulnerable to communication and control failures until they are updated or replaced.

14.5.2.2. Recovery Levels

When events do occur and recovery efforts are required, the priorities and restoration efforts should 

address emergency-related societal needs first and progress through a tiered response. The example 

performance goals table lists the following tiers: critical facilities, emergency housing, housing and 

neighborhoods including essential services, and then the systematic restoration of the community at large. 

Factors that may affect time to recovery of function are listed below:
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

155

 Emergency Facilities and Services Restoration. When planning for recovery of service, consider 

communication infrastructure that links critical emergency resources (wire line communications, 

cellular radio, and third party managed radio systems). Technologies and systems that address 

core emergency services should be properly planned, tested, maintained, and restored first.

 Critical Rights of Way and Infrastructure Restoration. Recovery of systems‘ functions depend

on the ability to effectively dispatch and manage road and right of way clearing crews, electric 

repair crews, and other non-emergency yet vital restoration related organizations and services. 

Emergency power may be needed for utility crew dispatch centers, key city buildings such as city 

hall, public works crew facilities. 

 Community Restoration. Full restoration can require days, weeks, or even months depending on 

the type and level of hazard event. This aspect of restoration may be unplanned if the extent of 

damage has not been previously experienced. This element should be carefully prioritized and 

integrated into the plan for community resilience. 

 Mitigation Projects or Resiliency Efforts. Mitigation projects may be constructed during 

recovery to improve energy system performance for future events, and may employ technologies 

such as backup generation, renewable energy, or microgrids.

14.6. Strategies for Implementation of Plans for Community Resilience

The objectives of this section are to provide guidance on how a community should work through the 

process of defining solutions to address the gaps in desired energy system performance following a 

hazard event.

14.6.1. Available Guidance

Energy assurance is a relatively new concept for energy systems. Energy assurance addresses systems 

planning for normal operations and for effects from all hazards. It addresses energy delivery and 

reliability and the effects of aging infrastructure and effects of all hazards on the system. An energy 

assurance plan has elements similar to the Guide‘s six-step planning process, although it does not focus 

on community performance goals as the organizing concept for design and recovery plans.

Energy assurance focuses on assisting local governments to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and 

mitigate against potential emergencies that impact energy systems while minimizing economic loss and 

protecting public health and safety. For the purposes of this Guide, energy assurance is about: 

 Ensuring key assets are functional when needed

 Fostering public-private partnerships before incidents happen

 Gaining awareness of energy dependencies

 Identifying actions and projects to move toward increased energy reliability and resilience

Examples of how energy assurance has been applied can be found in the DOE‘s Energy Assurance 

program [DOE 2015], The NASEO State Energy Assurance Guidelines [NASEO 2009], and the 

California Local Energy Assurance Planning (CaLEAP) process http://www.caleap.org/ [CaLEAP 2015].

Energy assurance is about assuring that essential services are maintained in the event of an energy 

disruption. Key steps include:

 Identify the key assets of the essential services in the community and determine their 

vulnerabilities
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

156

 Build relationships and partnerships to clarify roles and responsibilities prior to events

 Gain awareness and understanding of energy dependencies on other systems

With a good understanding of the key assets and dependencies, a local government, working with the 

local energy provider, can identify actions and projects to become more energy resilient.

Because resilience is new, there is a significant need for tools to help both the community and the 

industry assess resilience. The flowchart (Figure 14-3), developed by the CaLEAP program, illustrates the 

overall approach for developing such a plan including forming an EAP team. Notice that this flowchart is 

similar to the Guide‘s six-step planning process (Volume I) to achieve community resilience, but there are 

some differences that will need to be addressed for compatibility with the six-step process being used by 

all building and infrastructure systems in a community.

Figure 14-3: Energy assurance flowchart developed by CaLEAP [Source: CaLEAP 2015]

The length of time to restore electric service is a traditional metric of grid reliability. Similarly, the grid‘s 

ability to ride through minor disturbances or avoid cascading outages is already considered within 

existing grid reliability metrics. While these metrics exist – such as System Average Interruption Duration 

Index (SAIDI), the Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI), the System Average 

Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI), the Customer Average Interruption Frequency Index (CAIFI), and 

others – most reliability metrics are for normal operating conditions. The standards that define these 

indices specifically exclude major storms and events. 

Also, the metrics do not differentiate between customer types (residential, commercial, industrial), nor 

their relationship to critical functions (hospitals, police and fire facility, etc.). Communities and utility 

providers can use performance goals tables, such as those in Section 14.3, to set goals for recovery times 

during hazard events. However, these tables can also be used to determine the anticipated performance of 

the infrastructure (i.e., the ―X‖ in the performance goals tables) for a given event. The community or 

utility can then define the resilience gaps (i.e., the difference between the 90 % and X in the performance 

goals tables) and prioritize solutions for enhancing the resilience of the energy infrastructure system. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

157

14.6.2. Solutions for Future Construction

In general, when identifying equipment, and other components within the energy system, one of the 

qualifying criteria should focus on resiliency. When evaluating different vendors and system components, 

check their track records and references, and collaborate with others.

Construction Solutions. There are several construction solutions that may help improve the resilience of 

energy infrastructure from hazard events include: 

 Strengthen and reinforce critical lines leading to population centers or other critical loads. For 

instance, adding reinforcements to lines that serve a hospital or fire station make them more 

resilient to wind, ice, and branch loads.

 Establish pole depth standards based on local soil conditions for pole heights. Ensure poles are 

planted to the correct depth and that the foundation will support the loads.

 Determine capacity of poles for and do not overload poles with additional equipment.

 Consider using NESC [IEEE 2012] Grade B construction standards for critical distribution lines. 

This grade of construction is commonly used in the utility industry and utility surveys show that 

using Grade B is a popular and effective construction solution.

 Consider underground placement of lines and system components. There are definite pros and 

cons to underground placement. Underground systems are less vulnerable to weather, fire, and 

human-caused hazards, but not to flood or earthquake hazards. They are more expensive to 

construct and repair. For an event like Hurricane Sandy or the ice storms of 2012 and 2013, 

underground cables would have dramatically reduced the amount of damage and restoration 

times. For an earthquake in California, it could have the opposite effect in some locations.

 Consider covered aerial medium-voltage (CAMV) systems. This hardware attaches to poles and 

overhead wires to add strength and stability to the wires. The added stability makes the 

distribution network more resilient to contact with trees and debris, and is especially useful in 

narrow rights of way with large concentrations of trees.

 Provide redundant service to critical buildings, using local generation or an independent line.

 Other potential solutions include various pole line configurations that can help minimize 

restoration efforts.

 Consider elevating overhead equipment to reduce damage by wildfire. 

 In fire prone areas, consider using concrete, heavy steel, or other non-flammable and warp 

resistant materials and structures for overhead conductors and equipment. This improves 

performance of the poles and lines but they may need to be located further from the road rights of

way to reduce the likelihood of automobile impacts. 

Administrative Solutions. Some possible administrative solutions for improving the resilience of energy 

infrastructure from hazard events include the following: 

 Trim trees and other potential obstructions within the right of way. Comply with the NESC, FAC, 

and EPRI rules and guidance on vegetation management.

 Use submersible equipment in underground substations. 

 Minimize the number of splices in conductors and in ducts that carry the splices. Where possible, 

position splices in conductors and ducts as far away from water mains as possible and in easily 

accessible locations. Note: in high volume rain areas, storm drains can be as significant an issue 

as water mains.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

158

 Consider heavy wall insulation cables (e.g., type TC cables and type MC cables). Heavy wall 

insulation cables are more resistant to physical damage and moisture and provide better resilience 

to severe weather conditions.

Electrical Infrastructure in Buildings. Specific to energy infrastructure in buildings, the National 

Institute of Building Sciences [NIBS 2015] recommends that during the facility design or retrofit process, 

building projects have a comprehensive, integrated perspective that seeks to minimize the amount of 

energy that must be supplied and provides control methods that can more readily allocate the available 

supply as appropriate for a building‘s required mode of operation at any given point in time. The CaLEAP 

[2015] organization identified additional recommendations for building and retail owners to facilitate a 

high degree of local, intelligent energy management that can take advantage of distributed resources, 

including:

 Ensuring emergency, life safety, high priority, and general building circuits are well segregated in 

building wiring design and breaker panel layouts

 Ensuring building automation systems take advantage of segregated load grouping mentioned 

above, are standards based (e.g. BACNet), and are capable of accepting utility load control 

signals (e.g. OpenADR)

 Key community facilities necessary to ensure socio-economic continuity without internal backup 

generation capability are configured to permit easy, safe connection to external mobile generation 

(e.g. through standardized connectors at the outside service entrance)

14.6.3. Solutions for Existing Construction

Most ideas for new construction may also apply to existing construction solutions. However, in new 

construction, there is a larger set of opportunities for energy efficiency and resilience. 

In general, when replacing equipment and other components within the energy system, each component 

should be considered and, where better choices are available, communities and owner operators should 

make improvements when practical.

Construction Solutions. The following solution may be useful to enhance the resilience of existing

infrastructure systems:

 Design retrofits for design hazard events by applying design and construction standards that exist 

but may not have been adopted within the utility industry

 Strengthen and reinforce critical lines leading to population centers or other critical loads

 Perform loading assessment to ensure that the pole is not over-stressed when adding new 

equipment

 Consider covered aerial medium-voltage (CAMV) systems

 Consider replacing overhead lines with underground systems

 Consider elevating overhead equipment to reduce damage by wildfire

 Provide redundant service to critical buildings using local generation or an independent line

 Make sure the soil types and insulation properties of the soils are known when burying a line.

 Perform regular pole inspections for excessive loads, corrosion or decay, and pole and foundation 

stability. If there is erosion around the footing or the pole is leaning, add guy wires or 

reset/replace the pole
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

159

 Consider heavy wall insulation cables, type TC cables, and type MC cables. Proper grounding 

and inspections of grounding equipment greatly minimize the possibility for transformer fires 

from lightning

 Install and maintain lightning arrestors or other equipment in the distribution grid to minimize the 

area that a single lightning strike can affect

 Retrofit existing construction, on the customer side of the meter, with external generation support 

connectors. If an existing facility is considering adding any form of self-generation systems, 

consider upgrading building circuits at the same time to segregate load types

 Consider using the USACE Emergency Power Facility Assessment Tool (EPFAT), which allows 

public entities to input generator and bill of material requirements to expedite temporary power 

installation support services

Administrative Solutions. In many cases, improving the resilience of existing infrastructure may be more 

easily accomplished through administrative solutions. Some possible administrative solutions for 

improving the resilience of existing energy infrastructure include: 

 Trim trees and other potential obstructions within the right of way

 Perform regular line inspections

 Inspect underground splices and equipment on a scheduled basis to make sure seals and the 

waterproof capability of the connections are intact

 Have an adequate stock of spares (poles, transformers, line, etc.) on hand for fire prone areas, and 

do not use them for routine work

 If possible, cut off power before a wildfire reaches the line. This allows equipment and lines time 

to cool and may save the system from further damage. If people have been evacuated, turn off 

power before the fire reaches the area and allow equipment to cool. This proactive action can also 

prevent fires from starting if a power line falls or equipment overheats.

 Establish mutual aid agreements. The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and its members have 

implemented a voluntary mutual assistance program for Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) that 

allows utilities to request and coordinate support from others in their region not affected by a 

major event [EEI 2014].

The American Public Power Association (APPA) has a similar mutual aid process to facilitate regional 

coordination. Like EEI, the APPA has defined procedures for coordinating mutual aid [APPA 2015]. 

Rural Electric Cooperatives are also included in this mutual aid process through an agreement between 

the APPA and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association [NRECA 2015].

Although processes exist among utilities to provide mutual aid, the relationships between local 

communities and other agencies involved in recovery are not always as well defined. Local resilience 

planning groups can coordinate with their local utility and become aware of the mutual aid processes in 

their region so that realistic estimates of resources and restoration time can be made.

14.7. References

American Lifelines Alliance (ALA 2005) Draft Guideline for Assessing the Performance of Oil and 

Natural Gas Pipeline Systems in Natural Hazard and Human Threat Events, American Lifelines 

Alliance(ALA), Washington, DC, 

http://www.americanlifelinesalliance.com/pdf/PipeguideFinalPosted061705.pdf.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

160

American Lifelines Alliance (ALA 2006) Power Systems, Water, Transportation and Communications 

Lifeline Interdependencies, American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) draft report to the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Washington, DC, 

March, 

http://www.cimap.vt.edu/sites/www.cimap.vt.edu/files/docs/ALA%20Lifeline%20Report%20Final%20D

raft%20030606.pdf.

American National Standards Institute (ANSI 2008) ANSI O5.1: Wood Poles – Specifications and 

Dimensions, American National Standards Institute (ANSI), New York, NY.

American National Standards Institute (ANSI 2013) ANSI C29.1: Test Methods for Electrical Power 

Insulators, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) National Electric Manufacturers Association 

(NEMA), Rosslyn, VA.

American Public Power Association (APPA 2015) Public Power‘s Mutual Aid Network: Electric Utilities 

Helping One another for Disaster Response and Recovery, Arlington, VA, http://appanet.files.cmsplus.com/PDFs/Mutual%20Aid%20Playbook%20Executive%20Summary.pdf. Viewed April 20, 2015.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 1998) ASCE 7-98: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings 

and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2005) ASCE 7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings 

and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2008) ASCE Manual 113: Substation Structure Design 

Guide, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2010) ASCE 7-10: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings 

and Other Structures, Second Edition, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural 

Engineering Institute (SEI), Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2013) 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/.

Andrews, E.; M.A. Lazurus; and J. Aliberti (2013) Community Resilience: Reliable Back-up Power, Saint 

Louis University Center for Sustainability, 2013 SDRC. 

https://www.slu.edu/Documents/sustainability/SDRC/2013 SDRC 

Presentations/2013_SDRC_Aliberti_John.pptx.

California Local Energy Assurance Planning (CaLEAP 2015) http://www.caleap.org/. Viewed April 19, 

2015. 

Clark, Tony and Robin Z. Meidhof (2013) ―Ensuring Reliability and a Fair Energy Marketplace,‖ Energy 

Innovation Series and Sixth Annual Schultz Lecture, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, October 22, 

2013, https://www.ferc.gov/media/statements-speeches/clark/2014/07-02-14-clark.pdf.

Department of Energy (DOE 2013) Comparing the Impacts of Northeast Hurricanes on Energy 

Infrastructure, United States Department of Energy (DOE), Washington, DC.

Department of Energy (DOE 2015) Energy Assurance, United States Department of Energy (DOE), 

Washington, DC, http://energy.gov/oe/services/energy-assurance. Viewed April 19, 2015.

Edison Electrical Institute (EEI 2014) Understanding the Electric Power Industry‘s Response and 

Restoration Process, Edison Electrical Institute (EEI), Washington, DC.

Edison Electrical Institute (EEI 2015) Transmission Projects: At a Glance, Edison Electrical Institute 

(EEI), Washington, DC.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

161

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI 2013) Enhancing Distribution Resiliency: Opportunities for 

Applying Innovative Technologies, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA.

Energy Policy Act (EPAct 2005) Energy Policy Act of 2005, 109th Congress, Washington, DC.

Executive Office of the President (EOP 2013) Economic Benefits of Increasing Electric Grid Resilience 

to Weather Outages, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC 2011) Order 1000: Transmission Planning and Cost 

Allocation by Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC), Washington, DC, http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/trans-plan.asp. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC 2013) Tree Trimming & Vegetation Management, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Washington, DC, 

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/reliability/vegetation-mgt.asp. Viewed April 20, 2015. 

FERC.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC 2015) FERC - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 

What FERC Does, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Washington, DC, 

http://www.ferc.gov/about/ferc-does.asp. Viewed April 8, 2015.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

(FERC/NERC 2011) Report on Outages and Curtailments During the Southwest Cold Weather Event of 

February 1-5, 2011: Causes and Recommendations, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and 

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), Washington, DC, 

https://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/08-16-11-report.pdf.

Federal Power Act (1920) Federal Power Act: The Act of June 10, 1920, Chapter 285, 

https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Federal%20Power%20Act.pdf.

Florida Public Service Commission (2007) Report to the Legislature on Enhancing the Reliability of 

Florida‘s Distribution and Transmission Grids During Extreme Weather, Florida Public Service 

Commission, FL, http://www.psc.state.fl.us/publications/pdf/electricgas/stormhardening2007.pdf.

Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (2014) ―Resiliency of Stationary Fuel Cells and the Natural 

Gas Grid,‖ WBDG: a Program of the National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC.

Hampson, A.; T. Bourgeois; G. Dillingham; and I. Panzarella (2013) Combined Heat and Power: 

Enabling Resilient Energy Infrastructure for Critical Facilities, ONRL/TM-2013/100, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory (ORNL).

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 1995) Recommended Practice for Emergency and 

Standby Power Systems for Industrial and Commercial Applications, IEEE Std, 446-1995.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 2002) National Electrical Safety Code, IEEE, New 

York, NY.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 2009) IEEE Standards 1613, Standard 

Environmental and Testing Requirements for Communications Networking Devices Installed in Electric 

Power Substations, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), New York, NY. 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 2012) National Electrical Safety Code, Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), New York, NY. 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 2015) History of the National Electrical Safety 

Code ANSI C2, http://standards.ieee.org/about/nesc/100/. Viewed January 26, 2015. 

International Code Council (ICC 2014) ICC 2014: Standard for the Design and Construction of Storm 

Shelters, International Code Council (ICC), Washington, DC.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

162

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC 2013) Communication Networks and Systems in 

Substations – Part 3: General Requirements, International Electrotechnical Commission. Geneva, 

Switzerland.

Keogh, Miles and Cody, Christina (2013) Resilience in Regulated Utilities, National Association of 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) Grants and Research Department, with support from the 

United States Department of Energy (DOE), November, 

http://www.naruc.org/Grants/Documents/Resilience%20in%20Regulated%20Utilities%20ONLINE%201

1_12.pdf.

McDonough, P. W (2013) Post-Earthquake Checklist for Natural Gas Systems, American Society of 

Civil Engineers.

Nadeau, J. P (2007) Improving the Resiliency of the Natural Gas Supply and Distribution Network, Naval 

Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, March, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a467387.pdf.

National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO 2009) State Energy Assurance Guidelines, 

Version 3.1, National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), Arlington, VA.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 2013a) NFPA 110: Standard for Emergency and Standby 

Power Systems, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Quincy, MA.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 2013b) NFPA 111: Standard on Stored Electrical Energy 

Emergency and Standby Power Systems, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Quincy, MA.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 2014) NFPA 70: The National Electrical Code, National 

Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Quincy, MA.

National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS 2015) ―Optimize Energy Use Whole Building Design 

Guide,‖ WBDG: a Program of the National Institute of Building Sciences, National Institute of Building 

Sciences (NIBS), Washington, DC, http://www.wbdg.org/design/minimize_consumption.php. Viewed 

April 18, 2015.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST 2014) NIST Special Publication 1108R2: NIST 

Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 3.0, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD.

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA 2015) APPA/NRECA Mutual Aid Agreement, 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), Arlington, VA, 

http://www.mpua.org/_lib/files/appa_fema_mutual_aid_agrmt.pdf. Viewed April 20, 2015.

New Jersey Office of Emergency Management (NJOEM 2014) Retail Fuel Station Energy Resiliency 

Program, New Jersey Office of Emergency Management, http://www.ready.nj.gov/programs/retail-fuelstation.html.

NextEra Energy, Inc. (2013) FPL Inspects One-Millionth Pole as Part of Storm and Reliability 

Preparations, NextEra Energy, Inc., FL.

North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC 2015a) ―Vegetation Management: Vegetation 

Management Grow-In Data,‖ NERC: North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 

http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/PA/Pages/VegetationManagement.aspx. Viewed April 20. 

North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC 2015b) NERC: North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation, http://www.nerc.com. Viewed April 8, 2015. 

Office of Governor Martin O‘Malley (2012) Weathering the Storm: Report of the Grid Resiliency Task 

Force, Office of Governor Martin O‘Malley.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Energy Systems

163

Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC 2013) The Oregon Resilience Plan, 

Salem, Oregon.

Pentland, William (2013) Rethinking Grid Resilience: Are we Gold Plating the Electric Grid? October 

11, http:/www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/10/18/rethinking-grid-resilience-are-we-goldplating-the-electric-grid/. 

PPD-21 (2013) Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-21, The White House, February 12, 2013, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-criticalinfrastructure-security-and-resil.

PPD-8 (2011) Presidential Policy Directive, PPD-8 – National Preparedness, The White House, March 

30, 2011, http://www.dhs.gov/presidential-policy-directive-8-national-preparedness.

Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG 2014) Resiliency Matters for an Energy Strong Future, New 

Jersey, https://www.pseg.com/info/media/advertorial/pdf/2013/resiliency.pdf. Viewed April 18, 2015.

San Diego Union-Tribune (SDUT 2007) Power Lines Cited as Cause of Largest Wildfires. 

http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/metro/20071116-1750-bn16cause2.html. Viewed July 27, 2013.

Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP 2015) Catalog of Standards Quick Table, 

http://www.sgip.org/Catalog-of-Standards-Quick-Table. 

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR 2009) The Resilient City: What San 

Francisco Needs from its Seismic Mitigation Policies, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research 

Association (SPUR), San Francisco, CA.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 2015) Welcome to Emergency Power Facility 

Assessment Tool, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Fort Worth District, 

http://epfat.swf.usace.army.mil/. Viewed April 18, 2015.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA 2003) Rural Utilities Services Bulletin 1724E-154: 

Distribution Conductor Clearances and Span Limitations, United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA 2014) Rural Utilities Service Bulletin 1724E-150: 

Unguyed Distribution Poles – Strength Requirements, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Washington, DC.

United States Energy Information Administration (EIA 2015) Drivers of U.S. Household Energy 

Consumption, 1980-2009, United States Department of Energy (DOE), Washington, DC.

United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA 2009) Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey: Space Heating by Type of Housing Unit (HC6.1), United States Energy Information 

Administration (USEIA), http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/ 2009/index.cfm#undefined. 

United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA 2014a) High cost, oil-fired generation crates 

potential for shift in Hawaiian electric sources, United States Energy Information Administration 

(USEIA), http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15091. 

United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA 2014b) U.S. Percent Utilization of Refinery 

Operable Capacity, United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MOPUEUS2&f=A.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

164

15. Communication Systems

Communication Systems Executive Summary

Presidential Policy Directive-21 [2013] identifies ―energy and communications systems as uniquely 

critical due to the enabling functions they provide across all critical infrastructure sectors.‖

Communications systems are continually evolving with rapid changes in technology, increased demand 

and consumer expectations, and increased dependencies on other infrastructure systems, most notably 

energy systems.

Various means of two-way communication (wireline telephone, cellular/mobile systems, internet 

including VoIP) and one-way communication (cable, broadcast) are used daily and are often relied upon 

in the aftermath of a hazard event. During and after hazard events, the ability to contact emergency

responders via 9-1-1 is critical. However, communication systems have experienced extended service 

disruptions due to failure of the physical infrastructure components supporting these services, or due to 

increased demand that exceeds the capacity of the infrastructure system. 

Communications infrastructure systems can fail in multiple ways, as was demonstrated by the events of 

Hurricane Sandy, the 2012 derecho in the National Capital Region, and the 2009 Kentucky ice storm. 

Physical damage, flooding or toppling of critical equipment, along with failure of other infrastructure 

systems (e.g., electric power, water, transportation) can result in cascading failures of communications 

infrastructure service disruptions. Ice, fallen trees, and debris can make transportation routes temporarily 

impassible, slowing repair crews from accessing inoperable cell sites and other components. Providing 

adequate standby power when external electric power is disrupted is one of the biggest challenges faced 

by service providers. Communities can work with service providers and other stakeholders to prioritize 

where service is needed most before a hazard event occurs.

Communities should use this Guide‘s six-step process to form a team of stakeholders that can establish 

and achieve performance goals for the communications infrastructure as part of a broader community 

resilience planning effort. Like the planning efforts for other infrastructure systems, stakeholders should 

include each service provider serving the community, local businesses, critical facility representatives, 

customers, and representatives from industries on which communications systems depend.

This chapter supports the six-step resilience planning process by providing the following guidance to 

communities and their stakeholders to consider: 1) potential vulnerabilities to communications 

infrastructure, illustrated with examples of damage observed during past hazard events; 2) community 

performance goals for communications infrastructure; 3) anticipated performance of existing 

communications infrastructure and resilience gaps; and 4) mitigation and recovery solutions.

Performance goals can be set for any community, type of hazard event, and hazard level. Once desired 

performance goals and anticipated system performance are determined, communities can work with their 

stakeholders to identify, prioritize, and close resilience gaps. For example, central offices, internet 

exchange points, and cell sites may be designed to resist hazards, or critical equipment may be located to 

reduce vulnerability to hazards. 

Communities can enhance public safety and communication for critical facilities with Governmental 

Emergency Telecommunications Service and/or Wireless Priority Service to obtain priority access after a 

hazard event when voice call user demand often exceeds capacity. Communities can also apply for the 

FCC mandated Telecommunications Service Priority to receive service restoration priority treatment 

when disruptions occur or to provide additional lines when needed. In the community resilience planning 

process, communities should work with their stakeholders, particularly service providers, to determine 

what mitigation and recovery strategies will be most effective so they can become more resilient and 

achieve their performance goals.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

165

15.1. Introduction

Communication systems are integral to how our society functions, including broad societal reliance on 

mobile devices and the internet for communication. People use computers, smart phones, and tablets to 

read news and to watch movies and television shows.

Communication systems play a critical role during and after a hazard event. The community‘s citizens 

rely on communication systems (landline telephone, cellular/mobile systems, internet/VoIP, cable 

television, and broadcast) to be informed and to contact loved ones, schools, employers, businesses, 

health care providers, and emergency responders. In addition, government and other public agencies 

disseminate information to the public through one-way communication systems (broadcast and cable).

Unfortunately, communications systems have failed in multiple ways in past hazard events. Physical 

damage to infrastructure and critical equipment and failure of dependent infrastructure systems (e.g., 

electric power and transportation) have caused service disruptions. Increased user demand of 

communication services in the aftermath of hazard events can also result in service disruptions due to 

exceeding capacity of the existing system. 

To address the resilience of communications infrastructure, communities should use the Guide‘s six-step 

process to form a team of stakeholders, including service providers, critical facilities representatives, local 

businesses, and interdependent system representatives. 

This chapter provides guidance to support the six-step resilience planning process on the following topics: 

1) potential vulnerabilities to communications infrastructure with examples of damage observed during 

past hazard events; 2) community performance goals for communications infrastructure; 3) anticipated 

performance of existing communications infrastructure and resilience gaps; and 4) mitigation and 

recovery solutions. Some solutions may include alternatives to existing communications methods that 

allow temporary measures to enable service while more permanent solutions are undertaken. 

An example of a performance goals table to be filled out by the community and its stakeholders is 

presented in Table 15-1 (page 180). The example is used to illustrate the process by which a community 

and its stakeholders can set performance goals, evaluate anticipated performance of their existing 

communication infrastructure systems, identify resilience gaps, and prioritize upgrades to improve 

resilience of the network. Though there are many options for improving resilience of the communications 

infrastructure system, communities should work directly with service providers to identify their priorities 

and determine the best solutions to achieve their performance goals. 

15.1.1. Social Needs and System Performance Goals

As discussed in Chapter 10, the social needs of the community drive performance goals that are to be 

defined by each community and its stakeholders. Social needs of the community include those of 

individuals, businesses (both small/local and large/multi-national), industry, and government. For 

example, the banking system needs internet for financial transactions, transferring documents between 

businesses, and e-mail as a primary means of communication. When internet is not available, commerce 

is directly affected and economic output is reduced.

Each community should define its performance goals in terms of the time it takes for its critical 

infrastructure to be restored following a hazard event for three levels of event: routine, design, and 

extreme, as defined in Chapter 4 (Volume I).

The community has short (0-3 days), intermediate (1-12 weeks), and long-term (4-36+ months) recovery 

needs. Specific to communication systems, communities traditionally think about short-term (0-3 days) 

recovery needs in terms of emergency response and management goals, which include:

 Relaying emergency and safety information to the public
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

166

 Coordinating recovery plans among first responders and community leaders

 Communication between civilians and emergency responders via 9-1-1

 Communication between family members and loved ones to check on each other‘s safety

 Continued operation of private emergency response networks that support community recovery

Although reaching family members is a high priority, communities may agree to focus their social needs 

on critical facilities so family members can communicate with emergency responders via 9-1-1. However, 

when addressing resilience, communities should also think about the longer term and improve 

performance of the built environment wherever possible in preparation for the next hazard event. 

Intermediate (1-12 weeks) and long-term (4-36+ months) communications infrastructure needs of 

communities include:

 The ability to communicate with employers, schools, and other aspects of individuals‘ daily lives

 Re-establishing data and voice communication operations of businesses, banks, etc., to resume 

commerce and serve clients

 Restoring, retrofitting, and improving infrastructure components to avoid failing in the same way 

during future events (i.e., implement changes to make infrastructure more resilient).

15.1.2. Availability, Reliability, and Resilience

Availability and reliability are terms often used by industry when referring to communications networks. 

Availability refers to the amount or percentage of time a communications system is accessible for use. 

The best communications networks have 99.999 percent availability, which is referred to as ―five 9‘s 

availability‖ [CPNI 2006]. This indicates a communications network would be unavailable for only 

approximately five minutes/year. Availability drives the communications industry and, thus, service 

providers continually invest to improve their systems.

Reliability is the probability of successfully performing an intended function over a given time period 

[Department of the Army 2007], which is measured as the frequency of downtime. Though reliability and 

availability are related, they are different. A communications network may have a high availability with 

multiple short downtimes or failure during a year. Network reliability over that one year time period is 

reduced by disruptions in service (i.e., increased frequency of service failure).

Resilience includes the ability of a system to prepare for anticipated hazards, adapt to changing 

conditions, and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. Recovery from a hazard event may

include plans to rebuild infrastructure to improve performance. Consequently, by enhancing the resilience 

of communications infrastructure when rebuilding, network availability (amount of downtime) and 

network reliability (frequency of downtime) can be improved. 

Capacity of a communications network is the volume of calls, texts, and other transmissions that can be 

reliably transmitted. After hazard events, there is an increased demand on communication systems [Jrad et 

al. 2005 and 2006]. This level of demand can sometimes exceed the capacity of the system, resulting in 

blocked calls or website pages loading very slowly or not at all. 

Unfortunately, system capacity cannot be immediately increased for hazards. During or immediately after 

hazard events, cellular phones or internet services, for example, may not function properly due to a higher 

than normal volume of usage. This is especially true in densely populated areas, such as New York City, 

or around emergency shelters or evacuation areas. 

For example, the Superdome in New Orleans, LA was used as emergency shelter during Hurricane 

Katrina. Although this was an exceptionally large facility used for sporting and entertainment events, such 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

167

facilities can be overwhelmed prior to, during, and after hazard events with an influx of civilians seeking 

shelter. This results in increased demand on the wireless network serving the facility. Therefore, 

emergency shelters may want to consider methods or means for providing supplemental communication 

capacity during hazard events.

Alternate means of communication, such as two-way radios or satellite telephones, can be used by critical 

facilities operators and emergency response personnel immediately after a hazard event. Many first 

responders use these systems for this purpose.

Historically, network availability and reliability of service have been a primary focus for communications 

providers. However, because of the increased multiuse functionality of mobile communications devices 

(e.g., cellular phones, smart devices and tablets), communications network resilience also needs to 

consider the capacity of both the data and voice networks. Additional network capacity is being added to

support service growth for high-volume functions of mobile devices such as sharing photographs and 

watching videos or movies. Changes in consumer usage have challenged service providers‘ ability to 

provide adequate network capacity during normal operating conditions, and demands after hazard events 

often challenge system capacity. Some 9-1-1 centers have the ability to receive photo submissions, which 

may require more capacity than a phone call. On the other hand, if 9-1-1 call centers can receive text 

messages, this may be a useful alternative in an emergency as text transmissions have a reduced demand 

on system capacity. 

15.1.3. Dependencies

Chapter 11 provides information and examples on dependencies between and among infrastructure 

systems in a community. Specific to the communication systems, communities should consider the 

following dependencies on other infrastructure systems and dependencies of those systems on the 

communication network:

Energy. The communication system is highly dependent on the energy system. For current technology 

services, loss of electric power typically results in loss of communications services, such as wireline

(including internet), and cable communications, unless the service provider and end user have standby 

power. If cell towers have standby power, cellular phones will likely function until their battery drains in 

the absence of standby power (e.g., car charger, charging station) or until an external power source 

becomes available. 

It is not uncommon for distribution lines for communication and electric power services to be co-located 

(e.g., wires traveling along utility poles). Failure of these systems can occur simultaneously due to 

environmental factors such as a tree fall that severs both types of lines. 

In the wake of a hazard event where external power is lost, communications infrastructure and end users 

supporting critical services need sufficient redundant power sources to ensure continued functionality. 

Power sources may be needed for terminal equipment connected to communications systems. Air 

conditioning systems, de-watering pumps, power supplies, security systems, computer networking and 

SCADA systems all need to remain operational. For example, air conditioning systems, which keep 

critical equipment from overheating, are not typically connected to batteries. Critical communication 

equipment may become overheated and shut down if standby power is not available [Kwasinski 2009].
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

168

Transportation. Roadways and other parts of the 

transportation system needed during the recovery of 

infrastructure systems often become impassible after 

hazard events. Fallen trees and other debris resulting 

from high wind events (e.g., hurricanes and 

tornadoes), storm surge and flooding, and ice storms 

(see Figure 15-1) can prevent or inhibit emergency 

repair crews from reaching the areas with damaged 

communications infrastructure. Refueling of standby 

generators becomes more challenging when roads 

are impassible. When communities declare a state of 

emergency, the ability to transport equipment into 

the affected areas for restoration is an important 

consideration. Trip permitting, limiting weigh 

station requirements, and working with neighboring 

states not impacted by the hazard event can 

contribute to an improved recovery time. 

Transportation systems need communication 

systems to dispatch repair crews and monitor repair status during the recovery phase. Traffic signals and 

transportation hubs also rely on communications systems. Traffic signals may use communication 

systems for timing and synchronization of green lights to ensure safety and smooth flow of traffic. 

Transportation hubs may need to communicate schedules for inbound and outbound passenger traffic 

before or after a hazard event. 

Building/Facilities. Buildings and facilities – and their occupants – need communications systems to 

function properly. Communication systems in buildings may be used to run elevators, security systems, 

heating and lighting systems, sensors for lights, or other operational functions. Occupants rely on data 

systems within the building and telephone, internet, and e-mail services.

In large urban centers, service providers often place antennas or cell towers on top of buildings. If the

building is damaged or collapses, the tower may fail or service may be interrupted.

Water and Wastewater. Water and wastewater utilities rely on SCADA communication systems to 

operate their systems, and use radios or wireless systems to communicate with staff and emergency 

workers in the recovery phase. If the communications network is down for an extended period of time 

following a hazard event, the recovery process can take longer since coordination may be slowed.

Similar to energy, water may be needed for sprinklers and to cool systems in buildings that house critical 

equipment for communications systems. Water and wastewater systems are also needed for staff to work 

in those buildings that house critical communications equipment.

15.2. Communication Infrastructure

This section discusses communication system infrastructure for central offices (Section 15.2.1), wireline 

(Section 15.2.1), wireless (Section 15.2.2), cable and broadcasting systems (Section 15.2.3), and 

emergency communications (Section 15.2.4). Satellite communication is not addressed.

Each subsection reviews key components, potential vulnerabilities, and mitigation solutions used in the 

past. Figure 15-2 presents an overview of the services and applications provided to customers by 

communications systems, and the core and access networks that support these services. The national 

communications infrastructure consists of many network components owned by different companies that 

provide diverse services, applications, routes, and connectivity to communication systems. The core 

network is the central part of a communication system that provides services to customers that are 

Figure 15-1: Trees fallen across roads due to 

ice storm in Kentucky slowed down recovery 

efforts [Source: Kentucky Public Service 

Commission 2009]
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

169

connected by an access network. Typically, the term core network refers to the high capacity 

communication facilities that connect primary nodes. Core or backbone networks provide paths to

exchange information between sub-networks. Access networks (i.e., broadcasting, cable, satellite, 

wireless, and wireline) connect the end customers to the core network. In some cases, communication 

may originate and terminate within an access network without connecting to the core network (e.g., local 

phone call within the wireline network). Multiple carriers operate distinct access networks across the 

nation using a variety of technologies.

Figure 15-2: Overview of services and applications supported by communication infrastructure systems

(Source: [DHS 2008, Used with Permission])

15.2.1. Core Infrastructure and Wireline System

Communication systems depend on the distribution of electric power, which often is interrupted during 

and after a hazard. Hence, reliable standby power is critical to the continued functionality of the core 

network system and its end users. 

Except for conventional analog wireline telephones (i.e., not digital telephones), wireline telephone 

systems operate on a separate electric supply that may be impacted by the event, but service providers 

often use their own standby power to minimize disruption at end user locations. Hence, analog wireline 

telephones are generally a more resilient option for telephone communication if commercial power loss is 

the only impact from a disaster event. 

Operations Management

International

Cable Satellite Wireless Wireline

Core Network

Access Networks

 Local and Long Distance  FM/AM Radio  911/E911  Linear and On-Demand Entertainment Programming  News and Information Training  Video Conferencing  YouTube

 HTTP  Email  Text Messaging  Remote Transfer  Managed/Hosted/ Cloud Services  Social Networking

 GPS Navigation/ Tracking/Timing  Remote File Access  File Transfer  Web Hosting  Business Mgmt

Services and Applications Data Video Voice

Signaling and System Databases (e.g., LIDB, toll-free databases, GPS)

 VoIP  Air Traffic Control  Intermodal  Satellite Radio

Broadcasting
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

170

15.2.1.1. Central Offices and Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)

Central offices, also known as telephone exchanges, are buildings that house equipment that direct and 

process telephone calls and data. These buildings serve as the core nodes of the communications system 

as a whole (see nodes in core network in Figure 15-2). Maintaining functionality of these facilities and 

their equipment is critical to timely recovery from an event. 

Internet Exchange Points (IXP) provide a way for members, including Internet Service Providers (ISPs), 

backbone providers, and content providers to connect their networks and exchange traffic directly [Kende 

and Hurpy 2012]. Similar in function to central offices, failure of IXPs can have a large impact on 

delivery of services by the wireline system.

There are three primary resiliency concerns for central offices:

 Performance of the structure

 Interior placement and protection of critical equipment 

 Dependence on other services

Performance of the Structure. The performance of central offices is extremely important for continued 

function of the communication system. For example, central offices in California may be designed for 

earthquakes events, whereas central offices on the east coast may be concerned with hurricane force 

winds and flooding, especially if it is located in a floodplain. Instead of providing redundancy of central 

offices, existing buildings could be retrofit to better resist anticipated hazards. In cases where central 

offices are located in older buildings, options may include improving the performance of the entire 

building, or only those sections of the building that contain critical communications equipment.

The loss of an entire central office would directly impact a large section of the service provider‘s network, 

particularly if no redundancy, backup, or restoration capability was built into the network of central 

offices. However, such capabilities are more routinely designed into modern networks for central offices.

Since communities are ultimately responsible for updating, enforcing, and making amendments to 

building codes, it is important that current building codes be used in the design of new buildings for the 

communication network. Existing buildings can be evaluated and retrofitted or modified, as needed, to 

ensure the critical equipment within the structure is protected and can achieve performance goals 

established by the community.

The importance of central offices in the communication network indicates that they should be considered 

for performance level A, safe and usable, or B, safe and usable during repair (see Chapter 12). As a frame 

of reference, central office buildings are classified as Risk Category III buildings for structural design in 

ASCE 7 [2010] due to their importance to the community operations. Performance levels and risk 

categories for buildings and associated design hazard levels (routine, design, extreme) are described in 

Chapter 12.

It is important that the building envelope also perform as intended since failure of the roof, windows, or 

siding can allow significant amounts of water to enter the building and damage electrical equipment. 

Historically, few building envelopes perform well in design hazard events.

Placement and Protection of Critical Equipment. Proper placement and protection of critical equipment 

from hazard loads and secondary effects are essential to maintaining functionality. Similar to the concepts 

that apply to central offices and IXPs, the following considerations should be given to the placement and 

protection of critical equipment to maintain functionality, including:

 Electrical and emergency equipment should be located above the elevation of an extreme flood, 

which is to be defined by the community (see Chapter 4, Volume I). 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

171

 Critical equipment should be designed and mounted such that shaking does not cause equipment 

failure or loss of function.

 Critical equipment should be designed to resist extreme hazard loads anticipated to occur in the 

community. Fire often follows other hazard events. 

 Where possible, redundancy and standby power for critical equipment should be provided.

Flooding produced by Hurricane Sandy exposed vulnerabilities in a central office. Generators and other 

critical electrical equipment located in multiple basement levels were inundated and failed due to flooding 

[FEMA 2013]. 

If hazard events might occur before remediation or 

relocation plans can be implemented and standby 

power systems are at risk of failure, a community 

can develop more immediate plans for using 

portable units to bring facilities back online until 

electric power is restored. For example, Figure 15-3

shows a portable generator unit used to replace 

basement generators that failed due to flooding after 

Hurricane Sandy [FEMA 2013].

Dependencies between Services. Dependencies play 

a big role in the overall performance of 

communications infrastructure, as discussed in 

Section 15.1.3 and Chapter 11. 

Central offices and IXPs rely on electric power for 

critical equipment, electrical switchgear, and HVAC 

units. Although critical equipment is typically 

connected to backup batteries or standby generators, 

HVAC units may not be, as they require substantial power to operate. However, when there is a loss of 

electric power, critical communications equipment can overheat and shut down as a result [Kwasinski 

2009]. Water may also be needed to cool the electronic components of HVAC and other conditioning 

systems.

The transportation system is needed to bring in generators and fuel, other supplies and equipment, and 

workers to restore the functionality of system. Consideration for short- and long-term staging of mobile 

support infrastructure such as generators, chillers, and trailered water, should be considered in the 

planning process so that accommodations can be made before a hazard event occurs. These 

accommodations may include facility connection and support requirements, such as fuel delivery.

15.2.1.2. Distribution Systems

Distribution systems have the following components and factors that affect continued functionality of the 

communication system:

 First/last mile 

 Type of cable (copper wires, coaxial cables, fiber optic cables), overhead vs. underground wires

 Distributed loop carrier remote terminals (DLC RTs) 

First/Last Mile. The ―first/last mile‖ refers to the final leg of delivering services, via network cables, 

from a service provider to a customer. The use of the term ―first mile‖ indicates the first leg of cables 

carrying data from the customer to the world (e.g., downloading websites or uploading data onto the 

Figure 15-3: Large standby portable power unit 

used when basement generators failed [Source: 

FEMA 2013]
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

172

internet); whereas ―last mile‖ implies the last leg of network cables delivering service to a customer. 

Although the name implies it is one mile long, this is not always the case, especially in rural communities 

where it may be much longer [WV Broadband 2013]. The first/last mile is where most failures occur due 

to the increased exposure to hazards as compared with individual buildings housing critical equipment for 

the communication system.

Path diversity can be built into the system with nodes that connect to the network backbone. However, if 

the first/last mile does not connect to the network backbone, it is vulnerable to single-point failures. 

Furthermore, a node failure may also impact service. If a failed node is between a central office and the 

building it services (i.e., first/last mile), those customers will be out of service.

There is likely to be less redundancy in the communication systems for rural communities. Historically, 

rural communities have not used these communication services as frequently or relied as heavily on them 

as suburban and urban communities. There have been two reasons for this:

 In the past, feasible technology methods to send large amounts of data over a long distance had 

not been available

 The economic investment required for service providers to expand into remote communities has 

been too high, resulting in a low benefit-cost ratio

As a result of the lack of redundancy in rural and remote communities, a failure of a single node may 

result in an outage that affects most, or all, of the community. Therefore, it may not be economically 

practical for rural communities to establish the same communications performance goals as urban 

communities. As communications technology continues to develop, the level of redundancy (or path 

diversity) in communications infrastructure delivering services to rural communities may improve. In the 

case where the reason for the loss of telecommunication services was a direct result of a loss of external 

power, restoration of services may be quicker for rural communities because, in densely populated areas, 

power generation and distribution components tend to be packed together tightly and other systems often 

need to be repaired before one is able access to the power supply.

Types of Cable for Last/First Mile. There are three types of cables typically used communication 

distribution systems:

Copper Wires. Copper wires work by transmitting signals through electric pulses and carry the low power 

needed to operate a traditional wireline telephone. The service provider that owns the wire provides the 

power rather than an electric company. Therefore, the use of traditional analog (i.e., plain old telephone 

service or POTS) wirelines that use copper wire lessens the dependency on external power [ALA 2006]. 

As a result, when there is loss of electric power, communication may still be possible through analog 

wirelines (though this is not guaranteed) when the handset is physically connected to the telephone unit

(not a wireless portable phone). However, copper wire has some drawbacks, such as being susceptible to

saltwater flooding [City of New York 2013]. Service providers are retiring their copper wires due to high 

cost of maintenance and their limited ability to support today‘s high capacity/speed services [Lower 

Manhattan Telecommunications Users‘ Working Group 2002]. For example, Verizon reported its 

operating expenses have been reduced by approximately 70 percent in areas where it installed its FiOS 

(fiber optic) network and retired its copper plant in central offices [FTTH Council 2013].

Coaxial Cables. Coaxial cable is a more modern material that is commonly used for distribution systems. 

It offers more resistance to water and is, therefore, not as susceptible to flood damage as copper wires. 

After Hurricane Sandy, coaxial wires generally performed well with failures typically associated with loss 

of electrical power to equipment to which they were connected [City of New York 2013]. Coaxial cable is 

primarily used for cable television and internet services. This technology relies more heavily on power 

provided by a power utility instead of the communications provider.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

173

Fiber Optic Cables. Fiber optic cables are more resistant to water damage than either coaxial cable or 

copper wire [City of New York 2013]. Fiber optic cables are now commonly used to bundle home 

services (television, high-speed internet, and telephone) into one system. The use of fiber optic cables

allows for transmission of large amounts of data on a single fiber. Similar to coaxial cable, this

technology relies more heavily on power provided by a power utility instead of the communications 

provider. Consequently, during and after a natural hazard event where power is interrupted, wireline 

communications services using fiber optic cables would be lost without end user standby power 

equipment [ALA 2006]. 

Overhead vs. Underground Wires. Distribution wire 

can be strung overhead using utility poles, or run 

underground. There are advantages and 

disadvantages for both options. Overhead wire 

failures are relatively easily located and repaired in 

the wake of a natural hazard event. However, their 

exposure makes them especially susceptible to high 

wind (e.g., hurricanes, tornadoes, derechos), falling 

debris, and ice hazards. In high wind events, 

overhead wires may fail due to wind effects on the 

cables, pole failures, or when trees fall on the cables. 

Figure 15-4 shows an example of a failed cable 

television (CATV) line due to wind effects during 

Hurricane Katrina.

Widespread failure of the overhead lines is common during high wind events and ice storms. Some 

improvement in performance can be achieved with trimming of trees and branches to reduce both the 

likelihood of branches falling on lines and falling trees. The electric utility or service provider that owns 

the poles performs the tree trimming, often sharing costs with other pole users. Chapter 13 discusses 

challenges associated with tree removal and trimming.

Installing underground wires eliminates impacts from wind, ice, and tree fall, but underground wires may 

be more susceptible to flood, earthquake damage, and liquefaction. Communities in parts of the United 

States have debated converting their overhead wires to underground wires to eliminate the impacts from 

wind, ice, and tree fall. However, converting overhead to underground wires can be both challenging and 

expensive [City of Urbana Public Works Department 2001]. The main challenges and issues associated 

with converting overhead wires to underground wires were noted in the City of Urbana‘s Public Works 

Department Report [2001] as:

 Shorter design life of the underground system

 Lack of maintenance and repair accessibility of the underground facilities

 Underground installation costs

 Converting customer wiring to underground services 

The cost associated with maintaining a dedicated tree trimming program is significantly less than 

converting from overhead to underground wires because the effort includes removing the existing system, 

lost cost resulting from not using the existing system for its design life, underground installation costs, 

and rewiring each building to accommodate underground utilities [City of Urbana Public Works 

Department 2001]. However, factors other than cost also impact whether overhead or underground wires 

should be used, including permitting challenges, rights-of-way, and geology and terrain of the area. Since 

communications service providers and electric power utilities share much infrastructure, their common 

interests need to be considered to decide what is best for their distribution systems.

Figure 15-4: Failure of CATV cable due to 

wind effects 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

174

Digital Loop Carrier Remote Terminals. Digital Loop Carrier Remote Terminals (DLC RTs) are nodes 

in the communications network that allow service to be distributed beyond the range of a given central 

office or exchange. Historically, copper wires provide service from a central office to customers within 

approximately 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) of that central office [Kwasinski et al. 2006]. The use of fiber 

optic cables and curbside DLC RTs can extend this range of service to approximately 10 km (6.2 miles) 

[Kwasinski et al. 2006]. Therefore, DLC RTs provide a possible last mile solution for service providers to 

reach customers farther from their existing central offices or exchanges without having to invest in the 

construction of additional central offices.

DLC RTs can be used to rapidly replace smaller central offices or nodes, as was done after Hurricane 

Katrina when less capacity after the event was needed [Kwasinski 2011]. This can help limit downtime of 

the network, but appropriate planning is needed to ensure the DLC RTs do not fail after the next hazard 

event. Perhaps the two most important things for service providers to consider when implementing DLC 

RTs (and any communications infrastructure) are construction standards that limit vulnerability to hazards 

and that address standby power.

A key lesson learned for DLC RTs from Hurricane 

Katrina was that nodes should be elevated in storm 

surge areas so they are not impacted in future hazard 

events [Kwasinski 2011]. A utility implemented this 

practice in New Orleans and the surrounding region 

after Hurricane Katrina. Figure 15-5 shows a DLC 

RT elevated on a platform. The building in the 

background of the figure was a small central office in 

which all equipment was damaged during Hurricane 

Katrina, but never replaced [Kwasinski 2011]. When 

the next set of storms (i.e., Hurricanes Gustav and 

Ike) passed through the region in 2008, many of the 

DLC RTs were not physically damaged by the storm 

surge.

Like cell towers, DLC RTs need standby power to 

function when external power is disrupted (see 

Section 15.2.2.2). Standby power generators can 

either be installed permanently, or deployed after a 

disruption in service. 

Whether generators are permanent or temporarily deployed, the main challenge is ensuring they have 

enough fuel to provide a continuous power supply. This may include the need for refueling, depending on 

the length of the commercial power outage. However, there are challenges associated with both options. 

For example, waiting until after an event to deploy standby generators can be difficult for a number of 

reasons, such as:

 Mobilizing a large number of standby generators may require significant labor support and 

logistics

 Standby generators require refueling during extended outages, which is problematic if there is a 

lack of access to fuel

 Transportation routes to reach nodes may be impassible due to fallen trees or other debris

Permanent generators, in contrast, can be expensive to install and maintain for a large number of sites, 

and require periodic testing and maintenance to ensure they function when needed. Permanent generators 

should also be placed so that they are less vulnerable to the anticipated hazards (e.g., raised above 

anticipated flood levels). As an example, installing permanent standby generators and elevating the DLC 

Figure 15-5: Elevated DLC RT with natural 

gas standby generator installed after Hurricane 

Katrina
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

175

RTs after Hurricane Katrina helped reduce communications outages during the 2008 hurricanes that 

struck the same region [Kwasinski 2011].

There are several fuel options for standby generators (see Chapter 13). Fuel may not be available 

immediately after a hazard event, which may make refueling challenging if electric power outages extend 

for a long period of time. Natural gas standby generators performed well during Hurricane Gustav 

[Kwasinski 2011]. However, natural gas generators may not be the best option for use as standby 

generators because natural gas distribution lines are often shut down prior to a hazard event to prevent fire 

and explosions.

15.2.2. Wireless Systems

The wireless telephone system has similar vulnerabilities to the wireline system. In addition, other 

possible failure points unique to the wireless network include the cell site (tower and electronics), Mobile 

Switching Centers (MSCs), and backhaul (transport) facilities. Backhaul facilities carry traffic from cell 

sites to MSCs. Loss of power can disable these facilities, resulting in failure of cell sites.

Figure 15-2 (page 169) shows a schematic of how the wireless phone network fits within the 

communication network. At the base of a cell tower is cellular terminal equipment, network switching 

and routing equipment, and an interconnection to a voice and data network (also known as Cell Site 

Electronics) and standby power. Damage to any of the equipment at the base of the tower can impact the 

cell site‘s ability to operate.

15.2.2.1. Mobile Switching Centers (MSCs)

MSCs, similar to central offices and IXPs, are key components of the wireless network switching system. 

MSCs also serve an interfacing role with the wireline network so calls can be completed between the two 

systems. As such, MSCs should be designed to meet the same protections and performance goals as 

central offices and IXPs, including proper design of standby power. 

15.2.2.2. Cell Towers

Cell tower function can be impacted by physical damage, loss of power, or loss of backhaul (i.e., 

transport) facilities. Cell towers may be considered for performance level A or B, as they typically 

support essential emergency equipment or are located at a central emergency hub. Consequently, the 

towers and equipment located at the base of the tower should not incur any damage during both routine 

and design events.

Cell towers are typically designed to meet the criteria of TIA-222-G [2006]. Cell towers designed to meet 

the criteria of TIA-222-G should perform well in a design wind, ice, or earthquake event. However, older 

cell towers that have not been retrofitted or upgraded to meet TIA-222-G may not perform as well. 

Specifically, cell towers in earthquake-prone regions may have been designed and built without guidance 

on seismic effects.

Physical Damage. When using these design standards, design magnitude earthquakes, high wind events, 

or flood events should not cause cell phone towers to collapse. This was not the case in Hurricane Katrina

(2005) where cell phone towers were reported to have failed [DHS 2006] after being impacted by floodborne debris (e.g., large boats, etc.), which had momentum that was likely well beyond a typical design 

flood impact. Failed towers can be replaced by temporary portable towers. Similarly, the January 2009 

Kentucky ice storm had cell phone tower failures due to the combination of ice accumulation and winds 

over 40 mph [Kentucky Public Service Commission 2009]. In the event that a tower incurs physical 

damage, it can be replaced by a temporary portable tower.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

176

Loss of External Power. Some cell towers are equipped with batteries designed to provide four to eight 

hours of standby power after loss of external power [City of New York 2013]. In the past, the FCC has 

attempted to mandate a minimum of eight hours of battery standby power, but the requirement was 

removed by the courts. However, adequate standby power based on community resilience plans should be 

considered for cell towers, particularly in areas that serve critical facilities. Installation of permanent 

generators can be impacted by numerous factors including building codes, space requirements, landlord 

negotiations and financial considerations.

There is a general expectation by the public that the 9-1-1 emergency call system will remain functional 

during and after hazard events. Considering the observed performance of the electric grid during recent 

hurricanes (which produced wind speeds less than the nominal 50 to 100-year values as specified in 

ASCE 7 [ASCE 1993, 1995, 2002 and 2005]), the availability of commercial power may present the 

greatest challenge to continued functionality of communications systems during the design, or even 

routine event. Consequently, adequate standby power is critical to ensure functionality. Recent experience 

with hurricanes and other hazard events suggest that the standby power needs to last longer than the 

typical current practice of four to eight hours at cell sites, for these types of events [City of New York 

2013].

Permanently located diesel electric standby power may pose significant difficulties due to initial and 

ongoing maintenance costs. In the case of events such as hurricanes and major ice storms where advanced 

warning is available, portable generators can be staged and deployed before or after the storm. However, 

after regional hazard events occur, the demand often exceeds the availability of portable generators. When 

they are deployed, the portable generators usually require refueling about once per day. Permanent 

generators also require refueling, but the frequency depends on the capacities of the generators. In events 

where there is little to no warning, such as earthquakes and tornadoes, portable generators cannot be 

staged ahead of time. However, portable generators may be the best approach for rapid recovery of 

critical aspects of a system‘s functionality. 

In highly urbanized areas, such as New York City, cell towers are frequently located on top of buildings, 

preventing the placement of permanent diesel standby generators and making it difficult to supply power 

from portable generators because of impeded access.

15.2.3. Cable and Broadcast Systems

One-way communication systems, such as cable and broadcast systems, are needed to disseminate 

important information to the public using a one-to-many model, particularly before and after a hazard 

event. Broadcasting, in particular, can be used to provide information to the public when external power 

is lost and if the members of the community have battery-powered radio or television. In the case of the 

2012 derecho (see Section 15.2.4), public safety answering points (PSAP) worked with broadcasters to 

provide updates on 9-1-1 service disruptions to provide information on other ways to obtain emergency 

assistance [FCC 2013]. Cellular broadcasting is also being used to disseminate one-to-many information 

updates, which is especially helpful in unanticipated hazard events. 

The Emergency Alert System (EAS) uses broadcasting and cable to alert the public of important 

information during and after hazard events. EAS alerts may address events that impact the entire nation or 

only a small area affected by severe weather [FCC 2015b]. 

Broadcast Towers. The main infrastructure for broadcasting is broadcast towers that transmit signals over 

airwaves. These towers are designed following the same standard, TIA-222-G, as cell towers (see Section 

15.2.2.2). Existing towers that were designed to standards earlier than TIA-222-G, particularly in 

earthquake prone regions, should be reviewed to determine whether updates are needed to meet the latest 

standard. Broadcast towers face many of the same challenges as cell towers to maintain functionality 

during and after a hazard event, including ensuring critical equipment is not vulnerable to damage.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

177

Cable Head End Facilities. Cable head end facilities are typically located at a local cable TV office and 

provide cable TV and modem services to subscribers. These facilities serve a similar purpose to central 

offices, IXPs, and MSCs. Therefore, they should be designed to meet the same performance goals, 

including the proper design of the standby power system.

Cable Television (CATV) 

Uninterruptible Power Supply 

(UPS). Much of the infrastructure for 

cable is similar to that of wireline 

telephones. In fact, many people 

receive wireline telephone, internet, 

and cable television through the same 

service provider. These services are 

bundled and distributed to the 

customers in a manner similar to 

wireline systems. UPS systems are 

used to inject power into the cable so 

cable services can be delivered to 

customers [Kwasinski et al. 2006]. 

UPS systems may be placed on a 

pedestal on the ground or on a utility 

pole. Like other critical equipment, it 

is important to place UPS systems to 

minimize their vulnerability to 

hazards [Kwasinski 2011]. Figure 15-6 (left) shows two UPS systems after Hurricane Katrina. The unit 

mounted on a pedestal at ground level was destroyed due to storm surge; the unit mounted to a utility pole 

was not damaged. However, Figure 15-6 (right) also shows that placing UPS systems too high on utility 

poles can interfere with regular maintenance [Kwasinksi 2011]. Providing adequate standby power can be 

a challenge, particularly for a pole-mounted UPS, because the additional load may be more than the pole 

can withstand.

15.2.4. Emergency Communications

9-1-1 Services. The ability to call 9-1-1 for help in an emergency situation is critical on a daily basis and 

especially after a hazard event. Current 9-1-1 architecture typically uses wireline switching and routing 

capability of a service provider in the community to connect 9-1-1 call centers (known as Public Safety 

Answering Points or PSAPs) to people who need help, regardless of whether the call is made from a 

wireline or cellular phone [FCC 2013]. Therefore, wireline infrastructure failures of selective routers or 

End-Offices that service PSAPs, and resulting service disruptions, may more significantly impact 9-1-1 

service than individual wireless service outages.

As seen in past hazard events, wireline infrastructure failure can result in lost 9-1-1 service. For example, 

the 2012 Derecho that impacted 11 states from the Ohio Valley to Mid-Atlantic and D.C. caused 

widespread loss of 9-1-1 services [FCC 2013]. The FCC [2013] report on the failures of the 

communications infrastructure showed that seventy-seven PSAPs across six states had some degree of 

lost service, and seventeen PSAPs in three states (Virginia, West Virginia, and Ohio) lost service 

completely, potentially impacting more than two million people. 

As discussed in Section 15.2.1, standby power is critical to ensure continued service when external power 

is lost. Unfortunately, standby power failures in Virginia central offices led to extended 9-1-1 service 

disruptions in northern Virginia. One central office lost external power and ran on battery power for 

approximately six hours until the batteries were exhausted. Although the battery backup system included 

Figure 15-6: Placement of UPS systems is an important 

consideration for resilience and periodic maintenance
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

178

standby generators, the system was configured to use two standby generators in tandem to provide the

power required by the facility. When one generator failed to start, the other was overloaded and failed. 

The FCC [2013] found that the generator had also failed in routine testing prior to the derecho, and the 

problem should have been fixed then. The failure of the standby power system lasted eight hours. As a 

result, the central office and local 9-1-1 services experienced a service disruption for that time period

[FCC 2013].

Service providers have learned from these events and are continuing to make improvements to the 9-1-1 

service system in the National Capital Region (NCR) as well as in other parts of the country. 

Additionally, the FCC has initiated an annual program to have service providers certify their diversity of 

circuit to PSAPs, diversity of telemetry links, and their minimum standby power requirements (e.g., 

duration, testing, and maintenance) for all locations servicing a PSAP or hosting a selective router. The 

certification requires that all network central office locations directly serving a PSAP have 24 hours 

backup power, along with a 72-hour requirement for those central office locations hosting selective 

routers. Communities can also take steps to improve the resilience of their 9-1-1 service by considering 

purchase of diverse circuits and redundancy in End-Offices serving PSAPs when possible. 

Other Emergency Communication. Communities should consider implementing the Integrated Public 

Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) to enhance public safety and update the public with important 

information in the immediate aftermath of a hazard event. The IPAWS includes several alerts systems, 

such as:

 Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) used to broadcast alerts/warnings to cell phones and other 

mobile devices 

 Emergency Alert System (EAS) used to disseminate warnings via broadcast, cable, satellite, and 

wireline services

 Private Entry Point (PEP) stations used for private or commercial radio broadcast stations that 

participate with FEMA to provide emergency alert and warning information to the public before, 

during, and after incidents and hazard events 

15.3. Performance Goals

Although the goal of communities, infrastructure owners (e.g., service providers), and businesses is to 

have continued operation at all times, the time required to restore functionality after a hazard event will 

depend on the magnitude and type of event, levels of damage, and plans for community recovery and 

resilience. Performance goals for communication infrastructure systems will vary from community to 

community based upon their needs. Performance goals should be defined by the community and its 

stakeholders, as part of the six-step planning process described in Volume 1. 

Stakeholders. Following this Guide‘s six-step process, communities can form a team of stakeholders to 

establish and achieve performance goals for the communications infrastructure as part of a broader 

community resilience planning effort. Like the planning efforts for other infrastructure systems, 

stakeholders need to establish performance goals for their communications systems and evaluate the 

current state of its infrastructure systems. The communications infrastructure has owners and stakeholders 

from multiple industries that have important perspectives to consider when establishing performance 

goals to improve resilience of the communication system and the community. Stakeholders may include 

each of the service providers, local businesses, critical facility representatives, and representatives from 

industries that depend on communications systems, such as electric utilities, liquid fuel providers, and 

transportation officials.

The City of San Francisco provides an excellent example of what bringing stakeholders together can 

accomplish. San Francisco has a lifelines council [The Lifelines Council of the City and County of San 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

179

Francisco 2014] that brings together stakeholders to get input regarding the current state of infrastructure 

systems and needed improvements. The lifelines council performs studies and provides recommendations 

as to where enhancements in infrastructure resilience and coordination are needed. Their work has led to 

additional redundancy being implemented into the communication network in the Bay Area.

Performance Goals Table. Performance goals are defined in terms of how quickly the infrastructure‘s 

functionality is recovered after a hazard event. Table 15-1 presents an example performance goals table 

that communities can fill out to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their communication 

infrastructure systems and how they support community resilience. Considerations for setting 

performance goals for communication infrastructure systems are presented here.

The performance tables can be used by any community for any type of hazard event and hazard level 

(routine, design and extreme). The disturbance criteria and restoration levels shown at the top of the table 

summarize the anticipated overall impact on the community. See Chapter 4 of Volume 1 for a more 

detailed discussion of the performance goal table and the process for establishing performance goals. 

The communications infrastructure has two major categories in Table 15-1: 1) core and communications 

buildings and 2) first/last mile distribution systems that support building clusters. The building clusters 

listed in the left column of the table are grouped as critical facilities, emergency housing, 

housing/neighborhoods, and community recovery (see Chapter 12). These groups are intended to reflect a 

typical sequence for recovery of function following a hazard event. 

Communities are constructed for prevailing hazards, so the design hazard level provides the foundation 

for resilience planning. Examining the response of buildings and infrastructure systems to multiple levels 

of a hazard (e.g., routine, design, and extreme) can provide insight about the integrated performance of 

buildings and infrastructure systems. For example, a system may not perform well at the routine level, 

especially older systems that are not well maintained. If the system has an important role in the 

community, its failure may trigger cascading effects in buildings or other systems. These types of 

dependencies may indicate that mitigation or retrofit options may be required to improve community 

functionality for routine events.

The table provides a visual summary of desired (future) performance goals and anticipated (current) 

performance of the existing communication infrastructure systems based on social needs during recovery. 

Performance goals are established by the community and its stakeholders and expressed in terms of time 

to recovery of function, depending on the community‘s social needs following a hazard event and the role 

of the communication infrastructure systems. 

The desired rate of recovery is indicated by percentages, 30 %, 60 %, and 90 %, to indicate how much of 

the supporting communication system for the cluster is recovered and functioning during the three 

recovery phases (short-term, intermediate, and long-term). Anticipated performance of the existing 

construction for each building cluster is estimated (at the 90 % level) for the selected hazard event and 

also recorded in the table. The difference between the desired 90 % restoration level and the anticipated 

90 % performance level indicates the gap that needs to be addressed to meet the community resilience

objective. 

In Phase 1 of recovery, community functions may initially be restored at a minimum or interim level to 

support essential tasks that start the recovery process. For example, an emergency operations center

(EOC) may have enough power, phones, and computers to continue critical operations, but not to 

maintain all functions.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

180

Table 15-1: Example communications infrastructure performance goals table to be filled out by

community and its stakeholders

Disturbance 1 Restoration Levels 2,3

Hazard Type Any 30% Function Restored

Hazard Level Routine, Design, Extreme 60% Function Restored

Affected Area Localized, Community, Regional 90% Function Restored

Disruption Level Usual, Moderate, Severe X Anticipated Performance

Communications Infrastructure Support 

Needed4

Design Hazard Performance

Phase 1

Short-Term

Phase 2

Intermediate

Phase 3

Long-Term

Days Weeks Months

0 1 1-3 1-4 4-8 8-12 4 4-24 24+

Core and Communications Buildings

Communications Hub (e.g., Central Office, IXP, 

Data Centers, etc.)

First/Last Mile

Critical Facilities 

Hospitals

Police and fire stations

Emergency Operation Center

Emergency Housing

Residences

Emergency responder housing

Public Shelters

Housing/Neighborhoods

Essential city service facilities

Schools

Medical provider offices

Retail

Community Recovery Infrastructure 

Residences

Neighborhood retail

Offices and work places

Non-emergency city services

Businesses

Footnotes:

1 Specify hazard type being considered

Specify hazard level – Routine, Design, Extreme

Specify the anticipated size of the area affected – Local, Community, Regional

Specify anticipated severity of disruption – Minor, Moderate, Severe

2 30% 60% 90% Desired restoration times for percentage of elements within the cluster

3 X Anticipated performance for 90 % restoration of cluster for existing buildings and infrastructure systems 

Cluster recovery times will be shown on the Summary Matrix

4 Indicate levels of support anticipated by plan

R = Regional; S= State; MS=Multi-State; C = Civil (Corporate/Local)

It is important that communities work with service providers when developing performance goals to 

understand the level of service that can be anticipated (now and in the future) from communication 

networks. Communication hubs (e.g., central offices, IXPs, MSCs) may or may not be located in 

communities. Accordingly, their role in community resilience and the recovery sequence depends on 

whether such facilities are expected to be damaged during a hazard event, and whether there is 

redundancy within the communication system if such facilities are damaged. Similarly, plans for recovery 

of the first/last mile and communication functions across the community should be developed with 

service providers and affected stakeholders. The core and communication buildings may be split into 

different functional categories by national service providers. The core refers to the backbone of service 

provider networks and includes facilities that store customer data and information. For larger service 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

181

providers, these facilities may have redundancy within an area so that a regional event, such as a 

hurricane or earthquake, cannot disrupt the entire network. Communications hubs, including central 

offices, IXPs, MSCs, and other centralized nodes, are regional nodes whose failure would result in 

widespread service disruptions. A community does not have control over the infrastructure of the service 

providers‘ networks, so it is important for communities to be aware of the anticipated performance of 

these systems and any vulnerabilities that could affect delivery of services through the first/last mile of 

the distribution system.

The first/last mile for wireline, internet, and cable is impacted by the performance of the distribution 

wires in a given hazard event. While wireless technology, such as cellular phones, operates using 

transmitted signals rather than physical infrastructure for distribution, backhaul facilities use wirelines to 

transmit signals between cell tower base stations and Mobile Switching Centers. Although not all system 

components (e.g., underground cables, overhead cables) are specifically included in the table, they should 

be considered when setting performance goals for the community or communication systems.

Establishing Community Goals. Communities and service providers may have different goals and 

priorities for recovery of function following a hazard event. Communities with a resilience plan will have 

desired performance goals that address a planned sequence of recovery to minimize disruption to their 

economy and daily life. A service provider will have prioritized plans for recovery of their system 

functionality, including compliance with regulations, which may address several communities or a larger 

region. Therefore, communities and stakeholders need to understand the capabilities of the 

communications industry and the level of service that may be anticipated during and after a given hazard 

event. 

It is also important for communities and service providers to each communicate their performance and 

recovery expectations, acceptable risks, prioritization, and business continuity and functionality 

objectives. Discussions between communities and service providers may help identify impediments that 

can unintentionally slow down recovery, such as slow permitting processes. Identifying such barriers may

allow service providers to clearly understand required coordination, what will be permitted, and how to 

work around potential barriers prior to an event. 

Completing Performance Goals Tables. Desired performance goals are established first for three levels 

of functionality. In Table 15-1, the orange shaded boxes indicate the desired time to reach 30 percent 

functionality of the component, yellow indicates the time frame in which 60 percent functionality is 

desired, and green indicates greater than 90 percent functionality. A goal is not set for 100 percent 

operability because it may take significantly longer to reach this target and may not be necessary for 

communities to return to their normal daily lives. Desired performance goals are independent of any 

hazard. For instance, 9-1-1 service in a community is desired to be continually available – how that might 

be accomplished depends on the prevailing hazards.

Anticipated performance for existing infrastructure systems are determined for the selected hazard type 

and level, which is recorded at the top of the table. The anticipated performance of existing 

communication systems that support each building cluster is estimated at the 90 % recovery of function 

level and indicated by placing an ―X‖ in the each row of the table. The performance of many components 

in the communication network, such as towers and buildings housing equipment are expected to perform 

according to their design criteria. Recent events, however, suggest that this is not always the case.

The affected area for a given hazard is characterized as local, community, or regional, depending on the 

type and intensity of the hazard. For example, earthquakes and hurricanes may have large (i.e., regional) 

affected areas, whereas tornadoes may have relatively small (i.e., local) affected areas. The affected area 

helps a community consider the potential extent of infrastructure systems that may be damaged, which 

may impact the recovery process. The disruption level is a measure of the loss of functionality across the 

community based on the current state of the built environment, and is estimated as usual (minimal loss), 

moderate or severe.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

182

Evaluating Existing Communications Infrastructure and Closing Resilience Gaps. The performance 

goals table can help identify gaps between desired and anticipated performance. The difference between 

the anticipated 90 % performance (X) and the desired 90 % performance indicates a gap in community 

resilience.

Once a community and its stakeholders identify resilience gaps, the gaps are prioritized relative to 

community goals. Solutions are developed by the community and stakeholders to address prioritized gaps. 

Section 15.6.1 discusses potential methods to evaluate the anticipated performance of existing 

communications infrastructure. Sections 15.6.2 and 15.6.3 provide mitigation and recovery solutions that 

can be used to achieve the performance goals set by the community or service provider. The solutions in 

these sections also recognize it will take time and money to invest in solutions for resilience, and provide

possible long and short-term solutions. 

Given recovery times for shelters, hospitals, police stations, and other critical facilities in a community, 

communities and service providers should work together so that the appropriate planning, engineering, 

and service agreements are crafted for the desired recovery times. Some solutions will be more expensive 

than others. For example, communities may need to add redundancy or diversity as part of their solution, 

while for others it may be sufficient to obtain Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) prioritization 

on impacted circuits (see Section 15.6.3 for discussion of TSP). In some cases, a community may need to 

enact administrative strategies to ensure resiliency (e.g., right of ways, permitting of cell towers).

Emergency Responder and Critical Facility Communication Systems. The example performance goals 

table includes distribution infrastructure to critical facilities such as hospitals, fire and police stations, and 

emergency operation centers. However, communication systems between emergency responders 

(fire/police/paramedics) are not listed, which have their own communications networks and devices. 

Community emergency response providers‘ networks and devices need to remain functional during and 

after a hazard event (i.e., there should not be any downtime). After a hazard event, functionality of critical 

services communication networks is essential to coordinating response to people who are injured, and fire 

or other hazard suppression. Two-way radios may be one solution if other means of communication are 

not functional. However, fire, police, and paramedic radios are often not compatible with one another. 

Therefore, communities should consider how first responders can ensure that radios are compatible to 

help with coordination. Similarly, other critical facilities, such as hospitals and police stations, often have 

their own private communications systems that need to be operational after a hazard event to ensure that 

they can serve the community. 

15.4. Regulatory Environment

There are multiple regulatory bodies at the various levels of government (federal, state, and local) that 

have authority over communication infrastructure systems. No single regulatory body oversees all 

communications infrastructure or is responsible for enforcing of all codes and standards. The rapidly 

evolving technologies over the past 30 years have led to changes in regulatory jurisdiction, which adds 

complexity to the regulatory environment. This section discusses regulatory bodies of communications 

infrastructure at the federal, state, and local levels.

15.4.1. Federal 

The regulatory body of communication services and, thus, infrastructure is the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC). The FCC is a government agency that regulates interstate and international 

communications of telephone, cable, radio, and other forms of communication. It has jurisdiction over 

wireless, wireline, and internet (including VoIP). 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

183

The FCC has an advisory group called the Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability 

Council (CSRIC) that promotes best practices as well as industry recommendations for improved 

reliability and resilience for many types of communications providers. The council performs studies of

hazard events (e.g., Hurricane Katrina, 2012 Derecho), and recommends ways to improve preparedness, 

network reliability, and communication among first responders [Victory et. al 2006]. There are no 

requirements for recommended best practices to be adopted and enforced since they are not developed to 

the rigor of standards. However, the industry voluntarily considers implementing best practices under 

appropriate circumstances. Service providers use best practices to implement mitigation strategies 

applicable to their network, and effectively prioritize network resiliency improvements. Furthermore, 

implementing best practices enables service providers to remain competitive in business and improve the 

reputation of their brand.

15.4.2. State

State government agencies have authority over local wireline telephone service. Most commonly, the 

agency responsible for overseeing communications infrastructure at the state level is known as the Public 

Service Commission (PSC). However, other state agencies have jurisdiction over communications 

infrastructure as well. For example, state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have jurisdiction over 

the right-of-way and, therefore, oversee construction of roads and highways where utility poles and wires 

are installed. Utility poles and wires are commonly placed within the right-of-way of roads, whether 

above ground or underground. The DOT has the ability to permit or deny planned paths of the utilities. 

State DOTs also have weight restrictions on vehicles to ensure the stability and safety of highway 

systems, particularly bridges. However, in the aftermath of a hazard event, weight restrictions can be a 

challenge for service providers because support from other states may include vehicles over the specified 

maximum weight. Communities can work with states and service providers in their planning efforts to 

resolve this challenge so bridges are not subjected to excessive vehicle loads, and service providers are 

able to plan routes for emergency repair crew support after hazard events.

15.4.3. Local

Local government has jurisdiction over the communication infrastructure through a number of agencies. 

The Department of Buildings (DOB), or its equivalent, is responsible for enforcing the local building 

code. The DOB regulates placement of electrical equipment, standby power, and fuel storage at critical 

communications facilities, such as central offices and IXPs [City of New York 2013]. 

Large cities, such as New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Seattle, have their own DOTs. These 

local DOTs oversee road construction and the associated right-of-way for utilities (including 

communications infrastructure). Many smaller municipalities have an Office of Transportation Planning, 

which serves a similar function. 

Local governments also regulate zoning policies and land use. Zoning policies can impact the 

performance of the communication infrastructure system because they can prohibit service providers from 

placing cell towers, standby generators, or distribution lines in locations that are needed to provide 

redundancy in their systems. Communities and service providers can work together to understand how 

zoning policies and other local regulation can impact resilience strategies and to resolve some of the 

conflicts that may currently exist.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

184

15.4.4. Overlapping Jurisdiction

A number of regulatory bodies have jurisdiction over the various services provided in the complex 

bundling packages service providers now offer customers. For example, a bundled telephone, internet and 

cable package functions under the jurisdiction of both local (cable) and federal (internet and VoIP) 

agencies [City of New York 2013]. Furthermore, changing from traditional wirelines to VoIP shifts a 

customer‘s services from regulation by state agencies to federal agencies. As technology continues to 

evolve, jurisdiction over services may continue to shift from one level of government to another. 

Following the current trend of more and more services becoming internet based, an increasing proportion 

of services may continue to move toward being under federal agency regulations.

15.5. Codes and Standards 

Codes and standards are used by the communication industry to establish minimum acceptable criteria for 

design and construction. Many standards have been developed for communications infrastructure, such as 

those of the American National Standards Institute/Telecommunications Industry Association 

(ANSI/TIA) and Network Equipment Building Standards (NEBS). Table 15-2 shows the standards 

discussed in this chapter: TIA-222-G for cell and broadcast towers; ASCE 7 for communications 

buildings (central offices, IXPs, etc.); and NESC for distribution lines.

Table 15-2: Example communication codes and standards discussed in this chapter

Code/Standard Description 

TIA-222-G Structural Standards for 

Antennae Supporting Structures and 

Antennas

Specifies loading and strength requirements for antennas and their 

supporting structures (e.g., cell and broadcast towers). [Erichsen 2014]

ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads 

for Buildings and Other Structures

Provides minimum loading criteria for buildings housing critical 

communications equipment (i.e., communications buildings). Also 

provides loading criteria for towers.

IEEE National Electrical Safety Code 

(NESC)

United States Standard providing requirements for safe installation, 

operation and maintenance of electrical power, standby power and 

communication systems (both overhead and underground wiring). 

15.5.1. New Construction

The TIA-222-G standard [2006] is used for design of new cell and broadcast towers. This version of the 

TIA-222 standard includes the biggest set of changes since it was first developed in 1959 [TIA 2014].

These major changes include:

 Using limits state design rather than allowable stress design

 Changing the design wind speeds from fastest-mile to 3-second gust, consistent with ASCE 7, 

and using the wind maps from ASCE 7

 Addressing earthquake loading for the first time in the TIA-222 standard [Wahba 2003]

Note that wind, ice, and storm surge are the predominant concerns for towers. However, earthquake 

loading was added so it could be addressed in highly seismic regions [Wahba 2003]. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

185

New communications buildings (central offices, IXPs, etc.) should be designed to be consistent with 

ASCE 7-10 Risk Category III criteria and performance level A or B (see Chapter 12). Consequently, the 

design of equipment and standby power within communication buildings should be consistent with the 

building performance. At a minimum, buildings should be designed in accordance with ASCE load 

criteria for the prevailing hazards of the community, which may include flood, snow/ice, earthquake, and 

wind. Wind loading criteria used by ASCE 7-10 has been developed using hurricane and extratropical 

winds. Other natural hazards that can cause significant damage, such as wildfire, tsunami, and tornadoes,

are not explicitly addressed in ASCE 7-10. However, as discussed in Chapter 12, fire protection standards 

are available and are used to mitigate potential building fire damage.

Distribution lines for communication system are subject to the design criteria in the National Electric 

Safety Code (NESC). As discussed in Chapter 13, Rule 250 contains the hazard load criteria for

communication and electric power lines as well as their supporting structures (e.g., utility poles). 

Specifically, these criteria address combined ice and wind loads for three districts of the United States 

defined as: 1) heavy; 2) medium; and 3) light, as defined in Rule 250B. Rule 250C addresses extreme 

wind loading and Rule 250D provides design criteria for extreme ice with concurrent wind. 

The definition of the term ―extreme‖ by NESC does not correspond to that used in this Guide. Rather, 

NESC-2012 uses ―extreme‖ to indicate use of the ASCE 7-05 maps for the 50 year return period, which, 

if used with the appropriate ASCE 7-05 load and resistance factors, corresponds to a design event as 

defined in Chapter 4 (Volume I) of this Guide. However, NESC extreme loads only apply to structures at 

least 18 m (60 ft) above ground. Since most communication distribution lines in the last mile are below 

18 m (60 ft), the lines would be designed for Rule 250B, which has lower loading requirements than 

Rules 250C and D. 

For communication distribution wires, the designer could use either the NESC or ASCE 7. Malmedal and 

Sen [2003] showed that past ASCE 7 loading standards have been more conservative than those of NESC, 

particularly for ice loading. ASCE 7 design criteria will provide a more conservative design, but may 

have a higher cost that is not desirable to utilities, service providers, or customers. When considering 

resilience, using a more conservative design for communication distribution lines in the last-mile to 

critical facilities may be a more effective means of meeting community resilience goals.

In the communication industry, codes and standards provide baseline loading and design for 

infrastructure. However, the industry heavily relies on development and implementation of best practices, 

rather than regulations, to improve their infrastructure resilience. The FCC‘s CSRIC provides an excellent 

example of a body that supplements existing codes and standards by developing and publishing best 

practices for various network types (internet/data, wireless and wireline telephone) and provides an 

articulation of industry roles, including service providers, network operators, equipment suppliers, 

property managers, and government [CSRIC 2014]. Service providers often adapt these practices or 

develop their own best practices to help improve the infrastructure on which their business relies. Best 

practices developed by the CSRIC cover a wide array of topics ranging from training and awareness to 

cybersecurity and network operations. For the purposes of this document, only a handful of the best 

practices developed by the CSRIC (see Table 15-3) that relate to physical communications infrastructure 

are listed. 

As shown in Table 15-3, the best practices include many suggestions discussed in this chapter: 1) Standby 

power for critical equipment and cell sites; 2) Backup solutions for cooling critical equipment in 

Communication Buildings; 3) Limiting exposure of distribution lines, critical equipment, and standby 

generators to hazards; and 4) Minimizing single points of failure in communications buildings, and 

distribution network. The best practices [CSRIC 2014] emphasize ensuring a power supply because 

communications systems depend on power systems to function. Innovative technologies and solutions for 

maintaining external power infrastructure continue to be developed and are discussed in Chapter 13.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

186

Table 15-3: Example best practices for communications infrastructure

Best Practice Description [CSRIC 2014]

Applicable 

Infrastructure

Network operators, service providers, equipment suppliers, and property managers should ensure the 

inclusion of fire stair returns in their physical security designs. Further, they should ensure there are 

no fire tower or stair re-entries into areas of critical infrastructure, where permitted by code.

Central offices, nodes, 

critical equipment

Network operators and service providers should prepare for HVAC or cabinet fan failures by ensuring 

conventional fans are available to cool heat-sensitive equipment, as appropriate.

Critical equipment 

Network operators and service providers should consult National Fire Protection Association 

Standards (e.g., NFPA 75 and 76) for guidance in the design of fire suppression systems. When 

zoning regulations require sprinkler systems, an exemption should be sought for the use of nondestructive systems.

Central offices, nodes, 

critical equipment

Network operators should provide back-up power (e.g., some combination of batteries, generator, fuel 

cells) at cell sites and remote equipment locations, consistent with the site specific constraints, 

criticality of the site, design load, and reliability of primary power.

Cell sites and DLC RTs

Network operators and property managers should consider alternative measures for cooling network 

equipment facilities (e.g., powering HVAC on generator, deploying mobile HVAC units) in the event 

of a power outage.

Central offices, nodes, 

critical equipment

Network operators, service providers, and property managers together with the power company and 

other tenants in the location, should verify that aerial power lines are not in conflict with hazards that 

could produce a loss of service during high winds or icy conditions.

Distribution lines

Back-up power: network operators, service providers, equipment suppliers, and property managers 

should ensure all critical infrastructure facilities, including security equipment, devices, and 

appliances protecting it are supported by backup power systems (e.g., batteries, generators, fuel cells).

Central offices, nodes, 

critical equipment

Network operators, service providers, and property managers should consider placing all power and 

network equipment in a location to increase reliability in case of hazard (e.g., floods, broken water 

mains, fuel spillage). In storm surge areas, consider placing all power related equipment above the 

highest predicted or recorded storm surge levels.

Central offices, nodes, 

cell sites, DLC RTs, 

critical equipment

Network operators, service providers, equipment suppliers, property managers, and public safety 

should design standby systems (e.g., power) to withstand harsh environmental conditions.

Critical equipment

Network operators, service providers, public safety, and property managers, when feasible, should 

provide multiple cable entry points at critical facilities (e.g., copper or fiber conduit) avoiding single 

points of failure (SPOF).

Distribution lines

Service providers, network operators, public safety, and property managers should ensure availability 

of emergency/backup power (e.g., batteries, generators, fuel cells) to maintain critical 

communications services during times of commercial power failures, including natural and humancaused occurrences (e.g., earthquakes, floods, fires, power brown/black outs, terrorism). 

Emergency/backup power generators should be located onsite, when appropriate.

Critical equipment

Network operators and service providers should minimize single points of failure (SPOF) in paths 

linking network elements deemed critical to the operations of a network (with this design, two or 

more simultaneous failures or errors need to occur at the same time to cause a service interruption).

Distribution

Back-up power fuel supply: network operators, service providers, and property managers should 

consider use of fixed alternate fuel generators (e.g., natural gas) connected to public utility supplies to 

reduce the strain on refueling.

Central offices/nodes, 

cell sites, DLC RTs, 

critical equipment. 

Network operators and public safety should identify primary and alternate transportation (e.g., air, 

rail, highway, boat) for emergency mobile units and other equipment and personnel.

Cell sites, DLC RTs, 

critical equipment
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

187

15.5.1.1. Implied or Stated Performance Levels for Design Hazard Levels

For wind events, buildings and other structures are typically designed for serviceability, which focuses on 

lateral displacement of tall buildings, floor vibration, and measures related to building function or 

occupant comfort. Therefore, in a design wind event, the expectation is that neither the building structure 

nor envelope will fail. The ability of the building envelope to perform well (i.e., stay intact) is imperative 

for high wind events because they are typically associated with heavy rainfall events (e.g., thunderstorms, 

hurricanes, tornadoes). Therefore, even if the building frame was to perform well, but the envelope failed, 

rain infiltration could damage the contents, critical equipment, and induce enough water related damage 

that the building may have to be replaced. The design expectation is that a communications building 

would not have any significant damage for a design wind event, and would be fully operational within 24 

hours. The 24 hours of downtime should only be required for a high wind event to allow time to bring 

standby generators online if needed and to ensure all switches and critical electrical equipment are not 

damaged.

Similarly, for a design flood event, a communications building would not be anticipated to fail. There is 

likely to be some damage to the building and its contents at lower elevations, particularly the basement. 

However, if the critical electrical equipment, switchgear, and standby power are located well above the 

inundation levels, the design expectation would be for communications buildings to be fully operational 

within 24 hours of the event.

For earthquakes, buildings are designed for life safety through structural stability, but damage may occur. 

Therefore, communications buildings in highly seismic regions are likely to be damaged during the 

design earthquake. As a result, it is likely that there will be some, and possibly significant, loss of 

functionality of a central office following a design earthquake event. If the critical equipment and 

switchgear were designed and mounted to resist anticipated ground accelerations, downtime may be 

limited (e.g., less than one week). However, if the critical equipment and switchgear were not mounted to 

resist ground accelerations, it could be much longer before the communications building is fully 

functional again. 

For cell and broadcast towers, the primary hazard considered for design in TIA-222-G is wind. However, 

ice and earthquake are also considered. TIA-222-G provides three classes of tower structures [Wahba 

2003]:

 Category I Structures – Used for structures where a delay in recovering services would be 

acceptable. Ice and earthquake are not considered for these structures, and wind speeds are based 

on the ASCE 7-05 Risk Category I.

 Category II Structures – This is the standard category that represents hazard to human life and 

property if failure occurs. The ASCE 7-05 Risk Category II wind, ice, and seismic loads are used. 

 Category III Structures – Used for critical and emergency services. The ASCE 7-05 Risk 

Category III wind, ice, and seismic loads are used.

For the design event, failures would only be anticipated for a small percentage of cell towers (e.g., less 

than five percent). It is noted that, as discussed in the previous section, the loading in TIA-222-G is based 

on that of ASCE 7-05. Cell towers are configured such that there is an overlap in service between towers,

so the signal can be transmitted as the user moves from one area to another without a disruption in 

service. Therefore, if one tower fails, other towers will cover most of the service since their service areas 

overlap.

Communication distribution wires would likely experience some failures in the design event, particularly 

for wind and ice storms. As discussed in the previous section, most distribution lines in the last-mile are 

below 18 m (60 ft) above the ground and, hence, are not designed to meet what Chapter 4 (Volume I)

defines as the design event if Rule 250B in NESC is followed for design. For lines designed to meet the 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

188

NESC Rules 250C and 250D, it would be anticipated that only a small percentage of failure of the 

overhead wire would fail in a design ice or wind event. However, as discussed earlier in this chapter and 

in Chapter 13, tree fall onto distribution lines causes many failures rather than the loading of the natural 

hazard itself. Therefore, service providers should work with the electric power utility to ensure their treetrimming programs are maintained. Service providers and electric power utilities should also work with 

communities to ensure their residents understand the risks of not maintaining an aggressive tree-trimming 

program. 

15.5.1.2. Recovery Levels

For distribution lines, the location of the cables is a key factor in performance during hazard events. 

However, some damage to the distribution lines may be expected for a design event. 

If the distribution lines are underground, failures and recovery time should be limited for a high wind or 

ice event, though underground distribution lines may be damaged by uprooting of trees. During a flood, if 

the distribution lines are not properly protected or there has been degradation of the cable material, 

failures could occur. During earthquakes, underground line failures may be due to ground movement or 

liquefaction. As discussed in Section 15.2.1, although underground lines may be less susceptible to 

damage, they are more difficult to access for repair and failures could result in recovery times of weeks 

rather than days. 

If the distribution lines are overhead, high wind and ice events may result in failures, primarily due to tree 

fall or other debris impacts on the lines. The debris impact on distribution lines is a factor that varies 

locally due to the surroundings and tree trimming programs that are intended to limit these disruptions. 

Although overhead lines are more likely to fail during high winds and ice events, recovery and repair time 

for a design event may range from a few days to a few weeks. Recovery time may be affected by the size 

of the area impacted, resources available, and accessibility to transportation routes. Note that this only 

accounts for repair of the communication distribution lines. Another major consideration is the recovery 

of external power lines so the end user is able to use their communications devices. Chapter 13 addresses 

the standards and codes, and their implied performance levels for a design event. 

15.5.2. Existing Construction

Communication buildings designed and constructed within the past 20 years may have been designed 

with minimum load criteria from ASCE 7-88 to ASCE 7-05. Prior to that, ANSI standards may have been 

used. There have been many changes in design load criteria and methodology over the design life of 

existing central offices. However, additional factors need to be considered when evaluating the expected 

time for recovery of function following a hazard event, such as materials of construction, maintenance, 

and resources required to support repair and recovery of function.

As discussed in Section 15.5.1, TIA-222-G is the current version of the standard used for cell and 

broadcast towers. However, the 1996 standard, ANSI/TIA-222-F, was used during the largest growth and

construction of towers in the United States [TIA 2014]. As noted in Section 15.5.1, earthquake was not 

considered in this version of the standard and allowable stress design was used rather than limit state 

design, which is based on reliability theory [Wahba 2003]. 

Historically, communication distribution lines have been designed to NESC standards. The following 

items list some of the most significant changes to NESC Rule 250 that have occurred over the past couple 

of decades [IEEE 2015]:

 Prior to 1997, NESC did not have an extreme wind load. Rule 250C adopted the ASCE 7 wind 

maps.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

189

 In 2002, Rule 250A4 was introduced to state that earthquakes are not anticipated to govern design 

since electric and communication wires and their supporting structures are flexible.

 In 2007, Rule 250D was introduced for design of extreme ice from freezing rain combined with 

wind.

These changes and their timeframes indicate that older distribution lines may be more vulnerable to 

failures from wind and ice events than newer systems. However, the NESC adoption of the new standards 

should support improved performance of overhead distribution lines.

15.5.2.1. Implied or Stated Performance Levels for Design Hazard Levels

As discussed in the previous section, ANSI/TIA-222-F (the 1996 standard) was in effect when the largest 

growth and construction of cell towers took place [TIA 2014]. For wind and ice, the towers designed 

according to this standard should be anticipated to only have a small percentage of failures for the design 

event as discussed in Section 15.5.1.1. However, earthquake loads were not included in cell tower 

standards prior to TIA-222-G [Wahba 2003]. Although earthquakes do not typically govern the design of 

cell towers, those located in highly seismic regions may be susceptible to failure if a design earthquake 

occurred. For existing towers designed to standards other than TIA-222-G in highly seismic regions, the 

design should be evaluated to see if earthquake loads govern, and retrofits should be identified if 

necessary to meet performance goals. Existing towers in seismic zones with electronics should also be 

updated to meet requirements of TIA-222-G. Despite the lack of earthquake load criteria in TIA-222-F, 

and older versions of this standard, designers in highly seismic regions may have considered earthquake 

load using other standards, such as ASCE 7. 

In large urban centers, cell towers may be located on buildings. Some of these buildings may be older and 

of unknown condition. As a result, failure of the building could lead to loss of the cell tower. Thus, when 

placing cell towers on top of buildings, the overall condition of these buildings should be considered. 

As discussed in Section 15.5.1.2, some communication distribution lines are anticipated to fail during a 

design event. Given that extreme ice loading was not included in the NESC standard until 2007, 

distribution lines designed to prior codes may be vulnerable to ice storms. 

15.5.2.2. Recovery Levels

For wind loads, many communications buildings and cell or broadcast towers may be expected to perform 

reasonably well for a design event, and have a short recovery period. However, given that older standards 

of TIA-222 did not include earthquake load criteria, a large number of failures may occur during a 

seismic event and, hence, significant recovery time may be needed to repair or replace towers. To replace 

a large number of towers would take weeks, months, or even years depending on the size of the affected 

area. 

Service providers have the ability to provide cell-on-light trucks (COLTs) as interim measures so 

essential wireless communications can be brought online quickly after a hazard event in which the 

network experiences significant disruptions [AT&T 2014]. However, the COLTs are only intended for 

temporary or emergency situations. Furthermore, service providers may have alternative methods and 

solutions to restore service. For cell tower owners in earthquake prone regions, resilience in the 

communication infrastructure system should consider approaches to ensure that cell towers can perform 

as needed for design earthquake events. 

With respect to performance of distribution lines, performance and recovery time largely depends on the 

placement of cables (i.e., overhead versus underground) as discussed in Section 15.5.1.2. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

190

15.6. Strategies for Implementing Plans for Community Resilience

15.6.1. Available Guidance

There are three levels, or tiers, at which the communication infrastructure can be assessed, based on 

industry practices:

Tier 1. A high-level assessment of the anticipated performance of the components of the communication

infrastructure system can be completed by those with knowledge and experience of how the components 

and system will behave in a hazard event. For communications buildings, this may include structural and 

electrical engineers and designers. For wires (both overhead and underground), and cell towers, this may 

include engineers, utility operators, service providers, and technical staff. At a minimum, each community 

should complete a high level (Tier 1) assessment of its infrastructure. The community can then decide 

whether additional investment is warranted for completing a more detailed assessment. The SPUR 

Framework [SPUR 2009] took this high-level approach in assessing its infrastructure for the City of San 

Francisco, and is highly regarded as a good example for the work completed to date. 

Tier 2. A more detailed assessment can be conducted, based on an inventory of typical features within the 

communication infrastructure system, to develop generalized features for various components. To do this, 

the community would need to assess the performance of common components of their infrastructure 

system for a specific magnitude of event (i.e., model and analyze a scenario event and its resulting 

impacts). Alternatively, the community could assess a hazard event scenario to compute loads and effects 

(wind speeds and pressures, ground accelerations, flood elevations) and use expert judgment to estimate 

the anticipated performance of various components of the communications infrastructure. 

A Tier 2 communication infrastructure assessment includes the response of typical components 

independent of dependencies within the infrastructure system. The Oregon Resilience Plan [OSSPAC 

2013] provides a good example of modeling a hazard event to assess the resulting impacts on the current 

infrastructure. It used Hazus [FEMA 2015] to model and determine the impacts of a Cascadia earthquake 

on the infrastructure systems and used the losses output by the Hazus tool to back-calculate the current 

state of the infrastructure.

Tier 3. For the most detailed assessment, Tier 3 would include all components in the communications 

infrastructure system, intra-dependencies within the system, and dependencies on other infrastructure 

systems. A probabilistic approach, such as fragilities, could be developed for each component of the 

communications infrastructure system. A Tier 3 assessment would use models and tools to determine both 

the load effects on infrastructure due to the hazard and the resulting performance, including dependencies. 

Currently, there are no publicly available tools that can be used to model the dependencies between 

infrastructure systems.

15.6.2. Solutions for Future Construction

For future construction, designers are encouraged to consider how to best achieve community resilience 

goals rather than designing to minimum code requirements. It is important to consider the communication 

infrastructure because a failure of one part may impact the rest of the system. Therefore, if a critical 

component is non-redundant (e.g., a lone central office, or a single point of entry for telephone wires into 

a critical facility), solutions could include future redundancy or improved performance of the component 

through retrofit or replacement.

Throughout this chapter, there are examples of success stories and failures of communications 

infrastructure due to different types of hazards (wind, flood, earthquake, ice storms). Designers, planners, 

and decision makers should consider these examples, as well as other relevant examples, when planning 

for and constructing new communication infrastructure. There are several construction and administrative 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

191

solutions that can be used to successfully improve the resilience of communications infrastructure 

systems within a community. 

Construction Solutions for Future Communications Buildings. With respect to communications 

buildings that are owned by service providers, the service provider can incorporate design requirements 

for the desired performance of critical building during a hazard event. If a community or region faces 

multiple hazards, different failure modes may occur and have varying levels of anticipated damage and 

recovery time. 

Sections of buildings are often leased by service providers to store their equipment for maintenance and 

repairs. Evaluation of leased buildings will support availability of necessary equipment after a hazard 

event. If a building is in the design phase, the service provider could potentially work with the building 

owner and designers to ensure their section(s) of the building will perform as desired. There may be 

additional initial costs with this approach. However, a cost-to-benefit ratio of the investment versus losing 

critical equipment needed to restore services can be considered.

Administrative Solutions for Future Communications Buildings. Although the design and construction 

of buildings that house critical equipment for the communications network is an important consideration, 

administrative solutions can also be effective. Service providers who own or lease buildings for 

communications services should consider how to reduce vulnerabilities to hazards. For example, central 

offices vulnerable to flooding can locate critical electrical equipment or standby generators above design 

flood levels. Similarly, for earthquake prone areas, service providers can isolate or mount critical 

equipment to ensure it is functional after a hazard event. 

An alternative to raising all critical equipment is to protect it so 

water does not enter the central office during a flood event. 

Sandbags are often used in North America to temporarily protect 

buildings or openings of buildings from flooding. However,

sandbag barriers are not always effective. After the magnitude 9.0 

earthquake and tsunami in the Great Tohoku region of Japan 2011, 

Kwasinksi [2011] observed that watertight doors performed well

in areas that experienced significant damage and were effective in 

preventing flooding of critical electronic equipment in central 

offices. Watertight doors, such as that shown in Figure 15-7, can 

be used to prevent water from entering a central office during a 

flood. Other openings, such as windows, may also need to be 

sealed effectively [Kwasinski 2011].

Construction Solutions for Future Cell and Broadcast Towers. 

To meet desired performance goals, design criteria for future cell 

and broadcast towers may include requirements in accordance with 

the TIA-222-G standard, as well as other criteria needed to meet 

the desired performance. For wind and ice, it is expected that if the 

towers are designed and constructed in accordance with the 

appropriate standards, only a small percentage of cell towers would be damaged or fail in a design event. 

With respect to an earthquake event, where the design philosophy is life safety, it may be necessary to 

consider designing beyond the standard criteria.

Administrative Solutions for Future Cell and Broadcast Towers. Historically, the predominant cause of 

outages of cell towers has been the loss of electrical power. As discussed in Section 15.2.2, the FCC‘s 

attempt to mandate a minimum of eight hours of battery standby power to overcome this problem was 

removed by the courts. However, service providers should consider how to provide adequate standby 

power and ensure backhaul availability to maintain functionality following a hazard event. 

Figure 15-7: Watertight door used 

on central office in Kamaishi, 

Japan
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

192

Standby generators for towers need to be designed and placed appropriately. Standby generators for cell 

towers that are elevated above the design flood level or to withstand ground accelerations will be 

available to support recovery efforts. 

Additional protection may need to be implemented for cell and broadcast towers. As discussed in Section 

15.2.2, storm surge debris impacts from boats resulted in failure of cell towers. Impacts from uprooted 

trees or branches during flood or wind events could also result in failure of these towers. Therefore, the 

topography and surroundings (e.g., relative distance from trees or harbors to cell towers) may need to be 

considered to ensure cell towers are protected from debris impact.

Solutions for Future Distribution Line to End User. There are a number of factors to consider regarding 

whether underground or overhead wires are the best way to distribute services to the end user. For future 

distribution lines, the following factors may help identify which method to use:

 Building cluster to which the services are being distributed

 Prevailing hazards

 Topography and terrain for distribution lines

 Redundancy or path diversity of distribution lines

 Cost/benefit of distribution methods

The typical utility access of the building cluster to which the services are being delivered is a key 

consideration. The hazards the community faces can help determine how to reduce interruption of service 

to the building. For example, in regions that are susceptible to high winds events, overhead wires would 

likely result in poorer performance during wind events because of failures due to wind loading or debris 

impact. Redundancy or path diversity of communications distribution lines to end users can improve the 

likelihood of continuation of services after a hazard event. For example, single points of failure in the last 

mile of distribution can result in longer outages. 

15.6.3. Solutions for Existing Construction

Similar to future systems, there are several construction and administrative solutions that can improve the 

resilience of existing communication infrastructure systems within a community. However, existing 

components need to be evaluated to understand any vulnerabilities. If it is determined that a component is 

vulnerable to a hazard event, solutions can be developed to address the vulnerability and the desired 

performance goals for community resilience. 

Communication infrastructure systems are large, distributed systems, with much of the existing 

infrastructure owned by service providers or third party owners (e.g., building owners). Resilience is 

achieved over time by communities and service providers. It is not reasonable to expect that capital is 

available for service providers (or third parties) to upgrade all infrastructure within a short period of time. 

Prioritization of solutions and development of resilience strategies by the community and its stakeholders 

can provide steady progress to improving community and infrastructure system performance. By 

evaluating the inventory of existing infrastructure, service providers can identify weaknesses and 

implement solutions for future construction that avoid the same weaknesses.

Construction Solutions for Existing Communications Buildings. Existing buildings may need to be 

assessed to determine if the building and critical equipment will be able to meet desired performance 

goals. If the building is a non-redundant node in the infrastructure network, a higher level of performance 

than that provided by the design event may be considered, such as the extreme hazard level. However, if 

the building is a redundant node, and its failure would not cause significant service interruptions, the 

design event may provide adequate performance.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

193

If the service provider finds its communications building will not be able to withstand the loading for the 

appropriate level of hazard event, steps may be taken to retrofit the building or to relocate the services to a 

better location. Although retrofit options may be expensive, if the building is critical to performance 

following a hazard event, the investment may be worthwhile. 

Administrative Solutions for Existing Communications Buildings. Assessment of critical equipment in 

communications building or other nodes/exchanges in the network can help determine whether the 

desired performance will be achieved. Critical equipment can be elevated for flood events, or watertight 

doors are a possible alternative to protecting critical equipment in communications buildings from water 

infiltration.

Construction Solutions for Existing Cell and Broadcast Towers. Existing cell and broadcast towers 

should be evaluated to determine whether they can resist the loading from the prevailing design events the 

community faces. 

Administrative Solutions for Existing Cell and Broadcast Towers. Assessment of required standby 

power for individual or a group of towers can help balance the desired performance against the available 

resources. Although it may not be economically feasible to provide standby generators for all towers 

immediately, a program can be developed to accomplish this over time. The immediate surroundings of 

cell or broadcast tower sites should be assessed to determine vulnerabilities to airborne and waterborne 

debris. If the site is located such that it is vulnerable to tree fall or other debris in a high wind or flood 

event, additional protection should be provided to protect the cell or broadcast tower.

Solutions for Existing Distribution Line to End User. For existing distribution lines to the end user, an 

inventory of wires, including the type, age, and condition should be recorded. When wires are damaged or 

have deteriorated due to age, they should be retired and/or replaced. 

If a service provider is considering switching from overhead wires to underground wires to avoid possible 

outages due to ice storms or high wind events, a cost-benefit ratio can support the assessment and 

decision making process. If cost is much greater than projected benefits, the service provider may want to 

consider other priorities to make the infrastructure more resilient. For instance, the service provider may 

find it more economical to add redundancy. Such a solution would not reduce the vulnerability of existing 

overhead wires, but would reduce the risk of service interruptions. 

Administrative Solutions for Critical Facilities/Users – Prioritized Calls within Congested Network.

Communications network congestion often occurs during and immediately after a hazard event. The 

following programs have been implemented to help critical users in communities have priority when 

networks are congested due to a hazard event [DHS 2015]: 

 Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS)

 Wireless Priority Service (WPS)

GETS works through a series of enhancements to the wireline network. It is intended for use in the 

immediate aftermath of hazard events to support national security and emergency response. Cell phones 

can also use the GETS network; however, they will not receive priority treatment until the call reaches the 

wireline system. In contrast, WPS is used to prioritize cell phone calls of users who support national 

security and emergency response when the wireless network is congested or partially damaged. WPS is 

supported by nine service providers: AT&T, C Spire, Cellcom, Southern LINC, Sprint, T-Mobile, GCI, 

US Cellular, and Verizon Wireless [DHS 2015]. The GETS card has no cost and a small charge of 7-10 

cents per minute depending upon the carrier. WPS requires a one-time setup fee of $10, a monthly fee of 

$2 to $4 depending on the carrier, and approximately 75 cents per minute when making a priority call.

The GETS and WPS programs are helpful in coordinating recovery efforts in the wake of a hazard event. 

However, the main goal of these programs is to provide priority service when there is congestion due to 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

194

limited damage and overloaded capacity. If a significant amount of the infrastructure fails, these services 

may not be available. 

Administrative Solutions for Critical Facilities/Users – Prioritized Recovery. Telecommunications 

Service Priority (TSP) is an FCC program that enables service providers to give service priority to users 

enrolled in the program when they need additional lines or need service to be restored after a disruption 

[FCC 2015a]. Like GETS and WPS, eligible entities for TSP include police departments, fire 

departments, 9-1-1 call centers, emergency responders, and essential health care providers (e.g., 

hospitals). 

Short-Term Solutions for Restoring Service. Service providers can budget for necessary short-term 

changes (0-5 years), which may include solutions such as placement and security of critical equipment 

and standby generators. For the long-term (5+ years), service providers can address more expensive 

resilience gaps that include retrofitting existing communications buildings and improving the 

performance of distribution lines. However, it is important to understand that unlike utilities that have the 

ability to fund infrastructure upgrades through approved rate increases (e.g., through a Public Utilities 

Commission), service providers are part of the private sector. 

Although not all resilience gaps can be addressed in the short-term through investment in infrastructure, 

service providers can use other solutions to address these gaps. Ensuring there is a recovery plan in place 

so service to customers is not lost for an extended period of time helps minimize downtime. For example, 

AT&T‘s Network Disaster Recovery (NDR) team uses temporary deployments to minimize service 

disruptions that focus on central office and recovery of technology [AT&T 2005]. It also has a special 

operations function that would navigate in hazardous materials (hazmat) environment to maintain 

functionality of the network. 

Following hazard events, service providers might deploy charging stations so that everyone in the 

community can maintain functionality of their cell phones. Communities may also choose to invest in 

charging stations that could be deployed after hazard events so that the community would have these 

stations prepositioned in areas the communities feel are most critical or will have the largest percentage of 

need.

Using satellite telephones can be an alternative for critical facilities or emergency responders in the 

immediate aftermath of a hazard event. Satellite phones are almost the only type of electronic 

communications system that will work when cell towers are damaged and central offices or 

exchanges/nodes have failed [Stephan 2007]. Unfortunately, satellite phones are used infrequently, 

especially with the continuing growth of cellular phones. In 1999, the State of Louisiana used Federal 

funds to provide the state‘s parishes with a satellite phone to use in the event of an emergency, but the 

state stopped providing the funding to cover a monthly $65 access fee one year before Hurricane Katrina 

occurred [Stephan 2009]. As a result, only a handful of churches kept the satellite phones. However, even 

for those parishes that did keep their satellite phones, they did little to alleviate the communications 

problem because nobody else had them when Hurricane Katrina occurred. In general, people do not own 

satellite telephones so this is not the best solution for an entire community. However, for critical facilities 

and communications between emergency responders or within critical facilities (e.g., hospitals), satellite 

telephones may be a viable option to ensure that the ability to communicate is preserved. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

195

15.7. References

American Lifelines Alliance (ALA 2006) Power Systems, Water, Transportation and Communications 

Lifeline Interdependencies, American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) draft report to the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Washington, DC, 

March, 

http://www.cimap.vt.edu/sites/www.cimap.vt.edu/files/docs/ALA%20Lifeline%20Report%20Final%20D

raft%20030606.pdf.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 1993) ASCE 7-93: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings 

and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural Engineering Institute 

(SEI), Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 1995) ASCE 7-95: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings 

and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural Engineering Institute 

(SEI), Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2002) ASCE 7-02: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings 

and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural Engineering Institute 

(SEI), Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2005) ASCE 7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings 

and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural Engineering Institute 

(SEI), Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2010) ASCE 7-10: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings 

and Other Structures, Second Edition, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural 

Engineering Institute (SEI), Reston, VA.

AT&T (2005) Best Practices: AT&T Network Continuity Overview, 

http://www.corp.att.com/ndr/pdf/cpi_5181.pdf. 

AT&T (2014) http://www.corp.att.com/ndr/deployment1.html, Viewed August 28, 2014. 

Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI 2006) Telecommunications Resilience Good 

Practice Guide, Version 4, United Kingdom, March. 

City of Urbana Public Works Department (2001) Overhead to Underground Utility Conversion, Urbana, 

Illinois, http://www2.city.urbana.il.us/_Agendas_-_Packets_-_Minutes/Agendas_2002/01-14-

2002/Overhead_Utility_Report.pdf.

Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC 2014) CSRIC Best Practices,

Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC), Public Safety & Homeland 

Security Bureau, https://www.fcc.gov/nors/outage/bestpractice/BestPractice.cfm. Viewed December 16, 

2014. 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS 2006) A performance Review of FEMA‘s Disaster Management 

Activities in Response to Hurricane Katrina, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Washington, DC.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS 2015) GETS/WPS Documents, Washington, DC,

http://www.dhs.gov/publication/getswps-documents#. Viewed January 13, 2015. DHS, 

Department of the Army (2007) Reliability/Availability of Electrical & Mechanical Systems for 

Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) 

Facilities. January 19, 2007. 

Erichsen, John R. (2014) ANSI/TIA-222-G Explained, Tower Numerics, Inc. Lexington, MA , 

http://www.towernx.com/downloads/TIA-222-G_Explained.pdf. Viewed July 5, 2014.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

196

Federal Communications Commission (FCC 2011) Telecommunications Act of 1996, 

www.fcc.gov/telecom.html. Viewed July 5, 2014. 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC 2013) Impact of the June 2012 Derecho on Communications 

Networks and Services – Report and Recommendations, Washington, DC.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC 2015a) Telecommunications Service Provider,

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/telecommunications-service-priority. Viewed January 13, 2015.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC 2015b) Emergency Alert System (EAS)

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/emergency-alert-system-eas. Viewed March 20, 2015.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2002) World Trade Center Building Performance 

Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), New York, New York.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2013) Mitigation Assessment Team Report: Hurricane 

Sandy in New Jersey and New York. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC.

Fiber-to-the-Home Council (FTTH Council 2013) Comments of the Fiber-to-the Home Council on 

Request to Refresh Record and Amend the Commission‘s Copper Retirement Rules. Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2015) Hazus: FEMA‘s Methodology for Estimating 

Potential Losses from Disasters. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/resources/hazus. Viewed April 19, 2015. 

FEMA, Washington, DC.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 2015) History of the National Electrical Safety 

Code ANSI C2, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 

http://standards.ieee.org/about/nesc/100/. Viewed January 26, 2015. 

Jrad, Ahman et al. (2005) ―Wireless and Wireline Network Interactions in Disaster Scenarios,‖ Military 

Communications Conference, Washington, DC.

Jrad, Ahman et al. (2006) ―Dynamic Changes in Subscriber Behavior and their Impact on the Telecom 

Network in Cases of Emergency,‖ Military Communications Conference, Washington, DC.

Kende, Michael and Charles Hurpy (2012) Assessment of the Impact of Internet Exchange Points –

Empirical Study of Kenya and Nigeria, Analysys Mason Limited, Washington, DC, April.

Kentucky Public Service Commission (2009) Ike and Ice: The Kentucky Public Service Commission 

Report on the September 2008 Wind Storm and the January 2009 Ice Storm, November 19, 

https://psc.ky.gov/IkeIce/Report.pdf. 

Kwasinski, Alexis (2009) Telecom Power Planning for Natural Disasters: Technology Implications and 

Alternatives to U.S. Federal Communications Commission‘s ―Katrina Order‖ in View of the Effects of 

2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season, 31st International Telecommunications Energy Conference (INTELEC).

Kwasinski, Alexis (2011) Effect of Notable Natural Disasters from 2005 to 2011 on Telecommunications 

Infrastructure: Lessons from on-site Damage Assessments, 2011 IEEE International Telecommunications 

Energy Conference (INTELEC).

Kwasinski, Alexis; Wayne Weaver; Philip Krein; and Patrick Chapman (2006) Hurricane Katrina: 

Damage Assessment of Power Infrastructure for Distribution, Telecommunication, and Backup,

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Urbana-Champaign, IL. 

Lower Manhattan Telecommunications Users‘ Working Group (2002) Lower Manhattan 

Telecommunications Users‘ Working Group Findings and Recommendations: Building a 21st Century 

Telecom Infrastructure, New York City, NY, August, http://www.nexxcomwireless.com/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/Building-a-21st-Century-Telecom-Infrastructure-Lower-Manhattan.pdf.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Communication Systems

197

Malmedal, Keith and P.K. Sen (2003) Structural Loading Calculations of Wood Transmission Structures,

IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference.

Mehta, Kishor (2010) Wind Load History ANSI A58.1-1972 to ASCE 7-05. Structures Congress, 

American Society of Civil Engineers.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 2013) Service Assessment: The Historic 

Derecho of June 29, 2012, National Weather Service (NWS), Silver Spring, MD, January, 

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/assessments/pdfs/derecho12.pdf.

Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC 2013) The Oregon Resilience Plan: 

Reducing Risk and Improving Recovery for the Next Cascadia Earthquake and Tsunami, Salem, Oregon.

PPD-21 (2013) Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-21, The White House, February 12, 2013, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-criticalinfrastructure-security-and-resil.

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR 2009) The Resilient City: What San 

Francisco Needs from its Seismic Mitigation Policies, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research 

Association (SPUR), San Francisco, CA.

Stephan, Karl D. (2007) ―We‘ve got to Talk: Emergency Communications and Engineering Ethics,‖ 

Technology and Society Magazine, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Society on 

Social Implications of Technology, 26(3), pp. 42-48, 10 September .

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA 2006) Structural Standards for Antenna Supporting 

Structures and Antennas, TIA -222-G, Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), Arlington, VA.

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA 2014) TR-14 Structural Standards for Communication 

and Small Wind Turbine Support Structures, http://www.tiaonline.org/all-standards/committees/tr-14.

Viewed September 22, 2014. 

The City of New York (2013) A Stronger, More Resilient New York, The City of New York, New York.

The Lifelines Council of the City and County of San Francisco (2014) Lifelines Interdependency Study 1 

Report, San Francisco, California, 

http://www.sfgsa.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=12025. 

Victory, Nancy et al. (2006) Report and Recommendations of the Interdependent Panel Reviewing the 

Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks, Washington, DC.

Wahba, John; D. Brinker; M. Malouf; and J. Erichsen (2003) New Standards for Broadcast Structures 

ANSI/EIA/TIA-222-G, http://www.mei1inc.com/NAB-2003presentation.pdf. 

West Virginia Broadband, Broadband Glossary, 

http://www.westvirginia.com/broadband/mediaroom/BroadbandGlossary.pdf. Viewed July 15, 2014.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

198

16. Water and Wastewater Systems

Water and Wastewater Systems Executive Summary

Water and wastewater infrastructure systems are essential for sustaining the economic and social viability 

of a community. The average consumption of water across the U.S. has been calculated to be 98 gallons 

per person per day, for activities such as drinking, cooking, personal hygiene, flushing toilets, and laundry

[Aubuchon & Morley 2012]. Similarly, most businesses and industries are dependent on water and 

wastewater disposal. Communities can generally accommodate short-term disruptions in water and 

wastewater services resulting from hazard events. However, longer-term outages are highly disruptive to 

community recovery and functions.

Water systems are supplied by either surface or ground water. Water systems treat and store the water, 

and move it to the end user through a system of pipelines. Wastewater systems operate in the reverse, 

collecting wastewater, and moving it through a system of pipelines and pump stations to a treatment plant 

where it is discharged into a receiving water (e.g., river or bay) or, if adequately treated, into an aquifer. 

These systems are vulnerable to natural and human-caused events. Supplies can be disrupted due to 

floods, spills, wildfires, and landslides. Transmission pipelines may be damaged by landslides, floods and 

earthquakes. Treatment plants can be submerged when levees are overtopped, sometimes requiring weeks 

or months to restore service. Earthquakes can damage treatment plant structures and equipment as a result 

of lateral loading (due to shaking) and failure of foundations (due to liquefaction). Storage reservoirs are 

subjected to seismically-induced forces on their contents, buckling tank walls. Buried pipelines, both 

water and sewer, may suffer failures caused by ground movement in earthquakes and floods. 

Communities have experienced myriad incidents that have resulted in impacts to water and wastewater 

systems requiring weeks or months to restore.

The large and distributed nature of water and wastewater systems, combined with their dependence on 

other infrastructure systems, limits the practicality of maintaining a 100 % operational capacity after a 

major natural hazard. Desired performance goals need to be developed with stakeholders, including 

individual utilities. It is important to consider the uniqueness of the infrastructure of individual utilities 

and the specific needs of their customers when adopting system performance goals for a community. 

Water and wastewater stakeholder engagement is critical in establishing a community-specific level of 

service performance goals for each of the three different hazard levels (routine, design, and extreme).

Dependencies of water and wastewater systems on other infrastructure also need to be considered when 

developing performance goals. For instance, availability of a reliable supply of liquid fuel impacts how 

long systems can run on standby generators. The available supply of liquid fuel also impacts repair crews‘

vehicles and equipment. In turn, local delivery of liquid fuels depends on the status of the highway and 

bridge transportation network. Electric power is required for pumping, communication, and control 

systems.

Focusing on major system components that form a backbone network capable of supplying key health and 

safety-related community needs shortly after a hazard event is one way to focus priorities for community 

recovery. Less costly short-term solutions combined with longer-term improvements to infrastructure 

systems can increase community resilience and help with the cost of implementing solutions.

Performance goals for critical water and wastewater system functions should be developed for short 

(days), intermediate (weeks), and long (months) duration outages. It is important that performance goals 

take into account the community‘s social and infrastructure needs.

Federal and state governments set requirements for water and wastewater system performance on a dayto-day, or year-to-year basis, but are generally silent on performance when subjected to catastrophic 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

199

events. Over the years, codes and standards have been developed to address the performance of system 

structures for various hazards, e.g., wind and earthquake loads. While most modern buildings and 

structures are expected to perform well during design events, older structures may not be as robust. 

However, buried pipelines may be vulnerable to ground disturbances caused by flooding or earthquakes. 

Water and wastewater facilities often contain both older and newer components constructed to different 

specifications. Assessments to evaluate the anticipated performance of these system components and the 

overall system during hazard events will help predict whether they will meet the desired performance 

goals. The process should include an assessment of the time it would take to restore service given the 

damage state of the various facilities. For example, how long will it take a water treatment plant to restore 

operation? How long will it take to repair all of the pipelines?

Bringing a utility to the desired level of performance, to be able to meet the desired goals, may take 

decades. Even so, it is important to develop performance goals, evaluate the system‘s ability to meet those 

performance goals when tested by a hazard event, and identify the gaps. Plans should be developed to 

address those gaps and implement the solutions to enhance community resilience over a selected time 

frame.

16.1. Introduction

This chapter addresses community resilience of public drinking water and wastewater systems, which are 

essential for sustaining the economic and social viability of a community [Hoover, 1941]. Although these 

systems provide basic public health and safety to homes, businesses, and industry, they are often taken for 

granted because of the high level of service and reliability provided daily by water and wastewater 

utilities. The importance of these systems is not recognized until a water main break or other disruption in 

service occurs. 

Some utilities may develop targeted capital improvement plans to improve the resilience of their systems, 

and other utilities may only perform emergency repairs. Demands on water and wastewater systems 

include sustaining system capacity while meeting population growth, or making system improvements to 

maintain public health and satisfy environmental regulations. Communities have an opportunity to 

improve resilience through planned retrofits or replacements to improve the resilience of water and 

wastewater infrastructure systems. 

However, the water and wastewater systems face challenges beyond infrastructure performance. Drinking 

water quality and environmental impact are two key issues. For example, if drinking water of poor quality 

is delivered to customers, there is significant risk that the public may become ill from consumption. 

Wastewater utilities operate within strict environmental constraints to prevent excessive pollution that 

contributes to environmental damage and, ultimately, impacts the health of the humans and animals. 

Although this chapter touches on such issues, its main focus is how to develop a more resilient 

infrastructure system that delivers water and wastewater services with fewer disruptions. 

16.1.1. Social Needs and Systems Performance Goals

Water services are essential to our daily lives. Using USGS data, Aubuchon & Morley [2012] calculated 

the average consumption of water across all U.S. states to be 371 liters (98 gallons) per person per day. 

However, water consumption varies by community and by customer. Personal uses include water for 

drinking and cooking, personal hygiene, flushing toilets, laundry, landscape irrigation, and many others. 

Many businesses and industries depend on a continual supply of potable water and wastewater collection 

services. Absent functioning drinking water and wastewater systems, the operation of restaurants, 

childcare facilities, hotels, medical offices, food processing plants, paper mills, etc., would be 

significantly compromised. Additionally, drinking water systems are often the primary source of water for 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

200

fire suppression in many communities. Chapter 10 discusses societal dependence on water and 

wastewater systems and other infrastructure systems in more detail.

In the United States, communities can generally accommodate short-term (on the order of a few days) 

disruptions in water and wastewater services resulting from human-caused or natural hazard events. 

However, longer-term events can be highly disruptive to the entire community. The Oregon Resilience 

Plan [OSSPAC, 2013] indicated that if a business cannot reoccupy its facilities within one month, it may

be forced to move or dissolve. Such timelines vary depending on the community and the severity of the 

event. Development of realistic desired performance goals for post-event level of service by water and 

wastewater utility providers can provide a direct long-term benefit to the community they serve. This 

includes evaluating the systems‘ status in relation to those goals, and developing solutions to close the 

identified resilience gaps. Water flow, pressure, and quality should be considered in the performance 

goals. 

16.1.2. Dependencies

As discussed in Chapter 11, water system operations depend on other infrastructure systems, both for dayto-day operation and for restoration following a hazard event. System dependencies (e.g., loss of 

commercial electrical power in a high wind event) can have a significant impact on the operations of 

water and wastewater systems [Elliott and Tang 2009]. Electric power is necessary for maintaining 

pumping and treatment operations. Transportation systems allow access for inspection and repairs after 

the event, as well as supplying necessary chemicals and equipment for operation. However, many of these 

systems also have dependencies on the water systems. Figure 16-1 presents some dependencies of the 

water infrastructure system with other infrastructure systems. 

Figure 16-1: Water dependencies with other infrastructure systems
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

201

Some of the most important dependencies for the water and wastewater infrastructure systems are 

explained as follows:

1. Energy (electric and fuel). Water and wastewater utilities rely on commercial electricity to run 

pumps, treatment processes, and lab and office operations. Some of these functions may have 

standby power, but overall power demands make it impractical for most water and wastewater 

systems to operate entirely on standby generators. However, short-term power loss events are 

often mitigated by use of standby generators for critical equipment to maintain basic water and 

wastewater operations. These emergency conditions depend on a sustained fuel supply for 

standby generators, utility vehicles, and equipment. Disruption in fuel production, storage, or 

delivery may severely impact a water utility‘s ability to sustain operations on standby generator 

power and to perform repairs. 

2. Transportation (staff, supplies, pipelines). Staff at water and wastewater facilities depend on 

roadway and bridge transportation systems for facility access. Damage to transportation 

infrastructure potentially complicates and lengthens repair times or even prevents repairs until 

roadways and bridges are usable. Water and wastewater utilities may have a limited stock of 

pipes, fittings, and other repair materials to use in response and recovery operations. Depending 

on the size of the event, this stock may be quickly depleted due to supply chain disruptions. Such 

disruptions may also impact the available equipment and personnel support from mutual aid, such 

as the Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (WARN). Utilities also rely on a semiregular delivery of treatment process chemicals that are essential for meeting water quality 

regulations that ensure public and environmental health.

3. Water and wastewater distribution and conveyance. Water and wastewater distribution and 

conveyance networks are often under or adjacent to roadways, and in many instances are colocated with other buried infrastructure. Failure of underground utilities may result in damage to 

the roadway (e.g., sinkhole from water main break or collapsed sewer) and significantly impact 

traffic. In addition, damage to the road or bridge systems can also compromise the functionality 

of underground utilities. 

4. Communications and information. Water and wastewater utilities often rely on radio, 

microwave, cellular and related networks to communicate to operations staff and contractors. If 

these networks are down for an extended period, complications and delays in operations and 

repairs can occur. Additionally, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) networks are 

used extensively within both water and wastewater systems to monitor and control various 

processes and equipment. 

The communications system infrastructure also depends on water infrastructure. For example, air 

conditioning system cooling towers that support communications require water to keep sensitive 

electronic equipment in central offices at safe operating temperatures. Furthermore, fire 

ordinances may prohibit occupancy if water and wastewater systems are not functioning.

5. Buildings (critical, commercial, general public). Water and wastewater utilities rely on 

administrative buildings. New Orleans water and sewer operations (e.g., treatment, distribution, 

collection, and administrative) were severely impacted following Hurricane Katrina, and included

the loss of customer billing and other records due to significant flooding. During this same event, 

a hospital in New Orleans was forced to evacuate when the hospital lost water pressure and was 

unable to maintain the HVAC system needed by patients in critical care units [Randon, 2006].

Buildings need water supply with adequate flow and pressure for fire suppression, as well as 

sanitation. Industrial facilities need functional water and wastewater systems for developing, 

processing, and manufacturing materials and products. The public relies on water and wastewater 

services for overall health of the community.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

202

Water and wastewater utilities rely on customers (e.g., commercial and residential) as a continued 

source of capital. Utilities may have significant capital expenditures after a hazard event and loss 

of service may lead to displacement of customers or the event may result in customer loss of 

personal income or inability to send payments.

16.2. Water and Wastewater Infrastructure

This section describes basic components of water and wastewater systems. Performance observations 

from past hazard events characterize some key hazard vulnerabilities in water and wastewater systems.

Water and wastewater infrastructure are vulnerable to a number of hazards: buried pipelines are 

vulnerable to breaks during earthquakes, and water and wastewater treatment facilities are vulnerable to 

flood hazards. Facilities are often placed in or near flood hazard areas, which is consistent with their 

functional dependency on natural water resources. 

16.2.1. Water Infrastructure

Drinking water is treated to satisfy public health standards and distributed to consumers by a network of 

pipelines. Some water utilities have their own supply and treatment infrastructure, while others buy 

wholesale water from neighboring utilities.

Drinking water systems are composed of six general infrastructure categories: 1) supply, 2) transmission, 

3) treatment, 4) pumping, 5) storage, and 6) distribution. The basic function of each category and 

infrastructure system (electric power, transportation, communication) can be impacted by a variety of 

hazards, as shown in Table 16-1 and discussed in Section 16.1.2. Some examples of hazard-related 

impacts on water infrastructure seen in past events are discussed in the following sections.

16.2.1.1. Supply

Drinking water supply can come from groundwater or surface water, as described below. In some cases, 

utilities may have both groundwater and surface water supplies.

Groundwater. Rainfall and snowmelt recharge groundwater aquifers. Groundwater wells tap aquifers and 

supply water to individual households or public water systems. A well system consists of the groundwater 

aquifer, well casing and screen, pump and motor, power supply, electrical equipment and controls, 

connecting piping, and possibly a well house structure. Typically, wells are cased with a steel pipe. 

Screens in the well casing at the depth of the aquifer allow water to enter the casing. A submersible or 

surface-mounted pump conveys water to the transmission system.

Surface Water. Rainfall and snowmelt collects in streams, rivers, and lakes, and is sometimes impounded 

by dams for a drinking water supply. Water intake structures in lakes or rivers and dams then convey the 

source water to a treatment facility. Intake structures generally include some type of bar screens to keep 

large debris and aquatic life from entering the treatment plant.

Contamination of surface and groundwater sources may occur during or after natural and human-caused 

hazards. In flood conditions, groundwater wellheads can be inundated. If contaminants enter well systems 

they will require extensive flushing to recover, and in some cases may not be recoverable. In surface 

water systems, flooding can increase turbidity and contaminants like petroleum and nutrient or organic 

matter can overwhelm treatment operations and pose a public health risk. 

Contamination can also result from accidental releases from industrial sources in the watershed. In 2014, 

in West Virginia, 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) was released into the Elk River, contaminating 

water serving 300,000 people. It took months to restore full water service [Rosen et al., 2014].
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

203

Table 16-1: Common hazards and their potential related consequences [Adapted from Preparedness, 

Emergency Response, and Recovery CIPAC Workgroup 2009]

Potential Related Consequences

FloodExtreme WindsLightningDrought/Water Supply LossHurricane, TornadoEarthquakeSevere Weather (e.g., ice/snow/storms)Fire/WildfirePower or Communication FailureWeapons of Mass DestructionCyber AttackInfrastructure FailureHazardous Material ReleaseVandalism/Sabotage/TerrorismEconomic DisruptionSupply Chain DisruptionPandemic FluPerceived Incidents

Service disruption of source water, 

water or wastewater treatment 

system, storage system, 

distribution system, collection 

system, communications, and 

electric power

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

System contamination, including 

chemical, radiological, and 

biological, and problems 

associated with threatened 

contamination, actual 

contamination, and perceived 

contamination

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Damage to infrastructure systems ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Environmental impacts to 

community ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Loss of revenue, other serious 

economic disruption in the 

community, or loss of essential 

supplies because contracts are 

voided or delivery is interrupted

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Denied or limited access to utility 

facilities and infrastructure; for 

example, if facilities are unsafe or 

unreachable

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Loss of employees/contractors; for 

example, if roads are impassable, 

they are sick, or they are taking 

care of their family

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Loss of public confidence ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Loss of SCADA systems ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

204

Wildfires can also lead to water contamination. Wildfires can burn watersheds and destabilize the ground 

cover, which can lead to landslides. Subsequent rains can release contaminates into source waters that can 

impact water treatment operations. The 2012 wildfires in Colorado, which burned several thousand acres

in previously forested watersheds, resulted in an increased concentration of contaminates in the water 

supply, leading to increased concentrations of disinfection by-products (DBPs) in the treated water

[Writer et al., 2014; Rhoades, Entwistle, & Butler, 2011].

Many surface water impoundments serve a water supply function in addition to recreational and flood 

control purposes. Dam failure can present a secondary hazard in the wake of an earthquake, heavy 

rainfall, or flood event. Extreme precipitation and flooding can overtop and potentially compromise dam 

integrity. While these types of failures are rare, they may present a risk to the public and downstream 

infrastructure systems.

16.2.1.2. Transmission

Large diameter transmission pipelines carry raw water from the source to the treatment plant, and treated 

water to storage facilities before branching out into smaller distribution pipelines. Depending on the 

system, these pipelines can range nominally from 0.3 m to 10 m (1 ft to 30 ft) in diameter. Transmission 

pipelines are constructed of welded steel, reinforced concrete, or ductile iron (historically cast iron).

Typically, transmission pipelines are buried, making 

inspections difficult and repairs both expensive and 

disruptive. Burial reduces pipeline vulnerability to 

some hazards, such as high wind events; however, 

hazards that cause landslides, such as earthquakes, 

floods, long-term rains, and wildfire, can also damage 

transmission lines. Figure 16-2 shows a transmission 

pipeline bridge damaged in Portland, Oregon in a 

landslide event induced by heavy rains.

16.2.1.3. Treatment

Water treatment plants process raw water from 

groundwater or surface water supplies to meet public 

health water quality standards and often to improve 

taste. The processes used depend on the raw water 

source, and the need to remove pathogens, organic or 

inorganic contaminants, chemicals, and turbidity. The treatment process commonly includes pretreatment, 

flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection with variations of these processes in some modern 

plants. Water treatment plants typically consist of a number of process tanks, yard and plant piping, 

pumps, chemical storage and feed equipment, lab and office building space, and associated mechanical, 

electrical, and control equipment.

Water treatment plants are vulnerable to flooding, because they are often located near flooding sources 

(i.e., lakes, rivers). Electrical control systems are often damaged by flood inundation, leading to loss of 

functionality and service outages. In 1993, the water treatment plant serving Des Moines was submerged 

by riverine flooding, resulting in 12 days without potable water for the city [McMullen, 1994]. 

Loss of power at water treatment plants can prevent proper treatment and inhibit distribution [Thompson, 

2012; Morley, 2012]. As a result, potable water may not be available, making boil water notices 

necessary. Although standby power systems may be incorporated into a water treatment plant, they need 

Figure 16-2: Water transmission pipeline 

bridge damaged by landslide
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

205

to be well-maintained, tested regularly, and adequately connected, installed, supplied with fuel, and 

protected from hazard events to be reliable and function properly [AWWA, 2004]. 

Earthquakes also damage water treatment plants and their components. In 1989, the Loma Prieta 

earthquake in California heavily damaged the clarifiers due to sloshing water at the water treatment plant 

in San Jose, California, greatly curtailing its 2.1 cubic meters per second, CMS (40 million gallons per 

day, MGD) capacity (Figure 16-3). In the 2011 Tohoku earthquake in Japan, liquefaction resulted in 

differential settlement between pile-supported structures and direct-buried pipe at water treatment plants 

(Figure 16-4).

Figure 16-3: Santa Clara Valley Water District, 

water treatment plant clarifier launders damaged 

due to sloshing, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake

Figure 16-4: Liquefaction caused differential 

settlement between pile-supported structures and 

buried pipe during the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake 

16.2.1.4. Pumping

Pumping stations increase hydraulic head by raising water to a higher elevation. A pump station typically 

consists of a simple building that houses pumps, motors, pipes, valves, and associated mechanical, 

electrical, and control equipment. Pump stations are primarily dependent on commercial power supply, 

but may have standby emergency generators to enable continued operation.

Similar to water treatment plants, continued operation of pumps requires standby power if there is a loss 

of commercial electrical power. Furthermore, without operational pumps, floodwater can inundate 

electrical equipment and controls at pump stations located wholly or partially below grade in flood-prone 

areas. 

16.2.1.5. Storage

Water utilities use water storage tanks and reservoirs for treated water to balance water demand with 

water production capacity. Water from these tanks and reservoirs are drawn down during times of peak 

usage and recharged during off-peak hours. Depending on the time of year and the demand period, stored 

water to satisfy increased demand for fire suppression or other emergency needs may be available from a 

few hours to 2-3 days.

Modern steel storage tanks are either ground-supported, standpipes, or elevated tanks supported on a 

frame or pedestal. Reinforced concrete tanks are typically placed at grade or buried. Circular concrete 

tanks can be reinforced with metal reinforcement or tendons.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

206

Storage tanks are vulnerable to a number of hazards. Elevated storage tanks are more susceptible to 

hazards from high winds than structures located at grade and can be damaged to the point of structural 

failure during wind or storm surge events. Figure 16-5 shows a collapsed water tank in Louisiana near 

Hurricane Katrina‘s landfall. The failure was likely caused by a combination of wind and storm surge 

effects.

At-grade or partially-buried storage tanks may be susceptible to flood damage (from hurricane storm 

surge, riverine flooding, or tsunamis), particularly if located in or near flood-prone areas. Tank damage or 

failure can be caused by both hydrostatic forces from standing or slow-moving water, or hydrodynamic 

forces imposed by higher velocity flows or wave action. Buoyancy forces can cause uplift of empty 

subgrade tanks if the soil becomes saturated. Figure 16-6 shows two liquid fuel tanks in the foreground

that floated and were toppled by tsunami wave inundation after the 2011 Tohoku, Japan tsunami. The 

tank in the background was on higher ground and does not appear to have been damaged.

Figure 16-5: Collapsed water tank in Buras, LA near 

Hurricane Katrina landfall location [Source: FEMA]

Figure 16-6: Steel tanks damaged due to 

Tohoku, Japan Tsunami in 2011

Lateral loads from shaking and permanent ground deformation due to ground liquefaction and landslides

during earthquakes can damage storage tanks. Water sloshing in storage and process tanks during 

earthquakes can fail tank walls and baffles. In the 1994 Northridge earthquake, a Los Angeles water tank 

moved, severing piping, as shown in Figure 16-7. The utility north of Los Angeles suffered elephant‘s 

foot buckling in a steel tank as shown in Figure 16-8. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

207

Figure 16-7: Tank moved, severing 

connecting pipe in 1994 Northridge 

Earthquake

Figure 16-8: Steel tank elephant’s foot buckling in 1994 

Northridge Earthquake

16.2.1.6. Distribution

Smaller diameter distribution pipelines carry treated water from transmission pipelines to neighborhoods 

and to commercial and industrial areas. Service connections with meters branch off distribution pipelines 

to supply individual customers. The pipeline before the water meter is typically maintained by the water 

utility and pipeline after the water meter is the responsibility of the individual customer. The system is 

controlled with manually-operated valves located at most pipeline intersections. Distribution systems 

have fire hydrants located at standardized increments, such as every 90 m (300 ft) or 150 m (500 ft) along 

a distribution pipeline. Distribution pipelines are commonly made with ductile iron (historically cast 

iron), welded steel, PVC, or asbestos cement.

Leaks and breaks are two main concerns for distribution pipelines. Leak commonly refers to relatively 

minor damage to a pipe or joint that causes minor to moderate water loss, but does not significantly 

impair the distribution system‘s function. However, break commonly refers to major damage to a pipe 

barrel or joint that results in major water and pressure loss in a zone, or drains nearby tanks. When there 

are breaks in the water distribution system, they can lead to depressurization of the system. 

Depressurization can result in sediment accumulation within the pipelines, affecting the potability of the 

water. Contamination and loss of potability means boil water orders should be issued. Before water can be 

considered potable again, the distribution systems must be repaired and the water quality monitored and 

tested to meet public health standards. 

Breaks of distribution pipelines can result from a number of hazards. Floods cause erosion or scour that 

expose and may possibly break pipelines (see Figure 16-9). 

Earthquakes can cause liquefaction or permanent ground deformation, causing pipeline breaks. In the 

1994 Northridge earthquake, the Los Angeles water infrastructure system experienced approximately 

1,000 pipeline breaks, primarily in cast iron pipe sections [Tanaka, 1995] due to very strong ground 

motions. A year later, the Kobe earthquake caused approximately 1,200 pipeline failures due to extensive 

liquefaction. Most of the system was constructed of ductile iron pipe, which primarily failed by joint 

separation as seen in Figure 16-10.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

208

Figure 16-9: Exposed (left) and broken(right) distribution lines resulting from flooding in Jamestown, 

CO [Source: Environmental Protection Agency]

Figure 16-10: Ground cracking (left) and joint separation in ductile iron pipe (right) due to 

liquefaction during 1995 Kobe Earthquake 

Figure 16-10a (left) shows ground cracking due to liquefaction/lateral spreading in the Kobe Earthquake, 

1995. Figure 16-10b (right) shows separation of a ductile iron pipe joint in the ground crack.

Wind events can result in damage to distribution lines by uprooted trees. For example, during Hurricane 

Andrew, there was extensive damage to the water distribution systems in Southern Florida primarily 

caused by tree roots that had grown around the water mains and service lines [Murphy, 1994]. When 

these trees were uprooted by hurricane force winds (Hurricane Andrew was a Category 5 on the SaffirSampson scale when it made landfall in Dade County, Florida), the distribution system was damaged. 

Similar damage to water transmission and distribution systems occurred during Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita in Louisiana [Allouche et al. 2006]. As stated above, no matter the cause of damage, pipeline breaks 

that depressurize the water system can lead to contamination through the pipelines and affect the 

potability of the water. One approach to address contamination concerns during the recovery process is to 

repair the pipelines; then, as pressure zone repairs are completed, disinfect the entire zone at one time.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

209

16.2.2. Wastewater Systems

Wastewater systems collect domestic and industrial liquid waste products and convey them to treatment

plants through collection and conveyance systems and pump stations. After separation of solids and 

biological processing and disinfection, treated wastewater is discharged as effluent into a receiving body 

of water or may be reused for irrigation or other purposes. Some utilities have separate collection systems 

for wastewater and storm water; other utilities have collection systems that combine collected wastewater 

and storm water in the same pipelines.

Pipeline system failure can discharge raw sewage into basements, onto city streets, and into receiving 

waters, resulting in public health issues and environmental contamination. Standard wastewater systems 

are composed of five general categories of infrastructure: 1) collection, 2) conveyance, 3) pumping, 4) 

treatment, and 5) discharge. The subsections below briefly describe the basic function of each category.

16.2.2.1. Collection and Conveyance

The collection pipeline network for wastewater systems is similar to that for water systems. The 

wastewater collection system conveys liquid and other waste products away from customers to a 

treatment facility, instead of delivering water to individual customers. This is usually accomplished using 

gravity flows in sewers. The elevation and grade of the pipelines in the system need to be carefully 

controlled to maintain gravity flow in the system. In some instances, pumps convey wastewater through 

pressurized mains. Infiltration and inflow of groundwater into the collection system through cracks and 

breaks in the pipe can significantly increase the volume of wastewater that arrives at the treatment plant. 

A variety of pipe materials are commonly found in collection systems, including vitrified clay, reinforced

concrete, PVC, brick and steel. 

Collection systems have manholes at regular intervals, allowing access for cleaning and maintenance. 

Manholes are usually constructed with concrete, although historically manholes were often constructed 

with brick. 

The conveyance system for the wastewater network is similar to the transmission system for a water 

system. Conveyance pipelines are larger in diameter, and are often deeper underground. The conveyance 

systems are designed to collect sewage from the collection system and move it to the wastewater 

treatment plant. Like collection systems, they may include pump stations. In many instances, these 

conveyance systems were installed in the early to mid-1900s as the United States began to clean up its 

waterways. Many cities installed sewers that carried both sewage and storm water. Recently, the EPA is 

encouraging wastewater utilities to minimize discharge of raw sewage and to receive water runoff during 

heavy rain events. As a result, many conveyance systems now have storage capacity, taking the form of a 

wide point in the line and, in some cases, simplified wastewater treatment facilities.

Wastewater collection and conveyance pipes have similar causes of damage to those of water distribution 

and transmission pipelines. Wastewater collection pipelines can be exposed and damaged because of

landslides, erosion, or scour, which damages or breaks the pipelines. Furthermore, wastewater collection 

pipelines can be damaged in wind events by uprooted trees when root systems have grown around the 

pipelines.

In the collection and conveyance system, pipelines can be damaged by earthquake effects of ground 

shaking, liquefaction, and lateral spreading. Sewer pipes can be damaged by shaking, which can cause 

joints to crack, but the system may remain operable. These cracks will ultimately have to be repaired to 

control infiltration. Liquefaction can result in separated joints and displaced pipe. Another cause of failure 

is pipe flotation, occurring when a partially-filled gravity sewer is surrounded by liquefied soil.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

210

In general, tunnels are resistant to earthquake damage as they are typically below the region where ground 

movement occurs. However, there have been instances where interior concrete tunnel liners have spalled 

as a result of earthquake forces. Tunnel portals are also vulnerable to damage by landslides.

Flooding can also damage wastewater collection pipelines in a number of ways. Pipelines that are colocated on bridges can experience damage caused by flood inundation and flood-borne debris impact. 

Hydrodynamic forces associated with coastal flooding or high velocity flows are more likely to damage 

structures and attached pipelines than inundation alone. In the New Orleans area after Hurricane Katrina, 

the most common damage to buried wastewater pipelines observed by clean-up crews was separation of 

pipe joints, leaks, and breaks. This damage was believed to be the result of floodwaters supersaturating 

soils, followed by drainage that led to soil shrinkage and subsidence. Without support of the surrounding 

soils, the pipelines broke and fractured [Chisolm and Matthews 2012]. Increased flow and pressurization 

of the wastewater collection systems can occur during flood events. Inflow and water infiltration through 

cracks may damage pipelines, particularly in cases where pipes are composed of materials such as 

vitrified clay. For example, during the 1997 Red River Flood in Grand Forks, North Dakota, 

pressurization caused breaking of vitrified clay pipe and hairline cracks increased the rate of overall pipe 

deterioration [Chisolm and Matthews 2012].

16.2.2.2. Pumping

Gravity feed systems use pump stations to transfer wastewater to a higher elevation. The pump station

may discharge wastewater at the higher elevation to another section of a gravity pipeline, or the 

wastewater may remain in a pressurized main pipeline and be discharged at another location, such as a 

treatment plant. A pump station typically consists of a simple building that houses pumps, motors, pipes, 

and associated mechanical, electrical, and control equipment. The pumps can be located in a building 

(typically a wetwell-drywell layout) or a large manhole (submersible). Many pump stations have standby 

generators, and plugs for quick connection of portable generators to enable continued operation when the 

commercial power supply is interrupted.

Pump stations are vulnerable to a number of hazards, including earthquakes and flooding. Unless 

designed to be submersible, floodwater that inundates the pumps can disable and damage them and their 

motors. This was a common cause of pump station failure in New York City during flood inundation 

from Hurricane Sandy [NYCDEP 2013]. Damage can be worse with salt water flooding, as it leads to 

widespread corrosion. 

Loss of commercial electrical power prevents operation of pumps if adequate standby power is not 

provided or the generators are not refueled in a timely manner. Earthquakes can cause liquefaction, 

causing buried wastewater collection wells at pump stations to float and tilt. This movement damages 

connected piping and renders the pump station inoperable. Manholes and pump stations are also 

susceptible to floating if surrounding soils are liquefied. Displacements that change the grade can make 

the pump station unusable or difficult to maintain. 

16.2.2.3. Treatment

Wastewater treatment plants process raw sewage from residential, commercial sources, and in some cases 

specialized treatment operations for industrial sources. The wastewater facility effluent (e.g., treated or 

untreated wastewater that flows out of a treatment plant), must meet public health and environmental 

standards. The typical process is: 

1. Pretreatment using screens and grit chambers

2. Primary treatment in a sedimentation tank 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

211

3. Secondary treatment using biological treatment and clarifiers

4. Disinfection using chlorine or other disinfectants. 

In some cases, the effluent is further treated for irrigation uses. Solids drawn off from the four processes 

are treated in digesters and solidified using presses or centrifuges. These processes require an extensive 

mechanical and electrical equipment and piping.

Wastewater treatment plants are susceptible to damage from several natural hazards, particularly flooding.

With the projected sea level rise continuing through the 21st century, the frequency of flooding in 

treatment plants will likely increase. Wastewater treatment plants are often located in or near flood-prone 

areas because they return treated water to naturally occurring bodies of water. Therefore, they can be 

vulnerable to flood inundation or storm surge and wave action from coastal sources that may cause 

damage and loss of functionality to buildings, equipment, and electrical and mechanical systems. The 

New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) noted in a recent study that all 14 of 

the wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) it owns and operates are at risk of flood damage [NYCDEP 

2013]. 

WWTPs in non-coastal regions of the United States are often located adjacent to rivers, which has 

resulted in recent examples of WWTP riverine flooding: 1) nine days of lost functionality due to flooding 

of Valdosta, Georgia WWTP in 2009; 2) flooding of the Pawtuxet River WWTP in Warwick, Rhode 

Island in 2010; and 3) shut down of the Palmyra, Indiana WWTP in 2011 due to rising water levels. 

In areas where wastewater treatment facilities are elevated or protected by levees, flooding can still lead 

to access issues. While the treatment facility itself may not be inundated, flooding around the facility can 

limit both ingress and egress of vital staff. For several WWTPs along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers 

during 1993 floods, personnel access was only possible by boat and roads inundated by the flood were not 

considered stable enough for larger vehicles, such as those carrying supplies for the plants [Sanders, 

1997].

Release of untreated sewage is relatively common during major flood events when inflow and infiltration 

can overtax wastewater collection systems or when there are combined sewer overflows. During 

Hurricane Sandy, over 560 million gallons of untreated and diluted sewage, mixed with storm water and 

seawater, was released into waterways. This sewage release was caused by infiltration of floodwaters into 

the sewer system, flood inundation of plant facilities, and power outages [NYCDEP 2013]. Electronic 

controls were inundated and damaged in many wastewater treatment facilities, which significantly 

delayed the facilities‘ recovery times [FEMA 2013]. Similarly, after Hurricane Rita in 2005, the City of 

Lake Charles had a citywide power loss that affected the wastewater treatment plant serving two-thirds of 

the city. Raw sewage was released into a nearby lake for over a week, until power was restored.

While discharge or raw sewage contaminates the receiving water, chemical contamination of sewage can 

impact the WWTP treatment process itself. For example, in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in 

California, the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) WWTP biological treatment process failed 

when a spill in the collection system contaminated the treatment plant influent. Coupled with the spill, the 

plant lost power and was unable to pump oxygen into the treatment system, resulting in the secondary 

treatment system being inoperable for several weeks.

WWTPs are typically at a low point in the elevation of the system. Though flooding from hazard events is 

a primary concern, earthquakes can damage facilities through ground shaking, permanent ground 

deformation, and liquefaction. Ground shaking is particularly problematic for process tanks and digesters 

when sloshing sewage impacts the tank walls. Permanent ground deformation induced by liquefaction

often causes joint separation in process tanks and damage to pipelines and pipe racks. Even if treatment 

structures are pile-supported, buried piping can settle differentially and break. In the 2011 Christchurch 

earthquake in New Zealand, clarifiers settled differentially, rendering them inoperable. In the 1995 Kobe 

Earthquake, the Higashinada WWTP site settled differentially up to one meter and moved laterally up to 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

212

two meters due to liquefaction that heavily damaging non-pile-supported structures. The resulting damage 

is shown in Figure 16-11. Figure 16-12 shows the Higashinada influent channel that was offset one meter 

by liquefaction during the 1995 Kobe earthquake.

Figure 16-11: Non-pile supported structures failed due 

to liquefaction in 1995 Kobe Earthquake

Figure 16-12: Higashinada WWTP Channel 

offset by liquefaction in 1995 Kobe 

Earthquake

Strong earthquakes can produce tsunamis that can inundate facilities, structurally damage treatment plant 

facilities by lateral hydraulic loading, and damage electrical gear. The 2011 Tohoku earthquake in Japan

caused heavy damage to the Sendai WWTP Effluent Pump Station‘s east wall, as shown in Figure 16-13. 

Much of the process tank equipment required replacement because of the large amount of damage, as 

shown in Figure 16-14.

Figure 16-13: Sendai WWTP Effluent 

Pump Station damaged by Tsunami in 2011 

Tohoku Earthquake

Figure 16-14: Sendai WWTP equipment and piping 

damage from the 2011 earthquake
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

213

16.2.2.4. Discharge

Effluent from a treatment plant is discharged to a receiving body of water through an outfall. Outfalls are 

composed of a pipeline with a diffuser at the end to discharge the water hundreds or thousands of feet 

away from the shoreline, at a depth that will minimize impact on the environment.

16.3. Performance Goals

The large and distributed nature of water and wastewater systems, combined with their dependence on 

other infrastructure systems, reduces the likelihood of a fully operational system in the aftermath of an 

extreme hazard event. This section provides example performance goals tables for community water and 

wastewater systems (Table 16-2 and Table 16-3).

Performance goals need to be developed using input from individual utilities and stakeholders before they 

are adopted. It is important to consider the uniqueness of the infrastructure of individual utilities and the 

specific needs of their customers when adopting system performance goals for a community. Water and 

wastewater stakeholder engagement is critical in establishing a community-specific level of service 

performance goals for each of the three different hazard levels (routine, design, and extreme) defined in

Chapter 4 (Volume I). The group of involved stakeholders should include representation from the 

following organizations, as applicable:

 Residential customers

 Business owners 

 Industry representatives 

 Water wholesale customers 

 Hospital representatives 

 Fire department officials and crew

 Local government officials

 Local emergency management officials

 Drinking water regulators (Health Authority, etc.)

 Wastewater regulators (Dept. of Environmental Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, etc.)

 Water and wastewater utility operators and engineers

 Consulting engineers

 Interdependent infrastructure system operators (power, liquid fuel, transportation, etc.)

Establishing performance goals involves discussion among stakeholders about expectations for 

availability of water and wastewater systems following a hazard event in the short, intermediate, and

long-term phases for different hazard levels (e.g., routine, design, and extreme). The public‘s assumed 

expectation is that for routine hazard events there will be little, if any, interruption of service for water 

and wastewater lifelines. A dialogue is required between utilities and customers to determine the 

appropriate service performance goals for design and extreme events. An example matrix that can be 

populated for water and wastewater systems is provided in Table 16-2 and Table 16-3. There may be 

variability for an individual community‘s goals depending on the specific hazard being addressed. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

214

Table 16-2: Example water infrastructure performance goals table to be filled out by community and 

its stakeholders 

Disturbance 1 Restoration Levels 2,3

Hazard Type Any 30% Function Restored

Hazard Level Routine, Design, Extreme 60% Function Restored

Affected Area Localized, Community, Regional 90% Function Restored

Disruption Level Usual, Moderate, Severe X Anticipated Performance

Functional Category: Cluster Support 

Needed4

Overall Recovery Time for Hazard – Routine, Expected or Extreme

Phase 1 – ShortTermPhase 2 --

Intermediate

Phase 3 – LongTerm

Days Wks Mos

0 1 1-3 1-4 4-8 8-12 4 4-24 24+

Source

Raw or source water and terminal reservoirs

Raw water conveyance (pump stations and piping 

to WTP)

Water Production

Well and/or Treatment operations functional

Transmission (including Booster Stations)

Backbone transmission facilities (pipelines, pump 

stations, and tanks)

Water for fire suppression at key supply points (to 

promote redundancy)

Control Systems

SCADA or other control systems

Distribution

Critical Facilities 

Wholesale Users (other communities, rural water 

districts)

Hospitals, EOC, Police Station, Fire Stations

Emergency Housing

Emergency Shelters

Housing/Neighborhoods

Potable water available at community distribution 

centers

Water for fire suppression at fire hydrants

Community Recovery Infrastructure 

All other clusters

Footnotes:

1 Specify hazard type being considered

Specify hazard level – Routine, Design, Extreme

Specify the anticipated size of the area affected – Local, Community, Regional

Specify anticipated severity of disruption – Minor, Moderate, Severe

2 30% 60% 90% Desired restoration times for percentage of elements within the cluster

3 X Anticipated performance for 90 % restoration of cluster for existing buildings and infrastructure systems 

Cluster recovery times will be shown on the Summary Matrix

4 Indicate levels of support anticipated by plan

R = Regional; S= State; MS=Multi-State; C = Civil (Corporate/Local)
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

215

Table 16-3: Example wastewater infrastructure performance goals table to be filled out by community 

and its stakeholders

Disturbance 1 Restoration Levels 2,3

Hazard Type Any 30% Function Restored

Hazard Level Routine, Design, Extreme 60% Function Restored

Affected Area Localized, Community, Regional 90% Function Restored

Disruption Level Usual, Moderate, Severe X Anticipated Performance

Functional Category: Cluster Support 

Needed4

Design Hazard Performance

Phase 1

Short-Term

Phase 2

Intermediate

Phase 3

Long-Term

Days Weeks Months

0 1 1-3 1-4 4-8 8-12 4 4-24 24+

Treatment Plants

Treatment plants operating with primary 

treatment and disinfection

Treatment plants operating to meet regulatory 

requirements

Trunk Lines

Backbone collection facilities (major trunk line, 

pump stations, siphons, relief mains, aerial 

crossings)

Flow equalization basins

Control Systems

SCADA and other control systems

Collection Lines

Critical Facilities 

Hospitals, EOC, Police Station, Fire Stations

Emergency Housing

Emergency Shelters

Housing/Neighborhoods

Threats to public health and safety controlled by 

containing & routing raw sewage away from 

public

Community Recovery Infrastructure 

All other clusters

Footnotes:

1 Specify hazard type being considered

Specify hazard level – Routine, Design, Extreme

Specify the anticipated size of the area affected – Local, Community, Regional

Specify anticipated severity of disruption – Minor, Moderate, Severe

2 30% 60% 90% Desired restoration times for percentage of elements within the cluster

3 X Anticipated performance for 90 % restoration of cluster for existing buildings and infrastructure systems 

Cluster recovery times will be shown on the Summary Matrix

4 Indicate levels of support anticipated by plan

R = Regional; S= State; MS=Multi-State; C = Civil (Corporate/Local)

The community may or may not have control over the post-hazard event performance of its water and 

wastewater infrastructure systems. If the community owns the systems, it has direct control and can make 

improvements as it sees fit. If a community has partial ownership (e.g., a regional system), performance

goals for the facilities could be developed and negotiated with the other owners. If the system is privately 

owned, the community can include the owner as a stakeholder and work to develop performance goals 

and solutions that are acceptable to both. System resilience improvements may require consideration of

increased rates.

There may be elements in a system so critical to public safety that they need to be designed to remain 

operational after an extreme event. For example, failure of a water supply impoundment dam might 

present a significant life-safety hazard to downstream residents. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

216

Dependencies of water and wastewater systems on other infrastructure systems also need to be considered 

when developing performance goals. For instance, availability of a reliable supply of liquid fuel is 

essential for standby generators and vehicles and equipment used by repair crews. In turn, delivery of 

liquid fuels depends on the status of the highway and bridge transportation network.

Performance goals are developed for water and wastewater systems as functional categories (i.e., water 

for fire suppression at key supply points, treatment plants operating to meet regulatory requirements). The 

desired performance goals are recorded as target timelines to restore the system function in stages, 

indicated by 30 %, 60 %, and 90 % operational status. 

Service quality is a key aspect for drinking water service, given tradeoffs between quantity and quality 

during emergency situations. A utility may be able to distribute water to support fire suppression, but may 

need to issue a boil water advisory to protect public health. Water quality is always desired, but can be 

compromised under emergency conditions. Anticipated performance of these systems needs to account 

for their existing condition and operational procedures of the treatment plants and distribution systems. 

Water quality is typically communicated to the public [CDC/EPA/AWWA 2013] as follows: 

 Boil Water Notice – Okay for contact, but boil before consumption and cooking

 Do Not Drink – Okay for contact, but no consumption

 Do Not Use – No contact or consumption, fire protection may be compromised

The infrastructure components in the example performance goals tables are not intended to be an 

exhaustive list. Some system components may not exist in a community. For instance, some communities 

may have the ability to distinguish between the general water supply and distribution and water supply for 

fire suppression. However, most community water systems are integrated and do not separate general 

supply and distribution from a water supply for fire suppression. Additionally, some community water 

systems might supply treated water to wholesale users, such as a nearby suburban or rural community. 

Wholesale users are treated as a critical part of the distribution system within the example, but are not a 

consideration for all communities. Each community will need to review these components to determine 

which ones to incorporate into their systems, or if other functions and components need to be added, such 

as planning options for providing emergency water supply to the community and for specific functions, 

such as hospitals and health care facilities [CDC/AWWA 2012; EPA 2011].

Community resilience is developed over time, according to the desired performance goals and 

implementation plans of each community. Community plans that include the following considerations are 

more likely to satisfy all stakeholders:

 Prioritize potential solutions to be implemented over years to limit disruptions and recovery time 

rather than planning to implement them all at once

 Recognize that both short- and long-term solutions may improve recovery times

 Balance societal needs with realistic expectations of system performance

Focusing on major system components that form a backbone network capable of supplying key health and 

safety-related community needs shortly after a hazard event is one way to focus priorities. When the 

community begins to estimate the cost of implementation for short and long-term solutions, it may decide 

to reassess the desired performance goals. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

217

16.4. Regulatory Environment

16.4.1. Federal and State Primacy

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes requirements for drinking water quality 

under authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA [42 U.S.C. et seq. 300f-300j]) and for wastewater 

effluent quality under authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

et seq. 1251-1387). A state agency that meets certain criteria may be granted primacy to oversee and 

implement these requirements. 

SDWA Example Requirements

 Filtration of surface water supplies, except in some cases special treatment of particularly clean 

surface water supplies

 Disinfection of supplies (except a few groundwater supplies)

 Covering of treated water storage

 Community water systems serving population greater than 3300 are required to perform 

vulnerability assessment and develop emergency response plans

 State primacy agencies are to develop and implement plans for the provision of safe drinking 

water under emergency circumstances including earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and other 

natural hazards, as appropriate

Clean Water Act Example Requirements

 Secondary treatment of wastewater discharges

 Disinfection of wastewater discharges

 Systems critical to maintaining discharge compliance are required to have emergency power 

16.4.2. Other State 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA [42 USC §§ 11001-11050]).

Facilities that store, use, or release certain chemicals may be subject to reporting requirements to state 

and/or local agencies through EPCRA. Information in reports becomes publically available. Treatment 

chemicals stored and used at water treatment plants often require this type of reporting.

Planning Requirements. Water and wastewater planning and design requirements are generally 

controlled by states and local governments. States typically require that comprehensive plans for water 

and wastewater systems be prepared on a regular basis to assess future system needs (e.g., capacity) and 

how those needs will be met. The elements of those comprehensive plans are defined by the state. Often, 

these plans include requirements to identify the hazards that the system could be subjected to and how the 

utility will address those hazards. These are typically quite general in nature and do not include detailed 

design criteria.

16.5. Codes and Standards

State and local governments adopt model building codes, such as the International Building Code (IBC). 

Model building codes rely heavily on standards, such ASCE-7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and 

Other Structures. In many cases, a state will adopt these model codes; in some cases, local jurisdictions 

adopt and modify them to suit their needs. The IBC and ASCE-7 focus on buildings and structures. State 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

218

and local agencies may also have special requirements for high-risk facilities, such as dams. The Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) controls designs of hydroelectric generating dams.

Design codes, such as the IBC, are updated regularly, taking into account performance of facilities since 

the last code was issued, research, and other developments in the building industry. Once finalized, they 

are voted on by the code committee and can be adopted by state or local jurisdictions.

The following subsections discuss some codes, standards, and guidelines that are important to the 

resilience of water and wastewater infrastructure, the anticipated performance of the infrastructure after a 

design hazard event, and the long-term recovery levels of the infrastructure when damage occurs. 

16.5.1. New Construction

Design Standards. Design standards are often developed according to an ANSI-based consensus process 

and voluntarily adopted by various organizations. Committee membership includes representation from 

key stakeholders. In some cases, design standards are referenced by the building code. In other cases, they 

can be used by utilities on a project-by-project basis. There are two organizations with design standards 

that are relevant to natural hazard impacts on the water and wastewater industry:

 American Concrete Institute – standards addressing concrete process tanks, such as ACI 350-06

 American Water Works Association (AWWA) –

 Standards addressing design of water storage tanks, such as AWWA D100 [2011], D110 

(2013), D115 (2006), addressing seismic design of water storage tanks

 Standard AWWA-J100, Risk and Resilience Management of Water and Wastewater Systems 

[AWWA 2010], addressing performance of water and wastewater systems when subjected to 

natural and human-caused hazards

AWWA has other standards addressing pipeline design and water quality, but none of these standards 

addresses natural hazards.

There are no design standards for underground pipelines in water and wastewater systems, or standards 

that address design for earthquake, landslide, or flood hazards. Often the Chief Engineer of a utility is 

responsible for establishing its design practices and criteria. While agency-specific design practices may 

follow industry recommendations, they are not consistent between systems and may have varying levels 

of reliability.

For example, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) developed its own internal 

standard that outlines performance goals for the desired level of service following a major Bay Area 

earthquake and identifies specific requirements for the design and retrofit of aboveground and 

underground infrastructure. The SFPUC Engineering Standard, General Seismic Requirements for Design 

of New Facilities and Upgrade of Existing Facilities [SFPUC, 2006], establishes design criteria that, in 

many cases, are more stringent than building codes or industry standards. The design standard supports 

the SFPUC performance goal to achieve a basic level of service to their wholesale customers within 24 

hours after a design earthquake.

Guidelines and Manuals of Practice. A number of organizations have developed guidelines for use by 

the industry. Guidelines often offer examples of how a standard may be applied or present operational 

context for a given best practice. Guidelines and manuals may not receive the same level of consensus or 

public review as a standard, but are generally representative of industry norms. Table 16-4 lists some 

codes, standards, and guidance documents applicable to water and wastewater infrastructure systems with 

regard to community resilience. The table includes a matrix of system components addressed in the 

reference. This list is not intended to be exhaustive.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

219

Table 16-4: Codes, standards, and guidelines related to resilience at drinking water and wastewater 

facilities

Org

Category (1)

Name

GeneralPipelinesPumpingStorageTreatment

IBC C 2012 International Building Code or applicable jurisdictional building code ●

ASCE S ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ●

ACI S 350 Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures ● ●

ACI S 371R-08 Guide for the Analysis, Design, and Construction of Elevated Concrete and 

Composite Steel-Concrete Water Storage Tanks

●

ACI S 372R-03 Design and Construction of Circular Wire- and Strand-Wrapped 

Prestressed Concrete Structures

● ●

AWWA S D100-11 Welded Carbon Steel Tanks for Water Storage ●

AWWA S D110-13 Wire- and Strand-Wound, Circular, Prestressed Concrete Tanks ●

AWWA S D115-06 Tendon-Prestressed Concrete Water Tanks ●

AWWA S G100-11 Water Treatment Plant Operation and Management ●

AWWA S G430-14 Security Practices for Operation and Management ●

AWWA S G440-11 Emergency Preparedness Practices ●

AWWA S J100-10 Risk and Resilience Management of Water and Wastewater Systems ●

ALA G Guidelines for Implementing Performance Assessments of Water Systems ●

ALA G Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe (2001) ●

ALA G Seismic Design and Retrofit of Piping Systems (2002) ● ●

ALA G Seismic Fragility Formulations for Water Systems (2001) ●

ALA G Seismic Guidelines for Water Pipelines (2005) ●

ALA G Wastewater System Performance Assessment Guideline (2004) ●

ASCE G Guidelines for Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems (1984) ●

AWWA G Emergency Power Source Planning for Water and Wastewater ●

AWWA G M9 Concrete Pressure Pipe ●

AWWA G M11 Steel Pipe: A Guide for Design and Installation ●

AWWA G M19 Emergency Planning for Water Utilities (2001) ●

AWWA G M60 Drought Preparedness and Response ●

AWWA G Minimizing Earthquake Damage, A Guide for Water Utilities (1994) ●

EPA / AWWA G Planning for an Emergency Drinking Water Supply ●

MCEER G MCEER-08-0009 Fragility Analysis of Water Supply Systems (2008) ●

MCEER G Monograph Series No. 3 Response of Buried Pipelines Subject to Earthquakes ●

MCEER G Monograph Series No. 4 Seismic Design of Buried and Offshore Pipelines ●

TCLEE G Monograph 15 Guidelines for the Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade of Water 

Transmission Facilities (1999)

●

TCLEE G Monograph 22 Seismic Screening Checklists for Water and Wastewater Facilities 

(2002)

●

WEF G Emergency Planning, Response, and Recovery ●

WEF G Guide for Municipal Wet Weather Strategies ●

WEF G MOP 28 Upgrading and Retrofitting Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants ●

WEF G MOP 8 Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants ●

WEF G MOP FD-17 Prevention and Control of Sewer System Overflows ●

WRF / AWWA / 

EPA

G Business Continuity Planning for Water Utilities ●

(1) C – Code; S – Standard; G – Guideline or Manual of Practice (MOP)
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

220

16.5.1.1. Implied or Stated Performance Levels for Expected Hazard Levels

Design of new aboveground structures (treatment plant office and lab buildings, pump stations, process 

tanks, water storage tanks and reservoirs, etc.) is typically governed by local building codes or design 

standards. Design loads are prescribed by a consensus-based standard, ASCE Standard 7 Minimum 

Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures [ASCE 2010]. This standard uses the concept of Risk 

Category to increase the design loads for important structures. Typical buildings are designed for Risk 

Category II. Water and wastewater treatment facilities are assigned to Risk Category III, which includes 

facilities that may disrupt civilian life or potentially cause public health risks. Water storage facilities and 

pump stations required to maintain water pressure for fire suppression systems are assigned to the highest 

category, Risk Category IV. 

The building code intends that structures designed as Risk Category III or IV remain operational or 

require only minor repairs to remain operational following a design level hazard event. By designing for a 

design level event, water and wastewater systems should remain operational under a routine level event 

but may experience moderate to major damage during an extreme level event.

16.5.2. Existing Construction

16.5.2.1. Implied or Stated Performance Levels for Expected Hazard Levels

Design criteria for seismic hazards continue to be refined as the engineering and seismology community‘s 

understanding of U.S. seismicity improves. A significant portion of water and wastewater system 

components in the high seismicity regions of the western and central U.S. were designed and constructed 

for a lower seismic hazard than specified by current codes and standards.

Anticipated performance of water and wastewater system components during earthquakes is dependent on 

the hazard level, codes and standards used in the original design, and the type of structure. System 

components built prior to the mid-1970s may perform poorly in earthquakes because our understanding of 

structures‘ behaviors during earthquakes was not as advanced as it is now. However, some categories of 

structures, such as single story concrete shear wall-type structures, are inherently robust and are likely to 

perform well during a design event. Performance of system components built between the mid-1970s and 

early 2000s is dependent on the code/standard edition, the seismic loads used in design, and the type of 

structure. Structures that satisfy the benchmark building criteria of ASCE 41-13 and are in areas that have 

not seen significant increases in seismic loads are generally anticipated to perform similarly to new 

construction as previously described. System components built after the early 2000s are also generally 

anticipated to perform similarly to new construction as previously described. 

Anticipated performance of nonstructural components should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as 

engineers now pay closer attention to seismic design and construction of nonstructural components. 

Anticipated performance of pipelines should be evaluated on a system-by-system basis because 

performance of pipelines is dependent on pipe type, joint type, and earthquake ground movement 

parameters. Even today, there is no code or standard for seismic design of pipelines.

16.5.2.2. Recovery Levels

There are a number of hazard events that have rendered utilities non-functional for weeks that have

illustrated the importance of considering the dependencies of water and wastewater systems on other 

systems of the built environment. A few notable events and their recovery levels are given in the 

following:
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

221

Great Flood of 1993. In the Great Flood of 1993, the Raccoon River overtopped its banks and submerged 

the Des Moines, Iowa WTP [McMullen 1994]. The water receded and the plant restored non-potable 

water within 12 days and potable water within 19 days [McMullen 1994]. The water outage disrupted 

restaurant and hotel operations. The Principal Insurance Company headquarters had trucks deliver water 

and pumped it into the building to cool computers. AT&T‘s regional central office nearly lost phone 

service because of computer cooling issues.

Northridge and Kobe Earthquakes. In the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the Los Angeles water 

distribution system suffered approximately 1000 pipeline failures, primarily in the San Fernando Valley

(Davis 2014). With mutual aid, they were able to fully restore potable water service to everyone within 12 

days. A year later, the 1995 Kobe Japan earthquake caused 1200 pipeline failures resulting in lost service 

to all households for up to 60 days [NIST 1996].

Hurricane Katrina. The August 29, 2005 Category 4 storm caused levee failures that resulted in 

inundation of approximately 80 % of New Orleans, including flood damage to their water and wastewater 

treatment plants [Black & Veatch Corporation 2006]. The interruption of water and sewage service, and 

reduced demand due to evacuated customers who never returned, resulted in a substantial reduction in 

revenues. In 2012, it was estimated that the population of New Orleans was only 76 % of its population in 

2000. Water for fire suppression was restored in one week. Potable water was restored by city blocks: 1 

month plus to restore service to the East Bank west of the Industrial Canal, three months plus to restore 

service to the East Bank east of the Industrial Canal, and over nine months to restore service to a portion 

of the Lower 9th Ward [Black & Veatch Corporation 2006]. 

Christchurch, New Zealand and Tohoku, Japan Earthquakes. The recent 2011 Christchurch New 

Zealand, and Tohoku Japan earthquakes both resulted in outages of potable water lasting in excess of 40 

days [G&E Engineering Systems Inc., 2012]. Impacted Japanese cities were assisted by mutual aid from 

cities in western Japan.

16.6. Strategies for Implementing Plans for Community Resilience

This section uses information from Sections 16.2 through 16.5 to provide guidance on the process of 

assessing water and wastewater infrastructure, defining solutions to improve infrastructure resilience, and 

narrowing resilience gaps.

16.6.1. System Assessment Approaches

The purpose of the assessment is to quantify the anticipated performance and recovery of the overall 

system and determine whether it meets the performance goals (Section 16.3). If the system does not meet 

the desired performance objectives, the assessment may identify system deficiencies that, if improved, 

may help achieve the desired performance goals. The assessment will likely require coordination and 

collaboration with other infrastructure systems to address dependencies. 

Section 16.2 described the basic components of water and wastewater systems and gave examples of 

observed failures in past hazards. System performance is highly dependent on the existing condition of 

the system and the design criteria, including codes and standards. Information about past performance of 

similar systems, combined with knowledge of the existing condition and design basis, help a utility 

estimate the anticipated level of service that could be provided after a hazard event. 

There may be a gap between the level of service a system can provide if a hazard event occurred today 

and the desired community performance goals. It is likely the capital expenditure required to close this 

performance gap exceeds the short-term capital improvement project budgets of the utility. However, the 

resilience of any system can be improved incrementally over time by appropriately considering design 

criteria to reduce the impact of hazards in new and upgraded infrastructure systems. To estimate the level 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

222

of service a water or wastewater system could provide after a given hazard event, an assessment of 

anticipated damage to the system and restoration sequences and times is required. Several methodologies 

and tools are available to conduct these assessments, a few of which are described below. While loss 

estimation has progressed over the past 20 years, the results are still estimates. These estimates can be 

useful for comparison of alternatives.

Hazus-MH. Hazus-MH is a multi-hazard (flood, earthquake, and hurricane) loss estimation tool 

developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for use in mitigation, emergency 

preparedness, and response and recovery planning [FEMA 2012]. Communities can use this tool to 

characterize their hazard exposure, estimate losses to the water and wastewater systems, and estimate 

repair costs and duration. It may also be used to inform an AWWA J100 analysis, as discussed below.

ANSI/AWWA J100-10. The Standard for Risk and Resilience Management of Water and Wastewater 

Systems [AWWA 2010] provides a methodology for conducting a multi-hazard system risk and resilience 

assessments. The J100 standard aligns the national homeland security objectives in Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive/HSPD-5 [DHS 2003], PPD-8 [2011], PPD-21 [2013] and Executive Order (EO) 

13636 [the White House 2013b]. The J100-10 standard consists of a seven-step process for analyzing and 

supporting management decisions that maximize risk reduction and/or enhance resilience at the utility and 

the community it serves.

1. Asset characterization

2. Threat characterization

3. Consequence analysis

4. Vulnerability analysis

5. Threat analysis

6. Risk/Resilience analysis

7. Risk/Resilience management

Determining asset level resilience for specific threats is part of the assessment methodology, and may 

support a community‘s process for determining desired performance goals and anticipated performance 

(Section 16.3). The J100 standard also includes a Utility Resilience Index (URI), a system-level 

assessment of operational and financial indicators. The URI can serve as a benchmark to evaluate 

potential resilience improvement projects and as a measure to track a utility‘s progress over time towards 

achieving resilience performance goals.

One approach to assess financial impacts is to quantify loss of function in terms of value per unit of 

service, dollars per person per day. This can be estimated by quantifying the number of customers in the 

area without service and the time it takes to restore service to the area. For example, if a pressure zone 

serving 1,000 people loses service for 5 days, the result is 5 days × 1,000 people or 5,000 person days. 

FEMA currently allows $103/day per person for loss of service. So 5,000 person days × $103/day/person 

= $515,000. If applying for a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant, this can be used as an avoided loss in a 

benefit/cost analysis for a project that would reduce the outage time to zero days.

VSAT, PARRE, and WHEAT. Several tools have been developed to support water utility assessment of 

risks. The Vulnerability Self-Assessment Tool (VSAT [EPA 2014]) and the Program for Analysis of Risk 

and Resiliency Evaluation (PARRE [Binning, 2014]) have been designed to assist water and wastewater 

utilities‘ application of the J100 standard. VSAT is complemented by the Water Health and Economic 

Analysis Tool (WHEAT), which quantifies three consequences associated with a hazard event: 1) public 

health impact, 2) utility-level financial impact, and 3) direct and indirect regional economic impact [EPA

2014]. WHEAT is specifically aligned with step 3 (consequence analysis) of the J100 standard. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

223

EPA. The EPA‘s National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) also supports efforts to 

enhance utility resilience. Collaboration with AWWA resulted in the development of Planning for an 

Emergency Drinking Water Supply [EPA 2011], which directly supports a capability assessment based on 

threats in the J100 standard to maintain service.

These resilience assessment approaches need to be evaluated and refined into a consistent methodology 

prior to implementation. An example of an earthquake resilience assessment procedure for a water system 

is outlined in the following section.

16.6.1.1. Example Earthquake Resilience Assessment

 Identify the appropriate earthquake scenario or scenarios. Develop or obtain ground motion 

information for each. The USGS has scenarios available for a suite of earthquakes in the U.S. 

Obtain liquefaction and landslide hazard maps available from the state department of geology. 

Use GIS for all mapping.

For buried pipelines:

 Compile an inventory of system pipelines including pipe material, joint type, and length.

 In GIS, superimpose the pipeline distribution system onto maps of the scenario hazard (peak 

ground velocity, liquefaction potential, and landslide potential). 

 Use empirical relationships developed by the American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) to predict the 

number of breaks and leaks in the pipeline system. 

 Estimate the time required to repair the predicted number of breaks and leaks based on historical 

crew productivity data and restore system functionality. Consider the anticipated damage states of 

dependent systems (transportation, liquid fuel, etc.).

For aboveground infrastructure:

 Compile an inventory of system components (tanks, pump stations, treatment plants, etc.), 

including type of construction, date of original construction, and any subsequent retrofits.

 Estimate the level of damage predicted for the aboveground water system components based on 

observations from past earthquakes, the seismic hazard used at the time of original construction 

or retrofit, and the professional judgment of engineers knowledgeable in the seismic performance 

of water systems. Use fragility curves found in Hazus-MH to determine the anticipated 

performance for a particular facility type for a given ground motion.

 Estimate the time required to repair the predicted damage to aboveground infrastructure and 

restore system functionality. Consider the anticipated damage states of dependent systems

(transportation, liquid fuel, etc.).

For the system:

 Determine the anticipated system performance based on the damage to pipelines and facilities.

 Determine the anticipated time for recovery of function for the system, including buried pipelines 

and aboveground infrastructure.

 Compare the estimate of time for recovery of function to the desired performance goals 

established by the community.

Note that recovery time for utilities that purchase water from wholesale suppliers is highly dependent on 

the recovery time of the supplying utility. Wholesale water suppliers need to work with their customers to 

assess the anticipated damage and restorations times from the source to the final individual customers. In 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

224

this case, water and wastewater system resilience assessments may require a regional approach to 

characterize the anticipated performance of the system of systems in a hazard event appropriately.

16.6.2. Solutions to Improve System Performance

16.6.2.1. General Considerations

The system assessment described in the previous section may identify system deficiencies, inadequate 

performance of system components, loss of system function, or extended recovery periods following a 

hazard event. Mitigation of all deficiencies could be a daunting task. The community and system owner 

need to identify a time frame for achieving community resilience. In the case of the Oregon Resilience 

Plan [OSSPAC 2013], a 50-year time frame was proposed.

There are a number of approaches to assist in system mitigation. However, a starting point could be to 

establish an overall strategy, such as:

 Retrofit sole treatment plants to achieve the desired performance

 Replace the most vulnerable or least reliable pipe over time

 Achieve full supply and treatment redundancy by building additional treatment plants

 Improve transmission system resilience by retrofit of existing infrastructure and adding 

redundancy

System component mitigation projects can be integrated into the capital improvement plan (CIP). The 

CIP is typically made up of projects required to address aging facilities and facilities required to meet 

increased system demands. In general, facilities such as treatment plants and tanks are built with a 50-year 

design life, equipment in those facilities with a 20-year design life, and buried pipe with a 100-year 

design life. Of course there are exceptions to these design life numbers, but the point is that over a 50-

year time frame, many of the system facilities will be replaced as they reach their design life. When that 

happens, they should be replaced with facilities and infrastructure that meet the desired performance 

criteria. The need for resilient facilities may only be one of the drivers pushing for replacement of a 

facility, with others being increased demand, high maintenance, and low reliability.

Many communities are growing. New facilities will be required to meet those demands. Those new 

facilities can be designed to meet the desired performance criteria. In some cases, the new facilities may 

supplement existing facilities. Both the existing and new facilities may be required to meet peak day 

demands, but the community could recover following a catastrophic hazard event with the reduced 

service based on the new facility. 

Some critical facilities might be vulnerable to the hazards being evaluated. They may be essential to 

continued operation, but they may be expensive or time consuming to repair. In these cases, the 

community may consider redirecting some of their capital budget to focus on these critical facilities. 

In some cases, there may be solutions that allow quick repair of critical facilities that cost much less than 

full replacement or upgrade. Installing a new transmission pipeline to cross an earthquake fault could be 

very expensive. A community may instead decide to acquire large diameter hose to bridge the earthquake 

fault if it ruptures.

The water distribution systems or wastewater collection system is a valuable asset for most water utilities. 

While the value of any single pipe run is less than a treatment plant or storage tank, the total length of the 

pipeline system has a high value. Unfortunately, in many communities, much of the pipe is at or beyond 

its design life and is expensive to replace. Pipelines of cast iron pipe, in particular, are vulnerable to 

earthquakes. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

225

There are some reasonable approaches for communities to pursue. Communities can initially focus on 

pipelines serving critical functions. Having a functional backbone system can provide benefits 

immediately after a hazard event. The backbone system consists of the transmission system and key 

distribution lines serving critical facilities such as hospitals. Once the backbone system is selected, the 

most vulnerable segments along that backbone system can be identified based on, for example, the pipe 

material, condition, and soil environment in which it is located. For earthquakes, pipelines in liquefiable 

soils are particularly vulnerable. The utility can step through this process and prioritize the pipelines that 

pose the highest risk and are critical to providing essential services. 

Utilities with an asset management program can lay out a pipeline replacement program that is 

coordinated with the desired time horizon for community resilience. The utility can plan emergency 

response and recovery procedures to speed recovery. Installation of isolation valves in key locations can 

allow isolation of heavily damaged portions of a system. Maintaining a significant inventory of repair 

parts can enhance the restoration process. Having mutual aid agreements in place, such as the 

Water/Wastewater Agency Network or WARN program [AWWA 2015], can also enhance the utility‘s 

ability to quickly make system repairs.

Resilience enhancements may be coupled with other infrastructure system improvements to maximize the 

benefit of limited financial resources. For instance, it can be difficult to justify replacing hundreds of 

miles of water pipelines based on earthquake resilience considerations alone, but coupled with 

replacement of aging and failing pipelines, the incremental cost of using more earthquake-resistant pipe 

materials and joints is relatively minor. Significant improvements over a shorter timeline may require a 

more extensive campaign of public outreach and education.

16.6.2.2. Solutions for New Construction

Water and wastewater providers should consider desired performance goals in all new construction 

projects. Projects can be designed to satisfy or exceed code requirements, where code minimum standards 

are not anticipated to meet the community resilience goals. If no codes exist for a particular category of 

structure or facility, the designer may consider available guidelines and best practices (see Table 10-3). 

The incremental cost of designing and constructing for resilience may be a relatively small percentage of 

total project costs. 

16.6.2.3. Solutions for Existing Construction

Water and wastewater providers can integrate resilience improvements into existing infrastructure as part 

of the capital improvement planning process. The process of conducting system resilience assessments 

may identify pipelines and facilities that are critical to the overall resilience of the system and its function. 

Critical components need to be evaluated and a number of potential solutions considered, including 

retrofit or replacement of existing components or building redundant components. Retrofit of existing 

infrastructure or new redundant components can improve the anticipated system performance. In some 

cases, redundant systems can be justified based on increasing demand requirements. A new redundant 

system could provide an adequate supply to meet basic demands until the damaged system was repaired. 

Whatever is done needs to be a part of the day-to-day functions of the utility. Special features that are 

added to increase resilience, but are never used until a hazard occurs, may not be functional when they are 

needed.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

226

16.7. References

Allouche, E.N.; R. Sterline; E. Chisolm; D. Hill; and D. Hall (2006) ―Assessment of Damage to Urban 

Buried Infrastructure in the Aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,‖ Pipelines 2006, American Society 

of Civil Engineers (ASCE), pp. 1-8.

American Concrete Institute (ACI 2006) ACI 350-06: Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering 

Concrete Structures, American Concrete Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills, MI. 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2010) ASCE 7-10: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings 

and Other Structures, Second Edition, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural 

Engineering Institute (SEI), Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2013) ASCE 41-13: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of 

Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), 

Reston, VA.

American Water Works Association (AWWA 2001) M19 Emergency Planning for Water Utilities, Fourth 

Edition, American Water Works Association (AWWA) , Denver, CO.

American Water Works Association (AWWA 2006) AWWA D115-06 Tendon-Prestressed Concrete 

Water Tanks, American Water Works Association (AWWA), Denver, CO.

American Water Works Association (AWWA 2010) AWWA J100-10 Risk and Resilience Management of 

Water and Wastewater Systems, American Water Works Association (AWWA), Denver, CO.

American Water Works Association (AWWA 2011) ANSI/AWWA D100-11 Welded Carbon Steel Tanks 

for Water Storage, American Water Works Association (AWWA), Denver, CO.

American Water Works Association (AWWA 2013) ANSI/AWWA D110-13 Wire- and Strand-Wound, 

Circular, Prestressed Concrete Water Tanks, American Water Works Association (AWWA), Denver, 

CO.

American Water Works Association (AWWA 2014) ANSI/AWWA G430-14 Security Practices for 

Operation and Management, American Water Works Association (AWWA), Denver, CO.

American Water Works Association (AWWA 2015) Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network

(WARN), American Water Works Association (AWWA), Denver, CO, http://www.awwa.org/resourcestools/water-knowledge/emergency-preparedness/water-wastewater-agency-response-network.aspx. 

Viewed April 18, 2015.

Aubuchon, C.P. and K.M. Morley (2013) ―The Economic Value of Water: Providing Confidence and 

Context to FEMA‘s Methodology,‖ Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, April, 

10(1), 245-265.

Ballantyne, D.B. (1994) Minimizing Earthquake Damage, A Guide for Water Utilities, American Water 

Works Association (AWWA), Denver, CO.

Ballantyne, D.B. and C.B. Crouse. (1997) Reliability and Restoration of Water Supply Systems for Fire 

Suppression and Drinking Following Earthquakes, NIST GCR 97-730, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Gaithersburg, MD.

Binning, D. (2014) ―J100 and the Safety Act - What's in It for Me?‖ Journal - American Water Works 

Association, 106(12): 22-24, http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2014.106.0167. 

Black & Veatch Corporation (2006) Report on Operations for 2005: Sewage & Water Board of New 

Orleans, Louisiana. Sewage & Water Board of New Orleans, Overland Park, KS.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

227

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Water Works Association (CDC/AWWA 

2012) Emergency water supply planning guide for hospitals and health care facilities, United States

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Atlanta, GA, 

http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/pdf/emergency/emergency-water-supply-planning-guide.pdf.

Chisolm, E.I. and J.C. Matthews (2012) ―Impact of Hurricanes and Flooding on Buried Infrastructure,‖

Leadership and Management in Engineering, July, Vol. 12, Issue 3, 151-156. 

Davis, Craig A. (2014) ―Water System Service Categories, Post-Earthquake Interaction, and Restoration 

Strategies,‖ Earthquake Spectra, November, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 1487-1509.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS 2003) Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5: 

Management of Domestic Incidents, DHS, Washington, DC 

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Homeland%20Security%20Presidential%20Directive

%205.pdf. Viewed April 19, 2015.

Eidinger, J. (2012) ―Performance of Water Systems during the Maule Mw 8.8 Earthquake 27 February 

2010,‖ Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 28, No. S1, S605-S620.

Eidinger, J.M. and A.K. Tang (2012) Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake Sequence of Mw 7.1 

September 04, 2010 Mw 6.3 February 22, 2011 Mw 6.0 June 13, 2011: Lifeline Performance, American 

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, 

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5006875e24ac21f35d8de8d2/t/51734da0e4b08db71071600f/136651

1008778/Lifelines_Compendium.pdf.

Eidinger, John and Craig A. Davis (2012) Recent Earthquakes Implications for US Water Utilities, Web 

Report #4408, G&E Engineering Systems Inc. for Water Research Foundation, Denver, CO, 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5006875e24ac21f35d8de8d2/t/51622bd9e4b0b72aa94f503b/136538

8249527/4408+WRF+Recent+Eqs+Aug+29+2012.pdf.

Elliott, T. and A.K. Tang (2009) Pacific Northwest Storms of December 1-4, 2007 Lifeline Performance,

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2010) VSAT – Risk Assessment Tool for Water Sector Utilities,

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, D.C.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2011) Planning for an Emergency Drinking Water Supply, EPA 

600/R-11/054, Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‘s National Homeland Security 

Research Center by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and CDM, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, D.C, June.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2014) Water Health and Economic Analysis Tool, Version 3.0, 

Consequence Analysis Tool for Water Utilities, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, 

D.C.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2012) Hazus-MH 2.1 User Manual, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2013) Mitigation Assessment Team Report Hurricane 

Sandy in New Jersey and New York Building Performance Observations, Recommendations, and 

Technical Guidance, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC.

Hoover, J.E. (1941) ―Water supply facilities and national defense,‖ Journal - American Water Works 

Association, 33(11), 1861-1865.

McMullen, L.D. (1994) ―Surviving the Flood: Teamwork Pays Off in Des Moines,‖ Journal - American

Water Works Association, 86(1): 68-72.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

228

Morley, K.M. (2012) ―A lesson in resilience from derecho,‖ Journal - American Water Works 

Association, 104(9), 20, 22-23. http://www.awwa.org/publications/journalawwa/abstract/articleid/33135246.aspx. 

Murphy, M. (1994) ―Weathering the Storm: Water Systems Versus Hurricanes,‖ Journal - American

Water Works Association, 86(1): 74-83.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST 1996) The January 17, 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu 

(Kobe) Earthquake: Performance of Structures, Lifelines, and Fire Protection Systems, Gaithersburg, 

MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP 2013) New York City Wastewater 

Resiliency Plan: Climate Risk Assessment and Adaptation Study, New York City Department of 

Environmental Protection, October, 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/about_dep/wastewater_resiliency_plan.shtml.

Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC 2013) The Oregon Resilience Plan, 

Reducing Risk and Improving Recovery for the Next Cascadia Earthquake and Tsunami, Salem, OR: 

Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission.

PPD-21 (2013) Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-21, The White House, February 12, 2013, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-criticalinfrastructure-security-and-resil.

PPD-8 (2011) Presidential Policy Directive, PPD-8 – National Preparedness, The White House, March 

30, 2011, http://www.dhs.gov/presidential-policy-directive-8-national-preparedness.

Preparedness, Emergency Response, and Recovery CIPAC Workgroup (2009) All-Hazard Consequence 

Management Planning for the Water Sector, November.

Randon, C. (2006) ―Employees fight to keep infants safe,‖ PR Tactics, September, www.prsa.org. 

Rhoades, C.C.; D. Entwistle,; and D. Butler (2011) ―The Influence of Wildfire Extent and Severity on 

Streamwater Chemistry, Sediment and Temperature Following the Hayman Fire, Colorado,‖

International Journal of Wildland Fire, 20:3:430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF09086. 

Rosen, J.S.; A.J. Whelton; M.J. McGuire; J.L. Clancy; T. Bartrand; A. Eaton; J. Patterson; M. Dourson; 

P. Nance; C. Adams (2014) ―The crude MCHM chemical spill in Charleston, W.Va.,‖ Journal - American

Water Works Association, 106 (9): 65-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2014.106.0134. 

Sanders, D.A. (1997) ―Damage to Wastewater Treatment Facilities from Great Flood of 1993,‖ Journal of 

Environmental Engineering, January, Vol. 123, Issue 1.

SFPUC (2006) General Seismic Requirements for Design of New Facilities and Upgrade of Existing 

Facilities, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco, CA.

Stevens, D.R. and L.D. Pittman (2004) Emergency Power Source Planning for Water and Wastewater, 

American Water Works Association (AWWA), Denver, CO.

Tanaka, S.S. (1995) ―Shaken into action,‖ Journal - American Water Works Association, 87(5): 71-75.

The White House (2013b) Executive Order 13636 – Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, the 

White House, Washington, DC, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-19/pdf/2013-03915.pdf. 

Viewed April 19, 2015. 

Thompson, Phil (2012) ―Standby Power Generation: A Key Part of an Emergency Plan,‖ Journal -

American Water Works Association, 104(1): 34-36, http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2012.104.0019.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Water and Wastewater Systems

229

United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, and American Water Works Association (CDC/EPA/AWWA 2013) Drinking Water Advisory 

Communication Toolbox, United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Atlanta, 

GA, http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/emergency/dwa-comm-toolbox/index.html?s_cid=cs_001, 

http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/pdf/emergency/drinking-water-advisory-communication-toolbox.pdf.

Writer, J.H.; A. Hohner; J. Oropeza; A. Schmidt; K.M. Cawley; F.L. and Rosario-Ortiz (2014) ―Water 

treatment implications after the High Park Wildfire, Colorado,‖ Journal - American Water Works 

Association, 106:4, E189-E199, http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2014.106.0055.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

230

17. Community Resilience Metrics

Community Resilience Metrics Executive Summary

Metrics help communities assess their current level of resilience and the potential benefits of actions to 

improve its resilience. To be of value, metrics selected by the planning team should be indicators of the 

community‘s capacity to respond to and recover from hazard events. The primary metrics used 

throughout this Guide are times for recovery of function (recovery times) for building clusters and 

supporting infrastructure systems identified as being critical to the economic vitality and social well-being 

of the community. 

Recovery times are estimated for the prevailing hazards that are expected to impact the community. Given 

a set of physical impacts to the built environment and recovery times, it then becomes possible to estimate 

the associated economic, social, and environmental impacts. Selecting metrics to measure communitylevel economic, social, and environmental impacts and predicting how they will be affected by specific 

community planning and implementation decisions is a challenging and ongoing area of research. 

The sections below review examples of economic, social and environmental metrics suggested in the 

research literature and summarize several representative resilience assessment methodologies. While the 

economic dimension is just one of three main community-level dimensions to be assessed along with the 

social and environmental dimensions, it is perhaps the most tractable and well-developed of the three. 

17.1. Background

Community resilience metrics come in a wide variety of types. They can be descriptive or quantitative; 

they can be based on interviews, expert opinion, engineering analysis, or pre-existing datasets. They can 

also be presented as an overall score or as a set of separately reported scores across physical, economic, 

social, and environmental dimensions. Regardless of the methodologies used to develop and summarize 

the results, effective community resilience metrics must address two questions [National Academies 

2012a]:

 How can community leaders know how resilient their community is?

 And how can they know if their decisions and investments to improve resilience are making a 

significant difference?3

In 2012, the National Academies Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters

and the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy evaluated seventeen approaches to 

measuring various aspects of resilience. The authors concluded that none of the seventeen existing 

methodologies satisfactorily addressed both of the two basic questions posed above. As a result, one of 

the six main recommendations from the report was development of a ―national resilience scorecard, from 

which communities can then develop their own, tailored scorecards‖ [National Academies 2012b]. 

Similar recommendations are in other recent reviews of hazard risk reduction and resilience [U.K. 

Government Office for Science 2012; UNISDR 2012]. A tailorable or locally relevant scorecard indicates 

that a single prescriptive scorecard may not be appropriate for a wide range of communities (e.g., from 

small agriculture communities to large industrial cities). 

 

3As stated in (National Academies 2012b), ―measuring resilience is challenging but essential if communities want to track their 

progress toward resilience and prioritize their actions accordingly.‖
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

231

17.2. Desirable Characteristics for Community Resilience Metrics

From the community perspective, effective community resilience metrics should be accurate, reliable, 

comprehensive, scalable, affordable, and actionable metrics of the community‘s capacity to respond to 

and recover from hazard events. Cutter [2014] suggests that communities seek resilience metrics that are 

open and transparent and align with the community‘s goals and vision. Further, community resilience 

metrics need to be simple and well-documented, address multiple hazards, be replicated by others, 

characterize geographic extent, physical dimensions, and community members, and be adaptable and 

scalable to different communities and changing circumstances.

This chapter focuses on community resilience metrics and methodologies that can reliably predict the 

physical, economic, social, and environmental implications (positive or negative) of community decisions 

(active or passive) made with respect to planning, siting, design, construction, operation, protection, 

maintenance, repair, and restoration of the built environment.

17.3. Types of Metrics

As defined in PPD-21 [2013] and emphasized throughout this Guide, the concept of resilience extends 

beyond the magnitude of direct physical damage sustained by the various components of the built 

environment for a hazard event. The concept of community resilience requires metrics that can evaluate 

and measure performance at a community scale, rather than, for example, that of a single building, 

infrastructure system, or social dimension.

Looking beyond direct physical damage and repair costs for the built environment, at least four broad 

categories of metrics might be considered by communities: (1) recovery of community function metrics 

(recovery time), (2) economic vitality metrics, (3) social well-being metrics, and (4) environmental 

resilience metrics. A community can use metrics to measure improvements over time, or predict the 

effectiveness of proposed solutions. However, predicting how these metrics will be impacted by specific 

community planning and implementation decisions is a challenging and ongoing area of research. 

Community resilience metrics may have a direct and quantifiable cause-and-effect influence on resilience,

whereas others may either have some postulated influence on resilience or simply be correlated with 

resilience. Examples of metrics that may influence or correlate with recovery times, economic vitality, 

social well-being, and environmental resilience appear below. 

17.3.1. Time to Recovery of Function

A metric based on time to recovery of function for the built environment is easy to grasp, but difficult to 

predict with precision or confidence. Estimates of recovery times might be affected by:

 Design criteria used for components of the built environment and their condition immediately 

prior to the hazard event

 Hazard loads and effects applied to the built environment during and after the event

 Spatial distribution and extent of physical damage to the built environment

 Availability of resources and leadership to improve or repair the built environment

 Critical dependencies among the built environment and social structures within a community 

Recovery times directly impact economic, social, and environmental processes in a community. As such, 

estimates of system recovery times become a prerequisite for most, if not all, other measures of 

community resilience. Due to the large volume of data required and the complexity of modeling the built 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

232

environment at a community scale, recovery times are likely to be estimates based on some combination 

of simplified modeling, past experience, and expert judgment.

An example of recovery times for building cluster and infrastructure systems of a hypothetical community 

appears in Chapter 9 in Volume I. The recovery times are based on the buildings and infrastructure

system examples discussed in Chapters 12 through 16. Each community will have its own set of building

clusters, infrastructure systems, and desired performance levels that reflect its goals and priorities.

17.3.2. Economic Vitality

Economic health and development are major concerns for communities. Economic development concerns 

include attracting and retaining businesses and jobs, building the tax base, addressing poverty and 

inequality, enhancing local amenities, and economic sustainability. These factors are discussed below. 

Further background on economic modeling approaches and issues are given in Section 17.5.

17.3.2.1. Attracting and Retaining Businesses and Jobs

Generally, a community that cannot attract and retain businesses and jobs is in decline. Therefore, 

attracting and retaining businesses and jobs are major concerns of most communities; in particular,

communities prefer businesses that produce high-paying jobs. Metrics for economic vitality might include 

the employment rate, per capita income, per capital gross domestic or regional product, and education 

attainment rate. 

Metrics indicative of a community‘s ability to continue attracting and retaining businesses and jobs 

depend on the resilience of building clusters and infrastructure systems. For example, the availability of 

safe and affordable housing after a hazard event, along with supporting infrastructure services, are key 

requirements for employees and the economic health of the community.

17.3.2.2. Tax Base

For most cities, local revenue sources consist of some combination of property and sales tax. A sales tax 

revenue base is maintained by attracting commercial businesses and jobs. The property tax revenue base

depends on property values.

Tax base metrics include real-estate prices, rents, and tourism revenue (e.g., hotel tax). Metrics indicative 

of how a community‘s tax base would be affected by a hazard event might include the extent of property 

insurance coverage across the community, the percent of property in areas susceptible to hazards (like 

flood plains), and the number of building permits issued.

17.3.2.3. Poverty and Income Distribution

Poverty and income distribution are a major concern of local communities. Many communities have 

programs to decrease poverty in their neighborhoods, and a significant amount of external funding is 

available to alleviate poverty in communities. This concern intersects with community resilience because 

the disadvantaged are often the most vulnerable after hazard events. Metrics of poverty and income 

distribution include the poverty rate and the Gini coefficient, a measure of income dispersion [The World 

Bank 2015].
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

233

17.3.2.4. Local Services and Amenities

Local services and amenities include a variety of other services, such as public transportation, parks, 

museums, restaurants, and theaters. Local services and amenities improve the quality of life for local 

residents. In addition, improving local amenities may indirectly help attract and retain businesses and 

jobs. Amenities are provided by multiple sources. Some are provided by local governments, some are 

privately provided, and some are based on the natural environment. Metrics for amenities will depend on 

the community and may be indirectly measured through economic vitality, social well-being, or 

environmental metrics.

17.3.2.5. Economic Sustainability

Local communities are interested in ensuring they develop and maintain a vibrant and thriving economy, 

even amid hazard events. Metrics of economic sustainability include growth rates of gross domestic or 

regional product.

Factors that might affect a community‘s economic sustainability after hazard events include the degree to 

which the local economy depends on a single industry. Metrics could include percent of jobs in each 

service industry, such as agriculture or mining.

17.3.2.6. Other Economic Metrics

A number of economic metrics are associated with or affect non-economic aspects of community 

resilience. For example, debt ratios are a measure of a community‘s ability to deal with hazard events. 

Poverty levels may impact the ability of people to rebound from a hazard event, as well as car and phone 

ownership. Similarly, economic sustainability will strongly influence social capital.

17.3.3. Social Well-Being

Based on the hierarchy of human needs presented in Section 10.3, social metrics should address: 

 Survival – preservation of life and availability of water, food, clothing, and shelter 

 Safety and security – personal safety, financial security, health and, well-being 

 Sense of belonging – belonging and acceptance among family, friends, neighborhoods, and 

organizations

 Growth and achievement – opportunities for recognition and fulfillment

The resilience of a community following a hazard event depends on how well these needs are met. 

Examples of metrics for each of the human needs are provided below. The Canterbury Wellbeing Index 

[CERA 2014] is an example of a resilience plan that includes several of these metrics.

17.3.3.1. Survival

Survival depends on the ability of residents, employees, and visitors in a community to meet basic 

physical requirements, including water, food, shelter, and clothing. Renters may be more vulnerable in 

event recovery since they may lack access to financial aid information or sufficient options for shelter in 

extreme cases [Cutter et al. 2003].

The ability to meet these requirements depends on the functionality of buildings and infrastructure 

systems, supply systems, and system personnel. These needs may be supplied by governmental 

organizations, non-governmental aid organizations, or the private sector. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

234

Metrics for survival during or after a hazard event may include: 

 Housing availability and affordability

 Poverty rates

 Homeless rates

 Building code adoption and enforcement history

 Effectiveness of warning systems

 Comprehensive emergency operations plans (mutual aid agreements, emergency response resources,

urban search and rescue teams, public shelters)

 Capacity of community service organizations that assist in distributing water, food, or clothing or 

providing shelter after a hazard event

 Level of household hazard preparation

 Percentage of homes that are owner occupied or rentals

 Percentage of insured homes and businesses

 Availability of short- and medium-term accommodation

 Distance to family and friends unaffected by the hazard event

17.3.3.2. Safety and Security

Safety and security includes all aspects of personal and financial security, and health and well-being. 

People require safety and security in their personal lives from situations of violence, physical or verbal 

abuse, etc., as well as knowing that their family and friends are safe. Individuals also require financial 

security, which can include job security, a consistent income, savings accounts, insurance policies, and 

other safety nets. Finally, people require safety from poor health conditions, so that they can enjoy life 

and consistent well-being.

Examples of metrics for personal safety evaluated before and after a hazard event could include 

community statistics on assaults, property offenses, re-offending rates, and reports on child abuse or 

neglect. 

Examples of metrics for financial security include employment rates (also under economic metrics in 

Section 17.3.2.1). Additionally, metrics on how employment may be affected by a hazard event may

include occupation type, education levels, percentage of residents that commute outside the communities

for work, and gender. For instance, women may have a more difficult time than men retaining 

employment due to employment type, lower wages, or family care responsibilities. Some occupations, 

such as those based on tourism, may be more severely affected by a hazard event [Cutter et al., 2003]. 

Examples of metrics for health and well-being could include acute medical admissions, immunization 

rates, cancer admissions, substance abuse rates, and blood donor rates. Additionally, metrics for

community health and well-being may include the percentage of the population with health insurance, 

access to health services, and community demographics. Health service metrics include health system 

demand and capacity for emergency rooms, in-patient beds, out-patient clinics, community health centers, 

and mental health services. Community demographics include age distribution, number of individuals 

with disabilities, or those with access and functional needs.

17.3.3.3. Sense of Belonging

Social metrics can also address belonging and acceptance among various groups of people (e.g., family, 

friends, school groups, sports teams, work colleagues, religious congregation) or belonging to a place or 

location. Examples of metrics related to sense of belonging include [Foxton and Jones, 2011]: 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

235

Civic participation:

 Voter registration or voter participation rates

 Involvement in local action groups

 Perception of being well-informed of local affairs

Social networks:

 Frequency of contact with friends, family, neighbors, etc.

 Number of geographically close friends and family

Social participation:

 Membership and involvement in community social, cultural, and leisure groups, including sports 

clubs 

 Membership and involvement in religious organizations and other belief systems

 Volunteers in social organizations

Trust

 Confidence in leadership, such as government, businesses, and social organizations at various 

levels

 Trust in community members 

17.3.3.4. Growth and Achievement

Humans need to feel a sense of achievement and respect in society, accompanied by the need for 

continual growth and exploration. Activities related to growth and achievement include education and 

participation in arts and recreation. Examples of metrics related to educational growth and achievement 

include: educational system capacity and demand for teachers, classrooms, books, graduation rates, 

memberships in public libraries, and education levels.

17.3.4. Environmental Resilience

In addition to promoting economic vitality and social well-being, there is a growing interest in protecting 

and improving natural environments (e.g., being green and maintaining a small ecological footprint). The 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA 2014] defines environmental community resilience as

―minimizing environmental risks associated with hazards, quickly returning critical environmental and 

ecological services to functionality after a hazard, and applying this learning process to reduce 

vulnerabilities and risks to future incidents.‖ 

Environmental resilience metrics include air, water and soil quality; degree of development within 

floodplains or other environmentally sensitive areas; waste treatment level and disposal capacities; 

average daily water usage; percent impervious surfaces; erosion rates; wetlands loss; and many others 

[e.g., EPA 2014; Cutter et al. 2014; UNISDR 2014].
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

236

17.3.5. Hybrid Metrics

Some metrics combine other metrics into an overall score. Additional types of metrics, beyond the four 

broad categories discussed above, may be included. Metrics for buildings or infrastructure systems are 

discussed in Section 17.3.6.

Due to the scarcity of data, the unique aspects of how each hazard event affects a community, and the 

lack of generally applicable community resilience models, the scaling and weighting schemes used to 

aggregate disparate metrics into an overall score are largely based on the reasoning and judgment of those 

developing the overall metric. Scaling and weighting schemes need to avoid the use of overlapping or 

closely correlated metrics, as they can bias resilience plans with over-weighted metrics or by double 

counting benefits. One widely used technique is to monetize all of the metrics, such as the statistical value 

of lost lives, lost jobs, lost business revenue, and increased health care costs. However, this approach 

cannot adequately address all of the social or environmental dimensions of community resilience.

17.3.6. Other Metrics

Examples of building or infrastructure system metrics include:

 Housing occupancy, business property occupancy, temporary shelter demand 

 Water system pressure level, water quality, or average daily demand

 Transportation system demand and capacity, such as vehicles per hour or shipping tonnage 

capacities

 Communications systems availability and reliability for phone, internet, etc.

 Energy systems‘ availability and reliability for electric power, natural gas, liquid fuels

17.4. Examples of Existing Community Resilience Assessment Methodologies

Many community-wide resilience assessment methodologies have been proposed in the research 

literature, as discussed in Section 17.1. This section presents a brief overview of nine methodologies and 

their applicability as tools for assessing community resilience. The nine methodologies represent a crosssection of community assessment sources and techniques. Not all of the nine methodologies were 

developed specifically for assessing community resilience, but they are considered as relevant and 

potentially applicable in whole or part. 

There are a number of other resilience assessment tools that are not addressed here. The methodology 

review is intended to help communities consider the variety of tools available for obtaining the 

information and community involvement needed to develop a community resilience plan.

17.4.1. SPUR Methodology

SPUR is a member-supported nonprofit organization that brings various stakeholders together to develop 

solutions to problems faced by cities in the San Francisco Bay Area. As a part of its work, SPUR 

developed a methodology that provides ―a framework for improving San Francisco‘s resilience through 

seismic mitigation policies.‖ The stated goals of the SPUR report [2009] are:

1. Define the concept of ―resilience‖ in the context of disaster planning,

2. Establish performance goals for the expected earthquake that supports our definition 

of resilience,
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

237

3. Define transparent performance measures that help us reach our performance goals; 

and

4. Suggest next steps for San Francisco‘s new buildings, existing buildings and lifelines.

The SPUR methodology focuses on establishing performance goals for several building clusters (i.e., 

groups of buildings that provide a community service, such as critical response facilities, emergency 

housing, or neighborhood services) and establishing target recovery times for a specified earthquake event 

in the San Francisco area. While economic and social metrics are not direct outputs of the SPUR 

methodology, the building clusters selected and recovery time goals provided are clearly intended to 

improve both the economic and social resilience of San Francisco. Similarly, although SPUR focuses on 

earthquakes as the primary hazard, the underlying methodology is applicable to other communities and 

hazards.

17.4.2. Oregon Resilience Plan

In 2011, the Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC) was directed by Oregon

House Resolution 3 ―to lead and coordinate preparation of an Oregon Resilience Plan that reviews policy 

options, summarizes relevant reports and studies by state agencies, and makes recommendations on 

policy direction to protect lives and keep commerce flowing during and after a Cascadia earthquake and 

tsunami.‖ The OSSPAC assembled eight task groups (earthquake and tsunami, business and work force 

continuity, coastal communities, critical buildings, transportation, energy, information and 

communications, water and wastewater) and assigned tasks to each group:

1. Determine the likely impacts of a magnitude 9.0 Cascadia earthquake and tsunami 

on its assigned social and physical systems, and estimate the time required to restore 

functions if the earthquake were to strike under present conditions;

2. Define acceptable timeframes to restore functions after a future Cascadia 

earthquake to fulfill expected resilient performance; and 

3. Recommend changes in practice and policies that, if implemented during the next 50 

years, will allow Oregon to reach the desired resilience targets.

The Oregon Resilience Plan [OSSPAC 2013] built on the SPUR methodology and the Resilient 

Washington State initiative [Washington State Seismic Safety Committee Emergency Management 

Council 2012] to produce a statewide projection of the impacts of a single earthquake and tsunami event.

The Resilient Washington State initiative is a framework developed based on the methodology developed 

by SPUR, similar to the Oregon Resilience Plan. The Resilient Washington State framework uses 

performance goals table and criteria similar to that in the Oregon Resilience Plan. Predicted impacts 

include lives lost, buildings destroyed or damaged, and households displaced. A particular statewide 

vulnerability identified in the study is Oregon‘s liquid fuel supply and the cascade of impacts induced by 

a long-term disruption of the liquid fuel supply. The study includes recommended actions to improve 

resilience for the selected hazard event and shorten the state‘s recovery time.

17.4.3. UNISDR Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities

The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) Disaster Resilience 

Scorecard for Cities ―provides a set of assessments that will allow cities to understand how resilient they 

are to natural disasters‖ [UNISDR 2014]. The Scorecard is ―intended to enable cities to establish a 

baseline measurement of their current level of disaster resilience, to identify priorities for investment and 

action, and to track their progress in improving their disaster resilience over time.‖ There are 85 disaster 

resilience evaluation criteria grouped into the following areas:
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

238

 Research including evidence-based compilation and communication of threats and needed 

responses

 Organization including policy, planning, coordination and financing

 Infrastructure including critical and social infrastructure and systems and appropriate 

development

 Response capability including information provision and enhancing capacity

 Environment including maintaining and enhancing ecosystem services

 Recovery including triage, support services and event planning

Each evaluation criterion addresses an aspect of disaster resilience and has a qualitative measurement 

(from 0 to 5, where 5 is best practice).

The formal checklist is organized around ―10 Essentials for Making Cities Resilient,‖ which were 

developed to align with the five priorities of the Hyogo Framework [UNISDR 2005]. The overall score is 

the percentage of possible points from each of the 85 measures. UNISDR suggests that cities plan on 2 to 

3 people working for a minimum of 1 week to complete an assessment, ranging up to 2 months for a more 

detailed and comprehensive assessment.

17.4.4. CARRI Community Resilience System

The Community and Regional Resilience Institute (CARRI) developed the Community Resilience System

(CRS) [CARRI 2013] to be ―an action-oriented, web-enabled process that helps communities to assess, 

measure, and improve their resilience to ... threats and disruptions of all kinds, and ultimately be 

rewarded for their efforts. The Community Resilience System (CRS) brings together people, process and 

technology to improve resilience in individual communities. The system includes not only a knowledge 

base to help inform communities on their resilience path but also a process guide that provides a 

systematic approach to moving from interest and analysis to visioning and action planning. It also 

provides a collaborative mechanism for other interested stakeholders to support community efforts.‖

The CRS is a DHS/FEMA funded initiative. It began in 2010, convening three working groups: 

researchers (Subject Matter Group), community leaders (Community Leaders Group), and government

and private sector representatives (Resilience Benefits Group). The findings of these working groups 

culminated in the development of the CRS web-based tool along with pilot implementations in eight 

communities commencing in the summer of 2011. 

The CRS addresses 18 distinct Community Service Areas (CSAs) and is designed specifically for use by 

community leaders. The web process is a checklist driven approach, with questions tailored for each of 

the CSAs. The answer to a question may trigger additional questions. For many of the questions, 

comment fields are provided so that communities may answer the questions as specifically as possible. 

The CARRI team notes that a facilitated approach (i.e., an outside group working with the community, 

such as CARRI), is most effective. ―The CRS process works more productively as a  ̳partially facilitated‘

model where some supportive expertise assists communities in applying aspects of resilience and 

embedding them within their community circumstances and processes.‖

17.4.5. Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit (CART)

The Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit or CART [TDC 2012] was developed by the Terrorism 

and Disaster Center at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. It was funded by the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

239

Services, and the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, and by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CART is designed to enhance community resilience through planning and action. It engages community 

organizations in collecting and using assessment data to develop and implement solutions for building 

community resilience for hazard prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. The CART process 

uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches, and it involves these steps:

1. Generating a community profile (CART Team and Partners)

2. Refine the community profile (Community Work Groups)

3. Develop a strategic plan (Community Planning Groups)

4. Implement the plan (Community Leaders and Groups)

The CART approach is not hazard specific, and is applicable across communities of varying size and 

type. It is innovative, providing a complete set of tools and guidelines for communities to assess their 

resilience across a number of domains. The toolkit includes the CART assessment survey, key informant 

interviews, data collection framework, community conversations, neighborhood infrastructure maps, 

community ecological maps, stakeholder analysis, SWOT analysis, and capacity and vulnerability 

assessment. The focus of the approach is to provide a process that engages communities in thinking about 

resilience and to provide a foundation for more advanced resilience activities.

17.4.6. Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC)

The Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC [Cutter et al. 2014]) process builds on prior 

work by Cutter et al. [2010], and is based on empirical research with a conceptual and theoretical

framework. BRIC measures overall community resilience. The approach provides a resilience metric for 

use in a policy decisions. Using data from 30 public and freely available sources, BRIC comprises 49 

indicators (metrics) associated with six domains: 

 Social (10 indicators)

 Economic (8 indicators)

 Housing and infrastructure (9 indicators)

 Institutional (10 indicators)

 Community Capital (7 indicators)

 Environmental (5 indicators)

BRIC is not hazard specific, and has been implemented at the county level. The 49 indicators were 

selected through conceptual, theoretical, and empirical justifications as capturing qualities associated with 

community resilience. Indicators in the six domains identify potential areas that policy makers may 

consider for investment and intervention strategies to improve resilience. 

17.4.7. Rockefeller Foundation City Resilience Framework

The City Resilience Framework (CRF) is a framework ―for articulating city resilience‖ developed by 

Arup [2014] with support from the Rockefeller Foundation 100 Resilient Cities initiative. This framework 

is based on an extensive literature review, including cities with varying characteristics and a substantial 

amount of fieldwork to collect data and develop case studies. The framework organizes 12 indicators into 

4 categories:
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

240

 Leadership and strategy

 Health and wellbeing

 Infrastructure and environment

 Economy and social

This organization integrates social and physical aspects, and it considers human-driven processes as 

components of the community. Economic constraints are also considered in an integral way for planning 

purposes. The 12 indicators span seven qualities identified as characteristic of a resilient city: being 

reflective, resourceful, robust, inclusive, redundant, integrated, and flexible.

The CRF serves as the basis for a City Resilience Index (CRI) being developed in 2015. The CRI will 

further refine the 4 categories and 12 indicators of the framework into 48 to 54 sub-indicators and 130 to 

150 variables or metrics. 

17.4.8. NOAA Coastal Community Resilience Index

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‘s Coastal Community Resilience Index [Sempier 

et al. 2010] was developed to provide a simple and inexpensive self-assessment tool to give community 

leaders a method of predicting whether their community will reach and maintain an acceptable level of 

functioning after a hazard event. The tool is to be completed by experienced local planners, engineers, 

floodplain managers, and administrators in less than three hours using readily available, existing sources 

of information, in a yes/no question format. 

The Coastal Community Resilience Index (CCRI) primarily addresses coastal storms, particularly 

hurricanes and storm surge or rain induced flooding events. More specifically, it focuses on immediate 

and short-term restoration of basic services and how long a community will take to recover after a hazard 

event. The eight page assessment form addresses six broad areas: 

1. Critical facilities and infrastructure

2. Transportation issues

3. Community plans and agreements

4. Mitigation measures

5. Business plans

6. Social systems

The resulting assessment is meant to identify vulnerabilities that should be addressed before the next 

hazard event, including areas in which a community should become more resilient and where resources 

should be allocated. It also estimates the adaptability of a community to a hazard, but is not meant to 

replace a detailed study. The authors note, ―The Resilience Index and methodology does not replace a 

detailed study... But, the Resilience Index resulting from this Community Self-Assessment may 

encourage your community to seek further consultation.‖ 

The authors also state that the tool should not be used to compare one community to another. Rather, they 

recommend using it as an approach to internal evaluation to identify areas in which a given community 

might increase its resilience. As part of its development process, the NOAA CRI was pilot tested in 17 

communities in five states (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas). In addition to 

developing their community indices, these pilot tests were also used to further refine and improve the 

assessment methodology.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

241

17.4.9. FEMA Hazus Methodology

The Federal Emergency Management Agency‘s Hazus tool [FEMA 2015] ―is a nationally applicable 

standardized methodology that contains models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods,

and hurricanes. Hazus uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to estimate physical, 

economic, and social impacts of hazards. It graphically illustrates the boundaries of high-risk locations 

due to earthquake, hurricane, and floods. Users can visualize the spatial relationships between populations 

and other fixed geographic assets or resources for the specific hazard being modeled – a crucial function 

in the pre-disaster planning process.‖

The Hazus methodology and associated data sets cover the entire U.S. The study region can be defined as 

any combination of U.S. Census tracts. The specific hazard models included are earthquake (including 

fire following), flood (riverine or coastal) and hurricane (wind and storm surge). The focus of the model 

is on immediate physical and economic impacts, and social impacts to a lesser degree. The model 

produces outputs on expected loss of use for buildings and infrastructure systems (earthquake and flood 

only), shelter requirements, casualties (earthquake only), building contents and inventory losses, lost 

wages and income, and indirect economic losses (earthquake and flood only). Estimated repair times are 

explicitly considered in economic loss estimates produced by the model, but the economic outputs are not 

tabulated or viewable as a function of time. While Hazus can be used to assess losses avoided through 

some mitigation measures, it does not estimate mitigation costs and, therefore, does not output estimates 

of return on investment.

Some information required for a community-level resilience assessment is not addressed, such as system 

dependencies, social impacts, and recovery of community functions. However, the Hazus methodology

and the types of results produced could support more comprehensive methodologies.

17.4.10.Comparison Matrix

Figure 17-1 provides a summary comparison of the nine example methodologies discussed in the 

preceding sections. As noted earlier, not all of these methodologies were originally developed specifically 

for the purpose of assessing community resilience, but each is thought to offer relevant and potentially 

applicable methods, metrics, or processes.

Each methodology was assessed on three broad dimensions: (1) scope, (2) utility, and (3) impacts 

assessed. Scope includes the breath of community sizes, hazard types and intensities, recovery time scales 

(e.g., short, medium, and long-term), systems (i.e., different components of the built environment), and 

system dependencies covered by the methodology. Utility addresses the clarity and ease-of-use of the 

methodology, the extent of subject matter expert (SME) support required to implement the methodology, 

the value of the methodology outputs for planning, and how well the methodology and its outputs align 

with the definition of resilience given in PPD-21. Impacts assessed addresses the extent to which the 

methodology addresses each of the first three types of metrics discussed in this chapter (i.e., recovery 

times, economic vitality, and social well-being). A fourth dimension is included in Figure 17-1 to 

summarize the data collection and analysis techniques that are either a core or optional element of the 

methodology. Assessments were made in the context of community resilience, specifically as it pertains 

to the built environment.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

242

Figure 17-1: Preliminary summary assessment of nine existing community resilience methodologies

Consistent with the findings of previously published assessments, none of the nine methods reviewed is 

uniformly strong in each of the three dimensions. However, it may be possible to combine the best 

features of several existing and emerging methodologies to produce a new community resilience 

assessment methodology that addresses the measurement needs of a community.

17.5. Economic Evaluation of Community Resilience Investment Portfolio 

While economic vitality is just one of the three community-level dimensions to be assessed (along with 

the social and environmental dimensions), it is perhaps the most tractable and well-developed of the three. 

This section briefly summarizes existing economic concepts related to the evaluation of investments to 

improve community resilience. The focus is on development of a portfolio of investments that maximize 

the social net benefits to the community, recognizing constraints, uncertainty, and dependencies that may 

affect the mix of investments.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

243

17.5.1. Portfolio Considerations

Economic Efficiency. Economic efficiency refers to obtaining the maximum benefit from the resources 

available, or more simply, it means not wasting resources.

Maximization of Net Benefits. Improved community resilience can increase the net benefits associated 

with a level of service. Net benefits are the increased value of the improved level of service minus the 

cost of obtaining that level of service. For instance, one of several alternatives may maximize the net 

benefits to the community. While improved levels of service are typically more costly, this type of 

analysis can help identify a level of service where the net benefits are maximized. 

Minimization of Cost and Loss. From an economic perspective, this is an equivalent formulation to 

maximizing net benefits. Since the level of service is defined in terms of minimizing costs and losses, it 

may be a more convenient format for analysis. Expressing the results of this analysis in terms of net 

benefits is straightforward.

First-Cost vs. Life-Cycle Cost. Effort to identify alternatives that maximize net benefits depends on an 

accurate estimate of benefits and costs. When estimating the costs of attaining a desired level of service, 

all life-cycle costs need to be accounted for. It is not sufficient to include first costs or construction costs

only. Operational costs, maintenance costs, replacement costs and end-of-life costs, among others, need to 

be included.

Multiple Objectives. When there are several complementary and overlapping objectives, the analysis 

needs to account for the type of losses that a community wishes to avoid. In any analysis of avoided 

losses, care needs to be taken not to double-count savings.

Minimize Economic Losses. The simplest evaluation may be that of minimizing economic losses. This 

approach examines the difference between economic gain (in terms of avoided losses) and costs of the 

desired level of service.

Minimize Loss of Life. The objectives all relate to economic losses, but the most important consideration 

is avoiding loss of life and other casualties. If loss of life is included in the optimization, the benefits are 

measured in terms of lives saved (or deaths avoided), while the costs are typically measured in dollars by 

assigning a value to the benefits. For lives saved, the Value of a Statistical Life is a standard approach.

However, some form of Lexicographic Preferences could be used as an alternative to directly valuing a 

statistical life or other non-economic amenities. Here each objective is strictly ranked, and then optimized 

in order. For example, an assessment could optimize for loss of life and then for economic losses. This 

ranking approach would ensure the selection of an alternative that minimizes loss of life (irrespective of 

costs). Next, the minimum cost alternative that maintained the minimum loss of life would be found.

Minimize Other Losses. Other losses a jurisdiction might wish to avoid include disruption of key 

government services, disruption of social networks, and damage to the environment. Including noneconomic factors such as these in the optimization is difficult, as benefits and costs are measured in 

different terms. For other benefits, a number of techniques are available to determine the value a 

community places on those benefits.

Economic Dependencies. The economy, in general, is affected by the resilience of the built environment.

The reverse also holds – the resilience of the community depends on the health and resilience of the 

economy.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

244

17.5.2. Economic Decision-Making Involving Risk and Uncertainty 

Expected Utility Theory. Economists often approach decision-making with expected utility theory. The 

basic idea is that people will choose the alternative that has the best  ̳utility‘ or value for them. The value 

is adjusted to account for both time preference and risk preference.

Time Preference. The value of consumption depends on when it occurs. Typically, future consumption is 

discounted [Mankiw 2011]. 

Risk Preferences. Risk averse individuals prefer to avoid risk. For people who are risk averse, a large 

potential loss has more perceived risk than a number of small losses, even though they add up to the same 

risk value as the single large loss. Someone who is risk neutral would weigh the two equally.

Risk aversion is handled in economic theory by weighting the large losses more heavily or, equivalently, 

by weighting large gains less heavily. The simplest approach, which is used often in net benefit analyses, 

is to assume the community is risk neutral, and the present expected value is computed. However, when it 

comes to the consequences of disruptive hazard events, it seems unlikely that communities will be risk 

neutral.

To account for risk preferences, it is necessary to measure those risk preferences. A number of widelyaccepted methods for measuring risk preferences exist [Mankiw 2011].

Behavioral Economics and Cognitive Bias. Expected utility maximization [Savage 1972] is a difficult 

problem and, typically, insufficient resources are available to use this approach. Of the several approaches 

available, the most widely accepted is the Heuristics and Biases method. It is based on the idea that 

people use standard shortcuts—heuristics—that work well. However, in cases where they do not work 

well, they will be biased. The biases are generally used to try and identify the heuristics.

There are a number of identified biases, some of which are relevant here. These include uncertainty, risk, 

overconfidence, and small probability events [Mankiw 2011].

Uncertainties. Uncertainties regarding estimates of expected damages and recovery times from hazard 

events fall into two categories. First, there are factors that cannot be known with certainty in advance,

such as the timing and magnitude of future hazard events. Second, there are parameters, such as costs,

that are in principal knowable, but are not currently known with certainty. For example, while the cost of

a particular project can be estimated, the level of uncertainty associated with the estimate can vary and 

will likely increase with the scope of the project.

Estimates of mitigation costs, recovery costs, and losses all have uncertainty. As plans for community 

resilience are developed and refined, the level of uncertainty may reduce.

Uncertainty for indirect costs, such as business interruption losses, may be quite significant. In cases 

where estimates have been made, such losses are often as large or larger than direct economic losses.

However, they are difficult to estimate, due to the lack of data from past events to support estimates.

17.6. References

Arup (2014) City Resilience Framework, April The Rockefeller Foundation and Ove Arup & Partners

International Limited, April, 

http://www.arup.com/~/media/Publications/Files/Publications/C/City_Resilience_Framework_pdf.ashx. 

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA 2014) Canterbury Wellbeing Index, June 2014, 

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Christchurch, New Zealand, http://cera.govt.nz/recoverystrategy/social/canterbury-wellbeing-index.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

245

Community & Regional Resilience Institute, Community Resilience Team (CARRI 2013) Building 

Resilience in America‘s Communities: Observations and Implications of the CRS Pilots, Community & 

Regional Resilience Institute (CARRI), Washington, DC, http://www.resilientus.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/CRS-Final-Report.pdf. 

Cutter, S.L. (2014) ―The Landscape of Resilience Measures,‖ Presentation at the Resilient America 

Roundtable Workshop on Measures of Community Resilience,

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_152239.pdf. Viewed 

January 25, 2015.

Cutter, S.L.; B.J. Boruff; and W.L. Shirley (2003) ―Social vulnerability to environmental hazards,‖ Social 

Science Quarterly, 84 (1):242-261.

Cutter, S.L.; C.G. Burton; C.T. Emrich (2010) ―Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline 

conditions,‖ Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7, Article 51, pp. 1–22.

Cutter, S.L.; K.D. Ash; and C.T. Emrich (2014) ―The geographies of community disaster resilience,‖

Global Environmental Change, 29:65-77.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2014) EPA Explores Interest in Developing Community 

Environmental Resilience Indicators and Indices, EPA Technical Brief, Community Environmental 

Resiliency Index (CERI) Workshop I, May 6-7.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2015) Hazus: FEMA‘s Methodology for Estimating 

Potential Losses from Disasters. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/resources/hazus. Viewed April 19, 2015. 

FEMA, Washington, DC.

Foxton, F. and R. Jones (2011) Social Capital Indicators Review, Office for National Statistics 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_233738.pdf. Viewed April 19, 2015.

Government Office for Science (2012) Reducing Risks of Future Disasters: Priorities for Decision 

Makers, Final Project Report – Foresight Project, London, England. 

Mankiw, G. (2011) Principles of Economics, Sixth Edition, Cengage Learning.

National Academies (2012a) Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative, Committee on Increasing 

National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters and Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public 

Policy. Viewed January 25, 2015.

National Academies (2012b) Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative, Committee on Increasing 

National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters and Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public 

Policy. Viewed January 25, 2015.

Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC 2013) The Oregon Resilience Plan: 

Reducing Risk and Improving Recovery for the Next Cascadia Earthquake and Tsunami, OSSPAC, 

Salem, OR. 

PPD-21 (2013) Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-21, The White House, February 12, 2013, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-criticalinfrastructure-security-and-resil.

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR 2009) The Resilient City: What San 

Francisco Needs from its Seismic Mitigation Policies, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research 

Association (SPUR), San Francisco, CA.

Sempier, T.T., D.L. Swann, R. Emmer, S.H. Sempier, and M. Schneider (2010) Coastal Community 

Resilience Index: A Community Self-Assessment, MAGSP-08-014, November, 

http://www.gulfofmexicoalliance.org/projects/files/83Community_Resilience_Index.pdf.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Community Resilience Metrics

246

Terrorism and Disaster Center at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (TDC 2012)

Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit (CART), University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR 2005) Hyogo Framework for Action 

2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, World Conference on 

Disaster Reduction, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, 

http://www.unisdr.org/files/1037_hyogoframeworkforactionenglish.pdf. 

The World Bank (2015) GINI index (World Bank estimate), The World Bank Group, 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI. Viewed January 15, 2015.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR 2012) Making Cities Resilient Report 2012: 

My City is Getting Ready! A Global Snapshot of How Local Governments Reduce Disaster Risk, Second 

Edition, October, The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). 

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR 2014) Disaster Resilience Scorecard for 

Cities, The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland.

Washington State Seismic Safety Committee Emergency Management Council (2012) Resilient 

Washington State: A Framework for Minimizing Loss and Improving Statewide Recovery after an 

Earthquake, Washington State Seismic Safety Committee Emergency Management Council, Olympia, 

WA.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Glossary

247

Glossary

List of Terms

Term Definition

Buildings Individual structures, including its equipment and contents, that house people and 

support social institutions.

Built Capital Buildings and infrastructure systems, including transportation, energy, water, 

wastewater, and communication and information systems.

Built Environment All buildings and infrastructure systems. Also referred to as built capital.

Business Continuity  The capability of an organization or business to continue delivery of products or 

services at acceptable predefined levels following a disruptive incident. [ISO 

22301, 2012].

 An ongoing process to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to identify the 

impacts of potential losses and maintain viable recovery strategies, recovery 

plans, and continuity of services [NFPA 1600, 2013].

Clusters A set of buildings and supporting infrastructure systems, not necessarily 

geographically co-located, that serve a common function such as housing, healthcare, 

retail, etc.

Communication and 

Information Systems

Equipment and systems that facilitate communication services, including Internet, 

cellular and phone services.

Community  In the NPG, the term  ̳community‘ refers to groups with common goals, values, 

or purposes (e.g., local businesses, neighborhood groups). 

 In this Guide, the term  ̳community‘ refers to a place designated by geographical 

boundaries that functions under the jurisdiction of a governance structure, such 

as a town, city, or county. It is within these places that people live, work, play, 

and build their futures.

Community Resilience  ―The ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and rapidly recover 

from disruption due to emergencies‖ [PPD-8, 2011].

 ―The ability to prepare for and adapt to changing conditions and to withstand and 

recover rapidly from disruptions. Resilience includes the ability to withstand and 

recover from deliberate attacks, accidents, or naturally occurring threats or 

incidents‖ [PPD-21, 2013].

Community Social 

Institutions

A complex, organized pattern of beliefs and behavior that meets basic individual, 

household, and community needs, including family/kinship, government, economy, 

health, education, community service organizations, religious and cultural groups 

(and other belief systems), and the media.

Critical Facilities Buildings that are intended to remain operational during hazard events and support 

functions and services needed during the short-term phase of recovery. These 

facilities are sometimes referred to as essential buildings.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Glossary

248

Term Definition

Critical Infrastructure ―Systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the 

incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact 

on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any 

combination of those matters‖ [PPD-21, 2013].

Dependency The reliance of physical and/or social systems on other physical and/or social 

systems to function or provide services.

Disaster A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society causing 

widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses which exceed the 

ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources [National 

Science and Technology Council, 2005].

Disruption The consequences of a hazard event that results in loss of services or functions in a 

community.

Emergency Responders Official and volunteer workers during the short-term phase of recovery, also referred 

to as the response phase.

Energy Systems Electric power, liquid fuel, and natural gas generation, transmission, and distribution.

Financial Capital Financial savings, income, investments, and available credit.

Function The role or purpose of a particular institution (e.g., education, finance, healthcare) 

within a community.

Functionality Capability of serving the intended function, where the built environment provides an 

operational level that allows a social institution to provide services.

General Plan A document designed to guide the future actions of a community, with long-range 

goals and objectives for the local government, including land development, 

expenditure of public funds, tax policy (tax incentives), cooperative efforts, and other 

issues of interest (such as farmland preservation, or the rehabilitation of older

neighborhoods areas). Also referred to as a comprehensive plan, master plan, or land 

use plan [Extension, 2015]. 

Governance Structures The governing body of a community. 

Hazard A potential threat or an incident, natural or human-caused, that warrants action to 

protect life, property, the environment, and public health or safety, and to minimize 

disruptions of government, social, or economic activities [PPD-21 2013]. 

Hazard Event The occurrence of a hazard.

Hazard Impact The quantification of the community consequences of a hazard through affected area 

and level of disruption measures.

Hazard Level The quantification of the size, magnitude, or intensity of a hazard, such as wind 

speed, seismic ground acceleration, flood elevation, etc.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Glossary

249

Term Definition

Human Caused 

Disaster

A hazard event caused by human error or a deliberate action including a terrorist 

activity. 

Implementation 

Strategies

A planned set of actions that taken together will help meet a goal. To achieve 

community resilience, a set of solutions may include land use planning, codes and 

standards for new construction, and specific retrofit requirements. 

Infrastructure System Physical networks, systems, and structures that make up transportation, energy, 

communications, water and wastewater, and other systems that support the 

functionality of community social institutions. 

Life Safety Life safety in the built environment refers to buildings and other structures designed 

to protect and evacuate populations in emergencies and during hazard events.

Mitigation Activities and actions taken to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the 

impact of hazard events.

Performance Goals Metrics or specific objectives that define successful performance. For the built 

environment, performance goals include objectives related to desirable features, such 

as occupant protection or time for repairs and return to function. 

Redundancy The use of multiple critical components in a system to increase reliability of system 

performance and function, particularly when one of the multiple components is 

damaged.

Retrofitting Improving the expected performance of existing buildings and infrastructure systems 

through remedial repairs and measures that often improve system resistance or 

strength. 

Robustness The ability of a structure or system to continue operating or functioning under a 

variety of demands or conditions.

Shelter-in-place Safely remaining in a building, e.g., a residence, during or after a hazard event. 

Social Capital Broadly the term refers to ―social networks, the reciprocities that arise from them, 

and the value of these for achieving mutual goals‖ [Schuller, Baron, and Field 2000]. 

Stakeholders All parties that have an interest or concern in an operation, enterprise, or undertaking. 

Technological Hazard A human-caused event due to an accident or human error.

Transportation 

Systems

Buildings, structures, and networks that move people and goods, including roads, 

bridges, rail systems, airports, coastal or riverine ports, and trucking hubs.

Vulnerable populations Groups of individuals within a community whose needs may go unmet before or after 

a disaster event, including the elderly, people living in poverty, racial and ethnic 

minority groups, people with disabilities, and those suffering from chronic illness. 

Additional social vulnerabilities can include renters, students, single-parent families, 

small business owners, culturally diverse groups, and historic neighborhoods.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Glossary

250

Term Definition

Wastewater Systems Systems that collect wastewater, move it through a system of pipelines and pump 

stations to treatment plants and discharge into a receiving water.

Water Systems Systems that are supplied by either surface or ground water, treat and store the water, 

and move it to the end user through a system of pipelines.

Whole Community The National Preparedness Goal defines  ̳whole community‘ for preparedness efforts 

to strengthen the security and resiliency of the United States and includes individuals, 

communities, the private and nonprofit sectors, faith-based organizations, and 

Federal, state, and local governments.

Workforce People who provide labor to one or more of the community social, business, industry, 

and economic institutions. 
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Glossary

251

List of Acronyms

Acronym Definition

100RC 100 Resilient Cities

AAR After Action Report

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AC Advisory Circular

ACI American Concrete Institute

AEP Airport Emergency Plan

AES Automatic Extinguishing System

AIA American Institute of Architects

AISC American Institute of Steel Construction

ALA American Lifelines Association

ANSI American National Standards Institute

APA American Planning Association

APPA American Public Power Association

AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

ATC Applied Technology Council

AWWA American Water Works Association

BART Bay Area Rapid Transit

BPS Bulk Power System

BRIC Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities

BSI British Standards Institute

CAIDI Customer Average Interruption Duration Index
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Glossary

252

Acronym Definition

CAIFI Customer Average Interruption Duration Index

CaLEAP California Energy Assurance Planning

CAMV Covered Aerial Medium Voltage

CARRI Community and Regional Resilience Institute

CART Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit

CATV Cable Television

CCSF City and County of San Francisco

CEI Critical Energy Infrastructure

CIP Capital Improvement Plan

CHP Combined Heat and Power

CSA Community Service Area

COLTs Cell on Light Trucks

CPG Comprehensive Preparedness Guide

CRF Community Resilience Framework

CRI Coastal Community Resilience Index

CRS Community Rating System

CSO Community Service Organization

CSRIC Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council

DLC RT Digital Loop Carrier Remote Terminal

DLR Dynamic Line Rating

DOB Department of Buildings

DOC Department of Commerce 

DoD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOGAMI Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Glossary

253

Acronym Definition

DOT Department of Transportation

DR Demand Response

DSM Demand Side Management

EA Environmental Assessment

EAS Emergency Alert System

EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District

EE Energy Efficiency

EF Enhanced Fujita (scale)

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIM Energy Imbalance Markets

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMS Emergency Medical Services

EOC Emergency Operations Center

EOP Executive Office of the President

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPFAT Emergency Power Facility Assessment Tool

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

ERO Electric Reliability Organization

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Glossary

254

Acronym Definition

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GETS Government Emergency Telecommunications Service

GIS Geographic Information System

GTAA Greater Toronto Airports Authority

HAZMAT Hazardous Materials

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

IA Iowa

IBC International Building Code

IBHS Institute for Business and Home Safety

ICC International Code Council

ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability

IEBC International Existing Building Code

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IOU Investor-Owned Utility

IPAWS Integrated Public Alert and Warning System

IPP Independent Power Producer

IRC International Residential Code

ISO International Organization for Standardization

ISP Internet Service Provider

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems

IWUIC International Wildland-Urban Interface Code

IXP Internet Exchange Points

LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

LAWA Los Angeles World Airports
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Glossary

255

Acronym Definition

LRFD Load Factor and Resistance Design

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 Century Act

MARAD United States Maritime Administration

MCEER Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Reduction

MSC Mobile Switching Center

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MRE Manual for Railway Engineering

NAPSR National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives

NARUC National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners

NASEO National Association of State Energy Officials

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NDRF National Disaster Recovery Framework

NEBS Network Equipment Building Standards

NEC National Electric Code

NEPA National Environmental Protection Act

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation

NESC National Electric Safety Code

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

NGO Nongovernment Organization

NHSRC National Homeland Security Research Center 

NIBS National Institute of Building Sciences

NIPP National Infrastructure Protection Plan

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Glossary

256

Acronym Definition

NPG National Preparedness Goal

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

NWS National Weather Service

NYCC New York Panel on Climate Change

NYCDEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection

NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

OCDI Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan

OSSPAC Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission

PANYNJ Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

PARRE Program for Risk and Resiliency Evaluation

PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation

PEP Private Entry Point

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PIANC World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure

PIEVC Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee

PMU Phasor Measurement Unit

POTS Plain Old Telephone Service

PPD-8 Presidential Policy Directive 8

PPD-21 Presidential Policy Directive 21

PSAP Public-Safety Answering Point

PSEG Public Service Enterprise Group

PV Photovoltaic

ROW Right of Way

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Glossary

257

Acronym Definition

RUS Rural Utilities Service

SAFETEA-LU Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act

SAIDI System Average Interruption Duration Index

SAIFI System Average Interruption Frequency Index

SCADA Supervisory Control Data Acquisition

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SEI Structural Engineering Institute

SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

SGIP Smart Grid Interoperability Panel

SLOSH Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes

SLR Sea Level Rise

SPUR San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association

SSO Standards Setting Organizations

THIRA Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

TIA Telecommunications Industry Association

TRB Transportation Research Board

TSP Telecommunications Service Priority

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

UFC United Facilities Criteria

UN United Nations

UNIDSR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply

URI Utility Resilience Index

US United States

USA United States of America
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems - Volume II 

Glossary

258

Acronym Definition

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USGC United States Coast Guard

VOAD Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster

VSAT Vulnerability Self-Assessment Tool

WARN Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network

WEA Wireless Emergency Alerts

WHEAT Water Health and Economic Analysis Tool

WPS Wireless Priority Service

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

References

eXtension (2015) The Purpose of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, eXtension Foundation, 

Centreville, AL, http://www.extension.org/pages/26677/the-purpose-of-the-comprehensive-landuse-plan#.VTAtaGXD9aQ. 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO 2012) Societal security - Business continuity 

management systems – Requirements, ISO 22301:2012, International Organization for Standardization, 

Geneva, Switzerland.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 2013) NFPA 1600: Standard on Disaster/Emergency 

Management and Business Continuity Programs, 2013 Edition, National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA), Quincy, MA.

National Science and Technology Council (2005) Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction – A Report of 

the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, National Science and Technology Council, Executive Office of 

the President, Washington, DC.

PPD-21 (2013) Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-21, The White House, February 12, 2013, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-criticalinfrastructure-security-and-resil.

PPD-8 (2011) Presidential Policy Directive, PPD-8 – National Preparedness, The White House, March 

30, 2011, http://www.dhs.gov/presidential-policy-directive-8-national-preparedness.

Schuller, T.; S. Baron; and J. Field (2000) ―Social Capital: A Review and Critique.‖ Social Capital: 

Critical Perspectives, edited by Stephen Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, Oxford: Oxford University 

Press, pp. 1-38.