NIST GCR 15-993

Community Resilience Workshop 

February 18-19, 2015

David R. Mizzen

Applied Research Associates, Inc.

This publication is available free of charge from: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.15-993
NIST GCR 15-993

Community Resilience Workshop

February 18-19, 2015

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Commerce

Operating Unit 

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 

By

David R. Mizzen

Applied Research Associates, Inc.

This publication is available free of charge from: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.15-993

July 2015

U.S. Department of Commerce

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

i

Acknowledgements

The Community Resilience Workshop, held at the Hilton San Diego/Del Mar on February 18-19, 2015,

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

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

individuals. The author of this document would like to express his gratitude to the following individuals, 

who made significant contributions to the planning, organization, and execution of a successful 

workshop:

 Tonia Bohnen, Advanced Innovations and Marketing, LLC 

 Stephen Cauffman, NIST

 Erica Kuligowski, NIST

 Therese McAllister, NIST

 Nancy McNabb, NIST

The author is also grateful to the writing team and additional NIST staff who assisted in developing

breakout sessions, authoring chapters of the 75% draft of the Framework, and collecting input from 

stakeholders during breakout sessions:

 Erin Ashley, AECOM

 Don Ballantyne, Ballantyne Consulting, LLC

 David Butry, NIST

 Joseph Englot, HNTB

 Stanley Gilberty, NIST

 Erich Gunther, EnerNex, LLC

 Howard Harary, NIST

 Matthew Heyman, Impressa Management Solutions, LLC

 Frank Lavelle, Applied Research Associates, Inc.

 Stuart McCafferty, GridIntellect, LLC

 Kevin Morley, American Water Works Association

 Robert Pekelnicky, Degenkolb Engineers

 Chris Poland, Consulting Engineer

 Liesel Ritchie, University of Colorado at Boulder

 Adrienne Sheldon, AECOM

 Scott Tezak, TRC Solutions

 Peter Vickery, Applied Research Associates, Inc.

 Jay Wilson, Clackamas County, Oregon

 Kent Yu, SEFT Consulting Group

 Theodore Zoli, HNTB

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

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

and professionalism:

 Sabine Brueske, Energetics Incorporated

 Kate Finnerty, Energetics Incorporated

 Aaron Fisher, Energetics Incorporated

 Chris Kelley, Energetics Incorporated

 Tommi Makila, Energetics Incorporated

 Shawna McQueen, Energetics Incorporated
Community Resilience Workshop

Acknowledgements

ii

 Leslie Nichols, Energetics Incorporated

 Ann Terranova, AECOM

 Walter Zalis, Energetics Incorporated

The workshop also benefitted from interesting guest speakers. We wish to thank these individuals who 

shared their insight with attendees:

 Laurie Johnson, Laurie Johnson Consulting

 Greg Guibert, City of Boulder, CO

 Emily Steinhilber, Old Dominion University

 Lucile Jones, US Geological Survey

 Patrick Otellini, City of San Francisco, CA

Most importantly, the author wishes to thank the participants who attended the workshop and provided 

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

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

workshops. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Table of Contents

iii

Community Resilience Workshop

Hilton San Diego/Del Mar

Del Mar, CA

February 18-19, 2015

Meeting Summary

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ i

Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... iii

List of Acronyms.......................................................................................................................... iv

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................6

2. Opening Session – February 18, 2015 ..............................................................................8

3. Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015..................................10

4. Afternoon General Session – February 18, 2015...........................................................22

5. Morning General Session – February 19, 2015.............................................................25

6. Breakout Session #1: Chapter 2 of Framework – Social Aspects of Resilience .........29

7. Breakout Session #2: Framework Chapter 3 – Community Resilience......................33

8. Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapter 5 – Buildings............................................37

9. Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 6 – Transportation Systems ...................40

10. Breakout Session #5: Framework Chapter 7 – Power and Energy Systems..............46

11. Breakout Session #6: Framework Chapter 8 – Communication and 

Information Systems........................................................................................................53

12. Breakout Session #7: Framework Chapter 9 – Water and Wastewater 

Systems..............................................................................................................................57

13. Breakout Session #8: Framework Chapter 10 – Resilience Metrics...........................61

14. Breakout Session #9: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel .........................................64

15. Closing General Session ..................................................................................................74
Community Resilience Workshop

List of Acronyms

iv

List of Acronyms

Acronym Definition

100RC 100 Resilient Cities

AAR After Action Report

ACI American Concrete Institute

AIA American Institute of Architects

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

AWWA American Water Works Association

BDC Bassetlaw District Council

BIA Business Impact Analysis

BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association

BRIC Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities

CaLEAP California Energy Assurance Planning

CARRI Community and Regional Resilience Institute

CART Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit

CIP Capital Improvement Plan

COLTs Cell on Light Trucks

CRI Coastal Community Resilience Index

CRS Community Rating System

CSO Community Service Organization

D2D Device To Device

DOC EDA Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

DRSP Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

DRSPCC Disaster Resilience Standards Panel Coordinating Committee

EOC Emergency Operations Center

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EQ Earthquake

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GETS Government Emergency Telecommunications Service

HAZMAT Hazardous Materials

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

IA Iowa

ICC International Code Council

ISAC Information Sharing and Analysis Centers

ISO International Organization for Standardization

LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design

LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee

LLC Limited Liability Company

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 Century Act

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

NACO National Association of Counties

NAHB National Association of Home Builders

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASEO National Association of State Energy Officials

NCC National Communications Center for Communications

NCCIC National Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Center

NDRF National Disaster Recovery Framework

NEMA National Electric Manufacturers Association

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NGA National Governors Association

NHMP Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan

NIBS National Institute of Building Sciences
Community Resilience Workshop

List of Acronyms

v

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

ODU Old Dominion University

OEWD Office of Economic and Workforce Development

PII Personally Identifiable Information

PPD-21 Presidential Policy Directive 21

PSAP Public-Safety Answering Point

PTSD Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

RKB Resilience Knowledge Base

ROI Return on Investment

SCADA Supervisory Control Data Acquisition

SPUR San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association

STP Surface Transportation Program

TSP Telecommunications Service Priority

TTE Transport, Telecommunications and Energy

UN United Nations

UNIDSR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

US United States

USA United States of America

WPS Wireless Priority Service
Community Resilience Workshop

Introduction

6

1. Introduction

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

conditions and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions.”1 Many communities have developed 

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

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

vulnerabilities, improving performance of the built environment during a disaster event, and minimizing 

recovery times and economic losses.

Buildings and infrastructure systems (transportation, water, wastewater, energy and communications) 

play an important role in any community. Historically, buildings and infrastructure systems have been 

designed and treated as separate entities without much consideration for one another. However, recent 

events (e.g., Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Katrina, and the Joplin Tornado) show that dependencies 

between buildings and infrastructure systems play a huge role in a community’s ability to recover in both 

the short and long-term. 

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

country to inform development of a comprehensive, community-based Disaster Resilience Framework. 

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

developing the Framework. Version 1.0 of the Disaster Resilience Framework will provide a general 

Framework of codes, standards, available tools, and best practices to regional, state, local, and tribal 

authorities that they can use to plan for and support community resilience. NIST will convene a Disaster 

Resilience Standards Panel (DRSP) in 2015 to expand on and refine Version 1.0 of the Framework. The 

DRSP will also develop Model Resilience Guidelines to catalogue and disseminate best practices and the 

state-of-the-art in resilience. 

NIST kicked off Framework development at the first stakeholder workshop, held at the NIST 

Gaithersburg, MD Campus, on April 27, 2014. NIST held the second workshop at the Stevens Institute of 

Technology in Hoboken, NJ on July 30, 2014. The third workshop occurred at the NCED Conference 

Center and Hotel in Norman, OK on October 27-28, 2014. The fourth workshop, summarized in this 

document, was held at the Hilton San Diego/Del Mar in Del Mar, CA. Between the third and fourth

workshops, the original authors and new NIST Disaster Resilience Fellows collaborated to develop a 75% 

draft of the Disaster Resilience Framework, incorporating stakeholder input from previous workshops. 

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

This document summarizes content from the February 18-19 NIST Community Resilience Workshop and

stakeholder input. The meeting agenda appears in Figure 1. 

 

1

PPD-21 (2013) Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-21, The White House, February 12, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-critical-infrastructure-security-and-resil
Community Resilience Workshop

Introduction

7

Figure 1. Agenda for February 18-19th NIST Community Resilience Workshop
Community Resilience Workshop

Opening Session – February 18, 2015

8

2. Opening Session – February 18, 2015

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

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

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

where this resilience program is housed.

Summary of Dr. Harary’s Remarks

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

Southern California is an appropriate location for our fourth stakeholder workshop on Community 

Resilience because it is vulnerable to a variety of hazard types. Last year (2014), wildfires impacted 

Southern California and Washington, and Napa was impacted by an earthquake. Overall, there were 45 

major disaster declarations last year, marking the first year since 2002 with fewer than 50 disaster 

declarations. 

However, since 2002, the country has been affected by seven of the ten most costly disasters in history, 

including Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. With climate change becoming a factor, it is anticipated that 

coastal flooding, droughts, and more intense storms will become more prevalent. Therefore, achieving 

disaster resilience should be a top priority for the nation, states, businesses, citizens, and communities.

Communities, in particular, are impacted by disasters. Communities have a responsibility to become more 

proactive to better withstand hazard events such that they do not become disaster events. 

To provide guidance to communities, NIST has undertaken this effort to develop a Disaster Resilience 

Framework. Our goal is to reduce the impacts of hazard events on our society and economy by enhancing 

the resilience of buildings and infrastructure systems in communities. To achieve this, we need to start

thinking about the dependencies between infrastructure systems and buildings. We also need to recognize 

that the built environment supports the economic and social dimensions of a community.

Providing guidance to communities to make resilience an integral part of their long-term planning will 

help limit disruption in future hazard events, make communities more attractive places to live, and make 

them more desirable to businesses and industry.

The Federal Government has many programs related to resilience. For example, the Department of 

Commerce made resilience a part of its strategic plan. The NIST resilience program contributes to efforts 

by multiple government agencies to prepare the nation for the effects of climate change, as documented in 

the President’s Action Plan.2

Framework development to date has benefitted greatly from input collected at previous workshops. Since 

our last workshop (October 2014), we added nine Disaster Resilience Fellows to our team. These fellows

have contributed substantially to Framework development. This is the last workshop where we will 

collect and integrate input into the complete draft for public comment to be released in April. However, 

our stakeholder engagement efforts will continue through formation of the Disaster Resilience Standards 

Panel (DRSP), which will be composed of a broad cross-section of stakeholders. The DRSP will continue 

to advance the Framework, which will be a living document, and develop Model Resilience Guidelines to 

support Framework implementation. 

NIST has also begun a research effort to develop tools to measure resilience at the community level. 

These tools will account for the interconnected nature of buildings, infrastructure systems, and the social 

systems they support. Furthermore, the NIST Applied Economics Office is working on an economicbased, decision-support tool to aid in decision-making with the Framework.

Before introducing the 75% draft of the Framework, Mr. Cauffman provided an overview of NIST’s

Community Resilience Program.

 

2 Executive Office of the President, The White House. The President’s Climate Action Plan. June 2013. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Opening Session – February 18, 2015

9

Summary of Mr. Cauffman’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Natural and human-caused disasters produce average losses of $57B annually. However, large events 

generate higher losses by themselves. For example, Hurricane Sandy alone generated over $65B in losses. 

Our response and rebuilding approach is impractical for dealing with natural disasters. Current planning 

does not account for the interconnected nature of buildings and infrastructure systems, or the social 

institutions they support. Furthermore, plans frequently neglect climate change. 

From 2000 to 2011 there were between 45 and 81 Presidential Disaster Declarations annually. This slide 

[slide 3] shows our country is exposed to a wide variety of hazard types. Almost all regions of the country 

have had at least one Presidential Disaster Declaration. 

For this Framework, we use the Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21) definition of resilience:

“resilience” means the ability to prepare for and adapt to changing conditions and withstand and recover 

rapidly from disruptions. Community resilience includes implementing measures to ensure the 

community recovers to normal in a reasonably short timeframe. 

A community’s social needs drive the functional requirements of buildings and infrastructure systems 

[slide 5]. Since buildings and infrastructure systems are often damaged by hazard events, the 

community’s social and economic sectors are also impacted. A number of hazards can impact the built 

environment, including natural hazards, human-caused hazards, degradation of infrastructure, and climate 

change [slide 6]. Although the Framework does not explicitly address all these factors (e.g., degradation 

and climate change), communities should recognize these considerations. To counteract these hazards, we 

can establish performance goals and take steps to limit the recovery time of our built environment through 

mitigation, response, and recovery strategies. 

Two aspects of the Framework that are essential to consider when planning for resilience are functionality 

and dependencies. As previously discussed, buildings and infrastructure system functionality is essential 

to enable social systems to provide continued service. Thus, to become resilient, communities need to 

consider dependencies between buildings and infrastructure systems, as well as the relationship of 

individuals and organizations with the built environment. 

In the Framework we provide three hazard levels: Routine, Expected (i.e., design level), and Extreme. 

We define the proposed performance goals in terms of time to recover functionality of buildings and 

infrastructure systems after a hazard event. Performance goals are defined in terms of specific timeframes,

categorized as short-term (days), intermediate (weeks), and long-term (months). 

This is our fourth stakeholder workshop. Our first workshop (April 2014 at the NIST Gaithersburg, MD 

campus) served as a kick-off meeting. At the second meeting (Hoboken, NJ, July 2014) we collected 

feedback on the 25% draft of the Framework, which was posted to the NIST website about one week 

before the workshop. At the third workshop (Norman, OK, October 2014) we collected input on the 50% 

draft. We will release the 100% draft for public comment at the April 27, 2015 workshop at Texas 

Southern University in Houston, TX. 

During this workshop, we will collect feedback on the 75% draft of the Framework. Nine breakout 

sessions will discuss the chapters for Social Aspects of Resilience, Community Resilience, Buildings, 

Transportation Systems, Power and Energy Systems, Communication Systems, Water and Wastewater 

Systems, and Resilience Metrics. A breakout session will also discuss the Disaster Resilience Standards 

Panel and develop its charter. Our goals are to acquire input from stakeholders for inclusion in the 100% 

draft, engage you as stakeholders to provide continued input, and develop interest for membership in the 

DRSP.

You may contact me via email (stephan.cauffman@nist.gov or resilience@nist.gov) or phone (301-975-

6051). We will also update our website regularly. The website provides a lot of useful information for this 

program (http://www.nist.gov/el/building_materials/resilience/).
Community Resilience Workshop

Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015

10

3. Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015

After the overview of the NIST Community Resilience Program, chapter leads discussed the high level 

chapters of the 75% draft Framework:

 Dr. Therese McAllister, NIST – Executive Summary and Chapter 1: Introduction

 Dr. Erica Kuligowski, NIST – Chapter 2: The Social Context for Community Resilience

 Mr. Chris Poland, Consulting Engineer – Chapter 3: Community Disaster Resilience for the Built 

Environment

 Dr. Kent Yu, SEFT Consulting Group – Chapter 4: Dependencies and Cascading Effects

 Dr. Frank Lavelle, Applied Research Associates – Chapter 10: Community Resilience Metrics

Summary of Dr. McAllister’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Communities have a large number of issues, polices, and regulations to address, each of which requires 

time and resources to resolve. Unfortunately, low probability-high consequence hazard events are often a 

low priority unless a community has recently been impacted by such an event. Resilience planning 

enables communities to recover rapidly after a hazard event and improve the built environment.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa is a good example of a community that implemented long-term planning to become 

more resilient. Cedar Rapids is vulnerable to multiple hazards, including flooding and tornadoes. Because 

the town is downstream from a Nuclear Power Plant, they developed evacuation plans in case a hazard 

event occurred at the plant. When Cedar Rapids experienced 31 feet of flooding in 2008, above the 500-

year flood level, they used their evacuation plan to move all residents to safety, ensuring no loss of life. 

However, the community took another step forward after the flood and developed a recovery and 

reinvestment plan. The plan’s three main focus areas were: 1) Improve flood protection; 2) Reinvest in 

housing, neighborhoods, and businesses to make the area more attractive; 3) Rebuild better such that 

construction is flood resistant and sustainable.

Community resilience relies on a governance structure for direction and services, and a built environment 

that supports the social institutions. Community resilience is a long-term goal and planning process. 

However, emergency and interim solutions can be implemented if a hazard event occurs tomorrow. To 

achieve community resilience, we need to envision a better outcome, understand the community, develop 

a resilience plan, and initiate implementation of the plan.

Communities have many types of capital (i.e., financial, built, political, social, human, cultural, and 

natural).

3 Our Framework focuses on the built capital of communities such that it supports other capitals.

For this Framework, the built environment includes buildings, facilities, and physical infrastructure for 

power, communication, transportation, water, and wastewater systems. The Framework addresses the 

performance of these systems and how they support the community’s social functions. Communities can 

improve the performance of their buildings and infrastructure systems by taking action both before and 

after a hazard event. Before an event occurs, communities act to improve performance through planning, 

preparedness, mitigation, design, and construction. Post-disaster, communities can use emergency 

response, reconstruction, and relocation to recover functionality.

Many other national programs focus on resilience. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

mitigation plans are developed by communities to obtain grants for the purpose of mitigating against 

hazard events. FEMA develop the National Preparedness Goal in 2011, which identified roles and 

 

3

Flora, C.B, M. Emery, S. Fey, C. Bregendahl (2008) Community Capitals: A Tool for Evaluating Strategic Interventions and 

Projects. Pp. 1186-1187 in Goreham ed., Encyclopedia of Rural America: The Land and People. Millerton, N.Y.: Grey House 

Publishing.
Community Resilience Workshop

Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015

11

responsibilities of local, state, and federal programs through frameworks for prevention, protection, 

mitigation, response, and recovery.4 The NIST Disaster Resilience Framework prioritizes development 

and recovery of the built environment such that it supports the community’s social needs. 

The concept of resilience [slide 8] is to maintain acceptable levels of functionality during and after 

disruptive events, and recovery full functionality within a reasonable timeframe. Making improvements to 

buildings and infrastructure systems ahead of a hazard event reduces loss of functionality after an event, 

allowing more rapid recovery. We also encourage building to a higher standard such that future events do 

not cause the same level of disruption.

Achieving resilience does not have to be expensive. Plans can be completed and implemented over a long 

time period to help allocate resources appropriately. Each community is different and will, thus, have its 

own challenges, solutions, and plans. Our Framework defines steps to help communities develop their 

own resilience plans: 1) Establish a Core Resilience Team; 2) Characterize the Social Community; 3) 

Characterize the Built Community; 4) Develop Community Resilience Plan; 5) Implement NonConstruction Strategies; 6) Implement Construction Strategies. 

In the breakout groups, we would like to hear your ideas on how to improve the Executive Summary. We 

will work to convey a clear understanding of the Framework goals, benefits of its use, and actions 

required to achieve resilience. We would also like to hear how to encourage your community to use the 

Framework.

Summary of Dr. Kuligowski’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Chapter 2 of the Framework discusses the social context for community resilience. The social and 

economic functions of a community drive the requirements for performance of the built environment. 

Hazard events can damage the built environment, disrupting social and economic functions within the 

community. Therefore, it is important to understand the social aspects of a community as plans are made 

for the built environment.

Disaster resilience planning occurs at many different levels (national, regional, state, community, 

neighborhood, and individual/family). Our Framework focuses on what can be done at the community 

level [slide 3]. In Chapter 2, we describe social needs using Maslow’s hierarchy.5 The four stages are 

survival (i.e., the most basic needs such as food, water, and shelter), safety and security (e.g., stability, 

employment, and health), belonging (e.g., family, friends, neighborhood), and growth and achievement. 

Social institutions vary by community. Social institutions that commonly exist in communities include 

family and kinship, economic, government, healthcare, education, Community Service Organizations 

(CSOs) religious/other belief systems, and media. Communities should: 1) Understand which social 

institutions are present; 2) Understand the social institutions’ functions; and 3) Understand what is needed 

for them to function. 

For example, healthcare serves communities in several ways (e.g., treatment for injuries and illness, jobs 

for workers, functioning information systems, etc.). Communities have different types of health services 

that meet the needs of survival and safety & security from Maslow’s Hierarchy. 

Similarly, CSOs also serve communities in multiple ways (e.g., assisting people in meeting basic needs, 

providing emotional & mental health support, and enhancing the quality of life). There are also many 

different types of CSOs (e.g., civic, social and recreational clubs, senior citizen associations, and youth 

programs). CSOs are very important to consider because they help communities meet all four of the needs 

discussed in Maslow’s Hierarchy. 

 

4 NPG (2015) National Preparedness Goal, FEMA, February 6, 2015, https://www.fema.gov/national-preparedness-goal.

5 Maslow, A.H. 1943. A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review 50 (4) 370–96.
Community Resilience Workshop

Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015

12

As previously discussed, the social aspects of a community depend on the performance of the built 

environment. However, social institutions also depend on one another. For example, the government 

depends on the functionality of the economic sector to collect taxes (e.g., sales taxes). Family/kinship 

depends on a number of social institutions (e.g., healthcare, education, economic, government, media) 

because these institutions supply jobs so people can provide security for their families. 

To help identify the needs of the built environment, community members need to first understand their 

community by determining its needs and identifying the social institutions (the services they provide, the 

needs [of Maslow’s Hierarchy] they meet, and how they rely on one another). Once it identifies the needs 

of the social institutions, the community can link those needs to the built environment. As an example, 

Chapter 2 contains example tables [slides 10-11] to show example links between the built environment 

and the social institutions. Communities can use these tables to document the purpose the infrastructure 

systems serve to a given social institution [slide 10], and how the infrastructure system meets that purpose

[slide 11].

Many other considerations are also important for communities during planning. Social vulnerabilities, 

learning from other communities, and engaging with both community decision-makers and those key to 

implementing the Framework are all important in planning for communities to become more resilient. 

In the breakout sessions, we would like feedback from participants on the organization of Chapter 2, the 

social institutions and their function(s), dependencies between the social institutions, links to the built 

environment, and examples from communities that have successfully set priorities and engaged the public 

in their planning processes.

Summary of Mr. Poland’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Chapter 3 outlines the process that can be used by communities to incorporate resilience into their longterm planning. References to individual buildings in the chapter are to structures, including their 

equipment and contents that house people and support the social institutions. We define building clusters 

as “groups of buildings that serve a common function, such as housing, healthcare, retail, etc.”

Infrastructure systems are “physical networks, systems and structures that support community social 

institutions including transportation, energy, communications, water, and wastewater.”

In terms of recovery, communities should think about the time required to restore the functionality of 

buildings and infrastructure systems. That is, how quickly do we need to restore functionality of a 

building cluster and its supporting infrastructure systems. The National Disaster Recovery Framework

(NDRF) defines three timeframes for recovery [slide 3] that we use to categorize our recovery times in 

three phases: short, intermediate, and long-term. 6

In the short-term the community’s focus is likely on making sure it is secure and stable, performing 

rescue operations, and clearing transportations routes. To achieve this, building clusters, such as critical 

facilities, emergency housing and their related infrastructure systems, need to be functional. In the 

intermediate-term, focus shifts to restoring neighborhoods and meeting social needs. Communities need 

to ensure many building clusters (e.g., housing, healthcare, main street, schools, churches, and related 

infrastructure systems) are functional. In the long-term, the goal of communities should be to achieve 

social and economic recovery. To achieve this, building clusters for commercial and industrial businesses, 

and supporting infrastructure systems need to be functional. 

The Framework discusses a process to plan for resilience [slide 5]. First, communities establish their 

performance goals regardless of the type of event. Then, communities begin to look at the hazards and the 

 

6

FEMA (2013). National Disaster Recovery Framework. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC.
Community Resilience Workshop

Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015

13

performance anticipated for those hazards. Specifically, a community should identify its prevailing 

hazards, define their building and system clusters, and select a hazard type, level, and intensity. For a 

specific hazard type and event, the community determines the anticipated performance of building 

clusters and infrastructure systems using the existing conditions and completes a summary matrix to 

understand the dependencies between the systems at a higher-level. The community can then repeat this 

process for each hazard level and type, as necessary, before developing and implementing strategies to 

make its buildings and infrastructure more resilient.

Every community is different and must identify the hazards it faces, whether wind, earthquake, flood, fire, 

snow, rain, or human-caused events. The Framework defines three levels of hazard: 1) Routine (events 

that occur frequently); 2) Expected (design level used for buildings); and 3) Extreme (maximum 

considered possible). The hazard intensity includes the anticipated affected area (local, community, or 

regional) and disruption level (minor, moderate, or severe). The affected area and disruption level are 

important because they help a community understand where it can and cannot obtain mutual aid and 

additional resources.

Buildings are not designed with functionality in mind. When evaluating the performance of buildings in 

terms of functionality, we discuss four categories: 1) Operational; 2) Safe and usable during repair; 3) 

Safe, but not usable; and 4) Collapse. As previously discussed, we can think about recovery in three 

phases: 1) short (days); 2) intermediate (weeks); and 3) long-term (months). 

In the Framework, we define performance goals as 30%, 60%, and 90%. The goals indicate the 

percentage of cluster functionality required to initiate assigned activities (30%), initiate usual operations

(60%), and operate at normal capacity (90%).

For infrastructure systems, we define three levels of functionality: I) 90% service provided within days, 

100% within weeks; II) 90% service within weeks and 100% within months; III) 90% service within 

months and 100% within years. Again the percentage available (i.e., performance goals) indicates the 

operational functionality of the infrastructure system.

Using the Centerville example in the Framework, we complete the performance goals for each building 

cluster and infrastructure system. We then present results in a summary matrix [slide 10]. For a routine 

event, with a localized affected area, and minor disruption, the differences between the goals (90% boxes)

and anticipated performance (Xs) are small [slide 10]. For the expected event with “community” selected 

as the affected area and a moderate disruption level, differences between the goals and anticipated 

performance become larger [slide 11]. These large gaps indicate a lot of room for improvement, 

particularly for buildings, water, and wastewater. For the extreme event, where the affected area would be 

regional and the disruption level is severe, gaps between the goals and anticipated performance remain 

large [slide 12]. This indicates that recovery planning and strategies should be considered to help reduce 

recovery time when planning for this type of event. 

In the breakout session, we would like input on the pathway to resilience process we discussed to ensure 

it is complete and feasible. Furthermore, we would like to hear about experiences where similar plans 

have been developed and implemented. And finally, we would like to know how you see resilience 

strategies being integrated into existing community planning efforts.

Summary of Dr. Yu’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Communities should consider dependencies between buildings and infrastructure systems and the 

potential for cascading effects when developing resilience plans. Dependencies between physical systems 

add another dimension of complexity to disaster recovery. To restore water service, liquid fuel supply, 

and other important services, you need electric power. However, to restore electric power, repair crews 

need access to roads. And to use those roads, repair crews need access to liquid fuel.
Community Resilience Workshop

Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015

14

Understanding dependencies within an infrastructure system (internal dependencies) and between systems

(external dependencies), as seen in the 2003 Northeast blackout, is important in planning. Within the 

electric power system (internal dependency), an electricity generating plant went offline during a period 

of high demand. The loss of the generating plant put greater strain on nearby high-voltage power lines, 

which caused the first lines to come into contact with overgrown trees and trip relays. Unfortunately, a 

bug in the software that alerted the operators delayed the operators’ response to address failures by over 

an hour. Consequently, load transferred to other transmission lines, causing more trip relays. More than 

200 power plants were forced to shut down because the transmission grid was down, ultimately leading to 

a blackout that impacted approximately 50 million people in the Northeast US and Canada. 

Failure of the electric power system then caused failures in other systems [slide 2]. The loss of electric 

energy trapped hundreds of people in elevators; and all trains into/out of New York were shut down. The 

failure also prevented gas stations from pumping liquid fuel. Cell towers lost functionality because battery 

life expired; and generators ran out of fuel during the extended outage. Finally, the loss of electricity 

caused US broadcast networks to shut down and water pumps not to function.

There are many types of dependencies to consider: internal and external, time, space, and source. As 

discussed in the example, internal dependencies are those within an infrastructure system, including 

equipment, supplies, and operations centers. 

External dependencies (i.e., dependencies on other infrastructure systems) are also important to consider 

so you are aware of how other failures will impact your system and what other systems will be impacted 

by failures of your own system. 

The time dimension in recovery is also important because dependencies are likely to change from one 

recovery phase (short, intermediate, long) to another. 

Achieving performance goals [slide 6] is influenced by the external dependencies as well as the 

prioritization of needs of the community.

The space dimension (i.e., geographic dependency) is another important consideration that is influenced 

by the type of hazard a community faces. For example, if a community faces a localized hazard event 

such as a tornado or tsunami, neighboring communities may be able to provide aid. However, when an 

event impacts a region, such as a hurricane or earthquake, mutual aid and supplies must come from much 

further away. In addition, the space dimension also involves the co-location of infrastructure systems. 

Many infrastructure systems (communications, power, water, wastewater), for example, have 

dependencies on roadways and bridges since they are within the right-of-way of roads. 

Source dependencies are also a concern. For example, the liquid fuel farm in Portland, Oregon relies on 

pipelines and pump stations that deliver fuel from Washington State. 

Overall, dependencies are complex and should be considered in resilience planning. Communities should 

develop strategies to reduce the impacts of cascading effects of dependencies.

Summary of Dr. Lavelle’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Chapter 10 of the Framework is the last of the higher-level chapters of the Framework. When considering 

metrics, each community needs to understand how resilient it is and determine whether its efforts will 

make a significant difference. Communities need metrics to assess planning decisions they make with 

respect to improving the built environment. These metrics can address a number of factors including 

siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, protection, and repair and restoration.

There are three primary types of metrics: recovery times, economic vitality, and social well-being. 

Recovery times in the Framework (i.e., performance goals) are easy to understand, but can be difficult to 

confidently predict. Recovery times can be estimated based on past experience, expert judgment, 
Community Resilience Workshop

Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015

15

modeling, or some combination of these methods. As discussed earlier, the recovery times of the built 

environment directly impact both the economic vitality and social well-being of the community. 

Economic vitality can be measured in a number of ways, including a community’s ability to attract and 

retain businesses and jobs, maintain and grow the tax base, reduce poverty, provide services/amenities, 

and maintain a vibrant and thriving economy. 

Social well-being is often measured as the ability of a community to meet its needs, such as those outlined 

in Maslow’s Hierarchy (see the discussion of Chapter 2 – survival, safety and security, sense of 

belonging, growth and achievement).

The Framework discusses many existing methodologies , including the San Francisco Planning and 

Urban Research Association (SPUR) Framework,

7 Oregon Resilience Plan,8 United Nations International 

Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) Disaster Resilience Scorecard,9 Community and Regional 

Resilience Institute (CARRI) Community Resilience System,10 Communities Advancing Resilience 

Toolkit (CART),

11 Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC),12 Rockefeller City Resilience 

Framework,13 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Community 

Resilience Index (CRI),

14 and FEMA Hazus methodology.15

In a parallel project, we are analyzing these methodologies. In the analysis, we are rating the scope of the 

tool (i.e., what it addresses and its flexibility), its utility (i.e., ease of use), the impacts it measures, the 

techniques it uses, and its scientific merit. 

In the breakout sessions, we hope to learn about other available metrics and their purpose(s). We would 

also like input on Chapter 10 of the Framework and to understand some of the foreseen challenges with 

using/developing metrics to measure resilience.

After discussion of the higher-level chapters was complete, chapter leads discussed the building and 

infrastructure system chapters:

 Mr. Robert Pekelnicky, Degenkolb Engineers – Chapter 5: Buildings

 Mr. Theodore Zoli, HNTB – Chapter 6: Transportation Systems

 Mr. Scott Tezak, TRC Solutions, and Mr. Stuart McCafferty, GridIntelltect – Chapter 7: Energy 

Systems

 

7

SPUR (2009). The Resilient City: What San Francisco Needs from its Seismic Mitigation Policies, San Francisco Planning and 

Urban Research Association. San Francisco, CA.

8 OSSPAC (2013). The Oregon Resilience Plan: Reducing Risk and Improving Recovery for the Next Cascadia Earthquake and 

Tsunami. Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission Salem, OR.

9 UNISDR (2014) Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities, Based on the “Ten Essentials” defined by the United Nations 

International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) for Making Cities Resilient, Developed for UNISDR by IBM 

and AECOM, Version 1.5, March 10, 2014, http://www.unisdr.org/2014/campaigncities/Resilience%20Scorecard%20V1.5.pdf.

10 CARRI (2013) Community and Regional Resilience Institute, Community Resilience System, 

http://www.resilientus.org/recent-work/community-resilience-system, http://www.resilientus.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/CRS-Final-Report.pdf.

11 Pfefferbaum, R. et al (2013) The Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit (CART): An Intervention to Build Community 

Resilience to Disasters, Journal of Public Health Management & Practice: May/June 2013 - Volume 19 - Issue 3 - p 250–258, 

doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e318268aed8.

12 Cutter, S. L., K. D. Ash, and C. T. Emrich (2014). The geographies of community disaster resilience, Global Environmental 

Change, 29:65-77.

13 Rockefeller (2014) City Resilience Framework, The Rockefeller Foundation, 

http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/0bb537c0-d872-467f-9470-b20f57c32488.pdf.

14 NOAA (2010) Coastal Resilience Index: A Community Self-Assessment, 

http://masgc.org/assets/uploads/publications/662/coastalcommunity_resilience_index.pdf.

15 FEMA (2012). Hazus-MH 2.1 User Manual. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Community Resilience Workshop

Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015

16

 Mr. David Mizzen, Applied Research Associates – Chapter 8: Communication and Information 

Systems

 Mr. Donald Ballantyne, Ballantyne Consulting – Chapter 9: Water and Wastewater Systems

Summary of Mr. Pekelnicky’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Chapter 5 of the Framework focuses on buildings. Buildings include a broad scope of uses and 

occupancies. In many cases, building codes and standards are used with life-safety in mind (e.g., seismic 

standards); however, current codes and standards do not focus on building functionality. Thus, buildings 

may be safe after a hazard event, but “safe” does not always mean “usable.”

The performance goals table for an expected event for buildings is shown in slide 3. For those of you 

familiar with the SPUR Framework, the idea of performance goals is not new. Performance goals for the 

building clusters in Centerville, USA show large gaps that need to be addressed. The building clusters fall 

under different functional categories, which impacts desired recovery times. For example, building 

clusters under the critical facilities functional category need to be functional in the short-term, 

immediately after a hazard occurs. However, building clusters in the housing and community recovery 

functional categories are needed in the intermediate recovery phase.

As previously discussed, we use a different method of categorizing buildings in the Framework. The four 

categories are: A) Safe and operational; B) Safe and usable during repair; C) Safe and not usable; and D) 

Unsafe. As many of the other chapters discuss, considering dependencies is important in resilience 

planning. For buildings, water and power are critical dependencies. Also, for most buildings to be useful, 

workers need to enter the building. You should also consider adjacent buildings because they can impact 

the structural integrity of your building (e.g., the adjacent building may collapse onto your building), or 

prevent people from accessing your building (e.g., if the building collapses onto the roadway). 

New/future buildings can use the most up-to-date codes/standards. It is easier to change standards for new 

buildings than requirements for existing buildings. The challenge is that current codes and standards do 

not address every hazard type or functionality, and many other codes (architectural, mechanical, and 

structural) are not aligned with one another. 

As we increase our knowledge of how to improve building performance, codes and standards constantly 

evolve and change. Existing buildings may be more vulnerable to damage because they do readily not 

benefit from the increased knowledge. Retrofitting is not always the best solution because it can be 

expensive and disrupt the building’s functionality. 

There are strategies to improve performance of existing buildings. For example, communities can 

establish their needs and plan based on the hazard(s) they face, and maintain back-up water and power 

supply such that they do not rely solely on the power grid and water utility. Furthermore, it is important to 

prioritize what buildings are most critical to the community, and maintain a balance of mandatory and 

voluntary upgrades to buildings.

In the breakout sessions, we would like to learn about your experience with vulnerabilities that could 

impact resilience. We would also like feedback on Chapter 5 to understand whether we overlooked any 

elements of the building sector, how to best address dependences, and what strategies can be used to 

achieve resilience of the buildings sector.

Summary of Mr. Zoli’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Chapter 6 focuses on transportation systems. Transportation is critical to communities both on a daily 

basis and in disaster recovery. Transportation is very complex because it includes multiple systems

(roadways, rail, airports, harbors, ports, waterways, and pipelines). In fact, people and businesses rely on 
Community Resilience Workshop

Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015

17

many of these systems daily to get to/from work and transport goods. In addition, transportation is vital 

for evacuation and for accessing critical facilities. The performance of a community’s transportation 

system will directly impact its ability to recover.

Transportation systems enable access for emergency responders and repair crews for other infrastructure 

systems. Transportation also allows access to shelters, healthcare facilities, banks, and grocery stores. 

Also, individual transportation systems have many dependencies on other transportation systems (e.g., 

rail impacts trucking) and other infrastructure systems. The increased intermodal transportation also is an 

important consideration, particularly in large urban centers. 

Roads, bridges, highways, and tunnels are the main transportation system communities think about. The 

loss of a key transportation system component (e.g., bridge) can negatively impact a community’s 

recovery. However, the type of failure will impact the amount of time it takes to recover. For example, 

debris or snow removal from roads does not take long. In contrast, replacing a bridge can take a very long 

time if a failure occurs. 

Subways, freight, and commuter rail are all different systems. Freight rail, often privately owned, has 

become smaller over the past century, resulting in limited redundancy in the system. It is important to 

recognize that rail can impact multiple communities if disruptions occur. The dependencies chapter called 

this the source dependency in its discussion. 

Air infrastructure systems are very sensitive to more routine events, such as bad weather. Airports are 

important, along with other elements, such as the rolling stock (i.e., airplanes), because these all need to 

be functional for the system to be operational.

When considering movement of goods and people, waterways are efficient systems. Inland waterways, 

for example, can be used to move massive amounts of goods. Thus, loss of an inland waterway can also 

result in a huge disruption to the transport of goods, which could impact a large portion of the country, 

rather than a single community.

Pipelines transport natural gas, crude oil, gasoline, and other products that are not moved by truck, 

airplane or barge.

When establishing performance goals, it is important to include the appropriate stakeholders –

transportation users, owner/operators, and others in the community who depend on the transportation 

system (e.g., power, communication, water, and wastewater representatives). It is also important to 

prioritize the elements of the transportation infrastructure system. These can be broken down into 

elements needed in the short, intermediate, and long-term recovery phases [slide 12]. As discussed in 

previous presentations, performance goals can also be set for the elements of the transportation system 

[slides 13-15] for the routine, expected, and extreme events. 

In the breakout groups, we would like feedback on the Framework methodology, identifying and 

managing dependencies, and how to integrate use of the Framework into community planning.

Summary of Mr. Tezak and Mr. McCafferty’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Chapter 7 focuses on energy systems. Energy/power systems are at the forefront of the resilience 

discussion. The energy industry is currently undertaking many large efforts that support resilience, such 

as projects to improve reliability and energy assurance projects. When considering the performance of 

energy systems, people tend to think about electric power. However, liquid fuel, natural gas, and 

emergency/standby power are also important aspects of the industry. 

Performance goals can be completed to understand the performance of the various elements of the energy 

system. However, it is important to recognize that failure of some elements will cause failures in other 

parts of the system. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015

18

The regulatory environment presents challenges that need to be considered when implementing a 

resilience plan. 

The four R’s of resilience are Robustness, Redundancy, Resourcefulness, and Rapidity. Robustness is the 

ability to withstand external demands without degradation or loss of functionality. Redundancy provides 

alternate ways to maintain functionality when the system is under stress (Smart grid technologies have 

added redundancy to systems). Resourcefulness is the capacity to mobilize resources when a disruptive 

event occurs. Rapidity, which is extremely important in the energy industry, is the ability to restore 

functionality quickly when disruptions occur.

When considering the electric power system, the key elements are generation, transmission, and 

distribution. All elements have vulnerabilities to multiple types of hazards. There are many different 

views of how the energy system should perform in a hazard event, and getting community stakeholders

on the same page is important. Furthermore, there are disparate definitions of hazard levels and 

performance expectations. Therefore, looking at the energy system at the community level has the 

potential to make improvements in understanding the system and anticipating its performance. 

Slide 5 shows part of the performance goals table for the electric energy system. The generation and 

transmission components are quite robust and anticipated to perform well for an expected hazard event. 

However, it is important to recognize that if distribution to critical facilities is not functional, the 

performance of the generation and transmissions systems cannot compensate. 

A number of external considerations need to be accounted for when planning for resilience (the regulatory 

environment, codes and standards for existing older facilities, existing newer facilities, and new 

construction, and non-construction issues such as vegetation management). 

Emerging technologies in the energy industry may make energy systems more resilient (e.g., smart grid 

technologies such as addition of communications-enabled situational awareness) when hazard events 

occur. Furthermore, automating distribution and substations, and energy storage can enhance resilience of 

energy systems. Microgrids can be connected to the grid or be isolated while remaining functional, which 

allows facilities to remain operational.

Many implementation strategies that resulted from large investments in modernizing and improving 

energy systems can be used to improve resilience. The California Energy Assurance Planning (CaLEAP)

program offers a methodology for how to plan and respond to disasters.16 The Department of Energy 

(DOE) has an energy assurance program that provides guidelines. The National Association of State 

Energy Officials (NASEO) also gives guidelines for becoming more resilient at the state level.17

The NIST Framework focuses on resilience at the community level and considers a variety of domains, 

including energy, buildings, communications, water, wastewater, transportation, and tools/metrics. In the 

breakout sessions, we would like feedback on the energy chapter to make sure we are on the right track or

determine whether the focus in any area needs to be redirected.

Summary of Mr. Mizzen’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Chapter 8 focuses on communication and information systems. The chapter’s goal is to provide guidance 

to communities to: 1) Understand potential vulnerabilities to communications infrastructure; 2) Determine 

their own performance goals and identity resilience gaps; and 3) Close resilience gaps. Communication 

systems rely on many other infrastructure systems. Service providers’ primary needs are access (i.e., 

 

16 California Local Energy Assurance Program (CaLEAP) Report, Tools, and Online Assessment Guide –

http://www.caleap.org/. 

17 National Association of State Energy Officials. State Energy Assurance Guidelines. 

http://www.naseo.org/Data/Sites/1/documents/publications/State_Energy_Assurance_Guidelines_Version_3.1.pdf. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015

19

transportation routes), fuel (for standby power), and security (for workers and equipment). Energy is the 

most obvious dependency since, for example, it is needed to charge cell phones and maintain 

functionality of air conditioning in Central Offices to cool equipment.

Communications systems include landline systems, Internet, and cellular systems. There are several 

components within each of these systems to consider when planning for resilience. Service providers 

have, however, been successful in learning from past events and becoming more resilient. 

For example, the City of New York compared the performance of two Central Offices: 1) the 140 West 

Street, which was hardened after World Trade Center 7 collapsed onto it on 9/11; and 2) the 104 Broad 

Street Central Office, which was approximately one mile away from the 140 West Street Central Office 

but had not been hardened.18 After 9/11, Verizon took steps to protect the 140 West Street from multiple 

hazards such that disruptions could be limited, including elevating electrical switchgear and standby 

power, encasing copper lines in plastic casing and using fiber optic cables, and adding pumps to mitigate 

flood damage. As a result, after Hurricane Sandy struck the region, the 140 West Street Central Office 

used temporary fuel tanks to restore functionality within 24 hours of an outage. In contrast, the 104 Broad 

Street Central Office, which had not been hardened, had electrical switchgear and standby generators in 

the basement, and copper wires were encased in lead casing. As a result, 104 Broad Street experienced an 

outage of 11 days after Hurricane Sandy due to flooding, and was only able to restore functionality after 

obtaining replacement generators, switchgear, and a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)

system. This case study illustrates that many things can be done to limit recovery time following an event.

When setting performance goals [slide 7], it is important to identify the resilience gaps (i.e., difference 

between 90% and X) and prioritize what gaps to address first. Service providers have many strategies to 

become more resilient. In the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, watertight doors that were used on 

Central Offices in the inundation zone performed well and may be a viable alternative in the United States 

instead of raising critical/electrical equipment.19 Other strategies include mounting critical equipment in 

earthquake prone regions, ensuring adequate standby power is available, eliminating single points of 

failure, or using cell on light trucks (COLTs) when a short-term solution is needed. 

Critical facilities also should be aware of three programs: 1) Government Emergency 

Telecommunications Service (GETS); 2) Wireless Priority Service (WPS); and 3) Telecommunications 

Service Priority (TSP). GETS and WPS provide prioritized service for users supporting national security 

and emergency preparedness/response after disaster events for landline and cell phone users, respectively. 

The TSP prioritizes participants when they need additional lines or service restoration at any time, not just 

after disasters.

Standby power is a major issue for the communications industry. Many things need to be considered for 

standby power, including placement and protection such that it will be functional after a hazard event, 

permanent vs. temporary generators, and type of generator. Permanent generators can be expensive and 

require periodic maintenance/testing to ensure they will be operational when needed. Temporary 

generators, on the other hand, have logistical challenges including accessibility of cell sites, deploying a 

large number of generators, refueling generators when extended power outages occur, and ensuring 

coordination between employees. Liquid fuel is most often used for standby power. However, other 

options such as natural gas have been used in the past. Although natural gas generators were used

successfully after Hurricane Katrina, it is important to understand that natural gas is often shut down prior 

to events to avoid fire or explosions, and therefore it is not the best option if serving critical facilities.

In the breakout groups, we would like feedback on Chapter 8 regarding whether you think there are gaps 

 

18 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2013). Mitigation Assessment Team Report: Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey 

and New York. Washington, DC.

19 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).
Community Resilience Workshop

Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015

20

in the approach or content in the Framework, and how integrating the Framework will impact your 

disaster recovery plans.

Summary of Mr. Ballantyne’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Chapter 9 focuses on the water and wastewater systems. Many water and wastewater systems are local or 

regional in nature, rather than national as are some of the other infrastructure systems. Water and 

wastewater depend on power for pumping, transportation for emergency response and repair, 

communications for Supervisory Control Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems, and petroleum for standby 

power.

Water systems are composed of supply, transmission, treatment, pumping, storage, and distribution. All 

components need to be operable to deliver water to customers. Wastewater, discussed later, has the same 

components, just in the reverse order. 

Water infrastructure systems are vulnerable to a number of hazards. With respect to water supply,

groundwater wells are vulnerable to flood contamination (e.g., from oil), and earthquakes which can 

damage the casing, connecting pipe, and/or power supply. Surface water, such as snow melt or water 

runoff, can contaminate the water supply as well. Spills or flooding, as seen in Elk River, WV, impacted 

300,000 people by contaminating the water supply. Wildfires, as experienced in Denver, CO, and 

landslides can also cause water contamination. 

Transmission systems are vulnerable to earthquakes and landslides. Water treatment plants have been 

impacted by earthquakes (e.g., Loma Prieta, Northridge) and flooding (e.g., Des Moines, IA). Pumping 

stations are also vulnerable to flooding inundation and earthquakes. Storage facilities can be impacted by 

earthquakes, which can cause buckling of tanks (elephant foot buckling), or hurricanes with the combined 

effects of storm surge and high winds toppling elevated tanks. Distribution pipes can be exposed and 

damaged by flooding that causes erosion, and earthquakes can cause pipe failure, often at joints, as seen 

during the Kobe, Japan earthquake.

Wastewater systems are different from water systems since all that is needed for wastewater to function

for public health is collection so the system can get the waste away from people. Conveyance systems and 

pumping stations are used to get the untreated waste to treatment plants. Treatment and discharge are

important for environmental issues rather than just functionality issues. All of these wastewater 

components are vulnerable to flooding and earthquakes. Treatment plants, for example, are located by 

bodies of water out of necessity, but this is also where they are most vulnerable to flooding and 

landslides. 

The example performance goals [slide 10] are in a similar format to those developed by the Oregon 

Resilience Plan.20 Historically, water engineers used judgment to develop performance goals. However, 

the Oregon Resilience Plan and this NIST project have shifted thinking to the community level where 

stakeholders, such as businesses, should be involved in establishing the goals based on their needs.

With respect to the regulatory environment, there is little direction at the federal or state levels regarding

how to design for and deal with extreme events. There are many codes and standards for buildings and 

other structures, such as those developed by International Code Council (ICC)

21 and American Society of 

Civil Engineers (ASCE)

22

. The American Water Works Association (AWWA)

23 and American Concrete 

 

20 OSSPAC (2013). The Oregon Resilience Plan: Reducing Risk and Improving Recovery for the Next Cascadia Earthquake and 

Tsunami. Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission Salem, OR.

21 International Code Council, Inc. (ICC). www.iccsafe.org. 

22 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). www.asce.org. 

23 American Water Works Association (AWWA). www.awwa.org. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Disaster Resilience Framework Overview – February 18, 2015

21

Institute (ACI)

24 have also developed codes and standards for tanks. However, there are no existing codes 

for pipelines, though there are many guidelines that can be helpful. 

A number of examples can be looked at for historic performance of water and wastewater infrastructure. 

The Great Flood of 1993 inundated the Des Moines, IA water treatment plant, resulting in 12 days 

without non-potable water and 19 days without potable water. In the Northridge and Kobe earthquakes 

(1994 and 1995, respectively) there were over 1,000 pipeline failures. As a result, Northridge took 12 

days to restore full service; and Kobe took 60 days. More recently, the Christchurch (New Zealand) and 

Tohoku (Japan) earthquakes resulted in loss of water service for over 40 days. 

When determining the anticipated performance of water and wastewater systems, there can be three tiers 

of analysis. The first tier consists of a high-level approach where expert judgment is used to estimate the 

anticipated performance for a given hazard event. The second tier uses specific scenarios to help 

determine and understand where the greatest vulnerabilities exist. AWWA J100 (Standards for Risk and 

Resilience Management of Water and Wastewater Systems) falls under this category.25 The third tier 

includes detailed assessments, which may be necessary for some structures.

In the breakout sessions, we would like your feedback on Chapter 9. We are also interested in discussing 

foreseen recovery efforts/challenges.

 

24 American Concrete Institute (ACI). www.concrete.org. 

25 AWWA (2010). ANSI/AWWA J100-10 Risk and Resilience Management of Water and Wastewater Systems. Denver, CO: 

American Water Works Association.
Community Resilience Workshop

Afternoon General Session – February 18, 2015

22

4. Afternoon General Session – February 18, 2015

Mr. Cauffman introduced the guest speaker, Dr. Laurie Johnson. Dr. Johnson discussed her experiences 

with past hazard events and her thoughts on the 75% draft of the NIST Disaster Resilience Framework.

Summary of Dr. Johnson’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Although, the focus of my work in resilience is now largely seismic since I live in California, today I 

would like to discuss my experiences with different events that have happened in many different parts of 

the country and around the world.

Grand Forks, ND was impacted by a large flood in 1997. It has a population of approximately 55,000 

people. It has about 20,000 households, and is home to the University of North Dakota and Grand Forks 

Air Force Base. Grand Forks is surrounded by farmland. It is a very flat area with the Red River passing 

through it [slide 2]. The Red River is unique in that it flows north from Minnesota up to Lake Winnipeg 

in Canada. The combination of flat land, water flowing north, and snow melt can lead to large flood 

events as seen in this region several times.

In 1997, there was record snowfall (over 100 inches of snow). In March of that year, forecasts predicted

that the flood crest would be 52 feet, the maximum their infrastructure was designed to sustain (49 feet of 

levees plus three feet of free board or sand bags). Thawing was rapid that year, resulting in water coming 

quickly. A late season blizzard increased the maximum projected flood crest to 54 feet, the level of 

flooding eventually experienced. As a result of the flood, about 80% of the city was inundated, and 90% 

of the residents were displaced for weeks. Unlike New Orleans, water was not pumped out of the area. It 

took about three days before water began to recede and five weeks before it fully receded. The significant 

damage from the flood included 9,000 homes (700 severely damaged or destroyed), 11 downtown 

buildings and 60 apartments burned, and 750 commercial units damaged. Electricity, water, and sewer 

service were shutdown city wide, and many government buildings were damaged.

There was strong local leadership that facilitated recovery and political buy-in for hazard mitigation after 

the event. Before and after the flood, strong state and federal partnerships existed with Grand Forks. As a 

result, the city received adequate post-disaster funding that was well managed. There were also a number 

of programs aimed at improving resilience, such as voluntary acquisition and relocation, enhanced levee 

and floodwall system, permanent river greenway, and downtown revitalization. As a result, in April 2009

when the next large flood occurred, it crested at 49.5 feet [slide 7], but there was very limited damage.

In terms of cost, there were losses of $1-2B, for which recovery was funded by local, state, and federal 

governments. Residents and businesses were displaced for a long period of time in some cases. Although 

the city received funding, it took almost a decade to implement all the mitigation strategies. 

As previously discussed, the Framework uses the PPD-21 definition for resilience.26 The idea is to bring 

together multiple ideas, including reducing the impact of hazards, restoring social functions quickly, 

reducing time and cost of recovery, and breaking the cycle of destruction and recovery. When thinking 

about community resilience, I also use Maslow’s Hierarchy as is done in the Framework [slide 10-11].27

Engineers, hazard planners, and disaster management tend to think about Maslow’s Hierarchy from the 

bottom-up, whereas social-organizational views tend to take a top-down approach.

For example, the report by the National Academies “Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative” takes a 

bottom-up approach28. They show the base of Maslow’s Hierarchy as adopting sound land-use planning 

practices, and work their way up to the top, which is organizing communities, neighborhoods, and 

 

26 PPD-21 (2013) Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-21, The White House, February 12, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-critical-infrastructure-security-and-resil.

27 Maslow, A.H. 1943. A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review 50 (4) 370–96.

28 NAC (2012) Disaster Resilience, A National Imperative, The National Academies Press, Washington D.C., www.nap.edu.
Community Resilience Workshop

Afternoon General Session – February 18, 2015

23

families to prepare for disasters [slide 12]. 

To be effective in the built environment, the first foundational element is enabling locally meaningful 

characterizations of hazards and risks. In California, we are fortunate to have statewide mandates for 

seismic, wildfire, and flood hazard identification delivered to us. This is not done across the nation.

Mapping hazards varies across the country and varies by peril. Earthquakes, floods, wildfire, landslides, 

hurricane-force winds, tornadoes, and other hazard events all have different characteristics which need to 

be assessed. Currently, there are variations in mapping approach, accounting for uncertainty, mapping 

scales (regional vs. site-specific), and legislative/policy controls.

The second foundational element is ensuring robust and effective integration of hazard information in 

public policy. For example, the National Insurance Flood Program is the most robust program available 

that addresses this element. The report “Managing Land Use to Build Resilience” shows a great example 

of how hazard information could inform public policies and planning at the local level [slide 17]. These 

include planning policies, developing regulations, land and property acquisition, building standards, 

critical infrastructure and public facilities policies, taxation and fiscal policies, and information 

dissemination. Only about half the states in the US require local comprehensive plans to address hazards 

[slide 18]. In terms of building code enforcement, there is a wide variation [slide 19]. Some states (e.g., 

Florida) focus on enforcing building codes, while others (e.g., Texas, Mississippi) do not. FEMA’s map 

showing local mitigation plan status also presents a wide variation in plan status [slide 20]. However, 

these mitigation plans are highly implemented and approved.

We need to consider expanding the hazard/risk discussion beyond what and how to build a structure to 

include where to build. Considerations of who pays for detailed assessments and hazard mitigation, and 

who takes on the risk also need to be taken into account.

Portola Valley, CA is a small town located on a hillside on the San Andreas fault. It is a wealthy 

community with a high potential for ground movement [slide 23]. There is a lot of awareness in the 

community about its risks, and thus it has made efforts to become more resilient. Another example of a 

community working to become more resilient is Central Valley, CA. Its Delta Stewardship Council has 

been very successful in advocating for resilience. It has developed legislation to provide a more reliable 

water supply for California and protecting, restoring and enhancing the ecosystem. They have been 

successful in obtaining large amounts of funding to develop a long-term management plan that includes a 

multi-hazard analysis, and provides information for water and environmental decision-making.

After a disaster event, the challenge is that capital funding that would normally be expended over a long 

period of time (e.g., 50 or 100 years) is invested in a very short time period (e.g., 10 years). We refer to 

this as time compression. For example, after the 2011 Tohoku (Japan) earthquake, local governments 

were overwhelmed. They are using the two-level concept that includes implementing hard measures to 

protect against the 100-year event (level 1), and softer measures that protect against a 1,000 year event 

[slide 26]. This will include raising land and rebuilding homes for flood protection. Many efforts are 

going into household relocation, land readjustment, and public housing developments. 

Canterbury, New Zealand was struck by a series of large earthquakes in 2010-2011.29 It is located on a 

fault that resembles the San Andreas, and they have been concerned about the risk of large earthquakes 

for a long time. The 2010-2011 earthquakes occurred underneath the city. They have an earthquake 

insurance program that resembles the US National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As a result of the 

earthquakes, there have been hundreds of thousands of claims. This ultimately led the program’s reinsurance to state that it would no longer insure the insurance programs in these regions, which caused the 

government to get involved and develop a land-zoning program. They also developed a buy-out program 

for areas where there had been significant damage multiple times and liquefaction was becoming a major 

 

29 CERA (2014). Canterbury Wellbeing Index June 2014, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Christchurch, New 

Zealand.
Community Resilience Workshop

Afternoon General Session – February 18, 2015

24

issue, for example.

New Orleans is entering its tenth year of recovery after Hurricane Katrina. Prior to Hurricane Katrina, 

New Orleans was already in a state of economic decay. There were 40,000 vacant or abandoned lots out 

of 400,000. A building repair program was implemented in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. However, 

many people decided to sell or abandon their homes and leave the state adding to the economic decay. 

After Hurricane Sandy, New York State is completing a reconstruction program called New York 

Rising.30 They are working with NOAA and FEMA, who developed a risk assessment tool. It looks at a 

number of factors including erosion rates, beach width, shore defenses, protective vegetation, 

dunes/bluffs, and soils. All of these characterize flood risk. They use these evaluations to prioritize hazard 

mitigation funding. 

The third fundamental element is strengthening governance capacity for community resilience and 

ensuring its sustainability. The key challenges for urban sustainability/resilience are: 1) Governments are 

slow to react to existing problems; 2) Cities redevelop too slowly for legislation and regulation to be 

meaningful; 3) Barriers prevent capitalizing on economic benefits that resilience can bring. To make 

improvements in governance, we should use three approaches, including traditional governance (e.g., 

regulation, taxes), collaborative governance (e.g., networks, partnerships), and market-driven governance 

(e.g., contests and challenges, benchmarking and certification). 

Though traditional governance is important, collaborative governance is very important in recovery after 

a disaster. The goals of collaborative governance are to bring teams together to develop solutions to 

problems, develop policies, and engage the public in deliberation.

In San Francisco, we have been subjected to some shocks such as the “dot com” bubble, great recession, 

and housing affordability crisis. However, we have not had many other major shocks since the 1906 M7.8 

earthquake and fire. We have many programs and institutions that work in collaboration to enhance 

resilience directly or indirectly. The SPUR Framework focuses on the existing building stock, which is a 

big challenge, but other programs focus on seismic hazard mapping and mitigation, climate adaptions, 

and many other local concerns [slide 40-42].31

The NIST Disaster Resilience Framework is valuable as a tool for developing policies at the community 

scale. It provides an opportunity to improve community-level and risk characterization, land use, and 

enforcement of building and infrastructure system codes/standards. It leverages the whole community 

concept and collaboration at a large-scale that includes multi-disciplinary, multi-governmental, and nongovernmental partnerships and alliances.

 

30 New York State. New York Rising Community Reconstruction Program. http://stormrecovery.ny.gov/communityreconstruction-program. 

31 SPUR (2009). The Resilient City: What San Francisco Needs from its Seismic Mitigation Policies, San Francisco Planning and 

Urban Research Association. San Francisco, CA.
Community Resilience Workshop

Morning General Session – February 19, 2015

25

5. Morning General Session – February 19, 2015

Mr. Cauffman moderated a panel session in which guest speakers discussed past events and the resilience 

planning efforts their communities are undertaking:

 Mr. Jay Wilson, Resilience Coordinator, Clackamas County, OR

 Dr. Lucile Jones, Seismologist, US Geological Survey

 Mr. Patrick Otellini, Chief Resilience Officer, San Francisco, CA

 Dr. Emily Steinhilber, Assistant Director of Coastal Resilience Research, Old Dominion 

University

 Mr. Gregory Guibert, Chief Resilience Officer, Boulder, CO

Summary of Mr. Wilson’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

I am involved at the local level and state level with the Oregon Resilience Plan, mentioned in the 

Framework. Today, I will discuss a recovery effort in our county (the local level). 32

Where we have heard other discussions specific to flooding, the challenges we faced were actually 

erosion issues. Historically, multiple events had eroded banks and resulted in repeated damage. However, 

studies had not been completed to assess the issues. Therefore, we had obsolete flood maps and did not 

have any scientific facts or measurements of what exactly caused the damage. 

This area has a volcanic landscape, which results in areas of risk. Many people lived inside a lahar 

(historically based mudflows) at the base of an active volcano. It was essential to characterize this so 

everyone understood the potential risks [slide 3]. We developed channel migration maps that show the 

history of where the river has been in the past one-hundred years [left side of slide 4] and the hazard risk 

map [right side of slide 4]. These helped us define a 100-foot buffer zone around the highest exposure 

zone and will drive the decisions behind policies in the future. The policies’ goal will be to limit the level 

of damage from flooding since we have lost buildings, roads, and other infrastructure systems.

About a year and a half ago, we began a public involvement process with the Home Builders Association, 

the Chamber of Commerce, and a number of other stakeholders. The process kept the public informed and 

allowed them to provide input so they shared in the ownership of plans moving forward.

The changing climate will also impact this area. Therefore, we need to use forward thinking to consider 

the potential vulnerabilities to our communities added by future conditions. The watershed for the Sandy 

River off Mount Hood in our county is shown here [slide 6]. Currently, it is largely snow driven [white 

area on slide 6]. The green represents a rain-driven area, and the blue represents a mixture between rain 

and snow. This all impacts the small area discussed earlier where the flood study is taking place. With the 

climate projection for 2080 [slide 7], there is a big change in the precipitation. The snow-driven zone will 

largely recede and the precipitation will come down mostly as rain. This means that volcanic material will 

be moved by landslides, heavy rain, etc. This has a huge impact on our planning for the future and will 

impact our policies and decisions.

Planning and policies are very important to the pursuit of disaster resilience, particularly in our county. 

We are using many applications to try to plan for the future, including risk and hazard maps, emphasizing 

flood insurance, making land swaps/acquisitions, relocating infrastructure, and understanding our 

watershed.

 

32 OSSPAC (2013). The Oregon Resilience Plan: Reducing Risk and Improving Recovery for the Next Cascadia Earthquake and 

Tsunami. Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission Salem, OR.
Community Resilience Workshop

Morning General Session – February 19, 2015

26

Summary of Dr. Jones’s Remarks

I am a seismologist with the US Geological Survey. In 2014, I worked with the City of Los Angeles on a 

study to enhance resilience. 33 Los Angeles is one of the largest cities in the US and has the largest port in 

the US. About 40% of the imports in the US come through the ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, CA. 

Los Angeles is a very diverse place with respect to hazards, which include earthquakes, landslides, coastal 

erosion, and fires which can result in debris flows because the mountains are very steep. However, since 

we have a coastline that is over 70% cliff in California, our tsunami risk is much smaller than it might be 

otherwise. 

We undertook a multi-hazard demonstration project to bring together a diverse group of scientists, 

including sociologists, emergency management, and economy. In California (and other parts of the 

country), we have a lot of science that allows us to understand hazard events, and their potential 

consequences. However, much of it was not being used. We started working with the community so it 

could be used to help reduce risk.

We developed a shakeout scenario using a plausible earthquake event (M7.8) to understand what would 

happen to our infrastructure and community. To engage the community, we held massive earthquake 

drills so people were prepared and knew what to do if an earthquake did occur. Over five million people 

participated in the first drill, and it is now an annual drill in southern California.

We worked with a large, multi-disciplinary team to complete the study and understand what we needed to 

do moving forward. It was decided that making improvements to buildings only would not be sufficient. 

So, we expanded our work to include telecommunications, water systems, and older buildings. Although 

this did not cover everything that we would like to do ideally, it would address the greatest concerns.

We worked with cellular service providers in the area, and water systems operators and engineers to 

understand where potential vulnerabilities/problems could arise. At the completion of the study, we made 

a total of 18 recommendations – five for buildings, eight for water, and five for communications. There 

were also many studies that focused on specific areas including ports, highways, hospitals, rail, fire, etc.

Summary of Mr. Otellini’s Remarks

When we talk about resilience, it is important to acknowledge that it has become a buzz word that means 

different things to different people. In San Francisco, we have dealt with a number of earthquakes, 

including the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. 

We have several programs in San Francisco that we initiated to make our city more resilient. Our softstory financing program encourages retrofits of existing buildings such that they will be able to resist 

large earthquake forces so people can shelter-in-place when an earthquake does occur. 

Even before financing programs could be implemented, we needed to spend a significant amount of time 

reaching out to the community and its stakeholders. These included landlords, engineers, architects, 

owners/operators, managers, etc. Bringing everyone to the table and getting them to agree on a pathway 

forward enabled us to push our program forward. 

We have also addressed issues such as the difference in how public and private schools have been 

designed and maintained. Public schools receive public funding and so have been influenced by what the 

city, county, and state have required. Private schools, on the other hand, have not been regulated to the 

same standard and hence their buildings often only meet the minimum requirements. The schools now 

have to complete mandatory evaluations so they can understand their vulnerabilities. This is important to 

the resilience of San Francisco because when schools are closed after a disaster event, people stay home 

 

33

 The Great California Shakeout. http://www.shakeout.org/california/scenario/
Community Resilience Workshop

Morning General Session – February 19, 2015

27

with their children rather than going to work, which ultimately impacts the economy negatively. 

Therefore, this is a huge potential vulnerability.

San Francisco is vulnerable to more than just earthquakes. Given its location, it could also be impacted by 

sea level rise. As previously mentioned, I am the Chief Resilience Officer in San Francisco. However, the 

Chief Resilience Officers job is not to be an expert for every hazard and infrastructure system. Rather, it 

is to serve as a conduit to learn from other experts and communities that can help address problems. 

Although there are a lot of technical aspects to consider in addressing resilience, the social dimensions are 

very important and really define the purpose of the physical aspects of the community. San Francisco is a 

part of the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities initiative, which has two stages. Stage 1 was 

identifying and understanding the vulnerabilities of our community. Stage 2 is focused on implementation 

of strategies to reduce the impacts associated with these vulnerabilities. Over the next 6 months (Phase 2), 

we will work with our stakeholders to develop many tasks for implementation. One goal in San Francisco 

is to keep 95% of our population in the city after an earthquake. This is because there is really nowhere 

else to go and, thus, we want to make sure they can shelter in place. Overall, our resilience program is not 

just about protecting life, but improving quality of life when hazard events do occur.

Summary of Dr. Steinhilber’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Old Dominion University (ODU) is working with Hampton Roads, VA on an intergovernmental pilot 

program.34 Hampton Roads has a planning district commission with 17 counties, such as Virginia Beach, 

Norfolk, and Williamsburg. It is fairly diverse economically as it has federal employers (e.g., Norfolk 

Naval Station), tourism industry, and the Port of Virginia. 

Located on the coast, the primary concern in the area is sea level rise, which increases the risk from storm 

surge, tides, and flood inundation. This chart [slide 4] shows that the observed sea level has increased 

over the past century and is projected to increase substantially over the next century. And as you can see 

from the various projections, there is a lot of uncertainty in how much the sea level will rise. However, 

the one commonality of the projections is that it will increase.

The Intergovernmental Pilot Program was formed around the mission of using a community approach to 

address sea level rise and resilience planning by June 2016. The planning organization is intended to 

coordinate sea level rise preparedness and resilience planning between Federal, state, and local 

government, and the private sector. Furthermore, this organization was formed to engage the public and 

take their perspectives into account in the planning process. There are a number of key partners at each 

level. These include the National Security Council at the White House, Departments of Defense, 

Environment, and Transportation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Port 

Authority, Virginia Coastal Policy Clinic, City of Norfolk, City of Virginia Beach, etc.

The structure of the organization is shown here [slide 7]. A Steering Committee leads the organization,

overseen by an Advisory Committee and Federal Liaisons. The Steering Committee oversees a number of 

working groups, including those for land use, infrastructure, and civic engagements. There are also 

various subgroups that address challenges such as outreach, green infrastructure, and economic impacts. 

The program was kicked off in June 2014 at ODU; the pilot Charter was signed in October 2014. 

Currently, working groups are developing a work plan and engaging stakeholders to become involved in 

the process. In March 2015, there will be a workshop to engage the community. In June 2015, we will 

present the planning template, and then establish the planning organization in June 2016.

 

34 Old Dominion University. The Center for Sea Level Rise: Homebase for the Intergovernmental Pilot Project. 

http://www.centerforsealevelrise.org/
Community Resilience Workshop

Morning General Session – February 19, 2015

28

Summary of Mr. Guibert’s Remarks

[The slides associated with the following text are located on the NIST.gov website.]

Boulder, Colorado is a prosperous small town with a population of about 100,000. Boulder has a diverse 

economy with a highly educated workforce, and includes two universities, federal research centers, 

technological start-ups, and a strong agricultural sector. It is consistently rated one of the best places in 

the country to live, work, and play. Boulder is also well known internationally for its progressive land use 

planning, preservation of open space, and dual use for greenways and floodways. It is situated in an arid 

climate with a steep elevation gradient to the west. 

In 2013, Colorado had a major flood that impacted most of the state, including Boulder. In fact, Boulder 

has the highest risk of flash flooding in the state. It has rapidly changing forest and alpine systems due to 

the ash borer. We have a year-round wildfire risk. We experienced wildfires in 2010 and 2011 that 

changed our landscape significantly and, consequently, our flood profile. We are also vulnerable to global 

economic downturns, and traditional major shock traumas.

As previously discussed, the 2013 flood occurred after the wildfires in 2010 and 2011 that changed our 

landscape significantly. We received close to the annual average of rain (18 inches) in eight days. This 

was determined to be a 1000-year rainfall event, but only a 100-year flood event. It was not the level of 

flood for which we had planned. The flooding cut off access to mountain communities along six of seven 

canyons, caused $300 million in private property damage, and $27 million in municipal property damage. 

However, only $14 million of the damage was reimbursable, so the losses were huge.

We learned a number of lessons as a result of the flood. For example, although green infrastructure is 

important and FEMA provides credits in their rating system for making improvements to green 

infrastructure, these types of reconstruction projects are not reimbursable. Ground water intrusion was an 

unforeseen issue that we are still encountering today. Transportation fragility is impacted by the open 

space boundary. Furthermore, transportation impacts mutual aid and trauma care. There is a need for 

flexible municipal staffing and financial mechanisms. Having local governments reinforce the core 

principals of know your neighbor, have a plan, and know your risk to their residents is important so things 

go as smooth as possible if a disaster event does take place. Another concern is that even though the 

public can become very focused on making improvements immediately after a disaster takes place, they 

can become burned out and return to their attitudes from before the event occurred.

Boulder has been using progressive land use planning and floodplain management for over 30 years. We 

are now expanding these concepts to include additional social and economic dimensions. We are also 

incorporating resilience concepts into the next update of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and 

Human Services Master Plan. 

Boulder is developing a resilience strategy as part of the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilience Cities 

Global Campaign. This will contain a number of specific initiatives to become more resilient. The 

Rockefeller Foundation wheel [slide 7] for their 100 Resilient Cities initiative shows there are many 

components to consider in a community, and they all need to be considered when thinking about 

resilience. As a part of this, we have a Chief Resilience Officer, technical partners, and a peer cities 

network to learn from around the world.

In Boulder, we are coupling resilience with existing community priorities. We have an aggressive focus 

on lowering carbon use. We are developing plans to insulate ourselves from the energy market, as well as 

making local foods safe, and secure so that we can maintain our community identity.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Chapter 2 of Framework – Social Aspects of Resilience

29

6. Breakout Session #1: Chapter 2 of Framework – Social Aspects of Resilience

Each breakout session was divided into two sessions: One the afternoon of February 18, 2015 (2:30-5:00 

pm) and the other on the morning of February 19, 2015 (10:15 am – 12:00 pm). 

At the beginning of the first breakout session, the facilitator led participant introductions. The authors of 

the chapter, Drs. Erica Kuligowski and Liesel Ritchie, then gave a high-level overview of the chapter and 

goals of the breakout session. Once introductions were complete, the facilitator asked participants to 

review the tables in Chapter 2 that address links between social institutions and the built environment.

While reviewing the tables, participants were asked:

1. Does the chapter cover these linkages in an appropriate manner? 

2. Is the information organized in a way that makes sense? Is it easily understood?

3. Any additional examples to add? 

Participants felt that most linkages listed in the chapter were appropriate, and the chapter was generally 

well structured, but did suggest some changes to the document. The group felt the chapter should discuss 

the role of the scientific community and ad hoc organizations. This discussion quickly led into the next 

question:

How do the social institutions depend on each other to function (especially during disasters or as 

part of disaster planning)?

The group spent time considering the various social institutions and their reliance on one another. Table 

1through Table 3 list the dependencies of ten social institutions: 

 Family/Kinship

 Economic

 Education

 Scientific

 Government

 Belief Organizations

 Healthcare

 Community

 Information

 Ad Hoc Organizations

Participants stated the family depended on local businesses to be operational so they could go back to 

work after a disaster event (Table 1). Furthermore, the family institution depends on many other social 

institutions to remain functional, including CSOs, healthcare, information, and government agencies. The 

economic institution relies on education to support continual growth and evolution, and families to 

provide employees and customers. The education institution needs government and healthcare to ensure 

students can attend school without compromising public safety. The scientific community also relies on 

government and the economic sector for research funding, which in turn helps government and industry 

make more informed decisions in the future.

Government relies on information and media to disseminate information to the public, both on a daily 

basis and in the aftermath of a disaster event (Table 2). Belief organizations need families and 

neighborhoods to serve a purpose through meetings and other activities. They also often rely on ad hoc 

organizations in the aftermath of a disaster event to provide logistical support and resources for recovery. 

Healthcare is one of the most important social institutions in a community and is often relied upon by 

many other social institutions following a disaster event. However, healthcare also needs belief 

organizations to back the need for vaccination of children and procedures to improve public health. CSOs 

rely on accurate information to reach out to families who are in need of assistance and help them. 

Information, as seen in Table 3, relies on sources to be able to disseminate information to the public. 

These sources may be the scientific community, government, healthcare, or others. Ad hoc organizations 

need support from at least one of the other social institutions to validate them to the public. As discussed 

throughout the breakout session, the social institutions were not prioritized because they all serve 

different functions but are dependent on each other to remain operational.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Chapter 2 of Framework – Social Aspects of Resilience

30

Table 1. Workshop Input: How Family/Kinship, Economic, Education, and Scientific Institutions Depend on Other Social Institutions

Family/Kinship (1)

 Neighborhood connections

Economic (2)

 Econ development

 Institutions

 Workforce 

 Buyer/supplier/goods/services 

 Workforce

Education (3)

 Formal

 Informal

 Skill Development

 Continuing 

Scientific (4)

 Informed/expert influencer 

Family needs local businesses to operate when 

they return home

Economy needs education to support new 

development

Public safety officers need to be seen 

by primary grade kids

Science should/ can drive info

Some people rely heavily on CSOs to provide 

basic daily services

 CSOs, healthcare, information, government 

agencies

Local businesses need family to return to 

stay in business

Education needs gov’t to include new 

disaster / resistant education standards 

 Informed influencer

 Need process to access documents,

plans and community leaders

 Media

 Government, community, leadership

People need to work/ be productive to foster 

positive mental health 

 Individual/Family→ Economic

Economic sector (builders) needs gov’t to 

enforce consistent codes and standards

 Education-CSO Gov’t, Families, Etc.

 Need info to identify disturbed 

individuals 

Informed (science-based) information 

links to government to make better 

decisions

Families rely on information and ad hoc to 

make decisions about how to take action post 

event

Businesses need workers and workers need 

housing, link to kinship

Education needs information to share 

info about closings, openings, etc. 

Scientific- informed influence should 

be based on measurable information 

 Scientific → Info

Families need information to release stress to 

allow them to work/assist

 Businesses need supplies & customers

 Government facilitates consumer access 

via transportation networks 

Scientific community needs 

government for funding research 

Elderly and shut-ins need healthcare and CSOs Workforce needs healthcare to maintain 

operation, goes both ways

Neighborhoods need government to feel 

secure

Community’s economy relies on stable 

families/neighborhoods for workforce and 

consumers 

 Families depend on local business for food, 

needs

 Belief of families community 

Need reliable info from trusted sources to 

take proper action during and after disaster 

Family needs education for

 Disaster Drills

 New Information (schools →home)

Workers need info on getting kids in a crisis

Direct sectors of business- industries to 

work with one another to share resources
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Chapter 2 of Framework – Social Aspects of Resilience

31

Table 2. Workshop Input: How Government, Belief Organizations, Healthcare, and Community Institutions Depend on Other Social 

Institutions

Government (5)

 Agencies

 Local/regional

Belief Organizations (6)

 Religious

 Interest Based

 Civic

Healthcare (7)

 Public

 Rx

 Portable/ at home

 Mental health 

Community (8)

 Community serving 

organizations

 Public sector leaders

 Spark plugs

Government relies on information 

dissemination through media and social 

media

Belief orgs need tight knit families and

neighborhoods to ensure attendance at

meetings, events and disseminate information

Healthcare needs generators (relies on 

local business)

Community serving organizations 

rely on info to reach/access families 

with service needs 

Government needs families and community 

serving organizations to maintain a quality 

of life/ community normalcy 

Belief organizations - Info

 Rely on the information to get to members 

and move toward action

Healthcare- belief organizations

 Belief organizations need to back need 

for vaccination

Community services need ad hoc to 

supplement their resources and 

assets

Government depends on strong community 

and belief organization to implement 

plans/share info 

 Belief organizations 

 Community

 Government

 Info

Belief orgs provide moral, social and 

interactions for families

Healthcare and public health need 

government in order to provide a single 

and trustworthy voice about public health 

communications and health-related risks 

(think CDC and health department)

 Healthcare needs government 

Communities need non-resilience 

social connections to activate after 

disaster 

Local government (police) to help people 

through traffic and get them home safely in 

case of power outage 

Belief organizations need government to 

provide roles that support recovery

Healthcare needs community services to 

deliver care in the community 

CSOs need access to accurate 

information and context

Local gov’t needs to inform families about

school closures, hospital closures, and 

pharmacy closures. Family used to link 

information to education, healthcare, info

Belief organizations need ad hoc to increase 

personnel and resources and assets

Healthcare relied on trust with belief 

organizations to deliver services

Government needs trust/buy-in from 

scientific community and belief 

organizations to maintain legitimacy 

Belief organizations and community serving 

need to coordinate with each other and 

healthcare to manage cord/volunteer efforts 

Healthcare and comm. Serving triage, 

refers, work in coordination to maximize 

efficiency

Home-based patients need back up 

resources to help meet their needs

 Healthcare

 Individuals

 Information

 Local business 

Healthcare needs government to 

implement policies that reduce health 

risks during and after a disaster event
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #1: Chapter 2 of Framework – Social Aspects of Resilience

32

Table 3. Workshop Input: How Information and Ad Hoc Institutions Depend on Other Social Institutions

Information (9)

 Packaging/purpose

 Media

 Social

Ad Hoc (10)

 Virtual

 Flash mob of care/attention

Media and social media depends on tight-knit families and neighborhoods to share 

and distribute information

 Information 

 Family/kinship

Ad hoc organizations. Provide access to localized resources and info in a low organization 

overhead way

 Government agencies

 Family

 Media

Information (media) needs education to have disaster/resilient) literate society Ad hoc need info to link partner with comm. Service and gov’t, etc....

Media needs scientific, government, and healthcare to provide credible information to 

the world

Ad hoc needs validation from one or more other groups
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #2: Framework Chapter 3 – Community Resilience

33

7. Breakout Session #2: Framework Chapter 3 – Community Resilience

The facilitator led introduction of all participants. Then chapter author, Mr. Chris Poland, delivered a 

brief overview of the chapter and outlined the goals of the breakout session. 

The facilitator then led the group conversation, asking:

1. Communities are different – What kind of long-range plans do communities have? Where should 

resilience plans go?

2. On a day to day basis, how do you see this plan assisting your local government/communities?

How do you work with them on disaster resilience? Who is involved?

The participants listed a number of types of plans (Table 4) that would align well with resilience plans,

such as disaster plans housed in emergency management offices. Participants felt implementation of the 

Framework could benefit the community through economic development. In terms of logistics, they

believed a number of approaches could be used. For example, risk management could drive policies, or a 

local government leader could be the focal point leading resilience efforts.

The group then shifted its discussion to Framework integration into existing planning strategies. 

Specifically, participants were asked:

1. Based on the information we’ve provided about the Framework, what do you think are the best 

approaches and/or strategies for integrating it into your near- (0-5 years), mid- (>5-10 years) 

and long-term (>10 years +) planning for disaster resilience?

2. How will integration of this Framework benefit your planning efforts and responses during 

disaster events? 

3. What impacts could integration have in the near-, mid- and long-term? (not just disaster 

response, but economic, social, other).

4. What do you foresee as challenges to integration of the Framework into planning? 

The group identified both strategies and challenges for each of the timeframes (Table 5). In the near-term, 

participants felt the Framework could be used to apply for grants, support economic development, and 

work with stakeholders in the design phase of projects. However, participants also discussed that the 

Framework needs to be vetted and endorsed to be successful and, therefore, the product needs additional 

marketing. In the mid-term, participants suggested that planning for public outreach and policy 

development in the aftermath of a disaster event should take place so the community knows how to move 

forward in a structured way when a disaster event does occur. Participants stated that in the long-term, 

communities could work to develop and more in-depth plans to become more resilient.

The group then discussed the Executive Summary and provided feedback. Participants were asked:

1. Did the Executive Summary leave you with a clear initial understanding of the Framework? What 

stuck with you? 

2. Is there a clear call to action? 

3. Is there anything in the other chapters that is necessary to round out this summary?

As shown in Table 6, the group felt the Executive Summary clearly stated the difference between 

resilience and mitigation. However, they also felt that many improvements could be made. Participants 

suggested emphasizing the need to understand the community and built environment. They also suggested 

the Executive Summary be shortened and a Call for Action developed.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #2: Framework Chapter 3 – Community Resilience

34

Table 4. Workshop Input: Framework Integration at the Community Level

Framework Integration – Community Level –

Types of Plans/Offices Focused 

on Resilience Benefits and Logistics

Disaster Plans (live with 

emergency management)

 i.e. Local Emergency Planning 

Committee (LEPC), Evacuation 

Plan

Market Risk:

 Management policies as a driver -> for land 

use

 Mitigate social/ political cost

Driven By:

 Industry / Commerce Association

Risk Management:

 Lack of political power of 

planning whereas risk 

management has an 

economical language

Liability of Permitting

Plan Integration in South FL

 Comp. plans

 Land to use plans

 Mitigation

 Recovery

 Post recovery

 Redevelopment plans

Community Safety Element-

 San Francisco General Plan -

Supervisor’s Approved

Have local government executive serve as the 

focal point leading the resilience efforts so 

that departments take it seriously

 Resilience

 Planning Live with City 

 Administration/ Executive

 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 

(NHMP) - City of Portland

Economic development interests as supporters 

(How?)

 Recovery- Redevelopment

 Public Advisory Committee

Department of Commerce Economic Development 

Administration (DOC EDA)

 help, build, enable communication

Codes and Standards (S. FL)  Urban community business drives

 Office of Economic and Workforce Development

(OEWD) to consider economic resilience to 

disasters/cc
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #2: Framework Chapter 3 – Community Resilience

35

Table 5. Workshop Input: Framework Integration Strategies

Framework Integration – Strategies –

Near-Term (0-5 years) Challenges Mid-Term (>5-10 years) Challenges Long-Term (>10 years) Challenges

 Economic development

 Marketing opportunity

Framework is a public policy 

matter.

 You will get more leverage if 

it is vetted and endorsed.

Focus on legal and economic 

liabilities for local government 

(and tax and service implications)

Long-term planning 

brings vision to what 

needs to be accomplished 

– fresh water example in 

VA Beach

Leverage of advocacy 

groups to common goal

Challenge:

 Don’t do (or build) the way 

we have in the past

“Backroom” development of 

public outreach plan and policy 

points for discussion ready to go 

when disaster hits.

Challenges:

 Do real outreach that is 

inclusive and allows 

policies to be flexible 

Managing expectations.

 Political=Public

 It’s a marathon 

Apply for grants Resilience with personal 

brilliance (integration)

Engage communities throughout to 

enculturate resilience across political 

“dynasties”

Consider various insertion 

points – different for every 

jurisdiction

Consider ways to fast-track 

“resilience” projects as part of 

planning

This is a community 

planning effort, 

comparable to 

comprehensive planning, 

Capital Improvement Plan 

(CIP)

Promote strategy through 

National Associations: National 

Governors Association (NGA), 

National Electric Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA), National 

Association of Counties (NACO)

Work with stakeholders 

with projects and integrate 

resilience into design and 

construction

Plans are public 

statements of vision and 

goals. They are actualized 

through specific projects 

undertaken by many 

stakeholders. Local 

governments control only 

a small part of 

implementation

Create executive-level

focus to steer departments 

to seriously consider

resilience

Challenge:

 Organizational inertia 

associated with long-term 

employees

Participatory budgets glue 

communities and voices on how 

to spend money

Public comments and 

input to welcome all 

perspectives

Challenge: 

 Get to know your ‘client’. 

Align with local professionals

Leverage previous positive 

solutions to improve resilience
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #2: Framework Chapter 3 – Community Resilience

36

Table 6. Workshop Input: Stakeholder Input on Executive Summary

Executive Summary

What Worked Recommendations Additional Information

It’s clear – shows difference 

between mitigation and resilience

Audience – write to 

executive staff of local 

office

Emotional + Financial buyinExecutive Summary:

 Invitation to learn 

what this Framework

means to them

Define – What is a 

cluster in this 

Framework

Add: Natural 

Infrastructure 

 (pg.3 last paragraph)

Good paragraph on disaster 

resilience planning on top of page 3

 Highlight it via a side bar

Length:

 Shorter=Better

Need further focus on 

saving lives and livelihood 

through resilience 

Marketing matters – it 

needs a call to action

Context: The length of 

recovery – what is it? 

(Cedar Rapids: 7 years)

Return on Investment 

(ROI)? This is 

important upfront to 

users

Section on ‘Understanding Your 

Community and its Built 

Environment’ is great - needs more 

focus (end of page 3)

Use of appendices Worth discussing Disaster 

vs. Community Resilience?

Executive Summary vs. 

Introduction – need to 

be intertwined further?

There is focus on Ch. 2 

in the summary

 What about other 

chapters?

Need a call for action 

before the Executive 

Summary

The Story needs to engage Web-based engagement 

tool (Q’s) to help user 

understand their role in 

resilience 

Need to mention 

Human-caused disaster 

examples
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapter 5 – Buildings

37

8. Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapter 5 – Buildings 

The facilitator led participant introductions. Next, the chapter author, Mr. Robert Pekelnicky, delivered a 

brief chapter overview and outlined the goals of the breakout session. 

The facilitator then led the conversation of the group by asking:

1. Based on the presentations this morning about the Framework and draft chapter for the 

Buildings sector, what do you like about the Framework (e.g., approach to recovery time)?

2. Are there additional elements that should be considered? How implementable is the Framework?

The group had a very active discussion of what they liked and felt was missing from the Framework

(Table 7). Participants responded positively to the acknowledgement that the built environment supports 

the social and economic aspects of a community. Many participants also supported the approach, 

including bringing all stakeholders together and using a hazard-independent process rather than the 

typical engineering process. The group also listed a number of items they felt were missing from the 

Buildings Chapter (e.g., addressing issues pertinent to small communities, encouraging improved codes 

and standards, and discussing differences in building occupancy classes). Participants felt the Framework

could be implemented if it were marketed well to communities and used best practices and case studies to 

demonstrate ease of implementation.

The group was then asked:

Based on the information we’ve provided about the Framework, what do you think are the best 

approaches and/or strategies for integrating it into your near- (0-5 years), mid- (>5-10 years) and 

long-term (>10 years +) planning for the Building sector disaster resilience? 

Table 8 shows the many near- and mid-term strategies suggested to implement the Framework. In the 

near-term, participants felt identifying and understanding constraints would be essential. For example, in 

the Commonwealth of Virginia, the state operates by the Dillon Rule, meaning that communities cannot 

adopt standards that are stricter than those of the state without Commonwealth approval.

35 Participants 

also identified building support and advocacy for the resilience planning process as a key concept early in 

the process if the process is going to be successful. In the mid-term, the group felt establishing a plan for 

continuous improvement to achieve resilience once the initial planning process is initiated was important. 

Furthermore, the group felt that linking other programs (e.g., Leadership in Energy & Environmental 

Design [LEED]) with resilience would be helpful to get it off the ground and promote longevity.36 This 

process includes working with FEMA on the Community Rating System (CRS) to receive CRS points for

implementing and achieving resilience.37 In the long-term, participants believed it was important to get 

other industries involved in the resilience planning process (e.g., insurance, real estate appraisers). 

Participants thought involving these other industries would lead to incentives for critical facilities to be 

designed/strengthened such that they resist greater loads. 

 

35 Fairfax County, VA. Dillion Rule in Virginia. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/government/about/dillon-rule.htm. 

36 US Green Building Council. LEED. http://www.usgbc.org/leed. 

37 FEMA. Community Rating System. https://www.fema.gov/community-rating-system. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapter 5 – Buildings

38

Table 7. Stakeholder Thoughts on Framework and Potential Implementation

“What I Like” Gaps/What’s Missing in the Framework Framework Implementability

 The Framework supports social and 

economic environment (multi-faceted)

 It encourages bringing all stakeholders to 

the table – government, community 

organizations, and the design/construction 

profession/industry

 The process is thoughtful and hazard 

independent that looks beyond just the 

engineering

 It incorporates the idea of an active vs. 

passive approach (e.g., active vs. passive 

fire protection systems)

 The Framework is comprehensive in 

scope that recognizes interdependencies

 The Framework embodies realistic 

challenges that were articulated by the 

plenary speaker (e.g., requiring different 

methodologies depending upon the 

governance for resilience Framework

implementation)

 The Framework’s intent as a tool for 

conversation and discussion for decisions 

on implementation at the community level

 The use of the hierarchy of human 

needs/social metrics

 The Framework is adaptable to a 

particular community’s needs and specific 

hazards

 The Framework looks not only at 

quantitative resilience metrics, but also 

qualitative elements

 NIST focus on (pre-disaster) planning for 

resilience, mitigation design and not “after 

the fact” (post-disaster)

 Best management practices need to play a prominent role in the 

Framework; focus on disaster types and include as addendum 

 Framework needs to spell out specific code actions (for 

implementation) or provide standards as a prescriptive model

 More attention needs to be paid to smaller community issues; it 

needs to address the issue of limited capacity and resources

 Framework needs to address the idea of working with State 

uniform building codes to allow for increased code requirements 

(e.g., In Virginia, communities are precluded from adopting 

higher standards unless the Commonwealth says it can)

 Framework needs to include disaster specific references for codeplus building 

 Framework needs to include a recommended approach for 

prioritizing actions to close current vs. needed gaps

 Framework needs to address idea of increasing resilience through 

design improvements vs. only looking at increased hazard levels

 For wind design, the Framework needs to address damage to the 

building envelope (and not Main Wind Force Resisting System).

 Framework should be organized vis-à-vis the economic capacity 

of the community 

 Framework needs to address the different short-term economic 

interests of different classes of buildings. For example, box-store 

buildings are not intended to have a long service life, and are 

often designed to only meet minimum code requirements.

 Framework needs to go further to define next step of 

recommending design standards above code for different classes 

of buildings with the idea that they would be voluntarily adopted

 Use of 100-year mean recurrence interval for flood (hazard) is 

not correct; it is annual probability of flood in any one year

 Framework needs to include information on costs

 Framework needs to provide greater emphasis on the fact that 

minimum building code design does not equal resilience.

 Routine, expected and extreme events need to be better defined 

(e.g., relating to defining the return periods in years)

 Framework should convey consensus on resilient design practices 

and recommendations; should not be one industry’s opinion

 A review of ASCE 41 is needed; concern expressed that it has

flawed seismic ground motion characterization for (use in) design

 Framework does not protect public safety because it doesn’t 

consider impacts from max. potential earthquake source 

 In order to enhance Framework implementability, it will 

be important to make the document easily acceptable and 

understandable for communities to use (streamline the 

document, write in layperson terms)

 There needs to be a marketing component to the 

Framework, especially when it is released. It will be 

important to compel communities to use the Framework.

 Including best practices and case studies that demonstrate 

Framework implementability will be important

 Marketing and financial barriers need to be overcome in 

order to implement the Framework

 Include checklists/flowcharts for communities to use as a 

“go-by” that demonstrate how they can accomplish 

resilience (at specific performance levels)

 The individual Framework elements need to be cohesive 

and the Framework needs to be used holistically; it 

shouldn’t be a matter of picking and choosing select parts, 

rather communities need to be compelled to use the 

Framework in its entirety

 For Framework implementability, there needs to be 

consideration for a community’s capacity and the 

expertise required to plan for and achieve resilience. To 

the extent that there are incentives provided to 

communities for planning and achieving resilience via the 

Framework will be important.

 Decisions regarding the use of the Framework need to be 

made at the local level (grass roots/community based). 

Additionally, considerations for incentives need to be 

made to enhance implementability at the local level.

 The Framework should include a model incentive 

legislation (policy/ordinance) to encourage community 

participation in plan implementation (more examples, gobys, checklists).

 If achieving resilience through use of the Framework

becomes mandatory, that decision needs to be made at the 

community level.

 Overall, the Framework is a good tool; the challenge will 

be how to compel communities to use the tool. 

Incentivization vs. punitive will be important (“carrot vs. 

the stick”). 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #3: Framework Chapter 5 – Buildings

39

Table 8. Workshop Input: Strategies for Implementing Framework in Near-, Mid-, and Long-Term

Near-Term Integration Strategies Mid-Term Integration Strategies Long-Term Integration Strategies

 Assess the inventory of building stock within the community

 Early on, develop clear language (in the form of a communications 

plan that is focused on the community with its interests in mind) to 

communicate the degree to which a community can be safer, 

stronger if resilience is achieved; as part of this communications 

approach needs to also describe realistically the expected 

performance needed (by a community) to achieve resilience. It will 

be important to use common language so that communication 

between different stakeholders can happen efficiently in the 

planning process.

 Identify building industry stakeholders and invite them into the 

process early on (e.g., Building Owners and Managers Association 

[BOMA], NAHB [National Association of Home Builders], 

American Institute of Architects [AIA])

 Consideration needs to be given to streamline the permitting process 

early on. This will identify ways in which planning processes can be 

integrated with the resilience planning process.

 The process needs to be transparent at the onset; one way to 

encourage integration is establishing a process by which information 

can be shared (across planning processes)

 Understand the challenge of constraints in Dillon Rule states; early 

on, establish a mechanism to allow local code changes. Identify 

additional laws/building codes that would not allow for stricter, 

more resilient standards. 

 Establish an education and marketing campaign beginning with the 

local technical professionals, followed by political leaders, and 

lastly the public

 In addition to assessing the building stock, need to identify data 

needs and gaps to plan for and achieve resilience through plan 

implementation (a degree of measurement/evaluation will also be 

achieved by identifying the data needs)

 Identify hazards unique to communities and identify hazards to a 

community’s building clusters and dependencies; assess 

consequences of disaster event; communicate hazards to 

stakeholders and prioritize options to prepare and plan for resilience

 Advertise new building requirements with a community/jurisdiction; 

rewrite the NFIP and address (insurance) affordability

 Lower the substantial damage threshold/cumulative damage 

requirements as an incentive to consider resilient approaches

 Establish a plan for continuous improvement to achieve 

resilience (once the initial planning process has been 

initiated within a community)

 Pilot resilience plan implementation (in a community or 

communities with different characteristics) to test the 

systems/mechanisms a community has identified to achieve 

resilience (focus on integration with other planning 

processes).

 Conduct research to refine knowledge about hazards of 

interest and best mitigation practices for buildings.

 Link LEED and other systems with resilience and 

mitigation strategies (identify specific ways in which the 

linkages can take place through research)

 Once the resilience plan has been developed, identify 

funding sources at private, city, state, federal level and 

opportunities with non-profits.

 In the mid-term, once voluntary resilience programs have 

been implemented, mandate requirements by local 

jurisdictions (local community needs to buy into and 

implement the mandatory approach)

 Implement a guaranteed fast-track permitting process for 

building upgrade projects

 Achieve resilience by retrofitting buildings at the city block 

scale, and not widely separated locations (avoid the quiltpatch approach to resilience – look at it more holistically)

 Need to consider strategy for using resilience as a catalyst 

to strengthen and retrofit existing building stock and new 

construction that is built to higher standards

 Consider working with FEMA on the Community Rating 

System to receive CRS points as a result of achieving 

resiliency

 Need to ensure that the Framework links the science to 

achieving resilience. It should also link economic savings 

for retrofit and renewable energy (to achieve resilience)

 Incentives play an important role in achieving resilience 

and it needs to be accommodated in the strategy (example 

of Los Angeles tax holiday for businesses that retrofit 

buildings)

 Integrate other industries (e.g., 

insurance, real estate, appraisers) into 

the resilience planning process

 Concern was expressed that the longterm should not be longer than 10 

years (too long of a timeframe to plan 

for and achieve resilience)

 Identify critical facilities and their 

ability to be repurposed as a “superrobust” buildings (for earthquakes); 

there needs to be an incentive for 

designing super buildings
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 6 – Transportation Systems

40

9. Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 6 – Transportation Systems

The facilitator began the breakout session by leading introduction of all participants. After completing 

introductions, the chapter authors, Mr. Ted Zoli and Dr. Erin Ashley, gave a brief overview of the chapter 

and outlined the goals of the breakout session. 

The facilitator then led the group conversation by asking:

1. How do you envision using the Framework? 

2. What elements of the Framework will help you use it in planning and resilience efforts? 

3. What other elements should the Framework address?

The group listed their thoughts by stakeholder group (Table 9). For example, participants felt community 

leaders could use the Framework to help develop a community resilience plan, assess their community’s 

resilience, identify critical assets, and prioritize their assets. Participants also found the Framework’s 

examples helpful to provide context and illustrate potential options/strategies for becoming more resilient. 

The group did feel community leaders would benefit from additional information about which resources 

are publically available to increase knowledge and assist in decision-making.

The group was then asked:

1. What vulnerabilities or challenges have you experienced during disaster events due to 

dependencies or interdependencies with other sectors? 

2. What steps have you taken to work with other sectors on dependencies and interdependencies?

Participants had good input regarding interdependencies with other sectors (Table 10). They discussed the 

challenge related to reliance on gasoline to operate vehicles. However, participants noted that the 

transportation system may also be needed to deliver gasoline from a refinery in another state to a local gas 

station. One strategy to mitigate this potential problem is to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

However, the transportation system must be functional to facilitate fuel delivery. Participants also noted 

that the intermodal transportation is important to consider. For example, bridge failures can cause 

disruptions to roadway transportation, which can impact the demand for trains, subways, and waterways.

After discussion of interdependencies with the transportation sector, the breakout group was asked:

1. How does the transportation sector define near-, mid-, and long-term community planning? 

2. What are the best approaches and/or strategies for integrating the Framework into sector 

planning for disaster resilience for each of these terms? 

3. What impacts and benefits could integration have?

The group agreed that in the transportation sector, near-term planning would range from 0-5 years, midterm from 5-25 years, and long-term for more than 25 years in the future. Participants felt integrating the 

Framework in the short-term would be best achieved by integrating the concepts with other existing plans

(Table 11). Participants also believed the Framework could be used as best practices in identifying 

strategies for resilience. These uses would result in many benefits to communities, including improved 

decision-making during disasters and blue-sky events and updated response plans. In the mid-term, 

participants felt the Framework could be used to develop a long-term financing strategy, and understand 

how emerging practices are changing the way transportations systems function. This use would result in 

benefits such as identifying and managing risks to the system as well as response strategies. Long-term, 

the group felt the Framework could be used to examine business disruptions due to transportation mode 

failures; and advanced best practices could be used to limit/overcome disruptions to the transportation 

system.

The breakout group was then asked:

1. What do you foresee as challenges to integrating the Framework into community planning? 

2. What strategies do you recommend for overcoming these challenges? 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 6 – Transportation Systems

41

Challenges the group anticipated fell into three categories (Table 12): Compelling messaging, funding, 

and complexity of transportation system. When discussing the challenges of messaging, participants felt 

that different types of users of the Framework would need different messaging to compel them to use the 

document. One suggested strategy to overcome this and other challenges was making the economic case 

for Framework implementation. With respect to funding, the main concern was identifying a source to 

develop and implement a disaster resilience plan. To alleviate the funding challenges, participants 

believed that prioritizing the appropriate resources based on an acceptable level of risk would be one way 

to become more resilient over time. The group also pointed out that the transportation system itself is very 

complex, with constantly changing user-behavior, which could impact Framework relevance. Since states 

are often in control of their transportation systems, their different policies could also create disconnects. 

Participants suggested collaboration between states and other stakeholders as the best strategy to 

overcome these challenges.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 6 – Transportation Systems

42

Table 9. Workshop Input: Uses of Framework and Needed Elements

Stakeholder Uses Positive Aspects Gaps

Owners and 

Operators (incl. 

engineers and 

consultants

 Data modeling for cyber infrastructure

 Anticipatory governance; can reorganize to 

be able to anticipate risk and respond to 

incidents

 Conduct risk assessments and determine 

mitigation steps (e.g., preplacement of 

assets, identify alternate delivery strategy)

 Use of the Framework will drive the collection 

of new data; used to make informed decisions

 Include safe-to-fail approaches, not just failsafe practices; each represents different 

thinking, which owners/operators will need to 

consider

Community Leaders  As a reference for talking about resilience; 

need communities to implement

 Help small communities develop a disaster 

resilience plan; assess resilience, identify 

critical assets, prioritize

 Develop interdisciplinary urban planning, 

land use, transportation practices

 Use of the Framework will help implement a 

systematic approach to address resiliency

 Case studies and the conceptual model included 

in the Framework will help provide context and 

illustrate options for action

 The Social Aspects chapter will help tie 

physical assets to sociology and community 

needs

 Include additional information about which 

resources are publicly-available to increase

knowledge and enable decision-making (e.g., 

bridge and pipeline data, assessment tools)

Policymakers  Serve as a Framework to guide national 

transportation policy related to resilience, 

which trickles down to the community level

 Plant the idea in their heads about resilience 

and the need for contingencies for failure

Academia  Identify gaps or needs for future research 

that would better enable application of the 

Framework

 Educate students and promote broader 

systems-level thinking

 Develop credit requirements to incorporate 

disaster resilience into urban planner and 

engineer degrees (note: this may fall within in 

Framework implementation rather than the 

Framework itself)

Regulators  Support the planning and execution of the 

audit process by keeping up with current 

trends and practices

Multiple 

Stakeholders

 Specific consequences of various hazards and 

the factors that increase the resiliency of the 

system

 Graphic to illustrate various modes of goods 

shipment, to show the complexity of the system 

and alternate options and impacts
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 6 – Transportation Systems

43

Table 10. Workshop Input: Challenges of and Approaches to Overcome Interdependencies

Sector Challenges Approaches

Economy – Supply 

Chain, Logistics

 Disruptions in the transportation system impacts communities (often 

multiple) as local businesses provide manufactured goods (e.g., auto 

parts, construction materials); economic data (e.g., for bridge or rail 

failures) is needed

 Local businesses will need to identify alternate shipping methods (e.g., 

rail, barge, truck, combination thereof)

 Modern business practices, such as just-in-time inventories, yield 

system dependencies, especially for perishable goods

 NIST economic analysis may be good data to reference in the 

Framework, either as an appendix or a stand-alone document

 Communities should identify their “perfect storm” and make decisions 

accordingly

Positives about 

Dependencies

 Consider dependencies a positive; add resilience by adding dependencies 

and redundancies

Power/Energy

 Gasoline is needed to enable travel by vehicle; there is a reliance on 

refineries in other states and the transportation system to get the 

product to market

 The use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve may be a good solution; 

however, the transportation system still must facilitate delivery of fuel

Communications

 Need access to telecommunications services and ensure redundancies 

in systems

 Internet capabilities are needed to run intelligent transportation systems 

(e.g., cameras) and to inform the public of incidents and alternate 

routes (e.g., through social media)

 Identify synergies by coupling transportation with communications; one 

example is clearly communicating where crews should be sent for 

restoration of services

 Technology and social media help provide situational awareness to 

decision-makers and the public, and enable smart decisions about 

alternate routes and a reduction of stress on the transportation system

Buildings/Facilities  Buildings themselves are not a dependency; the public will want to 

travel to specific activities housed in the building

 Design buildings to enable shelter-in-place to reduce the need for 

evacuation and reduce stress on the transportation system

Water/Wastewater  Water is needed for fire suppression throughout the system, 

particularly at airports

Intermodal/System

 There are no small bridge failures; impacts will be widespread

 Traffic congestion impacts local communities (e.g., evacuation and 

response capabilities)

 Transportation functionality is required to ensure access to the incident 

site; secure areas, such as utilities, are an added challenge

 Look at international examples / case studies on bridges and the impacts 

on inspections

 Policymakers should balance the desire for urban density with the need 

for access by responders, evacuation routes, and hospital transport

 Review the Chilean earthquake example regarding the use of 

international standards in construction; look at how old versus new 

constructed acted during the quake

Political/Bureaucracy

 Federal agencies with jurisdiction over transportation are stovepiped 

and are often disconnected with decision-making needs of local 

officials

 With the transportation system spanning multiple jurisdiction, the 

differences between states (e.g., policies, laws, resource availability, 

collaboration) is a challenge

 Incentivize building-in resilience into the system; consider intermodal 

approaches and use federal grant funding
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 6 – Transportation Systems

44

Table 11. Workshop Input: Best Strategies for Integrating Framework into Transportation Sector Planning

Planning 

Phase

Near-Term Planning (0-5 Years)

Capital Planning

Mid-Term Planning (5-25 Years)

Planning Horizon

Long-Term Planning (>25 Years)

Approaches 

and 

strategies 

for 

integration

Align needs with other plans and requirements, and 

secure funding (federal and state)

 Transportation Improvement Program

 Surface Transportation Program (STP) under Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21 Century Act (MAP-21)

 Climate adaptation

Assess progress on integration of the Framework

 Data gathered

 Lessons learned

 What worked/didn’t

Examine business disruptions of modal failures

Develop an initial awareness, communication, and 

education campaign 

 For communities and universities (grant recipients)

 Available funding streams

Establish project priorities given limited budgets Develop a long-term financing strategy 

Use the Framework as best practices in identifying 

financing strategies for resilience

 Look toward the emergence and use of new 

technologies and impacts on system

 Discuss/consider/take into account how emerging 

practices are changing the way the system works

Implement advanced practices:

 Accelerated bridge construction

 Use of strategic corridors and co-location of 

sectors with transportation network

Impacts 

and 

benefits of 

integration

Connect strategic transportation planning taking place 

on the federal level to the community level

Better connections of federal programs to communities

Strategic review of needs/solutions can lead to the 

development of new mutual aid agreements

Self-funded entities (e.g., toll operators) can lead 

resilience practices due to ease of project funding

Improved decision-making during disasters and on 

blue-sky days

Identify and manage risks to the system; identify 

alternate response strategies 

Encourage informed decision-making

Discussions about economic impacts can yield closer 

collaboration between transportation and economic 

development offices

 Influence long-range state transportation plan

 Use of Department of Transportation (DOT)-

maintained database

Identify/engage new/additional stakeholders:

 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)

 Owners/operators within the system

 Businesses relying on the system serve as advocates

Take advantage of the strategic discussions to update 

response plans, e.g., evacuation and shelter-in-place 

Transportation system must support community’s 

response strategy

Encourage discussions of impacts on coastal 

communities

Enable rapid-recovery using pre-set equipment and 

materials
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #4: Framework Chapter 6 – Transportation Systems

45

Table 12. Workshop Input: Challenges to Implementing Framework and Strategies to Overcome

Category Challenge Strategy

Compelling 

messaging

Different models of users mean there is a need for different 

types/levels of messaging to be applicable to the most stakeholders

Make the economic case for implementing the Framework

Identify ancillary benefits of resilience

Framework should be clearly disaster-agnostic and focus on impacts 

to the built environment

Talk about benefits to network performance and mobility and prioritizing 

investments

Need to clearly explain how the Framework is compatible with other 

Frameworks and plans (e.g., resilient cities, United Nations [UN])

Identify sector-specific specialists to work with the chief resilience officer; will be 

an advocate for the sector and identify dependencies and interdependencies

Need to clearly explain how communities can implement the 

Framework, and get their buy-in

Develop a national repository of best practices, case studies, and resilience plans for 

communities to access/use

Include specific steps in the Framework as potential options for implementation

Need to identify a local champion(s), especially cities without a 

resilience officer

How do communities battle complacency and encourage 

development of a resilience plan?

Funding

Need to identify a funding stream to develop and implement a 

disaster resilience plan

Determine the accurate level of risk and allocate funding to buy down that risk

Prioritize sources and allocation of resources, e.g., from gas tax, pay for use

Complexity of 

transportation 

system

With ever-evolving transportation system user behavior, how does 

the Framework remain relevant and help communities stay ahead of 

the curve?

The DRSP will play a key role in ensuring the Framework remains relevant and 

helpful; the right stakeholders must be at the table:

 FEMA

 Users of the system 

 Resilience officers

 Local businesses

 State DOTs

 Policymakers / politicians

What technologies, behaviors, and threats haven’t stakeholders 

thought of yet and developed plans for? How does the Framework 

enable these discussions?

How does the Framework account for complexities in 

interoperability between transportation and other systems

Each state (and communities) will view and act on resilience 

differently; how does this impact/drive mutual aid agreements, DOT 

decisions, and funding?

Encourage state-to-state collaboration to agree on common elements of the 

Framework 

Political and bureaucratic issues permeate transportation system 

decisions about priorities, funding, etc. 

Encourage collaboration (e.g., federal agencies, state leaders, private industry)
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #5: Framework Chapter 7 – Power and Energy Systems

46

10. Breakout Session #5: Framework Chapter 7 – Power and Energy Systems

The breakout session began with the facilitator leading participant introductions. Next, the chapter 

authors, Mr. Scott Tezak and Mr. Stuart McCafferty, provided a brief overview of the chapter and 

outlined the goals of the breakout session.

The facilitator then led the group conversation of the group by asking:

1. What challenges have you experienced in past disaster events due to interdependencies with other 

sectors?

2. What are the key Framework components with respect to the energy sector and how could the

Framework be used by the energy sector?

Table 13 lists participant input during this discussion. When discussing past experiences of 

interdependencies with other sectors from the electric power perspective, gasoline and transportation were 

two of the most important interdependencies, based on participant experience. After a disaster event, 

gasoline was described as “gold” because many people will pay large amounts for gasoline for back-up 

power and vehicles. Transportation is also important to the energy sector because repair workers need to 

access sites where failures have occurred. To overcome some interdependency problems experienced in 

the past, the participants listed several potential solutions, including developing inter-utility working 

groups and using incident command systems. 

The group felt the Executive Summary should capture the fact that electricity is now considered a 

necessity and understanding the interdependencies and energy needs of different sectors drives the need 

for energy resilience planning, continuous improvements, and hardening. The participants also pointed 

out that new technologies are already being introduced to the grid and are enhancing the resilience of the 

energy system. The participants envisioned using the Framework as a tool to help with code development 

focusing more on the importance of resilience. It was also felt that it was useful to understand 

interdependencies, prioritize scheduling of activities, and understand efforts/needs of other sectors. 

The group was then asked:

1. What are the challenges to implementation of the Framework and ways to address these

challenges?

2. What are the foreseen benefits of implementing the Framework?

The group felt that getting buy-in from stakeholders and communities would be the greatest challenge for 

implementing the Framework. Participants felt the best strategy to overcome this challenge would be to 

educate stakeholders and communities with business case arguments, including benefits to the economy, 

commercial sector, and health sector. When discussing the benefits of implementing the Framework, 

group responses fell into three categories: 1) During disaster events; 2) During day-to-day operations; and 

3) Other benefits. As shown in Table 14, participants felt that implementing the Framework would result 

in a more resilient system in which fewer disruptions occur. Implementation could be beneficial since it 

could help shift the mind-set of building and rebuilding. Furthermore, the Framework may also encourage 

innovation that would result in more cost-effective methods of implementing resilience strategies.

Participants were then asked:

1. How does the power sector define near-, mid-, and long-term community planning?

2. Best approaches/strategies for implementing the Framework in the power sector planning for 

disaster resilience for each term?

3. What impacts could implementation have in each term?

The group agreed that the near-term would range from 1-2 years, mid-term would range from 3-5 years, 

and long-term would range from 10-20 years. The group felt that near-term strategies for implementing 

the Framework in the energy sector included incorporating hazard assessments into the planning process, 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #5: Framework Chapter 7 – Power and Energy Systems

47

improving relationships with contractors and suppliers, and establishing a team to initiate the process

(Table 15). These near-term strategies could result in reliability improvements, synergy with other teams, 

transparency, and partnership building. 

In the mid-term, participants considered community buy-in important for implementation. Furthermore, 

the group felt that rate case studies could be used to measure the additional cost and determine the 

benefits associated with those costs. As a result, these studies could lead to outcomes that help make the 

case for resilience planning in the longer-term. In the long-term, using the Framework to influence 

regulatory issues would lead to increased resilience in the energy sector.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #5: Framework Chapter 7 – Power and Energy Systems

48

Table 13. Workshop Input: Interdependencies Impacting Energy Sector and Envision Use of Framework

What challenges have 

you experience during 

disaster events due to 

interdependencies with 

other sectors?

What steps have you taken or should be taken to 

work with other sectors?

What Key Elements of 

the Power sector should 

be high-lighted in the 

Executive Summary?

How do you envision using the 

Framework?

What specific elements of 

the Framework will help 

you with resilience 

efforts?

Gasoline is GOLD!

You will pay anything for 

gas- backup power, 

transportation

Communications priority 

listing 

Inter-utilities working 

together (working groups)

Technologies are 

“quickly” being 

introduced to our grid and 

are enhancing energy 

resiliency

As a tool to help with code 

development- convince legislators, 

regulators, various boards of the 

importance of resilience. Benefitsfinancial, safety, recovery from the 

unavoidable disasters

Clarify role industry in 

creating a common 

resiliency plan 

Communications as it 

relates to pre-planning

FLEX strategies (nuclear 

plants)

Incident command system Electric sector exec 

summary 

 Electricity is now 

considered a necessity 

and understanding the

interdependencies and 

energy needs of 

different sectors drives 

the need for energy 

resiliency planning, 

continuous 

improvements 

hardening and recovery 

Advising utility clients (who we 

design 

generation/transmission/distribution 

assets) that this is a proactive 

approach to improved service 

Formalize systems analysis 

application to treatment of 

facility-specific 

interdependencies 

Notification/warning 

system benefits in common 

and response strategies 

 E.g. Weather warnings, 

seismic warnings 

FEMA Planning State emergency 

management agency

Emergency water should 

have standby power 

facilities for a max of 2 

weeks, not 72 hours

As a tool for developing and 

executing security and resilience 

assessment capacities to support 

community and regional steady 

state planning and post-incident 

recovery efforts

Performance expectations 

internal and external 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #5: Framework Chapter 7 – Power and Energy Systems

49

What challenges have 

you experience during 

disaster events due to 

interdependencies with 

other sectors?

What steps have you taken or should be taken to 

work with other sectors?

What Key Elements of 

the Power sector should 

be high-lighted in the 

Executive Summary?

How do you envision using the 

Framework?

What specific elements of 

the Framework will help 

you with resilience 

efforts?

Getting to damaged areas 

to repair systems

DHS- Office of 

Infrastructure protection 

has a division (sector 

outreach and programs 

division) that builds 

stakeholder capacity and 

enhances CI security and 

resilience through 

voluntary partnerships that 

provide key tools, 

resources, and 

partnerships. Division 

operates council and 

stakeholder engagement 

mechanisms 

Pre-communication with 

transportation accesscontrol and transportation 

damage supporting

Expected performance & 

gaps

For discussion on design basis 

criteria for increasing resiliency of 

our power grid. Higher structural 

requirements, more money 

Using the performance 

matrices to determine if the 

company is meeting the 

expected recovery time

Provision of several 

scenarios for disaster 

resilience, which needs 

technical researches

Drought at Atlantic Island 

and the water supply was 

all contaminated by sea 

water, water had to be 

transported to the 

consumer by trucks

Water/wastewater 

coordinate well with 

electricity/energy sector 

 Pump stations

 Potable water

Clarify role of utilities in 

relationship to community

How to use Framework?

 Understand dependences

 Prioritization and scheduling of 

activities

 Measure resiliency for 

community

 Understand priorities, timelines, 

and efforts involved in other 

sectors

 Understand gaps in codes and 

standards

Add a section on how 

community advocate can 

work with regulator to 

push Framework elements

Transportation access Using Framework to show upper 

management the importance of 

resilience. And ask, “Should we 

consider extreme events?”

It would be interesting to 

see a discussion on new, 

innovative, funding 

mechanisms to finance 

resilience

Design criteria variations 

(codes interdependencies) 

between and within 

sections 

An outlook for where 

energy infrastructure will 

be in 5, 10, 20 years and 

how that relates to 

resiliency.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #5: Framework Chapter 7 – Power and Energy Systems

50

What challenges have 

you experience during 

disaster events due to 

interdependencies with 

other sectors?

What steps have you taken or should be taken to 

work with other sectors?

What Key Elements of 

the Power sector should 

be high-lighted in the 

Executive Summary?

How do you envision using the 

Framework?

What specific elements of 

the Framework will help 

you with resilience 

efforts?

Cellular communications 

especially key 

enabling/disabling 

technology after disaster 

events (e.g., Peaking, or 

plan for less availability)

GAPS, external standards 

guides

Understanding community 

metrics and performance 

goals for recovery and 

resilience (expectations vs. 

capabilities)
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #5: Framework Chapter 7 – Power and Energy Systems

51

Table 14. Workshop Input: Challenges, Strategies, and Benefits of Implementing Framework

Challenges to implementing the 

Framework in community 

planning

Strategies to overcome these 

challenges? How will implementation of the Framework benefit...

Buy-in 

 (Did you get it)

Educate with business case arguments Your planning efforts and 

responsibilities during disaster 

events?

Day to day operations? Other benefits...

Stakeholder buy-in Articulate the benefits of resiliency 

economic, commercial, health 

Realize your investment More “normal” days Other benefits:

 Efficient improvements

Change Management is always a 

challenge

 Buy-in at

 Exec

 Management levels

 Staff

 Is this even a good idea

NIST product Consistency and continuous 

improvement across the country 

 Process improvements

Effects of all events will 

be minimized- economic, 

societal, etc. 

Other benefits:

 More innovative

Management acceptance Regulatory support Framework can give a clearer focus 

in planning (useful constraints that 

would other-wise be treated 

arbitrarily) 

A peace of mind- as 

prepared as possible

Challenge:

 Overcoming community 

resistance based on the cost of 

resilience implementation

Education, education, education... Conducting targeted research and 

analysis on critical infrastructure 

security and resilience issues such as 

infrastructure financing and resilient 

design

Resilient corp. culture

Getting management buy-in Awareness

Cost/benefit analysis 

Having a more resilient system Less disruption

Different criteria for each cluster Change of mind set, 

resilience and demand

Funding for resilience additions 

(savings on the back end though) 

But may not cost more to add 

resilience 

Regulatory 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #5: Framework Chapter 7 – Power and Energy Systems

52

Table 15. Workshop Input: Strategies for and Benefits of Implementing Framework

Near-, mid-, and longterm community 

planning – Generation, 

Transmission, 

Distribution Could Vary

Approaches/strategies for 

Implementing the Framework Impacts

Near (N)

1-2 Years

Incorporate formal hazard assessment 

into the planning process

Need a responsible 

team/committee/div to 

institute/initiate (people 

infrastructure, put in place)

Reliability 

improvements

Short term impacts: Not really much if 

you look for quick wins- use existing 

short-term plans and simply identify 

resilience benefits. Don’t change plans, 

but start the thought process

Relationships with suppliers, 

contractors

Community and regional support Cost: Set up resilience 

team 

Benefit: Synergy with 

other teams

Raises awareness and shows 

commitment with (potential) least cost

As part of Normal OPS Planning within 

utilities consider resilience “Quick 

wins” and include in annual reports to 

regulatory commissions

Planning to replace aged structure 

and electrical equipment to 

increase reliability

Getting upper 

management to buy into 

the Framework

Transparency and partnership building

Mid (M)

3-5 years

Availability of supplies

 Master agreements

 Local supplies

Community buy-in Improve economic 

growth

Becomes part of planning process and 

requirements

 Better awareness and products

When evaluating new grid 

modernization technologies, include 

formalized assessment against 

Framework. Include in vendor trade 

study analysis. Put in requirements

Vendor resilience ratings and 

relationships in place

 Trial proof-of-concept projects

Costs: Expect some 

added cost for 

proof/concepts

Benefits: Clear basis to 

implement resilience at 

no cost increase in 

projects

Calibrate company’s Framework

Submit rate case request to initiate 

projects

Regulators could require it as part 

of rate case 

Adding readiness in the system

Long (L)

10-20 years

Integrate successful test case lessons 

learned and scale to several projects

 Advocate/leadership

 Improve Framework implementation

 Enhance public image

States and local governments 

could tailor to their specific 

environment and community 

priorities and needs

Improve resilience Tailored, very specific, localized 

Frameworks

 Much better resiliency

 Common understanding and goals

 Nirvana

Regulatory issues (environmental, etc.) Just do it Identify fatal flaws Increased resiliency in system

Planning that includes resiliency goals 

vs. demand only

Interdependencies Costs: No added costs for resilience

Benefits: Realize vision-success expert, public image enhancement 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #6: Framework Chapter 8 – Communication and Information Systems

53

11. Breakout Session #6: Framework Chapter 8 – Communication and Information

Systems

The breakout session began with the facilitator leading the introduction of all participants. After 

introductions were complete, the chapter author, Mr. David Mizzen, gave a brief overview of the chapter 

and outlined the goals of the breakout session. Mr. Mizzen asked how many participants had read the 

75% draft of the Communications and Information Systems Chapter. About three-quarters of the 

participants indicated they had read the chapter.

The discussion of the chapter began immediately after Mr. Mizzen’s remarks. The facilitator began the 

conversation by asking:

What are the best mitigation and/or recovery strategies for integrating the Framework into 

communication sector planning for disaster resilience for each of these timeframes?

The breakout group identified mitigation and recovery strategies used on an ongoing basis, along with

strategies that could be used in the intermediate (3-5 years) and long-term (5-7 years) to limit damage to 

the communication infrastructure system in a future hazard event. Most strategies identified (Table 16) 

were categorized as ongoing because service providers work in a competitive business environment

where technology is constantly evolving and efforts to maintain service are paramount to address 

increasing consumer expectations.

After discussing mitigation and recovery strategies, participants were asked to discuss their experiences 

with interdependencies with other infrastructure sectors. Specifically, participants were asked:

1. What steps have you taken to work with other sectors?

2. What are some potential approaches/strategies for working with other sectors on disaster 

interdependencies?

3. What are the challenges?

Participants focused discussion on identifying dependencies of the communications sector on other 

sectors and potential solutions (Table 17). The primary dependencies included access to cell sites (i.e., 

transportation) and external electrical power. However, participants also listed water for cooling and 

chillers and dependencies between various types of communication systems as concerns. In terms of 

strategies to overcome interdependencies with other sectors, the breakout group listed several key 

concepts, including working with Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), power utilities, and other 

communication service providers to take advantage of the different system (e.g., one-way vs. two-way 

communication systems). Participants also felt it was important to note that service providers have many 

strategies to overcome failures and want to be told what the problem is rather than which solution to use.

After this discussion, the facilitator led discussion of how the group envisioned using the Framework and 

what elements should be added to make it more useful:

1. How will integration of this Framework benefit your planning efforts and responses during 

disaster events? 

2. What elements of the Framework will you use? 

Participants felt the Framework would be useful to initiate a pilot study with a local government, 

prioritizing traffic after disaster events and helping communities understand communications needs for 

access, fuel, and security to restore services when a disruption occurs. The group felt the Framework

could be a tool to collaborate with municipalities and understand the interdependencies between sectors. 

Participants also felt a number of elements were missing from the Framework (Table 18), including 

acknowledging that the communications industry cannot go to taxpayers for cost relief. The group’s 

biggest concern was including a completed performance goals table for the communications sector. 

Although the table was clearly labeled as an example, the group feared a regulatory body would see the 

table and try to enforce those performance goals on service providers, which may not always be realistic. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #6: Framework Chapter 8 – Communication and Information Systems

54

Table 16. Workshop Input: Mitigation and Recovery Strategies Used in Communications Sector

Planning Timeframe and Mitigation/Recovery Strategies

Ongoing, 

continuous

Education on 

prioritization options 

e.g., TSP

Exercise/ simulations, 

more specific is better

Capacity planning, 

lifecycle management 

and ongoing network 

upgrades required to be 

competitive naturally 

drive resiliency

Education/ 

collaboration

Cap-ex plan integration Battery backup for phones

Communication with 

community

Drills Success based capital Communities must 

collaborate with each 

other and larger efforts 

so we standardize 

resilience efforts to the 

greatest degree 

possible

Preplan mobile 

resilience

Deployments across 

vendors

Business Impact Analysis 

(BIA)

Disaster preparedness, 

message/ 

communication

Joint Drills across 

public safety (i.e.

Transport, 

Telecommunications 

and Energy [TTE] 

Councils) 

Demand is a changing 

condition which begets 

resiliency 

Disaster recovery 

institute (example)

Sustaining capital, keep 

the lights on

Introduce internally BDC 

and within National 

Communications Center for 

Communications

(NCC)/Information Sharing 

and Analysis Centers 

(ISAC)

Intersection with 

public notification 

systems 

Joint Drills with other 

industries 

Fiber technology that 

requires less active 

devices to maintain 

service (less power)

Defined Disaster 

Resilience plan, team, 

structure, that are 

trained ICS 

Sales interactive on 

requirements to drive 

forecasting 

3-5 Years

Hardened network

 Appropriate backup 

power batter/ 

generator

3-5 yrs. 

Disaster profile 

capacity plan, 

evacuation routes, 

hotspots 

 3-5 yrs. 

Resource sharing, 

mutual aid

Prioritization of drills 

plan in advance not 

cheap 

5-7 Years

Standards Micro-grids Heterogeneous, disaster 

level communication

 Wifi

 Wireless

 Landline

 First aid

 5-7 yrs. 

D2D-device to device 

communications 

 5-7 yrs. 

New Technology
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #6: Framework Chapter 8 – Communication and Information Systems

55

Table 17. Workshop Input: Challenges of and Strategies to Overcome Interdependencies

Interdependencies

Vulnerabilities/Challenges Approaches/Strategies

(Dependencies) Cascading is a dynamic 

process controlled by how much storage 

(e.g. energy) there is on site

Inclusion “EOC” utility paradigm Existing critical infrastructure team 

engagement 

National coordinating center, 

Gov’t/Industry coordination 

Access Data on homes/neighborhoods destroyed State what your problem is- not what 

solution you want!

National council of ISAC’s cross sector 

coordinating council 

Regularity relief Depend on each other! (Backhaul) 

communications

Safeguard IA strategy  Relationships=communications

 Alliances, forums 

Power issues Inter-modal dependencies and 

opportunities 

State and local EOC Seat in power company or EOC or direct 

connection to power company 

representative

Implications of true dependencies (e.g. 

power-communications (why not 

improving power? Comm.-power power) 

(power dependencies on public comm. is 

minimal) 

Streamlining with Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) regulations (i.e. 

Generator permits)

National Cybersecurity & 

Communications Integration Center

(NCCIC) Supervises SCADA and other 

agencies

Alternative comm. Strategies to alleviate 

congestion 

SCADA Industrial/power transportation 

controls dependent on communications

Water for cooling and chillers

Inter-community communications depend 

heavily on public communications - need 

diversity 

Scaling 911
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #6: Framework Chapter 8 – Communication and Information Systems

56

Table 18. Workshop Input: Envisioned use of Framework and Needed Elements

Framework Feedback

Envision using the Framework Useful Elements Lacking Elements

Design and instantiate pilot study 

with a local government

Prioritization of traffic Collaboration with 

municipalities (ideally)

Consumers of communications 

are price sensitive, the costs they 

must absorb must be spelled out

New technologies to be included

Framework to be utilized as a 

guideline/template 

 Clear terms (i.e. adequate)

Framework will help 

communities’ understand comm. 

need, access (physical) security 

fuel, right now some 

communities are more prepared 

than others

Better understanding of 

interdependencies especially 

energy and transportation

Community metrics not sectors Targets vs. mandates 

Disaster recovery does not equal 

resiliency 

Messaging Frameworks and their 

use of multiple communities

infrastructures

The evolution of networks to 

meet customer needs often drive 

resiliency over time, 50 year 

timeline

Need to guarantee the 

technology terms

Parallel communication 

networks (not commercial 

networks) 

Ability to craft/ influence 

research before mandate

Community planners need more 

understanding of emergency 

services available 

Communications function is not 

a brick and mortar building. 

Document levels toward 

equipment 

Flexible and voluntary

Standardized expectations with 

gov’t relief agencies

The Framework does not 

adequately discuss choices 

comm. users can take to be 

resilient 

Other entities, communication 

systems’ resiliency 

Assess feasibility of Framework

for different access networks 

Acknowledge that comm. 

Industry cannot go to public to 

get cost relief (i.e. taxpayers)

Expectation management

Messaging Frameworks and their 

use of multiple communities 

infrastructures

Use of un-validated performance 

expectations 

Economic impact (national)

More on: TV and radio 

broadcasting 

Lacking human component or 

interaction of human processes 

as a part of the physical 

infrastructure 

Need more focus on identifying 

TSP levels of priorities 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #7: Framework Chapter 9 – Water and Wastewater Systems

57

12. Breakout Session #7: Framework Chapter 9 – Water and Wastewater Systems

The facilitator began by leading the introduction of the participants. Next, the chapter authors, Mr. 

Donald Ballantyne, Ms. Adrienne Sheldon, and Dr. Kevin Morley, offered a brief overview of the chapter 

and outlined the goals of the breakout session.

The facilitator then led the conversation of the group by asking:

1. How do you envision using the Framework?

2. What elements of the Framework are most useful for you to use in planning efforts?

3. What other elements should the Framework have for it to be most useful? What is missing? What 

gaps are there?

The participants’ discussion was balanced with a lot of potential uses and suggestions for improving the 

water and wastewater chapter (Table 19). The group felt the document has many potential uses (e.g., 

support for developing strategies to restore service, providing a process to develop a work plan, and 

raising the priority of water and wastewater to a critical level for community resilience). The group also 

felt the chapter could be improved by adding discussion of the process used to evaluate water and 

wastewater system resilience and how it impacts community resilience. In addition, participants believed

a discussion of cost and time scales (i.e., metrics) should be included in the chapter.

The participants were then asked:

1. What vulnerabilities or challenges have you experienced during disasters due to 

interdependencies with other sectors?

2. How do you currently work with other sectors on disaster interdependencies? What are potential 

approaches/strategies for working with other sectors?

When discussing past experiences with problems related to interdependencies, participants stated that the 

Hurricane Sandy After Action Report (AAR) identified problems resulting from loss of electric power, 

fuel, access to sites where failures occurred, coordination, and communication (Table 20). As other 

breakout groups discussed, one strategy to overcome these challenges is to establish working groups with 

other utilities in advance of a disaster.

The group was then asked:

1. What do you foresee as challenges to integrating the Framework into community planning?

2. What challenges do various political entities and their potentially different geographical borders 

pose?

3. What are the best approaches & strategies for integrating the Framework into DW/WW sector 

planning for disaster resilience and community planning?

4. How will integration of this Framework benefit: Your planning efforts and responses during 

disasters? Day to day operations? Other benefits? Economic, social, etc.

The participants foresaw many challenges in successfully implementing the Framework. Those issues

largely focused on cost and resource implication, lack of understanding of difference between resilience 

and emergency management, and little political motivation (see Table 21). Participants also felt that the 

interdependencies add a layer of complexity and the question becomes ‘who takes the lead?’ However, 

the group discussed many potential solutions to overcome the challenges of implementing the 

Framework. For example, the participants felt a champion of resilience and continual pressure on local 

government would help push resilience forward. They also felt that outreach and inclusion of public input 

would be key to establishing agreeable objectives and gaining support.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #7: Framework Chapter 9 – Water and Wastewater Systems

58

Table 19. Workshop Input: Uses and Missing Elements of Framework

Uses Useful Elements What’s Missing?

Support strategy for restoring 

service

Respond to political 

stakeholder (mayor) and 

E.O (US Conf. of Mayors) 

Stakeholder engagement

 There, but what would you 

get? (In performance goals)

Paint a realistic picture re: 

expectations for performance 

goals

Scale issues, metrics such as % 

customers restored are not totally 

scalable (e.g., small % of large 

population is still a significant 

problem)

Process to develop work plan From Rockefeller/HUD 

competition focus on unmet 

needs/areas of poverty

The matrix showing timelines 

for levels of service 

Cost scale

 Improvements and related costs

 Also time scale

Developing strategies on competing 

issues in water services e.g. water 

quality/supply vs. fire fighting 

Use Framework as a reference to 

help develop agency-specific 

plan

Value engineering or cost 

risk analysis or potential 

failure models

The notion of performance goals 

is good (different levels)

Missing: process for evaluating 

water/wastewater system 

resilience and how system 

resilience feeds community 

resilience 

Differentiation between regional and 

community blurred

Prioritize how to develop a 

hazard resilient network for 

supporting community resilience

Evaluate awareness on 

importance of resilience 

Gap analysis and timelines 

desired vs. existing service is 

good

Roadmap needed: “How to” 

process to go from where you are 

to becoming a resilient agency

Organize stakeholders by prioritized 

groups

Intro to inter-dependency 

conversations

Guideline for establishing 

performance goals

The delineation of 

interdependencies 

Purpose based design vs. 

resilience of design

Is there/should there be a 

targeted/strategic approach to focus 

on “building clusters”?

Continuity of operations 

planning

Basis for integrating design 

across multiple hazards

Resilience is a never-ending 

process, think long-term (25, 50, 

100 years) as well as what can be 

done now

Resiliency needs to focus on new and 

existing: New design standards (e.g. 

pipelines), existing-corrosion and 75-

80% 8” & smaller pipe

How local gov’t & supply dist. 

utilities can provide info/support 

to public

Setting standards for utility Likely need to make decisions not

to do some things

Push toward “reserve study” approach

asset management

Raise priority of DW/WW as 

critical for community resilience

Integrate into planning 

process-target partial 

treatment (not in 

Framework?)

Water policy issues

 Treating water as a “shared 

resource”- interconnected with 

other agencies

 Identifying “critical customers”

 Use of seismic valves

Add concept of triage
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #7: Framework Chapter 9 – Water and Wastewater Systems

59

Table 20. Workshop Input: Challenges of and Strategies for Overcoming Interdependencies

Vulnerabilities and Challenges Approaches/strategies for working with other 

sectors

Water- fire but they plan separately. Reclaimed for fire? 

Can we get it?

Firefighting water use following earthquake may be 

different than what you’d think (more used)

Key customer coordination with PGE (electricity)

 Providing water for firefighting in earthquake (EQ)

disaster 

 Power loss prevents pumping water resulting in service 

outage and water retreatment 

Need to understand emergency response plans from 

critical customers- e.g. one hosp. has 4 day stockpile for 

water 

Informal exploration of mutual aid between water and 

wastewater

Water seen as a first responder, raised profile in city Establish working groups with other utilities in advance 

of disaster 

Getting priority with other utilities 

Different time-based priorities

Coordination is dependent on a larger organization

Larger organization may not be well versed on water 

challenges

Interstate mutual aid

Sandy AAR:

 Power/fuel

 Access-priority 

 Coordination

 Communication 
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #7: Framework Chapter 9 – Water and Wastewater Systems

60

Table 21. Workshop Input: Challenges and Strategies for Implementing the Framework

Challenges Challenges to political 

entities

Approaches and strategies for integrating the 

Framework Benefits

 Resources for planning

 Cost

 Jurisdiction

Difference between 

emergency mgmt. 

and resilience not 

understood

 Identifying need for and 

implementing 

interconnections

 Determining usefulness of 

connection locations 

(doesn’t help with portion 

or all of system services)

 Water quality

compatibility

Coordinated and consistent public 

outreach and messaging pre and 

post disaster

Not just a plan, need 

ongoing planning

Sustainability is often 

the same thing as 

resiliency 

The need for seismic 

resiliency needs to continue 

to get elevated as a priority 

(i.e. funding for resources)

No central entity for 

resiliency to lead 

efforts/ turn to

 Working together 

 Who takes the lead?

Operational area and regional 

water disaster workshops/

summits

Community input to 

establish acceptable 

performance objectives 

(informed by risks)

Resiliency is 

sustainability through an 

extreme event

Gaining political attention In smaller entities,

resiliency goes to 

emergency manager 

Champion, constant pressure Clarification of what a 

community is 

Resiliency should look at 

all other programs, not 

just be a program of its 

own- can be cost free

 Education on system risks 

and impacts to community 

(employees and public)

 Competing demands 

systems must address

 Integrating resilience with 

other ongoing programs 

Not addressing 

threat is a decent 

gamble

Develop action-oriented working 

groups of key people from key 

organizations to create plans for 

response and determine 

mitigation alternatives to 

implement in advance 

Good social capital 

means more resilience 

because of existing 

connections 

The Framework is an 

academic/federal construct. 

Resilience is local so we 

have a fundamental 

disconnect

Fragmentation CROs in the community are 

possible connector

Need to build 

relationships between 

agencies at all levelselected, management, 

staff

Recovery needs water. Scale 

of a big earthquake 

overwhelms resources

Rate recovery not 

supported by PUC’s 

Need to capture and communicate 

effects post-event (e.g. pop after 

1906 EQ)

Continued scientific 

support, standards & 

code development 

Separation of water and 

wastewater

Understanding your hazard areas 

and get that information out there 

(in a policy-appropriate way)

Information sharing
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #8: Framework Chapter 10 – Resilience Metrics

61

13. Breakout Session #8: Framework Chapter 10 – Resilience Metrics

The breakout session began with the facilitator leading the introduction of all participants. After 

introductions were done, the chapter author, Dr. Frank Lavelle, supplied a brief overview of the chapter 

and outlined the goals of the breakout session.

The facilitator then led the group conversation by asking:

What do you think of the goals for community resilience metrics in the draft Framework 

document (Chapter 10)?

Participants felt that community resilience metrics must address two questions: 1) How can community 

leaders estimate the resilience of their community? 2) How do they know if their decisions and 

investments to improve resilience are likely to make a difference? Participants believed the second 

question was inherently unanswerable since it is too difficult to measure direct cause and effect. 

The group felt many other suggestions about the purpose and goals of resilience metrics were important to 

include in the chapter. They wanted it to be clear that “this is NOT a cookbook” and there is not a one 

size fits all metric. Participants believed the first step in establishing metrics at the community level is to 

develop a baseline that answers: 1) Where are we now? 2) What are our vulnerabilities? and 3) What are 

the existing levels of health coverage, etc.?

Overall, the process of becoming more resilient and using metrics to quantify the process is a systematic 

process that occurs continually over time. After developing the baseline, communities need to identify 

their vulnerabilities, assess their risks, and use metrics to inform decision metrics to limit their risks. The 

participants felt that it would, therefore, be useful to develop a metric capable of comparing community 

resilience at different points in time, including assessing how well a community will perform when an 

event occurs. Furthermore, the group felt metrics should be simple and understandable.

Participants felt communities need help in understanding how metrics can be used to make informed 

decisions, which may influence the type of metric that is most useful. To ensure metrics are useful, it is 

important to understand what decisions metrics are used to inform.

The group was then asked:

The Framework currently identifies 3 main classes of metrics. What are some critical indicators 

or metrics in each of these classes that will help community leaders achieve those goals?

Participants have several ideas for each class of metric (Table 22). When discussing economic vitality, the 

group identified indicators such as employment rate, housing availability, household net worth, new 

housing starts, and change in population. To quantify social well-being, the group suggested many 

indicators including emergency response time, patient waiting time at hospitals, number of natural 

disaster deaths, migration, availability of child care services, number of bad mental health days, and 

number of lost school days. Environmental health indicators listed by the group included clean air and 

water. The group also felt other indicators could be used as metrics for community resilience, including 

number of electrical disruptions, length of electrical disruptions, and number of telephone calls.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #8: Framework Chapter 10 – Resilience Metrics

62

Table 22. Workshop Input: Critical Indicators for Three Classes of Metrics Identified in the Framework 

Recovery Time Economic Vitality Social Well-Being Environmental Health

(new category)

Addressed by other 

groups

Attracting Business & Retaining Jobs

 Employment rate

 Missed work days

 Availability of multifamily, rental, and 

low-income housing

Poverty & Income Distribution

 Household net worth, provided by local 

banks

Tax Base

 New housing starts

 Commercial building permits

 Change in population

 Change in demographics 

Economic Sustainability

Local Services & Amenities

Survival

 Number of high-risk emergency response facilities (fire, 

police, EOC)

 Emergency response time

 Number of high-risk hospitals

 Patient waiting time for hospitals

 Emergency response time

 Number of natural disaster deaths 

 Does the community have social media with authority?

Sense of Belonging

 Experience with disaster response and recovery exercises 

(resilient to what?)

 Intergovernmental “connectedness” 

 Community structure (non-governmental)

 Robustness of the social network 

 Governance capacity 

 Club/recreation activity participation (e.g. kids soccer, etc.)

 Migration (transitory and permanent)

Safety and Security 

 Reliable medical services

 Reliable water

 Availability of child care services

 Number of high risk schools

 Number of hospital beds and physicians

 Access to healthcare, especially non-acute

 Use or adoption of model codes and standards 

(economic/social) 

 Domestic violence incidences

 Number of bad mental death days, e.g. Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder (PTSD)

Growth and Achievement

 Number of school days lost

 Education completion rate

 School-system function/accessibility 

 Clean air and water

 Preventing major hazardous materials

(HAZMAT) disasters

 Environmental sustainability

Others?

 Number of electrical interruptions and 

length

 Number of phone calls, twitter, etc. 

Number of taxi rides
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #8: Framework Chapter 10 – Resilience Metrics

63

After discussing indicators that applied to the three classes of metrics discussed in Chapter 10 of the 

Framework, the group was asked:

1. Have we over- or under-rated any of the methodologies in the matrix on page 12 in Chapter 10?

2. What are the key strengths/weaknesses of any of these or other methodologies?

3. For the Framework report itself, how should the methodologies be grouped?

Although discussion with respect to the metrics included in the chapter was limited, the group did suggest 

some characteristics they felt were important for any metrics to be used by communities. The group 

believed that local communities need flexible tools that compare different actions and can be used to 

prioritize actions. The group also discussed the fact that risk analysis tools (e.g., AWWA-J100) would be 

useful to communities. Participants felt it would be helpful to include case studies or examples that 

illustrate how metrics or methodologies have been used to support real-world decision-making. 

The group discussed the limits of checklists and their tendency be used simply as a compliance exercise. 

However, they did think qualitative metrics were acceptable in some cases when impacts are difficult to 

measure (e.g., social impacts).
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #9: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

64

14. Breakout Session #9: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

The facilitator led the introduction of the participants. Next, Ms. Nancy McNabb provided a brief 

overview of the charter and bylaws, work completed at previous workshops, and outlined the goals of the 

breakout session.

The facilitator then led the conversation of the group by asking the following questions:

Based on presentations today what do you think of the general approach and the effectiveness in 

engaging Disaster Resilience Standards Panel (DRSP) membership?

Participants felt more engagement is needed with social/community organizations. The group anticipated 

greater marketing and incentives would be required to engage industry to become members of the DRSP

(Table 23). Furthermore, participants thought that membership should require stakeholder categories to 

achieve a balance. In developing the DRSP charter and bylaws, the group recommended looking at other 

codes/processes such as those developed by the ICC, Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 

Participants were then asked:

In the DRSP bylaws, what procedures should be established for DRSP voting, based on your 

experience with similar panels – who, what, when and how? See draft bylaws, Section 2.5 for 

Voting bylaws; and draft charter, Section 1.4.3 for description of Consensus.

The group provided suggestions for establishing the DRSP based on their experience with similar panels

(Table 24). Participants suggested the DRSP follow the ANSI process so no one group would dominate 

the vote. When a vote occurs, the group suggested the proposal be made available 30 days prior to the 

vote and that two-thirds of the panel should have to vote “yes” to pass the measure. The group also felt 

that “no” votes without comments should be void. 

In terms of conducting and recording a vote, the group felt the current 75% threshold for a valid vote was 

too high and should be reduced. The group also suggested the bylaws allow electronic voting to occur 

because it will be tough to have all votes take place at face-to-face meetings. Furthermore, to ensure 

stakeholders remain engaged, participants believed that not returning a number of ballots in a row should 

result in removal from the DRSP. 

The group then shifted their focus to the leadership of the DRSP and was asked:

In the DRSP bylaws, what qualifiers should be established for DRSP Officers – selection, duties, 

term? See draft bylaws, Section 2.1.5 for DRSP Officers

The group believed the leadership should have a broad balance of stakeholders. Some participants 

suggested the Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary of the leadership committee be elected to 3-year terms by 

the panel, with the ability to be re-elected to serve multiple terms (Table 25). However, others felt the 

terms should be shorter (e.g., 1-year) and should be staggered so there is a continuation of leadership.

The participants were then asked:

In the DRSP bylaws, what procedures should be established for DRSP meetings and decision 

making (Disaster Resilience Standards Panel Coordinating Committee [DRSPCC]) – frequency, 

meeting place, attendance? See draft bylaws, Section 2.1.7 for Meetings and Decision Making

The group stated that it was important to ensure the DRSPCC was open and transparent. They agreed that 

at least two face-to-face meetings should take place each year with no upper limit.

After discussing the terms of the DRSPCC leadership, the group discussed the process by which they 

should be elected. The group was asked:
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #9: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

65

In the DRSP bylaws, what procedures should be established for selecting DRSPCC (coordinating 

committee) members – call for candidates, nominations committee, election? See draft bylaws, 

Section 2.2.2.1 for Selection of Voting Members; and draft charter, Section 1.1.2 for DRSPCC 

Membership

As shown in Table 26, the group felt candidates for the DRSPCC should have broad experience that 

includes at least some knowledge of all stakeholder groups. They believed leadership needed to include 

thought leaders. The Nominating Committee should consider the technical aspects of the DRSPCC such 

that it is diverse and inclusive.

The group was then asked questions regarding the draft Framework:

How do you anticipate the Framework being integrated into your community to ensure that it will 

be useful (considering the scale of your community)?

Participants felt the key to integrating the Framework would be to have a champion (e.g., Chief 

Resilience Officer) who leads a program that incorporates the concepts in the Framework (
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #9: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

66

Table 27). However, the group felt marketing would be needed to develop buy-in and advocacy for a 

more resilient community. Participants also felt that roadmaps or guidance documents would be needed to 

help apply the Framework.

The group was then asked:

What opportunities do you think that the Framework will provide for your community?

Table 28 shows the responses from participants. The group felt there were several features of the 

Framework that would allow communities to begin the process of becoming more resilient. Participants 

felt the Framework would help communities evaluate their current level of resilience, current risks, 

organize plans, and lead to a better quality of life by understanding how improvements to the built 

environment tie into Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

The group was then asked:

What should be the process for documents entering the Resilience Knowledge Base (RKB) – what 

decision path, what type of documents? See draft charter, Section 1.3.4, Develop and Maintain 

the Resilience Knowledge Base

As seen in Table 29, participants felt the RKB could include flowcharts, tools, case studies, etc. 

Participants agreed that the working group would first approve the documents, followed by the DRSP,

through a vote before posting documents to the database.

The group was asked:

What opportunities does the Resilience Knowledge Base provide to stakeholders/community?

The group stated that the DRSP should have a peer-to-peer education effort to promote learning to local 

government. The group also felt simple tools that could be reviewed or used would be helpful to address 

the complexity of the problem.

The participants were asked: 

What do you foresee as the challenges for DRSP implementation to be effective?

The group stated there would be several important challenges to overcome to implement the Framework, 

including cost, resource limitations, and lack of urgency (Table 30). Moreover, the group pointed out that 

resilience concepts need to be marketed and sold to communities to become successful. 

More specifically, the group was asked: 

What guidelines could be developed that would help communities implement the Framework? 

Solutions to implementing Framework in the form of guidelines...

The participants’ responses were categorized into five different categories (
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #9: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

67

Table 31): Documents, tools, incentives, online, and other. The group reiterated that including case 

studies was essential to assist with implementing the Framework. Some participants also suggested 

developing guidelines for various hazard types that could be used at the local level and would be more 

applicable to communities in different parts of the country.
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #9: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

68

Table 23. Workshop Input: Engagement Needs to Form DRSP

What’s Missing/What’s Wrong Stakeholder Engagement References Formation of DRSP

Speaking to an industry vs. speaking for 

an industry

Engaging DRSP membership may need 

greater marketing and incentives

Use ICC Code Change process for 

development of standards

DRSP could be included within Natural 

Hazard Mitigation Association (fold in to 

existing non-profit)

Need to engage greater number of 

social/community organizations in 

planning (representation of vulnerable 

populations)

Engage industry groups and professional 

associations to recruit members

ICC Model process may be effective with 

respect to problem/impediment 

identification

Need to better overcome/address 

administrative, jurisdictional, 

environmental, economic and industry 

boundaries

Membership should require stakeholder 

category and subcategory (e.g., 

 Transportation – buildings

 Transportation – rail

 Transportation – pipeline...)

ICC model process will prove very 

cumbersome with regard to problem 

solution; yet may be best approach for 

voting etc.

Missing engaging approach, it will be 

effective if it includes various sectors and 

stakeholders. What was missing beyond 

the community level (i.e., community 

interaction for resilient nation)

Panel member organization must have at 

least one active member of a working 

group with attendance

Model DRSP after FACA – architecture 

that works! Reference logic and principles

Standards might be too lengthy/complex 

for broad adoption; use annexes

Use ANSI process for standards 

development
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #9: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

69

Table 24. Workshop Input: Suggested Procedures for DRSP Voting

When – what’s the process How - recording votes, passing etc. Who – length of membership etc.

Structure issues or ballot for voting, e.g., who, what, 

when is at stake if passed impact in advance

With current list of stakeholder categories it will be 

difficult to get balance – spell out requirement for 

balance in bylaws

Procedure to identify relevant stakeholders and 

expectation to vote

Proposal available 30 days prior to announced vote date Most voting should be electronic Underserved populations are typically hit first and last by 

disasters 

 Underserved need to be captured in vote

2/3 “Yes” required, and “No” answer without comments 

should be void. All comments addressed and documented 

before approved.

Bylaws should provide for remote/electronic 

participation and voting

Follow ANSI process – ensure no one group dominates 

vote

Voting should be electronic – web based by all eligible 

members

Prior to release and implementations... account for 

timing

 Revisit documents after period of time

Determine how many non-returned ballots gets you 

kicked off DRSP

75% present threshold (current draft wording) is high 

threshold for valid vote!

Table 25. Workshop Input: Suggested Qualifications for DRSP Officers

Selection Duties Term of Service Other

Shall have attended previous meetings and have 

relevant expertise

Keep DRSP officer duties and requirements as 

broad and open as possible, at least initially

 Not too exclusive!

One year term – and may 

hold multiple positions

Officers draft text fine as is on 

selection – duties – term

Officers should be elected based on qualifications Relevant panel stakeholder appointments to the 

working group chairs and “special” coordinating 

council members for balance. Or just approve!

Alternate terms so all three 

don’t terminate at once

Looks at National Institute of 

Building Sciences (NIBS) model

Prior experience suggested:

 Chair – 3 years

 Vice Chair – 3 years

 Secretary – 3 years

Change the title “officer” to 

“leadership”

Suggest 3 year term – and can be eligible for reelection for multiple terms

Selection: Voted by membership, but must provide 

qualifications to be eligible as a candidate
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #9: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

70

Table 26. Workshop Input: Electing DRSPCC Leadership

Candidates Nominating Committee/Qualifications Other

Coordinating council candidates should be focused on 

communities, standards, research – focused on goals

Qualifications should be relevant to technical aspects of 

committee, but be diverse and inclusive

Need to address handling of sensitive information, e.g., 

city plans, risk analysis, Personally Identifiable 

Information (PII), classified, controlled!

 And Intellectual Property

Coordinating council members should have broad 

experience base – some knowledge of all stakeholder 

categories

Current draft coordinating council at large membership 

does not include:

 Tribal

 Underserved

 Hazard mitigation/climate adaption

 Insurance/re-insurance

 Recovery manager

These should be considered in addition to those in draft

Coordinating Council members need to be influencers 

“cheer leaders”
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #9: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

71

Table 27. Workshop Input: Anticipated Integration of Framework into Communities

Organizational Structure Leadership Notification/Presentation

Integrate by ordinance developed by Building Dept. or 

Planning Dept. (or Chief Resilience Officer)

Will need a champion – likely paid staff (e.g., resilience 

officer)

Need different tracks, i.e.,:

 Urban – Small, Medium, Large

 Region – Coastal/Inland

 Hazard – Hurricane/Quake/Tornado

Need:

 Chief Resilience Officer

 Educational programs for members of community

 Input from community on needs and changes

Initial socialization/buy-in and marketing; must have 

strong champion/leadership incentives

Guidance documents and roadmaps will be key.

Framework should be digestible

Structure in a way that allows local adaption and 

incorporation, e.g., existing organization/dept., or new 

entity

May be useful for non-technical leadership/authority to 

direct technical action to spur conversation and inform 

the interaction between political/technical/social 

elements

Make the process open to public participation

State, regional, local...

 Governance

 Boundaries

 Chartering legislation

 Elected as appointed

Champion should use dollar based economic approach to 

“Whole Community” including developers and skeptic Money is needed to initiate the process at local level

Table 28. Workshop Input: Opportunities Framework will Provide to Community

Opportunities

It will help us evaluate current resilience level and 

develop goals for future directions

 “Eye opener”

Helps people organize planning and expectations around 

resilience

It will promote public safety through resilient buildings 

and infrastructure

Actually look at what risks exist to whom; understand 

impediments: legal – externality – economics

Greater quality of life – addresses Maslow’s Hierarchy of 

needs for specific community

 Needs to be adaptable to community

Scenario development. Envision a disaster before it 

occurs. “Building Code Ex”, stands but not deliverable

Tie to existing community metrics/understanding of 

success/resilience and add new, e.g., 100 Resilient Cities 

(100RC)

Expand hazard consideration beyond rules, regulations, 

laws (Oregon example – erosion zones)

Energy, transportation, water, fire, hospital critical 

infrastructure as an example

 Will spur inter-department discussions

It will encourage recognizing risks, and begin the 

conversation

 Opportunities created

Hopefully the Framework will provide a measurement 

tool of system (score, scale, etc.); maybe life cycle 

costing $ over lifetime, or online tool to implement the 

Framework
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #9: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

72

Table 29. Workshop Input: Resilience Knowledge Database (RKB) Content

RKB Decision Process Content

Documents should be developed by working groups, recommended by standing 

committee and voted on by organization

The draft text is fine. It just needs to be well organized!

Categorize model ordinance plans, tools, and standards (if from approved agency) 1) All components of the Framework, 2) standards, and the 3) case studies

Develop flowchart/rules, who – what – where – when – why – how, for submittal and 

acceptance for posting. Both formal rules and informal content/discussions.

 See PMI.org and PM.com example

No limit on types of tools:

 Existing resources

 New documents

 Standards and guides

 Software (online

 Etc... Wiki?

First – working group approve, then

Second – DRSP approval
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #9: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

73

Table 30. Workshop Input: Foreseen Challenges for DRSP Implementation to be Effective

Resources Structure Communications

Many of the requirements that come out of the 

Framework will require money. Retrofit of building is 

expensive. Same with lifelines.

Differing resilience priorities among stakeholders due to 

infrastructure and technology deployed (DRSP barrier)

Need to make scientists and policy wonks 

knowledgeable salespersons on all aspects of resilience, 

especially economic

 Knowledgeable of costs/benefits

There is a lack of clear economic data Getting a wide range of stakeholders involved at the 

DRSP level

Quantifiable approach is needed This is not UNIQUE (although could be!)

 Mindset of “just another committee”

There is a lack of:

 Resources

 Urgency

 Time... consensus process takes time

Thoughtful communications up and down and across for 

resilience

 E.g., DRSP and committees , working groups need to 

understand this is about people and communities; the 

social aspects

Money is not a barrier, it is an opportunity

 E.g. S. Hallegette World Bank
Community Resilience Workshop

Breakout Session #9: Disaster Resilience Standards Panel

74

Table 31. Workshop Input: Guidelines to Support Framework Implementation

Documents Tools Incentives Online Other/Scope

 Model ordinance

 Model legislation

Lack of urgency

 No recent disaster

 No need to act

Need a guide to estimating 

probability of future losses –

coast

Need much more than 

“guidelines” need peer-to-peer 

organized educational effort on 

common types of resilience

Webcast introducing Framework

that is simple, describing 

importance and value of 

Framework

Need to overcome antiregulation, anti-government 

mindsets; provide ideas to help 

locals

As many case studies as possible Resource to determine scale of 

plausible disaster

e.g., tornado – make take whole 

town or just part of larger town

Risk measurement can lead to 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) type 

insurance schedule. Rating 

community resilience – leads to 

consensus

Engage independent film makers 

to develop YouTube video, e.g., 

K-cup monster video, to 

motivate action!

Robust, agreed upon methods to 

calculate cost/benefit

Develop guidelines for various 

hazards that can be used at the 

local level (model ordinance)

Develop Federal, state, local and 

commercial financial incentives, 

e.g.,, greater or lesser grants, 

insurance savings

Define “maturity levels”

Detailed scorecard-type tool that 

measures/reveals communities’ 

ability/capacity to meet

resilience expectations

 This should be a community 

and public tool
Community Resilience Workshop

Closing General Session

75

15. Closing General Session

Mr. Cauffman led the closing session, inviting a representative from each breakout group to summarize 

their main points during the two-day workshop. 

 The Social Context for the Built Environment Breakout Group felt there were a few social 

institutions that should be added to the current draft of the Framework, including the scientific 

community, information, government agencies, and ad hoc organizations. Participants also felt 

the tables linking the social dimensions and built environment could be placed into the chapters. 

Furthermore, the group considered adding case studies or examples to be a valuable activity.

 The Community Disaster Resilience for the Built Environment Breakout Group felt there were 

several important strategies that could help with implementing the Framework. These strategies 

included developing a financing mechanism so communities could understand the cost of not 

acting, community engagement, participatory budgets (i.e., communities can vote on budgets), 

and incorporating resilience concepts/plans into existing hazard mitigation plans. The group also 

felt there would be many challenges to implementing the Framework (e.g., identifying resilience 

champions in a community, getting political support, and prioritizing gaps). The group felt the 

Executive Summary clearly defined the purpose of the Framework, but needed “a hook” such as a 

Call to Action to answer the question “Why should I read this?” Participants were concerned the 

Framework was long and should be made more accessible. They also suggested developing a 

web-based tool that could be implemented as part of version 2.0 of the Framework.

 The Buildings And Facilities Breakout Group liked the fact that the Framework encourages 

bringing all stakeholders to the table. However, participants did feel that more attention to 

communities with fewer resources was needed. The group appreciated the discussion of

interdependencies between critical buildings and infrastructure sectors. To successfully 

implement the Framework, the group thought best practices, case studies, model incentives, and 

checklists would also be useful. To integrate the Framework into existing plans, the group felt 

pilot programs and incentives were needed, as well as getting other industries (e.g., insurance, 

appraisers, planners, realtors) involved in the process. The group believed implementing the 

Framework would benefit communities by bringing all stakeholders to the table and producing 

positive social and economic return on investment.

 The Transportation Breakout Group envisioned using the Framework to enable decisions in the 

resilience planning process and provide a reference to address emerging issues. The group liked

inclusion of case studies, but wanted to see more graphics to help explain complex topics, 

particularly in the transportation sector. Participants noted that the transportation system can 

significantly impact the supply chain, and has a very complex regulatory environment since there 

are several different modes of transportation used for people and goods. To integrate and 

implement the Framework, the breakout group felt a compelling message was needed to sell the 

Framework to communities, ideally a message that makes the economic case. They envisioned 

using the Framework to make strategic decisions throughout the transportation planning cycle. 

However, they noted that the challenge of political influences must be overcome to be successful.

 Energy System Breakout Group participants felt two of the biggest challenges for their sector 

were the availability of gasoline and telecommunications. They suggested the Executive 

Summary note that electricity is now considered a necessity to maintain functionality of other 

infrastructure systems. The group identified several useful elements of the Framework from the 

energy sector’s perspective including clarifying the role of the energy sector in community 

resilience, defining expectations, and identifying resilience gaps. Like other breakout groups, the 

energy group felt community buy-in/support was key to Framework success. The impacts of 

using the Framework could be cost savings in the long-term when hazard events occur, and 

encouraging innovation to reduce costs in short-term to enhance resilience of the grid. 
Community Resilience Workshop

Closing General Session

76

 The Communication and Information Systems Breakout Group felt it was different from all 

other sectors because service providers are part of a competitive industry. As a result, service 

providers constantly upgrade their systems to adapt to evolving technology and increasing 

consumer expectations. The group also believed strongly that communities need to take 

advantage of multiple methods of communications (wireless, wireline, cable, internet, broadcast), 

particularly in the aftermath of a disaster when one of those systems may fail or be congested due 

to high traffic. Participants thought that communities need to work with each service provider to 

identify their priorities ahead of a disaster event. This communication is necessary because 

community priorities are not always the same as those of the service provider or utilities. 

Service providers want to work with communities to enhance resilience of their 

telecommunications systems. They want to work with communities to identify problems and 

propose solutions to make communities more resilient. Of course, 9-1-1 services are important in 

every community and participants considered proper Public-Safety Answering Point (PSAP)

funding important to maintain functionality. The group also noted that disaster response does not 

always equate to resilience because a quick fix does not necessarily improve performance in the 

future. The group was concerned that the communications chapter was long, and the Centerville, 

USA example performance goals could be enforced by regulatory bodies even though some of the 

goals were not always reasonable.

 The Water and Wastewater System Breakout Group felt the Framework could support utility 

planning efforts and facilitate prioritization/interdependency discussions. The group liked the fact 

that the chapter highlights the importance of water and wastewater to community resilience and 

the notion of performance goals using a simple matrix. However, participants felt additional info 

could be added to discuss cost and time scales and the process of evaluating water and wastewater 

system resilience. Better coordination for firefighting and water after a disaster event was a 

special consideration for the water and wastewater chapter. Similar to other breakout groups, the 

water and wastewater group identified the needs to achieve buy-in from the whole community 

and to identify a resilience champion as keys to successful Framework implementation. 

 Community Resilience Metrics Breakout Group participants felt metrics should be developed 

that account for uncertainty. Metrics are not always precise, a fact that models including 

uncertainty would appropriately address. The group also felt metrics should include the ability to 

record baseline measurements, be used to inform investment decisions, and help communities 

monitor their progress in becoming more resilient. Some participants felt a fourth class of metric, 

environmental health, should be included in the chapter. 

 The DRSP Planning Breakout Group felt members should register by stakeholder category. 

They also encouraged NIST to look at other similar models, such as ANSI, FACA, and ICC,

while formulating the panel. When discussing the bylaws of the DRSP, the group felt it was 

important to ensure the panel’s leadership was diverse, open, and inclusive. Leadership would 

also have to be qualified to assess and vet working group products.

When discussing the Framework, the group was concerned that it was long and would need to be 

made more accessible. The group also recommended that a public relations/marketing strategy be 

used to educate communities and other about the Framework. 

The breakout group discussed development of a resilience knowledge database. It envisioned that 

this would contain a method to evaluate benefits and costs, case studies so communities could 

evaluate options, and resources for decision-makers or rollout plans for public officials. 

Furthermore, the group discussed development of guidelines that could be used to help 

communities quickly evaluate their level of resilience, assist with prioritization, and develop a 

path forward.