Forum Binder - UO Blogs - University of Oregon

O R E G O NSOUTH COASTRESILIENCEF O R U M

Oregon

Sotuh

Coast R

esilience F

orum

O

ctober 1

6, 2

013

Greetings! On behalf of The Ford Family Foundation and the Ford Institute for Community Building, I would like to welcome you to the Oregon South Coast Resilience Forum. We sincerely appreciate that you are joining us to share your insights and discuss socio-economic resilience along the southern Oregon coast. As community leaders, your involvement is an essential element in increasing the vitality of local communities. Our interest in socio-economic resilience acknowledges that the future vitality of coastal communities in Oregon must include planning for the possibility of large scale disaster events. We are hopeful and optimistic that the topic of resilience can serve as yet another catalyst in your efforts to increase vitality at the local level. This forum is intended to provide you with an opportunity to discuss socio-economic resilience in the region. We look forward to your energy and participation! Thank you again for your time and commitment to rural vitality. Best regards,

Joyce Akse Director – Ford Institute

Oregon South Coast Resilience Forum

Agenda

8:30 – 9:00 Registration, Refreshments & Networking

9:00 – 9:20

Introductions & Welcoming Remarks

Joyce Akse, Ford Institute for Community Building, The Ford Family Foundation &

Dave Frohnmayer, President Emeritus, University of Oregon, and former board member, The Ford Family Foundation

9:20 – 9:30

Overview of OPDR: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience, the

University of Oregon’s Role, and the day’s Agenda & Logistics

Joshua Bruce, Interim Director, OPDR

9:30 – 9:45 Resilience Definition & Summary of Existing Conditions

Sarah Allison, OPDR

9:45 -10:30

Coastal Community Resilience: Our Visioning Process Through the Lens of

Japan’s Disaster Recovery

Jay Wilson, Hazard Mitigation Coordinator, Clackamas County Emergency

Management, and Vice-chair, Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission

10:30 – 10:50 Networking Break

10:50 – 12:00

Socio-Economic Resilience Panel (facilitated by Josh Bruce)

Pat Corcoran, Extension Coastal Hazards Outreach Specialist & Oregon Sea

Grant County Leader, Clatsop County, OSU Extension Service

Ed MacMullan, Senior Economist, ECONorthwest, Eugene Branch

Dan Brown, Flood Recovery Manager, Community Action Team, Vernonia

12:00 – 1:00 Working Lunch: Hub Community Huddle #1

1:00 – 2:40 World Café (facilitated by the OPDR Team)

2:40-3:00 Networking Break

3:00 – 4:15 Leadership Team Huddle #2 (& Team Reports)

4:15 – 4:30

Closing Remarks

Joyce Akse, Director, Ford Institute for Community Building,

The Ford Family Foundation

Oregon South Coast Resilience Forum

Ground Rules

In brief, please be courteous and considerate throughout the day.

No idea is a bad idea; we will embrace creativity and “outside the box” thinking to

address new or emerging challenges.

If instructions for discussions and/or activities are not clear, participants will ask for

clarification.

All forum participants are encouraged to actively contribute to the discussions;

however it is also important that individuals don’t over-participate.

Participants can participate to the degree to which they want (or not).

Invited observers are available to answer specific questions, but will largely refrain

from active participation in the discussions.

Participants will let the facilitator(s) know if the training room is too hot or too cold,

or any other issues that may affect their comfort.

While breaks are scheduled, participants should let facilitators know if additional

breaks are needed.

Please keep cell phones off or on vibrate.

Additional conduct considerations adapted from the American Institute of Certified Planners

Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.

We shall be conscious of the rights of others and be respectful and considerate of

others and their opinions.

We shall have special concern for the long-range consequences of present actions.

We shall pay special attention to the interrelatedness of decisions.

We shall provide timely, adequate, clear, and accurate information on planning

issues to all affected persons and to governmental decision makers.

We shall give people the opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the

development of plans and programs that may affect them. Participation should be

broad enough to include those who lack formal organization or influence.

We shall deal fairly with all participants in the planning process.

Socio-Economic Resilience

Why is The Ford Family Foundation looking at socio-economic resilience in the

Oregon South Coast?

The Ford Family Foundation is committed to rural communities in Oregon and Northern

California. Socio-economic issues – financial and social realities that make up quality of life –

are deeply impacted by disasters of all kinds. Rural communities tend to have fewer resources

and help with which to renew quality of life after a disaster. Oregonians expect a 9.0

earthquake and tsunami at some point in the next generation or so, and the Oregon south

coast will suffer the most damage from that event.

In spite of work done around the state to increase preparedness, educate citizens about risk,

and strengthen bridges and roads, the Foundation perceives a gap in the work of community

resilience. Only the local community can strengthen their ability to act on their own behalf, and

help businesses to weather disruptions. The Foundation is exploring potential ways to

strengthen the resilience – the ability to “bounce back better” from stresses – of those financial

and social systems. In order to identify possible activities or programs to strengthen socio-

economic resilience, the Foundation will host a one-day forum. Based on the forum, the

Foundation will determine what, if any, next steps to take on this issue.

What do you mean by resilience?

Resilience is the ability of something (a person, a system, an object, or a community) to do

three things:

1. Withstand stress

2. Recover from stress

3. Apply lessons of the past to respond better to future stress

Because “stress” is so general, it is helpful to be specific about what kind of stress you are

planning for. In this case, we are looking specifically at the resilience of social and economic

systems to catastrophic disasters. We are using the 9.0 earthquake/tsunami scenario because

it is the most destructive threat that we are aware of. If our communities are resilient to this

threat, we will be resilient to most lesser threats as well.

What do you mean by socio-economic resilience?

Social and economic issues are combined because they are two sides of the same thing.

We often measure the prosperity of a community - their quality of life - in strictly economic

terms. In reality, however, the relationships that people have – individually, through

institutions (school, church, clubs, or groups) and as a community – has just as much to do

with how satisfied people are and how effective they can be.

Economic resilience requires things like businesses that have plans for how to resume after a

disruption, a diverse economy that can support basic needs if imports are disrupted, and

access to capital.

Social resilience requires things like assistance for vulnerable populations, systems and

patterns of cooperation between groups, and locations where people can gather before, during

and after a disaster.

Oregon South Coast Resilience Survey

Executive Summary

The Ford Family Foundation engaged in an exploratory project to frame the issue of socio-

economic resilience and determine interest in resilience planning for the Oregon South

Coast. The University of Oregon's Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR)

administered and analyzed a survey to gather data on existing, local socio-economic

resilience activities. The survey also evaluated local interest and willingness to participate in

a day-long forum on the topic. Survey recipients included graduates of the Ford Institute

Leadership Program and other interested local stakeholders in the communities of Bandon,

Florence, Coastal Douglas County, Bay Area, North Curry County and Wild Rivers Coast.

The results of this survey will be used to inform the content and structure of the Oregon

South Coast Local Resilience Planning Forum.

Summary of Survey Findings

This survey results suggest that respondents consider most social systems to be important

now, and that they will be of even more importance in the wake of disaster. Respondents

perceive that some activities to support social resilience are currently taking place, and have

more confidence in local efforts than national or state-level efforts.

Economically, respondents indicated different mid-range priorities before and after a

catastrophe, but also identified a few consistent top priorities. The five sectors that had the

top ranks before and after a catastrophic event were medical services, utilities,

grocery/drug stores, government, and tourism. Much less resilience activity was observed

on the economic end of things, and respondents expressed high levels of concern regarding

current economic conditions. Both social and economic systems were expected to

experience high impacts from a catastrophic event.

Thirty-six respondents gave additional comments regarding socio-economic resilience in

their community. Several comments focused on how much resilience building activity is

needed in southern Oregon coastal communities. Some indicated doubt that efforts would

be successful, while others indicated optimism. Isolation and economic decline were

recurring themes as major challenges.

Most respondents expressed a willingness to participate at some level in resilience activities

for their communities. For example, most respondents expressed a willingness to

participate in a forum to further explore the concepts and potential opportunities around

socio-economic resilience. The survey also yielded suggestions for additional community

members to involve in socio-economic resilience efforts.

Coastal Community Resilience: Our Visioning Process Through the Lens of Japan’s Disaster Recovery

Meet the Keynote Presenter Jay Wilson, Hazard Mitigation Coordinator for Clackamas County Emergency Management and Vice Chair, Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission Jay joined Clackamas County Emergency Management in February 2008 as their Hazard Mitigation Coordinator. His duties for the County include managing hazard mitigation projects and planning, public education, and coordinating damage assessments following

disasters. Additionally, Jay voluntarily serves as a public member on the Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC) and is the current Vice Chair. Prior to his current position, Jay's experience includes:

• Earthquake, Tsunami and Volcano Programs Coordinator for Oregon Emergency Management

• Five+ years with FEMA Regions X and IX as a Disaster Reservist, managing Community Education and Outreach activities following natural disasters.

• Worked for the Cities of Berkeley and Oakland to coordinate and implement earthquake safety programs.

Jay holds degrees in Geography (MA) and in Film (BA) from San Francisco State University.

The Oregon Resilience PlanExecutive SummaryReducing Risk and Improving Recovery for the Next Cascadia Earthquake and Tsunami

Report to the 77th Legislative Assembly from Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC)

Salem, Oregon February 2013

The Oregon Resilience Plan—Executive Summary | February 2013 2

Foreword“If we cannot control the volatile tides of change, we can learn to build better boats.” —Andrew Zolli and Ann Marie Healy, Resilience: Why Things Bounce Back (2012)

For more than 300 years, a massive geological fault off Ameri-ca’s northwest coast has lain dormant. Well into that interval, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark journeyed to the mouth of the Columbia River and returned to Washington, D.C. to tell the new United States about what came to be known as the Oregon Country. Tens of thousands of settlers crossed the Oregon Trail to establish communities throughout the Willamette Valley, in coast-al valleys, and beside natural harbors. With the provisional gov-ernment established in 1843 followed by statehood in 1859, the modern history of Oregon began. Industries rose and fell, cities and towns grew . . . and still the fault lay silent.

Not until the 1980s did scientists recognize the Cascadia sub-duction zone as an active fault that poses a major geological haz-ard to Oregon. A decade later, the state’s building codes were updated to address this newly revealed earthquake threat to the built environment.

Since that time, scientists have documented a long history of earthquakes and tsunamis on the Cascadia subduction zone, and state and local officials have urged Oregonians to prepare for the next one. In 1999, the state’s Department of Geology and Miner-al Industries published a preliminary statewide damage and loss study identifying the dire consequences of a Cascadia earthquake and tsunami for Oregon’s infrastructure and for public safety.

One official who took that warning seriously was Senator Peter Courtney, Oregon’s unchallenged champion of earthquake safety and advocate for measures to protect students who attend unsafe schools. His legislative efforts over more than a decade launched a statewide assessment of schools and emergency response facil-ities, and established a state grant program to help fund seismic upgrades to hazardous schools and other critical facilities. Other than California, no state has done as much—yet the hazard sur-passes the commitments Oregon has made to date.

In early 2011, we suggested in the pages of The Oregonian that Oregon should take new steps to make itself resilient to a big earthquake. Less than two months later, the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami disaster in Japan provided the occasion for Repre-sentative Deborah Boone to introduce a House Resolution calling on Oregon to plan for the impacts of a Cascadia earthquake and tsunami here.

House Resolution 3 directed Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Ad-visory Commission to lead the planning effort. Chairman Kent Yu, Ph.D., has skillfully guided more than 150 volunteer professionals, including noted experts, to develop a landmark report on Ore-gon’s priorities to survive and bounce back from a magnitude 9.0 Cascadia earthquake and tsunami.

The authors of this Oregon Resilience Plan set out to help Oregonians know what to expect from the state’s infrastructure should that disaster strike this year, and to propose the level of infrastructure reliability that a resilient state should provide. The plan’s recommendations highlight ways to close the gap that sep-arates expected and desired performance.

Business leaders engaged in this resilience planning effort have indicated that in a major disaster, interruptions of infrastructure services lasting longer than two weeks will put their enterprises at risk. Yet, under present conditions, we can expect some inter-ruptions to last much longer, in some cases from 18 to 36 months or more. The state, in tandem with the private sector, has much to do to improve the reliability of basic services. Citizens, too, need to plan to be self-sufficient for far longer than the 72-hour period commonly advised for disaster preparedness.

The most recent Cascadia earthquake struck at around 9:00 p.m. on a late January evening; the next could shake a mid-July morning when hundreds of thousands of Oregonians and visitors are enjoying coastal beaches and towns. No one can predict the next time the Cascadia fault will rupture, and today is just as like-ly as fifty years from now. If we begin now, it is possible to prevent that natural disaster from causing a statewide catastrophe. Now is the time to have a plan. Now is the time to close Oregon’s re-silience gap.

The Oregon Resilience Plan maps a path of policy and invest-ment priorities for the next fifty years. The recommendations of-fer Oregon’s Legislative Assembly and Governor immediate steps to begin a journey along that path. The plan and its recommen-dations build on the solid foundation laid over the past quarter century by some of Oregon’s top scientists, engineers, and poli-cymakers.

As we wrote two years ago, adopting and implementing such a plan can show “Oregon at its best, tackling a risk with imagination and resourcefulness while sharing the knowledge gained.”

Yumei Wang, Jay Raskin, and Edward WolfPortland, Oregon, November 2012

Yumei Wang, Jay Raskin, and Edward Wolf are the co-authors of “Oregon should make itself resilient for a big quake,” The Sunday Oregonian, January 9, 2011.

Note: This Executive Summary selects from the large number of detailed recommendations in the chapters of the Oregon Resilience Plan. The full report is available online at the Oregon Office of Emergency Management website: http://www.

oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/Pages/index.aspx


Executive SummaryVery large earthquakes will occur in Oregon’s future, and our state’s infrastructure will remain poorly prepared to meet the threat unless we take action now to start building the necessary resilience. This is the central finding of the Oregon Resilience Plan requested by Oregon’s 76th Legislative Assembly.

About the PlanHouse Resolution 3, adopted in April 2011, directed the Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Com-mission (OSSPAC) “to lead and coordinate preparation of an Oregon Resilience Plan that reviews policy options, summarizes relevant reports and studies by state agencies, and makes recommen-dations on policy direction to protect lives and keep commerce flowing during and after a Cascadia earthquake and tsunami.” OSSPAC assembled eight task groups, comprising volunteer subject-matter experts from government, universities, the private sector, and the general public. An Advisory Group of public- and private-sector leaders oversaw the Task Groups’ work, assembled in the portfolio of chapters that make up the plan.

OSSPAC offered the following definition of the seismic resilience goal:

“Oregon citizens will not only be protected from life-threatening physical harm, but because of risk reduction measures and pre-disaster planning, communities will recover more quickly and with less continuing vulnerability following a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake and tsunami.”

Each group was charged with three tasks for four affected zones (tsunami, coastal/earthquake only, valley, and central/eastern Oregon):

1. Determine the likely impacts of a magnitude 9.0 Cascadia earthquake and tsunami on its as-signed sector, and estimate the time required to restore functions in that sector if the earth-quake were to strike under present conditions;

2. Define acceptable timeframes to restore functions after a future Cascadia earthquake to fulfill expected resilient performance; and

3. Recommend changes in practice and policies that, if implemented during the next 50 years, will allow Oregon to reach the desired resilience targets.

The purpose of the analysis is to identify steps needed to eliminate the gap separating current performance from resilient performance, and to initiate that work through capital investment, new incentives, and policy changes so that the inevitable natural disaster of a Cascadia earthquake and tsunami will not deliver a catastrophic blow to Oregon’s economy and communities.

Impact zones for the magnitude 9.0 Cascadia earthquake scenario. Damage will be extreme in the Tsunami zone, heavy in the Coastal Zone, moderate in the Valley zone and light in the Eastern zone.


Tsunami Vulnerability: City of Seaside with 83% of its population, 89% of its employees and almost 100% of its critical facilities in the tsunami inundation zone. Source: Horning Geosciences

This timeline compares the 10,000-year-long history of Cascadia earthquakes to events in human history.

Critical Facilities in the Tsunami Zone – Minamisanriku, March 14, 2011. Because their hospital, emergency operation center, and other government and community service facilities were located in the tsunami inundation zone, the surviving community lost nearly all of its capacity to respond and implement recovery efforts. Source: Asia Air Survey Co., Ltd.

The Cascadia Earthquake Scenario Task Group (Chapter One) reviewed current scientific research to develop a detailed description of the likely physical effects of a great (magnitude 9.0) Cascadia subduction zone earthquake and tsunami, providing a scenario that other task groups used to assess impacts on their respective sectors.

The Business and Workforce Continuity Task Group (Chapter Two) sought to assess the workplace integrity, workforce mobility, and building systems performance – along with customer viability – needed to allow Oregon’s businesses to remain in operation following a Cascadia earthquake and tsunami and to drive a self-sustaining economic recovery.

The Coastal Communities Task Group (Chapter Three) addressed the unique risks faced by Oregon’s coast, the region of the state that will experience a devastating combination of tsunami inundation and physical damage from extreme ground shaking due to proximity to the subduction zone fault.

Overview of the Task Groups

CASCADIA EARTHQUAKE TIME LINE

Comparison of the history of subduction zone earthquakes along the Cascadia Subduction Zone in northern California, Oregon, and Washington, with events from human history. Ages of earthquakes are derived from study and dating of submarine landslides triggered by the earthquakes. Earthquake data provided by Chris Goldfinger, Oregon State University; time line by Ian P. Madin, DOGAMI.

Earthquake of Magnitude 9+ (fault breaks along entire subduction zone)

Earthquake of Magnitude 8+ (fault breaks along southern half of subduction zone)

Cascadia Earthquake Timeline

YEARS BC YEARS AD

KNOWN CASCADIA EARTHQUAKES ALONG THE CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND WASHINGTON

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000

�rst w

ine m

ade

Kennew

ick M

an

cattl

e dom

estic

ated

Mount Mazama eru

pts

horses d

omes

ticate

d

�rst use

of whee

l

Great P

yram

id at G

iza

Stoneh

enge b

uiltCode o

f Ham

mura

biTu

tankham

en born

Homer

writ

es Ili

ad

birth of B

uddhabirt

h of Jes

usfa

ll of R

ome

Magna Carta

writ

ten

voya

ge of C

olum

bus

EVENTS IN HUMAN

HISTORY

YOU ARE HERE!

Multi-Family Housing &Tsunami Vertical

Evacuation Building

DepartmentStore

EOC

ResidentialNeighborhood

Hospital

High Ground

ResidentialNeighborhood

Police


The Critical and Essential Buildings Task Group (Chapter Four) examined the main classes of public and private structures considered critical to resilience in the event of a scenario earthquake, and sought to characterize the gap between expected seismic performance (current state) and desired seismic resilience (target state). The group also assessed buildings deemed vital to commu-nity resilience, and addressed the special challenges posed by unreinforced masonry (URM) and non-ductile concrete structures.

The Transportation Task Group (Chapter Five) assessed the seismic integrity of Oregon’s multi-modal transportation system, including bridges and highways, rail, airports, water ports, and public transit systems, examined the special considerations pertaining to the Columbia and Willamette River navigation channels, and characterized the work deemed necessary to restore and maintain transportation lifelines after a Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. The group’s scope included interdependence of transportation networks with other lifeline systems.

Many of existing public and private buildings such as the State Capitol Building were built

prior to our knowledge of the Cascadia subduction earthquake. They are not

seismically safe, and pose significant life-safety threat to the building occupants.

The approach (foreground) to the 1966 Astoria-Megler Bridge that spans the Columbia

River has major structural deficiencies that could lead to a collapse following an

earthquake. Damaged bridge sections could block waterway access to the Critical Energy

Infrastructure Hub. (DOGAMI photo)

The Energy Task Group (Chapter Six) investigated the seismic deficiencies of Oregon’s energy storage and transmission infrastructure, with a special emphasis on the vulnerability of the state’s critical energy infrastructure (CEI) hub, a six-mile stretch of the lower Willamette River where key liquid fuel and natural gas storage and transmission facilities and electricity transmission facilities are concentrated.

Left: Site map of the Critical

Energy Infrastructure (CEI) Hub on the

western bank of the Lower Willamette River area in NW

Portland, Oregon. The CEI Hub, outlined in red, stretches for six

miles. (Google Earth) Right:

Oil terminals in the CEI Hub. (DOGAMI photo)


The Information and Communications Task Group (Chapter Seven) examined the inherent vulnerabil-ities of Oregon’s information and communications systems and the consequences of service disruptions for the resilience of other sectors and systems. The group explored the implications of co-location of commu-nications infrastructure with other vulnerable physical infrastructure (e.g., bridges), and specified the con-ditions needed to accomplish phased restoration of service following a Cascadia earthquake and tsunami.

The Water and Wastewater Task Group (Chapter Eight) reviewed vulnerabilities of the pipelines, treat-ment plants, and pump stations that make up Oregon’s water and wastewater systems, and discussed the interventions needed to increase the resilience of under-engineered and antiquated infrastructure at potential failure points. The group proposed a phased approach to restoration of water services after a Cascadia earthquake and tsunami, beginning with a backbone water and wastewater system capable of supplying critical community needs.

Left: These high voltage electrical

transmission towers are built on a river bank in the Critical

Energy Infrastructure (CEI) Hub susceptible to lateral spreading.

(DOGAMI photo)

Right: Structural damage to a high voltage transmission tower

located at a river crossing in 2010 Chile earthquake (ASCE Technical

Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering – TCLEE)

Key FindingsOregon is far from resilient to the impacts of a great Cascadia earthquake and tsunami today. Available studies estimate fatali-ties ranging from 1,250 to more than 10,000 due to the combined effects of earthquake and tsunami, tens of thousands of build-ings destroyed or damaged so extensively that they will require months to years of repair, tens of thousands of displaced house-holds, more than $30 billion in direct and indirect economic losses (close to one-fifth of Oregon’s gross state product), and more than one million dump truck loads of debris.

A particular vulnerability is Oregon’s liquid fuel supply. Oregon depends on liquid fuels transported into the state from Washing-ton State, which is also vulnerable to a Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. Once here, fuels are stored temporarily at Oregon’s criti-cal energy infrastructure hub, a six-mile stretch of the lower Willa-mette River where industrial facilities occupy liquefiable riverside soils. Disrupting the transportation, storage, and distribution of liquid fuels would rapidly disrupt most, if not all, sectors of the economy critical to emergency response and economic recovery.

Business continuity planning typically assumes a period of two weeks to be the longest disruption of essential services (i.e., util-ities, communications, etc.) that a business can withstand, and service disruptions lasting for one month or longer can be enough to force a business to close, relocate, or leave the state entirely. Analysis in the Oregon Resilience Plan reveals the following time-frames for service recovery under present conditions:

Critical Service ZoneEstimated Time

to Restore Service

Electricity Valley 1 to 3 months

Electricity Coast 3 to 6 months

Police and fire stations Valley 2 to 4 months

Drinking water and sewer Valley 1 month to 1 year

Drinking water and sewer Coast 1 to 3 years

Top-priority highways (partial restoration) Valley 6 to 12 months

Healthcare facilities Valley 18 months

Healthcare facilities Coast 3 years

Resilience gaps of this magnitude reveal a harsh truth: a policy of business as usual implies a post-earthquake future that could consist of decades of economic and population decline – in effect, a “lost generation” that will devastate our state and ripple beyond Oregon to affect the regional and national economy.

•After the February 27, 2010 M8.8 Maule Earthquake, Chile was able to restore 90% communication services and 95% power supply within two weeks, and re-start commercial flights after ten days.

•After the March 11, 2011 M9.0 Tohoku Earthquake, Japan was able to restore more than 90% power supply in ten days, 90% telephone lines in two weeks, and 90% cellular base stations in 19 days.


RecommendationsBased on the findings in this Oregon Resilience Plan, OSSPAC rec-ommends that Oregon start now on a sustained program to re-duce our vulnerability and shorten our recovery time to achieve resilience before the next Cascadia earthquake inevitably strikes our state.

OSSPAC urges systematic efforts to assess the Oregon’s build-ings, lifelines, and social systems, and to develop a sustained program of replacement, retrofit, and redesign to make Oregon resilient.

Sector-by-sector findings and detailed recommendations are presented in each chapter of the Oregon Resilience Plan. Overar-ching priorities, illustrated with examples selected from the chap-ters, include new efforts to:

1. Undertake comprehensive assessments of the key struc-tures and systems that underpin Oregon’s economy, includ-inga. Completing a statewide inventory of critical buildings

(those needed for emergency response and the provi-sion of basic services to communities) in both public and private sectors (Chapter Four);

b. Completing an updated inventory of the local agency, transit, port, and rail assets that assure access to school buildings and hospitals and could be used during emer-gencies (Chapter Five);

c. Charging the Oregon Public Utility Commission to define criteria for seismic vulnerability assessments that can be applied by operating companies in the energy and infor-mation and communications sectors (Chapters Six and Seven); and

d. Requiring all water and wastewater agencies to com-plete a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan as part of periodic updates to facility plans (Chapter Eight).

2. Launch a sustained program of capital investment in Ore-gon’s public structures, including a. Fully funding Oregon’s Seismic Rehabilitation Grants Pro-

gram for K-12 schools, community colleges, and emer-gency response facilities (Chapters Two and Four);

b. Seismically upgrading lifeline transportation routes into and out of major business centers statewide by 2030 (Chapter Five); and

c. Establishing a State Resilience Office to provide leader-ship, resources, advocacy, and expertise in implementing statewide resilience plans (Chapter Four).

3. Craft a package of incentives to engage Oregon’s private sector in efforts to advance seismic resilience, including a. Developing a seismic rating system for new buildings to

incentivize construction of buildings more resilient than building code compliance requires and to communicate seismic risk to the public (Chapters Two and Four);

b. Tasking the Oregon Public Utilities Commission to pro-vide oversight for seismic preparedness of the energy providers currently under its jurisdiction (Chapter Six); and

c. Working with the hospitality industry to develop plans to assist visitors following a major earthquake and tsuna-mi and to plan strategies to rebuild the tourism industry (Chapter Three).

4. Update Oregon’s public policies, including a. Revising individual preparedness communications to

specify preparation from the old standard of 72 hours to a minimum of two weeks, and possibly more (Chapters Two and Three);

b. Developing a policy and standards for installation of tem-porary bridges following earthquake disruption (Chapter Five); and

c. Adopting a two-tiered ratings system that indicates the number of hours/days that a citizen in a community can expect to wait before major relief arrives, and the number of days/months that a citizen can expect to wait before the community itself achieves 90 percent resto-ration of roads and municipal services (Chapter Two).

These and other recommendations may be refined and imple-mented via a combination of new legislation, regulations, admin-istrative rules, budget priorities, and in consultation with private sector leaders as appropriate.

Looking AheadThis Oregon Resilience Plan emphasizes the resilient physical in-frastructure needed to support business and community continu-ity. The policy recommendations presented here, if implemented over the next 50 years, will enhance our infrastructure resilience, help preserve our communities, and protect our state economy.

This is a timeframe much longer than typical of government planning efforts. To affirm Oregon’s commitment, OSSPAC needs to work with the Joint Ways & Means Committee of Oregon’s Leg-islative Assembly to track and report on progress toward seismic resilience at the beginning of each legislative session, to keep the 50-year goal in view.

Local Oregon communities can use the framework and gap-analysis methodology developed by the Oregon Resilience Plan to conduct more refined assessments that consider local seismic and tsunami hazards, and develop community-specific recommendations to meet their response and recovery needs.

A Cascadia earthquake and tsunami will affect both Oregon and Washington. Both states share common challenges, among them the interstate bridges and the Columbia River navigation channel as well as the regional power grid and liquid fuel sup-ply. In particular, Oregon gets almost one hundred percent of its liquid fuel from suppliers in Washington, delivered via pipeline and river. We believe that it would be beneficial for both states to work together at a regional level to address the common chal-lenge of resilience to a region-wide seismic event.

OSSPAC recommends expanding future resilience planning ef-forts to include:

1. Community-level planning2. Human resilience3. Civic infrastructure4. Joint regional planning with Washington State

With resilient physical infrastructure, a healthy population, and functioning government and civic infrastructure to provide services to those in need, Oregon will be ready to withstand a Cascadia earthquake and tsunami, and to expedite response and recovery efforts quickly.


2012-2013 Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC) MembersCHAIR: Kent Yu - Structural Engineer Stakeholder, Degenkolb Engineers VICE CHAIR: Jay Wilson - Public Member, Clackamas County Emergency Management Deborah Boone - Representative, Legislative Assembly Greg Ek-Collins - Oregon Department of Transportation Carl Farrington - Multifamily Housing Stakeholder Fred Girod - Senator, Legislative Assembly David Holton - American Red Cross* Francisco Ianni - American Red Cross Ian Madin - Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

*Retired from the commission in June 2012.

Michael Mumaw - Local Government Stakeholder, Emergency Manager, City of Beaverton Jay Raskin - Public Member, Ecola Architects Althea Rizzo - Oregon Emergency Management Richard Rogers - Building Codes Division Stephen Lucker - Department of Land Conservation & Development Susan Steward – Building Owners Stakeholder, BOMA Mark Tyler - Schools Stakeholder Bryce Ward – Banking Stakeholder, ECONorthwest Stan Watters – Utilities Stakeholder, Port of Portland Gerry Williams - Public Member, Construction & Engineering Management Research, Inc.Bev Hall - OSSPAC Secretary, Oregon Emergency Management

Table of Contents — Full ReportProject Teams and AcknowledgmentsForewordExecutive Summary1. Cascadia: Oregon’s Greatest Natural Threat

IntroductionHow OSSPAC Developed this planGreat earthquakes on the Cascadia Subduction ZoneResilience plan earthquake scenarioOregon’s infrastructure and riskEstimated impacts References

2. Business and Workforce ContinuityIntroductionEvaluation of the scenario earthquake’s economic impactBusiness workforce interdependencyConsiderations for different sectorsCascadia earthquake aftermath Cascadia earthquake business planning References

3. Coastal CommunitiesEarthquake and tsunami zonesAfter the Cascadia eventCoastal zone targetsGovernment/essential facility continuityLand useReconstructionCoastal economic resilienceDisaster resilience and sustainabilityRelief and resilience ratings References

4. Critical and Essential BuildingsIntroductionBuilding data and analysisTarget states of recoveryAssessment of current building performance: sector by sector

Emergency operations centers, police, and fire stationsEducation facilitiesHealthcare facilitiesEmergency shelteringCritical government facilitiesResidential housingCommunity retail centers and banksVulnerable buildings

Findings and recommendationsReference

5. TransportationIntroductionAssessment of transportation performance

Highway transportationRail transportationAir transportationColumbia and Willamette navigation channelsPublic transit servicesLocal roads and streets

Resilience gap analysis summaryTransportation interdependency assessmentRecommendations References

6. EnergyIntroductionOregon’s critical energy infrastructure hub

Liquid fuelNatural gasElectricityFindings of the Bonneville Power Administration

Operator efforts to prepare for a Cascadia Subduction Zone EventRecommendations References

7. Information and CommunicationsIntroductionResilience goal, objectives, and scopePlan developmentAssessment of performanceResilience gap analysis summaryRecommendationsTarget timeframes for recovery References

8. Water and Wastewater SystemsIntroductionWater and wastewater resilience planningAssessment of system performanceAssessment of water and wastewater structuresEstimated recovery timeframes for existing systemsRecommendationsReferences

9. Looking AheadAppendix I: House Resolution 3 and Supporting DocumentationAppendix II: January 26, 2012 WorkshopAppendix III: October 5, 2012 WorkshopAppendix IV: List of Oregon Resilience Plan Contributors

Project Team and AcknowledgmentsOn behalf of my fellow OSSPAC Commissioners, I want to thank several individuals whose vision and support have made our resilience planning work possible. First and fore-most, we thank our colleague Rep. Deborah Boone, who introduced House Resolution 3 and won the unanimous support of her colleagues on April 18, 2011. We are also grateful to Governor John Kitzhaber, who encouraged OSSPAC’s efforts on resilience, and to President Barack Obama’s Senior Director for Resilience Richard Reed, who took the time to express his support for the preparation of Oregon’s resilience plan.

We are very grateful to members of the project Steering Committee, who have offered their advice, counsel, and support at every stage of our work: Jay Wilson (Vice Chair), Ian Madin, Dr. Althea Rizzo, and Stan Watters.

We appreciate the commitment of our Advisory Panel, whose members participated in meetings on January 26th, 2012 and October 5th, 2012 and have made themselves available for informal consultation over the past year: Prof. Scott Ashford, Sen. Lee Beyer, Sen. Peter Courtney, Ed Den-nis, JR Gonzalez, Prof. Chris Goldfinger, Dave Harlan, Onno Husing, Bruce Johnson, Dr. Leon Kempner, Jr., Prof. Andre LeDuc, Dr. Vicki McConnell, Dr. Jean O’Connor, Cameron Smith, Jeffrey Soulages, Yumei Wang, Edward Wolf, and Dr. Nate Wood. In particular, we want to thank Dr. Vicki McConnell, Yumei Wang and Edward Wolf for their guid-ance and support.

We owe the creation of the Oregon Resilience Plan to diligent efforts by our eight Task Groups and the capable leadership and project management performed by our Task Group leaders, who may not have fully realized the magni-tude of the project when they agreed to serve:

Earthquake and Tsunami Scenario Task Group: Ian Ma-din (Chair), Bill Burns, Art Frankel, Chris Goldfinger, Mat-thew Mabey, George Priest, Yumei Wang, and Ivan Wong.

Business and Work Force Task Group: Susan Steward (Co-Chair), Gerry Williams ( Co-Chair), Lori Chamberlain, Patrick Estenes, Kelley Okolita, Patrick Slabe, Bert Sorio, Jef-frey Soulages, Rick Van Dyke, and Bryce Ward.

Coastal Communities Task Group: Jay Wilson (Co-Chair), Jay Raskin (Co-Chair),Jacque Betz, Rep. Deborah Boone, Josh Bruce, Lori Christiansen,Charlie Davis, Sue Graves, Dave Harlan, Jeffrey Hepler, Maggie Kirby, Sen. Jeff Kruse, Margo Lalich, Jack Lenox, Gary Milliman, Sam Steidel, Wayne Stinson, and Laren Woolley.

Critical Buildings Task Group: Ed Quesenberry (Co-Chair), Trent Nagele (Co-Chair), Andre Barbosa, David Bugni, Ed Dennis, Kimberly Dills, Shane Downing, Shelly Duquette, Jennifer Eggers, Joe Gehlen, Tonya Halog, Robert Johnson, Kevin Kaplan, Amit Kumar, Dominic Matteri, Anne Monnier, Willy Paul, Josh Richards, Tim Rippey, Richard Rogers, Terry Shugrue, Jason Thompson, Mark Tobin, Jim Weston, Mi-chael Wieber, and Edward Wolf.

Transportation Task Group: Bruce Johnson (Chair), Mar-tin Callery, Lieutenant Meredith Condon, Chris Corich, Pe-ter Duskica, Greg Ek-Collins, Herb Florer, Doug Grafe, Elsie Hamner, Chuck Hutto, Doug Kirkpatrick, Jeff Langstrom, Lee Lazaro, Mark Libby, Matt Maass, Bob Melbo, Nason McCullough, Curran Mohney, Lucy Moore, Nancy Murphy, Albert Nako, David Neys, David Olongiagh, Jeff Olson, Jon Oshel, Tom Peterson, Craig Shike, Craig Totten, Tom Whar-ton, John Wilson, and Holly Winston.

Energy Task Group: JR Gonzalez (Co-Chair), Stan Wat-ters (Co-Chair), Heide Caswell, Rick Carter, Brian Doherty, Michael Dougherty, Del Draper, Dave Ford, Debbie Guerra, Teresa Hagins, Marion Haynes, Leon Kempner, Jr., Brian Knight, Lori Koho, Christy Munro, Bruce Paskett, Robbie Roberts, Dave Stuckey, Jack Vranish, Yumei Wang, Tashiana Wanger, and Grant M. Yoshihara.

Information and Communications Task Group: Mike Mumaw (Chair), Rick Carter, Michael Dougherty, Walter Duddington, JR Gonzalez, Alexis Kwasinki, Devon Lumbard, Kelley Stember, Alex Tang, Yumei Wang, Stan Watters, and Geoffery Williams.

Water and Waste Water Task Group: Mike Stuhr (Co-Chair), Mark Knudson (Co-Chair), Don Ballantyne, Steve Behrandt, James Bela, Andy Braun, Scott Burns, Mel Dame-wood, Jim Doane, Michael Doane, Tom Hickman, Gary Irwin, Gwynne Johnson, Jeff Leighton, Arturo Leon, Ian Madin, Jim Male, Jim Newell, Bob Patterson, Sherry Patter-son, Todd Perimon, Brad Phelps, Jeff Rubin, Rob Schab, Ken Schlegel, Brian Stahl, and Jeffrey Winchester.

Dr. Kyra L. Nourse compiled and edited the Oregon Re-silience Plan, with assistance from my OSSPAC colleagues Dr. Althea Rizzo, Jay Wilson, Ian Madin, Bev Hall and from Edward Wolf. We are grateful to FEMA for financial support, through a grant administered by Oregon Emergency Man-agement, for the technical editing of the plan.

The Port of Portland hosted our workshops on January 26, 2012 and October 5, 2012 in its headquarter build-ing. We want to thank Michelle Walker for her planning and coordination to make the workshops successful. Cas-cadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (CREW) provided their endorsement for our resilience planning efforts, and also helped sponsor our January 26, 2012 workshop. We want to thank Cale Ash (then President of CREW) and John Schelling (Washington State Emergency Management) for their participation and for sharing their resilience planning experience with us.

On a personal note, I wish to thank my colleagues at Degenkolb Engineers, particularly Chris Poland in San Fran-cisco and Stacy Bartoletti in Seattle, for their inspiration on resilience, and colleagues in our Portland office including Liz Francis and Karla Richards who helped me to manage my resilience plan responsibilities without leaving my other professional obligations too far behind.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the leadership of OSSPAC’s Vice Chair Jay Wilson, who has in every respect been a full partner in the vision and execution of the Oregon Resilience Plan, and who is a great champion for resilience.

Many other individuals have generously shared their ex-pertise and perspective with us during the creation of this plan. OSSPAC bears the sole responsibility for any errors or omissions it contains.Kent Yu, Ph.D.Chairman, Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory CommissionPortland, OregonJanuary 2013

Note: The full Oregon Resilience Plan report is available online at the Oregon Office of Emergency Management website: http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/Pages/index.aspx

1

I

Judith Rodin, PhDP R e S i d e N t , t h e R o C K e F e l l e R F o u N d A t i o N

Resilience for the Next Century

t’s a lesson we continue to learn with each passing year: we cannot

predict where or when the next major shock or disruption to our well-

being will manifest.

Perhaps it will emerge from our global financial system, just as we saw

happen when the u.S. housing bubble burst and the ensuing credit crisis

in Reykjavik rippled across the world. Perhaps it will be a result of our

changing global climate, which caused the devastating floods in Bangkok

or the Superstorm that, months later, continues to leave devastated coastal

communities in the Northeastern united States. or it could transpire in

something as simple as a handshake, which once sent a pandemic from

Asia travelling far across the globe at the speed of a 747.

threats and stresses to our 21st century world come in all shapes and

sizes, just as they have since the beginning of human existence. But what

distinguishes today’s threats from those of the past is the escalating rate

at which they are occurring, without mind for geography or respect for

man-made borders. today, vulnerability in one area leads to vulnerability

in others in a way that is fundamentally new. issues once identified and

2

“We cannot predict where

or when the next major

shock or disruption to

our well-being will manifest.”

analyzed individually – our environment, the economy, and social

challenges – are now inextricably interlinked.

exacerbating these issues are a growing global population and a warming

planet. the latter is changing just where and how new populations

will live, and in some cases, whether they will survive at all. And while

globalization and free trade have increased the efficiency of markets,

they may well be reducing the resilience of economies, and indeed

societies. For example, while the proliferation of mobile communications

in the developing world has enabled us to close the gaps between

banking access and health inequalities among rural populations, these

nations are now at-risk for cyber-attacks, including identity theft and

fraud, which will attack a population that can least afford it.

this is just one example of how progress on our global challenges – health,

access to education, economic growth, environmental sustainability –

may be threatened in a way we cannot immediately control. What we

can control, however, is how we to respond to these challenges, how we

absorb the shocks of our world, and how quickly we spring back after

a blow. in other words, we can control how resilient our institutions,

communities, and people are against these disruptions.

But what, exactly, does “resilience” mean? Resilience means different

things across a variety of disciplines, but all definitions are linked to the

ability of a system, entity, community or person to withstand shocks

while still maintaining its essential functions. Resilience also refers to

an ability to recover quickly and effectively from catastrophe, and a

capability of enduring greater stress.

humans are not born resilient – we learn it, adapt it, improve upon it.

the same is true for organizations, systems, and societies. But what

makes some people or organizations more resilient than others?

through research, practice, and experience – including the Rockefeller

Foundation’s 100 years of work – we have learned that resilient systems

share five core characteristics:

• Spare capacity, which ensures that there is a back-up or alternative

available when a vital component of a system fails.

• Flexibility, the ability to change, evolve, and adapt in the face of

disaster.

• limited or “safe” failure, which prevents failures from rippling across

systems.

• Rapid rebound, the capacity to re-establish function and avoid long-

term disruptions.

6T H E R O C K E F E L L E R F O U N D AT I O N R E s I L I E N C E I N I T I AT I V E3

• Constant learning, with robust feedback loops that sense and allow new

solutions as conditions change.

Yet, despite all we know about resilience, there is much more we have to do,

share and learn, particularly across domains, to put in place the resilience

strategies and, importantly, connect those strategies across sectors to

successfully recover from the current and unknowable future risks we face.

As Mayor Bloomberg discusses in greater detail in his essay, Superstorm

Sandy was a stark reminder of the urgency of this work, and underscored

the importance of taking a holistic view of resilience across systems after

the storm. At the invitation of New York State governor Andrew Cuomo,

the Rockefeller Foundation led the NYS2100 Commission to make specific

recommendations to improve the strength and resilience of the state’s

infrastructure and systems. We looked across every aspect of society to

identify vulnerabilities that put the entire system at risk, putting forth a final

set of cross-sector recommendations, from the insurance industry to land

use, from transportation to energy, and from finance to regulatory reforms –

all of which contribute to a region’s ability to bounce back after crisis.

there are plenty of measures we can take to help institutions, individuals,

and communities build resilience in their systems and infrastructure, before

those systems are tested by outside forces. the Rockefeller Foundation is

currently supporting an initiative called the Asian Cities Climate Change

Resilience Network (ACCCRN). this $90 million project focuses on ten

cities with very rapidly growing populations in four countries – vietnam,

india, indonesia, and thailand – that are on fragile ecologies. With the

Foundation’s help, these cities are making forward-looking investments

in resilient infrastructure and land development, in information systems

and feedback structures, and in community-based social resilience, that

will enable them to withstand the negative effects of climate change,

such as rising sea-levels, unpredictable rainfall patterns and increasing

temperatures. the vision of ACCCRN is to catalyze attention, funding, and

action on building the climate-change resilience of cities around the world

– and within that, developing the resilience of the most vulnerable and

poor communities in those cities. We have a range of impressive grantees

and partners contributing to this work, including multilateral and bilateral

funders, local and regional think tanks and Ngos, and a large network of

government officials, academics, and private sector actors from each of

these cities.

Resilience requires us to take a combination of both macro and micro

approaches. there is perhaps no clearer illustration of this than in

agricultural economies of sub-Saharan Africa, where a major climate

related natural disaster, such as a severe drought or debilitating storm,

4

could wipe out as much as 25 percent of a country’s gdP. to help

build greater resilience to these shocks, the Rockefeller Foundation is

supporting an innovative project of the World Food Programme that

will help governments better predict and mitigate the most devastating

impacts of climate change. through software which translates satellite-

based rainfall data into real-time needs and cost estimates for every

first-level administrative district in sub-Saharan Africa, the government

and the World Food Programme can predict with great certainty when

droughts will occur, enabling more timely and effective responses to

prevent food shortages and famine.

At the same time, we are also investing in projects in these same

countries that work to empower poor farmers and households and

increase individual climate resilience. through the R4 Rural Resilience

initiative, which ertharin Cousin, José graziano da Silva and Kanayo F.

Nwanze discuss in their chapter, farmers have greater access to a host

of risk management tools, including micro credit and microinsurance,

which they pay for by working on community projects that improve

local agriculture and build greater climate resilience, including irrigation

systems, composting, and tree planting. With the extra money and more

plentiful crop yields, farmers are able to save money for hard times and

provider greater opportunities for their families – all of which contributes

to greater resilience in their communities.

each of these innovations by themselves can have a profound impact

on small holder farmers in Africa, but when pursued together in

elegant coordination, we begin to see the true potential that integrated

innovation can bring in building resilience against the shocks and

disruptions of our modern world. For an additional example, take a

read of Mushtaque Chowdhury’s essay on how a range of macro and

micro level innovations over the last few decades have increased health

resiliency in Bangladesh.

While institutional and individual resilience strategies are critical, we

must also build the capacity of neighborhoods and communities to

respond to and recover from challenges and reduce vulnerability through

collective action, known across disciplines as social resilience. At its

core, social resilience is enabled by strong relationships and networks

that advance individual and community agency and support effective

information and feedback systems. But it also about building stronger

bridges among diverse groups. As we’ve seen in the aftermath of past

disasters, such as the haiti earthquake and the tsunami in Southeast

Asia, social ties that unite some groups of survivors can also exclude

other groups from needed aid and relief. Bridges are needed to ensure

6T H E R O C K E F E L L E R F O U N D AT I O N R E s I L I E N C E I N I T I AT I V E5

that strong relationships are a positive force for resilience, rather than a

barrier to it. in addition to linking populations, social resilience also relies

on the linking of different sets of actors at every level – local, regional, and

nation – and across sectors – civic, businesses, and government – to enable

more effective responses to crisis.

A focus on social resilience places the human dimension and human

development square at the center of our work. in her essay, Jane Weru

highlights the important work of community groups in Nairobi assisting the

city’s slum dwellers with the issues and implications of rampant evictions

that destroy livelihoods and the confidence in governing systems. By

putting the well-being of individuals as the focus, resilience strategies can

become transformative.

thus far within this essay, i’ve covered the importance of and connections

among resilience-building strategies across ecological, institutional, social,

and physical domains – but no study of resilience could be complete

without a perspective from the economic system. this publication contains

two such perspectives, one from Andrew liveris, Chairman and Ceo of

the dow Chemical Company, on the importance of a robust advanced

manufacturing sector for a resilient global economy, and a second by

Muhtar Kent, Chairman and Ceo of the Coca-Cola Company, reflecting on

the challenges and opportunities of building resilient organizations in what

he calls a “reset world.” Both underpin the reality that while the poorest

and most vulnerable among us are often the hardest hit by the shocks to

global markets, businesses and industries are not immune, and indeed can

contribute to greater resilience across societies.

through the lens of our contributors’ own unique, often groundbreaking

work, we can begin to explore some of the ways we can help prepare for,

withstand and emerge stronger from the acute shocks and chronic stresses

of the 21st century. Building resilience is not the task of a single actor or

a single sector, no matter how innovative or passionate. Rather, building

resilience requires partners from every sector: governments who must

create the right policies, plans and infrastructure investment; businesses

who ensure the functioning of our economic systems; communities and

civic institutions who must organize to be more flexible, responsive and

robust; organizations and individuals who have the core skills required to

adapt and cope.

A more resilient world is in our reach, if we work towards it together. the

ideas contained in this booklet are a good place to start.

“A more resilient

world is in our reach, if we work towards it together.”

Socio-Economic Resilience Panel Facilitated by Josh Bruce

Meet the Panelists

Dan Brown, Flood Recovery Manager, Community Action Team, Vernonia

Patrick Corcoran, Extension Coastal Hazards Outreach Specialist & Oregon Sea

Grant County Leader, Clatsop County, OSU Extension Service

Ed MacMullan, Senior Economist, ECONorthwest, Eugene Branch

Dan Brown is the Flood Recovery Manager at Community Action Team,

Inc. (CAT) in Vernonia Oregon. Since the flood of 2007 both Columbia

County and the City of Vernonia have contracted with CAT to manage

the short and long-term projects, including the FEMA funded

mitigation. This is a second opportunity for Dan to work in flood

recovery as he also took a leave of absence from his own business

after the flood of 1996 to help the community. The flood of 2007 was a

much more damaging event and almost 6 years later Dan is still

working on a number of projects.

Patrick Corcoran is a coastal natural hazards specialist based in Astoria,

Oregon. His goal is to help coastal communities become more resilient

to natural hazards. Patrick engages university researchers and coastal

residents in collaborative research and shared learning about the

nature of coastal natural hazards; helps communities identify their

vulnerability to hazards; and connects local people with data and

decision support tools designed to help communities adapt to coastal

hazards. Patrick’s primary areas of work are tsunami preparedness,

coastal storms and shoreline change.

Ed MacMullan, Senior Economist, ECONorthwest holds a M.S.

Agricultural Economics and International Agricultural Development from

University of California at Davis and a B.S. Soil Science from Oregon

State University. Ed has been with ECONorthwest since 1990. He

specializes in assessing the economic effects of public policies that

affect natural-resource management. He regularly presents to regional

and national conferences, including presentations to the national low-

impact development conference, a national review panel convened by

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and has been a featured

speaker at the annual training sessions organized by the Nonpoint

Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) group.

Chapter 6: Reference Guide to Resilience Elements and Benchmarks

6-10 How Resilient Is Your Coastal Community?

Society and Economy

The desired outcome of this element of resilience is that communities are engaged in diverse and environmentally sustainable livelihoods resistant to hazards.

What Is Society and Economy?Changes in the economy and people’s quality of life are often the main criteria upon which a community’s resilience is judged after a disaster. The strength of the economy and the diversity of livelihoods greatly influence the community’s ability to prepare for disasters, quicken the recovery process, and adapt to changes that make them less vulnerable in the future. Despite changes in coastal ecology, health, laws, governance frameworks, or hazard response programs, it is the improvement or decline in a person’s livelihood that directly affects resilience.

Why Are Society and Economy an Essential Element to CCR?Society and economy serve as an essential element of resilience because of the direct relationship between economic activity (markets and commerce) and social life

(culture, family, recreation). Changes in the local and regional economy such as new industries, specific jobs, or manufacturing technology have positive and negative impacts on individuals and communities through life expectancies, employment, wealth, and quality-of-life issues. Similarly, the culture of the community, family structure, and gender roles influence economic activities. Social, cultural, and economic conditions provide the enabling environment for self reliance in a community. Society and economy benchmarks of resilience are described in Tables 6-5 to 6-8.

Every community is different with regard to factors that are most important in determining vulnerability and resilience. Diversity affects how resilient a community is. If an entire fishing community uses the same fishing gear and catches the same species, its vulnerability is likely to be higher. By diversifying the types of fish caught and gear technology, or even diversifying beyond fishing as the sole livelihood, the community increases its resilience to hazards. Communities that have a mix of fishers, farmers, manufacturing, and tourism are less likely to suffer broad impacts, since each industry depends on different clients, resources, and markets. Communities and industries can work together to diversify the local economy.

Resilient coastal communities are employed by diverse economic sectors not dependent totally on coastal resources

P. Rubinoff


How Resilient Is Your Coastal Community? 6-11

Factors that can predetermine a community’s vulnerability as well as future resilience based on economic and social factors are shown in the table below.

Society and Economy: Good Practices to Enhance Resilience

Good Practices Absorbing Shock Bouncing Back Adapting to Change

Society

Establish programs that assist livelihood development for the poor and other vulnerable groups.

Help families create informal businesses to spread risks; focusing on the most vulnerable community members reduces vulnerability.

Help families be self-reliant during the recovery process.

Create new business opportunities that the poorest sector is well positioned to act on.

Develop community-driven planning activities.

Build support, trust and volunteerism to implement a plan; more likely to address the needs of all vulnerable groups.

Recovery will occur quicker with less conflict; meet the needs of the most vulnerable.

Community development that addresses the core needs of vulnerable populations for future hazards.

Establish financial services for families that need access to savings accounts, payment services, insurance, and small loans.

Encourage families to store fewer assets in homes located in vulnerable areas.

Extended family can send payments to those in need, Proivide insurance coverage to rebuild and loans to rebuild personal property.

Small loans restart and change livelihoods; place savings in interest accounts for next hazard or emergency.

Form community volunteer groups to increase awareness and response.

Make more of the community, including the most vulnerable, aware of and ready to react to hazards.

Enable community to become self reliant to respond and recover using core volunteer community groups; outside aid is well managed.

Learn from experience of everyone and from the different livelihoods in the community.

Resolve conflicts between segments of the community regarding equity of services and redevelopment focus.

Make hazard warnings and response serve everyone including the most vulnerable.

Less time is spent on disagreements and political fighting; faster transfer toward recovery and rebuilding.

Shared vision for increasing community resilience; all of the community can benefit from changes.

Address the needs of the weaker segments of the public such as elderly, sick, and poor.

Minor hazard events are less likely to impact community since the weakest segments are protected or serviced.

Weaker members of society are in greatest need during recovery process; having plans in place before a hazard creates more effective recoveries.

Future hazards will not be isolated to a few people; these weaker members of society will have a fair chance to get out of poverty.



Society and Economy: Good Practices to Enhance Resilience (continued)

Good Practices Absorbing Shock Bouncing Back Adapting to Change

Economy

Establish social and ecological limits on resource extraction and allowable impacts.

Resources are in a healthier state to absorb the shock to the system and protect community assets and lives.

Community has local resources available to seek food, shelter, and clean water during the recovery phase, and businesses can resume.

Economy and social pressures at levels to allow major political changes to increase sustainable development goals.

Use existing businesses to mitigate current vulnerabilities.

Exposure and vulnerability of assets are reduced.

Less to clean up, replace, fund and close operations.

Expenses for recovery diverted to proper redevelopment and spread good practices to other businesses.

Prepare business response and redevelopment plans.

Vital assets and workers are protected as much as possible.

Less recovery work; faster responses due to coordination, preparations and partnerships.

Knowledge of good practices and options available to act effectively during crises.

Establish microfinance institutions at the local/regional level to provide financial loan services.

Having institutions offer services prior to disaster increases likelihood that small businesses are prepared for impact.

Existing institutions allow quicker processing of applications, knowledge of local business members.

After donor aid is gone, microfinancing provides the needed capital for long-term redevelopment.

Establish microfinance loans for formal and informal businesses (focus capital to reduce hazards).

Small businesses can make necessary mitigation actions to protect assets.

Access to vital credit that gets them back quickly to production; small businesses recover quickly.

Loans at reasonable rates enable small businesses and families to improve their assets.

Establish startup grants, technical assistance, and loans for new and alternative enterprises.

Diversifies the economy to spread risk vulnerabilities.

Small businesses can recover and service local community as other businesses rebuild.

Technical assistance guides small business owners toward options and new market potential.

Increase community input on economic development strategies.

Businesses develop based on community input; shared vision for development decreases vulnerability of businesses and citizens.

Recovery process can get local support and volunteers to rebuild quickly and appropriately.

Social and environmental criteria included in development plan for community; greater support and trust possible.

Increase awareness of risks to businesses.

Locate and build appropriately based on risks.

Results in less damage to repair and enhanced ability to begin preplanned recovery process.

Adapt business plan and strategy based on known risks.

Change laws, policies, and regulations to facilitate the creation and operation of microenterprises.

Diversification of the formal business sector reduces vulnerability to economy and spreads risks.

Businesses that are registered can get aid; new businesses can form quickly and legally.

Innovative business ideas can be acted upon to build a stronger community.



How Does Society and Economy Relate to the Other Elements of CCR?The social and economic characteristics of resilience are often the drivers of change and development in coastal communities linked with planning and governance. The resilience of socio-economies and livelihoods are strongly connected to the governance, land use, and infrastructure elements.

The type and strength of the local economy, as well as the culture, drive the pattern of land use and infrastructure. The type of industry will often dictate where a community must build its infrastructure (e.g. on the waterfront, in the coastal waters, near major ports and road networks). A strong economy can also make the financial investments to upgrade facilities to reduce their exposure and vulnerability to natural hazards. If the local business community is organized and has strong leadership, there may be support services to assist businesses in taking hazard mitigation actions. Thus, the link between business leadership and hazard mitigation actions influences where and how infrastructure is built.

Most coastal communities are highly dependent on natural resources which make them particularly vulnerable to changes in resource conditions (Pomeroy et al., 2006). Livelihoods and business influence how resources are used during normal times as well as during the recovery period. In addition, healthy resource conditions influence the business opportunities and costs of resource extraction. Coastal livelihoods also influence where people live and how they build.

Enhancing Resilience in Hilo, Hawaii: Good Society and Economy Practices

The devastation caused by the 1960 tsunami in Hilo resulted in destruction and disruption of many businesses along and near the waterfront. In an effort to lessen future impacts to the local economy, the town chose to relocate retail shops to a safer location, further from the coast and at higher elevations. In addition, many of the areas where the former retail shops had been located were converted into public parks, enhancing access to recreational opportunities for society. In recognition of the importance of education, a school located in the tsunami impact zone was relocated outside the zone, to minimize potential deaths as well as avoid the potential disruption of education services.

In an effort to ensure that future generations remember the past and learn from the mistakes of being inadequately prepared for tsunamis, the Pacific Tsunami Museum was created in Hilo. The goal of the Pacific Tsunami Museum is to promote public tsunami education for the people of Hawaii and the Pacific Region. The museum also preserves the social and cultural history of Hawaii and promotes economic development on the island of Hawaii as well as statewide. The museum serves as a living memorial to those who lost their lives in past tsunami events. It provides an enriching experience not only for tourists, but for local residents as well. Approximately 35 percent of museum visitors are residents of Hawaii, and many come to reconnect with their family and community history in Hilo.



Finally, the strength and type of culture and economy will influence whether a community learns from its hazard experiences and redevelops in a wiser and safer way. If the business community considers hazard issues and is committed to sustainable development, then the community is more likely to implement such programs during the stressful and politically charged times after a disaster.

Society and Economy: Challenges and Lessons Learned in Enhancing Resilience

l Changing a community’s culture and economy is very difficult. They are often based on the realities of a place.

l Businesses must compete locally as well as regionally. Therefore, preparing and conducting good practices is not a priority for businesses unless incentives are provided.

l Coastal communities exist in a dynamic environment and have developed their livelihoods based on these conditions. Asking them to change for a potential risk without support and incentives is difficult.

l There are also preexisting power balances within communities, so that advancing approaches that attempt to assist the poor and vulnerable may face significant challenges from the entities that hold power.

l Improvements in the economy and livelihoods depend upon the other resilience elements to create an overall increase in resilience. A strong local economy needs to be supported by linkages to the regional economy, both for customers and for aid.

l A diversified economy depends on key infrastructure services, like roads, electricity, and water, that almost all businesses and livelihoods require. Business opportunities and costs are also affected by the health of natural resources.



Benchmarks for Resilience in Society and Economy

Table 6-5. Society and Economy Benchmark on Policy and Planning Capacity

B1. Development policies and plans build social capital and skills for economic diversity and self reliance.

Benchmark Description

Community development policies, plans, and programs are important in building the capacity for economic diversification and self reliance. Community goals identified through a transparent and participatory process are used to guide development policies, plans, and programs that are socially responsible and promote environmentally sustainable livelihoods in a diversified economy.

Potential Assessment Questions

Do community development plans exist?

Are there skills-training programs for alternative livelihoods?

What types of social safety nets exist to help vulnerable sectors of society?

Resilience in Action: NGOs in Sri Lanka Capacitate Coastal Communities

Sevelanka Foundation and several other NGOs have taken the lead to develop coastal community social and economic capacity to enhance their level of resilience. Such activities focus on organizing communities into functional groups that enhances their social capital and supports livelihood development to enhance small-scale businesses among community members. Such programs are coordinated through a joint NGO and government coordination body that endorses community level work of local and international NGOs and development projects. The community level NGO led projects also focus on addressing other issues in communities, such as coastal resource management and ensuring that warning and evacuation systems are in place and linked to the national warning system of the country.



Table 6-6. Society and Economy Benchmark on Physical and Natural Resource Capacity

B2. Local economies are characterized by diverse and environmentally sustainable livelihoods.


Resilient coastal communities have local economies characterized by environmentally sustainable and diverse livelihoods. Sustainable livelihoods are based on sound management of natural resources and the environment and do not result in degradation of the natural resource base upon which the livelihood depends. Local entrepreneurs, businesses, farmers, and fishers are knowledgeable of the risks of coastal hazards that may affect their livelihood and take steps to reduce these risks by planning and preparedness activities. Diverse livelihoods are characterized by employment across a range of economic sectors with multiple sources of external and internal revenues to the community. No one economic sector dominates the local economy and there is a vibrant internally driven economy that is fueled by the regular infusion of external sources of revenue.


Is the local economy dominated by one sector (e.g. tourism)?

Are local economies and livelihoods linked to internal and external markets?

Are resource-extracting livelihoods based on a managed and sustainable natural resource base?

Are the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of planned economic development projects assessed?

Do businesses mitigate current vulnerabilities to coastal hazards?

Do community development plans promote environment-friendly and diverse livelihoods and incorporate strategies to address risks from natural hazards?

Are there pre-established strategies to address economic recovery resulting from a disaster, including loss of employment, loss of services, and products and impact to the tax base?

Resilience in Action: Diversifying Livelihoods in Ranong, Thailand

Rural villages of Ranong, Thailand rely on both agriculture and fisheries, making them accustomed to balancing risks between the two. While post-disaster recovery is not an effective time to diversify, tsunami “bounce-back” actions complemented livelihood recovery. Provincial programs capitalized on marketing value-added fish products. Projects geared toward local women focused on production of soap, batik, and Muslim scarves, and provided the women with supportive networks, new skills, and supplemental family income, all critical in community rebuilding.



Table 6-7. Society and Economy Benchmark on Social and Cultural Capacity

B3. Social and cultural networks promote self-reliant communities and have the capacity to provide support to disaster-stricken areas.


Social and cultural networks may be formal or informal mechanisms involving community, cultural, private, and nongovernmental groups that support a range of resilience-related activities. These can include poverty alleviation, gender and minority equality, conflict resolution, peace, cultural preservation, livelihood diversification, financial and food assistance, housing, environmental management, health programs, emergency response, disaster management, and other social and cultural needs. These networks promote self-reliant communities through a variety of strategies such as self-help programs, capacity building, and sharing of lessons learned. Social and cultural networks can also serve as safety nets for disaster-stricken communities through emergency medical supplies, shelter, and food.


Is a significant portion of the community economically and/or socially marginalized?

Are there social networks that address the needs of the weaker segments of the public such as elderly, sick and poor?

Are social networks or organized civic groups established with the capacity to assist communities during or after disaster?

Are there conflict resolution mechanisms to support peace and order in the community?

Are mechanisms used to increase community participation in community development planning?

Resilience in Action: Promoting Self Reliance and Sustainability in Thailand

Thailand’s coastal residents have a strong sense of building self reliance, as demonstrated through the King’s leadership. “His Majesty’s sufficiency economy philosophy emphasizing moderation, responsible consumption and resilience to external shocks is of great relevance to communities everywhere during these times of rapid globalization. The philosophy’s middle path approach strongly reinforces the United Nation’s own advocacy of a people-centered and sustainable path towards human development. His Majesty’s development agenda and visionary thinking are an inspiration to his subjects, and to people everywhere.” Kofi Annan, UN Secretary—General, May 26, 2006



Table 6-8. Society and Economy Benchmark on Technical and Financial Capacity

B4. Technical and financial resources are available to promote stable and robust economies, reduce vulnerability to hazards, and aid in disaster recovery.


Resilient local economies require an enabling environment to prosper. Technical resources are needed to provide guidance on natural resource management, coastal hazard mitigation, technological developments, market linkages, and other topics to promote environment-friendly economic diversification. Financial resources, such as grants, credit, and investment capital are needed at various scales from micro- to macrofinance to promote environmentally sustainable economic diversification. Finally, national and local laws, policies, and programs are needed to provide incentives and disincentives that encourage local economies to develop in an environmentally sustainable manner, to incorporate a knowledge of risks and plans to reduce risks from coastal hazards, and to plan for emergencies and disaster recovery.


Are there technical resources, such as local universities, government programs, or donor projects, that provide assistance to communities in developing environment-friendly livelihood diversification?

Are startup grants, technical assistance, and loans available for new and alternative enterprises?

Are small business development or micro-financing programs or institutions (e.g. assistance, extension, and training) providing support to the community to promote sustainable livelihoods?

Are businesses owners and employees aware and informed of coastal hazards (including long-term effects to businesses from erosion and sea level rise)?

Are small business loan programs established to recapitalize for disaster recovery?

Are there business response and redevelopment plans in case of a disaster?

Are there insurance services for production losses in the event of a disaster?

Resilience in Action: Financing Schemes for Economic Diversification in Sri Lanka

Initiated in 2002, the self-funded financial scheme of Shakthi Farmer Organization in Hambantota district, in Southern Sri Lanka, has helped members meet their financial needs, given that no other formal government or private financial schemes were willing to help in good times or bad. Mainly controlled by women, the program generates loans to diversify member livelihoods beyond traditional fishing and agriculture. The money is also utilized to help member families face climate hazards such as floods and droughts, and also climate-related situations like communal diseases. Beyond financial benefits, members have gained a sense of confidence and security that they did not have before.

Provided by Priyangi Jayasinghe, Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND), Colombo, Sri Lanka. From a Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND) study. Provided by Priyangi Jayasinghe, MIND, Colombo, Sri Lanka, URL: http://www.mindlanka.org

June 2011 Douglas County Post-Disaster Recovery Framework Page i-1

Executive Summary

Douglas County developed this Post-Disaster Recovery Framework (framework) in an effort to better prepare for the aftermath of catastrophic disasters, understand their response capabilities and limitations, and to establish comprehensive long-term recovery and rebuilding strategies. This framework uses a holistic and balanced approach to implement all of the activities above, not only to improve the recovery process following a catastrophic event, but also to protect community quality of life. It is impossible to predict exactly when a catastrophic event will occur or the extent to which it will impact the community. However, with careful planning and coordination and collaboration among public agencies, private sector organizations, and citizens within the community, it is possible to greatly improve the recovery process.

Post-Disaster Recovery is defined as developing a set of strategies and management strategy to assist a community to rebuild after a disaster occurs. It involves making decisions in advance that provide alternatives for the early return to normalcy, reduction of future vulnerability and opportunities to improve the community. The purpose of this framework is to assist Douglas County in developing short-, intermediate-, and long-term management structure and strategies that the county can use to prepare for recovery from a disaster event.

Why Develop this Recovery Framework One way to think about and view disaster recovery is as a continuum of activities that occur before, during and after disaster strikes. The Recovery Continuum diagram (Figure i-1), presents mitigation and preparedness activities that take place in order to increase community resilience. Comprehensive risk assessment, forming local partnerships, providing educational workshops and exercising response and recovery plans are all examples of activities that take place in the recovery continuum. Note: the recovery continuum emphasizes the strong role that media has in informing the public about the breadth and severity of disasters during the response phase.

Page i-2 Douglas County Post-Disaster Recovery Framework June 2011

Figure i.1 Recovery Continuum

Source: Adapted from the Australian Development Gateway

How was the plan developed? In 2008, the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (Partnership /OPDR) at the University of Oregon’s Community Service Center assisted Douglas County in obtaining over $250,000 in grant funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop post -disaster recovery frameworks for Coos, Curry, Douglas, and western Lane Counties. Each County joined the Partnership for Disaster Resilience by signing a Memorandum of Understanding for this project. Upon being awarded the grant, local planning efforts began in Spring of 2009. Douglas County began its local planning process soon thereafter, beginning with attendance of a Post-Disaster Recovery Planning Kick-off Meeting in May of 2009.

Planning Team The framework is the result of a collaborative effort between the County, cities, special districts, citizens, public agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector and regional organizations. Emergency Managers, a Forum Organizing Team, and Forum participants guided the framework development process, and OPDR developed, facilitated, and led the overall planning process. Individuals involved in the Forum’s data gathering process were comprised of representatives from the following jurisdictions and organizations.


American Red Cross Douglas Forest Protective Associations

City of Azalea Oregon Department of Transportation

City of Glick Oregon State Parks

City of Myrtle Creek Mercy Medical Center

City of Oakland Roseburg Urban Sanitary Authority

City of Roseburg Salvation Army of Roseburg

City of Sutherlin Umpqua Basin Water Association

Cow Creek Legal Department Umpqua Indian Development Corporation

Diamond Lake Ranger District Umpqua National Forest

Douglas County U.S. Forest Service

Douglas Electric Co-Op VA Roseburg Healthcare System

The Douglas County Emergency Management division of the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office was designated as the framework’s convener and will take lead in implementing, maintaining and updating the framework.

Planning Process Public participation played a key role in the development of the framework. Public involvement in the planning process was achieved by including members from the community in two Post-Disaster Recovery Planning Forums and targeting specific stakeholders before and after the post-forum process, namely those from local jurisdictions and the state as well as experts in particular fields. Greater detail about this process is provided in Section 1: Introduction. OPDR implemented the following methodology during the recovery planning process.


Figure i-2 Data Collection Methodology

Source: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience

The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) posted a final draft of the framework on the Partnership’s website for public review.

http://csc.uoregon.edu/OPDR

OPDR provided a draft letter of promulgation, Appendix B, and recommends adoption of the framework by the Douglas County’s Board of Commissioners.

Framework Vision The framework acts to enhance the county’s ability to recover from any disaster so that involvement of all identified stakeholders and critical services, including transportation, utilities, schools, construction, and medical and emergency services, are recognized through a sustainable rebuilding process.

Framework Goals The framework’s goals describe the overall direction that the participating jurisdictions’ agencies, organizations, and citizens can take toward improving the recovery and rebuilding efforts following a catastrophic event. These goals include:

Reduce the impact of a catastrophic event in Douglas County

Summer/Fall 2009: Pre‐Forum Phase

•Build Forum Organizing Team

•Identify and Invite Forum Participants

•Distribute Five Community Surveys

•Collect Community‐Based Data

Fall/Winter 2009, Spring 2010: During‐

Forum Phase

•Analyze Survey Results

•Forum Session #1

•Develop Draft Strategies

•Forum Session #2

Summer/Fall 2010: Post‐Forum Phase

•Host Business Recovery Panel with National Experts

•Develop Post‐Disaster Recovery Frameworks

Winter/Spring 2011: Post‐Forum Phase

•Finalize Recovery Frameworks

•Host Tabletop Exercise with Targeted Stakeholders

•Host Workgroup with State Agency Representatives

•Summarize Recovery Planning Process in ‘Lessons Learned’ Document


Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of short and long-term recovery actions

Minimize and prevent future damage to public and private buildings though implementation of mitigation actions post-disaster

Increase the resilience to catastrophic events in Douglas County

Increase cooperation and coordination among private entities, local agencies, state agencies, and federal agencies during the recovery phase.

Increase education, outreach, and awareness.

Encourage the state to create and implement a statewide recovery framework/plan and planning process.

Mitigation Action Items Action items are listed within an action matrix (located at the end of this summary), and are organized by hazard. Coordinating organizations and action-specific timelines are addressed within the matrix. Additionally, the matrix documents how each action addresses one or more of the plan’s goals. Action items were developed as a result of steering committee discussions, data collection, research, and public participation processes.

Framework Operation, Implementation and Maintenance

Section 2: Concept of Operations, Section 3: Strategies, and Section 4: Plan Implementation and Maintenance detail the step-by-step process the County will go through to ensure the recovery process is streamlined. Any steps taken to mitigate a disaster event before it occurs will provide the community with the necessary resilience to a more timely recovery.

The framework is intended to address one or more of the following assumptions:

Significant, widespread impacts to residential, commercial and/or industrial buildings.

Significant, widespread impacts to public services including schools, hospitals, public safety, etc.

Significant, widespread impacts on public infrastructure systems including transportation, water, sanitation, energy, etc.

Significant, widespread impacts on government operations including decision making, permitting and enforcement, taxation, etc.

Significant, widespread impacts on local and regional business and commerce.


Operations The framework utilizes the National Incident Management System (NIMS) Incident Command System (ICS) model, Emergency Support Function (ESF) #14, and the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) as the basis to assign roles and responsibilities to specific community members during the long-term recovery process:

Figure i-3 National Response Framework Relationships


Although assignment of specific responsibilities will be decided at the County level, this framework highlights the structure necessary to guide


the recovery process from a governmental perspective based on the ICS model:

Figure i-4 Unified Command Organizational Chart


As depicted in Figure i-4 above, a Recovery Operations Center (ROC) is stood up parallel to an Emergency Operations Center (EOC)1 during a long-term catastrophic event. The ROC is a central coordination, planning, and community outreach facility. Where the EOC uses a command and control structure to respond to disaster events, the ROC uses a collaborative, community engagement model to develop a strategic plan that implements the community’s long-term redevelopment vision.

Figure i-5 below walks officials through the three main ‘phases’ of the recovery process. While set timelines for these phases are often blurry, this figure depicts general indicators that allow officials to recognize when the community transitions out of one phase into another.

1 The central command and control facility responsible for carrying out principles of emergency management and disaster preparedness.


Figure i-5 Recovery Operations Diagram

Strategies The recovery strategies recommended in Section 3 of this framework reflect the opportunities for short-, intermediate- and long-term action, and place each in a context of cooperation between public, private and volunteer organizations. The list of strategies is provides guidance for the local decision body and are not meant to be restrictive. The goal is to return a sense of normalcy to the lives of those residents impacted by a natural disaster. This is achieved through the following means:

1. Identification of strategies, processes, vital resources and timeframes for recovery

2. Recognizing procedures for restoration and recovery of services, facilities, programs and infrastructure

3. Identification of opportunities to mitigate the impact of future disasters.


Implementation Section 4: Plan Implementation and Maintenance details the formal process that will ensure the framework remains an active and relevant document. Figure i-6 below illustrates an ideal emergency management planning model and is included for consideration as a best management practice. Key elements of this model include:

County commission or city council located at the center of the model.

An emergency management strategic plan that establishes a coordinated and collaborative program to systematically assess community vulnerabilities and develop holistic and integrated solutions targeted toward making the community more disaster resilient.

An Emergency Management Advisory Committee or Commission made up of committed stakeholders and staffed by the local Emergency Manager, can assist with developing the strategic plan and serve as the primary advisory body on all other local emergency management planning activities.

A comprehensive risk assessment to inform a variety of Emergency Management related activities including grant development and justification, plan preparation, prioritization of training activities, exercise development and local, regional and state resource coordination.

Figure 4-1 Comprehensive Emergency Management Model



Maintenance The framework will be implemented, maintained and updated by a Recovery Management Team Director (RMTD) and a Recovery Management Team (RMT). An overview of the Recovery Management Team is provided in Appendix H. Members of the RMT are responsible for meeting on a semi-annual basis to complete the following:

Identifying funding sources for implementing post-disaster recovery strategies and projects;

• Organizing and coordinating communication among the Recovery Management Team and key stakeholder group members;

• Facilitating planning process meetings and soliciting effective input;

• Assisting with additional public outreach if necessary;

• Liaising with community leaders and government agencies concerning the framework;

• Overseeing research, analysis tasks and framework drafting;

• Reviewing and editing drafts;

• Utilizing the Risk Assessment tool to prioritize proposed recovery projects;

The Recovery Management Team Director will be responsible for:

Assembling a Recovery Management Team of key government officials, business and nongovernment organization leaders;

Documenting outcomes of Recovery Management Team meetings;

• Recommending activation and de-activation of the plan to the County Commission and/ or municipal council; and

• Compiling an after action report with input from stakeholders to document lessons learned and to make any recommendations for a framework update.

The framework will be updated every five years. In the year prior to the framework’s expiration, the Recovery Management Team’s semi-annual meetings should focus on framework update activities.


Plan Adoption After the framework is reviewed and accepted at the local level, it is recommended that Douglas County Emergency Management present it to the Board of Commissioners for adoption via a letter of promulgation (draft language is provided in Appendix B).

The accomplishment of the framework goals and strategies depends upon the maintenance of an efficient Recovery Management Team Director and a Recovery Management Team in addition to support from County and City departments. It is hereby directed that the appropriate departments and programs implement and maintain the concepts in this framework. Thorough familiarity with this framework will result in the efficient and effective implementation of appropriate recovery activities. In this respect, we will understand how to plan and rebuild our community for the future.

International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction Study Characteristics of a Safe and Resilient Community

Characteristics of a Safe and Resilient Community

The six characteristics of a safe and resilient community that emerged from this research study are summarised below.

Box 2: The characteristics of a safe and resilient community A safe and resilient community...

1. …is knowledgeable and healthy. It has the ability to assess, manage and monitor its risks. It can learn new skills and build on past experiences

2. …is organised. It has the capacity to identify problems, establish priorities and act.

3. …is connected. It has relationships with external actors who provide a wider supportive environment, and supply goods and services when needed.

4. …has infrastructure and services. It has strong housing, transport, power, water and sanitation systems. It has the ability to maintain, repair and renovate them.

5. …has economic opportunities. It has a diverse range of employment opportunities, income and financial services. It is flexible, resourceful and has the capacity to accept uncertainty and respond (proactively) to change.

6. …can manage its natural assets. It recognises their value and has the ability to protect, enhance and maintain them.

These characteristics recognise the importance of human health and well-being and also individual knowledge and awareness as central to the ability of households individually and collectively to be able to prepare, prevent, respond to and recover from shocks and stresses. Secondly, they acknowledge the importance of assets and access to wider resources beyond the immediate control of the community (Figure 2).

Figure 2 The six characteristics of a safe and resilient community.

knowledge & healthy

Infrastructure & services

Economic opportunities

Natural Resources

Organised

Connected

Leadership Huddle #1

With other members of your ‘hub’ community, please discuss the following

prompts. Incorporate what you have heard this morning with your knowledge of

your particular community.

1. What resilience planning skills do we have represented at the table?

2. What resilience related activities are we already doing well in our community/region?

3. What more could we be doing in our community/region specifically related to social

and/or economic resilience?

World Café Instructions

What is the “World Café” method?

The World Café is a style of group dialogue that involves small groups rotating from one

series of questions to another. A facilitator helps to work through the topics given, and

encourage everyone to offer their perspective. We will take notes to keep track of what is

said. As other groups rotate through the topic, they build on what other groups have said.

How are we doing this today?

We will have two groups cycling through five, color coded topics.

All participants will discuss the same five topics.

Each group, determined by your nametag designation (color), will have a mix of hub

communities.

There will be no more than six participants in each group.

Each group will spend 20 minutes on each topic.

Prompts and some guiding definitions/concepts are in your binder.

After the World Café, the facilitators will report back with key take-away’s from the

discussion.

NOTES

World Café Topic #1: Economic Resilience

What are the most important things to do at the local level to increase resilience in the

business sector?

What first steps could your community take to increase economic resilience?

Who is best suited to champion resilience activities in the business sector?

What partnerships are needed?

Consider the following when answering these questions:

Economic Resilience – the ability of businesses, financial institutions and the labor

market to:

o Absorb stress – have access to resources and support that minimize the

impact of stressful events

o Rebound from stress – have plans in place for recovery, sufficient

commitment to the area to reinvest, and access to needed resources

o Incorporate lessons from previous stresses – borrow strategies from other

business communities, consider potential stress scenarios, and build in extra

capacity when possible

Qualities of a champion

o Passionate about the issue

o Well-connected in the community

o Has the time and energy to devote to promote the issue locally

NOTES

World Café Topic #2: Social Resilience

What are the most important things to do at the local level to increase social resilience?

What first steps could your community take?

Who is best suited to champion social resilience activities?

What partnerships are needed?


Social Resilience – the ability of networks of people and institutions (clubs, groups,

councils, etc.) to:


impact of stressful events;

o Rebound from stress – have the flexibility to get support to those in need and

maintain community cohesion;


communities, consider potential stress scenarios, and build in extra capacity

when possible.

Qualities of a champion

o Passionate about the issue

o Well-connected in the community

o Has the time and energy to devote to promote the issue locally

NOTES

World Café Topic #3: Resources

In planning for resilience, what non-governmental resources exist within your

community that are currently underutilized?

What resource gaps exist?

What types of outside assistance (e.g. technical expertise, capacity building, best

practices, etc.) would best position you to effectively plan for resilience?


Examples of community-based resources

o Human Capital – education, skills, labor, etc.

o Social Capital – network, relationships, leadership, etc.

o Physical Capital – built environment, equipment, material stocks, etc.

o Natural Capital – ecological resources, both renewable and non-renewable

o Political Capital – skill, energy and willingness to effectively engage in the

legislative process

o Financial Capital – access to investment funds, adequate reserves, etc.

o Cultural Capital – characteristics that make a place and people unique and

cohesive

NOTES

World Café Topic #4: Involvement How can we draw the “whole community” into this work (youth, families, business,

seniors, retirees, visitors, etc.)?

How can an initiative expand past its core founding members?

How does resilience become part of the community identity?


Are there different strategies for different groups?

o Youth

o Families

o Businesses

o Seniors

o Retirees

o Visitors

o “Average” citizens

o Community as a whole

NOTES

World Café Topic #5: Success

What does resilience look like in your community?

How would you know that your community had achieved socio-economic resilience?

How would you measure success?


Socio-economic Resilience – the ability of networks of people, institutions, and

businesses to:


impact of stressful events

o Rebound from stress – have the flexibility to get support to those in need and

maintain cohesion, have plans in place for recovery, and sufficient

commitment to the area to reinvest


communities, consider potential stress scenarios, and build in extra capacity

when possible

Measurement examples:

o Number of plans

o Number of citizens involved

o Percentage of essential needs met locally

o Number of businesses prepared

NOTES

Leadership Huddle #2:

Reflect on the day with other members of your hub community. Consider the

following prompts through the lens of socio-economic community resilience.

We will ask one member of your team to report out for the group.

1. What new information or concepts were you exposed to today? What did you learn?

2. Did you feel empowered and/or inspired to take action in your own community?

Please describe.

3. Did you create new partnerships, or strengthen any existing ones, to help with socio-

economic resilience activities?

[over please]

4. Is there anything else you would like to share with us about your experience today?

Pledge Form Instructions

Why are we asking you to make a pledge?

The Oregon South Coast Resilience Forum is largely about finding ways for a community to

build its own resilience. As leaders in your community, you are a big part of that. With the

information and networks that you have established today, we encourage you to commit to

take some action in the next six months to increase resilience in their community. This

action can be as an individual or as a group with others here today. Please consider actions

that fit best with your skills, abilities and interests.

What is the pledge form?

We often make commitments with the best of intentions. We also lead busy lives, and we

sometimes forget to move forward with those commitments. If you fill out the enclosed

pledge form, we will mail it back to you in a few months, to remind you of the good ideas of

today. We would also like to post some of the pledges we hear about on our website to

inspire others to take action. If you do not want your pledge posted, simply check the box

marked “Please do not share my pledge” and your pledge will remain private. We will gather

the pledge forms that are left on the tables at the end of the forum.

To help you remember your pledge in the meantime, you can note it below. Post it at your

home, at your desk, or anywhere that works for you. Please document your pledge below

and on the pledge form.

“I pledge to take the following action in the next six months to further

resilience in my community:

.”

Thank you for supporting our communities Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) wishes to express our gratitude and offer a sincere thank you to the following organizations for their generous support, funding, and in-kind donations.

Oregon Pacific Northwest

Oregon Office of Emergency

Management

Enterprise Risk Services

Marketing and Brand Management

Campus Zero Waste Department

Resource Packet Guide

The following resources have been gathered on our project website to allow participants to

dive deeper into different aspects of resilience. Each heading contains a sampling of articles

and documents as a jumping off point. This in no way represents the full range of literature

on resilience issues. Link: http://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr/sc_resilience_forum

Overall Resilience Resources

o How Resilient is Your Coastal Community? A Guide for Evaluating Coastal Community

Resilience to Tsunamis and Other Hazards – USAID (pg. 6-10 to 6-18)

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/psc/riskmgmt/resilience.html

This excerpt reviews the role of society and economy in coastal community resilience,

offering benchmarks for good practices in the areas of planning/policy, physical/natural

resource capacity, social/cultural capacity, and technical/financial capacity. The full

document also looks at resilience issues around governance, coastal resource

management, land use, risk knowledge, warning/evacuation, emergency response, and

disaster recovery.

Rebound: Building a More Resilient World – Rockefeller Foundation

http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/blog/rebound-building-more-resilient-world

This document includes seven articles about different ways to approach resilience. Several

articles (Building a Resilient Economy through Manufacturing and The Coco-Cola Company

and Resilience) look at resilience from an economic standpoint.

o Building Resilient Communities: An Online Training – The RAND Corporation

http://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TL109.html

This transcript of an online tool (and associated worksheets) guides communities and

organizations through a process of exploring assets and resources, and developing an

action plan. A video is available online through the RAND website.

Characteristics of a Safe and Resilient Community: Community Based Disaster Risk

Reduction Study – International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

http://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/96986/Final_Characteristics_Report.pdf

This study looks at the assistance that the Red Cross provides to communities, and how that

assistance can improve their resilience to future events. The six characteristics noted are:

knowledgeable and healthy, organized, connected, has infrastructure and services, has

economic opportunities, and can manage its natural assets.

http://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr/sc_resilience_forum

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/psc/riskmgmt/resilience.html

http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/blog/rebound-building-more-resilient-world

http://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TL109.html

http://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/96986/Final_Characteristics_Report.pdf

Social Resilience Resources

o Resilience in the Wake of Superstorm Sandy – The Associated Press – NORC –

Center for Public Affairs Research

http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Pages/resilience-in-the-wake-of-superstorm-sandy.aspx

This article examines data on the social factors of resilience and recovery during the

real-world example of Superstorm Sandy. It provides a detailed look at vulnerable

populations, reporting of trust before and after the event, and sources of assistance.

Social Vulnerability to Climate Change: A Neighborhood Analysis of the Northeast US

Megaregion – Union of Concerned Scientists, Northeast Climate Change Impact Study

http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org/pdf/tech/cox_et_al.pdf

This paper uses neighborhood level data from the 2000 Census to compare social

vulnerability in the many neighborhoods of the Northeast US. The “megaregion” spans from

north of Boston to south of Washington DC. Vulnerability is based on social, economic and

demographic data.

o Social Impact Bonds Infographic– Rockefeller Foundation

http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/blog/social-impact-bonds-infographic

This article and infographic describes pay-for-success programs or social impact bonds,

which are innovative financing options for social and environmental programs. The

infographic presents easy-to-read summaries of the basic functions and processes of

social impact bonds.

Economic Resilience Resources

Open for Business: OFB-EZ – The Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety

http://www.disastersafety.org/disastersafety/open-for-business-ez

The Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) has developed a new

streamlined business continuity program for small businesses that may not have the time or

resources to create an extensive plan to recover from business interruptions. Open for

Business (OFB) is the Institute’s comprehensive business continuity planning program, and

the new OFB-EZ tool is a streamlined kit for small businesses.

http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Pages/resilience-in-the-wake-of-superstorm-sandy.aspx

http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org/pdf/tech/cox_et_al.pdf

http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/blog/social-impact-bonds-infographic

http://www.disastersafety.org/disastersafety/open-for-business-ez

o Getting Back to Business: Addressing the Needs of Rockaway Businesses Impacted by

Superstorm Sandy – The American Planning Association New York Metro Chapter

http://www.nyplanning.org/docs/APANYM%20Business%20Recovery%20Report%20to%

20RDRC.pdf

The American Planning Association–New York Metro Chapter (APA-NYM) prepared this

report to summarize a six-month effort by a team of planners to assess how Superstorm

Sandy impacted businesses on the Rockaway peninsula located in the borough of

Queens in New York City. The report identified issues and made recommendations for

short- and long-term planning strategies to help businesses recover and plan for the

future.

Recovery and Resilience Resources

National Disaster Recovery Framework – FEMA

http://www.fema.gov/national-disaster-recovery-framework

The National Disaster Recovery Framework is a guide that enables effective recovery

support to disaster-impacted States, Tribes, Territorial and local jurisdictions. It provides a

flexible structure that enables disaster recovery managers to operate in a unified and

collaborative manner. It also focuses on how best to restore, redevelop and revitalize the

health, social, economic, natural and environmental fabric of the community and build a

more resilient Nation.

o Post-Disaster Recovery Planning Forum: How-to Guide – OPDR

http://www.crew.org/sites/default/files/Post-Disaster-Recovery-Planning-Forum_UO-CSC.pdf

This guide provides an approach for assisting communities in identifying issues they will

face after a disaster. The intent is to provide a process for communities to start pre-

disaster planning for catastrophic events by engaging partnerships in identifying the

critical issues the community will face in a post-disaster reconstruction environment.

This is only the first step toward making your community more disaster resilient and

sustainable --now and for the future.

Oregon-specific Resilience Resources

Southwest Oregon Counties Post-Disaster Recovery Frameworks – OPDR

http://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr/Southwest%20Oregon%20Counties/Plans_For_Review

Douglas, Coos and Curry County each created a Post-Disaster Recovery Framework in

association with the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience (OPDR) in 2011. We have

included the Recovery Frameworks, associated Appendices and their associated drafted

Letter of Promulgation. These frameworks present essential concepts of recovery and

specific goals and strategies for the counties.

http://www.nyplanning.org/docs/APANYM%20Business%20Recovery%20Report%20to%20RDRC.pdf

http://www.nyplanning.org/docs/APANYM%20Business%20Recovery%20Report%20to%20RDRC.pdf

http://www.fema.gov/national-disaster-recovery-framework

http://www.crew.org/sites/default/files/Post-Disaster-Recovery-Planning-Forum_UO-CSC.pdf

http://csc.uoregon.edu/opdr/Southwest%20Oregon%20Counties/Plans_For_Review

o Oregon Resilience Plan – Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC)

http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/osspac/docs/Oregon_Resilience_Plan_Final.pdf

In April 2011, the Oregon House of Representatives unanimously passed House

Resolution 3, which directs Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission

(OSSPAC)

to “lead and coordinate preparation of an Oregon Resilience Plan that . . . makes

recommendations on policy direction to protect lives and keep commerce flowing during

and after a Cascadia (megathrust) earthquake and tsunami.” The Plan examines the

resilience and gaps for the business community, coastal areas, and essential

infrastructure and systems.

Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquakes: A Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake Scenario –

The Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (CREW)

http://www.crew.org/products-programs/cascadia-subduction-zone-earthquakes-

magnitude-90-earthquake-scenario

This scenario characterizes the effects of a major subduction earthquake on communities

along the Cascadia Subduction Zone, stretching from the Brooks Peninsula on Vancouver

Island to Cape Mendocino in northern California.

http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/osspac/docs/Oregon_Resilience_Plan_Final.pdf

http://www.crew.org/products-programs/cascadia-subduction-zone-earthquakes-magnitude-90-earthquake-scenario

http://www.crew.org/products-programs/cascadia-subduction-zone-earthquakes-magnitude-90-earthquake-scenario

Date post:	11-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Forum Binder - UO Blogs - University of Oregon

Documents