britch... · web viewchemical leak in west virginia source water [electronic mailing list message]....

TVWD’S EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FRAMEWORK 1

TVWD’s Emergency Preparedness Framework

Michael J. Britch

Portland State University


Abstract

This paper provides an important framework to address a catastrophic natural disaster facing our

region and a critical resource to the society needed to minimize the impacts of this event when it

occurs. The event is the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake, which was last occurred

315 years ago. The CSZ fault is located off the Oregon coast extending 800 miles from the

northern California to British Columbia. It is expected to release a magnitude 9.0 earthquake,

similar to the one that devastated Tohoku, Japan in 2011. Water is a critical resource for the

community, essential for life and the economic viability of a region. This paper explores what is

known in the rapidly developing area of emergency preparedness and water systems. The

Tualatin Valley Water District (District), serving over 200,000 people in Washington County,

Oregon, is taking proactive steps to prepare itself to be more resilient for this type of event,

thereby minimizing the effects of it when it occurs. This paper explores current literature on the

topic, includes the result of a survey conducted to identify the current state of the District’s

preparedness, and presents a proposed emergency preparedness framework for the District to

ready for this kind of significant natural disaster.

Keywords: Cascadia subduction zone earthquake, water systems, emergency

preparedness, resiliency, framework.


Introduction

Water is a critical resource. “The minimum amount of water required for survival varies

based on current weather conditions. The World Health Organization estimates that the basic

requirement for survival is 2 to 4 gallons per day per person, which accounts for drinking and

food, basic hygiene, and basic cooking need. In extreme situations, people require

approximately 1 gallon per person per day” (DHS, 2015b). Without water there can be no life.

It is essential. Adequate and reliable water supplies are also a necessary component to help

support a vibrant economy. As the second largest water provider in the State of Oregon, serving

approximately 200,000 people in Washington County which is part of the Portland Metropolitan

area, providing safe, reliable water to its customers is of vital concern to the Tualatin Valley

Water District (TVWD, District).

Disruption of safe drinking water supplies can have a profound impact on a community

or a region. This paper explores some of the kinds of events that can impact this supply,

including one of paramount importance to our region, the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ)

earthquake. This paper begins by describing the purpose of this work followed by the

background and significance of the kinds of events that can impact water systems and based on

that, then key related research questions for this paper are described. Next the paper describes

the research methods used as part of this work. Then the findings from the research are

discussed. Finally a conclusion is provided.

Purpose

The focus of this capstone project pertains to an extremely large earthquake that will

someday affect our region, the Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake. This capstone project

focuses on understanding this event and as well as natural disaster preparedness and response for


utilities. Based on this it develops an emergency preparedness framework for a municipal water

agency and its related water infrastructure, such that if implemented, would result in a much

lower impact of the earthquake on the community and a shorter period of recovery with respect

to the water supply and distribution to the community. This capstone work also identifies the

estimated current level of preparedness for the District, which also serves as a preliminary gap

analysis with respect to complete preparedness for this event.

Oregon is located at the western edge of the North American tectonic plate. This

continental plate intersects several tectonic plates off the Oregon coast including the Juan de

Fuca, Gorda, and Explorer Plates. These plates intersect the North American Plate at a location

identified as the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Recent research indicates this fault ruptures on a

somewhat repeatable pattern. The recent research further suggests that a magnitude (M) 9

earthquake could be expected at any time (Wang, Raskin and Wolf, 2013). Awareness of the

Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake is a relatively new phenomenon with researchers only

beginning to understand the zone’s potential to release a devastating earthquake in the 1980s. As

described by the Oregon Resilience Plan it may take one month to one year for water

infrastructure to recover in the Valley and between one to three years along the coast (Wang,

Raskin and Wolf, 2013). The Cascadia Subduction Zone fault extends eight hundred miles from

Northern California to British Columbia. It is expected to release M9 earthquakes at regular

intervals with the last occurring approximately 300 years ago, but with an average frequency of

500 years, and a range of between as few as 200 years to as many as 1,000 years between major

events. The estimated economic impact for Oregon and Washington combined is $81 billion.

Besides from the prolonged ground shaking itself, damage can also occur from liquefaction,

earthquake induced landslides, and lateral spreading (DOGAMI, 2010). FEMA is currently


planning for the event. The key attributes of the event that is being planned for is illustrated in

Figure 1 (FEMA, 2014).

Figure 1. FEMA CSZ Earthquake Planning Scenario

Background and Significance

Many events can impact water systems, natural and manmade. Examples of some of

these and their impacts on water systems and the affected communities are described below. The

kinds of events described below include hurricanes like Sandy and Katrina, flooding in

Colorado, chemical spills such as what happened in West Virginia, and toxic algae blooms like

the event experienced in Toledo, Ohio. Another category of natural disasters can have an even

more devastating impact on water systems is earthquakes. This category of natural disasters is of

regional significance given the proximity of the Cascadia Subduction Zone fault that lies off the

coast of Oregon extending from northern California to British Columbia. This CSZ earthquake


is the focus of preparedness in this paper. When this fault ruptures again, it will have a profound

impact on the region, the likes of which has not been witnessed in recent times. However,

experts believe that it may be similar to the magnitude 9.0 earthquake that occurred in Tohoku,

Japan on March 11, 2011. Because of the length of the fault, the CSZ earthquake could have an

even more far reaching impact.

The effects of Hurricane Sandy illustrate some interdependencies between water systems

and other supporting infrastructure systems like transportation and the energy sector where

refueling generators became an issue. “During Hurricane Sandy in 2012, some parts of Long

Island, New York, lost their water supply due to a loss of electric power. Emergency generators

provided power to a majority of the water system on Long Island” (DHS, 2015a). Hurricane

Sandy was a major natural disaster that hit the northeastern part of the United States in October

2012. It included major flooding and destruction. It resulted in dozens of deaths. It became the

second most expensive natural disaster in the United States at roughly $68 billion, second only to

Hurricane Katrina that caused roughly $125 billion in destruction. Some of the lessons learned

included the need to have improvements in transportation, power, and communication systems.

It also raised the need to better address aging infrastructure and highlighted the need to be cost

effective in developing risk reduction strategies and to plan to implement improvements over

time (Hill, 2014).

Hurricanes can cause large metropolitan areas to experience wide spread outages of water

service. “After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, portions of New Orleans went without water for a

period of 2 months” (DHS, 2015b). In the aftermath and after $14 billion being spent on

upgrades to the levee system around New Orleans by the Corp of Engineers, a number of lessons

were learned. Some of these included the need to employ a risk reduction strategy when


deciding on which improvements to implement; an appropriate design standard needs to be

implemented coupled with a much better understanding of the disaster event; protection systems

must be designed to operate in union rather than as a conglomerate of disjointed projects; and

that rebuilding efforts can be significantly streamlined by using an expedited environmental

review process to address the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (Reid,

2013).

Flooding can also render water systems and source water unusable. In 2013 Colorado

experienced significant flooding that severely impacted water system including damage to

treatment plants and water mains. (DHS, 2015b). The Colorado flooding resulted in extensive

damage to areas of Colorado from what’s now recognized as a 1,000-year flood. Throughout a

period of six days, 17-20 inches of rainfall was recorded for Colorado’s Front Range. The

damage resulted in 10 deaths, 19,000 homes damaged, hundreds of miles of roads closed and $2

billion in property damage. Some of the key lessons learned include that due to the destruction

of roads, access to areas requiring repair of its infrastructure was hindered; emergency water

connections to other systems is important; controlling how accurate information is provided to

the public is important as inaccurate information was being put out on Facebook postings and

with tweets; that there was a huge benefit to having multiple supply sources for some

communities; and that good maintenance, good records, and having emergency response plans

are vital (Buehrer, 2013).

Manmade events also contaminate sources for drinking water as well, rendering the water

unusable. This was demonstrated recently by the chemical release in 2014 that affected 300,000

West Virginia residents (AWWA, 2014). This was a result of the release of a toxic chemical,


methylcyclohexane spill that led to a “do-not-drink” orders in the Charleston West Virginia area

(DHS, 2015b).

Eutrophication, cyanobacteria blooms caused by agricultural land run-off or releases of

sewage into source waters can also create problems related to source water for drinking water.

This occurring in Toledo, Ohio in 2014 that resulting in a “do-not-use water” order. In

particular, “toxic algae blooms from Lake Erie entered the Toledo, Ohio water system in the

summer of 2014,” affecting more than 400,000 customers (DHS, 2015b).

Of all types of natural disasters or other events that can impact water systems, perhaps

the most significant are earthquakes. Earthquakes and their impacts on water systems is the

primary focus of this capstone paper. For large earthquakes, their impact can be far reaching and

thus their impact on water system and the related communities can be significant. For Oregon

and the broader Pacific Northwest region, this is the kind of significant earthquake that has

occurred in the past and will be expected in the future.

Earthquakes impact water systems in many ways include damaging the associated

pipelines, pump stations, storage reservoirs and water treatment plants. “For example, a 7.2-

magnitude earthquake in Baja, California, damaged two water treatment plants due to the water

oscillating in storage tanks… During the 1994 Northridge earthquake in southern California,

three major transmission systems, which provide over three-quarters of the water to the City of

Los Angeles, were disrupted as a result of pipe damage in more than 1,000 locations” (DHS,

2015a). A reliable water supply is also a vital element in firefighting. The lack of this

reliability was demonstrated by the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake that also resulted in

extensive fire damage to the city. Firefighting capabilities during that event were rendered

useless due to the significant failures of the water system infrastructure (CREW, 2013). The San


Francisco Public Utility Commission is currently completing a $4.6 billion Water System

Improvement Program to significantly improve the resiliency of its water infrastructure for a

system that includes multiple active fault crossings (Landers, 2014).

Research Questions

The Tualatin Valley Water District is the State’s second largest water utility serving

much of Washington County. Its mission is to provide quality water and customer service. It

provides safe, reliable drinking water to a service area population over 200,000; large industrial

customers like Intel, Maxim Integrated Products, Nike, and Resers Fine Foods; and two large

regional hospitals, St. Vincent and Kaiser Permanente. All of these industries and critical

customers are heavily reliant on having large supplies of water. Water is a vitally important

resource for a healthy and robust community. “Washington County is one of the economic

engines for the State, and that engine runs on water” (Duyck, 2013). This capstone work

proposes that there is no adequate framework specific to the needs of the District for emergency

preparedness that addresses all the elements for the District to truly develop itself into a resilient

water agency that is prepared to meet the needs of the community it serves related to providing

one of the most critical resources and human needs, safe drinking water.

There are two questions posed by this research. The first is what areas need to be

addressed for the District to be prepared for a major earthquake? The second research question

is what is the District’s current state of preparedness? These research questions relate to how a

public water utility can be effectively prepared for earthquakes, other natural disasters and

emergencies. This capstone work includes developing a framework to allow the District to be a

more prepared and resilient agency. While the proposed resiliency framework is being


developed to address this most significant natural disaster, it is also intended to be scalable and

applicable to lesser events.

Research Methods

This subject area is not only broad, but the understanding around it is in a state of

development. As such multiple research methods were employed, the second of which involved

multiple parts. The first research method involved literature review. A variety of sources were

available related to this issue. Many of the most recent, relevant documents were incorporated

into this work. Because of the importance of the broader emergency preparedness and disaster

recovery topic, there are many more references that could be reviewed, however, they are older

documents and less relevant to the specifics of the topic. Because this information on this topic

is growing rapidly, it was the intent to try to limit the literature to the most current sources, one

of which was still in draft form (NIST, 2015).

There were two parts to the data collection, the first relates to obtaining expert input and

the second relates to a survey that was developed and administered. Again, because of the

complexity of this issues, multiple sources of information were needed. This is a

multidisciplinary subject area. As part of this element of data collection, input from multiple

experts in different subject areas was obtained. This included experts in emergency preparedness

and response, key stakeholders in the District’s service area, water industry experts, and various

District staff who are the subject matter experts (SMEs) in a particular area of the District’s

operations.

The second part of data collection research method involved developing and

administering a survey. The survey included two parts based on the emergency preparedness

framework that was developed. For each of the framework elements that are discussed later in

this paper, District staff with knowledge of a particular element’s subject matter were asked to


assess the current state of the District’s preparedness and then to prioritize next steps for various

sub-elements of the preparedness framework.

The key information ascertained from the literature review and the data collection

methods are described in greater detail below. This includes a compilation of the key research

documents contributing to this capstone work. It includes the highlights of data collection of the

various expert input to the capstone work. The survey that was developed and administered as

part of the research methods is described in greater detail. Finally this section concludes by

describing the limitations associated with the research methodology.

Literature review. A literature review was used to understand the current top thinking

of the industry related to emergency preparedness frameworks for water agencies and to aid in

the development of the survey instrument used. The goal of this research is to elevate the overall

understanding of natural disasters in general as well as earthquakes and their impacts on water

systems. This allowed for the preparation and implementation of appropriate measures and

means to reduce the risks and overall impact of the event on the local region, and in particular its

water infrastructure, resulting in less overall impact and a more expedient recovery. All the

primary literature is relatively recent, within the last four years. Most of the literature is used is

very current, within the last two years. One document reviewed (NIST, 2014) was still in draft

form.

Documents that pertain to the subject of this capstone work pertain cross multiple

disciplines. As such the relevant literature needed to complete this research comes from many

sources and covers several topic categories. For this purposes of this literature review and

related discussion, the key literature is grouped and discussed in four separate, but related

categories. The first category of literature relates to those documents that serve in some way to


provide the authoritative direction for the development of emergency preparedness like what this

capstone work presents. The second category includes a variety of documents that relate to the

issue of emergency preparedness, response, and recovery at the national level. The third

category includes key literature pertaining to emergency preparedness, response, and recovery at

the regional level. And finally, the fourth category pertains to key recent literature that addresses

water infrastructure and related recommendations for preparedness for earthquakes. The key

literature that was reviewed as part of this capstone work is discussed below, grouped according

to the four categories identified above.

Directives for preparedness. There are several authoritative documents that provide

directives towards the issue of emergency preparedness and the topic of resiliency for

infrastructure. These include documents and/or directives that come at the national, state, and

District level. At the national level Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 21 which was released

on February 12, 2013, provides direction for agencies to focus on critical infrastructure security

and resilience. It was intended to “advance[ ] a national unity of effort to strengthen and

maintain secure, functioning, and resilient critical infrastructure” (Obama, 2013). It states that

“it is the policy of the United States to strengthen the security and resilience of its critical

infrastructure against both physical and cyber threats.” PPD-21 provides a definition for

resiliency which it describes as “the ability to prepare for and adapt to changing conditions and

withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. Resilience includes the ability to withstand and

recover from deliberate attacks, accidents, or naturally occurring threats or incidents” (Obama,

2013). This document provides an important foundational guidance directive for this capstone

work.


At the state level is an important foundational document that provides direction

regionally for the advancement of emergency preparedness and the development of greater

resiliency. This document is the Oregon Resilience Plan which was released in February, 2013.

Activities related to this plan were initiated by House Resolution 3 which “won unanimous

support… on April 18, 2011” in the Oregon Legislature following the M9.0 earthquake in

Tohoku, Japan (ORP, 2013, p. iii). House Resolution 3 “directed the Oregon Seismic Safety

Policy Advisory Commission to lead the planning effort” (ORP, 2013, p. vii). The plan focuses

on addressing issues related to the earthquake hazard for Oregon due to an active off-shore

subduction zone fault. The goal of the plan is to improve overall infrastructure resiliency and

preparedness for this hazard thereby minimizing the impact immediately following the event as

well as potential long-term impacts. The Oregon Resilience Plan “maps a path of policy and

investment priorities for the next fifty years. The recommendations offer Oregon’s Legislative

Assembly and Governor immediate steps to begin a journey along that path. The plan and its

recommendations build on the solid foundation laid over the past quarter century by some of

Oregon’s top scientists, engineers, and policy makers” (Wang, Raskin and Wolf, 2013, p. viii).

This document at a regional level provides important guidance, particularly related to level of

service goals for water infrastructure resiliency, that are important to framework developed as

part of this capstone work.

Finally, at the District level as part of its 2015 - 2017 initiatives, is one that directly

relates to this work, “Develop & Implement District Resiliency Policy & Program.” This

initiative has not yet been developed, but its purpose is to provide the foundational elements

needed for the District to meet its emergency preparedness or resiliency goals, identify elements

that are necessary to reach those goal, and the establish a plan through which the goals within


each element can be achieved. The framework developed through this capstone work will serve

as the important foundational source for the District to begin formally addressing this issue.

National emergency preparedness, response and recovery documents. At the national

level, many recent documents pertain to the subject of emergency preparedness, response, and

recovery. These documents tend to have a broad perspective on the subject, although they do

contribute to the overall understanding related to the relevant issues to a certain degree. These

national level documents include ones by FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). A final document though not truly

developed at the national level, Resilience by Design, was included in this category of the

literature review because of the importance of the broad level of understanding that it contributes

to understanding the significance of the impacts of these kinds of major events. The key

literature reviewed under this category is described below including its relevance to this capstone

work.

FEMA prepared an important document related to this work, the National Disaster

Recovery Framework (NDRF). It provides “a guide to promote effective recovery, particularly

for those incidents that are large-scale or catastrophic” (FEMA, 2011, p. 1). This document

provides a good and comprehensive broad framework for natural disaster recovery. It touches on

a number of elements contained within the emergency preparedness framework described later in

this paper. It also includes a number of framework elements contained in other reference

documents. The document provides an overall discussion of the timeline associated with disaster

recover, the importance of coordination and liaison activities, public communications, the

psychology and emotional recovery associated with disasters, and then proceeds to describe the

different elements of its framework. While this document presents a good overall framework


and parts of it are transferable to the proposed framework described later in this paper, it falls

short in providing the level of detail needed for the District to achieve its emergency

preparedness and resiliency goals. Its focus is more targeted at the federal government level.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two documents very recently that

relate to this subject, one in February and one in March. The first reference (DHS, 2015a)

provided a general overview for policymakers on this issues associated with water system

infrastructure to provide “a baseline understanding of how water and wastewater systems

function and are managed.” While much of this material was generic in nature, there was one

section that was particularly useful that discusses dependencies between “critical infrastructure

sectors”. The second DHS document focuses on the effects and consequences of extended water

outages (DHS, 2015b). Understanding these impacts are important to developing a

comprehensive emergency preparedness framework that more fully addresses the needs of the

community served. It describes expands on the time-related impacts on water system outages (as

do other references). Finally, it identifies the importance of having redundancy with water

systems. The DHS document says, “Many water systems, but not all have redundancy in the

water supply and distribution. These include redundant sources (e.g., multiple lakes,

groundwater, and interconnections), redundant treatment capacity (e.g. multiple treatment

plants), and redundant distribution components (e.g. pumps and pipes)” (DHS, 2015b, p.6).

Redundancy is an important consideration that has been incorporated into several of the

proposed emergency preparedness framework elements and sub-elements. While these

documents provide limited coverage of the related subject area, they do contribute to the broader

understanding of the issues related to preparedness and elements that need to be incorporated

into the District’s emergency preparedness framework.


The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is completing a framework

for community disaster resilience. In relation to this activity, a 75% draft “Disaster Resilience

Framework” (NIST, 2015) has been reviewed as part of this work. The document provides a

variety of information useful to this work including that related to the social and community

context for disasters and the interdependencies related to critical infrastructure systems (referred

to as the “built environment” by NIST) including water systems. The document provides a

framework to achieve community resilience as well as describes a methodology as to conduct a

gap analysis related to understanding the current state of an agency’s resiliency. The most

significant contribution that the NIST document offers related to this work is the thorough

development of the social context for disasters and a proposed methodology to implement

resiliency which is described in the Implementation Plan section of this paper. While this

document provides significant useful information related to critical infrastructure resiliency and

related emergency preparedness, it does not provide adequate detail nor is properly focused to

address the needs of the District as contained in the proposed emergency preparedness

framework presented later in this paper. Out of all the national level documents reviewed, this

document seemed to contain the most useful and relevant information to support the preparation

of the District’s emergency preparedness framework.

The final document I’ve included in the category of national level literature reviewed,

Resilience by Design, is not actually a national level document as I described earlier, but it does

include important broad related concepts and thus I included its discussion in this section. This

recent document is a report prepared for the mayor of Los Angles, Eric Garcetti, under the

guidance of Dr. Lucile Jones, a seismologist with the US Geological Survey, to address key areas

of seismic risk for the city. One of these key areas that the report focuses on is the water


infrastructure. This document provided important background on the impact of major natural

disasters on cities. Two of key points it makes relates to the impact on the economy of an area

impacted by a natural disaster citing Hurricane Katrina and the long-term economic impacts. It

also cites the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the impact on the population of a region. In

short, the economy suffers and people will leave the region if they don’t have a sufficient reason

to stay. The document states that “Lack of water would impede recovery and the long-term loss

of water could lead to business failure and even mass evacuation,” highlighting the two points

above (Jones, 2014, p. 6). These are really important foundational concepts that should be

considered as part of a planning for emergency preparedness, response, and recovery for any

major natural disaster. This thinking helped shape the development of the District’s emergency

preparedness framework and the thinking related to service area coverage.

Regional emergency preparedness, response and recovery documents. At the regional

level, there were two but related documents that were identified and reviewed for the purposes of

this capstone work. The first is the previously identified Oregon Resilience Plan and the second

is a document developed by the Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup (CREW). The Oregon

Resilience Plan (ORP) is an important foundational document supporting the proposed

emergency preparedness framework (ORP, 2013). It provides an overall understanding of the

Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake. It provides a thorough description of the how the

population will likely be impacted by the event and critical elements of systems that support

community needs and describes the functional requirements to lessen the impact. It also

describes the interconnectedness of critical infrastructure systems. Finally, it provides important

target level of service goals for water systems (and other critical utility systems) to strive for,

helping to provide methodology to achieve resiliency. It does provide a definition for resiliency,


however, for the purposes of this work, the definition of resiliency establish by Presidential

Policy Directive/PPD-21 is used.

The CREW document provided supplemental information to the Oregon Resilience Plan

(ORP), providing a condensed synopsis of the Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake with

complementary information to the ORP. It states that the “economic impacts would be

significant [if the earthquake happened today]: for Washington, Oregon, and California, the

losses have been estimated at upwards of $70 billion. While this is not as high as Japan’s

staggering $309 billion in estimated losses, the potential consequences of the great Cascadia

quake are sobering” (CREW, 2013, p. 8). While this document provides some good

supplemental information for additional context for the CSZ earthquake event, it still falls short

in providing an overall framework for emergency preparedness and seismic resiliency.

Water infrastructure documents. There were three documents that were identified and

reviewed that helped inform the development of the District’s emergency preparedness

framework related to different aspects of the water infrastructure itself. One of these, Resilience

by Design, was previously discussed and it is not elaborated on further here related to the actual

water infrastructure, although its materials were considered in the development of relevant

portions of the framework. The two other water infrastructure documents are described below.

Although they do primarily focus on the related infrastructure portions of the emergency

preparedness framework, they also provide information that helped inform other sections of the

framework as well.

The Water Research Foundation released a recent relevant document related to water

infrastructure, Recent Earthquakes: Implications for U.S. Water Utilities. This document

produced provides some good information and recommendations for both water infrastructure


itself and the importance of establishing level of service goals for policy makers. The document

provides a thorough recap of recent earthquakes and their related impacts on water systems. It

identifies methodologies to assess risks to water systems. It provides useful information related

to prioritization of improvements. The document addresses importance of outside resources and

provides some practical guidance stating, “An emergency response plan should provide for a

major increase in work crews, via outside contractors and/or mutual aid. The faster the crews are

available, the shorter the water outage times. For practical purposes, assume no more than about

a 100% increase in normal work crew size, unless the water utility has the ability to manage a

much larger crew size” (Eidinger and Davis, 2012, p. 23). This document provides useful

information that has been considered as part of the emergency preparedness framework

presented later in this paper.

The other water infrastructure related document pertains to the resiliency of the water

system in Charleston, South Carolina. This document provided a good overview of

considerations related to the water system infrastructure and critical water service locations. It

states that “With several critical facilities such as hospitals located in the study area, it is

imperative to improve the resiliency of critical lifeline systems such as water to advert

devastating consequences of an earthquake” (Piratla et al, 2014, p. 1222). The Charleston area

“is vulnerable to strong ground shaking, liquefaction-induced ground failures and other

earthquake hazards. In August 1886, an earthquake with moment magnitude (Mw) of ~ 7 and

centered about 30 km northeast of downtown Charleston caused major damage throughout the

region.” The impacts would likely be similar to the Portland Metro area. This document

primarily focuses on the specific water system infrastructure vulnerabilities and related hazards

and doesn’t go into other aspects required for an emergency preparedness framework. It does


however contribute to the understanding applied to the infrastructure portion of the District’s

emergency preparedness framework.

Data collection – expert input. Five areas of experts that provided input are described

below. These include those involved with emergency preparedness and response, key

stakeholders in the District’s service area, water industry experts, and various District staff who

are the subject matter experts (SMEs) in a particular area of the District’s operations as well a

family member who experienced a similar earthquake. Their input was essential to establishing

a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of disasters and the needs of the community

and the District.

Emergency preparedness and response expert input. There were two key opportunities

I participated in over the last 14 months where I received tremendous input from a variety of

emergency preparedness experts that significantly contributed to the development of the

District’s emergency preparedness framework. They were particularly instrumental in

understanding the issues around resiliency and supporting the preparation of the proposed

emergency response framework. The first was a training exercise I attended at FEMA’s National

Emergency Training Facility. The other was a two-day workshop sponsored by NIST. Each of

these and their relevance to the District’s emergency preparedness framework is described

below.

FEMA training. I participated in a week-long training at FEMA’s national emergency

training facility in Emmitsburg, MD from April 14 – 18, 2014. The title of the training event

was “Community-Specific Integrated Emergency Management Course (CS IEMC) - Earthquake

Hazard”. It included class instruction, a life-like earthquake response training exercise, and

afforded a tremendous opportunity to network and develop relationships with approximately 70


individuals from various Washington County, Oregon agencies. Many of them I’d likely interact

with in a real event. One of the key takeaways is the importance of building relationships with

potential natural disaster co-responders and critical stakeholders. This element was incorporated

in the District’s emergency preparedness framework. This concept was also emphasized in the

Presidential Directive, PPD-21.

NIST workshop. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) held a

workshop on February 18-19, 2015 in San Diego, California that I participated in. The workshop

was titled, “Disaster Resilience Workshop”, and focused on community resilience. The purpose

was review and provide feedback on a 75% draft “Disaster Resilience Framework” (NIST,

2015). The workshop included different presentations related to the different sections of the

draft framework including those related to the social and community context for disasters,

interdependencies related to critical infrastructure systems (referred to as the “built environment”

by NIST), and then various presentations on the different elements of the build environment

including water systems. The workshop also included breakout sessions focused on each of the

areas of the framework. I was able to participate and contribute as part of the sessions focused

on water systems. One of the important elements of that included my ability to dialogue with

important leaders in the recent thinking related to resiliency including Dr. Lucy Jones who was

responsible for the recent Resilience by Design document (Jones, 2014) and Dr. Craig Davis who

is responsible for the Los Angles water system and co-author in another one of my key literature

resources that I reviewed related to water systems and resiliency (Eidinger and Davis, 2012).

Discussions with these individuals as well as with other participants helped inform my thinking

on the topic of my capstone work and provided invaluable information.


Key stakeholder expert input. Over the last 18 months the District has been working on

updating its water master plan. For the first time this document included a specific focus on

resiliency of the water infrastructure system. Through the course of the development of the

water master plan as part of an effort to understand the critical needs of the community in the

context of a natural disaster, I met with several key stakeholders that operate within the District’s

service area that provide vital services that are essential following a major natural disaster. This

included four meetings with the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue District (TVFR), three meetings

with Washington County emergency planning staff, and a meeting with staff of an essential

health care provider within the District (St. Vincent Hospital). All of these meeting were

extremely valuable in understanding the needs of these key stakeholders related to a major

natural disaster, helping to inform the development of the District’s emergency preparedness

framework. These key stakeholders all have different needs and recognize the need for adequate

water supply.

Water industry expert input. Recently at the American Water Works Association

(AWWA) Pacific Northwest Section (PNWS) Conference I actively solicited input from the

audience on a presentation that I gave covering this material. Specifically the information I

solicited their input on was a draft version of the framework developed as part of this capstone

work.1 My presentation was one of many focused on emergency preparedness for water

agencies. Following my presentation, two individuals offered two minor suggestions that I

incorporated into my framework. Based on the limited response and in consideration of other

elements that were presented (both at this and other conferences and training events I’ve

attended) I believe that my proposed framework is one of the most comprehensive and complete

1 “TVWD’s Emergency Preparedness Framework”, presented at PNWS Conference in Bellevue, Washington on April 27, 2015.


with respect to water agency emergency preparedness and resiliency. The feedback from this

group of experts related to the capstone topic was valuable to test a draft framework with

colleagues in the water industry and make refinements based on their comments.

District SME input. Several interviews with District subject matter experts were

conducted as part of the research. This includes interviewing District staff to ascertain feedback

on the preliminary presentation materials presented at the PNWS conference and review of the

preliminary framework materials with consultants with expertise in the area, These interviews

were conducted in person at various times during April, 2015. Because the proposed emergency

preparedness framework covers many disciplines and aspects of the District’s operations, input

by many of the District’s staff that have expertise in a given area was essential. Their review and

feedback was useful to help refine and validate the appropriateness of this framework.

Family member input. I interviewed a family member over the phone who went through

the 1964 M9.2 Alaska earthquake. This interview contributed to my understanding of what a

major earthquake is like and how it impacts an area. It also served to inform my greater

understanding of the psychological impacts of this kind of event on the community as well. The

interview was conducted in April, 2015. This interview provided useful information and context

that helped with the development the emergency preparedness framework.

Data collection – survey. A survey instrument was administered as part of the data for

the proposed research. The specific survey instrument was developed for each of the elements of

the emergency preparedness framework. The survey that was done following the

recommendations from NIST and the Oregon Resilience Plan to complete a gap analysis. The

survey was administered in person on May 5-6, 2015. The survey was done as a preliminary gap

analysis pertaining to the current estimated level of emergency preparedness compared to where


one would want to be. Three District staff completed each of the surveys for the different seven

elements of the proposed framework. The seven elements included a total of 26 sub-elements.

A total of 11 different respondents participated in the survey. Respondents were asked to first

identify between zero and 100, in increments of 5, the current level of emergency preparedness

for each sub-element of the framework. There were then asked to rank the order of the sub-

elements related to the priority of what area to focus on first and then subsequently in what order

to work on other sub-elements. The three scores were average to represent an estimate of each

response.

Limitations of methodology. Due to time limitations, I did not focus on any one part of

the overall emergency preparedness goal in any great detail. It was not the intent of this capstone

effort to delve into any one element of the proposed framework or anyone of their sub-elements.

The primary focus was to establish and overall emergency preparedness framework that captures

and illustrates the overall key functional elements that must be focused on for an agency to be

truly resilient. Also, this work is solely focused on the District and its specific conditions of

operations, characteristics, and the environment for which it operates in. As such, the findings of

this work may or may not be entirely suitable for other agencies seeking to achieve the same

outcome and resiliency results. For example, the District does not currently operate its own

water treatment plant. Thus, those water agencies with treatment plants will likely have other

emergency preparedness elements that must be addressed.

Research Findings

There are three main components that are discussed in relation to this work. Each of

them is important to form a broader and more complete understanding of the topic of natural

disasters and related emergency preparedness and response for the water sector, though many are

equally applicable to other infrastructure sectors. NIST states that “Disaster resilience planning


must eventually include in depth understanding of a community’s interwoven social, political,

and economic systems; how they are supported by the built environment; a clear understanding

of their vulnerability and damage expected hazard events; and how any damage will impact

community recovery” (NIST, 2015, p. ES3). The first discussion area relates to the complexity

of the issue. This includes things such as interdependencies between sectors. The second relates

to the social context for disasters. As a service provider of a critical resource to the community,

it is important to have an understanding of the needs of the individuals and the community we

serve. Finally, the last section presents a proposed emergency preparedness that addresses the

first two sections as it lays out a compressive framework to serve as a model for water system

emergency preparedness and disaster response activities. Each of these three sections are

described in detail below.

Complexity of issue. The literature that has been reviewed, the training that I’ve

participated, as well as discussions I’ve had with colleagues all reinforce the notion of the

complexity of this issue. The DHS does a particularly good job illustrating the water sector

interdependence with other critical infrastructure sectors. This is illustrated below in Figure 2.


Figure 2. Water Sector Interdependencies (source DHS, 2015a)

The Oregon Reliance Plan (ORP) and NIST documents communicate similar sentiments

about the complexity and interdependence of these critical infrastructure systems. The ORP

describes the interdependence between sectors such as transportation, energy, communications

and water and wastewater infrastructure. NIST likewise communicates these interdependencies

as well as others like internal and external dependencies, cascading failures, time dependency,

space dependency, and source dependency (NIST, 2015, Chapter 4).

The final complicating factor is the last CSZ earthquake reported occurred at 9:00 pm on

January 26, 1700, 315 years ago (ORP, 2013, pp. viii, 5). While we can look around the world

and witness the effect of other earthquakes like the M9.0 in Tohoku Japan on March 11, 2011or

more recently in Nepal, our region has no first-hand knowledge or experience related to these

kinds of events. “Many scientists believe that the Cascadia subduction zone event will be the

mirror image of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake that hit Japan” (ORP, 2013, p. 116). Furthermore,

the exact timing of the next event is unknown. These factors contribute to cause one to either not

take the required preparedness seriously and/or not want to support the expenditures needed to be


prepared as a community. A final interesting consideration is that the world’s population in 1700

was approximately 610 million people2. Currently, the world’s population is estimated at 7.3

billion people. There shear increase in the world’s population and the large-scale impacts for

these events further escalates the criticality of these events and the need for thorough

preparedness3.

Social context for disasters. As a service provider for a critical utility that serves a

communities basic and essential needs, it is crucial to understand those needs beyond strictly rate

payer perspective. In terms of a disaster, the environment that the service is provided for will

change depending on the nature of the event. To assist in the ability to be able to adequately

provide the necessary delivery of water for the community and to support the overall viability of

a community, it is important to have a broader understanding of the social context for disasters.

Understanding this broader social context “provides communities with a methodology to plan for

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

supporting the social and economic functions in the community. [These] social and economic

functions of the community drive the requirements of the built environment” (NIST, 2013, Ch.2,

p.1). This section describes this social context in greater detail including understanding human

needs, psychological impacts of disasters, critical needs of the community, the long-term impacts

of disasters on communities, and impacts of disasters and recovery.

Human needs. As disasters become more severe, human needs can become more basic.

Chapter 2 of the NIST document discusses the social context for community resilience. It

2 World History Site. (2006). World population site. Retrieved from http://www.worldhistorysite.com/population.html3 Worldometers. (2015, May 9). Current world population. Retrieved from http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/


presents these human needs based on Maslow’s hierarchy of need that reflect the psychology of

human needs. Maslow depicts this with different levels of needs as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (NIST, 2015, Ch.2, p.2)

At its base are those needs associated with survival. “Survival includes physical

requirements, such as air, water, food, shelter, and clothing. If these needs are not met, the

human body cannot sustain life – people cannot live longer than 5 days without water and 6

weeks without food” (NIST, 2015, Ch.2, p.2).

The second level of Maslow’s hierarchy relates to safety and security and “includes all

aspects of personal, financial (economic) security, and health and well-being… They also must

know their families and friendship networks are secure. Individuals need financial safety (e.g.

job security, a consistent income, savings accounts, insurance policies, savings accounts,

insurance policies, and other types of financial safety nets” (NIST, 2015, Ch.2, p.2). The Oregon

Resilience Plan commenting on what it takes for recovery of the regional economy states that


“households must have their basic needs satisfied” (ORP, 2013, p. 21). Schools play an import

part related to the second level of Maslow’s hierarchy, safety and security. It is important for

families to know their children are safe. “Schools are primarily important as a place where

workers’ children can spend their days, thus freeing up parents to return to work” (ORP, 2013, p.

26). For there to be economic recovery, people need to go back to work. For people to go back

to work, they need to know their children are safe.

The third level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs relates to a sense of belonging within

communities to various groups including “family, friends, school groups, sports teams work

colleagues, religious congregation, [ ] or belonging to a place or a location” (NIST, 2015, Ch.2,

p.3). These affiliations with these various groups and the related interconnectedness within the

community constitute the social networks of the individuals. With regard to the third level of

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, NIST describes communities as “places where people live, work,

play, and build their futures. Each community has its own identity based on its location, history,

leadership, available resources, and the people who live and work there. Successful communities

provide their members with the means to meet essential needs as well as pursue their interests

and aspirations” (NIST, 2015, Ch. 1, p.1).

The fourth level of Maslow’s hierarch of needs at the top relates to growth and

achievement. “Humans need to feel a sense of achievement and that they are respected in

society” (NIST, 2015, Ch.2, p.3). Completion of this capstone work would be an example of this

level for me in helping to achieve greater community resiliency related to a critical resource like

safe drinking water.

Psychological impacts. My family experienced the March 27, 1964 M9.2 Alaska

earthquake. “This earthquake is the second largest earthquake ever recorded in the world after a


M9.5 earthquake in Chile in 1960. The duration of rupture lasted approximately 4 minutes”

(AEIC, 2002). The earthquake occurred on Good Friday at 5:36 pm. My mother who was in

Anchorage when the event occurred stated that “everyone went outside and sat down on the

ground. They watched the telephone poles sway back and forth” (Britch, 2015). She said the

event was scary. One of my sisters reportedly kept her coat and boots on for a week following

the event. Finally, my mother told me about the tragic story of an area in town where the ground

had liquefied. She said, “the ground opened up, two small boys fell in, and then the ground

closed.” These comments point to the fact of the intense psychological impacts of this kind of

event that is contained in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Critical needs of community. Healthcare facilities are one of the highest and most critical

elements of a community and must be treated as one of the most important facilities to be served.

“Essential healthcare facilities are critical for the life safety of the entire population” (ORP,

2013, p. 87). “The health care institution primarily meets the survival, and safety and security

needs of Maslow’s hierarchy… Each community must assess health care services provided to its

members and assign priority to those services rated as most critical” (NIST, 2015, Ch.2, pp.8-9).

Police, fire, and other emergency response service providers as well as other essential

critical infrastructure systems must also be considered a top priority in terms of resilience

planning. “The importance of emergency operating centers, police stations, and fire stations to

the post-earthquake response and recovery is widely recognized” (ORP, 2013, p. 80).

“[E]mergency operation centers and police, fire, and EMS stations… play and elevated role…

during the response and recovery phases of a disaster” (NIST, 2015, Ch.2, p.13).

Following the disaster, people will need to resupply food and medications. “It is unlikely

that a large proportion of the population currently stores more than a few days’ worth of food –


and probably stores even less water – in their homes” (ORP, 2013, p. 30). The availability of

goods that support survival (e.g. food and water) is critical during the response phase, suggesting

the importance of functioning stores, and the means to access them” (NIST, 2015, Ch2, p.13).

Banking will be important for people to be able to purchase goods. “The resupply of food is

dependent on a functioning banking system” (ORP, 2013, p. 31). These two sectors, key retail

areas and banking, are areas that should be considered as priorities related to the supporting

critical infrastructure after the more urgent needs of society and the community are met.

“Supermarkets, pharmacies, some big-box retail stores, and banks comprise a subset of buildings

that will be relied upon heavily following a disaster. The importance of having an ample supply

of basic provisions – such as food, water, medical supplies, and money – in affected areas after a

natural disaster has been underscored by many previous events” (ORP, 2013, p. 74). Figure 4

shows a prioritized list of critical building clusters by recovery phase.


Figure 4. Buildings and Facilities in Clusters by Recovery Phase (NIST, 2015, Ch.3, p.9)

Long-term impacts. Long-term impacts include having the population leave and

prolonged economic impacts. The Oregon Resilience Plan states “Experience tells us that if a

business cannot reoccupy its offices within a month, it will either relocate, or dissolve.

Reoccupation of a business’s workspace depends on three principal factors: the building’s

structure must be safe; the workforce must be able to get to the workplace; and, the building’s

mechanical and utility systems must be up and running… When things break, they can no longer

be used to support economic activity” (ORP, 2013, pp. 17-19).

Population is an important consideration following a natural disaster. “Studies of

disasters during the recovery phase show that people are likely to relocate to another community


in search of new employment and/or economic gain (e.g. higher wages), or because they lost

access to their non-liquid assets” (NIST, 2015, Ch.2, p.2). “Research into disaster recovery

shows that the likelihood of people leaving a community increase when social networks are lost,

showing the importance of a sense of belonging within a community” (NIST, 2015, p.3).

Following the 1964 Alaska earthquake my mom said that “people left the state” (Britch, 2015).

In New Orleans, “the population is at approximately 75% of the pre-Katrina levels after 10 years

[ ] and it may be decades before New Orleans fully recovers from the event. (NIST, 2015, p.

ES2).

The long-term economic impact to a region can mean that during its recovery that it

doesn’t achieve the growth it would have normally expected to achieve. “Damage inflicted by

the disaster may ripple through the economy reducing population, output, income, and

employment over both the short and long run [ ]. Several recent case studies suggest that, in the

15 years following a major disaster, outcomes (population, employment, or income) fell 10 – 15

percent below levels they might otherwise have reached in the absence of the disaster (ORP,

2013, p. 26). An unprepared community often faces decades of recovery and may never achieve

full restoration” (NIST, 2015, p. ES1). “The economy is a mechanism by which most human

needs are satisfied. While not all needs are provided for, the economy produces goods and

services that fulfil some element of survival, safety and security, belonging, and growth and

achievement through Maslow’s hierarchy. Some needs are met through the direct consumption

of goods and services (e.g. food and shelter). Other needs are satisfied as the result of a

functioning economy” (NIST, 2015, Ch.2, p.5). “The built environment is integral to the [ ]

economy… Disruptions to individual components of the built environment have the potential to

ripple through the economy… [P]laces of employment are vital during the recovery phase by


keeping the labor force in place while maintaining the tax base.” (NIST, 2015, Ch2, p.13). The

Oregon Resilience Plan states following the expected Cascadia event that the recovery will be

complicated by “the resulting reduction in the tax base [which] will make recovery efforts more

difficult” (ORP, 2013, p. 63).

Impact and recovery. NIST describes the resiliency of a community in terms of

functionality and recovery time. “Functionality is a measure of how well a building or

infrastructure system is able to operate and perform at its intended purpose. Recovery time

provides a measure of how long a building or system function is unavailable or is operating at a

reduced capacity. Recovery time also provides and indirect measure of pre-event condition of

the system, the performance of the system during the event, and the level of damage sustained”

(NIST, 2015, Ch. 1, p.4). How NIST depicts this is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Resilience in Terms of Functionality and Recovery Time

The Oregon Resilience Plan highlights this with its recommendations “that Oregon start

now on a sustained program to reduce the vulnerability and shorten the recovery time to achieve

resilience before the next Cascadia earthquake inevitably strikes our state” (ORP, 2013, p. xvii).

Greater preparedness and resilience means there’s less damage and fewer impacts to the


population. “The availability of food, water, medical supplies, and money will be critical to the

speed of the recovery of the communities affected by the seismic event” (ORP, 2013, p. 76).

“The basic principle of the resilience triangle is that the smaller the triangle, the higher

the resilience. Higher resilience requires minimal reductions in critical lifeline services after a

disaster, speedy recovery of those services, and an overall improved service level as a result of

rebuilding damaged systems and implementing better systems” (ORP, 2013, p. 185).

NIST states that “All communities recover, but the length of recovery and ultimate

outcome depends on planning, preparedness, mitigation, response, and facilitation of the

recovery. A disaster resilient community recovers quickly and to a better state than before the

event occurred” (NIST, 2015, p. ES1).

Emergency preparedness framework. This section of the research findings specifically

addresses the first research question, “What areas need to be addressed for the District to be

prepared for a major earthquake?” This emergency preparedness framework was developed with

a thorough understanding of the Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake and the impacts of

natural disasters on communities and related water system impacts. The framework represents a

proposed plan for preparedness that recognizes the multidisciplinary aspects of this kind of event

as well as the societal needs of the community. It represents a new way of thinking about

earthquake preparedness and a new, detailed framework to achieve it that currently doesn’t exist

in the industry or related literature.

There are several documents and models that exist that provide sound recommendations

for emergency preparedness. These include the Oregon Resilience which also identifies others

such as the “ongoing earthquake resilience planning from San Francisco, California (SPUR,

2009) and the State of Washington (Washington Seismic Safety Committee, 2012) as good


models to follow” (ORP, 2013, p. 2). The NIST framework that is currently under development

is also an excellent resource related to emergency preparedness and resiliency planning (NIST,

2013). These models and frameworks, however, fall short with respect to addressing the specific

resiliency needs of the District which are directly influence by its business practices and

circumstances of its systems, environment, and operations. As such, a framework specifically

focused on the direct emergency preparedness and resiliency needs is required for the District to

achieve its desired emergency preparedness and resiliency goals. The following sections present

the framework which should serve as the model for the District to use to achieve its emergency

preparedness and resiliency goals.

The proposed emergency preparedness framework for the District is shown below in

Figure 6. It includes seven main elements. These include policy & liaison, business systems,

infrastructure, resource planning, communications, finance, and response planning. The

elements of the emergency preparedness framework are intended to represent different areas of

that the District that must address to achieve its resiliency goals. Each of these elements along

with their corresponding sub-elements are described below.


Figure 6. Proposed District Emergency Preparedness Framework

District Resiliency Policy & Program

Policy & Liaison

Governance

Resiliency Policies

Formal & Informal

Agreements

Building Relationships

Level of Service Goals

Delegated Authority

Business Systems

Software

Hardware

Enterprise Architecture

Internet Connectivity Redundancy

Infrastructure

Planning

Design Standards

Condition Assessment

Vulnerability /Risk

Assessments

Resource Planning

Human Capital

Critical Inventory

Key Stockpile Locations

Security & Public Safety

Commun -ications

Procedures & Protocols

Community Engagement

Finance

Capital for Ongoing

Operations

Insurance

Long-term Financial Planning

Response Planning

Training & Preparations

Operations

Emergency Response Plan


Policy & liaison. This element of the framework pertains to broader governance, policy

and relational aspects of emergency preparedness. It includes six sub-elements, governance,

resiliency policies, formal and informal agreements, building relationships, level of service

goals, and delegated authority. Each of these are further described below.

Governance. Governance relates to established overall hierarchical structure of the

agency and how well it operates. The District was established under Oregon Revised Standards

(ORS) 264. ORS 264 provides the requirements associated with its governance including Board

members, establishing eminent domain authority, and other powers bestowed on it by the State

(State of Oregon, 2011). The District has a five member elected Board, a Chief Executive

Officer, and five department managers. A well-defined and well-operating internal governance

system is necessary for a resilient agency. NIST states that “Community resilience requires

governance structure that sets direction and provides services” (NIST, 2015, ES2).

Resiliency policies. Policies are required for emergency preparedness and resiliency

extend beyond the norm of typical operations. As such, even identifying what policies are

needed for critical operational conditions can be a challenge, but their establishment is essential.

Their development requires ongoing planning to understand what will be needed during periods

of emergency operations. Examples of policy topics (excluding level of service goals which is

described further below) include seismic valves on reservoirs and to what extent will water be

treated as a regional resource in the event of a major natural disaster. With first, seismic valves,

some of the issues that need to be considered include things like “is it okay to deliberately shut

off portions of our water system?”, “will you do this only on certain reservoirs?”, and “what are

the issues and risks associated with shutting off water in certain areas?” In regard to the second

example, water being shared as a regional resource, this is one that we have not yet discussed.


This policy issue came to mind during the FEMA training exercise that I participated in in April,

2014 in Emmitsburg, MD. The question is should all the regional water agency resources be

managed to serve the overall highest priorities of the region rather than each water agency

focusing solely on their respective needs. This policy issue has not been addressed and

undoubtedly will be a difficult one to solve. NIST states that “precious resources can be

allocated based on a community-wide evaluation that prioritizes needed improvements (NIST,

2015, Ch.1, p. 2).

Formal and informal agreements. Having both formal and informal agreements are

important to being prepared to respond to natural disasters. Examples of formal agreements

include those for mutual aid with other agencies, agreements for service professionals and

contractors to provide assistance following a natural disaster, and those related to the use of

interties between different water systems. Related to broader agreements, the Oregon Resilience

Plan states that “Oregon needs to form cooperative agreements (by a specific timeframe) with

other states before the earthquake disaster” (ORP, 2013, p. 163).

Recently, the District has operated several interties with a neighboring utility to provide

an enhanced source of water to their service area while their main water supply was out of

service due to a construction project. To be able to contractually provide them with water during

this period, it required an intergovernmental agreement to be in place that was approved both by

our Board and their mayor. Informal agreements can be like the ones we have other area water

partners or utility agencies like Clean Water Services whose operations facility is across the

street from our location where we provide assistance and/or use of equipment from time to time

as needed. The informal relationships also involve sharing information and lessons learned.


Building relationships. Relationships are crucial to successful emergency response as I

learned during my FEMA training in April, 2014. What I realized was that if you know the

person on the other end of the phone during a crisis, you have much greater assurance that the

information you are getting is credible and that they will do what they say they will do. The

discussion provided by DHS (DHS, 2015a) indicates that having strong relationships with co-

responding agencies is important. The Oregon Resilience Plan recommends that the Oregon

Office of Emergency Management utilize its “public-private sector position to help ensure

coordinated planning, information sharing, and interoperability among critical organizations and

agencies. The position will also ensure that work being performed by this entity and its partners

helps provide public education and outreach to local, county, and state agencies and

organizations” (ORP, 2013, p. 175). PPD-21 states that “effective partnerships with critical

infrastructure owners and operators … are imperative to strengthen the security and resilience of

the Nation’s critical infrastructure” (Obama, 2013).

Level of service goals. Level service goals are important for preparedness as they serve

to provide the vision for the desired operational state during a disaster event. They are truly a

policy sub-element as well because they should formally be adopted by elected officials.

However, due to their importance they are treated separated from other emergency preparedness

policies. The District has recently adopted preliminary level of service goals related to the

desired operational state and key priorities of water distribution through the development of its

2014 Water Master Plan. These goals are being developed consistent with the guidelines

established by the Oregon Resilience Plan and with a 50 year goal for implementation. NIST

and the Water Research Foundation Web Report #4408 also stress the importance of level of

service goals.


Delegated authority. The final sub-element relates to delegated authority. During an

emergency, a response should follow an established emergency response structure. The District

uses the Incident Command System (ICS) which is what firefighters and other emergency

response professionals use. This structure provides the framework for different positions within

the response structure, their roles and responsibilities, and the delegated lines of authority. To be

prepared, an agency must be adept in the use of these systems and have established lists of

trained personnel who can fill in the various roles. This is further important because this

structure is the common system that will likely be used across the event.

Business systems. This element includes the various information technology (IT)

systems; control systems including supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA); financial

systems; and other hardware, software, and database systems necessary for the District to

function. Four sub-elements have been identified and are described below.

Software. All of the District’s business and information systems require software that is

functional, but also that can be integrated into an overall operational emergency response. As

PPD-21 indicates, resiliency pertains to both natural and manmade threats like cyber terrorism.

As such, software systems must be robust and resilient on many layers. Without this it would be

impossible to conduct normal water system operations and controls, financial transactions,

customer services as well as other vital services. All of the District’s informational systems like

GIS, AutoCAD, and related mobile solutions all require effective software. Without functional

information systems and operational software, emergency response and recovery activities will

be severely hampered.

Hardware. Having robust and resilient hardware like servers, desktop and laptop

computers, mobile devices, and instruments that provide critical operational information are


equally as important as software. The two go hand and hand. Additionally, electrical gear at

operational facilities must also be resilient. Recently with changing codes, electrical gear must

now be certified by shake tests in laboratories to be considered seismically resilient.

Enterprise architecture. The enterprise architecture structure that relates both software

and hardware and the related connectivity through the internet must also be resilient. The

information technology (IT) realm is an ever changing environment. Functionality and

resiliency must be addressed in light of current IT best business practices. Recently the District

completed its own IT Master Plan to assess the current state of its IT infrastructure, potential

vulnerabilities, and to establish a proposed enterprise architecture to provide greater reliability

and resiliency.

Internet connectivity redundancy. With business systems even more reliant on internet

connectivity, for example with web-hosted solutions and cloud-based storage of data,

maintaining and having access to the internet is even more important for disaster response and

recovery activities. Having redundant and/or contingency connectivity to the internet is

important, otherwise recovery efforts may be hampered.

Infrastructure. This element includes those activities related to the development of

resilient infrastructure. It includes items such as design standards that address seismic issues;

programs that address existing aging infrastructure that is necessary to support critical operation

of portions of the District’s transmission, storage, and distribution system; condition assessment

work related to critical District infrastructure; and planning and design associated the overall

infrastructure resiliency. Chapter 8 of the Oregon Resilience Plan, Water and Wastewater

Systems, is particularly important to the Infrastructure element of the overall emergency


preparedness framework (ORP, 2013, pp. 203-240). The related sub-elements are described

below.

Planning. Planning is important to be able to identify the key locations where water is

most important to be delivered to following a disaster. This requires, as it did with the District,

discussions with other key stakeholders like hospitals, fire and emergency responders, and

County emergency planning stakeholders. Planning also allows an agency to have discussions

with staff, management, and elected officials to establish the desired state of the infrastructure

(related to establishing level of service goals as previously discussed). Another valuable

opportunity that the District discovered through the planning activity is that it provided an

opportunity to think about how it might be useful to have the its system operate differently

during in response to a disaster and plan for that future functionality through new infrastructure.

The final part of this sub-element is to develop the prioritized list of infrastructure projects that

can be implanted as part of a long-term capital improvement plan (CIP).

Design standards. New standards are needed for both new and existing infrastructure to

achieve the desired state of resiliency. For new standards, some of this has been articulated in

literature, some of which has been reviewed as part of the literature review for this capstone

project. Much of this, however, is still an evolving effort. The District through its efforts and

efforts associated with its new regional water supply along with its supply partners is attempting

to advance portions of infrastructure seismic design standards. Most of the infrastructure that the

District will rely upon in the future exists today. As such, design standards are also required to

address gaps in resiliency of existing infrastructure once the condition of the existing

infrastructure is known to a level that supports identification of deficiencies.


Condition assessment. As indicated above, if the condition of existing infrastructure is

unknown, its resiliency is unknown. Thus the ability to predict whether or not the established

level of service goals can be met is uncertain. As such, substantial investments will be required

by the District conduct investigations of its infrastructure to ascertain its condition. Once this is

known, prioritized improvements can to take place harden the infrastructure. This can also be

phased in with other capital improvement projects.

Vulnerability/risk assessments. To assist in the effort to providing water to critical

customers following a natural disaster, it is important to understand where the vulnerabilities to

the infrastructure and risks to the overall system exist. This can be done both at specific facilities

or more globally as the District has done through GIS with soils hazard maps prepared by

DOGAMI. Using this information along with attributes of the District’s pipeline infrastructure

in GIS, a fragility analysis of its system was conducted recently as part of its Water Master Plan

work using procedures established by the American Lifelines Alliance (ALA). The results of

these type of analyses can be used in conjunction with identified critical customers and critical

infrastructure to help better focus prioritization of projects. The Oregon Resiliency Plan state

that “Oregon needs to mobilize on vulnerability assessments of pre-disaster inventories and

systems” (ORP, 2013, p. 163).

Resource planning. This element includes identification of critical resources needed for

the District to meet its level of service goals following a natural disaster or other emergency

event. These resources include staff and other critical human capital; required critical inventory

of materials, parts, equipment, and fuel. This element also includes the planning and

implementation related to stockpiling materials at critical locations within the District as well as

addressing security and public safety issues. Sub-elements are described below.


Human capital. For the agency to respond to natural disasters, adequate staff and other

human resources with the requisite skill sets are required. For the District, this requires staff

across all business lines, however, those with planning, engineering, operations, and construction

skill sets may be more critical immediately following an earthquake.

Critical inventory. To make repairs following and earthquake adequate physical

resources, equipment, tools, and parts are required. If one contemplates the potential regional

magnitude of this event (see Figure 1) and consider the lead-time needed to secure certain parts

and inventory during times of normal operations, it is readily apparent that establishing certain

levels of critical inventory is paramount to improving the response and recovery effort.

Key stockpile locations. Considering the transportation interdependencies discussed

previously and in consideration of the multiple bridges and overpasses that must be traversed

even in Washington County (notwithstanding the likely downed poles, power lines, and other

debris in the roads that will occur as the result of a major earthquake), having stockpiles of

critical inventory at key locations is considered strategically important to successful response and

recovery activities.

Security and public safety. This sub-element is one of the items identified as feedback by

one of the members in the audience when I presented on this topic at the PNWS Conference in

April.4 There are several aspects of this element that would be relevant to the proposed

framework including security related to District facilities, procedures to keep staff and assisting

resource safe, and the means to confirm the safety of the water supply itself for public

consumption as portions of the water system are being brought back online. This last part

4 Feedback provided by Ed Parry, P.E., Regional Engineer for the Washington Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water.


requires sampling of water, available testing labs, and related qualified staffing to conduct the

testing.

Communications. FEMA has indicated that communications “is one of the most common

types of failures during disasters” (FEMA, 2014). This element includes the development of

established procedures, protocols and systems necessary for both sharing information with

District staff, external parties, as well as the collection of reliable information related to the

condition of the District’s transmission, storage, and distribution systems. A second sub-element

pertains to community engagement. There are two sub-elements which are described below.

Procedures and protocols. Having established procedures, protocols, and pre-established

communication materials and systems (e.g. use of GIS to create mapping) are vitally important to

successful communications in response to various events. The District staff has found this to be

true. This is also supported in the literature. There are a number of potential audiences for these

communications including staff, key stakeholders and regional partners, elected officials,

customers, and the media. “The media institution, at all levels meets many of Maslow’s

hierarchy of needs [including] safety and security needs, by providing information, interpretation

and surveillance to the masses” (NIST, 2015, Ch.2, p.11). Furthermore, good communications

are necessary to support effective recovery efforts, system diagnosis, and repairs by staff and

assisting resources.

Community engagement. This was the other sub-element identified as feedback by

another member in the audience during my PNWS Conference presentation.5 The feedback

received related to a program the Eugene Water & Electric Board is using to develop community

resiliency with other critical partners in the area like the American Red Cross and the United

5 Feedback provided by Jill Hoyenga, Planner III with the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB).


Parcel Service. This community engagement program was described the next day in a

presentation by Jill Hoyenga (Hoyenga, 2014).

Finance. This element includes those activities necessary for the collection, processing,

and disbursement of funds and associated systems,6 procedures, and policies. The sub-elements

are described below.

Capital for ongoing operations. Capital for ongoing operations is essential. Staff and

various vendors must be paid. One agency found following a moderate earthquake that disrupted

power several days, that it was desirable to have an adequate amount of cash on hand as the

business systems typically employed and normal banking services were not available.7 Once

systems have been restored and staff is available to return to normal duties, customer billing can

resume. An important part of this sub-element pertains to reimbursement and receiving disaster

relief funds from FEMA. Once a presidential disaster has been declared, FEMA can provide

financial disaster relief funds up to 75% of the incurred costs (FEMA, 2014). For these funds to

be obtained, the requests must be processed using the appropriate tracking, procedures, and

forms that FEMA requires. Thus being competent with this this is essential to receive significant

federal financial reimbursement.

Insurance. The District is insured through the Special District’s Association of Oregon

(SDAO) and insurance coverage they provide. The areas of coverage by insurance should be

compared against could be provided by FEMA, the State of Oregon, or potentially other sources.

The goal is to have optimize covered to the desired level and to the extent that coverage is

affordable.

6 Software and hardware systems covered separately above as part of the Business Systems element of the emergency preparedness framework.7 Personal communications. Comments provided by Dave DiSera from EMA Inc., consultant to the District for the development of an IT Master Plan, May 6, 2015.


Long-term financial planning. As described previously as part of two separate sub-

elements, level of service goals and planning, certain long-term objectives for the system are

desired. As such, the related infrastructure must be planned for both in terms of the actual

infrastructure but also its affordability and the timing of its implementation. This requires sound

long-term planning that considers demands on scarce financial resources as well as impacts on

rates.

Response planning. This element includes those activities needed to train and prepare

staff (and their families) for emergency response. Items associated with this element include

training and other preparations, operational activities, and the development of an emergency

response plan. Sub-elements are described below.

Training and preparations. There are various important aspects of this sub-element.

One is that staff and other key partners and stakeholders regularly are trained to a variety of

training exercises of different size and levels of complexity. In relation to 9/11, Rudolph

Giuliani said you have to have “relentless preparation”.8 He said that they didn’t specifically

have a plan for 9/11, but that they were still prepared by training for a variety of different

scenarios had similar elements. It is also important that staff are trained on using critical

equipment (e.g. satellite phones), ICS procedures, forms, checklists, etc… Finally your staff and

their families need to be prepared. Referring back to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, people will

not want to come back to work without knowing that their families are safe. Thus both staff and

their families need to be prepared. The Oregon Resilience Plan states that “Post-earthquake

response can also be impeded if emergency responders must first devote time to finding shelter

and safety for their own families before they are available to help others” (ORP, 2013, p. 90).

8 Rudolph Guiliani, Keynote speech, American Water Works Association (AWWA) Annual Conference and Exposition, Boston, MA, June 9, 2014.


Operations. Training around a variety of operational activities is also vitally important,

especially with systems as complex as the District’s system. These include things like testing

and operating interties with neighboring water agencies and operating the system in alternate

ways that provide greater flexibility. Finally, it is recommended that agencies fully understand

the logic that is programmed into their instrumentation, controls, and SCADA systems. Based

on recent operational events, this last part became evident following an operational event that

occurred that made staff aware question if the current status of the controls and logic reflect what

may be desired to achieve emergency preparedness and resiliency goals.

Emergency response plan. There are several important aspects related to an emergency

response plan. One is that prior to an event, staff in conjunction with other emergency

responders should compare notes on what the priorities should be identified. Secondly plans and

associated resources needed for damage assessment should be planned for. Finally, there is a

plethora of standard operating procedures (SOPs) that should developed and then practiced to

enhance their effectiveness during an emergency response.

Survey results. This section of the research findings specifically addresses the second

research question, “What is the District’s current state of preparedness?” This was accomplished

through the use of the survey instrument that was developed and administered for this capstone

project. The survey instrument that was administered had two areas of information that it sought

to provide initial insight on. The first is an initial emergency preparedness gap analysis. The

second is an initial prioritization of work element. The results pertaining to each of these is

described below.

Initial gap analysis. One of the key goals of the Oregon Resilience Plan is to “identify

steps needed to eliminate the gap separating current performance from resilient performance”


(ORP, 2013, p. x). The first step is to identify a current level of preparedness relative to where

one would want to be. This survey conducted as part of this work provides a first glimpse

through a self-assessment by District staff as to the current level of preparedness. The average

responses for emergency preparedness for the seven different elements of the framework are

shown in Figure 7.

Response Planning

Finance

Communications

Resource Planning

Infrastructure

Business Systems

Policy & Liaison

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

53%

76%

63%

38%

53%

52%

63%

Response Average

Figure 7. Estimated Current Level of Preparedness

Prioritized Work Elements. Within each of the elements of the emergency preparedness

framework, prioritization of the work on each of the sub-elements was also established through

the survey instrument that was administered. The highest priority sub-elements that should be

focused on first are shown below:

Policy & liaison: Level of service goals.

Business systems: Hardware.

Infrastructure: Condition assessment.


Resource planning: Key stockpile locations.

Communications: Establish procedures and protocols.

Finance: Capital for ongoing operations.

Response planning: Training & preparations and emergency response plan (tied).

Implementation plan. An implementation plan will be developed following approval of

the proposed emergency preparedness framework by the District. It would include the

identification for each of the different elements of the framework a specific list of activities,

timelines and overall schedule for implementation of the framework, and required resources to

accomplish the work. It serves as an overall work plan for implementation of the framework.

One of the first steps it to conduct a more elaborate gap analysis with greater

participation by District staff. The Oregon Resilience Plan identifies target levels of functionality

and corresponding recovery times for each of the different critical infrastructure systems. NIST

states that “Understanding the gaps between desired and actual performance are determined for

specific clusters of buildings and infrastructure systems and can then inform short and long term

solutions. In the short term, the gaps can be addressed with interim plans for emergency

response and temporary actions. In the long term, new construction can be designed to the

designated performance goals and the existing infrastructure can be retrofit as appropriate”

(NIST, 2015, p. ES6). NIST proposes in a flow chart that includes the elements and sequence of

steps to achieve community resilience. Figure 8 depicts NIST’s proposed framework to achieve

community resilience.


Figure 8. Flowchart for Developing Community Resilience Plan (NIST, 2015, ES 4).

With regards to implementing the emergency preparedness framework, it is proposed that

the methodology illustrated in the NIST flowchart be applied to the implementation of the

overall framework and its elements and sub-elements as well.

Conclusion

This research project proposed to answer two research questions, “What areas need to be

addressed for the District to be prepared for a major earthquake?” and “What is the District’s

current state of preparedness?” These questions were both clearly answered by this capstone

work. Answering the first resulted in the development of an emergency preparedness framework

that is described in the research findings section of the paper, a detailed framework addressing

the multidisciplinary aspects and societal needs associated with an earthquake. The second

question, also described in the research findings section of the paper, establishes a clear


identification of the District’s current level of preparedness and identifies key areas within the

framework elements to focus on first.

Water is essential for life. Without it humans cannot survive. Nor can a region

experience economic viability without it. Safe, reliable water is conveyed to the community

through an essential network of infrastructure including pipelines, pump stations, storage

reservoirs, and treatment plants. All of this infrastructure is a risk in our region due to a

catastrophic natural disaster known as the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake. It is

expected to release a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, similar to what occurred in Tohoku, Japan in

2011. The last time it occurred was 315 years ago.

Water systems are necessary for a variety of essential life safety elements following a

natural disaster. Essential healthcare facilities can’t operate and firefighting can’t occur without

it. The impacts of loss of water to a region has been experienced in a devastating way with the

1906 San Francisco earthquake where much of the city burned because of broken water

infrastructure. More recently natural disasters like hurricanes Katrina and Sandy have had

devastating impacts on their respective regions including impacts to the water systems. The

Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-21 calls for improved resiliency of our nation’s infrastructure

to natural disasters as well as manmade threats. The Oregon Resilience Plan specifically focuses

on what it would take for Oregon to be more prepared for the CSZ earthquake.

The industry and its approach to natural disasters like earthquakes is rapidly evolving

based on its understanding from recent events as well as growing attention at the federal, state,

and local level to be prepared for these types of catastrophic events. However, there is no clear

nor concise document that would prepare a water agency for the specific steps it would need to

follow to be prepared for this type of event. Addressing the issue can be overwhelming.


Voltaire, a French philosopher in the late 1600’s and early 1700’s, said, “Don't let the perfect be

the enemy of the good.” It is important to begin work to improve system resiliency and to do it

now. Einstein said, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we

created them.” The kind of thinking it takes to address the issue of a major natural disaster like

the CSZ earthquake, in particular related to water systems, needs to be different than the thinking

that was used when the systems were originally designed and constructed.

The Tualatin Valley Water District (District) is working to significantly improve the

resiliency of its agency and the services it provides to be prepared for this kind of event. This

includes the development of target level of service goals to meet the needs of the community

following this kind of event. The stakes are high. Minimizing the loss of functionality and the

length of recovery time following a major earthquake is critical. Doing so will benefit not only

individuals, but the community as a whole and the economic viability of the region. To do this,

an emergency preparedness framework has been developed to identify all the different elements

of the District that need to be addressed for it to be resilient for this kind of natural disaster as

well as lessor events. This framework encompasses different aspects of recommendations for

preparedness from the current industry thinking while being tailored to the unique characteristics

of the District and its service environment. If successfully followed and implemented, the

generation that experiences the next CSZ earthquake and the generations that follow will reap the

benefits of this critical thinking and preparedness.


Supporting Materials

This section contains the results of the survey that was administered for the different

elements of the emergency preparedness framework.

Summary of survey emergency preparedness results.

Element HighResponse Average Low Gap

Response Planning 68% 53% 45% 47%Finance 83% 76% 62% 24%Communications 73% 63% 53% 37%Resource Planning 50% 38% 28% 62%Infrastructure 75% 53% 15% 47%Business Systems 62% 52% 30% 48%Policy & Liaison 88% 63% 45% 37%

Policy & liaison survey results.

Framework Sub-element Initials Estimated Level of Resiliency (%) Priority100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Rank

Governance NK X 3MJ X 6MB X 6

Resiliency Policies NK X 2MJ X 3MB X 3

Formal & Informal Agreements NK X 4MJ X 4MB X 4

Building Relationships NK X 6MJ X 5MB X 5

Level of Service Goals NK X 1MJ X 2MB X 1

Delegated Authority NK X 5MJ X 1MB X 2


Business systems survey results.


Software PM X 3LO X 2MB X 3

Hardware PM X 2LO X 1MB X 1

Enterprise Architecture PM X 1LO X 4MB X 2

Internet Redundancy PM X 4LO X 3MB X 4

Infrastructure survey results.


Planning PB X 3RS X 2MB X 3

Design Standards PB X 4RS X 4MB X 4

Condition Assessment PB X 1RS X 1MB X 1

Vulnerability/Risk Assessments PB X 2RS X 3MB X 2

Resource planning survey results.


Human Capital NK X 1MJ X 1MB X 1

Critical Inventory NK X 3MJ X 4MB X 2

Key Stockpile Locations NK X 2MJ X 2MB X 3

Security & Public Safety NK X 4MJ X 3MB X 4


Communications survey results.


Establish Procedures & FR X 1Protocols MM X 1

MB X 1Community Engagement FR X 2

MM X 2MB X 2

Finance survey results.


Capital for Ongoing Operations PM X 1JC X 2

MB X 1Insurance PM X 2

JC X 3MB X 3

Long-Term Financial Planning PM X 3JC X 1

MB X 2

Response planning survey results.


Training & Preparations MJ X 2TV X 1MB X 1

Operations MJ X 3TV X 3MB X 3

Emergency Response Plan MJ X 1TV X 2MB X 1


Bibliography

AEIC. (2002, November). The great Alaska earthquake of 1964. Retrieved from http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/quakes/Alaska_1964_earthquake.html

AWWA. (2014, January 10). Chemical leak in West Virginia source water [Electronic mailing list message].

Britch, R. (2015, April 22). Interview by Mike Britch [Personal Interview]. 1964 Alaska earthquake.

Buehrer, J. (2013). Colorado floods test endurance, skill of utility personnel. Opflow, 39(12), 10-15.

CREW. Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup, (2013). Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes: A magnitude 9.0 earthquake scenario Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open-File Report 0-13-22.

DHS. Department of Homeland Security, Infrastructure Sector Assessment. (2015a). Infrastructure system overview: Water systems Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis.

DHS. Department of Homeland Security, Infrastructure Sector Assessment. (2015b). Extended water outage: Infrastructure system overview Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis.

DOGAMI. (2010). Coming to terms with seismicity. Cascadia, Winter, 3. Retrieved from www.OregonGeology.org

Duyck, A. TVWD Board Meeting. Beaverton, OR. 15 May 2013. Public Testimony.

Eidinger, J and Davis, C. (2012). Recent earthquakes: Implications for U.S. water utiliites, Web Report #4408, Water Research Foundation, Denver, CO.

FEMA. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2011). National disaster recovery framework. Washington DC:

FEMA. (2014, April). In Scott Porter (Chair). Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes: A magnitude 9.0 earthquake scenario. Emergency Management Institute Community-specific integrated emergency management course, Emmitsburg, MD.

Hill, D. (2014). Fighting back. Civil Engineering, 84(1), 49-55.

Hoyenga, J. (2105, April). Resilient Lane County: A partnership to cultivate a culture of preparedness. Awwa Pacific Northwest section conference, Bellevue, Washington.

Jones, L. City of Los Angeles, (2014). Resiliency by design. Los Angeles.

Landers, J. (2014). San Francisco nears start of last pipeline improvement project. Civil Engineering, 84(1), 27-28.

NIST. (2015, February). The social context for community resilience. Disaster resilience framework: 75% draft for San Diego, CA workshop, San Diego, CA.

Obama, B. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2013). Presidential policy directive/ppd-21

http://www.OregonGeology.org/


Priatla, K., Fisher, K., Andrus, R., Simonson, L., & Farahmandfar, Z. (2014). Evaluating the Resiliency of the Water System in Charleston, South Carolina against Liquefaction Hazard Through the Use of Seismic Hazard Maps. ASCE Pipelines 2014, 1217-1228.

Reid, R. (2013). Defending New Orleans. Civil Engineering, 83(11), 48-67,83.

State of Oregon, “Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 264 — Domestic Water Supply Districts." Last modified 2011. Accessed September 21, 2013. http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/264.-html.

Wang, Y., Raskin, J., & Wolf, E. Oregon Seismic Safety Policy Commission (OSSPAC), (2013). The Oregon resilience plan: Reducing risk and improving recovery for the next Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. Retrieved from website: http://www.oregon.gov/omd/oem/pages/osspac/osspac.aspx

http://www.oregon.gov/omd/oem/pages/osspac/osspac.aspx