Planning and Strategy Development

Intergovernmental resilience and preparedness planning workshops can take place over one or multiple days, depending on the capacity of stakeholders to attend multiple workshops. The more complex and broader the geographic boundary of the planning effort, the more time should be dedicated to the workshop and discussion. During the workshop(s), a facilitator, or multiple facilitators, may guide stakeholder participation and discussion through table-top exercises. Consider the guided discussions as sequential workshop activities, each playing a role moving the stakeholders through the resilience planning process.

For regional resilience planning, shared interdependencies are considered to be shared infrastructure systems that serve the critical operations and functional performance of multiple jurisdictions.

The definition of infrastructure varies widely by organization and can include structures and facilities, such as a wastewater treatment plants or dams, and services provided by a broader array of community assets, such as telecommunications networks. See a list of critical infrastructure sectors on U.S. Department of Homeland Security website.

Framing the conversation of interdependencies by critical infrastructure sector may be helpful for inter-governmental entities in understanding the drivers and mission activities within a community as well as potential resilience strategies within each sector.

For intergovernmental resilience planning efforts, untangle the complex nature of critical infrastructure systems. In doing so, stakeholders can conceptualize how impacts to critical infrastructure systems that are “upstream” have a direct effect on the viability and performance of their own abilities to maintain performance and operations.

Exploring vulnerabilities among multiple stakeholders is augmented by the work completed by jurisdictions and governmental entities through the baselining exercises. The outcome from those activities provides a foundation for understanding each jurisdiction's vulnerabilities. These could include the system shocks, stressors, or hazards such as natural hazards, technological hazards, and threats or human-caused incidents. These are detailed further as potential vulnerabilities:

• Natural hazards – Resulting from acts of nature and severe weather (e.g., severe winter storm, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, solar flares, etc.)
• Technological hazards – Resulting from accidents or the failures of systems and structures (e.g., bridge collapse, grid outage)
• Threats or human-caused incidents – Resulting from the threats or intentional actions of an adversary (e.g., cyber, acts of terror).

Additional vulnerabilities may include longer-term system stress posed by conditions such as population change and changing economic conditions. However, the focus of the resilience roadmap centers on the short- and long-term hazards of potential threats and their impacts on infrastructure vulnerability.

Participating jurisdictions and governmental entities are responsible for performing core operations and functions. To ensure viability of these operations, identify the infrastructure systems necessary to maintain operations. The process of setting performance goals involves:

• Identifying which infrastructure systems are shared across jurisdictional lines and critical to operations of multiple governments
• Identifying the time it takes for those infrastructure systems to recover and regain operation given likely hazards or system shock events
• Using the concept of "where we are now" versus "where we want to be" to understand current infrastructure recovery times and identifying aspirational performance goals for infrastructure-wide recovery
• Using the concept of "where we are now" versus "where we want to be" to understand current critical operations recovery time and identifying aspirational performance goals for critical operations viability
• Identifying accelerated targets for shared infrastructure recovery and viability of critical government operations.

Natural and engineered environments shape communities, resulting in many drivers that influence long-term resilience. It is important to determine what those drivers may be, what existing plans support resilience, and what opportunities exist to improve resilience.

Some common characteristics used to establish resilient systems include diversity, redundancy, decentralization, transparency, collaboration, flexibility, and foresight. These characteristics define the nature of resilience strategies. However, implementation strategies can be diverse. They can range from specific projects, such as seawall hardening, to broader policy adoption of more resilient and energy-efficient building codes or land acquisition programs to protect infrastructure from future flooding hazards.

To understand this, consider that resilience strategies fall into four categories of jurisdictional activity:

Long-term planning in the form of comprehensive community plans, hazard mitigation plans, and watershed plan

Regulations and policies such as zoning, subdivision codes, floodplain regulations, building codes

Programs such as capacity building organizations, land acquisition, low-income housing programs

Capital projects such as capital improvement projects, decentralized backup energy generation for critical facilities, and passive storm-water management system designs.

For prioritization purposes during the workshop, suggest that stakeholders focus on intergovernmental and cross-jurisdictional strategies. Consensus on focused strategies will clarify communications when reporting back to respective governmental leaders. It will also establish an understanding of viable areas for collaboration and coordination. Additionally, the process will provide a new level of context for participating jurisdictions. It will enable them to move forward without existing regional resilience strategies and become better informed about regional and intergovernmental activity, interdependencies, and vulnerabilities.

While prioritizing strategies by greatest impact and effectiveness, consider what is achievable and the following attributes:

• Responsiveness to the scale and impact of likely hazards and vulnerabilities
• Ability to create movement toward identified performance goals for resilient infrastructure systems and critical operations
• Ability to address and strengthen interdependent infrastructure systems
• Administrative capacity necessary for implementation
• Available funding to implement capital projects or institutionalize resilience into existing activities
• Data and analysis required for implementation.

Performance goals may be entity-specific. However, they're important to discuss with stakeholders in case they have similar goals. The Community Resilience Planning Guides of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) describe this process and serve as a good example for setting long-term goals to guide resilience planning, prioritize activities, and develop implementation strategies.

Gaining buy-in for a resilience strategy is achieved through effective communication. Determining the audience and the best approach for communication is important. If agreements need to be signed, it's critical to outline the stakeholders to sign those agreements and set timelines for securing signatures. Talking points and discussions will be critical to this phase of the implementation process as well. Finding the messages that resonate with stakeholders can inform effective communications.

Every party must be committed to the plan by ensuring action. If needed, write memos of understanding or letters of commitment and set timelines for securing signatures.