Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 22, 2026

Monitoring Spatial Segregation in Surface Colonizing Microbial Populations
Published on: October 29, 2016
Assessing the vulnerability of U.S. energy infrastructure to dual source flood hazards: A spatial and population
Sohail Ahmed Tufail1, Rouzbeh Nazari1, Mohammad Reza Nikoo2
1Resilient Smart Cities Innovation Center, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38125, USA; Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38125, USA.
Abstract:
Flood risk to U.S. energy infrastructure (EI) is shaped by both inland and coastal processes, yet most national assessments rely on a single hazard dataset. To address this limitation, we combine FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA; 1% annual chance) with NOAA's coastal composite (storm surge, high-tide flooding, sea-level rise, and related layers) to develop a unified view of exposure. Using a national EI inventory (n = 21,988), we conduct spatial overlays, county-level Getis-Ord Gi* clustering, subtype analyses, and a 5-mile population proximity assessment. Nationwide, 3174 facilities (14.4%) are classified as flood-exposed in the combined dataset, compared with 9.2% when using FEMA alone and 9.5% when using NOAA alone; 925 facilities (4.2%) are exposed in both, while FEMA-only (1096) and NOAA-only (1153) contribute roughly equally. Exposure varies by sector, with petrochemical and petroleum facilities exhibiting the highest rates. Subtypes such as petroleum ports, LNG terminals, and hydropower plants stand out as particularly exposed. Within NOAA's footprint, agreement between sources is high (87.8%), but NOAA-only facilities far exceed FEMA-only facilities, highlighting additional coastal exposure beyond regulatory SFHAs. Hotspot analysis reveals complementary geographies: NOAA emphasizes a continuous coastal belt (TX-LA Gulf, Florida, Mid-Atlantic, NY-NJ harbor, Puget Sound), while FEMA emphasizes inland regions along the Mississippi and Ohio-Tennessee corridors. Population exposure is substantial, with over 52 million people living within 5 miles of FEMA SFHA electric power facilities and 37 million near petroleum assets, underscoring the societal stakes of infrastructure disruption. To our knowledge, this is the first national-scale study to integrate FEMA and NOAA hazard datasets for EI exposure, providing a more comprehensive basis for resilience planning and focusing attention on the sectors and communities at most significant risk.
More Related Videos
10:01In Situ High Pressure Hydrogen Tribological Testing of Common Polymer Materials Used in the Hydrogen Delivery Infrastructure
Published on: March 31, 2018
13:00Modifying the Bank Erosion Hazard Index BEHI Protocol for Rapid Assessment of Streambank Erosion in Northeastern Ohio
Published on: February 13, 2015
Related Concept Videos
Responses to Drought and Flooding
Design Example: Analyzing Capacity Contours for Flood Risk Assessment
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Hazard Rate
Mesh Analysis with Current Sources
Current Source in One Mesh: The analysis process is straightforward when a current source is found in only one mesh within the circuit. Mesh currents are assigned as usual, with the mesh containing the current source excluded from the analysis. Kirchhoff's voltage law...
Nodal Analysis with Voltage Sources
Consider a circuit that contains four resistors and two voltage sources, as shown in Figure 1. One of these voltage sources is connected between a...