Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
7 A National Partnership Plan- Roles, Responsibilities, and Coordination Any national effort to address landslide risks must take into account the numerous federal, state, and local government entities that are already involved in addressing aspects of the problem. In addition, relevant stakeholders also include owners and managers of vulnerable transportation and utility networks, insurers and financial institutions that have a financial stake in property at risk, and researchers who contribute to understanding the problems and determining potential solutions. Consequently, responsibility for the problems posed by land- slides and the solutions to those problems are widely shared among different levels of government and among different entities at each level. Recognition of this shared responsibility emphasizes the need for and role of partnerships in developing and implementing a national landslide miti- gation strategy. Stating that partnerships should be the foundation for carrying out a loss reduction strategy says little in itself. Partnerships can take a variety of forms. Too often partnerships constitute agreements on paper that have little practical effect. Partnerships are often established with a template that treats all partners in a similar fashion. Yet, partners often differ in their expertise, resources, and commitment. Moreover, each of these aspects rarely remains constant so that changes over time require adjust- ments to the partnership. Periodic reassessments to confirm that existing partnerships are still effective and useful are an essential element of a partnership strategy. In short, any partnership approach must recognize the differences between partners and also allow for changes in partner- ship relationships over time. 81
82 PARTNERSHIPS FOR REDUCING LANDSLIDE RISK A key starting point for considering landslide partnerships is the recognition that for a national policy to be effective, it must shape not only federal actions but also those of state and local governments, and ultimately those of private landowners. This fundamental reality con- fronts a "shared governance" implementation dilemma that is common to the range of natural hazards policies (May and Williams, 1986~. On the one hand, federal officials have a strong stake in promoting hazard miti- gation. On the other hand, in the aggregate, it is ultimately the actions of state and local governments and of individuals owning property in hazardous areas that directly affect the success of loss reduction efforts. The dilemma arises because federal officials have little direct control over the effectiveness of such local efforts and because in many instances, given other priorities and competing pressures, state and local entities are often unwilling or unable to take the requisite actions to reduce prospective landslide losses. This reluctance has been documented in a number of studies of state and local government hazard mitigation planning (e.g., Berke and Beatley, 1992; Burby and May, 1998; May and Deyle, 1998~. 7.1 PARTNERSHIP PRINCIPLES Recognition of the diversity of entities and the need for shared gover- nance of landslide programs leads to consideration of a set of principles for guiding the formation of partnerships. These principles are derived from studies of the shared governance of hazard mitigation programs (May and Williams, 1986; Paterson, 1998; Godschalk et al., 1999) and from evaluation of existing geoscience-related partnership programs (e.g., NRC, 1994, 2001~. The principles to be considered in the formation of landslide mitiga- tion partnerships are the following: 1. The need to allow for multiple partnership arrangements: Given the diversity of entities at federal, state, and local levels, it is clear that mul- tiple partnerships must be formed. A balance must be struck between fostering many relationships and relying on only a few well-established networks. The former may be hard to manage, whereas the latter may not open desired new avenues. Potential partnership networks include those among state geological organizations, local governments, research partners (including academic entities), and federal agencies. 2. The need to embrace existing intro- and intergovernmental arrangements while allowingfor development of partnerships with nongovernmental organiza- tions: Existing relationships should form the basis for development of vital partnership networks. These include partnerships involving multiple levels of government carried out under cooperative agreements. One such
ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND COORDINATION 83 example is the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program's part- nership arrangements for coordinating mapping requirements that entail partnerships among federal and state entities (STATEMAP) and with academic institutions to fund mapping research (EDMAP). In addition, it is useful to foster nongovernmental partnerships with nonprofit organi- zations that can serve as forums for addressing aspects of the landslide problem. Examples of such forums include the National Association of State Floodplain Managers (a network of state flood management officials) and the Open GIS Consortium (a forum of private and public entities involved in developing protocols for geographic information systems). 3. The need to share costs and responsibility: A key tenet of partnership arrangements is the sharing of costs and responsibilities. This is essential for providing all partners with a sense of ownership and to minimize dependence on the financial resources of one partner. The specifics of sharing, of course, must be worked out in advance to be equitable, and they should be flexible enough to allow for changes in the circumstances of different partners over time. 4. The need to minimizefunding strings: Discretion, within broad bound- aries, in the use of funds or in approaches to achieving program objectives is desirable for promoting innovative solutions and approaches. Given the diversity of landslide problems, the differences in expertise among relevant organizations, and the differences in needs, such discretion would seem to be paramount. 5. The need to tie partnerships to programmatic objectives: Too often, part- nerships languish during endless discussions of purpose, governance, and roles. While some level of discussion is often essential for building trust among partners, by definition partnerships that are all process achieve little. Accomplishments are more likely if partnerships are defined with respect to carefully described programmatic objectives. Partnership objec- tives should be defined in a manner to permit gauging progress with respect to key goals, while also allowing for innovation and necessary change. 7.2 RECOMMENDED PARTNERSHIPS Because the responsibility for mitigating landslide risk is so widely distributed, it is imperative that a national strategy be based on a set of partnerships involving federal, state, local, and nongovernmental entities. The committee recommends creation or continuation of multiple partner- ship relationships for carrying out a national landslide strategy. These partnerships, their roles, and makeup are summarized in Table 7.1. Each of the entries shows the functions and focal point of the partnership. In most instances, partnerships will necessitate the involvement of multiple
84 TABLE 7.1 Recommended Partnerships PARTNERSHIPS FOR REDUCING LANDSLIDE RISK Partnership Functions Makeup Federal-level · Leadership of national · Federal coordinating organization partnership strategy comprised of key federal agencies, · Coordination and funding leaf by U.S. GeologicalSurvey of research · Coordination and funding of other partnerships · Resolution of landslide issues for federal lands and facilities Federal-state · Hazard identification · Cooperative program with state risk assessment and mapping geological entities partnership · Promotion of risk analysts · Cooperative program with state and mitigation practices departments of transportation for landslides affecting and other relevant state entities state land and properties State, local, and · Promotion of risk analysis · "User group" partnership of local nongovernmental and mitigation practices entities end nongovernmental partnership forlandslides affecting stakeholders, potentially formed local and private entities as a nongovernmental users · Educational outreach to group. the general public and relevant professions Research · Research on process · Partnerships between universities partnership mechanics, monitoring and both governmental agencies techniques, loss and risk and other stakeholders. assessment methods, and mapping techniques · Guidelines development and outreach activities International · Sharing of research and · Bilateral agreements between partnership practices for addressing federal landslide coordinating landslide risks council and relevant entities in · Cooperative follow-up to other countries major international landslide events · Participation of U.S. professionals in international activities (e.g., International Consortium on Landslides, see Box 7.2; Joint Technical Committee on Landslides, see Box 7.3~.
ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND COORDINATION 85 levels of government and of nongovernmental organizations. As such, the envisioned partnerships are not intended to be mutually exclusive. The formation and operation of each of the partnerships should be guided by the overarching partnership principles outlined above. The specifics of these partnerships will have to be refined as part of an implementation plan for the national strategy for landslide loss reduction. With this caveat in mind, the committee envisions each partnership as functioning in the following manner: 1. Federal-level partnership: A national strategy should recognize the need for an interagency organizational structure to ensure leadership and coordination at the federal level. There are several potential models for such coordination, including the Federal Geographic Data Committee, charged with overseeing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure; the Interagency Committee of Seismic Safety in Construction, charged with oversight of Executive Orders concerning seismic safety of federal facili- ties; and the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, respon- sible for coordination of federal earthquake risk reduction programs. A federal-level landslide hazards reduction coordinating committee would consist of representatives from the major federal agencies that address landslide risks. An appropriate chair would be the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (or designee), with participation on the committee by an extensive group of agencies with responsibilities in this area (e.g., National Park Service [NPS], Bureau of Land Management [BLM], Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], National Science Foundation [NSF], National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion [NASA], U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USAGE], U.S. Forest Service [USFS], Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], Federal Railway Administration AFRAID. As appropriate, representatives of states and major national organizations (Association of American State Geologists [AASG], Association of Engineering Geologists [AEG], American Insti- tute of Professional Geologists, American Geological Institute [AGI], American Planning Association [APA], American Society of Civil Engi- neers [ASCE]) could be asked to serve on subcommittees of the federal- level coordinating entity. The key functions of the federal coordinating partnership would be leadership of the national strategy, coordination and funding of research, coordination and funding of other partnerships, and addressing common issues concerning federal lands and properties including standards and guidelines for such facilities. 2. Federal-state partnership: The federal-state partnership is envisioned as the central mechanism for promoting hazard identification, mapping, and risk analyses at the state level. This partnership could be based on
86 PARTNERSHIPS FOR REDUCING LANDSLIDE RISK cooperative agreements between the USGS and state geological agencies, between the FHWA and state highway departments, and between other relevant federal and state agencies. In keeping with the partnership prin- ciples articulated here, the cooperative programs would be undertaken on a matching funds basis. Existing organizations such as the AASG could form important components of this intergovernmental partnership. 3. State, local, and nongovernmental partnership: This partnership is envisioned as a broad-based coordinated effort among state governments, local governments, environmental and other nongovernmental organiza- tions, relevant professional associations, and financial stakeholders. In essence, these constitute a "users group" for mapping and risk manage- ment products, as well as the key groups for implementing landslide risk loss reduction measures at the local level. In addition to undertaking specific mitigation measures (e.g., see Box 7.1), such groups are important for developing and carrying out the educational functions discussed in this report. Local educational and loss reduction programs could be promoted through demonstration programs and cooperative federal agreements. However, it is important to consider the feasibility of forming a non- governmental user group entity that would have membership open to these designated entities and would serve as a mechanism for sharing and promoting loss reduction practices. Examples of nongovernmental users groups are the Open GIS Consortium and the GeoData Alliance- consortia of government and nongovernmental organizations that have a stake in data formats and use (NRC, 2001~. 4. Research partnership: Earlier parts of this report described critical research gaps encompassing aspects of landslide process mechanics, monitoring techniques, loss and risk assessment methods, and mapping techniques. Research on these topics is envisioned as continuing, in col- laboration with state, local, and nongovernmental partners, with increased funding through intra- and extramural research programs of federal agencies (e.g., NSF, NASA, USGS). One option would be the establishment of a research center to provide a focus for these geoscience and geological engineering aspects of landslide mitigation. This would complement the present social science-focused activities of the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Whereas the Boulder center acts as a national and international clearinghouse to provide information on natural hazards and human adjustments to these risks, a natural science-focused center would act as a clearinghouse for technical and loss information and would perform important educational and outreach functions. Such a center could be distributed among a number of institutions, perhaps modeled on the Earthquake Engineering Research Centers at State Univer-
ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND COORDINATION 87
88 PARTNERSHIPS FOR REDUCING LANDSLIDE RISK sity of New York at Buffalo, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and University of California at Berkeley, with a charter to · develop interdisciplinary curricula to provide the cross education for individuals working or desiring to work in landslide hazard mitigation; · conduct basic research into all aspects of the programmatic area; and · assist in the massive and key effort related to outreach; this would include outreach in its broadest sense to scientists, engineers, planners, decision makers, and the public. 5. International partnership: Much can be learned from research and landslide experiences and practices in other countries, and the United States has an important role in sharing advances in this country with other countries. Consequently, international partnerships are an important com- ponent of a national strategy. The committee envisions the international partnerships as a set of bilateral agreements between the U.S. federal coordinating entity and relevant foreign partners. Participation of U.S. professionals in international activities could be managed under the auspices of the proposed natural science research center, including involve- ment in the International Consortium on Landslides (JCL; see Box 7.2) and the Joint Technical Committee on Landslides (ITC-l; see Box 7.3~. 7.3 OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, AND NONGOVERNMENTAL ROLES The partnerships proposed here constitute the institutional frame- works for coordinating and carrying out a national landslide loss reduc- tion strategy. Within these frameworks, federal, state, and local governments and nongovernmental entities have a range of roles and responsibilities. These are too numerous to identify in detail, but it is useful to consider the multiple levels of involvement of these entities and the key roles that are involved at each level (e.g., multisector partnership for the DeBeque Canyon landslide described in Box 7.4~. 7.4 FEDERAL AGENCY ROLES The federal role in a national landslide loss reduction strategy should be leadership, funding, and coordination of federal, state, local, and non- governmental efforts. The primary mechanisms for carrying this out are envisioned as the partnerships identified in the preceding section. The national strategy proposal (Spiker and Gori, 2000) contains substantial information concerning the USGS role in the national strategy, but it has considerably less detail concerning the roles of other agencies. Although
RO[E~ RESFO~1~S, ~~ COORD~N ~9 Me committee appreciates that the p~Ucabon of one agency might avoid being particularly prescriptive concerning We roles of other agencies' a Duly national strategy must nevertheless include a balanced description of the different roles. The committee's suggesUons for the roles and acOv1hes of key federal agencies ~1~1n me overall partnership ~ame- ~or~om an Ulustrative rather man comprehensive perspective are as follows:
So PARTNERSHIPS FOR REDUCING LANDSLIDE RISK Department of the Interior. The Department of the Interior (DOI) is envi- sioned as serving as the chair of the federal agency coordinating council. Within DOI, important components of the strategy should be carried out by USGS, BLM, and NPS. · U.S. Geological Survey: The USGS will have a central role in funding and carrying out research, in funding and carrying out cooperative hazard identification and mapping programs (in conjunction with state geological agencies), in serving as the central repository (clearinghouse) for geo- spatial data concerning landslide hazards, and in providing technical assistance and education. The USGS strategy proposal provides consider- able information on the role that its Landslide Hazards Program, in part- nership with state geological surveys, would play in a national mitigation strategy. The primary modification that the committee would suggest to the role proposed by the USGSis the addition of risk assessment, as an underlying principle guiding the prioritization of program activities, and the development and broad dissemination of landslide hazard risk assess- ment methods. Landslide Hazard Program activities should also include cooperative partnerships with other programs within the USGS, including
ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND COORDINATION 9
92 PARTNERSHIPS FOR REDUCING LANDSLIDE RISK the Coastal and Marine Program, to address submarine landslide hazards and with Biological Discipline programs for greater emphasis on identify- ing the ecological effects of landslides. · Other DOI Bureaus: The BLM and NPS are essentially "customer" agencies, with USGS playing an important role in the provision of land- slide hazard identification, mapping, and hazard mitigation on federal lands. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency. Increasingly, it is clear that presentation of hazard information in terms of risks to people, risks to the built environment, and impacts on the social and economic spheres, can be an inducement to governments at all levels to take responsible action. The HAZUS program and Project Impact, both developed and promoted by FEMA, have been major steps
ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND COORDINATION 93 in this direction, but they do not currently focus on landslides. FEMA has developed interactive exercises involving local communities in dealing with earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. These exercises are designed to educate local government officials as to the types of problems they might face and pose questions concerning what steps could have been taken prior to the event in order to avoid or control the hazard. Such exercises could be developed for landslides. At present, much of FEMA's landslide-related activity is focused on post-disaster cleanup activity following ground failure events. The committee's perception of FEMA's role as part of a national partnership is that it would place a much greater emphasis on landslide mitigation, including the provision of technical resources for the development of risk assessment methods, guidelines for risk assessments, and educational and other outreach materials concerning best practices for landslide loss reduction. FEMA's existing partnerships with state and local governments are important conduits for outreach programs. In addition, the recent post-landslide residential buyouts by FEMA using Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds (see Box 7.5) show real promise for reduc-
94 PARTNERSHIPS FOR REDUCING LANDSLIDE RISK ing future losses. To fulfill such an expanded role, FEMA would require additional funding, institutional commitment, and increased collabora- tion and interaction with other agencies. Department of Defense U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As both an applied and a research organization, the USACE is envisioned as fulfill- ing a number of important roles within a national strategy, with particular leadership responsibility for engineered mitigation activities. The network of USACE districts and divisions will be important for technology trans- fer, to assist state and local government entities and other federal agencies with the planning and provision of engineering options to decrease land- slide hazards. The USACE role should also include the development of guidelines and standards concerning engineered landslide mitigation. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- istration (NOAA). Two of NOAA's organizations, the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Ocean Service (NOS), should play impor- tant roles in a national strategy. A USGS-NWS partnership for landslide hazard warning, building on past partnerships, offers considerable potential for reducing the risk of injury or loss of life from rainfall-induced land- slides. NOS and USGS partnered effectively to conduct coastal mapping activities for the Airborne LIDAR Assessment of Coastal Erosion (ALACE) project, and development of this partnership offers considerable potential for mapping coastal landslide hazards. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railway Administration. The FHWA is envisioned as having an important role in providing technical assistance and promoting loss reduction efforts undertaken at the state level by state highway agencies. The FRA has a similar role in providing technical assistance and promot- ing adoption of risk management practices for national railways. There is scope for both agencies to promote effective transfer of technology through demonstration projects. Department of Energy. The national laboratories administered by the Department of Energy have a potential role as participants in research on landslide processes within their facilities addressing earth and environ- mental sciences. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service. The USFS has an impor- tant role in addressing landslide hazards within federal forest lands. USFS geologists and engineers have extensive landslide expertise, particularly with the application of low-cost mitigation solutions along USFS access
ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND COORDINATION 95 roads that are often located in unstable, mountainous regions. They have had a long tradition of conducting basic research on landslide mecha- nisms and the environmental consequences of landsliding associated with forest practices (e.g., Sidle et al., 1984~. Increased landsliding mapping and research activity by the USGS on forested lands would contribute to the continued debate about how to minimize landslide occurrence. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA will have an important role in supporting basic research to develop and exploit remote- sensing techniques for hazard reduction. NASA will be a source of raw data on topography and other images (Synthetic Aperture Radar [SAR], hyperspectral, photographic, etc.) that can be "fused" to assist in land- slide delineation, monitoring, and prediction. A recent report commis- sioned by NASA's Earth Science Enterprise (Solid Earth Science Working Group, 2003) explicitly calls for a "one time global mapping at 2- to 5-m resolution and 0.5-m vertical accuracy" of topography in the next 5 to 10 years. This would lead to a "continuously operating, targeted, high- resolution topographic mapping and change-detection capability" in the next 10 to 25 years (Solid Earth Science Working Group, 2003) that would contribute greatly to landslide hazard mitigation. National Science Foundation. NSF is envisioned as having an important role in providing basic principal investigator-driven research support for understanding landslide hazards and processes. This would be conducted through a combination of existing extramural research programs and the proposed research center. The Interferometric SAR [InSAR] component of NSF's EarthScope initiative, requiring a dedicated L-band InSAR satellite to be developed and managed by a NASA-NSF partnership, offers con- siderable potential for landslide hazard studies. InSAR will be of particu- lar value for the identification and quantification of movement in large landslides. The recent decision by NSF to support the Center for Airborne Laser Mapping will provide research-grade LIDAR data and training opportunities for researchers. 7.5 STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ROLES The committee recognizes the paramount role of states, and particu- larly of localities, in carrying out a national landslide loss reduction strategy. States have important responsibilities in addressing landslide risks for state properties, in promoting local adoption of appropriate land- slide loss reduction measures, and in identifying and mapping landslide hazards. These roles include involvement of the following:
96 PARTNERSHIPS FOR REDUCING LANDSLIDE RISK · State geological agencies: State geological agencies, as part of the envisioned federal-state mapping partnerships, should continue and expand their roles in identification and mapping of landslide hazards. The discussion of education and outreach efforts (Chapter 6) emphasizes that for such maps to be effectively employed, state geological agencies must be proactive in providing technical assistance, education, and out- reach programs for planners, geotechnical engineers, and others involved in risk analysis and loss reduction. · State highway departments: State highway departments, as part of the envisioned federal-state highway landslide risk partnerships, should continue and expand their activities in addressing landslide hazards affecting state highways. These entities also have important roles in providing technical assistance to local public works departments. · State planning and building code agencies: State planning and build- ing agencies have important roles in setting and enforcing state standards concerning comprehensive planning requirements and building code pro- visions carried out by local governments. These entities also are involved in providing technical assistance to local governments. Appropriate con- sideration of landslide risks should be included in such state require- ments. · Stateforestry departments. State forestry and natural resource agencies have roles in addressing landslide potential and environmental impacts on state forest lands. In California, for example, the California Geological Survey provides landslide maps and field reviews of industrial forest lands to guide harvest plans. · Local planning and building departments. Local planning entities (which might variously include county engineer offices, agricultural extension agents, soil conservation offices, etc.) have important roles in setting forth zoning and other planning provisions and in reviewing and approving plans for development and construction. As discussed in Chap- ter 5, land-use planning and development controls are essential instru- ments for addressing landslide risks. These entities also have important educational functions with respect to the general public and private sector planning and design professionals. Landslide risk should be part of these education and outreach efforts. · Local public works departments. Local public works departments have responsibilities for municipal highways and infrastructure that is poten- tially at risk from landslides. These agencies should be aware of landslide risks and options for addressing them. · Emergency planning and response organizations. Local emergency planning and response agencies have significant roles in promoting pre- paredness and in disaster response. As discussed in Chapter 5, improving
ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND COORDINATION 97 the capabilities of these agencies to promote preparedness and to respond to landslide events is an important aspect of loss reduction. 7.6 ROLE OF NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS Owners and managers of vulnerable transportation and utility net- works, insurers and financial institutions that have a financial stake in property at risk, engineering consultants, and university and other researchers who contribute to understanding the problems and potential solutions are relevant stakeholders. These entities are envisioned as being important players in the proposed local or nongovernmental user part- nership and in the proposed research partnership. Their involvement is envisioned as consisting of sharing of technical expertise and experience, participation in partnership committees that develop approaches to pro- moting landslide loss reduction, participation in research activities, and financial contributions to user and research partnership programs. Key players among these entities include professional associations (e.g., AEG, APA, AGI, ASCE) and university researchers. Like other nongovernmental stakeholders, professional associations and university researchers are envisioned as being active participants in the user and research partner- ships. In addition, the Public Risk Management Association, the Nonprofit Risk Management Center, and the Public Entity Risk Institute have col- laborated to establish the Risk Management Resource Center to provide information on-line to help local governments, nonprofit organizations, and small businesses manage risks effectively (RMRC, 2003~.