DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY
AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE

A VISION FOR FUTURE PRACTICE

Committee on Integrating Dam and Levee Safety and Community Resilience

Committee on Geological and Geotechnical Engineering

Board on Earth Sciences and Resources

Division on Earth and Life Studies

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE A VISION FOR FUTURE PRACTICE Committee on Integrating Dam and Levee Safety and Community Resilience Committee on Geological and Geotechnical Engineering Board on Earth Sciences and Resources Division on Earth and Life Studies

OCR for page R1
T HE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, NW • Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract HSFEHQ-10-C-1400 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-25614-8 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-25614-3 Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www. nap.edu/. Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON INTEGRATING DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE JOHN J. BOLAND (Chair), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland TONY BENNETT, Ontario Power Generation, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada RAYMOND J. BURBY, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill STEPHEN J. BURGES, University of Washington, Seattle RITA E. CESTTI, The World Bank, Washington, DC ROSS B. COROTIS, University of Colorado, Boulder CLIVE Q. GOODWIN, FM Global Insurance Company, Johnston, Rhode Island ROGER E. KASPERSON, Clark University, Washington, DC SHIRLEY LASKA, University of New Orleans, Louisiana LEWIS E. LINK, University of Maryland, College Park MARTIN W. McCANN, Jr, Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc., Menlo Park, California HILLMAN MITCHELL, King County Office of Emergency Management, Renton, Washington National Research Council Staff SAMMANTHA L. MAGSINO, Study Director JASON ORTEGO, Research Associate CHANDA T. IJAMES, Senior Program Assistant v

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EDWARD KAVAZANJIAN, Jr. (Chair), Arizona State University, Tempe JOHN T. CHRISTIAN, Consulting Engineer, Burlington, Massachusetts PATRICIA J. CULLIGAN, Columbia University, New York, New York CONRAD W. FELICE, HNTB Corporation, Bellevue, Washington DEBORAH J. GOODINGS, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia MURRAY W. HITZMAN, Colorado School of Mines, Golden JAMES R. RICE, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts National Research Council Staff SAMMANTHA L. MAGSINO, Senior Program Officer CHANDA T. IJAMES, Senior Program Assistant vi

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON EARTH SCIENCES AND RESOURCES CORALE L. BRIERLEY (Chair), Brierley Consultancy, LLC, Denver, Colorado WILLIAM E. DIETRICH, University of California, Berkeley WILLIAM L. GRAF, University of South Carolina, Columbia RUSSELL J. HEMLEY, Carnegie Institution of Washington, DC MURRAY W. HITZMAN, Colorado School of Mines, Golden EDWARD KAVAZANJIAN, Jr, Arizona State University, Tempe DAVID R. MAIDMENT, University of Texas, Austin ROBERT McMASTER, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis M. MEGHAN MILLER, UNAVCO, Inc., Boulder, Colorado ISABEL P. MONTAÑEZ, University of California, Davis CLAUDIA INÉS MORA, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico BRIJ M. MOUDGIL, University of Florida, Gainesville CLAYTON R. NICHOLS, Idaho Operations Office (Retired), Ocean Park, Washington HENRY N. POLLACK, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor DAVID T. SANDWELL, University of California, San Diego PETER M. SHEARER, University of California, San Diego REGINAL SPILLER, Azimuth Investments, LLC, Houston, Texas TERRY C. WALLACE, Jr., Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico National Research Council Staff ANTHONY R. de SOUZA, Director (until April 2012) ELIZABETH A. EIDE, Director (from April 2012) DAVID A. FEARY, Senior Program Officer ANNE M. LINN, Senior Program Officer SAMMANTHA L. MAGSINO, Senior Program Officer MARK D. LANGE, Program Officer JENNIFER T. ESTEP, Administrative and Financial Associate NICHOLAS D. ROGERS, Financial and Research Associate COURTNEY R. GIBBS, Program Associate JASON R. ORTEGO, Research Associate ERIC J. EDKIN, Senior Program Assistant CHANDA T. IJAMES, Senior Program Assistant vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface Late in 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, U.S. newspapers were filled with speculation as to whether New Orleans would continue to exist as a great and unique American city. Levee and floodwall failure had inundated large parts of the city and re- sulted in more than 1,500 deaths and catastrophic damage to property and the economy. In 2011, extreme amounts of precipitation, inadequate levees, and possible mismanagement of reservoirs contributed to widespread flooding around Bangkok, Thailand. More than 500 deaths have been associated with that flood,1 and the closing of more than 1,000 industrial facilities had severe repercussions for global supply chains in the electronics and automotive industries.2 These two incidents occurred half a world and 6 years apart, but they shared a set of facts: neither city was adequately prepared, had appropriate measures in place to mitigate damage once flooding occurred, or seemed able to recover quickly; and neither city proved particularly resilient in the face of what were somewhat foreseeable circumstances. Resilience has long been a major topic in the natural-hazard literature and is defined in this report as the ability of a system to absorb disturbance and quickly return to nor- mal or a new normal while maintaining its identity and ability to function. In the case of earthquakes, for example, there is convincing evidence that building community resilience through preparedness, risk communication, response and recovery planning, and adaptation substantially reduces short-term and long-term effects of earthquakes. It is reasonable to assume that the same would be true for flooding events, but many questions arise: What actions increase resilience? Who should take those actions? How can they be motivated to do so? How can one monitor progress and success in building resilience? And, most relevant to the present study, how can the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) use its programs and networks to promote increased community resilience? See www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15610536. 1 See www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/business/global/07iht-floods07.html. 2 ix

OCR for page R1
PREFACE In its search for answers, FEMA asked the National Research Council (NRC) to convene a committee to determine how dam and levee safety programs can be broadened to include activities that enhance community and regional preparation for, response to, mitigation of, and recovery from infrastructure failure. A committee was formed in early 2011 and included a wide array of disciplines, such as engineering, economics, planning, natural-hazard studies, hazard insurance, emergency management, and sociology. Not surprisingly, committee members quickly discovered that, although they shared long experience and deep interest in the subject, they were accustomed to working within rather different paradigms and vocabularies. Consequently, members devoted much time early in the study to learning to understand one another. The committee noted that its own communication difficulties could be considered a microcosm of the broader communication issues that every community of diverse stakeholders will confront as it attempts to build resilience. This report describes a tool for assessing stakeholder engagement that can also gauge and document a community’s progress toward greater resilience. As the committee worked to understand and develop this into a tool useful at the community level, the tool itself promoted communication among the members and eventually helped the committee reach its consensus conclusions. By extension, the tool should serve the same purpose in a com- munity, facilitating communication as stakeholders strive to build resilience. Many tools are available for increasing community resilience, but the Maturity Matrix for Assessing Community and Stakeholder Engagement emerges as an instrument for organization, communication, and assessment—a “tool of tools.” Before embarking on the study, however, the committee had to understand the mean- ing and intent of the statement of task, particularly as it describes the problem confronting the sponsor. This consideration was helped greatly by early conversations with Dr. Sandra Knight, FEMA deputy associate administrator for mitigation. Dr. Knight’s presentation at the first meeting emphasized several ideas that would become central themes of the study: the notion of the “whole community” as the locus of action, the importance of an integrated approach to reducing risk, and FEMA’s need to find ways to motivate change through its existing dam and levee safety programs. In addition to Dr. Knight’s assistance, the committee is also grateful to FEMA’s James Demby for his advice and support at vari- ous critical points in the study. The committee met four times over an 8-month period: twice in Washington, D.C., and twice in Irvine, California. In the course of those meetings, the committee consulted with a number of dam and levee engineering, management, and safety experts. They in- cluded Sandra Knight of FEMA; James Gallagher, Jr. of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services; Yazmin Seda-Sanabria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Critical Infrastructure Protection and Resilience Program; Steve Verigin of GEI Consul- tants (former chief of the California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety x

OCR for page R1
P reface of Dams); Kurt Rinehart of the Miami, Ohio, Conservancy District; Dennis Mileti of the University of Colorado; and Richard Pineda of the California Department of Water Re- sources. The committee is grateful to all these individuals for their thoughtful presentations and thought-provoking discussions. Other persons attended open sessions of committee meetings and provided input. Nu- merous outside experts were consulted by individual members over the course of the study as the committee deliberated its task and prepared its report. Their input provided much to consider and contributed greatly to the final product The committee had numerous occasions to be grateful for the exceptional competence and efficiency of the NRC staff members assigned to this project. Complicated logistical arrangements were handled with ease and good humor by Chanda Ijames, senior project as- sistant. Jason Ortego, research associate, was responsible for completing numerous research assignments, usually required in a matter of days, and he always exceeded our expectations. An avid reader of NRC report prefaces will have seen numerous references to the high quality of its staff directors, often noting substantive contributions to fulfilling tasks in addi- tion to managing the myriad activities that go into these studies and, finally, producing the final reports. But our experience went beyond expectations. Our staff director, Sammantha Magsino, senior program officer, served as technical resource, fact-checker, inspiration, author, editor, and taskmaster. She was repeatedly able to turn vigorous discussion into con- sensus, scattered notes into coherent text, and rambling discourse into disciplined thinking. Samm made the committee’s challenging task rewarding and the chair’s work manageable. From the first meeting of this committee, there was no doubt about members’ pas- sion for the subject of community resilience, born of long experience with floods and their aftermath. But the transformation of their passion into concrete suggestions for FEMA, as it builds strategies for community resilience into dam and levee safety programs, proved complex and challenging. We believe that we have made a good start, but there is more to be done. John J. Boland Chair xi

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse per- spectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of the independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards of objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Gerald E. Galloway, University of Maryland, College Park John R. Harrald, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Alexandria Desmond Hartford, BC Hydro and Power Authority, Burnaby, British Columbia Arleen A. Hill, The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee James Johnson, Independent Consultant, Columbia, Maryland Peggy A. Johnson, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Michael K. Lindell, Texas A&M University, College Station Alessandro Palmieri, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Ricardo Pineda, California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento Paula Scalingi, Bay Area Center for Regional Disaster Resilience, Pleasanton, California Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was over- seen by John Christian, Consulting Engineer, Burlington, Massachusetts. Appointed by xiii

OCR for page R1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. xiv

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 17 The Committee’s Task, 18 Historical Dam and Levee Performance, 20 Basic Concepts in This Report, 24 Committee Reflections on Its Task, 30 Report Organization, 34 2 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND IMPROVING COMMUNITY RESILIENCE 35 Characteristics of a Resilient Community, 36 Engaging All Elements of a Community for Resilience, 38 Implications for Enhancing Resilience, 42 Building Social Capital for Community Resilience, 47 3 CURRENT DAM AND LEVEE INFRASTRUCTURE, MANAGEMENT, AND GOVERNANCE 49 Dam and Levee Infrastructure, 50 Dam and Levee Safety Programs, 59 Dam and Levee Safety Governance, 61 4 VISION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESILIENCE-FOCUSED ENGAGEMENT 77 Dam and Levee Professionals as Part of the Larger Community, 78 Conceptual Framework: Expanding the Meaning and Role of Dam and Levee Safety, 85 xv

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS 5 TOOLS FOR BUILDING RESILIENCE 97 Challenges to Building Community Resilience, 99 Choosing Tools to Enhance Community Resilience, 103 Assessing the State of Practice with Respect to Resilience, 111 6 CONCLUSIONS 121 Defining Community, 122 Enabling Information Access, 123 Managing Risk Collaboratively, 125 Making a Cultural Shift, 126 A Repository of Resilience Enhancing Tools, 127 Institutionalizing Resilience Processes, 129 Benchmarking Progress in Safety and Engagement, 129 Moving Forward, 131 REFERENCES 133 LIST OF ACRONYMS 141 APPENDIXES A Committee Biographies 145 B Meeting Agendas 151 C Laws, Policies, and Guidelines Driving Dam and Levee Safety in the United States 153 xvi