National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy—A Framework for Loss Reduction

Circular 1244

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

Landslide overview map of the conterminous United States. Different colors denote areas of varying landslide occurrence. FromU.S. Geological Survey, 1997, Digital compilation of landslide overview map of the conterminous United States: U.S. GeologicalSurvey Open-File Report 97–0289, digital compilation by Jonathan W. Godt, available on the web athttp://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/pub/open-file-reports/ofr-97-0289/.

Front cover. Massive landslide at La Conchita, California, a small seaside community along Highway 101 north of Santa Barbara.This landslide and debris flow occurred in the spring of 1995. Many people were evacuated because of the slide, and the housesnearest the slide were completely destroyed. Fortunately, no one was killed or injured. Photograph by R.L. Schuster, U.S.Geological Survey.

National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy—A Framework for Loss ReductionBy Elliott C. Spiker and Paula L. Gori

Circular 1244

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Department of the InteriorGale A. Norton, SecretaryU.S. Geological SurveyCharles G. Groat, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2003

Free on application toU.S. Geological SurveyInformation ServicesBox 25286, Federal CenterDenver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:Telephone: 1–888–ASK–USGSWorld Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is fordescriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement bythe U.S. Government.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publications Data

Spiker, Elliott C.National landslide hazards mitigation strategy : a framework for loss reduction / by

Elliott C. Spiker and Paula Gori.p. cm.-- (Circular ; 1244)

Includes bibliographical references.1. Landslide hazard analysis--United States. I. Gori, Paula. II. Title. III. U.S.

Geological Survey circular ; 1244.

QE599.U5S65 2003.363.34’9--dc21 2002044779

PrefaceHouse Report 106–222 accompanying the Interior Appropriations Bill for fiscalyear 2000 (as incorporated in Public Law 106–113) states, "The committee isconcerned over the lack of attention given to the Survey’s landslide program.Because of this concern, the Survey is directed to develop by September 15,2000, a comprehensive strategy, including the estimated costs associated withaddressing the widespread landslide hazards facing the Nation. The preparationof this strategy should include the involvement of all parties having responsibili-ty for dealing with the problems associated with landslides."

In fulfillment of the requirements of Public Law 106–113, the United States Geo-logical Survey submits this circular, which describes a national strategy toreduce losses from landslides. The circular includes a summary of the Nation’sneeds for research, monitoring, mapping, and assessment of landslide hazardsnationwide.

iii

v

ContentsPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiExecutive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Losses from Landslide Hazards in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7A National Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The National Landslide Hazard Mitigation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Reaching the Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Major Elements and Strategic Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Element 1. Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Element 2. Hazard Mapping and Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Element 3. Real-Time Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Element 4. Loss Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Element 5. Information Collection, Interpretation, Dissemination, and Archiving . . . . 20Element 6. Guidelines and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Element 7. Public Awareness and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Element 8. Implementation of Loss Reduction Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Element 9. Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Action Items for a National Strategy for Reducing Losses from Landslides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Key Steps for Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28New and Enhanced Roles and Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Funding for the USGS to Implement a National Strategy for Reducing Losses

from Landslides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Expansion of the Work Performed by Scientists in the Landslide Hazards Program . . . 31Establishment of a New Cooperative Landslide Hazard Assessment and

Mapping Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Establishment of a New Cooperative Federal Land Management

Landslide Hazards Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Establishment of New Partnerships for Landslide Hazard Loss

Reduction Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Funding Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Major Accomplishments and Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Appendix 1. Previous Reports and Sources of Landslide Hazards Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Appendix 2. Meetings with Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Appendix 3. Landslide Hazards and Other Ground Failures—Causes and Types . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Appendix 4. Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Appendix 5. Landslide Hazards Maps and Risk Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Appendix 6. Current Landslide Research and Mitigation Activities and Responsibilities

in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Appendix 7. Federal Agency Landslide Hazard Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

vi

Highlights1. Massive Landslide at Thistle, Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52. Wildfires and Debris Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83. Building Disaster-Resistant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104. Debris-Flow Flume—Understanding Landslide Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125. Mapping Debris-Flow Hazards in Madison County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156. Real-Time Monitoring of Active Landslides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177. Inventory of Slope Failures in Oregon for Three 1996–97 Storm Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198. Warning of Potential Landslides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219. Alerting the Public to the Hazards of Mount Rainier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

10. Cincinnati, Ohio—A Leader in Landslide Loss Reduction Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2511. Daly City—The Human Cost of Landslides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figures1–4. Photographs showing—

1. Massive landslide at Thistle, Utah, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52. Debris flow near Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83. Landslide in northwest Seattle, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104. Debris-flow flume, 45 miles east of Eugene, Oregon, constructed to conduct

controlled experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125. Portion of debris-flow hazard map, Madison County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156. Diagram showing network for transmission of real-time landslide data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177. Photograph showing scientist measuring landslide movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178. Photograph showing scientists testing a solar-powered radio telemetry system for

remote transmission of real-time landslide data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179. Landslide-inventory map for three 1996–97 storm events in Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

10. Photographs showing debris flow in Pacifica, California, and house (inset) atedge of debris flow, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

11. Map showing hazard zones from lahars, lava flows, and pyroclastic flowsfrom Mount Rainier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

12. Photograph showing earthflow in Cincinnati, Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2513. Photograph showing gully retreat threatening evacuated houses in

Daly City, California, 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275–1. Maps of part of Seattle, Washington, showing (A) landslide inventory, (B) landslide

susceptibility, (C), Probability of landslide occurrence, (D) Probability of landslidedamage, and (E) Risk of loss due to landslides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table1. New roles and partnership opportunities under the National Landslide Hazards

Mitigation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

This circular outlines the key elements of a comprehensive and effectivenational strategy for reducing losses from landslides nationwide and providesan assessment of the status, needs, and associated costs of this strategy. The cir-cular is submitted in compliance with a directive of Public Law 106–113 (seepreface). A broad spectrum of expert opinion was sought in developing thisstrategy report, as requested by the U.S. Congress in House Report 106–222.

The strategy was developed in response to the rising costs resulting fromlandslide hazards in the United States and includes activities at the National,State, and local levels, in both the public and private sectors. The strategygives the Federal Government a prominent role in efforts to reduce losses dueto landslide hazards, in partnership with State and local governments. TheU.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has taken the lead in developing the strategyon behalf of the large multisector, multiagency stakeholder group involved inlandslide hazards mitigation. The USGS derives its leadership role in landslidehazard-related work from the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Stafford Act). Forexample, the Director of the USGS has been delegated the responsibility toissue disaster warnings for an earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, orother geologic catastrophe (1974 Disaster Relief Act 42 U.S.C. 5201 et seq).

The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy includes developingnew partnerships among government at all levels, academia, and the privatesector and expanding landslide research, mapping, assessment, real-time mon-itoring, forecasting, information management and dissemination, mitigationtools, and emergency preparedness and response. Such a strategy uses newtechnological advances, enlists the expertise associated with other related haz-ards such as floods, earthquakes and volcanic activity, and utilizes incentivesfor the adoption of loss reduction measures nationwide.

Executive Summary

1

National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy—A Framework for Loss ReductionBy Elliott C. Spiker and Paula L. Gori

"Science by itself will not protect us. Federal, State, and local governments, the private sector, volunteerand charitable organizations and individual citizens must work together in applying the science to makeour communities safer."

—Charles Groat, Director of the U.S. Geological Survey

The strategy envisions a society that is fully aware of landslide hazardsand routinely takes action to reduce both the risks and costs associated withthose hazards. The long-term mission of a comprehensive landslide hazardmitigation strategy is to provide and encourage the use of scientific informa-tion, maps, methodology, and guidance for emergency management, land-useplanning, and development and implementation of public and private policyto reduce losses from landslides and other ground-failure hazards nationwide.The 10-year goal is to substantially reduce the risk of loss of life, injuries,economic costs, and destruction of natural and cultural resources that resultfrom landslides and other ground-failure hazards.

This comprehensive National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategyemploys a wide range of scientific, planning, and policy tools to address var-ious aspects of the problem to effectively reduce losses from landslides andother ground failures. It has the following nine major elements, spanning acontinuum from research to the formulation and implementation of policyand mitigation:

• Research.—Developing a predictive understanding of landslide processes and triggering mechanism

• Hazard mapping and assessments.—Delineating susceptible areas anddifferent types of landslide hazards at a scale useful for planning anddecisionmaking

• Real-time monitoring.—Monitoring active landslides that pose sub-stantial risk

• Loss assessment.—Compiling and evaluating information on the eco-nomic impacts of landslide hazards

• Information collection, interpretation, and dissemination.—Establishing an effective system for information transfer

• Guidelines and training.—Developing guidelines and training for sci-entists, engineers, and decisionmakers

• Public awareness and education.—Developing information and educa-tion for the user community

• Implementation of loss reduction measures.—Encouraging mitigationaction

• Emergency preparedness, response, and recovery.—Building resilientcommunities

In each of the above nine elements above, the USGS has a significant role;however, the USGS is not the lead for all elements.

2

Landslide hazards mitigation requires collaboration among academia, gov-ernment, and the private sector. Aggressive implementation of a comprehen-sive and effective national landslide hazards mitigation strategy requiresincreased investment in landslide hazard research, mapping and monitoring,and mitigation activities. Reducing losses from landslide hazards can beaccomplished in part by expanding the existing USGS Landslide HazardProgram, as follows:

• Expansion of research, assessment, monitoring, public information,and response efforts by USGS scientists ($8 million annually)

• Establishment of a Cooperative Landslide Hazard Assessment andMapping Program to increase the efforts of State and local govern-ments to map and assess landslide hazards within their jurisdictionsthrough competitive grants ($8 million annually, to be augmentedwith 30 percent matching funds by the States and local jurisdictions)

• Establishment of a Cooperative Federal Land Management LandslideHazard Program to increase the capability of the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, andother such organizations to address landslide hazards under theirjurisdictions ($2 million annually for work performed by USGS sci-entists on public lands)

• Establishment of a Partnerships for Landslide Hazard Loss ReductionProgram to support research and implementation efforts by universi-ties, local governments, and the private sector through competitivegrants ($2 million annually)

Total new funding required for full implementation of the National LandslideHazards Mitigation Strategy within the USGS is estimated to be approximate-ly $20 million annually.

An effective National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy also dependson stronger partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments and theprivate sector in the areas of hazard assessments, monitoring, and emergencyresponse and recovery. The strategy recommended in this circular advocatesenhanced coordination among Federal, State, and local agencies to partnereffectively with the academic and the private sectors and to leverage sharedresources under the leadership of the USGS.

3

Landslides and other forms of ground failure affect communities all acrossthe Nation. Despite advances in science and technology, these events continueto result in human suffering, billions of dollars in property losses, and environ-mental degradation. As our population increases and our society becomes evermore complex, the economic and societal costs of landslides and other groundfailures will continue to rise.

We have the capability as a Nation to understand and identify these haz-ards and to implement mitigation measures. For many years, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the States, numerous universities, and the privatesector have been grappling with understanding and reducing landslide hazards,and they have developed an extensive body of knowledge (see appendix 1 forsources of information). However, to achieve the goal of significantly reducinglosses from landslide hazards, we need a much more comprehensive scientificunderstanding of landslide processes and occurrence, a robust monitoring pro-gram to warn of impending danger from active landslides, a much greater pub-lic awareness and understanding of the threat and the options for reducing therisk, and action at the local level.

A significant, sustained, long-term effort to reduce losses from landslidesand other ground failures in the United States will require a national commit-ment among all levels of government and the private sector. The FederalGovernment, in partnership with State and local governments, must provideleadership, coordination, research support, incentives, and resources to encour-age communities, businesses, and individuals to undertake mitigation to mini-mize potential losses and to employ mitigation in the recovery following land-slides and other natural hazard events.

The USGS is the recognized authority for understanding landslide hazardsin the United States and the long-time leader in this area. The USGS derivesits leadership role in landslide-hazard-related work from the Disaster ReliefAct of 1974 (Stafford Act). The Director of the USGS has been delegated theresponsibility to issue disaster warnings for an earthquake, volcanic eruption,landslide, or other geologic catastrophe consistent with the 1974 DisasterRelief Act 42 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.

As requested by the U.S. Congress in House Report 106–222, the USGShas prepared this National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy on behalf ofthe large multisector, multiagency stakeholder group involved in landslideresearch and mitigation nationwide. A number of stakeholder workshops wereheld during 1999 and 2000 with representatives of government and privateorganizations, academicians, and private citizens to seek their opinion andinput (see appendix 2 for more information about the stakeholder workshops).

Introduction

4

The 1983 Thistle landslide beganmoving in the spring of 1983 inresponse to ground-water buildupfrom heavy rains the previousSeptember and melting snowpackfrom the winter of 1983. Within a fewweeks, the landslide dammed theSpanish Fork River, consequentlyobliterating U.S. Highway 6 and themain line of the Denver and RioGrande Western Railroad (fig. 1).

The town of Thistle was inundat-ed by the floodwaters rising behindthe landslide dam. Eventually a drainsystem was engineered to drain the

lake and avert a potential disaster.The landslide reached a state of equi-librium across the valley, but fears ofreactivation caused the railway toconstruct a tunnel through bedrockaround the slide zone at a cost of mil-lions of dollars. The highway likewisewas realigned around the landslide.When the lake was drained, residualmuck partially buried the town, and vir-tually no one returned to Thistle. Totalcosts (direct and indirect) incurred bythis landslide exceeded $400 million,making this the most costly singlelandslide event in U.S. history.

Figure 1. The 1983 Thistle landslide,central Utah. Thistle Lake, whichresulted from damming of the SpanishFork River, was later drained as a pre-cautionary measure. This view, takenabout 6 months after the slideoccurred, shows the realignment of the

Denver and Rio Grande WesternRailroad lines in the lower center andthe large cut for rerouting U.S.Highway 6/50 on the extreme left sideof the photograph. Photograph by R.L. Schuster, U.S.Geological Survey.

Highlight 1—Massive Landslide atThistle, Utah

5

The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy provides a frame-work for reducing losses from landslides and other ground failures.Although the strategy is national in scope, it is not exclusively Federal oreven exclusively governmental. Mitigation, defined as any sustainedaction taken to reduce and eliminate long-term risk to life and property,generally occurs at the State and local levels, and the strategy is based onpartnerships with stakeholders at all levels of government and in theprivate sector.

The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy described hereincorporates many ideas and recommendations of previous studies andreports that expressed the need for a national strategy to address naturalhazards, including landslides and other ground failures (see appendix 1).These earlier studies and reports should be referred to for more in-depthdiscussions of and insights into landslide hazard mitigation and researchneeds. The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy builds on theprinciples, goals, and objectives of the National Mitigation Strategy—Partnerships for Building Safer Communities, developed in 1996 by theFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to encourage mitigationof all forms of natural hazards in the United States.

The term "landslide" describes many types of downhill earth move-ments, ranging from rapidly moving catastrophic rock avalanches anddebris flows in mountainous regions to more slowly moving earth slidesand other ground failures. In addition to the different types of landslides,the broader scope of ground failure includes subsidence, permafrost, andshrinking soils. This report focuses on landslides, the most critical ground-failure problem facing most regions of the Nation. However, the NationalLandslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy provides a framework that can beapplied to other ground-failure hazards (see appendix 3 for more informa-tion about different types of landslide hazards and other forms of groundfailure).

6

Landslides are among the most widespread geologic hazards on Earth.Landslides cause billions of dollars in damages and thousands of deaths andinjuries each year around the world. Landslides threaten lives and property inevery State in the Nation, resulting in an estimated 25 to 50 deaths and dam-age exceeding $2 billion annually. Although most landslides in the UnitedStates occur as separate, widely distributed events, thousands of landslides canbe triggered by a single severe storm and earthquake, causing spectaculardamage in a short time over a wide area.

The United States has experienced several catastrophic landslide disastersin recent years. In 1985, a massive slide in southern Puerto Rico killed 129people, the greatest loss of life from a single landslide in U.S. history. The1982–83 and 1983–84 El Niño seasons triggered landslide events that affectedthe entire Western United States, including California, Washington, Utah,Nevada, and Idaho. The Thistle, Utah, landslide of 1983 caused $400 millionin losses, the most expensive single landslide in U.S. history, and the 1997–98El Niño rainstorms in the San Francisco Bay area produced thousands of land-slides, causing over $150 million in direct public and private costs.

Landslides are a significant component of many major natural disastersand are responsible for greater losses than is generally recognized. Landslidedamage is often reported as a result of a triggering event—floods, earthquakes,or volcanic eruptions—even though the losses from landsliding may exceed allother losses from the overall disaster. For example, flash floods in mountain-ous areas often have devastating debris flows. Also, most of the losses due tothe 1964 Alaska earthquake resulted from ground failure rather than fromshaking of structures, and landslides associated with a major earthquake inAfghanistan and with Hurricane Mitch in Central America in 1998 caused themajority of fatalities in these disasters.

All 50 States and the U.S. Territories experience landslides and otherground-failure problems; 36 States have moderate to highly severe landslidehazards. The greatest landslide damage occurs in the Appalachian, RockyMountain, and Pacific Coast regions and Puerto Rico. Seismically activemountainous regions, such as those in Alaska, Hawaii, and the West Coast areespecially at risk. Extremely vulnerable are areas where wildfires havedestroyed vegetation, exposing barren ground to heavy rainfall.

Landslide losses are increasing in the United States and worldwide asdevelopment expands under pressures of increasing populations. The resultingencroachment of developments into hazardous areas, expansion of transporta-tion infrastructure, deforestation of landslide-prone areas, and changing cli-mate patterns may lead to continually increasing landslide losses. However, anincrease in the cost of landslide hazards can be curbed through better under-standing and mapping of the hazards and improved capabilities to mitigate andrespond to the hazards.

Losses from LandslideHazards in the UnitedStates

7

Colorado River (fig. 2). A 3-mile lengthof the highway was buried under tonsof rock, mud, and burned trees. Theclosure of Interstate 70 imposed cost-ly delays on this major transcontinen-tal highway. The USGS assisted inanalyzing the debris-flow threat andinstalling monitoring and warning sys-tems to alert local safety officialswhen high-intensity rainfall occurredor debris flows passed through a sus-ceptible canyon. Similar debris flowsthreaten other transportation corri-dors and other development in andnear fire-ravaged hillsides.From Highland, L.M., Ellen, S.D.,Christian, S.B., and Brown, W.M., III,1997, Debris-flow hazards in theUnited States: U.S. Geological SurveyFact Sheet FS–176–97, available onthe web athttp://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/factsheets/debrisflowfs.pdf.

During the summer of 2000,numerous wildfires burned drought-parched areas of the Western UnitedStates. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)scientists were enlisted to adviseFederal and State emergencyresponse teams on the potential forfuture debris flows in burned areas,such as the Cerro Grande fire (LosAlamos, New Mexico) and the Hi-Meadow and Bobcat fires (Colorado).

Debris flows often occur duringthe fall and winter following majorsummer fires. One such combinationof fires and debris flows occurred inJuly 1994, when a severe wildfireswept Storm King Mountain west ofGlenwood Springs, Colorado, denud-ing the slopes of vegetation. Heavyrains on the mountain the followingSeptember caused numerous debrisflows, one of which blocked Interstate70 and threatened to dam the

Highlight 2—Wildfires and Debris Flows

8

Figure 2. Debris flows like this one nearGlenwood Springs, Colorado, in 1994are a consequence of heavy rainfall onpreviously burned hillsides. In additionto personal injuries and damage to 30vehicles engulfed by these flows, trans-portation along the Interstate 70 corri-dor was brought to a standstill for a day,and business and emergency opera-tions in the Glenwood Springs areawere seriously impeded. Photograph byJim Scheidt, U.S. Bureau of LandManagement.

Landslides and other ground failures impose many direct and indirectcosts on society. Direct costs include the actual damage sustained by buildingsand property, ranging from the expense of cleanup and repair to replacement.Indirect costs are harder to measure and include business disruption, loss oftax revenues, reduced property values, loss of productivity, losses in tourism,and losses from litigation. The indirect costs often exceed the direct costs.Much of the economic loss is borne by Federal, State, and local agencies thatare responsible for disaster assistance and highway maintenance and repair.

Landslides have a significant adverse effect on infrastructure and threatentransportation corridors, fuel and energy conduits, and communications link-ages. Ground-failure events have devastating economic effects on Federal,State, local, and private roads, bridges, and tunnels every year. Railroads,pipelines, electric and telecommunication lines, dams, offshore oil and gasproduction facilities, port facilities, and waste repositories continually areaffected by land movement. Road building and construction often exacerbatethe landslide problem in hilly areas by altering the landscape, slopes, anddrainages and by changing and channeling runoff, thereby increasing thepotential for landslides. Landslides and others forms of ground failure alsohave adverse environmental consequences, such as dramatically increased soilerosion, siltation of streams and reservoirs, blockage of stream drainages, andloss of valuable watershed, grazing, and timber lands.

9

ard map. This map includes Seattle'sdetailed topographic database andrelated geographic data, detailed pre-cipitation data collected by theNational Weather Service, geographicinformation system support for com-pleting the maps, and a landslidedatabase from city records that dateback to the late 1800s. USGS scien-tists are analyzing city data along withother information to determine thedegree of landslide hazard throughoutthe city. The scientists are also con-ducting studies to determine the prob-ability that landslides will result fromstorms of different magnitudes.

The Disaster-ResistantCommunities project has resulted inunprecedented awareness of land-slide hazards by the private sector.For example, major mortgage bankershave realized that they hold mort-gages on many properties in areas ofsignificant landslide hazard in Seattleand elsewhere in the United Statesand are beginning to take steps toencourage homeowners to mitigatethe hazards.

An outstanding example of pub-lic-private partnerships is the FederalEmergency Management Agency’s(FEMA) Disaster-Resistant Communitiesproject (formerly called ProjectImpact). Nearly 200 communities andmore than 1,100 business partnershave embraced this project since itsinception in 1997. Rather than waitingfor disasters to occur, communitiestake action to reduce potentially dev-astating disasters. Seattle Washington,a city that is exposed to significantlandslide hazards, was one of the firstcommunities in the United States tojoin.

In conjunction with FEMA, thecity of Seattle collaborated with theU.S. Geological Survey (USGS) todevelop landslide hazard maps thatwill enable the city to be better pre-pared for landslide emergencies andto reduce losses resulting from land-slide disasters (fig. 3). The city madeavailable information needed by USGSscientists to accurately assess land-slide hazards in the area and to pro-duce a computer-based landslide haz-

Highlight 3—Building Disaster-ResistantCommunities

Figure 3. Landslide in northwest Seattle,Washington. Foundation of the house onthe right edge of the photograph andthe decks of neighboring houses havebeen undermined. Photograph by Alan F. Chleborad, U.S. Geological Survey.

10

Society is far from helpless in the face of these prospects.Improvements in our scientific understanding of landslides and otherground-failure hazards can provide more accurate delineation of hazardousareas and assessments of their hazard potential. This information can bedeveloped in a form and at a scale meaningful and useful for decisionmak-ing. Cost-effective actions can be taken to reduce the loss of lives and prop-erty, damage to the environment, and economic and social disruptioncaused by landslides and other ground failures (see appendix 4 for moreinformation about mitigation techniques).

Government at all levels plays critical roles in advancing landslidehazard mitigation and developing programs and incentives that encourageand support community-based implementation. A national strategy toreduce losses from landslides and other ground failures must have bothresearch and implementation components to increase understanding oflandslides and other ground failures and put existing knowledge to use toreduce losses. Developing durable and comprehensive solutions to landslidesand other ground-failure hazards will require a continuing dialog amongand concerted action by all sectors of our society.

A new public-private partnership is needed at the Federal, State, andlocal levels to foster continuing cooperation among geologists, engineers,hydrologists, planners, and decisionmakers regarding landslides and othernatural hazards. This ongoing effort will, over time, help to ensure that theneeded scientific and engineering information is developed in a form usefulfor planning and decisionmaking and that such information is applied tomitigate these hazards.

A National Strategy

11

of the flume permit measurements offorces due to particles sliding andcolliding at the based of flows.Additional insight can be gained byusing ultrasound imaging to "see"into the interior of flows and bydeploying "smart rocks" containingminiature computers that record therocks’ accelerations as they movedown the flume.

To create a debris flow, 20 cubicmeters (about 40 tons) of saturatedsediment are placed behind a steelgate at the head of the flume and thenreleased. Alternatively, a slopingmass of sediment can be placedbehind a retaining wall at the flumehead and watered until slope failureoccurs. The ensuing debris flowdescends the flume and forms adeposit at the flume base. The flumedesign thus accommodates researchon all stages of the debris-flowprocess, from initiation throughdeposition.

From Iverson, R.M., Costa, J.E., andLaHusen, R.G., 1982, Debris flowflume at H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon: U.S.Geological Survey Open-File Report 92–483, 2 p.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) scien-tists recreate debris flows in a flumethat has been constructed to conductcontrolled experiments (fig. 4).Located about 45 miles east ofEugene, Oregon, this unique facilityprovides research opportunities avail-able nowhere else in the UnitedStates. USGS and USFS scientistsconduct experiments to improve theunderstanding of ground vibrationscaused by debris flows and to refineautomated debris-flow detection sys-tems. The flume also provides anideal environment for testing landslidecontrols that deflect, trap, or channel-ize debris flows. Experiments thatassess how debris flows react to andact upon such controls can be usedto guide and evaluate engineeringdesigns.

The debris-flow flume is a rein-forced concrete channel 310 feetlong, 6.6 feet wide, and 4 feet deepthat slopes 31 degrees, an angle typi-cal of terrain where natural debrisflows originate. Removable glass win-dows built into the side of the flumeallow flows to be observed and pho-tographed as they sweep past. A totalof 18 data-collection ports in the floor

Highlight 4—Debris-Flow Flume—Understanding LandslideProcesses

Figure 4. The U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) debris-flow flume is located inH.J. Andrews Experimental Forest,Oregon. The flume was constructed toconduct controlled debris-flow experi-ments. Photograph courtesy of theUSGS, taken September 13, 2001.

12

The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy described hereinenvisions a society that is fully aware of landslide hazards and routinely takesaction to reduce both the risks and costs associated with those hazards. Thestrategy envisions bringing together relevant scientific, engineering, construc-tion, planning, and policy capabilities of the Nation to eliminate losses fromlandslides and other ground-failure hazards nationwide.

The long-term mission of such a strategy is to provide and encourage theuse of scientific information, maps, methodology, and guidance for emergencymanagement, land-use planning, and development and implementation of pub-lic and private policy to reduce losses from landslides and other ground-failurehazards nationwide.

The strategic plan described in this report has nine major elements, span-ning a continuum from research to the formulation and implementation of pol-icy and mitigation objectives. Implementation of such a strategy will demand amultiyear coordinated public and private effort. All levels of government andthe private sector share responsibility for addressing these priorities andaccomplishing the objectives. Some of the objectives consist of a single, dis-crete action; others encompass a series of interdependent actions to be takenover the first 10 years of implementation. Although the primary focus is onlandslide hazards, the national strategy provides a framework for addressingother forms of ground failure as well.

The USGS has a role in each of the nine elements as a provider of land-slide hazard information; however, the lead and participants in each elementdiffer with the nature of the element.

The NationalLandslide HazardsMitigation Strategy

13

Reaching the Goal

Research to develop a predictive understanding of landslide processes andtriggering mechanisms will be led by the USGS. Hazard identification is acornerstone of landslide hazard mitigation. Although many aspects of land-slide hazards are well understood, a much more comprehensive understandingof landslide processes and mechanisms is required to truly advance our abilityto predict the behavior of differing types of landslides. The following actionswill increase the Nation’s capability to forecast landslide hazards throughenhanced research, the application of new technology, and an increased under-standing of landslide processes, thresholds, and triggering mechanisms:

• Develop a national research agenda and a multiyear implementationplan based on the current state of scientific knowledge concerninglandslide hazard processes, thresholds, and triggers and on the abili-ty to predict landslide hazard behavior

• Develop improved, more realistic scientific models of ground deforma-tion and slope failure processes and implement their use in predictinglandslide hazards nationwide

• Develop dynamic landslide prediction systems capable of interactivelydisplaying changing landslide hazards in both space and time in areasprone to different types of landslide hazards (for example, shallowdebris flows during intense rain, deep-seated slides during months ofwet weather, and rock avalanches during an earthquake)

Efforts to delineate susceptible areas and different types of landslide haz-ards at a scale useful for planning and decisionmaking will be led by theUSGS and State Geological Surveys. Landslide inventory and landslide sus-ceptibility maps are critically needed in landslide-prone regions of the Nation.These maps must be sufficiently detailed to support mitigation action at thelocal level. To cope with the many uncertainties involved in landslide hazards,probabilistic methods are being developed to map and assess landslide hazards(see appendix 5 for more information about mapping and assessing landslidehazards). Risk assessments estimate the potential economic impact of land-slide hazard events. Landslide inventory and susceptibility maps and otherdata are a critical first step and are prerequisite to producing probabilistic haz-ard maps and risk assessments, but these maps and data are not yet availablefor most areas of the United States. The following actions will provide thenecessary maps and assessments and other information to officials andplanners to reduce risk and losses:

• Develop and implement a plan for mapping and assessing landslideand other ground-failure hazards nationwide

• Develop an inventory of known landslide and other ground-failurehazards nationwide

• Develop and encourage the use of standards and guidelines for land-slide hazard maps and assessments

Major Elements andStrategic Objectives

Element 1. Research

Element 2. HazardMapping andAssessments

14

Figure 5. Portion of debris-flow hazardmap, Madison County, Virginia. FromMorgan, B.A., Wieczorek, G.F., andCampbell, R.H., 1999, Historical andpotential debris-flow and flood hazardmap of the area affected by the June27, 1995, storm in Madison County,Virginia: U.S. Geological SurveyGeologic Investigations Series MapI–2623–B, 1 sheet.

Highlight 5—Mapping Debris-Flow Hazardsin Madison County, Virginia

15

A major landslide event occurredin Madison County, Virginia, in thesummer of 1995. During an intensestorm on June 27th, 30 inches of rainfell in 16 hours. In mountainous areas,rain-saturated landslides known asdebris flows were triggered by thehundreds, causing extensive devasta-tion and one fatality.

Historical records tell us thatdestructive landslides and debrisflows in the Appalachian Mountainsoccur when unusually heavy rain fromhurricanes and intense storms soaksthe ground, reducing the ability ofsteep slopes to resist the downslopepull of gravity. For example, duringHurricane Camille in 1969, such condi-tions generated debris flows inNelson County, Virginia, 90 milessouth of Madison County. The stormcaused 150 deaths, mostly attributedto debris flows, and more than $100million in property damage. Likewise,72 hours of storms in Virginia andWest Virginia during early November1985 caused debris flows and floodingin the Potomac and Cheat Riverbasins that were responsible for 70deaths and $1.3 billion in damage tohomes, businesses, roads, and farm-lands.

Scientists from the U.S.Geological Survey have developed aninventory of landslides, debris flows,and flooding from the storm of June27, 1995, by using aerial photography,field investigations, rainfall measure-ments from rain gages, and NationalWeather Service radar observations.This inventory and a new debris-flowhazard map (fig. 5) are being used tohelp understand the conditions thatled to the floods and debris flowscaused by the 1995 summer storms inVirginia and to suggest methods ofmitigating the effects of such eventsin the future.

From Gori, P.L., and Burton, W.C., 1996,Debris-flow hazards in the Blue Ridgeof Virginia: U.S. Geological SurveyFact Sheet FS–159–96, 4 p.

Studies to monitor active landslides that pose substantial risk will be ledby the USGS. Monitoring active landslides serves the dual purpose of provid-ing hazard warning in time to avoid or lessen losses, as well as supportinglandslide research by providing new insights into landslide processes and trig-gering mechanisms. Collection of rare dynamic movement behavior dataenables the testing of landslide velocity models and the development ofimproved predictive tools applicable to other slides. Development and applica-tion of real-time monitoring of active landslides using state-of-the-art researchand telecommunications technologies are critically needed nationwide in casesof imminent risk. The following actions will provide the necessary warningand other information to officials and communities to avoid or reduce losses:

• Develop and implement a national landslide hazard monitoring andprediction capability

• Develop real-time monitoring and prediction capabilities on both sitespecific and regional scales, to assist Federal, State, and local emer-gency managers determine the nature of landslide hazards and theextent of ongoing risks

• Apply remote-sensing technologies such as Synthetic Aperture radarand laser altimetry for monitoring landslide movement nationwide

• Incorporate state-of-the-art techniques such as microseismicity andrainfall and pore-pressure monitoring with hydrologically based modelsof slope stability and global positioning systems (GPS)

• Integrate real-time monitoring capabilities with the National WeatherService’s NEXRAD capabilities in selected locations nationwide

Element 3. Real-TimeMonitoring

16

Highlight 6—Real-Time Monitoring ofActive Landslides

Five landslides that threaten U.S.Highway 50 and nearby homes inSierra Nevada, California, are beingmonitored by the U.S. Geological Sur-vey (USGS) after heavy rains inJanuary 1997 generated debris flowsthat blocked Highway 50. The cost ofreopening the highway was $4.5 mil-lion, with indirect economic lossesfrom closure of the highway amount-ing to an additional $50 million. Tomonitor the risk posed by landslidesin this area, the USGS, in cooperationwith local, State, and other FederalAgencies, provides continuous real-time monitoring of landslide activityusing a system developed by theUSGS for monitoring active volcanoesin remote areas (fig. 6).

This system measures groundmovement and ground-water pres-sures every second. Slope movementis recorded by instruments that detectstretching and shortening of theground (fig. 7). Ground vibrationscaused by slide movement are moni-tored by geophones buried within theslide. Ground-water conditions withinthe slides are monitored by sensors,and rain gauges record precipitation.Under normal conditions, data aretransmitted to USGS computers every10 minutes, but if strong ground vibra-tions caused by massive landslidemovement are detected, data aretransmitted immediately (fig. 8).

The USGS operates other remotereal-time landslide monitoring sites.Near Seattle, Washington, a real-timesystem monitors a slide threatening amajor railway, and in Rio Nido,California, another system monitors alarge landslide threatening more than140 homes. Remote monitoring alsocan record the effects of wildfire indestabilizing slopes.

From Reid, M.E., LaHusen, R.G., andEllis, W.L., 1999, Real-time monitoringof active landslides: U.S. GeologicalSurvey Fact Sheet FS–91–99, 2 p.

17

Figure 8. Testing a solar-powered radiotelemetry system for remote transmissionof real-time landslide data. Photograph byMark Reid, U.S. Geological Survey.

Figure 7. Measuring landslide movement.Photograph by Richard LaHusen, U.S.Geological Survey.

Figure 6. Network for transmission ofreal-time landslide data.

A project compiling and evaluating information on the economic impactsof landslide hazards will be led by FEMA and the insurance industry.Although losses from landslides and other natural hazards are frequent andwidespread, these losses are not consistently compiled and tracked in theUnited States. Following a landslide or other natural hazard event, a variety ofdifferent agencies and organizations may provide damage estimates, but theseestimates usually vary widely, cover a range of different costs, and changethrough time. The National Research Council concluded in their 1999 report"The Impact of Natural Disasters—A Framework for Loss Estimation" thatthere is no widely accepted framework for estimating the losses from naturaldisasters, including landslide and other ground-failure hazards. This lack ofinformation makes it difficult to set policies for coping with these hazards anddifficult to gage the cost-effectiveness of policy decisions and effectiveness ofmitigation measures. Loss data are critically needed to help government agen-cies identify trends and track progress in reducing losses from landslides. Thefollowing actions will provide a framework for compiling and assessing acomprehensive data base of losses from landslides and other ground -failurehazards, which will help guide research, mapping, and mitigation activitiesnationwide:

• Assess the current status of data on losses from landslides and otherground failures nationwide, including the types and extent of losses topublic and private property, infrastructure, and natural and culturalresources

• Establish and implement a national strategy for compilation, mainte-nance, and evaluation of data on the economic and environmentalimpacts of landslide and other ground-failure hazards nationwide tohelp guide mitigation activities and track progress

Element 4. LossAssessment

18

Three significant PacificNorthwest storm events in February1996, November 1996, and lateDecember 1996 and early January1997 initiated widespread slope fail-ures throughout Oregon. Each ofthese storms was declared a "MajorPresidential Disaster Declaration,"and damages to natural resourcesand infrastructure were extreme. Inthe Portland metropolitan region,Oregon’s largest city, more than 700slope failures were associated withthe heavy rains in 1996, with 17houses completely destroyed and 64partially condemned. An estimate ofstatewide public and private damagesincurred from the February 1996 eventalone is $280 million.

To better characterize the distri-bution and magnitude of the slopefailures associated with the threestorms, the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency provided fund-ing for the consolidation of a landslideinventory (fig. 9). The OregonDepartment of Geology and MineralIndustries led the consolidation effortand utilized various methods to con-tact potential data sources, informthem of the existence of the study,and request their participation. Thisinventory will help lead to a greaterunderstanding of regional landslideissues and assist government andcommunity agencies in devisingmeans to minimize the threat to publichealth and property that landslidespose.

Over 9,000 landslide locationswere incorporated into the inventory,with varying amounts of informationreported for each. Many other slideswere not observed or recorded, and itis estimated that two to three timesthis many landslides occurred duringthe time period. As shown on thelandslide inventory map, the vastmajority (98 percent) of the entriesare in the western portion of theState. Most of these slides occurred

Highlight 7—Inventory of Slope Failures inOregon for Three 1996–97Storm Events

19

Figure 9. Landslide inventory for three1996–97 storm events in Oregon.

in the Oregon Coast Range and Cas-cade province, with fewer in theWillamette Valley and Klamath Moun-tains.

From Hofmeister, R.J., 2000, Databaseof slope failures in Oregon for three1996/97 storm events: OregonDepartment of Geology and MineralIndustries.

The effort to establish an effective system for information transfer willbe led by the USGS and State Geological Surveys. Collecting and dissemi-nating landslide hazards information to Federal, State, and local governmentagencies; nongovernmental organizations; planners; policymakers; and pri-vate citizens in a form useful for planning and decisionmaking are criticallyimportant to an effective mitigation program. Although landslide hazardshave been studied for decades, a systematic effort to collect and distributescientific and technical information is in its relative infancy. The USGSNational Landslide Information Center is a prototype system that can beenhanced and extended into a robust nationwide system for the collection,interpretation, and dissemination of landslide hazard maps, assessments, andother scientific and landslide hazard technical information. The followingobjectives will make landslide hazard information accessible to scientists,officials, decisionmakers, and the public to assist research, planning, policy,and mitigation activities:

• Evaluate and use state-of-the-art technologies and methodologies forthe dissemination of technical information, research results, maps, andreal-time warnings of potential landslide activity

• Develop and implement a national strategy for the systematic collec-tion, interpretation, archiving, and distribution of this information

Element 5. InformationCollection, Interpretation,Dissemination, andArchiving

20

An experimental monitoring andwarning system was developed andoperated jointly by the U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS) and the NationalWeather Service (NWS) from the1980s to 1995 in the San FranciscoBay region (fig. 10). The system used(1) NWS protocols and outlets forissuing warnings and (2) regional net-works of NWS and USGS rain gagesand soil-moisture instruments to trackrainfall and soil-moisture conditions.Rainfall thresholds for triggering land-slides were determined on the basisof observed relationships betweenrainfall intensity and duration and theoccurrence of landslides. When real-time data and high precision fore-casting by the NWS indicated that therainfall threshold for landslides had orwould soon be reached, USGS scien-tists informed the NWS to issue awarning through normal media chan-nels. The media, government officials,

Highlight 8—Warning of PotentialLandslides

21

and the general public in the bay areacame to rely on these warnings andtook specific actions such as evacu-ating neighborhoods at particular risk.

Under the National LandslideHazards Mitigation Strategy, next-gen-eration landslide warning systems willbe implemented in landslide-proneregions nationwide. Precipitation, soilmoisture, and pore-pressure data willtelemetered in real time to networkcenters for processing and analysis.These measurements will help definethe precipitation thresholds and sup-plement the NWS NEXRAD (NextGeneration Radar) network and otherprecipitation data and forecasts pro-vided by the NWS or local agencies.Warnings of potential landslide activi-ty that might be triggered by storms orextended rainy periods will be issuedin cooperation with the NWS andFederal and State emergency man-agement agencies.

Figure 10. Debris flow from a steep hillslope in Pacifica, California, about 10 miles southof San Francisco, where three children were killed and two homes destroyed on January4, 1982. Inset, View of destroyed homes from the street. Photograph by Gerald Wieczorek,U.S. Geological Survey. From U.S. Geological Survey, 1995, Debris-flow hazards in theSan Francisco Bay region: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS–112–95, 2 p. Availableon the web at http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/pub/fact-sheets/fs-0112-95/.

Efforts to develop guidelines and training for scientists, engineers, and deci-sionmakers will be led by the USGS and professional societies. The study oflandslide hazards is an area of active research and technological application, andthere is a critical need for guidelines and training for scientists and engineers in thedevelopment of landslide maps and assessments. Hazard assessments involveassumptions and calculations about the magnitude and return frequency in specificgeographic settings. Risk assessments involve assumptions about the potentialphysical and economic impacts of landslide hazard events. The development andpresentation of the results in terms that are useful to citizens and decisionmakersare critically important to effective mitigation. Likewise, development of guidelinesand training for planners and other decisionmakers in the use of these maps andassessments are important to encouraging its appropriate use by the user community.The following are high priority objectives related to guidelines and training:

• Develop and implement guidelines and training for scientists and geo-technical engineers in the use of landslide hazard and other technicalinformation for mapping and assessing landslide hazards

• Develop and implement guidelines and training for scientists and geo-technical engineers for responding to landslide disasters and providingneeded scientific and technical information for response and recoveryefforts

• Develop and implement guidelines and training for planners and deci-sionmakers in the use of landslide hazard maps, assessments, and othertechnical information for planning, preparedness, and mitigation

Efforts to develop information and education programs for the user com-munity will be led by FEMA and the USGS. Before individuals and communi-ties can reduce their risk from landslide hazards, they need to know the natureof the threat, its potential impact on them and their community, their optionsfor reducing the risk or impact, and methods for carrying out specific mitiga-tion measures. Achieving widespread public awareness of landslide hazardswill enable communities and individuals to make informed decisions on whereto live, purchase property, or locate a business. Local decisionmakers willknow where to permit construction of residences, business, and critical facili-ties to reduce potential damage from landslide hazards. The following actionswill raise public awareness of landslide hazards and encourage landslide hazardpreparedness and mitigation activities nationwide, tailored to local needs:

• Develop public awareness, training, and education programs involvingland-use planning, design, landslide hazard curriculums, landslide haz-ard safety programs, and community risk reduction

• Evaluate the effectiveness of different methods, messages, and curricu-lums in the context of local needs

• Disseminate landslide-hazard-related curriculums and training modulesto community organizations, universities, and professional societiesand associations

Element 6. Guidelines andTraining

Element 7. PublicAwareness andEducation

22

Mount Rainier in WashingtonState is an active volcano that is cur-rently at rest between eruptions. Itsnext eruption may produce volcanicash, lava flows, or pyroclastic flows(fig. 11). Pyroclastic flows are hotavalanches of lava fragments and gasformed by volcanic eruptions.Pyroclastic flows can rapidly meltsnow and ice, and the resulting melt-water torrent may produce lahars (thewidely used Indonesian word for vol-canic mudflows and debris flows) thattravel down valleys beyond the baseof the volcano. Lahars may also occurduring noneruptive times when a sec-tion of the volcano collapses.

Lahars look and behave likerapidly flowing concrete, and theirimpact can destroy most manmadestructures. Historically at MountRainier, they have traveled 45–50miles per hour in thicknesses of 100feet or more in confined valleys, slow-ing and thinning as they flowed intowider valleys, most of which are pop-ulated. At Mount Rainier, lahars posea greater risk than other volcanichazards, such as lava and poisonousgases.

The likely courses of lahars arethe river valleys that drain MountRainier. Four of the five major riversystems flow westward into suburbanareas of Pierce County. The U.S.Geological Survey mapped the likelyflow pathways and has joined withlocal, county, and State agencies todevelop a Mount Rainier hazards planthat will address such issues asemergency response operations andstrategies for expanded publicawareness and mitigation.

From Scott, K.M., Wolfe, E.W., andDriedger, C.L., 1998, Mount Rainier;living with perilous beauty: U.S.Geological Survey Fact SheetFS–065–97, 4 p. and Hoblitt, R.P.,Walder, J.S., Driedger, C.L., Scott,K.M., Pringle, P.T., and Vallance, J.W.,1998 (rev.), Volcano hazards fromMount Rainier, Washington: U.S.Geological Survey Open-File Report98–428, 11 p., 2 oversize sheets.

23

Highlight 9—Alerting the Public to theHazards of Mount Rainier

Figure 11. Hazard zones from lahars, lava flows, and pyroclastic flows from MountRainier. From Scott, K.M., Wolfe, E.W., and Driedger, C.L., 1998, Mount Rainier; livingwith perilous beauty: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS–065–97, 4 p.

Efforts to encourage mitigation action will be led by FEMA, Statedepartments of emergency services, and professional societies. A successfulstrategy for reducing landslide losses must also include a mitigation compo-nent. Mitigation actions generally fall to State and local governments, busi-nesses, and individuals. As a result, societal attitudes and perceptions canpresent formidable obstacles to landslide hazards reduction. Few communi-ties have considered the full range of mitigation options despite their feasi-bility and cost effectiveness. Mitigation measures at the local level includea range of tools and techniques, such as land-use planning, regulation ofdevelopment, engineering controls, building codes, assessment districts,emergency planning and warning, and private financial and insurance incen-tives and disincentives. The following actions will facilitate and encourageimplementation of appropriate and effective mitigation measures that aretailored to local needs:

• Evaluate impediments to effective planning and controls on develop-ment and identify approaches for removing those impediments.

• Develop an education program for State and local elected and appoint-ed officials that sensitizes them to the risk and costs of landslide haz-ards and encourages them to develop legislation and policies that sup-port effective landslide hazard mitigation

• Develop and disseminate prototype incentives and disincentives forencouraging landslide mitigation to government agencies, the privatesector, and academia

• Evaluate engineering and construction approaches to mitigate landslidehazards and develop a national plan for research to improve these tech-niques

• Encourage implementation of successful landslide mitigationtechnologies

Element 8.Implementation of LossReduction Measures

24

Landslides are a significant prob-lem in several areas of Ohio, andCincinnati has one of the highest percapita costs due to landslide damageof any city in the United States.Landslides have been known to occurin the Cincinnati area in southwesternOhio and the adjoining States ofKentucky and Indiana since beforethe 1850s, but the damage caused bylandslides has become increasinglyexpensive as urban developmentencroaches more and more on thearea’s hillsides. The city of Cincinnatispent an average of $550,000 per yearon emergency street repairs for dam-age due to landslides between 1983and 1987 (fig. 12).

In 1974, the Cincinnati CityCouncil passed an excavation and fillordinance to help reduce landslidedamage in areas of new construction.In 1989, Cincinnati created a geo-technical office within its Departmentof Public Works. The office, which isstaffed by a geotechnical engineer, anengineering geologist, and two tech-nicians, carries out a mitigation pro-gram. Since 1989, members of thegeotechnical staff have worked inseveral ways to reduce landslidedamage in the city; their workincludes engineering geologic map-ping of selected parts of the city,inspecting retaining walls that affectpublic right-of-way, reviewing pro-posed construction in hillside areas,inspecting and arranging for repair oflandslide areas that affect city prop-erty, and compiling geologic andgeotechnical data on landslide areaswithin the city. In 1990, HamiltonCounty also adopted an excavationand fill ordinance to help reduce thedamage due to landslides in areas ofnew construction.

From Hansen, M.C., 1995, Geofacts:Ohio Department of NaturalResources, no. 8 and Baum, R.L., andJohnson, A.M., 1996, Overview oflandslide problems, research, andmitigation, Cincinnati, Ohio, area: U.S.Geological Survey Bulletin 2059–A,p. A1–A33.

Highlight 10—Cincinnati, Ohio—A Leaderin Landslide Loss ReductionMeasures

25

Figure 12. Earthflow material beingremoved by a highway crew along theColumbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio. Hamil-ton County, in the metropolitan Cincinnatiarea, experienced an average annual eco-nomic loss of $5.80 per person (1975 dollars)between 1973 and 1978, the highest calculat-ed per capita loss of any municipality in theUnited States. Photograph courtesy of theU.S. Geological Survey.

Efforts to develop resilient communities will be led by FEMA and Statedepartments of emergency services. Despite improved landslide hazard mitiga-tion, disasters will occur. For this reason, governments at all levels, the privatesector, and the public will need to be able to adequately prepare for, respondto, and recover from disasters involving landslides. Governments will need tobetter plan for landslide emergencies. Scientists, engineers, and emergencyresponse professionals will need to be trained in the best practices to employduring a response, and public officials responsible for recovery from disasterswill need to be informed of options that will reduce future landslide losses.Incorporating the following actions in a national landslide mitigation strategywill improve the Nation’s ability to respond to and recover from landslide dis-asters:

• Provide training for Federal, State, and local emergency managers onlandslide hazards preparedness, response, and recovery

• Develop a coordinated landslide rapid response capability to assistlocal, State, and Federal emergency managers in determining thenature of landslide hazards and the extent of ongoing risks

• Provide dedicated landslide expertise and equipment required for rapidemergency deployment of real-time data to emergency managers, aswell as the ability to successfully transfer monitoring technology toother agencies

Element 9. EmergencyPreparedness,Response, andRecovery

26

Active landslides pose an increas-ing problem to older communities. Anexample of this dilemma came to ahead in April 2000, when 21 late-1950sera homes in Daly City, California,were condemned because of contin-ued landsliding along Westline Drive.The homes were deemed permanentlyuninhabitable, and the city had nochoice but to remove their inhabitantsfrom imminent danger. By May, all res-idents had moved.

The Westline Drive landslide firstcame to the attention of Daly City res-idents in 1966, when sliding forcedthe removal of homes from a subdivi-sion developed just 7 years earlier.One more home was removed in 1980.The movement lessened until the ElNiño winter of 1997–98, one of thewettest rainy seasons on record,caused the landslide to reactivate(fig. 13). As a result, Westline Drivedropped as much as 4 feet in someareas.

The decision by the city to con-demn the houses was in reaction tothe local gas utility’s decision to shutoff gas service in February to theaffected area of Westline drive afterfinding numerous irreparable leaks.The utility feared that pipe ruptureswould cause an explosion. In addi-tion, the city closed off the street totraffic, including garbage and emer-gency vehicles, after discovering a10-foot-square cavity beneath thepavement.

Assisting the homeowners was achallenge because no insurance wasavailable. The Federal EmergencyManagement Agency offered to buythe homes, but funds covered onlypart of the previous value of thehomes. The Federal Small BusinessAdministration offered mortgageloans at 4 percent, but only for areduced value of the homes, and thehomeowners had to pay off theirexisting mortgages. Daly City and SanMateo County planned to supplementthe Federal Government’s $6.5 million

offer of assistance with housingfunds totaling $1 million. Daly Cityplanned to take over the deeds fromthe homeowners and turn the landinto open space.

From San Francisco Chronicle,March 30 and May 2, 2000, AngelicaPence, staff writer, and RussellGraymer, U.S. Geological Survey.

Highlight 11—Daly City—The Human Costof Landslides

27

Figure 13. Gully retreat threatening evacu-ated houses in Daly City, a suburb of SanFrancisco, California, following the storm ofFebruary 2–3, 1998. Landslide and mudslideactivity was extensively reported in the newsmedia following heavy rains on February 2–3,1998. A number of scattered, slow-movinglandslides had been active over the weeksprior to the storm in San Francisco, Oakland,and elsewhere in the San Francisco Bayregion. As most of the area experiencedabout 200 percent of normal rainfall in thewinter of 1998, these landslides were proba-bly related more to the wet winter and less tothe effects of this particular storm. However,based on limited ground reconnaissance,scattered slope movements directly relatedto the storm did occur. Debris flows directlytriggered by the storm affected a number ofhomes and properties. From U.S. GeologicalSurvey web site http://landslides.usgs.gov/html_files/landslides/reconrpt.html, 1998,accessed July 29, 2002. Photograph bySteve Ellen, U.S. Geological Survey.

Landslide hazard mitigation necessitates interactive collaboration amongacademia, industry, government, and the private sector. The following keyaspects of a National Landslide Mitigation Strategy will allow for rapid andsignificant progress toward a sustained mitigation of landslide hazards nation-wide:

• Conduct Federal-State and public-private forums to establish regionalpriorities for research, mapping, monitoring, forecasting, and mitigat-ing landslide hazards

• Establish new and enhance existing programs to fund research, map-ping, monitoring, and mitigation activities nationwide

• Develop Federal-State and public-private programs to delineate land-slide prone areas, to forecast the potential for landslides, and to miti-gate losses

• Establish and enhance Federal-State and public-private partnerships toleverage and maximize relevant resources and expertise

Durable and effective solutions to the Nation’s ground-failure-hazardproblems will require a continuing dialog among and concerted action by allsectors of our society. An effective National Landslide Hazards MitigationStrategy will require a combination of purposeful management to ensurecoordination and consortium-type decisionmaking to accommodate the multi-jurisdictional, cooperative nature of the program. An effective managementplan will include the following:

• Establish coordination of the National Landslide Hazards MitigationStrategy under the leadership of the USGS, using the bureau’s expert-ise and experience in landslide hazards research, monitoring, mappingand data collection, analysis, archiving, and dissemination

• Establish working groups with representatives of Federal, State, andlocal governments, academia, and private industry to help coordinateand guide the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy

• Establish Federal-State public-private cooperative programs to fundand encourage landslide hazard research, mapping, assessment, andmitigation efforts nationwide

Many Federal, State, and local agencies; academia; and private companiesare involved in landslide research and mitigation in the United States (seeappendixes 6 and 7 for more information about Federal, State, and local pro-grams). A National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy offers new opportu-nities for mutually advantageous partnerships relating to hazard assessments,monitoring, and emergency response and recovery.

The national strategy enhances the ability of Federal, State and localagencies to partner effectively with the academic and the private sectors and toleverage shared resources. Table 1 outlines the complementary and supportiveroles and opportunities for new partnerships for each participant in theNational Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy.

Action Items for aNational Strategyfor ReducingLosses fromLandslides

Key Steps forImplementation

Management Plan

New and EnhancedRoles and Partnerships

28

Tabl

e 1.

N

ew ro

les

and

partn

ersh

ip o

ppor

tuni

ties

unde

r the

Nat

iona

l Lan

dslid

e Ha

zard

s M

itiga

tion

Stra

tegy

.

Elem

ent

Curr

ent

New

role

s an

d pa

rtne

rshi

p op

port

uniti

es

stat

usFe

dera

lSt

ate

Loca

lPr

ivat

eA

cade

mic

1. R

esea

rch.

—A

muc

h m

ore

com

preh

ensi

veC

oord

inat

e re

sear

ch p

rior

ities

Dev

elop

ing

a pr

edic

tive

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

land

slid

eun

ders

tand

ing

of

proc

esse

s an

d m

echa

nism

s is

Con

duct

res

earc

hla

ndsl

ide

proc

esse

s an

d re

quir

ed to

adv

ance

our

abi

lity

trig

geri

ng m

echa

nism

sto

pre

dict

the

beha

vior

of

Use

res

ults

of

rese

arch

in p

olic

y, p

lann

ing,

and

miti

gatio

n de

cisi

ons

diff

eren

t typ

es o

f la

ndsl

ides

.

2. H

azar

d M

appi

ng a

nd

Lan

dslid

e in

vent

ory

and

Map

land

slid

es

Ass

essm

ents

.—la

ndsl

ide

susc

eptib

ility

map

son

Fed

eral

land

sD

elin

eatin

g su

scep

tible

are

criti

cally

nee

ded

in m

any

Est

ablis

h m

appi

ng a

ndar

eas

and

diff

eren

t typ

esla

ndsl

ide-

pron

e re

gion

s of

the

asse

ssm

ent s

tand

ards

of la

ndsl

ide

haza

rds

at

Nat

ion.

In

gene

ral,

ther

e ar

e-

Map

and

ass

ess

land

slid

e ha

zard

sa

scal

e us

eful

for

pla

nnin

gno

sta

ndar

ds f

or m

appi

ng a

nd

Use

land

slid

e ha

zard

map

s an

d as

sess

men

ts in

pla

nnin

g, p

repa

redn

ess,

and

miti

gatio

nan

d de

cisi

onm

akin

gas

sess

men

ts.

3. R

eal-

Tim

eR

eal-

time

mon

itori

ng o

fIm

prov

e re

al-t

ime

mon

itori

ng c

apab

ilitie

sM

onito

ring

.—ac

tive

land

slid

es is

cri

tical

lyM

onito

ring

act

ive

need

ed n

atio

nwid

e.la

ndsl

ides

that

pos

eM

onito

r la

ndsl

ides

and

est

ablis

h la

ndsl

ide

war

ning

sys

tem

ssu

bsta

ntia

l ris

k

4. L

oss

Ass

essm

ent.—

Los

ses

are

not c

onsi

sten

tlyE

stab

lish

and

impl

emen

t

Com

pilin

g an

d ev

alua

ting

com

pile

d an

d tr

acke

d in

the

a na

tiona

l str

ateg

y

info

rmat

ion

on th

eU

nite

d St

ates

.fo

r co

mpi

latio

n,

econ

omic

and

env

iron

-m

aint

enan

ce, a

nd

men

tal i

mpa

cts

of la

nd-

eval

uatio

n of

dat

a

slid

e ha

zard

s.C

ompi

le a

nd s

hare

rec

ords

of

loss

es

5. I

nfor

mat

ion

The

re is

no

syst

emat

icD

evel

op r

obus

t lan

dslid

e ha

zard

sC

olle

ct a

nd d

istr

ibut

e ne

eded

Dev

elop

and

sha

reC

olle

ctio

n,

natio

nwid

e co

llect

ion

orin

form

atio

n cl

eari

ngho

use

syst

emin

form

atio

n to

dec

isio

nmak

ers

in

form

atio

nIn

terp

reta

tion,

di

stri

butio

n of

land

slid

efo

r th

e sy

stem

atic

col

lect

ion,

Dis

sem

inat

ion,

and

ha

zard

s in

form

atio

n.in

terp

reta

tion,

arc

hivi

ng, a

ndA

rchi

ving

.—di

stri

butio

n of

sci

entif

ic a

ndE

stab

lishi

ng a

n te

chni

cal i

nfor

mat

ion,

dat

a ba

ses,

effe

ctiv

e sy

stem

an

d m

aps

for

info

rmat

ion

tran

sfer

29

Tabl

e 1.

N

ew ro

les

and

partn

ersh

ip o

ppor

tuni

ties

unde

r the

Nat

iona

l Lan

dslid

e Ha

zard

s M

itiga

tion

Stra

tegy

.—Co

ntin

ued

Elem

ent

Curr

ent

New

role

s an

d pa

rtne

rshi

p op

port

uniti

es

stat

usFe

dera

lSt

ate

Loca

lPr

ivat

eA

cade

mic

6. G

uide

lines

and

T

here

is a

cri

tical

nee

d fo

rD

evel

op a

nd im

plem

ent g

uide

lines

and

trai

ning

cur

ricu

lum

sT

rain

ing.

—gu

idel

ines

and

trai

ning

for

Dev

elop

ing

guid

elin

essc

ient

ists

, eng

inee

rs, p

lann

ers,

Part

icip

ate

in tr

aini

ng p

rogr

ams

and

trai

ning

for

and

deci

sion

mak

ers.

scie

ntis

ts, e

ngin

eers

,an

d de

cisi

onm

aker

s

7. P

ublic

Aw

aren

ess

The

re is

littl

e pu

blic

aw

aren

ess

and

Edu

catio

n.—

and

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

land

slid

eD

evel

op a

nd im

plem

ent p

ublic

aw

aren

ess

and

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

ms,

invo

lvin

g la

nd-u

se

Dev

elop

ing

info

rmat

ion

haza

rds,

impa

cts

on c

omm

uniti

es,

plan

ning

, des

ign,

and

land

slid

e ha

zard

cur

ricu

lum

s; la

ndsl

ide

haza

rd s

afet

y an

d ed

ucat

ion

prog

ram

sor

opt

ions

for

red

ucin

g ri

sk.

and

com

mun

ity r

isk

redu

ctio

nfo

r th

e us

er c

omm

unity

8. I

mpl

emen

tatio

n of

M

itiga

tion

nece

ssar

ily o

ccur

sD

evel

op a

nd e

ncou

rage

pol

icie

sA

dopt

and

impl

emen

t pol

icie

s L

oss

Red

uctio

n at

the

loca

l lev

el; t

here

fore

,th

at s

uppo

rt la

ndsl

ide

haza

rdan

d pr

actic

es th

at s

uppo

rtM

easu

res.

—im

plem

enta

tion

of lo

ssm

itiga

tion

land

slid

e ha

zard

sE

ncou

ragi

ng m

itiga

tion

redu

ctio

n m

easu

res

vari

esD

evel

op f

inan

cial

ince

ntiv

esm

itiga

tion

actio

nfr

om c

omm

unity

to c

omm

unity

.an

d di

sinc

entiv

es th

atsu

ppor

t lan

dslid

e ha

zard

miti

gatio

n

Serv

e as

con

sulta

nts

and

advi

sors

Dev

elop

and

enc

oura

geen

gine

erin

g an

d co

nstr

uctio

nap

proa

ches

to m

itiga

tela

ndsl

ide

haza

rds

9. E

mer

genc

yFe

dera

l, St

ate,

and

loca

lPr

ovid

e tr

aini

ng f

or F

eder

al,

Part

icip

ate

Prov

ide

expe

rtis

e du

ring

em

erge

ncie

sPr

epar

edne

ss, R

espo

nse,

gove

rnm

ents

; the

Stat

e, a

nd lo

cal e

mer

genc

yin

trai

ning

and

Rec

over

y.—

priv

ate

sect

or; a

ndm

anag

ers

Dev

elop

ing

resi

lient

the

publ

ic n

eed

to b

e ab

le to

Dev

elop

a c

oord

inat

ed la

ndsl

ide

Eff

ectiv

ely

resp

ond

to la

ndsl

ide

com

mun

ities

adeq

uate

ly p

repa

re, r

espo

nd to

, ra

pid

resp

onse

cap

abili

ty,

emer

genc

ies

and

reco

ver

from

land

slid

ein

clud

ing

land

slid

e ha

zard

sem

erge

ncie

s.ex

pert

ise

and

equi

pmen

tIm

plem

ent p

olic

ies

requ

ired

for

rap

id e

mer

genc

y th

at r

educ

e fu

ture

depl

oym

ent o

f re

al-t

ime

data

land

slid

e lo

sses

to e

mer

genc

y m

anag

ers

30

Implementation of the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategywithin the USGS Landslide Hazards Program (LHP) will involve fourprincipal tasks—

• Expansion of work performed by scientists in the Landslide HazardsProgram

• Establishment of new Cooperative Landslide Hazard Assessment andMapping Program

• Establishment of a new Cooperative Federal Land ManagementLandslide Hazards Program

• Establishment of new partnerships for the Landslide Hazard LossReduction Program

The USGS Landslide Hazard Program is currently funded for $2.26 mil-lion in FY 2002. The changes above will require expansion of and additionalfunding for the LHP.

Expanding efforts by USGS scientists in the areas of research, hazardassessment, monitoring, public information, and response will be necessaryto meet the challenges of the national strategy. The Landslide HazardsProgram will also require additional funding to meet new responsibilities tocoordinate activities within the Federal Government to fully implement thestrategy. Approximately $8 million in new funding will be required to supportthe following:

• Additional research on landslide processes and triggering mechanisms(element 1) ($1.5 million)

• Additional hazard maps and assessments of landslide-susceptible areas,including developing standards and guidelines (element 2) ($2 million)

• Additional monitoring of active landslides and improvement of state-of-the-art research and telecommunications technology (element 3)($2 million)

• Improved information collection, interpretation, dissemination, andtechnology transfer, including public awareness programs and educa-tion (elements 5 and 7) ($1 million)

• Expanded emergency response and recovery capability and activities(element 9) ($1 million)

• Coordination of National Landslide Hazard Mitigation Strategy ($0.5million)

A new cooperative program will be established to encourage the under-standing and mitigation of landslide and other ground-failure hazards byStates, Territories, counties, and other local jurisdictions. The program will beadministered by the USGS Landslide Hazards Program. The primary goal ofthis cooperative program will be to reduce hazard losses by increasing theavailability of assessments and maps of landslide- and other ground-failure-prone areas in the United States. This program will address all elements of the

Funding for theUSGS to Implementa National Strategyfor ReducingLosses fromLandslides

Expansion of the WorkPerformed by Scientistsin the LandslideHazards Program

Establishment of a NewCooperative LandslideHazard Assessment andMapping Program

31

national strategy, with a primary focus on element 2, landslide hazard mappingand assessments. The USGS will provide guidance to encourage standardizedassessment and map products that will be available digitally.

Priorities will be determined annually in consultation with State andTerritory representatives. Grants to States and Territories will be awardedcompetitively. States and Territories will determine priorities and the size ofgrants to be distributed to their local jurisdictions in consultation withStatewide and Territorywide advisory committees.

Approximately $8.0 million will be required to support competitive grantsto the States, Territories, and local jurisdictions each year. Each grant will bematched by a 30 percent State or Territory contribution to encourage thedevelopment and use of landslide information in planning and mitigationactions at the State and local levels. It is anticipated that all States andTerritories will participate in such a program and that grants will average$150,000 per State or Territory.

A new program, administered by the USGS Landslide Hazards Program,will be established to increase and encourage the understanding and mitigationof landslide hazards on Federal lands, including assessment and mapping oflandslides, land-use planning and facility siting, emergency management, andpublic education.

The goal of such a program will be to reduce losses from landslide andother ground-failure hazards through more informed and, therefore, betterstewardship of Federal lands under the jurisdiction of the National ParkService, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, theBureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Forest Service. The new program willaddress all elements of the national strategy, with a primary focus on landslidehazard mapping, assessments, and monitoring (elements 2 and 3).

Priorities for scientific and technical assistance for Federal land manage-ment agencies will be determined annually in consultation with representativesof Federal land management agencies. Approximately $2.0 million will berequired for scientific and technical assistance for Federal land managementagencies. It is anticipated that the program will support approximately 20agreements, averaging $100,000 each. Most of these funds will be used tosupport hazard assessments and procure monitoring equipment, with USGSstaff providing technical assistance

Establishment of a NewCooperative FederalLand ManagementLandslide HazardsProgram

32

A new competitive external grants program, administered by the USGSLandslide Hazards Program, will be established for research and implementa-tion efforts. The program will foster partnerships with universities, privateconsulting firms, professional associations, Federally recognized Indian TribalGovernments, States and Territories, and local agencies. This program willaddress all elements of the strategy, with a primary focus on landslide hazardresearch and development and application of mitigation measures (elements 1,2, and 8).

Priorities for research and application of research will be determinedannually in consultation with Federal, State, Territory, local, and privaterepresentatives. Approximately $2.0 million will be required for cooperativeagreements with universities, private consulting firms, professional associations,Federally recognized Indian Tribal Governments, States and Territories, andlocal agencies to support research and innovative application of research. Itis anticipated that the program will support approximately 25 agreements,averaging $80,000 each.

Total new funding to support implementation of a National LandslideHazard Mitigation Strategy is estimated to be $20 million annually, asfollows:

• Expansion of the research, assessment, monitoring, public information,and response efforts by USGS scientists ($8 million annually)

• Establishment of a Cooperative Landslide Hazard Assessment andMapping Program to increase the efforts of State and local govern-ments to map and assess landslide hazards within their jurisdictionsthrough competitive grants ($8 million annually, to be augmented with30 percent matching funds by States and local jurisdictions)

• Establishment of a Cooperative Federal Land Management LandslideHazard Program to increase the capability of the National ParkService, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, andother such organizations to address landslide hazards under their juris-dictions ($2 million annually for work performed by USGS scientistson public lands)

• Establishment of a Partnerships for Landslide Hazard Loss ReductionProgram to support research and implementation efforts by universities,local governments, and the private sector through competitive grants($2 million annually)

Establishment of NewPartnerships forLandslide Hazard LossReduction Program

Funding Summary

33

Full implementation of the National Landslide Hazards MitigationStrategy will result in a number of major accomplishments and productsover the first 10 years of the program, including the following:

• Reduced losses from landslides• Reduced risk from future landslides• Greater public awareness of landslide hazards and options for mitigat-

ing losses• Improved technology for landslide mitigation• Assessments and maps of landslide susceptibility in landslide-prone

areas• Assessments and maps of other ground-failure hazards in susceptible

areas• Assessments and maps of landslide and ground-failure susceptibility

on Federal Lands• Policies to encourage landslide mitigation by government, communi-

ties, and the private sector• Robust national landslide hazards information clearinghouse system• Data bases of economic and environmental losses from landslides and

other forms of ground failures nationwide• Guidelines and training materials for scientists, engineers, planners,

decisionmakers• Curriculums and training materials for public awareness of landslide

hazards• Real-time monitoring of critically hazardous active landslides nation-

wide• Coordinated landslide emergency response capability nationwide

Progress in implementing the National Landslides Hazards MitigationStrategy will be monitored by working groups established to coordinate andguide the strategy. These groups will include representatives of Federal, State,and local governments and the private sector. Specific performance goals forthe strategy, including accomplishments and products, will come from a com-prehensive review of national needs and priorities and will result in specificplans and schedules. In addition, progress in reducing losses will be monitoredas part of element 4— compilation and evaluation of losses from landslidehazards.

This report is based on an early draft by Randall Updike of the USGS andon the ideas and suggestions from landslide hazard experts and others whoattended five stakeholder meetings. The report benefited from contributionsfrom and reviews by numerous USGS scientists and other Federal and Stateagency representatives. The authors would especially like to thank theAmerican Association of State Geologists for their thoughtful input andreview of the report.

MajorAccomplishmentsand Products

Acknowledgments

34

Appendix 1. Previous Reports and Sources ofLandslide Hazards Information

The proposed National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy incorporatesmany ideas and recommendations of previous studies and reports. The followingstudies and reports should be referred to for more in-depth discussions of andinsights into landslide hazard mitigation and research needs.

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81–987, Goals, Strategies, Priorities andTasks of a National Landslide Hazard Loss Reduction Program (USGS, 1981),sets forth goals and tasks for landslide studies, evaluating and mapping ahazard, disseminating information, and evaluating the use of the information.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 880, Goals and Tasks of the Landslide Part of aGround-Failure Hazards Reduction Program (USGS, 1982), describes anational program.

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85–276, Feasibility of a NationwideProgram for the Identification and Delineation of Hazards from Mud Flowsand Other Landslides (Campbell and others, 1985), identifies the need for anational program.

Reducing Losses from Landsliding in the United States (Committee on GroundFailure Hazards, National Research Council, 1985, National Academy Press)recommends development of a national program and summarizes the roles ofgovernment and the private sector in landslide mitigation nationwide.

U.S. Geological Survey Open File-Report 85–276–A, Landslide Classificationfor Identification of Mud Flows and other Landslides (Campbell and others,1985), resulted from a joint study by the USGS and FEMA to evaluate thefeasibility of delineating landslide hazards nationwide.

Landslides Investigation and Mitigation, Special Report 247 (TransportationResearch Board, National Research Council, 1996, National AcademyPress), provides a summary of the state-of-the-science of landslide hazardresearch, mapping, and assessment in the United States.

National Mitigation Strategy—Partnerships for Building Safer Communities(Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1996) provides a framework formitigation of all natural hazards in the United States.

The Impacts of Natural Disasters—A Framework for Loss Estimation (Board onNatural Disasters, National Research Council, 1999, National AcademyPress) recommends compilation of a comprehensive data base on losses fromnatural disasters.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1182, Land Subsidence in the United States(Galloway, Jones, and Ingebritsen, eds., 1999), explores the role of under-ground water in human-induced land subsidence through case histories.

Disasters by Design—A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States(Mileti, 1999, Joseph Henry Press) provides an overview of what is knownabout managing natural hazard disasters, recovery, and mitigation.

35

Appendix 2. Meetings with Stakeholders

In 1999 and 2000, meetings among various stakeholder organizations were held to obtain input into anational strategy to mitigate landslide hazards. Attendees included State geologists, private consultantsand university professors concerned with landslide hazards, and Federal, State and local government offi-cials whose responsibilities include landslide hazard loss reduction. Many of their recommendations havebeen incorporated into the strategy either through input at meetings or subsequent reviews of this report.The meetings and participants are listed below.

Landslide Hazards Mitigation Stakeholders Meeting State Geologists meetingPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania January 16–17, 1999

Attendee Title OrganizationLee Allison State Geologist Kansas Geological SurveyJohn Beaulieu State Geologist Oregon Department of Geology

and Mineral IndustriesTom Berg State Geologist Ohio Geological SurveyVicki Cowart State Geologist Colorado Geological SurveyJim Davis State Geologist California Department of

Mines and GeologyCharles Gardner State Geologist North Carolina Geological

SurveyDon Hoskins State Geologist Pennsylvania Geological

SurveyJohn Kiefer Assistant State Geologist Kentucky Geological SurveyWilliam Shilts State Geologist Illinois Geological SurveyRandy Updike U.S. Geological SurveyLynn Highland U.S. Geological SurveyJohn Filson U.S. Geological Survey

Landslide Hazards Mitigation Stakeholders MeetingPrivate sector meeting Albuquerque, New Mexico February 23–24, 1999

Attendee Title/Company LocationDon Banks Consultant Vicksburg, MississippiBill Cotton Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. Los Gatos, CaliforniaBruce Clark Leighton & Associates, Inc. Irvine, CaliforniaLloyd Cluff Pacific Gas & Electric San Francisco, CaliforniaRichard Gray GAI Consultants, Inc. Monroeville, PennsylvaniaJim Hamel Hamel Geotechnical Consultants Monroeville, Pennsylvania

36

G.P. Jayaprakash NRC Transportation Research Board Washington, D.C.Jeff Keaton AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. Phoenix, ArizonaGeorge Kiersch Kiersch Associates Tucson, ArizonaGeorge Mader Spangle Associates Portola Valley, CaliforniaRalph Peck Consultant Albuquerque, New MexicoBill Roberds Golder Associates Redmond, WashingtonRoy Shelmon Consultant Newport Beach, CaliforniaRex Baum U.S. Geological Survey Golden, ColoradoRandy Updike U.S. Geological Survey Golden, Colorado

Landslide Hazards Mitigation Stakeholders Meeting Academic sector meeting Albuquerque, New Mexico February 26–27, 1999

Attendee University/OrganizationEd Cording University of IllinoisHerbert Einstein Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyArvid Johnson Purdue UniversityHoward Kunreuther Wharton School, University of PennsylvaniaDavid Montgomery University of WashingtonRob Olshansky University of IllinoisNick Sitar University of CaliforniaKeith Turner Colorado School of MinesErik VanMarcke Princeton UniversityBob Watters MacKay School of Mines, University of NevadaBob Fleming U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, ColoradoRandy Updike U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, Colorado

Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy Summit MeetingSan Antonio, TexasAugust 31–September 1, 1999

Attendee OrganizationDavid Applegate American Geological InstituteRex Baum U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, ColoradoSteven R. Bohlen U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VirginiaBruce Clark Leighton & AssociatesTimothy Coh U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VirginiaDerek Cornforth Landslide Technology, Portland, OregonVicki Cowart Colorado Geological SurveyKim Davis California Department of ConservationAnthony de Souza National Research CouncilRobert Fakundiny New York Geological SurveyJohn Filson U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VirginiaJohn Grant National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationRobert Hamilton National Research Council

37

Lynn Highland U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, ColoradoG.P. Jayaprakash NRC Transportation Research BoardArvid Johnson Purdue UniversityJeff Keaton AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc., Phoenix, ArizonaPat Leahy U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VirginiaLindsay McClelland National Park ServiceDoug Morton U.S. Geological Survey, Riverside, CaliforniaRobert Olshansky University of Illinois, Urbana/ChampaignJohn Pallister U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VirginiaWilliam Roberds Golder Associates, Redmond, WashingtonWilliam Shilts Illinois State Geological SurveyElliott Spiker U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VirginiaRandy Updike U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, ColoradoErik Van Marcke Princeton UniversityTom Yorke U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia

Landslide Hazards Mitigation Stakeholders MeetingLand-use planners meetingChicago, IllinoisFebruary 17–18, 2000

Attendee OrganizationSteven Briggs Cincinnati Planning DepartmentPaula Gori U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VirginiaJames A. Hecimovich American Planning AssociationLynn Highland U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, ColoradoSanjay Jeer American Planning AssociationGeorge Mader Spangle Associates, Portola Valley, CaliforniaRobert B. Olshansky University of Illinois – Urbana-ChampaignJane Preuss, AICP GeoEngineers, Seattle, WashingtonDaniel Sentz Pittsburgh Department of City PlanningElliott Spiker U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia

38

Causes of Landslides

Landslide is a general term for a wide variety ofdownslope movements of earth materials that resultin the perceptible downward and outward movementof soil, rock, and vegetation under the influence ofgravity. The materials may move by falling, toppling,sliding, spreading, or flowing. Some landslides arerapid, occurring in seconds, whereas others may takehours, weeks, or even longer to develop.

Although landslides usually occur on steepslopes, they also can occur in areas of low relief.Landslides can occur as ground failure of river bluffs,cut and-fill failures that may accompany highwayand building excavations, collapse of mine-wastepiles, and slope failures associated with quarries andopen-pit mines. Underwater landslides usuallyinvolve areas of low relief and small slope gradientsin lakes and reservoirs or in offshore marine settings.

Landslides can be triggered by both naturalchanges in the environment and human activities.Inherent weaknesses in the rock or soil often com-bine with one or more triggering events, such asheavy rain, snowmelt, changes in ground water level,

or seismic or volcanic activity. Long-term climatechange may result in an increase in precipitation andground saturation and a rise in ground-water level,reducing the shear strength and increasing the weightof the soil. Erosion can remove the toe and lateralslope support of potential landslides. Storms and sea-level rise often exacerbate coastal erosion and land-slides. Earthquakes and volcanoes often trigger land-slides.

Human activities triggering landslides are usuallyassociated with construction and changes in slope andsurface-water and ground-water levels. Changes inirrigation, runoff, and drainage can increase erosionand change ground-water levels and ground saturation.

Types of Landslides

The common types of landslides are describedbelow. These definitions are based mainly on thework of Varnes (Varnes, D.J., 1978, Slope movementtypes and processes, in Schuster and Krizek, eds.,Special Report 176, Landslides—Analysis and con-trol: Transportation Research Board, NationalResearch Council, Washington, D.C., p. 12–13).

39

Appendix 3. Landslide Hazards and Other Ground Failures—Causes and Types

falls Abrupt movements of materials that becomedetached from steep slopes or cliffs, moving byfree-fall, bouncing, and rolling.

flows General term including many types of massmovement, such as creep, debris flow, debrisavalanche, lahar, and mudflow.

creep Slow, steady downslope movement of soil or rock, often indicated by curved tree trunks, bent fences or retaining walls, tilted poles or fences.

debris flow Rapid mass movement in which loose soils, rocks, and organic mattercombine with entrained air and water to form a slurry that then flows downslope, usually associated with steep gullies.

flows—Continueddebris avalanche A variety of very rapid to extremely rapid debris flow.lahar Mudflow or debris flow that origi-nates on the slope of a volcano, usually trig-gered by heavy rainfall eroding volcanic deposits, sudden melting of snow and ice due to heat from volcanic vents, or the breakout of water from glaciers, crater lakes,or lakes dammed by volcanic eruptions.mudflow Rapidly flowing mass of wet material that contains at least 50 percent sand-, silt-, and clay-sized particles.

lateral spreads Often occur on very gentle slopesand result in nearly horizontal movement of earthmaterials. Lateral spreads usually are caused byliquefaction, where saturated sediments (usuallysands and silts) are transformed from a solid into aliquefied state, usually triggered by an earthquake.

slides Many types of mass movement are includ-ed in the general term "landslide.” The two majortypes of landslides are rotational slides and transla-tional landslides.

rotational landslide The surface of ruptureis curved concavely upward (spoon-shaped), and the slide movement is more orless rotational. A slump is an example of a small rotational landslide.

translational landslide The mass of soil and rock moves out or down and outward with little rotational movement or backward tilting. Translational landslide material may range from loose, unconsolidated soils to extensive slabs of rock and may progress over great distances under certain conditions.

40

submarine and subaqueous landslides Includerotational and translational landslide, debris flowsand mudflows, and sand and silt liquefaction flowsthat occur principally or totally underwater in lakesand reservoirs or in coastal and offshore marineareas. The failure of underwater slopes can resultfrom rapid sedimentation, methane gas in sedi-ments, storm waves, current scour, or earthquakestresses. Subaqueous landslides pose problems foroffshore and river engineering, jetties, piers, levees,offshore platforms and facilities, and pipelines andtelecommunications cables.

topple A block of rock that tilts or rotates forwardand falls, bounces, or rolls down the slope.

Over the past few decades, an array of tech-niques and practices has evolved to reduce andcope with losses from landslide hazards. Carefulland development can reduce losses by avoidingthe hazards or by reducing the damage potential.Landslide risk can be reduced by the following fiveapproaches used individually or in combination toreduce or eliminate losses.

Restricting development in landslide-proneareas.—Land-use planning is one of the mosteffective and economical ways to reduce landslidelosses by avoiding the hazard and minimizing therisk. This minimization is accomplished byremoving or converting existing development ordiscouraging or regulating new development inunstable areas. In the United States, restrictions onland use generally are imposed and enforced bylocal governments by land-use zoning districts andregulations. Implementation of avoidance proce-dures has met with mixed success. In California,extensive restriction of development in landslide-prone areas has been effective in reducing land-slide losses. For example, in San Mateo County,California, since 1975 the density of developmenthas been limited in landslide-susceptible areas.However, in many other States, there are no wide-ly accepted procedures or regulations for avoidingor minimizing landslides.

Standardizing codes for excavation, construc-tion, and grading.—Excavation, construction, andgrading codes have been developed for construc-tion in landslide-prone areas; however, there is nonationwide standardization. Instead, State and localgovernment agencies apply design and construc-tion criteria that fit their specific needs. The city ofLos Angeles has been effective in using excavationand grading codes as deterrents to landslide activi-ty and damage on hillside area. The FederalGovernment has developed codes for use on

Federal projects. Federal standards for excavationand grading often are used by other organizationsin both the public and private sectors.

Protecting existing development.—Control ofsurface-water and ground water drainage is themost widely used and generally the most successfulslope-stabilization method. Stability of a slope canbe increased by removing all or part of a landslidemass or by adding earth buttresses placed at thetoes of potential slope failures. Restraining walls,piles, caissons, or rock anchors are commonly usedto prevent or control slope movement. In mostcases, combinations of these measures are used.

Utilizing monitoring and warning systems.—Monitoring and warning systems are utilized toprotect lives and property, not to prevent landslides.However, these systems often provide warning ofslope movement in time to allow the constructionof physical measures that will reduce the immedi-ate or long-term hazard. Site-specific monitoringtechniques include field observation and the use ofvarious ground motion instruments, trip wires,radar, laser beams, and vibration meters. Data fromthese devices can be telemetered for real-timewarning.

Development of regional real-time landslidewarning systems is one of the more significantareas of landslide research. One such system wassuccessfully developed for the San Francisco Bayregion, California, by the USGS in cooperationwith National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration and the National Weather Service.The system is based on relations between rainfallintensity and duration and thresholds for landslideinitiation, geologic determination of areas suscepti-ble to landslides, real-time monitoring of a regionalnetwork of rain gages, and National WeatherService precipitation forecasts.

41

Appendix 4. Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategies

private landslide insurance. This limited customerbase would lead to very high premiums, perhapsnearly equal to the value of the property. An alter-native to private sector insurance is a public insur-ance program, possibly modeled after the NationalFlood Insurance Program. Incentives to mitigatelandslide hazards must also accompany insurancecoverage, much like fire preventive incentivesappear on current homeowners insurance polices.

A major obstacle to implementing some formof landslide insurance is the lack of technical infor-mation, maps, and assessments of landslide haz-ards. A joint study in 1985 by the USGS and theFederal Emergency Management Agency examinedthe feasibility of a nationwide program for identifi-cation and delineation of hazards from mudflowsand other landslides. That study concluded thatlandslide hazards can be evaluated and mappednationwide through a systematic sequence of stud-ies, ranging from regional to local in progressivelymore detail. The comprehensiveness and accuracywith which landslide hazards would be delineatedcould be balanced against the costs of the program.

Providing landslide insurance and compensa-tion for losses.—Landslide insurance is a logicalmeans to provide compensation and incentive toavoid or mitigate the hazard. Landslide insurancecoverage could be made a requirement for mort-gage loans. Controls on building, development, andproperty maintenance would need to accompanythe mandatory insurance. Insurance and appropri-ate government intervention can work together,each complementing the other in reducing lossesand compensating victims. However, landslideinsurance is essentially absent across the Nation,except for mine subsidence coverage in eight Statesand some coverage for landslides due to earth-quakes, if earthquake insurance is purchased, andminimal coverage for mudslides by the NationalFlood Insurance Program (Federal EmergencyManagement Agency).

The primary reason that insurance companiesdo not offer landslide insurance is the potential foradverse selection by the insured population. Inaddition, if available, it is likely that only thoseindividuals in the most hazardous areas would buy

42

Public and private organizations need soundeconomic and scientific bases for making decisionsabout reducing landslide-related losses. Quantita-tive risk assessment is a widely used tool formaking such decisions because it provides esti-mates of the probable costs of losses and variousoptions for reducing the losses. Such assess-ments can be either site specific or regional.

A risk assessment is based on the probability ofthe hazard and on an analysis of all possible conse-quences (property damage, casualties, and loss ofservice). Typically, private consultants with expert-ise in risk assessment, in cooperation with otherpartners or landowners, conduct risk assessmentsbased on the results of the landslide susceptibilityand probability studies. In many cases, private userssuch as insurance companies perform their own riskassessments from the probability data.

Regional landslide risk assessments can beaccomplished through public and private partner-ships involving the USGS, State GeologicalSurveys, local governments, and private consult-ants. In such a partnership (1) the USGS and theState Geological Surveys would cooperate to col-lect the basic geologic map data and landslideinventory data, (2) local governments would pro-vide access to their detailed topographic data basesand records of landslide occurrence, and (3) theUSGS would analyze the geologic, topographic,landslide, and other data to determine landslidesusceptibility and probability.

Federal, State, and local government agencies,banks, and private landowners can use probabilityestimates and risk assessments to help identifyareas where expected landslide losses are costlyenough to justify remedial efforts or avoidance.More detailed studies can then be conducted inthese areas to determine the optimal strategy forreducing landslide-related losses.

There are four types of landslide hazardsmaps—

• A landslide inventory map (fig. 5–1A)shows the locations and outlines of land-slides. A landslide inventory is a data setthat may represent a single event or multi-ple events. Small-scale maps may showonly landslide locations, whereas large-scale maps may distinguish landslidesources from deposits and classify differentkinds of landslides and show other pertinentdata.

• A landslide susceptibility map (fig. 5–1B)ranks slope stability of an area into cate-gories that range from stable to unstable.Susceptibility maps show where landslidesmay form. Many susceptibility maps use acolor scheme that relates warm colors (red,orange, and yellow) to unstable and margin-ally unstable areas and cool colors (blueand green) to more stable areas.

• A landslide hazard map (fig. 5–1C, D) indi-cates the annual probability (likelihood) oflandslides occurring throughout an area. Anideal landslide hazard map shows not onlythe chances that a landslide may form at aparticular place but also the chances that alandslide from farther upslope may strikethat place.

• A landslide risk map (fig. 5–1E) shows theexpected annual cost of landslide damagethroughout an area. Risk maps combine theprobability information from a landslidehazard map with an analysis of all possibleconsequences (property damage, casualties,and loss of service).

43

Appendix 5. Landslide Hazards Maps and Risk Assessments

A, Inventory of landslides triggered bystorms during the winter of 1996-97 over-lain on a shaded-relief topographic basemap (U.S. Geological Survey and Shannonand Wilson, Inc.).

B, Landslide susceptibility (U.S. GeologicalSurvey).

44

C, Probability of landslide occurrencegiven the event depicted in map A (U.S.Geological Survey and Shannon and Wil-son, Inc.).

Figure 5–1. Maps showing some of the steps of a regional landslide risk assessment for part of Seattle, Washington. Names inparentheses indicate major contributors of data or analysis. From Baum, R.L., Harp, E.L., Michael, J.A., and Roberds, W.A., 2001,Regional landslide hazard assessment, an example from Seattle, Washington, in Zoghi, M., ed., Contemporary solutions to land massstabilization: Proceedings of the 9th annual Great Lakes Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Conference.

45

D, Landslide hazard map, which combinesthe results of map C with an assessmentof landslide travel distance to show theprobability of landslide damage (U.S.Geological Survey and Golder Associates).

Figure 5–1.—Continued

E, Risk of loss due to landslides (U.S.Geological Survey and Golder Associates).Estimated cost of landslide-related lossesin U.S. dollars.

community. Personnel of the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration—National WeatherService (NWS) provide weather forecasts andassist in emergency response activities. OtherFederal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, ForestService, National Park Service, Office of SurfaceMining Reclamation and Enforcement, andDepartment of Transportation (especially theFederal Highway Administration) have landslidehazard experts and activities relating to lands andinfrastructure under their jurisdiction.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) is responsible for emergency managementand long-term mitigation of natural hazards includ-ing landslides. FEMA is the Federal coordinatingagency for emergency response, disaster relieffunding, and hazard mitigation efforts. The FederalInsurance and Mitigation Administration, a part ofFEMA, provides insurance coverage for flooddamages, including "mudslides." However, imple-mentation has been difficult because of the absenceof an accepted technical definition of a mudslideand an accepted methodology for delineating mud-slide-hazard areas. Landslides other than mudslidesare not insured under this program.

State and Local Government Agencies

While the Federal Government plays a leadrole in funding and conducting landslide research,in developing landslide mapping and monitoringtechniques, and in landslide hazard managementon Federal lands, the reduction of landslide losseson other lands is primarily a State and localresponsibility. A number of State agencies, com-missions, and councils have responsibility for land-slide hazards, including those with oversight ofnatural resources, transportation, geology, hazards,emergency services, and land-use issues.

Many Federal, State, and local agencies; acade-mia; and private companies are involved in landslideresearch and mitigation in the United States; howev-er, there is little coordination of landslide hazard mit-igation activities. The need for information and coop-eration spans the interests of many public and privateorganizations. The National Landslide HazardsMitigation Strategy offers new opportunities formutually advantageous partnerships related to hazardassessments, monitoring, and emergency responseand recovery. Under the strategy, each level of gov-ernment (Federal, State, and local), nongovernmentalorganizations, businesses, and individuals have someresponsibility for mitigating, responding to, andrecovering from landslide hazards.

Federal Agencies

The Federal role in hazard reduction has itsorigin in the Organic Act of 1879, which createdthe USGS. More recent legislation addressing theFederal role in landslide hazards includes the DamInspection Act of 1972, which stipulated responsi-bilities for landslide hazards affecting the safety ofdams and reservoirs, and the 1974 Disaster ReliefAct and subsequent reauthorizations, which gavethe USGS responsibility to issue timely disasterwarning of potential landslides.

The USGS Landslide Hazard Program is theonly Congressionally authorized program dedicatedto landslide hazards. The USGS National LandslideInformation Center is a prototype clearinghouse forissuing advisories, press statements, and other infor-mation about landslides. The USGS has developedexpertise in research, assessment, and mapping oflandslide hazards and provides technical assistanceduring disaster response.

The National Science Foundation and theNational Aeronautics and Space Administrationfund landslide hazard research in the academic46

Appendix 6. Current Landslide Research, Mitigation Activities, andResponsibilities in the United States

States vary in their approaches to landslidehazards. Some States produce inventories of land-slides and maps of landslide-prone areas for use bylocal government, business, and the public.However, landslide mapping has been done withoutwidely accepted standards of accuracy, scale, andformat. Some States monitor landslide-prone areasand provide expertise for response and recoveryactivities. Several States conduct research on land-slide problems in their State, and a few States haveregulatory authority.

The reduction of landslide losses through land-use planning and application of building and grad-ing codes is the function of local government.Localities throughout the Nation differ in their reg-ulatory authority and approach to reducing lossesfrom landslide hazards. Local governments havethe responsibility of issuing warnings of imminentlandslides and managing emergency operationsafter a landslide. FEMA may become involvedafter a Presidentially declared disaster.

Landslide hazards have traditionally occupied arelatively modest place in public policy, embodiedin zoning, legal liability, insurance, building codes,land use practices, and environmental quality.Maps showing historic landslides and areas suscep-tible to landslides have been used only sporadicallyfor zoning and for purposes of real-estate disclo-sure. Building codes have been drafted for somelocalities to set minimum standards for construc-tion on unstable slopes. Federal and State forestry

practices in many localities include attention tolandslide hazards. Building setbacks from coastalor riverine bluffs have been established in someareas on the basis of projected failure by landslid-ing. However, broad systematic policy approachesto landslide and other ground-failure hazards arerare, and most areas of the Nation lack the mostfundamental technical information or policies tocope with their hazards.

Private and Academic Sectors

Private sector geologists, engineers, and build-ing professionals are often involved in the identifi-cation and implementation of landslide reductionmeasures in building design and planning.University researchers study landslide processesand the development of monitoring and mitigationtechnologies and methods. These professionalsprovide advice to business and industry for loan,insurance, and investment decisions. Professionalsocieties such as the American Society of CivilEngineers, the Association of EngineeringGeologists, and the American Planning Associationserve as conduits of information from researchersto practitioners and practitioners to researchers.Professional societies are generally the source ofmodel codes, handbooks, and professional trainingfor their membership, who in turn use the informa-tion to improve the state-of-knowledge of landslideloss reduction in the private and public sectors.

47

forestry project proponents. Environmental or engi-neering geologists, as one of their primary duties,minerals geologists, as a related duty, or other earthscientists, where geologists are unavailable, carryout these evaluations. Engineering geologists andgeotechnical engineers carry out environmentalassessments and participate in designs to addresslandslide hazard to system roads.

Another activity is assessing damage fromlandslides following major natural disasters. Themost formalized of these assessments is the BurnedArea Emergency Rehabilitation procedure institutedduring major wildfires. This activity also includesparticipating in development of stabilization andrestoration projects to counter wildfire damage.

A national geographic information system(GIS) network of national forest lands and a database that includes landslide information is underdevelopment. The landslide hazard information forthis GIS is generated from USGS and StateGeological Survey information and mapping byForest Service geologists. The Research Branch ofthe Forest Service has contributed many studiesthat improve the understanding of landslide hazardsrelative to specific forest management activities.

—By Jerome DeGraffForest Service

Department of Commerce—NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA)—National WeatherService (NWS) is involved in landslide mitigationthrough its role in the Federal Response Plan andits mission of providing services for the protectionof life and property. The National Weather Serviceworks with other Federal, State, and local agencies

Department of Agriculture—Forest Service

The U.S. Department of Agriculture ForestService is a land-management agency with respon-sibility for natural resources on national forests.Most of the national forest lands are located in themountainous areas of the Western United States,including large parts of Alaska. The road system innational forests is comparable in size to many Stateroad systems. Consequently, designing low volumeroads to avoid landslide problems and repairing thedamage to them from landslides are major tasks.Additionally, interstate and major State highways,railroad lines, oil and gas pipelines, and electrictransmission corridors pass through the nationalforests. Assessing landslide hazards along such pro-jects is increasingly important.

National forests generally occupy the headwatersof major rivers, increasing the importance of water-shed management, especially for those watershedswhere anadromous fisheries and significant inlandfisheries are present. Increased landslide activity canproduce sediment loads that degrade water quality andadversely affect fisheries habitat. Landslide hazard canbe a more localized, but equally important, problemon national forests where development of large skiresorts, mines, or hydroelectric facilities takes place.Major wildfires can denude watersheds and lead toshort-term landslide activity. The potential for loss oflife and damage from debris flows initiated by precipi-tation events on burned watersheds must be consideredin national forests, especially those having developed,private in-holdings and adjacent urban areas.

A primary landslide hazard activity conductedby Forest Service personnel is evaluating landslidehazard potential in environmental assessments or inreviewing environmental assessments prepared by

48

Appendix 7. Federal Agency Landslide Hazard Activities

The Federal role in landslide-hazard reduction involves numerous Federal agencies. The followingFederal agencies provided descriptions of their landslide-hazard reduction activities. Contacts for variousFederal agencies involved in landslide-hazard reduction are listed at the end of this appendix.

by providing forecasts of hydrologic and meteoro-logical conditions for landslide forecasts and miti-gation efforts. This assistance may include on-scene meteorological personnel to assist in emer-gency response activities at landslides. The NOAAWeather Radio and other NWS dissemination sys-tems broadcast "Civil Emergency Messages" con-cerning landslide warnings and response andrecovery efforts at the request of local, State, andFederal emergency management officials.

—By Robert LivezeyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Department of Defense—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

As the premier, full-spectrum engineering organ-ization of the United States military, the mission ofthe Corps of Engineers includes planning, design,building, and operating water resources and civilprojects in the areas of flood control, navigation,environmental quality, coastal protection, and disas-ter response, as well as the design and constructionof facilities for the Army, the Air Force, and otherFederal agencies. In performing this broad mission,the Corps has addressed a full range of technicalchallenges associated with landslides and groundfailure. Corps engineering geologists, geotechnicalengineers, and geophysicists have been involved inthe assessment, monitoring and analysis, and mitiga-tion of landslides in a wide range of settings at loca-tions around the world, as well as basic and appliedresearch on topics directly related to the analysis andmitigation of landslides and ground failures.

Landslide assessment activities by Corps scien-tists and engineers have included investigations oflandslides of various mechanisms and scales alongnavigable waterways such as the Mississippi andOhio Rivers and that result in serious navigation haz-ards and threats to or loss of flood protection works.Landslides also play an important role in the erosionof the Nation’s shoreline; the protection of shorelineis a major responsibility of the Corps. Many Corpsdam-site investigations have involved the identifica-tion and assessment of past and potential landslides.

Corps engineering geologists, geotechnical engi-neers, and geophysicists have been involved in moni-toring active landslides and ground failure in both nat-ural and engineered soils and earth materials. Thesetasks have focused on identifying the temporal andspatial variability of earth movements and identifyingcausal factors. Monitoring data have been used alongwith detailed site information to analyze the stabilityof a landslide in terms of initial movements, presentconditions, and conditions after mitigation actions.

As an engineering agency, the Corps has a sig-nificant role in the planning, design, and construc-tion of landslide mitigation measures associatedwith the protection of its civil and military projects.Specific methods for reducing landslide hazards andincreasing slope stability have been developed andimplemented by Corps engineers at sites around theworld. The Corps’ role in initial engineering geo-logical investigation, engineering analysis, remedialdesign, implementation, construction, and postpro-ject monitoring is of particular value to the Nationand the international community.

The Corps has an important national mission indisaster response. This mission has involved theCorps in responding to landslides, especially thoseresulting from floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions,and earthquakes. In assistance to FEMA, Corps per-sonnel have provided emergency assessments andimmediate mitigation of past and potential land-slides. The Corps’ role in international disasterresponse has become a major focus in landslideengineering. Recent landslide assessments, analysis,and mitigation efforts have been conducted inVenezuela, Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia, Peru,Haiti, Puerto Rico, South Korea, and the Philippines.

Research at the Corps’ Engineering Researchand Development Center includes the developmentand testing of analytical tools and assessment meth-ods and approaches for landslide mitigation. Basicresearch in soil and rock mechanics, geomorpholo-gy, hydrogeology, remote sensing, geophysics, andengineering geology has resulted in advancementsin the understanding of the causative factors andmechanics of landslides and ground failures.

—By Lawson Smith (deceased)U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

49

Department of the Interior—National Park Service

Many national parks are geologically active,exposing park visitors, staff, and infrastructure togeologic hazards. Landslides, including slope fail-ures, mudflows, and rockfalls, adversely affectparks, causing deaths and injuries, closing roads andtrails, and damaging park infastructure. Recentexamples include several rockfalls in YosemiteValley, each with one fatality; damaging landslidesin Shenandoah National Park triggered by torrentialrains; repeated slope failures fed by artificialaquifers at Hagerman Fossil Beds NationalMonument; landslides that closed roads in Zion andYellowstone National Parks; and the threat of largedebris flows at Mt. Rainier. USGS scientists haveprovided insights essential to effective response tolandslides hazards at these and other national parks.

Because it is a natural process, landslide activi-ty is generally allowed to proceed unimpeded innational parks unless safety is a concern. However,where people have destabilized the landscape (forexample, by logging, mining, and road building),disturbed lands are restored where practical to theirpre disturbance condition.

To reduce risk from landslides and other geolog-ic hazards, park planners must incorporate informa-tion from hazard assessments and maps into deci-sions about appropriate sites for facilities such ascampgrounds, visitor centers, and concession areas.Planners face difficult choices as they attempt to bal-ance risks from different hazards, such as floods androckfalls in confined valleys, and at the same timeprovide public access to popular but potentially haz-ardous areas. When a landslide or other hazardoccurs, park personnel must quickly rescue people,stabilize structures, and clear debris from roads andother public areas. Then park personnel must workwith experts to assess the nature and extent of theevent and the risk of recurrence. Short-term studiesare required to help managers decide whether andwhen to reopen affected areas; then more detailedresearch is often needed to make informed decisionsabout future use of the immediately affected areaand other areas that may face similar hazards.

Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management

The Bureau of Land Management is a FederalAgency that manages multiple uses of approximate-ly 264 million surface acres of Federal land locatedprimarily in 12 Western States. A relatively smallportion of this land is located in steep mountainousterrain with geologic and climatic conditions result-ing in high landslide hazards, such as in westernOregon, northern California, and northern Idaho.

Many landslides on public land are the result ofnatural disturbance events, but land-managementactivities, including road building, timber harvest,historic mining, and water impoundments, can con-tribute to their occurrence. The Bureau of LandManagement does not have an agencywide land-slide hazards program or specialized personnel. Thebureau’s local field office landslide hazards preven-tion activities include identification of unstableslopes by using aerial photograph interpretation,landslide hazards guides, on-site indicators, predic-tive models, and limited inventory and monitoringof landslides.

Prevention and mitigation of landslides areaccomplished by using a variety of methods.Existing roads may be closed and obliterated,rerouted, or kept open and stabilized with additionalrunoff control structures, subsurface drainage con-trol, or other techniques. Routine road mainte-nance is an important factor in helping to reducelandslide hazards. Prudent route analysis anddesign to minimize landslide hazard are employedfor new roads in landslide prone areas. Hazardous-fuels management can reduce the risk of cata-strophic wildfires that could increase landslidehazards. Timber management silvicultural prac-tices are employed to maintain root strength whereneeded for slope stability. Sites that are a threat tohuman health and safety, roads and recreationalfacilities, water quality, fisheries and aquatic habi-tat, and other resource values are stabilized, andsediment is controlled with revegetation andstructural controls.

—By William YpsilantisBureau of Land Management

50

Park interpretive programs inform visitorsabout key resources and issues, enabling thepublic to better understand geologic hazards.Interpreters communicate directly with visitorsthrough programs such as nature walks and camp-fire presentations, as well as through exhibits invisitor centers and, in some cases, books andvideos sold by cooperating associations and con-cessionaires. The National Park Service isincreasingly reaching out to a broader audience,many of whom may not have the opportunity tovisit parks, through innovative methods such asschool programs and Web sites. Interpreters workin partnership with the scientific community toensure that complex information can be conveyedaccurately and in a form that is comprehensibleand relevant to nonspecialists.

These and other park programs welcome addi-tional help to assess landslide hazards in parks,provide input to park planning so that infrastruc-ture can be located away from zones of greatestlandslide risk, respond quickly after significantlandslide events, and improve communication withthe public.

—By Lindsay McLellandNational Park Service

Department of the Interior—Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

The Office of Surface Mining’s (OSM) role inlandslide mitigation is confined to those landslidesthat are related to past coal mining activity, asauthorized by the Surface Mining Control andReclamation Act. A coal mining technique in theAppalachians involving mountaintop removal andvalley filling is monitored by OSM to prevent seri-ous landslides. Most abandoned mine land land-slide areas are reclaimed through State or IndianTribe abandoned mine land programs, funded withOSM grants. The Office of Surface Mining,through its Federal Reclamation Program, hasresponsibility for those States and Tribes that donot have approved programs.

When there is an immediate danger to theoccupants of dwellings caused by a landslide,abatement actions are taken immediately throughOSM or State emergency programs. Otherwise,landslide problem areas that endanger humanhealth, safety, and general welfare are assigned pri-orities, and mitigation actions are taken based onthe highest priority.

Reclamation records, maintained in OSM’sAbandoned Mine Land Inventory System, indicatethat OSM and the States and Tribes have complet-ed reclamation on 3,367 acres of dangerous slidesat a cost of $125.25 million. Also, 651 acres aredesignated as high priority and have been funded,but not yet reported as completed, at $30.69 mil-lion. An additional 2,276 acres, with an estimatedcost of $73.77 million, are unfunded.

—By Gene KruegerOffice of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement

Department of the Interior—U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) directlyor indirectly funds and maintains landslide hazardexpertise in several of its programs. The followingprograms direct research and assessment of land-slides, debris flows, and lahars caused by storms,earthquakes and volcanoes, submarine landslides,and riverine and coastal erosion.

USGS Landslide Hazards Program.—TheUSGS Landslide Hazards Program supports haz-ard investigations and assessments, research onmonitoring and forecasting landslides, landslideemergency response, operation of the NationalLandslide Information Center in Golden,Colorado, and research and assessment for theimplementation of mitigation strategies forFederal, State, and local land-management andemergency-response agencies. The informationgenerated also provides a basis for land-use plan-ning, emergency planning, and private decision-making, including insurance and financial incen-tives. Much of the current work is being conducted

51

Department of Transportation—Federal Highway Administration

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)is a part of the Department of Transportation, withfield offices across the United States. The FHWAperforms its mission primarily through the followingtwo programs:

• The Federal-Aid Highway Program providesFederal financial assistance to the StateDepartments of Transportation to constructand improve the National Highway System,urban and rural roads, and bridges. The pro-gram provides funds for general improvementsand development of safe highways and roads.

• The Federal Lands Highway Program pro-vides access to and within national forests,national parks, Indian reservations, and otherpublic lands by preparing plans, letting con-tracts, supervising construction facilities, andconducting bridge inspections and surveys.

In support these program areas, the FHWA conductsand manages a comprehensive research, development,and technology program.

The FHWA has recognized a need for consistentunderstanding and application of soil and rock slopestability analysis and mitigation for highway projectsacross the United States. These analyses generally arecarried out throughout the life of most highway pro-jects; that is, during planning, design, construction,improvement, rehabilitation, and maintenance. Plan-ners, engineers, geologists, contractors, technicians, andmaintenance workers are involved in the process.

To this end, the FHWA geotechnical engineeringprogram continues to develop and support the devel-opment of training courses, design manuals, demon-stration projects, and geotechnical software. TheFHWA geotechnical engineering program maintainsan ongoing dialogue and exchange of informationwith and among State Departments of Transportationthrough annual Regional Geotechnical Meetings,training courses, and technical assistance providedthrough the FHWA Resource Centers.

—By Barry D. SielFederal Highway Administration

in the Pacific Northwest, California, and the BlueRidge Mountains in the Eastern United States;most real-time monitoring activities are takingplace in Washington, California, New Mexico,and Colorado.

Earthquake Hazards Program.—The USGSNational Earthquake Hazards Reduction Programsupports USGS studies and external, cooperativestudies of landslides caused by earthquakes,including liquefaction investigations in California.It also supports seismic instrumentation of land-slide sites.

Volcano Hazards Program.—The VolcanoHazards Program funds debris-flow research at theCascades Volcano Observatory. The researchincludes field investigations at Mount St. Helensand Mount Rainier, Washington, and an experi-mental debris-flow flume in the WillametteNational Forest, Oregon. The Volcano DisasterAssessment Program conducts lahar investigationsinternationally.

Coastal and Marine Geology Program.—The Coastal and Marine Geology Program focuseson coastal and submarine landslide studies. Theareas of investigations include California,Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, and Lake Michigan.The program also conducts subsidence studies inLouisiana.

National Geologic Cooperative MappingProgram.—The National Geologic CooperativeMapping Program supports comprehensive geologicmapping as a basis for landslide hazard assessmentthrough the matching-fund STATEMAP grantsprogram.

Earth Surface Dynamics Program.—The EarthSurface Dynamics Program supports research onlandslide processes and climate history in the BlueRidge in the Eastern United States.

Water Resource Programs.—Water Resourceprograms conduct research on landslides, debrisflows, subsidence, and riverine and coastal erosion.Research is also supported through USGS DistrictOffices in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and other States aslandslides occur.

—By Paula L. GoriU.S. Geological Survey

52

Department of Transportation—Federal Railroad Administration

The Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA)primary mission is to promote and regulate railroadsafety. To support its mission, the FRA sponsorsresearch projects to develop and demonstrate tech-niques for advancing railroad safety and for improv-ing railroad operating and maintenance practices.

As with any surface transportation, landslidescan threaten the safety of railroad operations, butlandslide mitigation planning and implementationfor railroads must consider the following charac-teristics of railroad operations and of the U.S.railroad network. First, warnings must allow fortrains to safely stop in advance of a hazard. Forheavy freight trains or faster passenger trains ondescending grades, stopping distances are often 1to 2 miles. Second, trains cannot steer aroundeven the smallest slides or obstructions. Andthird, especially in the Western United States,there are relatively few alternative railroad routes,and the detour distances for accessing these maybe hundreds of miles long.

Landslide mitigation methods on railroads aresimilar to those used for highway transport, mainlyslide fences, rock or slide sheds (in areas of frequent,heavy slides), and anchoring or stabilization ofunstable rock or soil slopes. Slide fences are oftentied into the signal systems, so that any slide ofsufficient intensity to break wires in the fence willcause the signals protecting the nearby section oftrack to show a stop indication; the train dispatchermay also receive an indication. Because of the miti-gation efforts that the railroad industry has taken,serious accidents, injuries, and fatalities due to slidesare relatively few, but there are still a considerablenumber of disruptions and delays due to slideevents.

Recent FRA landslide mitigation activitiesinclude sponsoring the demonstration of two tech-niques in the Northwest Corridor (between Vancou-ver, British Columbia, and Eugene, Oregon) –

• A cellular confinement method for stabiliz-ing slopes subject to failure by weatheringand erosion of the surface layer and

• A method to install liquid level sensorsfor indicating slope movement

In addition, the FRA, along with the Associationof American Railroads (AAR) and the NationalCenter for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), spon-sored a symposium in 2001 on Enhanced WeatherInformation for Railroad Productivity and Safety. Amajor focus of this symposium was weather andweather events as causes or triggers of natural haz-ards, including landslides. The FRA also participat-ed in the May 2002 Canadian workshop on NaturalHazard Mitigation on Railroads. This workshopfocused on addressing research needs for hazard riskmanagement, hazard characterization (prediction offrequency and magnitude), and monitoring anddetection technology.

Railroad landslide mitigation needs and ideasresulting from the 2001 FRA/AAR/NCAR sympo-sium and the 2002 Natural Hazard workshop wereconsistent with the objectives of the NationalLandslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy, particularlywith respect to the need for improved understand-ing of slide triggers, better monitoring and detec-tion technology, and the potential benefits of shar-ing information among different transportation andcommunications organizations with facilities andoperations close to active slide areas. The FRA willcontinue to support work in these areas in partner-ship with the railroad and research communities.

—By Donald PlotkinFederal Railroad Administration

Federal Emergency Management Agency

The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) has many roles in landslide hazard lossreduction. FEMA has responsibilities in emergencyresponse, disaster recovery assistance, and promotionof landslide hazard mitigation. FEMA coordinatesthe Federal Government’s response to disasters suchas earthquakes, hurricanes, and volcanic eruptionsthat include landslides through the Federal ResponsePlan. The agency provides financial assistance toState and local governments for repair of publicfacilities damaged during these disasters, includingreplacement of lost fill and construction of fill-

53

In the Directorate for Engineering, fundingmechanisms include peer reviewed unsolicited pro-posals, support for workshops, Small Grants forExploratory Research, and the CAREER Program(http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?gp). TheGHS Program does not have solicitations directedspecifically toward landslide and slope stabilityresearch; all current research in this area is the resultof unsolicited proposals. Historically, GHS has sup-ported development of numerical analysis tech-niques for slope stability, landslide mitigation tech-niques, investigations of seismic slope stability andearthquake induced submarine landslides, constitu-tive and rheological model development related toslope stability and mud and debris flows, and post-landslide reconnaissance. Current GHS-fundedresearch includes development of probabilistic meth-ods of stability analysis, analysis of the role of strainlocalization and dilatancy on slope stability, devel-opment of Time Domain Reflectometry sensors forearly warning of slope movement, using geographicinformation systems to evaluate the factors control-ling seismic slope stability, and stabilization ofslopes by using in-situ reinforcement.

In the Directorate for Geosciences, theHydrologic Sciences Program supports work onlandslide triggering caused by high water contents insoils and lubricating slip planes between strata; theGeology and Paleontology Program focuses on therole of landslides in reshaping the Earth's surface.Both programs interact with other NSF earth scienceprograms to study landslide triggering by earth-quakes or volcanic events. Projects include studieson diffusive soil transport as a process in hillslopeevolution and studies on reconstructing landslidehistory. The NFS is also starting a Science andTechnology Center at the University of Minnesota;here new analytical tools will be refined and devel-oped to study the various processes that sculpt theEarth's surface. A major focus will be the study ofthe patterns in which landslide materials accumulateover sequential events. The simulation of thisprocess is receiving growing attention as a tool inmapping aquifer properties.

—By Richard J. FragaszyNational Science Foundation

retaining devices such as gabions and rock toes. Fol-lowing disasters, the agency also supports installationof mitigation measures, such as installing drainageditches to direct flow away from the landslide areas.

FEMA provides relief to individuals who havesustained losses due to mudslides and who areinsured under the National Flood Insurance program.However, the distinctions that the agency makesbetween landslides and mudslides have been a sourceof controversy, as the agency provides only limiteddamage coverage. Also encouraging mitigation meas-ures in tandem with insurance coverage, which is acornerstone of the flood insurance program, has beenimpossible because, to date, there are no maps thatdelineate mudslide zones and no standards governingdevelopment in mudslide-prone areas.

FEMA promotes landslide-hazard mitigation bydeveloping State and national guidebooks for land-slide loss reduction, including a prototype mitiga-tion plan that can be incorporated into existing haz-ard mitigation plans. Through its Disaster-ResistantCommunities project, FEMA is encouraging localjurisdictions to implement mitigation programs thatreduce, among other hazards, landslides.

—By Ed PasterickFederal Insurance Administration

National Science Foundation

According to the National Science FoundationAct of 1950, the mission of the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) is to promote the progress ofscience; to advance the national health, prosperity,and welfare; and to secure the national defense.The NSF provides funding for landslide and slopestability research through several programs—

• The Geotechnical and GeoHazards Systems(GHS) Program (http://www.eng.nsf.gov/cms/ghs.htm), under the Division of Civil

and Mechanical Systems in the Directorate for Engineering (CMS/ENG)

• • The Hydrologic Sciences Program and the Geology and Paleontology Program, under the Division of Earth Sciences in the Direc- torate for Geosciences (EAR/GEO)

54

Contacts

Jerome DeGraffDepartment of AgricultureForest ServiceSierra National Forest1600 Tollhouse RoadClovis, CA 93611E-mail: Fishlake@worldnet.att.netTelephone: 209-297-0706, X4932Fax: 209-222-4122

Jerry DiMaggioDepartment of TransportationFederal Highway Administration 400 7th Street, SW., HNG-31Washington, DC 20590E-mail: Jerry.Dimaggio@fhwa.dot.govTelephone: 202-366-1569Fax: 202-366-3378

Richard J. FragaszyGeomechanics and Geotechnical SystemsCivil & Mechanical Systems DivisionNational Science Foundation4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 545Arlington, VA 22230E-mail: rfragasz@nsf.govTelephone: 703-292-7011

Paula L. GoriDepartment of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey904 National CenterReston, VA 20192E-mail: pgori@usgs.gov

Robert HigginsDepartment of the InteriorNational Park ServiceGeologic Resources DivisionP.O. Box 25287Denver, CO 80225E-mail: Robert-Higgins@nps.gov>Telephone: 303-969-2018Fax: 303-987-6792

Michael J. KlostermanDepartment of DefenseU.S. Army Corps of Engineers441 G Street, NW.Washington, DC 20314E-mail: michael.klosterman@usace.army.milTelephone: 202-761-5887Fax: 202-761-0633

Gene KruegerDepartment of the InteriorOffice of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement1951 Constitution Ave., NW.Washington, DC 20240E-mail: GKRUEGER@OSMRE.GOVTelephone: 202-208-2937

Robert LivezeyDepartment of CommerceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationClimate Prediction CenterN/NP51 NOAA Science CenterCamp Springs, MD 20746E-mail: Robert.E.Livezey@noaa.govTelephone: 301-763-8155Fax: 301-763-8395

Lindsay McLellandDepartment of the InteriorNational Park Service908 National CenterReston, VA 20192E-mail: Lindsay-Mclland@NPS.govTelephone: 202-208-4958, X6610Fax: 202-208-4620

Ed PasterickFederal Insurance Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency500 C Street, SW.Washington, DC 20472E-mail: Edward.pasterick@fema.govTelephone: 202-646-3443

55

William YpsilantisDepartment of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementP.O. Box 25047Denver Federal Center, Building 50Denver, CO 80225–0047E-mail: bill_ypsilantis@blm.gov

Donald PlotkinResearch Program ManagerDepartment of TransportationFederal Railroad AdministrationOffice of Research and Development1120 Vermont Avenue - Mail Stop 20Washington, DC 20590E-mail: Donald.Plotkin@fra.dot.govTelephone: 202-493-6334Fax: 202-493-6333

Barry D. SielDepartment of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationWestern Resource Center555 Zang Street, No. 400Lakewood, CO 80228E-mail: barry.siel@fhwa.dot.govTelephone: 303-716-2294Fax: 303-969-6727

56

Published in the Eastern Region, Reston, Va.Manuscript approved for publication October 28, 2002