National Landslide Hazards 
Mitigation StrategyÑ
A Framework for Loss Reduction
Circular 1244 
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey

Landslide overview map of the conterminous United States. Different colors denote areas of varying landslide occurrence. From 
U.S. Geological Survey, 1997, Digital compilation of landslide overview map of the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological 
Survey Open-File Report 97Ð0289, digital compilation by Jonathan W. Godt, available on the web at 
http://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 houses 
nearest 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 StrategyÑ
A Framework for Loss Reduction
By Elliott C. Spiker and Paula L. Gori 
Circular 1244 
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Department of the Interior
Gale A. Norton, Secretary 
U.S. Geological Survey
Charles G. Groat, Director 
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2003 
Free on application to 
U.S. Geological SurveyInformation Services 
Box 25286, Federal Center 
Denver, CO 80225 
For more information about the USGS and its products:
Telephone: 1Ð888ÐASKÐUSGS
World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov
Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for
descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by
the 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.
363.34Õ9--dc21 2002044779

Preface 
House Report 106Ð222 accompanying the Interior Appropriations Bill for fiscal 
year 2000 (as incorporated in Public Law 106Ð113) states, "The committee is 
concerned over the lack of attention given to the SurveyÕs landslide program. 
Because of this concern, the Survey is directed to develop by September 15, 
2000, a comprehensive strategy, including the estimated costs associated with 
addressing the widespread landslide hazards facing the Nation. The preparation 
of this strategy should include the involvement of all parties having responsibility 
for dealing with the problems associated with landslides." 
In fulfillment of the requirements of Public Law 106Ð113, the United States Geological 
Survey submits this circular, which describes a national strategy to 
reduce losses from landslides. The circular includes a summary of the NationÕs 
needs for research, monitoring, mapping, and assessment of landslide hazards 
nationwide. 

Contents 
Preface iii
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 4
Losses from Landslide Hazards in the United States 7
A National Strategy 11
The National Landslide Hazard Mitigation Strategy 13
Reaching the Goal 13
Major Elements and Strategic Objectives 14
Element 1. Research 14
Element 2. Hazard Mapping and Assessments 14
Element 3. Real-Time Monitoring 16
Element 4. Loss Assessment 18
Element 5. Information Collection, Interpretation, Dissemination, and Archiving 20
Element 6. Guidelines and Training 22
Element 7. Public Awareness and Education 22
Element 8. Implementation of Loss Reduction Measures 24
Element 9. Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 26
Action Items for a National Strategy for Reducing Losses from Landslides  28
Key Steps for Implementation 28
Management Plan 28
New and Enhanced Roles and Partnerships 28
Funding for the USGS to Implement a National Strategy for Reducing Losses
from Landslide 31
Expansion of the Work Performed by Scientists in the Landslide Hazards Program 31
Establishment of a New Cooperative Landslide Hazard Assessment and
Mapping Program 31
Establishment of a New Cooperative Federal Land Management
Landslide Hazards Program 32
Establishment of New Partnerships for Landslide Hazard Loss
Reduction Program 33
Funding Summayr 33
Major Accomplishments and Products 34
Acknowledgments 34
Appendix 1. Previous Reports and Sources of Landslide Hazards Information 35
Appendix 2. Meetings with Stakeholders 36
Appendix 3. Landslide Hazards and Other Ground FailuresÑCauses and Types 39
Appendix 4. Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategies 41
Appendix 5. Landslide Hazards Maps and Risk Assessments 43
Appendix 6. Current Landslide Research and Mitigation Activities and Responsibilities
in the United States 46
Appendix 7. Federal Agency Landslide Hazard Activities 48

Highlights
1. Massive Landslide at Thistle, Utah 5
2. Wildfires and Debris Flows 8
3. Building Disaster-Resistant Communities  10
4. Debris-Flow FlumeÑUnderstanding Landslide Processes  12
5. Mapping Debris-Flow Hazards in Madison County, Virginia 15
6. Real-Time Monitoring of Active Landslides 17
7. Inventory of Slope Failures in Oregon for Three 1996Ð97 Storm Events 19
8. Warning of Potential Landslides 21
9. Alerting the Public to the Hazards of Mount Rainier  23
10. Cincinnati, OhioÑA Leader in Landslide Loss Reduction Measures 25
11. Daly CityÑThe Human Cost of Landslide 27

Figures
1Ð4. Photographs showingÑ
1. Massive landslide at Thistle, Utah, 1983  5
2. Debris flow near Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 1994  . . . 8
3. Landslide in northwest Seattle, Washington  . 10
4. Debris-flow flume, 45 miles east of Eugene, Oregon, constructed to conduct
controlled experiments 12
5. Portion of debris-flow hazard map, Madison County, Virginia 15
6. Diagram showing network for transmission of real-time landslide data 17
7. Photograph showing scientist measuring landslide movement 17
8. Photograph showing scientists testing a solar-powered radio telemetry system for
remote transmission of real-time landslide data  17
9. Landslide-inventory map for three 1996Ð97 storm events in Oregon 19
10. Photographs showing debris flow in Pacifica, California, and house (inset) at
edge of debris flow, 1982  21
11. Map showing hazard zones from lahars, lava flows, and pyroclastic flows
from Mount Rainier 23
12. Photograph showing earthflow in Cincinnati, Ohio  . . . 25
13. Photograph showing gully retreat threatening evacuated houses in
Daly City, California, 1998 27
5Ð1. Maps of part of Seattle, Washington, showing (A) landslide inventory, (B) landslide
susceptibility, (C), Probability of landslide occurrence, (D) Probability of landslide
damage, and (E) Risk of loss due to landslide  44

Table
1. New roles and partnership opportunities under the National Landslide Hazards
Mitigation Strategy 29

National Landslide Hazards
Mitigation StrategyÑ
A Framework for Loss Reduction
By Elliott C. Spiker and Paula L. Gori 
"Science by itself will not protect us. Federal, State, and local governments, the private sector, volunteer 
and charitable organizations and individual citizens must work together in applying the science to make 
our communities safer." 
ÑCharles Groat, Director of the U.S. Geological Survey 
This circular outlines the key elements of a comprehensive and effective national strategy for reducing losses from landslides nationwide and provides 
an assessment of the status, needs, and associated costs of this strategy. The circular 
is submitted in compliance with a directive of Public Law 106Ð113 (see 
preface). A broad spectrum of expert opinion was sought in developing this 
strategy report, as requested by the U.S. Congress in House Report 106Ð222. 
The strategy was developed in response to the rising costs resulting from 
landslide hazards in the United States and includes activities at the National, 
State, and local levels, in both the public and private sectors. The strategy 
gives the Federal Government a prominent role in efforts to reduce losses due 
to landslide hazards, in partnership with State and local governments. The 
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has taken the lead in developing the strategy 
on behalf of the large multisector, multiagency stakeholder group involved in 
landslide hazards mitigation. The USGS derives its leadership role in landslide 
hazard-related work from the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Stafford Act). For 
example, the Director of the USGS has been delegated the responsibility to 
issue disaster warnings for an earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, or 
other geologic catastrophe (1974 Disaster Relief Act 42 U.S.C. 5201 et seq). 
The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy includes developing 
new partnerships among government at all levels, academia, and the private 
sector and expanding landslide research, mapping, assessment, real-time monitoring, 
forecasting, information management and dissemination, mitigation 
tools, and emergency preparedness and response. Such a strategy uses new 
technological advances, enlists the expertise associated with other related hazards 
such as floods, earthquakes and volcanic activity, and utilizes incentives 
for the adoption of loss reduction measures nationwide. 

The strategy envisions a society that is fully aware of landslide hazards 
and routinely takes action to reduce both the risks and costs associated with 
those hazards. The long-term mission of a comprehensive landslide hazard 
mitigation strategy is to provide and encourage the use of scientific information, 
maps, methodology, and guidance for emergency management, land-use 
planning, and development and implementation of public and private policy 
to 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 result 
from landslides and other ground-failure hazards. 
This comprehensive National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy 
employs a wide range of scientific, planning, and policy tools to address various 
aspects of the problem to effectively reduce losses from landslides and 
other ground failures. It has the following nine major elements, spanning a 
continuum from research to the formulation and implementation of policy 
and mitigation: 
¥ Research.ÑDeveloping a predictive understanding of landslide 
processes and triggering mechanism 
¥ Hazard mapping and assessments.ÑDelineating susceptible areas and 
different types of landslide hazards at a scale useful for planning and 
decisionmaking 
¥ Real-time monitoring.ÑMonitoring active landslides that pose substantial 
risk 
¥ Loss assessment.ÑCompiling and evaluating information on the economic 
impacts of landslide hazards 
¥ Information collection, interpretation, and dissemination.Ñ 
Establishing an effective system for information transfer 
¥ Guidelines and training.ÑDeveloping guidelines and training for scientists, 
engineers, and decisionmakers 
¥ Public awareness and education.ÑDeveloping information and education 
for the user community 
¥ Implementation of loss reduction measures.ÑEncouraging mitigation 
action 
¥ Emergency preparedness, response, and recovery.ÑBuilding resilient 
communities 
In each of the above nine elements above, the USGS has a significant role; 
however, the USGS is not the lead for all elements. 

Landslide hazards mitigation requires collaboration among academia, government, 
and the private sector. Aggressive implementation of a comprehensive 
and effective national landslide hazards mitigation strategy requires 
increased investment in landslide hazard research, mapping and monitoring, 
and mitigation activities. Reducing losses from landslide hazards can be 
accomplished in part by expanding the existing USGS Landslide Hazard 
Program, 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 and 
Mapping Program to increase the efforts of State and local governments 
to map and assess landslide hazards within their jurisdictions 
through competitive grants ($8 million annually, to be augmented 
with 30 percent matching funds by the States and local jurisdictions) 
¥ Establishment of a Cooperative Federal Land Management Landslide 
Hazard Program to increase the capability of the National Park 
Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and 
other such organizations to address landslide hazards under their 
jurisdictions ($2 million annually for work performed by USGS scientists 
on public lands) 
¥ Establishment of a Partnerships for Landslide Hazard Loss Reduction 
Program to support research and implementation efforts by universities, 
local governments, and the private sector through competitive 
grants ($2 million annually) 
Total new funding required for full implementation of the National Landslide 
Hazards Mitigation Strategy within the USGS is estimated to be approximately 
$20 million annually. 
An effective National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy also depends 
on stronger partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments and the 
private sector in the areas of hazard assessments, monitoring, and emergency 
response and recovery. The strategy recommended in this circular advocates 
enhanced coordination among Federal, State, and local agencies to partner 
effectively with the academic and the private sectors and to leverage shared 
resources under the leadership of the USGS. 

Introduction
Landslides and other forms of ground failure affect communities all across 
the Nation. Despite advances in science and technology, these events continue 
to result in human suffering, billions of dollars in property losses, and environmental 
degradation. As our population increases and our society becomes ever 
more complex, the economic and societal costs of landslides and other ground 
failures will continue to rise. 
We have the capability as a Nation to understand and identify these hazards 
and to implement mitigation measures. For many years, the U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS), the States, numerous universities, and the private 
sector have been grappling with understanding and reducing landslide hazards, 
and they have developed an extensive body of knowledge (see appendix 1 for 
sources of information). However, to achieve the goal of significantly reducing 
losses from landslide hazards, we need a much more comprehensive scientific 
understanding of landslide processes and occurrence, a robust monitoring program 
to warn of impending danger from active landslides, a much greater public 
awareness and understanding of the threat and the options for reducing the 
risk, and action at the local level. 
A significant, sustained, long-term effort to reduce losses from landslides 
and other ground failures in the United States will require a national commitment 
among all levels of government and the private sector. The Federal 
Government, in partnership with State and local governments, must provide 
leadership, coordination, research support, incentives, and resources to encourage 
communities, businesses, and individuals to undertake mitigation to minimize 
potential losses and to employ mitigation in the recovery following landslides 
and other natural hazard events. 
The USGS is the recognized authority for understanding landslide hazards 
in the United States and the long-time leader in this area. The USGS derives 
its leadership role in landslide-hazard-related work from the Disaster Relief 
Act of 1974 (Stafford Act). The Director of the USGS has been delegated the 
responsibility to issue disaster warnings for an earthquake, volcanic eruption, 
landslide, or other geologic catastrophe consistent with the 1974 Disaster 
Relief Act 42 U.S.C. 5201 et seq. 
As requested by the U.S. Congress in House Report 106Ð222, the USGS 
has prepared this National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy on behalf of 
the large multisector, multiagency stakeholder group involved in landslide 
research and mitigation nationwide. A number of stakeholder workshops were 
held during 1999 and 2000 with representatives of government and private 
organizations, academicians, and private citizens to seek their opinion and 
input (see appendix 2 for more information about the stakeholder workshops). 

The 1983 Thistle landslide began 
moving in the spring of 1983 in 
response to ground-water buildup 
from heavy rains the previous 
from the winter of 1983. Within a few 
weeks, the landslide dammed the 
obliterating U.S. Highway 6 and the 
main line of the Denver and Rio 
The town of Thistle was inundat-
ed by the floodwaters rising behind 
the landslide dam. Eventually a drain 
system was engineered to drain the 
The landslide reached a state of equi-
reactivation caused the railway to 
construct a tunnel through bedrock 
around the slide zone at a cost of mil-
lions of dollars. The highway likewise 
was realigned around the landslide. 
When the lake was drained, residual 
muck partially buried the town, and vir-
costs (direct and indirect) incurred by 
this landslide exceeded $400 million, 
making this the most costly single 
Figure 1. The 1983 Thistle landslide, 
central Utah. Thistle Lake, which 
resulted from damming of the Spanish 
about 6 months after the slide 
occurred, shows the realignment of the 
Railroad lines in the lower center and 
the large cut for rerouting U.S. 
Highway 6/50 on the extreme left side 
of the photograph. 
Highlight 1Ñ 
Massive Landslide at 
Thistle, Utah 
5 
September and melting snowpack 
Spanish Fork River, consequently 
Grande Western Railroad (fig. 1). 
lake and avert a potential disaster. 
librium across the valley, but fears of 
tually no one returned to Thistle. Total 
landslide event in U.S. history. 
Fork River, was later drained as a pre-
cautionary measure. This view, taken 
Denver and Rio Grande Western 
Photograph by R.L. Schuster, U.S. 
Geological Survey. 

The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy provides a framework 
for reducing losses from landslides and other ground failures. 
Although the strategy is national in scope, it is not exclusively Federal or 
even exclusively governmental. Mitigation, defined as any sustained 
action 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 on 
partnerships with stakeholders at all levels of government and in the 
private sector. 
The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy described here 
incorporates many ideas and recommendations of previous studies and 
reports that expressed the need for a national strategy to address natural 
hazards, including landslides and other ground failures (see appendix 1). 
These earlier studies and reports should be referred to for more in-depth 
discussions of and insights into landslide hazard mitigation and research 
needs. The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy builds on the 
principles, goals, and objectives of the National Mitigation StrategyÑ 
Partnerships for Building Safer Communities, developed in 1996 by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to encourage mitigation 
of all forms of natural hazards in the United States. 
The term "landslide" describes many types of downhill earth movements, 
ranging from rapidly moving catastrophic rock avalanches and 
debris flows in mountainous regions to more slowly moving earth slides 
and other ground failures. In addition to the different types of landslides, 
the broader scope of ground failure includes subsidence, permafrost, and 
shrinking soils. This report focuses on landslides, the most critical ground-
failure problem facing most regions of the Nation. However, the National 
Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy provides a framework that can be 
applied to other ground-failure hazards (see appendix 3 for more information 
about different types of landslide hazards and other forms of ground 
failure). 

Landslides are among the most widespread geologic hazards on Earth. Losses from Landslide 
Landslides cause billions of dollars in damages and thousands of deaths and Hazards in the United 
injuries each year around the world. Landslides threaten lives and property in States 
every State in the Nation, resulting in an estimated 25 to 50 deaths and damage 
exceeding $2 billion annually. Although most landslides in the United 
States occur as separate, widely distributed events, thousands of landslides can 
be triggered by a single severe storm and earthquake, causing spectacular 
damage in a short time over a wide area. 
The United States has experienced several catastrophic landslide disasters 
in recent years. In 1985, a massive slide in southern Puerto Rico killed 129 
people, the greatest loss of life from a single landslide in U.S. history. The 
1982Ð83 and 1983Ð84 El Ni–o seasons triggered landslide events that affected 
the entire Western United States, including California, Washington, Utah, 
Nevada, and Idaho. The Thistle, Utah, landslide of 1983 caused $400 million 
in losses, the most expensive single landslide in U.S. history, and the 1997Ð98 
El Ni–o rainstorms in the San Francisco Bay area produced thousands of landslides, 
causing over $150 million in direct public and private costs. 
Landslides are a significant component of many major natural disasters 
and are responsible for greater losses than is generally recognized. Landslide 
damage is often reported as a result of a triggering eventÑfloods, earthquakes, 
or volcanic eruptionsÑeven though the losses from landsliding may exceed all 
other losses from the overall disaster. For example, flash floods in mountainous 
areas often have devastating debris flows. Also, most of the losses due to 
the 1964 Alaska earthquake resulted from ground failure rather than from 
shaking of structures, and landslides associated with a major earthquake in 
Afghanistan and with Hurricane Mitch in Central America in 1998 caused the 
majority of fatalities in these disasters. 
All 50 States and the U.S. Territories experience landslides and other 
ground-failure problems; 36 States have moderate to highly severe landslide 
hazards. The greatest landslide damage occurs in the Appalachian, Rocky 
Mountain, and Pacific Coast regions and Puerto Rico. Seismically active 
mountainous regions, such as those in Alaska, Hawaii, and the West Coast are 
especially at risk. Extremely vulnerable are areas where wildfires have 
destroyed vegetation, exposing barren ground to heavy rainfall. 
Landslide losses are increasing in the United States and worldwide as 
development expands under pressures of increasing populations. The resulting 
encroachment of developments into hazardous areas, expansion of transportation 
infrastructure, deforestation of landslide-prone areas, and changing climate 
patterns may lead to continually increasing landslide losses. However, an 
increase in the cost of landslide hazards can be curbed through better understanding 
and mapping of the hazards and improved capabilities to mitigate and 
respond to the hazards. 
7

Highlight 2Ñ 
Wildfires and Debris Flows 
8 
During the summer of 2000, 
numerous wildfires burned drought-
parched areas of the Western United 
States. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 
scientists were enlisted to advise 
Federal and State emergency 
response teams on the potential for 
future debris flows in burned areas, 
such as the Cerro Grande fire (Los 
Alamos, New Mexico) and the Hi-
Meadow and Bobcat fires (Colorado). 
Debris flows often occur during 
the fall and winter following major 
summer fires. One such combination 
of fires and debris flows occurred in 
July 1994, when a severe wildfire 
swept Storm King Mountain west of 
Glenwood Springs, Colorado, denuding 
the slopes of vegetation. Heavy 
rains on the mountain the following 
September caused numerous debris 
flows, one of which blocked Interstate 
70 and threatened to dam the 
Colorado River (fig. 2). A 3-mile length 
of the highway was buried under tons 
of rock, mud, and burned trees. The 
closure of Interstate 70 imposed costly 
delays on this major transcontinental 
highway. The USGS assisted in 
analyzing the debris-flow threat and 
installing monitoring and warning systems 
to alert local safety officials 
when high-intensity rainfall occurred 
or debris flows passed through a susceptible 
canyon. Similar debris flows 
threaten other transportation corridors 
and other development in and 
near fire-ravaged hillsides. 
From Highland, L.M., Ellen, S.D., 
Christian, S.B., and Brown, W.M., III, 
1997, Debris-flow hazards in the 
United States: U.S. Geological Survey 
Fact Sheet FSÐ176Ð97, available on 
the web at 
http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/ 
factsheets/debrisflowfs.pdf. 
Figure 2. Debris flows like this one near 
Glenwood Springs, Colorado, in 1994 
are a consequence of heavy rainfall on 
previously burned hillsides. In addition 
to personal injuries and damage to 30 
vehicles engulfed by these flows, transportation 
along the Interstate 70 corridor 
was brought to a standstill for a day, 
and business and emergency operations 
in the Glenwood Springs area 
were seriously impeded. Photograph by 
Jim Scheidt, U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management. 

Landslides and other ground failures impose many direct and indirect 
costs on society. Direct costs include the actual damage sustained by buildings 
and property, ranging from the expense of cleanup and repair to replacement. 
Indirect costs are harder to measure and include business disruption, loss of 
tax 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 that 
are responsible for disaster assistance and highway maintenance and repair. 
Landslides have a significant adverse effect on infrastructure and threaten 
transportation corridors, fuel and energy conduits, and communications linkages. 
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 gas 
production facilities, port facilities, and waste repositories continually are 
affected by land movement. Road building and construction often exacerbate 
the landslide problem in hilly areas by altering the landscape, slopes, and 
drainages and by changing and channeling runoff, thereby increasing the 
potential for landslides. Landslides and others forms of ground failure also 
have adverse environmental consequences, such as dramatically increased soil 
erosion, siltation of streams and reservoirs, blockage of stream drainages, and 
loss of valuable watershed, grazing, and timber lands. 

Highlight 3Ñ 
Communities 
10 
Building Disaster-Resistant 
An outstanding example of pub-
lic-private partnerships is the Federal 
Emergency Management AgencyÕs 
(FEMA) Disaster-Resistant Communities 
project (formerly called Project 
Impact). Nearly 200 communities and 
more than 1,100 business partners 
have embraced this project since its 
inception in 1997. Rather than waiting 
for disasters to occur, communities 
take action to reduce potentially devastating 
disasters. Seattle Washington, 
a city that is exposed to significant 
landslide hazards, was one of the first 
communities in the United States to 
join. 
In conjunction with FEMA, the 
city of Seattle collaborated with the 
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) todevelop landslide hazard maps that 
will enable the city to be better prepared 
for landslide emergencies and 
to reduce losses resulting from landslide 
disasters (fig. 3). The city made 
available information needed by USGS 
scientists to accurately assess landslide 
hazards in the area and to produce 
a computer-based landslide hazard 
map. This map includes Seattle's 
detailed topographic database and 
related geographic data, detailed precipitation 
data collected by the 
National Weather Service, geographic 
information system support for completing 
the maps, and a landslide 
database from city records that date 
back to the late 1800s. USGS scientists 
are analyzing city data along with 
other information to determine the 
degree of landslide hazard throughout 
the city. The scientists are also conducting 
studies to determine the probability 
that landslides will result from 
storms of different magnitudes. 
The Disaster-Resistant 
Communities project has resulted in 
unprecedented awareness of landslide 
hazards by the private sector. 
For example, major mortgage bankers 
have realized that they hold mortgages 
on many properties in areas of 
significant landslide hazard in Seattle 
and elsewhere in the United States 
and are beginning to take steps to 
encourage homeowners to mitigate 
the hazards. 
Figure 3. Landslide in northwest Seattle, 
Washington. Foundation of the house on 
the right edge of the photograph and 
the decks of neighboring houses have 
been undermined. Photograph by Alan 
F. Chleborad, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Society is far from helpless in the face of these prospects. 
Improvements in our scientific understanding of landslides and other 
ground-failure hazards can provide more accurate delineation of hazardous 
areas and assessments of their hazard potential. This information can be 
developed in a form and at a scale meaningful and useful for decisionmaking. 
Cost-effective actions can be taken to reduce the loss of lives and property, 
damage to the environment, and economic and social disruption 
caused by landslides and other ground failures (see appendix 4 for more 
information about mitigation techniques). 
Government at all levels plays critical roles in advancing landslide 
hazard mitigation and developing programs and incentives that encourage 
and support community-based implementation. A national strategy to 
reduce losses from landslides and other ground failures must have both 
research and implementation components to increase understanding of 
landslides and other ground failures and put existing knowledge to use to 
reduce losses. Developing durable and comprehensive solutions to landslides 
and other ground-failure hazards will require a continuing dialog among 
and concerted action by all sectors of our society. 
A new public-private partnership is needed at the Federal, State, and 
local levels to foster continuing cooperation among geologists, engineers, 
hydrologists, planners, and decisionmakers regarding landslides and other 
natural hazards. This ongoing effort will, over time, help to ensure that the 
needed scientific and engineering information is developed in a form useful 
for planning and decisionmaking and that such information is applied to 
mitigate these hazards. 
A National Strategy 

Highlight 4Ñ 
Debris-Flow FlumeÑ 
Understanding Landslide 
Processes 
12 
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) scientists 
recreate debris flows in a flume 
that has been constructed to conduct 
controlled experiments (fig. 4). 
Located about 45 miles east of 
Eugene, Oregon, this unique facility 
provides research opportunities available 
nowhere else in the United 
States. USGS and USFS scientists 
conduct experiments to improve the 
understanding of ground vibrations 
caused by debris flows and to refine 
automated debris-flow detection systems. 
The flume also provides an 
ideal environment for testing landslide 
controls that deflect, trap, or channelize 
debris flows. Experiments that 
assess how debris flows react to and 
act upon such controls can be used 
to guide and evaluate engineering 
designs. 
The debris-flow flume is a reinforced 
concrete channel 310 feet 
long, 6.6 feet wide, and 4 feet deep 
that slopes 31 degrees, an angle typical 
of terrain where natural debris 
flows originate. Removable glass windows 
built into the side of the flume 
allow flows to be observed and photographed 
as they sweep past. A total 
of 18 data-collection ports in the floor 
Figure 4. The U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS) debris-flow flume is located in 
H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest,
Oregon. The flume was constructed to 
conduct controlled debris-flow experiments. 
Photograph courtesy of the 
USGS, taken September 13, 2001. 
of the flume permit measurements of 
forces due to particles sliding and 
colliding at the based of flows. 
Additional insight can be gained by 
using ultrasound imaging to "see" 
into the interior of flows and by 
deploying "smart rocks" containing 
miniature computers that record the 
rocksÕ accelerations as they move 
down the flume. 
To create a debris flow, 20 cubic 
meters (about 40 tons) of saturated 
sediment are placed behind a steel 
gate at the head of the flume and then 
released. Alternatively, a sloping 
mass of sediment can be placed 
behind a retaining wall at the flume 
head and watered until slope failure 
occurs. The ensuing debris flow 
descends the flume and forms a 
deposit at the flume base. The flume 
design thus accommodates research 
on all stages of the debris-flow 
process, from initiation through 
deposition. 
From Iverson, R.M., Costa, J.E., and 
LaHusen, R.G., 1982, Debris flow 
flume at H.J. Andrews Experimental 
Forest, Oregon: U.S.Geological Survey 
Open-File Report 92Ð483, 2 p. 

The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy described herein 
envisions a society that is fully aware of landslide hazards and routinely takes 
action to reduce both the risks and costs associated with those hazards. The 
strategy envisions bringing together relevant scientific, engineering, construction, 
planning, and policy capabilities of the Nation to eliminate losses from 
landslides and other ground-failure hazards nationwide. 
The long-term mission of such a strategy is to provide and encourage the 
use of scientific information, maps, methodology, and guidance for emergency 
management, land-use planning, and development and implementation of public 
and private policy to reduce losses from landslides and other ground-failure 
hazards nationwide. 
The strategic plan described in this report has nine major elements, spanning 
a continuum from research to the formulation and implementation of policy 
and mitigation objectives. Implementation of such a strategy will demand a 
multiyear coordinated public and private effort. All levels of government and 
the private sector share responsibility for addressing these priorities and 
accomplishing the objectives. Some of the objectives consist of a single, discrete 
action; others encompass a series of interdependent actions to be taken 
over the first 10 years of implementation. Although the primary focus is on 
landslide hazards, the national strategy provides a framework for addressing 
other forms of ground failure as well. 
The USGS has a role in each of the nine elements as a provider of landslide 
hazard information; however, the lead and participants in each element 
differ with the nature of the element. 
The National 
Landslide Hazards 
Mitigation Strategy 
Reaching the Goal 

Major Elements and Research to develop a predictive understanding of landslide processes and 
Strategic Objectives triggering mechanisms will be led by the USGS. Hazard identification is a 
cornerstone of landslide hazard mitigation. Although many aspects of landslide 
hazards are well understood, a much more comprehensive understanding 
Element 1. Research of landslide processes and mechanisms is required to truly advance our ability 
to predict the behavior of differing types of landslides. The following actions 
will increase the NationÕs capability to forecast landslide hazards through 
enhanced research, the application of new technology, and an increased understanding 
of landslide processes, thresholds, and triggering mechanisms: 
¥ Develop a national research agenda and a multiyear implementation 
plan based on the current state of scientific knowledge concerning 
landslide hazard processes, thresholds, and triggers and on the ability 
to predict landslide hazard behavior 
¥ Develop improved, more realistic scientific models of ground deformation 
and slope failure processes and implement their use in predicting 
landslide hazards nationwide 
¥ Develop dynamic landslide prediction systems capable of interactively 
displaying changing landslide hazards in both space and time in areas 
prone to different types of landslide hazards (for example, shallow 
debris flows during intense rain, deep-seated slides during months of 
wet weather, and rock avalanches during an earthquake) 
Element 2. Hazard Efforts to delineate susceptible areas and different types of landslide haz-
Mapping and ards at a scale useful for planning and decisionmaking will be led by the 
Assessments USGS and State Geological Surveys. Landslide inventory and landslide susceptibility 
maps are critically needed in landslide-prone regions of the Nation. 
These maps must be sufficiently detailed to support mitigation action at the 
local 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 landslide 
hazards). Risk assessments estimate the potential economic impact of landslide 
hazard events. Landslide inventory and susceptibility maps and other 
data are a critical first step and are prerequisite to producing probabilistic hazard 
maps and risk assessments, but these maps and data are not yet available 
for most areas of the United States. The following actions will provide the 
necessary maps and assessments and other information to officials and 
planners to reduce risk and losses: 
¥ Develop and implement a plan for mapping and assessing landslide 
and other ground-failure hazards nationwide 
¥ Develop an inventory of known landslide and other ground-failure 
hazards nationwide 
¥ Develop and encourage the use of standards and guidelines for landslide 
hazard maps and assessments 

A major landslide event occurred 
in Madison County, Virginia, in the 
summer of 1995. During an intense 
storm on June 27th, 30 inches of rain 
fell in 16 hours. In mountainous areas, 
rain-saturated landslides known as 
debris flows were triggered by the 
hundreds, causing extensive devastation 
and one fatality. 
Historical records tell us that 
destructive landslides and debris 
flows in the Appalachian Mountains 
occur when unusually heavy rain from 
hurricanes and intense storms soaks 
the ground, reducing the ability of 
steep slopes to resist the downslope 
pull of gravity. For example, during 
Hurricane Camille in 1969, such conditions 
generated debris flows in 
Nelson County, Virginia, 90 miles 
south of Madison County. The storm 
caused 150 deaths, mostly attributed 
to debris flows, and more than $100 
million in property damage. Likewise, 
72 hours of storms in Virginia and 
West Virginia during early November 
1985 caused debris flows and flooding 
in the Potomac and Cheat River 
basins that were responsible for 70 
deaths and $1.3 billion in damage to 
homes, businesses, roads, and farmlands. 
Scientists from the U.S. 
Geological Survey have developed an 
inventory of landslides, debris flows, 
and flooding from the storm of June 
27, 1995, by using aerial photography, 
field investigations, rainfall measurements 
from rain gages, and National 
Weather Service radar observations. 
This inventory and a new debris-flow 
hazard map (fig. 5) are being used to 
help understand the conditions that 
led to the floods and debris flows 
caused by the 1995 summer storms in 
Virginia and to suggest methods of 
mitigating the effects of such events 
in the future. 
Figure 5. Portion of debris-flow hazard 
irginia. From 
Campbell, R.H., 1999, Historical and 
potential debris-flow and flood hazard 
map of the area affected by the June 
Geologic Investigations Series Map 
IÐ2623ÐB, 1 sheet. 
Highlight 5Ñ 
Mapping Debris-Flow Hazards 
15 
From 
Debris-flow hazards in the Blue Ridge 
of Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey 
Fact Sheet FSÐ159Ð96, 4 p. 
map, Madison County, VMorgan, B.A., Wieczorek, G.F., and 
27, 1995, storm in Madison County, 
Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey 
in Madison County, Virginia 
Gori, P.L., and Burton, W.C., 1996, 

Element 3. Real-Time Studies to monitor active landslides that pose substantial risk will be led 
Monitoring by the USGS. Monitoring active landslides serves the dual purpose of providing 
hazard warning in time to avoid or lessen losses, as well as supporting 
landslide research by providing new insights into landslide processes and triggering 
mechanisms. Collection of rare dynamic movement behavior data 
enables the testing of landslide velocity models and the development of 
improved predictive tools applicable to other slides. Development and application 
of real-time monitoring of active landslides using state-of-the-art research 
and telecommunications technologies are critically needed nationwide in cases 
of imminent risk. The following actions will provide the necessary warning 
and other information to officials and communities to avoid or reduce losses: 
¥ Develop and implement a national landslide hazard monitoring and 
prediction capability 
¥ Develop real-time monitoring and prediction capabilities on both site 
specific and regional scales, to assist Federal, State, and local emergency 
managers determine the nature of landslide hazards and the 
extent of ongoing risks 
¥ Apply remote-sensing technologies such as Synthetic Aperture radar 
and laser altimetry for monitoring landslide movement nationwide 
¥ Incorporate state-of-the-art techniques such as microseismicity and 
rainfall and pore-pressure monitoring with hydrologically based models 
of slope stability and global positioning systems (GPS) 
¥ Integrate real-time monitoring capabilities with the National Weather 
ServiceÕs NEXRAD capabilities in selected locations nationwide 

Five landslides that threaten U.S. 
Highway 50 and nearby homes in 
Sierra Nevada, California, are being 
monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS) after heavy rains in 
January 1997 generated debris flows 
that blocked Highway 50. The cost of 
reopening the highway was $4.5 million, 
with indirect economic losses 
from closure of the highway amounting 
to an additional $50 million. To 
monitor the risk posed by landslides 
in this area, the USGS, in cooperation 
with local, State, and other Federal 
Agencies, provides continuous real-
time monitoring of landslide activity 
using a system developed by the 
USGS for monitoring active volcanoes 
in remote areas (fig. 6). 
This system measures ground 
movement and ground-water pressures 
every second. Slope movement 
is recorded by instruments that detect 
stretching and shortening of the 
ground (fig. 7). Ground vibrations 
caused by slide movement are monitored 
by geophones buried within the 
slide. Ground-water conditions within 
the slides are monitored by sensors, 
and rain gauges record precipitation. 
Under normal conditions, data are 
transmitted to USGS computers every 
10 minutes, but if strong ground vibrations 
caused by massive landslide 
movement are detected, data are 
transmitted immediately (fig. 8). 
The USGS operates other remote 
real-time landslide monitoring sites. 
Near Seattle, Washington, a real-time 
system monitors a slide threatening a 
major railway, and in Rio Nido, 
California, another system monitors a 
large landslide threatening more than 
140 homes. Remote monitoring also 
can record the effects of wildfire in 
destabilizing slopes. 
From Reid, M.E., LaHusen, R.G., and 
Ellis, W.L., 1999, Real-time monitoring 
of active landslides: U.S. Geological 
Survey Fact Sheet FSÐ91Ð99, 2 p. 
Highlight 6Ñ 
Active Landslides 
17 
Figure 8. 
telemetry system for remote transmission 
of real-time landslide data. Photograph by 
Figure 7. Measuring landslide movement. 
Photograph by Richard LaHusen, U.S. 
Figure 6. Network for transmission of 
real-time landslide data. 
Real-Time Monitoring of 
Testing a solar-powered radio 
Mark Reid, U.S. Geological Survey. 
Geological Survey. 

Element 4. Loss 
Assessment 
A project compiling and evaluating information on the economic impacts 
of landslide hazards will be led by FEMA and the insurance industry. 
Although losses from landslides and other natural hazards are frequent and 
widespread, these losses are not consistently compiled and tracked in the 
United States. Following a landslide or other natural hazard event, a variety of 
different agencies and organizations may provide damage estimates, but these 
estimates usually vary widely, cover a range of different costs, and change 
through time. The National Research Council concluded in their 1999 report 
"The Impact of Natural DisastersÑA Framework for Loss Estimation" that 
there is no widely accepted framework for estimating the losses from natural 
disasters, including landslide and other ground-failure hazards. This lack of 
information makes it difficult to set policies for coping with these hazards and 
difficult to gage the cost-effectiveness of policy decisions and effectiveness of 
mitigation measures. Loss data are critically needed to help government agencies 
identify trends and track progress in reducing losses from landslides. The 
following actions will provide a framework for compiling and assessing a 
comprehensive data base of losses from landslides and other ground -failure 
hazards, which will help guide research, mapping, and mitigation activities 
nationwide: 
¥ Assess the current status of data on losses from landslides and other 
ground failures nationwide, including the types and extent of losses to 
public and private property, infrastructure, and natural and cultural 
resources 
¥ Establish and implement a national strategy for compilation, maintenance, 
and evaluation of data on the economic and environmental 
impacts of landslide and other ground-failure hazards nationwide to 
help guide mitigation activities and track progress 

Three significant Pacific 
Northwest storm events in February 
1996, November 1996, and late 
December 1996 and early January 
1997 initiated widespread slope failures 
throughout Oregon. Each of 
these storms was declared a "Major 
Presidential Disaster Declaration," 
and damages to natural resources 
and infrastructure were extreme. In 
the Portland metropolitan region, 
OregonÕs largest city, more than 700 
slope failures were associated with 
the heavy rains in 1996, with 17 
houses completely destroyed and 64 
partially condemned. An estimate of 
statewide public and private damages 
incurred from the February 1996 event 
alone is $280 million. 
To better characterize the distribution 
and magnitude of the slope 
failures associated with the three 
storms, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency provided funding 
for the consolidation of a landslide 
inventory (fig. 9). The Oregon 
Department of Geology and Mineral 
Industries led the consolidation effort 
and utilized various methods to contact 
potential data sources, inform 
them of the existence of the study, 
and request their participation. This 
inventory will help lead to a greater 
understanding of regional landslide 
issues and assist government and 
community agencies in devising 
means to minimize the threat to public 
health and property that landslides 
pose. 
Over 9,000 landslide locations 
were incorporated into the inventory, 
with varying amounts of information 
reported for each. Many other slides 
were not observed or recorded, and it 
is estimated that two to three times 
this many landslides occurred during 
the time period. As shown on the 
landslide inventory map, the vast 
majority (98 percent) of the entries 
are in the western portion of the 
State. Most of these slides occurred 
Highlight 7Ñ 
Inventory of Slope Failures in 
Oregon for Three 1996Ð97 
Storm Events 
19 
Figure 9. Landslide inventory for three 
1996Ð97 storm events in Oregon. 
in the Oregon Coast Range and Cas-
cade province, with fewer in the 
tains. 
From 
of slope failures in Oregon for three 
1996/97 storm events: Oregon 
Department of Geology and Mineral 
Industries. 
Willamette Valley and Klamath Moun-
Hofmeister, R.J., 2000, Database 

Element 5. Information 
Collection, Interpretation, 
Dissemination, and 
Archiving 
The effort to establish an effective system for information transfer will 
be led by the USGS and State Geological Surveys. Collecting and disseminating 
landslide hazards information to Federal, State, and local government 
agencies; nongovernmental organizations; planners; policymakers; and private 
citizens in a form useful for planning and decisionmaking are critically 
important to an effective mitigation program. Although landslide hazards 
have been studied for decades, a systematic effort to collect and distribute 
scientific and technical information is in its relative infancy. The USGS 
National Landslide Information Center is a prototype system that can be 
enhanced and extended into a robust nationwide system for the collection, 
interpretation, and dissemination of landslide hazard maps, assessments, and 
other scientific and landslide hazard technical information. The following 
objectives 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 for 
the dissemination of technical information, research results, maps, and 
real-time warnings of potential landslide activity 
¥ Develop and implement a national strategy for the systematic collection, 
interpretation, archiving, and distribution of this information 

An experimental monitoring and 
warning system was developed and 
operated jointly by the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) and the National 
1980s to 1995 in the San Francisco 
Bay region (fig. 10). The system used 
(1) NWS protocols and outlets for 
issuing warnings and (2) regional net-
works of NWS and USGS rain gages 
and soil-moisture instruments to track 
rainfall and soil-moisture conditions. 
Rainfall thresholds for triggering land-
slides were determined on the basis 
of observed relationships between 
rainfall intensity and duration and the 
occurrence of landslides. When real-
time data and high precision fore-
rainfall threshold for landslides had or 
would soon be reached, USGS scien-
tists informed the NWS to issue a 
warning through normal media chan-
nels. The media, government officials, 
Highlight 8Ñ 
Landslides 
21 
and the general public in the bay area 
came to rely on these warnings and 
took specific actions such as evacu-
ating neighborhoods at particular risk. 
Under the National Landslide 
eration landslide warning systems will 
be implemented in landslide-prone 
regions nationwide. Precipitation, soil 
moisture, and pore-pressure data will 
telemetered in real time to network 
centers for processing and analysis. 
These measurements will help define 
the precipitation thresholds and sup-
plement the NWS NEXRAD (Next 
Generation Radar) network and other 
precipitation data and forecasts pro-
vided by the NWS or local agencies. 
ty that might be triggered by storms or 
extended rainy periods will be issued 
in cooperation with the NWS and 
Federal and State emergency man-
agement agencies. 
Figure 10. Debris flow from a steep hillslope in Pacifica, California, about 10 miles south 
of San Francisco, where three children were killed and two homes destroyed on January 
From 
-95/. 
Weather Service (NWS) from the 
casting by the NWS indicated that the 
Warning of Potential 
Hazards Mitigation Strategy, next-gen-
Warnings of potential landslide activi-
4, 1982. Inset, View of destroyed homes from the street. Photograph by Gerald Wieczorek, 
U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Geological Survey, 1995, Debris-flow hazards in the 
San Francisco Bay region: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FSÐ112Ð95, 2 p. Available 
on the web at http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/pub/fact-sheets/fs-0112

Element 6. Guidelines and Efforts to develop guidelines and training for scientists, engineers, and deci-
Training sionmakers will be led by the USGS and professional societies. The study of 
landslide hazards is an area of active research and technological application, and 
there is a critical need for guidelines and training for scientists and engineers in the 
development of landslide maps and assessments. Hazard assessments involve 
assumptions and calculations about the magnitude and return frequency in specific 
geographic settings. Risk assessments involve assumptions about the potential 
physical and economic impacts of landslide hazard events. The development and 
presentation of the results in terms that are useful to citizens and decisionmakers 
are critically important to effective mitigation. Likewise, development of guidelines 
and training for planners and other decisionmakers in the use of these maps and 
assessments 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 geotechnical 
engineers in the use of landslide hazard and other technical 
information for mapping and assessing landslide hazards 
¥ Develop and implement guidelines and training for scientists and geotechnical 
engineers for responding to landslide disasters and providing 
needed scientific and technical information for response and recovery 
efforts 
¥ Develop and implement guidelines and training for planners and decisionmakers 
in the use of landslide hazard maps, assessments, and other 
technical information for planning, preparedness, and mitigation 
Element 7. Public 
Awareness and Efforts to develop information and education programs for the user com-
Education munity will be led by FEMA and the USGS. Before individuals and communities 
can reduce their risk from landslide hazards, they need to know the nature 
of the threat, its potential impact on them and their community, their options 
for reducing the risk or impact, and methods for carrying out specific mitigation 
measures. Achieving widespread public awareness of landslide hazards 
will enable communities and individuals to make informed decisions on where 
to live, purchase property, or locate a business. Local decisionmakers will 
know where to permit construction of residences, business, and critical facilities 
to reduce potential damage from landslide hazards. The following actions 
will raise public awareness of landslide hazards and encourage landslide hazard 
preparedness and mitigation activities nationwide, tailored to local needs: 
¥ Develop public awareness, training, and education programs involving 
land-use planning, design, landslide hazard curriculums, landslide hazard 
safety programs, and community risk reduction 
¥ Evaluate the effectiveness of different methods, messages, and curriculums 
in the context of local needs 
¥ Disseminate landslide-hazard-related curriculums and training modules 
to community organizations, universities, and professional societies 
and associations 

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 45Ð50miles 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.
FromScott, K.M., Wolfe, E.W., andDriedger, C.L., 1998, Mount Rainier;
living with perilous beauty: U.S.
Geological Survey Fact SheetFSÐ065Ð97, 4 p. andHoblitt, 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 Report98Ð428, 11 p., 2 oversize sheets.
23Highlight 9Ñ
Alerting the Public to theHazards of Mount RainierFigure 11.Hazard zones from lahars, lava flows, and pyroclastic flows from MountRainier. FromScott, K.M., Wolfe, E.W., and Driedger, C.L., 1998, Mount Rainier; livingwith perilous beauty: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FSÐ065Ð97, 4 p. 

Element 8. Efforts to encourage mitigation action will be led by FEMA, State 
Implementation of Loss departments of emergency services, and professional societies. A successful 
Reduction Measures strategy for reducing landslide losses must also include a mitigation component. 
Mitigation actions generally fall to State and local governments, businesses, 
and individuals. As a result, societal attitudes and perceptions can 
present formidable obstacles to landslide hazards reduction. Few communities 
have considered the full range of mitigation options despite their feasibility 
and cost effectiveness. Mitigation measures at the local level include 
a range of tools and techniques, such as land-use planning, regulation of 
development, engineering controls, building codes, assessment districts, 
emergency planning and warning, and private financial and insurance incentives 
and disincentives. The following actions will facilitate and encourage 
implementation of appropriate and effective mitigation measures that are 
tailored to local needs: 
¥ Evaluate impediments to effective planning and controls on development 
and identify approaches for removing those impediments. 
¥ Develop an education program for State and local elected and appointed 
officials that sensitizes them to the risk and costs of landslide hazards 
and encourages them to develop legislation and policies that support 
effective landslide hazard mitigation 
¥ Develop and disseminate prototype incentives and disincentives for 
encouraging landslide mitigation to government agencies, the private 
sector, and academia 
¥ Evaluate engineering and construction approaches to mitigate landslide 
hazards and develop a national plan for research to improve these techniques 
¥ Encourage implementation of successful landslide mitigation 
technologies 

Landslides are a significant problem 
in several areas of Ohio, and 
Cincinnati has one of the highest per 
capita costs due to landslide damage 
of any city in the United States. 
Landslides have been known to occur 
in the Cincinnati area in southwestern 
Ohio and the adjoining States of 
Kentucky and Indiana since before 
the 1850s, but the damage caused by 
landslides has become increasingly 
expensive as urban development 
encroaches more and more on the 
areaÕs hillsides. The city of Cincinnati 
spent an average of $550,000 per year 
on emergency street repairs for damage 
due to landslides between 1983 
and 1987 (fig. 12). 
In 1974, the Cincinnati City 
Council passed an excavation and fill 
ordinance to help reduce landslide 
damage in areas of new construction. 
In 1989, Cincinnati created a geotechnical 
office within its Department 
of Public Works. The office, which is 
staffed by a geotechnical engineer, an 
engineering geologist, and two technicians, 
carries out a mitigation program. 
Since 1989, members of the 
geotechnical staff have worked in 
several ways to reduce landslide 
damage in the city; their work 
includes engineering geologic mapping 
of selected parts of the city, 
inspecting retaining walls that affect 
public right-of-way, reviewing proposed 
construction in hillside areas, 
inspecting and arranging for repair of 
landslide areas that affect city property, 
and compiling geologic and 
geotechnical data on landslide areas 
within the city. In 1990, Hamilton 
County also adopted an excavation 
and fill ordinance to help reduce the 
damage due to landslides in areas of 
new construction. 
From Hansen, M.C., 1995, Geofacts: 
Ohio Department of Natural 
Resources, no. 8 and Baum, R.L., and 
Johnson, A.M., 1996, Overview of 
landslide problems, research, and 
mitigation, Cincinnati, Ohio, area: U.S. 
Geological Survey Bulletin 2059ÐA, 
p. A1ÐA33. 
Highlight 10Ñ 
Cincinnati, OhioÑA Leader 
in Landslide Loss Reduction 
Measures 
25 
Figure 12. Earthflow material being 
removed by a highway crew along the 
area, 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 the 
United States. Photograph courtesy of the 
Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio. Hamil-
ton County, in the metropolitan Cincinnati 
U.S. Geological Survey. 

Element 9. Emergency 
Preparedness, 
Response, and 
Recovery 
Efforts to develop resilient communities will be led by FEMA and State 
departments of emergency services. Despite improved landslide hazard mitigation, 
disasters will occur. For this reason, governments at all levels, the private 
sector, and the public will need to be able to adequately prepare for, respond 
to, and recover from disasters involving landslides. Governments will need to 
better plan for landslide emergencies. Scientists, engineers, and emergency 
response professionals will need to be trained in the best practices to employ 
during a response, and public officials responsible for recovery from disasters 
will need to be informed of options that will reduce future landslide losses. 
Incorporating the following actions in a national landslide mitigation strategy 
will improve the NationÕs ability to respond to and recover from landslide disasters: 
¥ Provide training for Federal, State, and local emergency managers on 
landslide hazards preparedness, response, and recovery 
¥ Develop a coordinated landslide rapid response capability to assist 
local, State, and Federal emergency managers in determining the 
nature of landslide hazards and the extent of ongoing risks 
¥ Provide dedicated landslide expertise and equipment required for rapid 
emergency deployment of real-time data to emergency managers, as 
well as the ability to successfully transfer monitoring technology to 
other agencies 

Active landslides pose an increasing 
problem to older communities. An 
example of this dilemma came to a 
head in April 2000, when 21 late-1950s 
era homes in Daly City, California, 
were condemned because of continued 
landsliding along Westline Drive. 
The homes were deemed permanently 
uninhabitable, and the city had no 
choice but to remove their inhabitants 
from imminent danger. By May, all residents 
had moved. 
The Westline Drive landslide first 
came to the attention of Daly City residents 
in 1966, when sliding forced 
the removal of homes from a subdivision 
developed just 7 years earlier. 
One more home was removed in 1980. 
The movement lessened until the El 
Ni–o winter of 1997Ð98, one of the 
wettest rainy seasons on record, 
caused the landslide to reactivate 
(fig. 13). As a result, Westline Drive 
dropped as much as 4 feet in some 
areas. 
The decision by the city to condemn 
the houses was in reaction to 
the local gas utilityÕs decision to shut 
off gas service in February to the 
affected area of Westline drive after 
finding numerous irreparable leaks. 
The utility feared that pipe ruptures 
would cause an explosion. In addition, 
the city closed off the street to 
traffic, including garbage and emergency 
vehicles, after discovering a 
10-foot-square cavity beneath the 
pavement. 
Assisting the homeowners was a 
challenge because no insurance was 
available. The Federal Emergency 
Management Agency offered to buy 
the homes, but funds covered only 
part of the previous value of the 
homes. The Federal Small Business 
Administration offered mortgage 
loans at 4 percent, but only for a 
reduced value of the homes, and the 
homeowners had to pay off their 
existing mortgages. Daly City and San 
Mateo County planned to supplement 
the Federal GovernmentÕs $6.5 million 
offer of assistance with housing 
funds totaling $1 million. Daly City 
planned to take over the deeds from 
the homeowners and turn the land 
into open space. 
From San Francisco Chronicle, 
March 30 and May 2, 2000, Angelica 
Highlight 11Ñ 
Daly CityÑThe Human Cost 
of Landslides 
27 
Figure 13. Gully retreat threatening evacu-
Francisco, California, following the storm of 
February 2Ð3, 1998. Landslide and mudslide 
activity was extensively reported in the news 
media following heavy rains on February 2Ð3, 
1998. A number of scattered, slow-moving 
landslides had been active over the weeks 
prior to the storm in San Francisco, Oakland, 
and elsewhere in the San Francisco Bay 
region. As most of the area experienced 
about 200 percent of normal rainfall in the 
winter of 1998, these landslides were proba-
bly related more to the wet winter and less to 
based on limited ground reconnaissance, 
scattered slope movements directly related 
triggered by the storm affected a number of 
homes and properties. From U.S. Geological 
Survey web site http://landslides.usgs.gov/ 
html_files/landslides/reconrpt.html, 1998, 
accessed July 29, 2002. Photograph by 
Pence, staff writer, and Russell 
Graymer, U.S. Geological Survey. 
ated houses in Daly City, a suburb of San 
the effects of this particular storm. However, 
to the storm did occur. Debris flows directly 
Steve Ellen, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Action Items for a 
National Strategy 
for Reducing 
Losses from 
Landslides 
Key Steps for 
Implementation 
Management Plan 
New and Enhanced 
Roles and Partnerships 
Landslide hazard mitigation necessitates interactive collaboration among 
academia, industry, government, and the private sector. The following key 
aspects of a National Landslide Mitigation Strategy will allow for rapid and 
significant progress toward a sustained mitigation of landslide hazards nationwide: 
¥ Conduct Federal-State and public-private forums to establish regional 
priorities for research, mapping, monitoring, forecasting, and mitigating 
landslide hazards 
¥ Establish new and enhance existing programs to fund research, mapping, 
monitoring, and mitigation activities nationwide 
¥ Develop Federal-State and public-private programs to delineate landslide 
prone areas, to forecast the potential for landslides, and to mitigate 
losses 
¥ Establish and enhance Federal-State and public-private partnerships to 
leverage and maximize relevant resources and expertise 
Durable and effective solutions to the NationÕs ground-failure-hazard 
problems will require a continuing dialog among and concerted action by all 
sectors of our society. An effective National Landslide Hazards Mitigation 
Strategy will require a combination of purposeful management to ensure 
coordination and consortium-type decisionmaking to accommodate the multi-
jurisdictional, cooperative nature of the program. An effective management 
plan will include the following: 
¥ Establish coordination of the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation 
Strategy under the leadership of the USGS, using the bureauÕs expertise 
and experience in landslide hazards research, monitoring, mapping 
and data collection, analysis, archiving, and dissemination 
¥ Establish working groups with representatives of Federal, State, and 
local governments, academia, and private industry to help coordinate 
and guide the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy 
¥ Establish Federal-State public-private cooperative programs to fund 
and encourage landslide hazard research, mapping, assessment, and 
mitigation efforts nationwide 
Many Federal, State, and local agencies; academia; and private companies 
are involved in landslide research and mitigation in the United States (see 
appendixes 6 and 7 for more information about Federal, State, and local programs). 
A National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy offers new opportunities 
for mutually advantageous partnerships relating to hazard assessments, 
monitoring, and emergency response and recovery. 
The national strategy enhances the ability of Federal, State and local 
agencies to partner effectively with the academic and the private sectors and to 
leverage shared resources. Table 1 outlines the complementary and supportive 
roles and opportunities for new partnerships for each participant in the 
National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy. 

Table 1. New roles and partnership opportunities under the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy. 
Element
1. Research.Ñ
Developing a predictive 
understanding oflandslide processes andtriggering mechanisms
2. Hazard Mapping andAssessments.Ñ
Delineating susceptibleareas and different types 
of landslide hazards ata scale useful for planningand decisionmaking
3. Real-Time 
Monitoring.Ñ
Monitoring active 
landslides that posesubstantial risk
4. Loss Assessment.Ñ 
Compiling and evaluating 
information on theeconomic and environmental 
impacts of landslide 
hazards.
5. InformationCollection,
Interpretation,
Dissemination, andArchiving.Ñ 
Establishing aneffective system 
for information transfer 
Currentstatus
A much more comprehensive 
understanding of landslideprocesses and mechanisms isrequired to advance our abilityto predict the behavior of 
different types of landslides.
Landslide inventory and 
landslide susceptibility mapsare critically needed in many 
landslide-prone regions of the 
Nation. In general, there areno standards for mapping andassessments.
Real-time monitoring ofactive landslides is criticallyneeded nationwide.
Losses are not consistentlycompiled and tracked in the 
United States.
There is no systematicnationwide collection ordistribution of landslide 
hazards information. 
New roles and partnership opportunities
Federal
State 
Local 
Private 
Academic 
Coordinate research priorities
Conduct research
Use results of research in policy, planning, and mitigation decisions
Map landslides
on Federal lands
Establish mapping and
assessment standards
-
Map and assess landslide hazards
Use landslide hazard maps and assessments in planning, preparedness, and mitigation
Improve real-time monitoring capabilities
Monitor landslides and establish landslide warning systems
Establish and implementa national strategy 
for compilation,
maintenance, andevaluation of data
Compile and share records of losses
Develop robust landslide hazards 
Collect and distribute needed 
Develop and shareinformation clearinghouse system 
information to decisionmakers 
information
for the systematic collection,
interpretation, archiving, and
distribution of scientific and
technical information, data bases,
and maps

30
Table 1. New roles and partnership opportunities under the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy.ÑContinued 
Element 
Currentstatus 
New roles and partnership opportunitiesFederal State Local Private Academic 
6. Guidelines andTraining.Ñ 
Developing guidelines 
and training forscientists, engineers,
and decisionmakers 
There is a critical need forguidelines and training forscientists, engineers, planners,
and decisionmakers. 
Develop and implement guidelines and training curriculumsParticipate in training programs7. Public Awareness 
and Education.Ñ
Developing information 
and education programsfor the user community 
There is little public awareness 
and understanding of landslidehazards, impacts on communities,
or options for reducing risk. 
Develop and implement public awareness and education programs, involving land-use 
planning, design, and landslide hazard curriculums; landslide hazard safety 
and community risk reduction8. Implementation ofLoss ReductionMeasures.Ñ
Encouraging mitigationaction 
Mitigation necessarily occursat the local level; therefore, 
implementation of loss 
reduction measures varies 
from community to community. 
Develop and encourage policies 
that support landslide hazardmitigationDevelop financial incentives 
and disincentives thatsupport landslide hazardmitigationDevelop and encourageengineering and constructionapproaches to mitigatelandslide hazards 
Adopt and implement policiesand practices that supportlandslide hazardsmitigation 
Serve as consultants and advisors9. Emergency 
Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery.Ñ 
Developing resilient 
communities 
Federal, State, and localgovernments; the 
private sector; and 
the public need to be able toadequately prepare, respond to,
and recover from landslide 
emergencies. 
Provide training for Federal, 
State, and local emergency 
managersDevelop a coordinated landslide 
rapid response capability, 
including landslide hazardsexpertise and equipment 
required for rapid emergency 
deployment of real-time data 
to emergency managers 
Participate 
in training Provide expertise during emergenciesEffectively respond to landslide 
emergencies 
Implement policiesthat reduce futurelandslide losses

Implementation of the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy 
within the USGS Landslide Hazards Program (LHP) will involve four 
principal tasksÑ 
¥ Expansion of work performed by scientists in the Landslide Hazards 
Program 
¥ Establishment of new Cooperative Landslide Hazard Assessment and 
Mapping Program 
¥ Establishment of a new Cooperative Federal Land Management 
Landslide Hazards Program 
¥ Establishment of new partnerships for the Landslide Hazard Loss 
Reduction Program 
The USGS Landslide Hazard Program is currently funded for $2.26 million 
in FY 2002. The changes above will require expansion of and additional 
funding for the LHP. 
Expanding efforts by USGS scientists in the areas of research, hazard 
assessment, monitoring, public information, and response will be necessary 
to meet the challenges of the national strategy. The Landslide Hazards 
Program will also require additional funding to meet new responsibilities to 
coordinate activities within the Federal Government to fully implement the 
strategy. Approximately $8 million in new funding will be required to support 
the 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, and 
technology transfer, including public awareness programs and education 
(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 ($0.5 
million) 
A new cooperative program will be established to encourage the understanding 
and mitigation of landslide and other ground-failure hazards by 
States, Territories, counties, and other local jurisdictions. The program will be 
administered by the USGS Landslide Hazards Program. The primary goal of 
this cooperative program will be to reduce hazard losses by increasing the 
availability 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 the 
USGS to Implement 
a National Strategy 
for Reducing 
Losses from 
Landslides 
Expansion of the Work 
Performed by Scientists 
in the Landslide 
Hazards Program 
Establishment of a New 
Cooperative Landslide 
Hazard Assessment and 
Mapping Program 

Establishment of a New 
Cooperative Federal 
Land Management 
Landslide Hazards 
Program 
national strategy, with a primary focus on element 2, landslide hazard mapping 
and assessments. The USGS will provide guidance to encourage standardized 
assessment and map products that will be available digitally. 
Priorities will be determined annually in consultation with State and 
Territory representatives. Grants to States and Territories will be awarded 
competitively. States and Territories will determine priorities and the size of 
grants to be distributed to their local jurisdictions in consultation with 
Statewide and Territorywide advisory committees. 
Approximately $8.0 million will be required to support competitive grants 
to the States, Territories, and local jurisdictions each year. Each grant will be 
matched by a 30 percent State or Territory contribution to encourage the 
development and use of landslide information in planning and mitigation 
actions at the State and local levels. It is anticipated that all States and 
Territories 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 mitigation 
of landslide hazards on Federal lands, including assessment and mapping of 
landslides, land-use planning and facility siting, emergency management, and 
public education. 
The goal of such a program will be to reduce losses from landslide and 
other ground-failure hazards through more informed and, therefore, better 
stewardship of Federal lands under the jurisdiction of the National Park 
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Forest Service. The new program will 
address all elements of the national strategy, with a primary focus on landslide 
hazard mapping, assessments, and monitoring (elements 2 and 3). 
Priorities for scientific and technical assistance for Federal land management 
agencies will be determined annually in consultation with representatives 
of Federal land management agencies. Approximately $2.0 million will be 
required for scientific and technical assistance for Federal land management 
agencies. It is anticipated that the program will support approximately 20 
agreements, averaging $100,000 each. Most of these funds will be used to 
support hazard assessments and procure monitoring equipment, with USGS 
staff providing technical assistance 

A new competitive external grants program, administered by the USGS Establishment of New 
Landslide Hazards Program, will be established for research and implementa-Partnerships for 
tion efforts. The program will foster partnerships with universities, private Landslide Hazard Loss 
consulting firms, professional associations, Federally recognized Indian Tribal Reduction ProgramGovernments, States and Territories, and local agencies. This program will 
address all elements of the strategy, with a primary focus on landslide hazard 
research and development and application of mitigation measures (elements 1, 
2, and 8). 
Priorities for research and application of research will be determined 
annually in consultation with Federal, State, Territory, local, and private 
representatives. Approximately $2.0 million will be required for cooperative 
agreements with universities, private consulting firms, professional associations, 
Federally recognized Indian Tribal Governments, States and Territories, and 
local agencies to support research and innovative application of research. It 
is anticipated that the program will support approximately 25 agreements, 
averaging $80,000 each. 
Total new funding to support implementation of a National Landslide Funding Summary 
Hazard Mitigation Strategy is estimated to be $20 million annually, as 
follows: 
¥ Expansion of the research, assessment, monitoring, public information, 
and response efforts by USGS scientists ($8 million annually) 
¥ Establishment of a Cooperative Landslide Hazard Assessment and 
Mapping Program to increase the efforts of State and local governments 
to map and assess landslide hazards within their jurisdictions 
through competitive grants ($8 million annually, to be augmented with 
30 percent matching funds by States and local jurisdictions) 
¥ Establishment of a Cooperative Federal Land Management Landslide 
Hazard Program to increase the capability of the National Park 
Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and 
other such organizations to address landslide hazards under their jurisdictions 
($2 million annually for work performed by USGS scientists 
on public lands) 
¥ Establishment of a Partnerships for Landslide Hazard Loss Reduction 
Program to support research and implementation efforts by universities, 
local governments, and the private sector through competitive grants 
($2 million annually) 

Major Full implementation of the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation 
Strategy will result in a number of major accomplishments and products Accomplishments over the first 10 years of the program, including the following: 
and Products 
¥ Reduced losses from landslides 
¥ Reduced risk from future landslides 
¥ Greater public awareness of landslide hazards and options for mitigating 
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, communities, 
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 nationwide 
¥ Coordinated landslide emergency response capability nationwide 
Progress in implementing the National Landslides Hazards Mitigation 
Strategy will be monitored by working groups established to coordinate and 
guide the strategy. These groups will include representatives of Federal, State, 
and local governments and the private sector. Specific performance goals for 
the strategy, including accomplishments and products, will come from a comprehensive 
review of national needs and priorities and will result in specific 
plans and schedules. In addition, progress in reducing losses will be monitored 
as part of element 4Ñ compilation and evaluation of losses from landslide 
hazards. 
Acknowledgments This report is based on an early draft by Randall Updike of the USGS and 
on the ideas and suggestions from landslide hazard experts and others who 
attended five stakeholder meetings. The report benefited from contributions 
from and reviews by numerous USGS scientists and other Federal and State 
agency representatives. The authors would especially like to thank the 
American Association of State Geologists for their thoughtful input and 
review of the report. 

Appendix 1. Previous Reports and Sources of 
Landslide Hazards Information 
The proposed National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy incorporates 
many ideas and recommendations of previous studies and reports. The following 
studies and reports should be referred to for more in-depth discussions of and 
insights into landslide hazard mitigation and research needs. 
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81Ð987, Goals, Strategies, Priorities and 
Tasks of a National Landslide Hazard Loss Reduction Program (USGS, 1981), 
sets forth goals and tasks for landslide studies, evaluating and mapping a 
hazard, disseminating information, and evaluating the use of the information. 
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 880, Goals and Tasks of the Landslide Part of a 
Ground-Failure Hazards Reduction Program (USGS, 1982), describes a 
national program. 
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85Ð276, Feasibility of a Nationwide 
Program for the Identification and Delineation of Hazards from Mud Flows 
and Other Landslides (Campbell and others, 1985), identifies the need for a 
national program. 
Reducing Losses from Landsliding in the United States (Committee on Ground 
Failure Hazards, National Research Council, 1985, National Academy Press) 
recommends development of a national program and summarizes the roles of 
government and the private sector in landslide mitigation nationwide. 
U.S. Geological Survey Open File-Report 85Ð276ÐA, Landslide Classification 
for Identification of Mud Flows and other Landslides (Campbell and others, 
1985), resulted from a joint study by the USGS and FEMA to evaluate the 
feasibility of delineating landslide hazards nationwide. 
Landslides Investigation and Mitigation, Special Report 247 (Transportation 
Research Board, National Research Council, 1996, National Academy 
Press), provides a summary of the state-of-the-science of landslide hazard 
research, mapping, and assessment in the United States. 
National Mitigation StrategyÑPartnerships for Building Safer Communities 
(Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1996) provides a framework for 
mitigation of all natural hazards in the United States. 
The Impacts of Natural DisastersÑA Framework for Loss Estimation (Board on 
Natural Disasters, National Research Council, 1999, National Academy 
Press) recommends compilation of a comprehensive data base on losses from 
natural disasters. 
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1182, Land Subsidence in the United States 
(Galloway, Jones, and Ingebritsen, eds., 1999), explores the role of underground 
water in human-induced land subsidence through case histories. 
Disasters by DesignÑA Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States 
(Mileti, 1999, Joseph Henry Press) provides an overview of what is known 
about managing natural hazard disasters, recovery, and mitigation. 

Appendix 2. Meetings with Stakeholders 
In 1999 and 2000, meetings among various stakeholder organizations were held to obtain input into a 
national strategy to mitigate landslide hazards. Attendees included State geologists, private consultants 
and university professors concerned with landslide hazards, and Federal, State and local government officials 
whose responsibilities include landslide hazard loss reduction. Many of their recommendations have 
been 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 meeting 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
January 16Ð17, 1999 
Attendee Title Organization 
Lee Allison State Geologist Kansas Geological Survey 
John Beaulieu State Geologist Oregon Department of Geology 
and Mineral Industries 
Tom Berg State Geologist Ohio Geological Survey 
Vicki Cowart State Geologist Colorado Geological Survey 
Jim Davis State Geologist California Department of 
Mines and Geology 
Charles Gardner State Geologist North Carolina Geological 
Survey 
Don Hoskins State Geologist Pennsylvania Geological 
Survey 
John Kiefer Assistant State Geologist Kentucky Geological Survey 
William Shilts State Geologist Illinois Geological Survey 
Randy Updike U.S. Geological Survey 
Lynn Highland U.S. Geological Survey 
John Filson U.S. Geological Survey 
Landslide Hazards Mitigation Stakeholders Meeting 
Private sector meeting 
Albuquerque, New Mexico 
February 23Ð24, 1999 
Attendee Title/Company Location 
Don Banks Consultant Vicksburg, Mississippi 
Bill Cotton Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. Los Gatos, California 
Bruce Clark Leighton & Associates, Inc. Irvine, California 
Lloyd Cluff Pacific Gas & Electric San Francisco, California 
Richard Gray GAI Consultants, Inc. Monroeville, Pennsylvania 
Jim Hamel Hamel Geotechnical Consultants Monroeville, Pennsylvania 
36 

G.P. JayaprakashNRC Transportation Research Board Washington, D.C. 
Jeff Keaton AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona 
George Kiersch Kiersch Associates Tucson, Arizona 
George Mader Spangle Associates Portola Valley, California 
Ralph Peck Consultant Albuquerque, New Mexico 
Bill Roberds Golder Associates Redmond, Washington 
Roy Shelmon Consultant Newport Beach, California 
Rex Baum U.S. Geological Survey Golden, Colorado 
Randy Updike U.S. Geological Survey Golden, Colorado 
Landslide Hazards Mitigation Stakeholders Meeting 
Academic sector meeting 
Albuquerque, New Mexico 
February 26Ð27, 1999 
Attendee University/Organization 
Ed Cording University of Illinois 
Herbert Einstein Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Arvid Johnson Purdue University 
Howard Kunreuther Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania 
David Montgomery University of Washington 
Rob Olshansky University of Illinois 
Nick Sitar University of California 
Keith Turner Colorado School of Mines 
Erik VanMarcke Princeton University 
Bob Watters MacKay School of Mines, University of Nevada 
Bob Fleming U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, Colorado 
Randy Updike U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, Colorado 
Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy Summit Meeting 
San Antonio, Texas 
August 31ÐSeptember 1, 1999 
Attendee Organization 
David Applegate American Geological Institute 
Rex Baum U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, Colorado 
Steven R. Bohlen U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 
Bruce Clark Leighton & Associates 
Timothy Coh U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 
Derek Cornforth Landslide Technology, Portland, Oregon 
Vicki Cowart Colorado Geological Survey 
Kim Davis California Department of Conservation 
Anthony de Souza National Research Council 
Robert Fakundiny New York Geological Survey 
John Filson U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 
John Grant National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Robert Hamilton National Research Council 

Lynn Highland U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, Colorado 
G.P. Jayaprakash NRC Transportation Research Board 
Arvid Johnson Purdue University 
Jeff Keaton AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona 
Pat Leahy U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 
Lindsay McClelland National Park Service 
Doug Morton U.S. Geological Survey, Riverside, California 
Robert Olshansky University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign 
John Pallister U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 
William Roberds Golder Associates, Redmond, Washington 
William Shilts Illinois State Geological Survey 
Elliott Spiker U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 
Randy Updike U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, Colorado 
Erik Van Marcke Princeton University 
Tom Yorke U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 
Landslide Hazards Mitigation Stakeholders Meeting 
Land-use planners meeting 
Chicago, Illinois 
February 17Ð18, 2000 
Attendee Organization 
Steven Briggs Cincinnati Planning Department 
Paula Gori U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 
James A. Hecimovich American Planning Association 
Lynn Highland U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, Colorado 
Sanjay Jeer American Planning Association 
George Mader Spangle Associates, Portola Valley, California 
Robert B. Olshansky University of Illinois Ð Urbana-Champaign 
Jane Preuss, AICP GeoEngineers, Seattle, Washington 
Daniel Sentz Pittsburgh Department of City Planning 
Elliott Spiker U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 

Appendix 3. Landslide Hazards and Other Ground FailuresÑCauses and Types
Causes of Landslides 
Landslide is a general term for a wide variety of 
downslope movements of earth materials that result 
in the perceptible downward and outward movement 
of soil, rock, and vegetation under the influence of 
gravity. The materials may move by falling, toppling, 
sliding, spreading, or flowing. Some landslides are 
rapid, occurring in seconds, whereas others may take 
hours, weeks, or even longer to develop. 
Although landslides usually occur on steep 
slopes, 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 highway 
and building excavations, collapse of mine-waste 
piles, and slope failures associated with quarries and 
open-pit mines. Underwater landslides usually 
involve areas of low relief and small slope gradients 
in lakes and reservoirs or in offshore marine settings. 
Landslides can be triggered by both natural 
changes in the environment and human activities. 
Inherent weaknesses in the rock or soil often combine 
with one or more triggering events, such as 
heavy rain, snowmelt, changes in ground water level, 
or seismic or volcanic activity. Long-term climate 
change may result in an increase in precipitation and 
ground saturation and a rise in ground-water level, 
reducing the shear strength and increasing the weight 
of the soil. Erosion can remove the toe and lateral 
slope support of potential landslides. Storms and sea-
level rise often exacerbate coastal erosion and landslides. 
Earthquakes and volcanoes often trigger landslides. 
Human activities triggering landslides are usually 
associated with construction and changes in slope and 
surface-water and ground-water levels. Changes in 
irrigation, runoff, and drainage can increase erosion 
and change ground-water levels and ground saturation. 
Types of Landslides 
The common types of landslides are described 
below. These definitions are based mainly on the 
work of Varnes (Varnes, D.J., 1978, Slope movement 
types and processes, in Schuster and Krizek, eds., 
Special Report 176, LandslidesÑAnalysis and control: 
Transportation Research Board, National 
Research Council, Washington, D.C., p. 12Ð13). 
falls Abrupt movements of materials that become 
detached from steep slopes or cliffs, moving by 
free-fall, bouncing, and rolling. 
flows General term including many types of mass 
movement, such as creep, debris flow, debris 
avalanche, 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 matter 
combine with entrained air and water to 
form a slurry that then flows downslope, 
usually associated with steep gullies. 
flowsÑContinued 
debris avalanche A variety of very rapid 
to extremely rapid debris flow. 
lahar Mudflow or debris flow that originates 
on the slope of a volcano, usually triggered 
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 slopes 
and result in nearly horizontal movement of earth 
materials. Lateral spreads usually are caused by 
liquefaction, where saturated sediments (usually 
sands and silts) are transformed from a solid into a 
liquefied state, usually triggered by an earthquake. 
slides Many types of mass movement are included 
in the general term "landslide.Ó The two major 
types of landslides are rotational slides and translational 
landslides. 
rotational landslide The surface of rupture 
is curved concavely upward (spoon-
shaped), and the slide movement is more or 
less 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. 
submarine and subaqueous landslides Include 
rotational and translational landslide, debris flows 
and mudflows, and sand and silt liquefaction flows 
that occur principally or totally underwater in lakes 
and reservoirs or in coastal and offshore marine 
areas. The failure of underwater slopes can result 
from rapid sedimentation, methane gas in sediments, 
storm waves, current scour, or earthquake 
stresses. Subaqueous landslides pose problems for 
offshore and river engineering, jetties, piers, levees, 
offshore platforms and facilities, and pipelines and 
telecommunications cables. 
topple A block of rock that tilts or rotates forward 
and falls, bounces, or rolls down the slope. 

Appendix 4. Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategies
Over the past few decades, an array of techniques 
and practices has evolved to reduce and 
cope with losses from landslide hazards. Careful 
land development can reduce losses by avoiding 
the hazards or by reducing the damage potential. 
Landslide risk can be reduced by the following five 
approaches used individually or in combination to 
reduce or eliminate losses. 
Restricting development in landslide-prone 
areas.ÑLand-use planning is one of the most 
effective and economical ways to reduce landslide 
losses by avoiding the hazard and minimizing the 
risk. This minimization is accomplished by 
removing or converting existing development or 
discouraging or regulating new development in 
unstable areas. In the United States, restrictions on 
land use generally are imposed and enforced by 
local governments by land-use zoning districts and 
regulations. Implementation of avoidance procedures 
has met with mixed success. In California, 
extensive restriction of development in landslide-
prone areas has been effective in reducing landslide 
losses. For example, in San Mateo County, 
California, since 1975 the density of development 
has been limited in landslide-susceptible areas. 
However, in many other States, there are no widely 
accepted procedures or regulations for avoiding 
or minimizing landslides. 
Standardizing codes for excavation, construction, 
and grading.ÑExcavation, construction, and 
grading codes have been developed for construction 
in landslide-prone areas; however, there is no 
nationwide standardization. Instead, State and local 
government agencies apply design and construction 
criteria that fit their specific needs. The city of 
Los Angeles has been effective in using excavation 
and grading codes as deterrents to landslide activity 
and damage on hillside area. The Federal 
Government has developed codes for use on 
Federal projects. Federal standards for excavation 
and grading often are used by other organizations 
in both the public and private sectors. 
Protecting existing development.ÑControl of 
surface-water and ground water drainage is the 
most widely used and generally the most successful 
slope-stabilization method. Stability of a slope can 
be increased by removing all or part of a landslide 
mass or by adding earth buttresses placed at the 
toes of potential slope failures. Restraining walls, 
piles, caissons, or rock anchors are commonly used 
to prevent or control slope movement. In most 
cases, combinations of these measures are used. 
Utilizing monitoring and warning systems.Ñ 
Monitoring and warning systems are utilized to 
protect lives and property, not to prevent landslides. 
However, these systems often provide warning of 
slope movement in time to allow the construction 
of physical measures that will reduce the immediate 
or long-term hazard. Site-specific monitoring 
techniques include field observation and the use of 
various ground motion instruments, trip wires, 
radar, laser beams, and vibration meters. Data from 
these devices can be telemetered for real-time 
warning. 
Development of regional real-time landslide 
warning systems is one of the more significant 
areas of landslide research. One such system was 
successfully developed for the San Francisco Bay 
region, California, by the USGS in cooperation 
with National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration and the National Weather Service. 
The system is based on relations between rainfall 
intensity and duration and thresholds for landslide 
initiation, geologic determination of areas susceptible 
to landslides, real-time monitoring of a regional 
network of rain gages, and National Weather 
Service precipitation forecasts. 

Providing landslide insurance and compensation 
for losses.ÑLandslide insurance is a logical 
means to provide compensation and incentive to 
avoid or mitigate the hazard. Landslide insurance 
coverage could be made a requirement for mortgage 
loans. Controls on building, development, and 
property maintenance would need to accompany 
the mandatory insurance. Insurance and appropriate 
government intervention can work together, 
each complementing the other in reducing losses 
and compensating victims. However, landslide 
insurance is essentially absent across the Nation, 
except for mine subsidence coverage in eight States 
and some coverage for landslides due to earthquakes, 
if earthquake insurance is purchased, and 
minimal coverage for mudslides by the National 
Flood Insurance Program (Federal Emergency 
Management Agency). 
The primary reason that insurance companies 
do not offer landslide insurance is the potential for 
adverse selection by the insured population. In 
addition, if available, it is likely that only those 
individuals in the most hazardous areas would buy 
private landslide insurance. This limited customer 
base would lead to very high premiums, perhaps 
nearly equal to the value of the property. An alternative 
to private sector insurance is a public insurance 
program, possibly modeled after the National 
Flood Insurance Program. Incentives to mitigate 
landslide hazards must also accompany insurance 
coverage, much like fire preventive incentives 
appear on current homeowners insurance polices. 
A major obstacle to implementing some form 
of landslide insurance is the lack of technical information, 
maps, and assessments of landslide hazards. 
A joint study in 1985 by the USGS and the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency examined 
the feasibility of a nationwide program for identification 
and delineation of hazards from mudflows 
and other landslides. That study concluded that 
landslide hazards can be evaluated and mapped 
nationwide through a systematic sequence of studies, 
ranging from regional to local in progressively 
more detail. The comprehensiveness and accuracy 
with which landslide hazards would be delineated 
could be balanced against the costs of the program. 

Appendix 5. Landslide Hazards Maps and Risk Assessments 
Public and private organizations need sound There are four types of landslide hazards 
economic and scientific bases for making decisions mapsÑ 
about reducing landslide-related losses. Quantitative 
risk assessment is a widely used tool for ¥ A landslide inventory map (fig. 5Ð1A) 
making such decisions because it provides estishows 
the locations and outlines of land-
mates of the probable costs of losses and various slides. A landslide inventory is a data set 
options for reducing the losses. Such assess-that may represent a single event or multiments 
can be either site specific or regional. ple events. Small-scale maps may show 
A risk assessment is based on the probability of only landslide locations, whereas large-
the hazard and on an analysis of all possible consescale 
maps may distinguish landslide 
quences (property damage, casualties, and loss of sources from deposits and classify different 
service). Typically, private consultants with expert-kinds of landslides and show other pertinent 
ise in risk assessment, in cooperation with other data. 
partners or landowners, conduct risk assessments ¥ A landslide susceptibility map (fig. 5Ð1B) 
based on the results of the landslide susceptibility ranks slope stability of an area into cate-
and probability studies. In many cases, private users gories that range from stable to unstable. 
such as insurance companies perform their own risk Susceptibility maps show where landslides 
assessments from the probability data. may form. Many susceptibility maps use a 
Regional landslide risk assessments can be color scheme that relates warm colors (red, 
accomplished through public and private partner-orange, and yellow) to unstable and margin-
ships involving the USGS, State Geological ally unstable areas and cool colors (blue 
Surveys, local governments, and private consult-and green) to more stable areas. 
ants. In such a partnership (1) the USGS and the ¥ A landslide hazard map (fig. 5Ð1C, D) indi-
State Geological Surveys would cooperate to col-cates the annual probability (likelihood) of 
lect the basic geologic map data and landslide landslides occurring throughout an area. An 
inventory data, (2) local governments would pro-ideal landslide hazard map shows not only 
vide access to their detailed topographic data bases the chances that a landslide may form at a 
and records of landslide occurrence, and (3) the particular place but also the chances that a 
USGS would analyze the geologic, topographic, landslide from farther upslope may strike 
landslide, and other data to determine landslide that place. 
susceptibility and probability. ¥ A landslide risk map (fig. 5Ð1E) shows the 
Federal, State, and local government agencies, expected annual cost of landslide damage 
banks, and private landowners can use probability throughout an area. Risk maps combine the 
estimates and risk assessments to help identify probability information from a landslide 
areas where expected landslide losses are costly hazard map with an analysis of all possible 
enough to justify remedial efforts or avoidance. consequences (property damage, casualties, 
More detailed studies can then be conducted in and loss of service). 
these areas to determine the optimal strategy for 
reducing landslide-related losses. 

A, Inventory of landslides triggered by B, Landslide susceptibility (U.S. Geological C, Probability of landslide occurrence
storms during the winter of 1996-97 over-Survey). given the event depicted in map A (U.S.
lain on a shaded-relief topographic base Geological Survey and Shannon and Wil
map 
(U.S. Geological Survey and Shannon son, Inc.).
and Wilson, Inc.).
Figure 5Ð1. Maps showing some of the steps of a regional landslide risk assessment for part of Seattle, Washington. Names in
parentheses 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 mass
stabilization: Proceedings of the 9th annual Great Lakes Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Conference.

D, Landslide hazard map, which combines 
the results of map C with an assessment 
of landslide travel distance to show the 
probability of landslide damage (U.S. 
Geological Survey and Golder Associates). 
Figure 5Ð1.ÑContinued 
E, Risk of loss due to landslides (U.S. 
Geological Survey and Golder Associates). 
Estimated cost of landslide-related losses 
in U.S. dollars. 

Appendix 6. Current Landslide Research, Mitigation Activities, and
Responsibilities in the United States 
Many Federal, State, and local agencies; academia; 
and private companies are involved in landslide 
research and mitigation in the United States; however, 
there is little coordination of landslide hazard mitigation 
activities. The need for information and cooperation 
spans the interests of many public and private 
organizations. The National Landslide Hazards 
Mitigation Strategy offers new opportunities for 
mutually advantageous partnerships related to hazard 
assessments, monitoring, and emergency response 
and recovery. Under the strategy, each level of government 
(Federal, State, and local), nongovernmental 
organizations, businesses, and individuals have some 
responsibility for mitigating, responding to, and 
recovering from landslide hazards. 
Federal Agencies 
The Federal role in hazard reduction has its 
origin in the Organic Act of 1879, which created 
the USGS. More recent legislation addressing the 
Federal role in landslide hazards includes the Dam 
Inspection Act of 1972, which stipulated responsibilities 
for landslide hazards affecting the safety of 
dams and reservoirs, and the 1974 Disaster Relief 
Act and subsequent reauthorizations, which gave 
the USGS responsibility to issue timely disaster 
warning of potential landslides. 
The USGS Landslide Hazard Program is the 
only Congressionally authorized program dedicated 
to landslide hazards. The USGS National Landslide 
Information Center is a prototype clearinghouse for 
issuing advisories, press statements, and other information 
about landslides. The USGS has developed 
expertise in research, assessment, and mapping of 
landslide hazards and provides technical assistance 
during disaster response. 
The National Science Foundation and the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
fund landslide hazard research in the academic 
community. Personnel of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric AdministrationÑNational Weather 
Service (NWS) provide weather forecasts and 
assist in emergency response activities. Other 
Federal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, Forest 
Service, National Park Service, Office of Surface 
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, and 
Department of Transportation (especially the 
Federal Highway Administration) have landslide 
hazard experts and activities relating to lands and 
infrastructure under their jurisdiction. 
The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) is responsible for emergency management 
and long-term mitigation of natural hazards including 
landslides. FEMA is the Federal coordinating 
agency for emergency response, disaster relief 
funding, and hazard mitigation efforts. The Federal 
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, a part of 
FEMA, provides insurance coverage for flood 
damages, including "mudslides." However, implementation 
has been difficult because of the absence 
of an accepted technical definition of a mudslide 
and an accepted methodology for delineating mud-
slide-hazard areas. Landslides other than mudslides 
are not insured under this program. 
State and Local Government Agencies 
While the Federal Government plays a lead 
role in funding and conducting landslide research, 
in developing landslide mapping and monitoring 
techniques, and in landslide hazard management 
on Federal lands, the reduction of landslide losses 
on other lands is primarily a State and local 
responsibility. A number of State agencies, commissions, 
and councils have responsibility for landslide 
hazards, including those with oversight of 
natural resources, transportation, geology, hazards, 
emergency services, and land-use issues. 

States vary in their approaches to landslide 
hazards. Some States produce inventories of landslides 
and maps of landslide-prone areas for use by 
local government, business, and the public. 
However, landslide mapping has been done without 
widely accepted standards of accuracy, scale, and 
format. Some States monitor landslide-prone areas 
and provide expertise for response and recovery 
activities. Several States conduct research on landslide 
problems in their State, and a few States have 
regulatory authority. 
The reduction of landslide losses through land-
use planning and application of building and grading 
codes is the function of local government. 
Localities throughout the Nation differ in their regulatory 
authority and approach to reducing losses 
from landslide hazards. Local governments have 
the responsibility of issuing warnings of imminent 
landslides and managing emergency operations 
after a landslide. FEMA may become involved 
after a Presidentially declared disaster. 
Landslide hazards have traditionally occupied a 
relatively modest place in public policy, embodied 
in zoning, legal liability, insurance, building codes, 
land use practices, and environmental quality. 
Maps showing historic landslides and areas susceptible 
to landslides have been used only sporadically 
for zoning and for purposes of real-estate disclosure. 
Building codes have been drafted for some 
localities to set minimum standards for construction 
on unstable slopes. Federal and State forestry 
practices in many localities include attention to 
landslide hazards. Building setbacks from coastal 
or riverine bluffs have been established in some 
areas on the basis of projected failure by landsliding. 
However, broad systematic policy approaches 
to landslide and other ground-failure hazards are 
rare, and most areas of the Nation lack the most 
fundamental technical information or policies to 
cope with their hazards. 
Private and Academic Sectors 
Private sector geologists, engineers, and building 
professionals are often involved in the identification 
and implementation of landslide reduction 
measures in building design and planning. 
University researchers study landslide processes 
and the development of monitoring and mitigation 
technologies and methods. These professionals 
provide advice to business and industry for loan, 
insurance, and investment decisions. Professional 
societies such as the American Society of Civil 
Engineers, the Association of Engineering 
Geologists, and the American Planning Association 
serve as conduits of information from researchers 
to practitioners and practitioners to researchers. 
Professional societies are generally the source of 
model codes, handbooks, and professional training 
for their membership, who in turn use the information 
to improve the state-of-knowledge of landslide 
loss reduction in the private and public sectors. 

Appendix 7. Federal Agency Landslide Hazard Activities 
The Federal role in landslide-hazard reduction involves numerous Federal agencies. The following 
Federal agencies provided descriptions of their landslide-hazard reduction activities. Contacts for various 
Federal agencies involved in landslide-hazard reduction are listed at the end of this appendix. 
Department of AgricultureÑ 
Forest Service 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 
Service is a land-management agency with responsibility 
for natural resources on national forests. 
Most of the national forest lands are located in the 
mountainous areas of the Western United States, 
including large parts of Alaska. The road system in 
national forests is comparable in size to many State 
road systems. Consequently, designing low volume 
roads to avoid landslide problems and repairing the 
damage to them from landslides are major tasks. 
Additionally, interstate and major State highways, 
railroad lines, oil and gas pipelines, and electric 
transmission corridors pass through the national 
forests. Assessing landslide hazards along such projects 
is increasingly important. 
National forests generally occupy the headwaters 
of major rivers, increasing the importance of watershed 
management, especially for those watersheds 
where anadromous fisheries and significant inland 
fisheries are present. Increased landslide activity can 
produce sediment loads that degrade water quality and 
adversely affect fisheries habitat. Landslide hazard can 
be a more localized, but equally important, problem 
on national forests where development of large ski 
resorts, mines, or hydroelectric facilities takes place. 
Major wildfires can denude watersheds and lead to 
short-term landslide activity. The potential for loss of 
life and damage from debris flows initiated by precipitation 
events on burned watersheds must be considered 
in national forests, especially those having developed, 
private in-holdings and adjacent urban areas. 
A primary landslide hazard activity conducted 
by Forest Service personnel is evaluating landslide 
hazard potential in environmental assessments or in 
reviewing environmental assessments prepared by 
forestry project proponents. Environmental or engineering 
geologists, as one of their primary duties, 
minerals geologists, as a related duty, or other earth 
scientists, where geologists are unavailable, carry 
out these evaluations. Engineering geologists and 
geotechnical engineers carry out environmental 
assessments and participate in designs to address 
landslide hazard to system roads. 
Another activity is assessing damage from 
landslides following major natural disasters. The 
most formalized of these assessments is the Burned 
Area Emergency Rehabilitation procedure instituted 
during major wildfires. This activity also includes 
participating in development of stabilization and 
restoration projects to counter wildfire damage. 
A national geographic information system 
(GIS) network of national forest lands and a data 
base that includes landslide information is under 
development. The landslide hazard information for 
this GIS is generated from USGS and State 
Geological Survey information and mapping by 
Forest Service geologists. The Research Branch of 
the Forest Service has contributed many studies 
that improve the understanding of landslide hazards 
relative to specific forest management activities. 
ÑBy Jerome DeGraff 
Forest Service 
Department of CommerceÑNational 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA)ÑNational Weather 
Service (NWS) is involved in landslide mitigation 
through its role in the Federal Response Plan and 
its mission of providing services for the protection 
of life and property. The National Weather Service 
works with other Federal, State, and local agencies 

by providing forecasts of hydrologic and meteorological 
conditions for landslide forecasts and mitigation 
efforts. This assistance may include on-
scene meteorological personnel to assist in emergency 
response activities at landslides. The NOAA 
Weather Radio and other NWS dissemination systems 
broadcast "Civil Emergency Messages" concerning 
landslide warnings and response and 
recovery efforts at the request of local, State, and 
Federal emergency management officials. 
ÑBy Robert Livezey 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration 
Department of DefenseÑ 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
As the premier, full-spectrum engineering organization 
of the United States military, the mission of 
the Corps of Engineers includes planning, design, 
building, and operating water resources and civil 
projects in the areas of flood control, navigation, 
environmental quality, coastal protection, and disaster 
response, as well as the design and construction 
of facilities for the Army, the Air Force, and other 
Federal agencies. In performing this broad mission, 
the Corps has addressed a full range of technical 
challenges associated with landslides and ground 
failure. Corps engineering geologists, geotechnical 
engineers, and geophysicists have been involved in 
the assessment, monitoring and analysis, and mitigation 
of landslides in a wide range of settings at locations 
around the world, as well as basic and applied 
research on topics directly related to the analysis and 
mitigation of landslides and ground failures. 
Landslide assessment activities by Corps scientists 
and engineers have included investigations of 
landslides of various mechanisms and scales along 
navigable waterways such as the Mississippi and 
Ohio Rivers and that result in serious navigation hazards 
and threats to or loss of flood protection works. 
Landslides also play an important role in the erosion 
of the NationÕs shoreline; the protection of shoreline 
is a major responsibility of the Corps. Many Corps 
dam-site investigations have involved the identification 
and assessment of past and potential landslides. 
Corps engineering geologists, geotechnical engineers, 
and geophysicists have been involved in monitoring 
active landslides and ground failure in both natural 
and engineered soils and earth materials. These 
tasks have focused on identifying the temporal and 
spatial variability of earth movements and identifying 
causal factors. Monitoring data have been used along 
with detailed site information to analyze the stability 
of a landslide in terms of initial movements, present 
conditions, and conditions after mitigation actions. 
As an engineering agency, the Corps has a significant 
role in the planning, design, and construction 
of landslide mitigation measures associated 
with the protection of its civil and military projects. 
Specific methods for reducing landslide hazards and 
increasing slope stability have been developed and 
implemented by Corps engineers at sites around the 
world. The CorpsÕ role in initial engineering geological 
investigation, engineering analysis, remedial 
design, implementation, construction, and postproject 
monitoring is of particular value to the Nation 
and the international community. 
The Corps has an important national mission in 
disaster response. This mission has involved the 
Corps in responding to landslides, especially those 
resulting from floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, 
and earthquakes. In assistance to FEMA, Corps personnel 
have provided emergency assessments and 
immediate mitigation of past and potential landslides. 
The CorpsÕ role in international disaster 
response has become a major focus in landslide 
engineering. Recent landslide assessments, analysis, 
and mitigation efforts have been conducted in 
Venezuela, Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia, Peru, 
Haiti, Puerto Rico, South Korea, and the Philippines. 
Research at the CorpsÕ Engineering Research 
and Development Center includes the development 
and testing of analytical tools and assessment methods 
and approaches for landslide mitigation. Basic 
research in soil and rock mechanics, geomorphology, 
hydrogeology, remote sensing, geophysics, and 
engineering geology has resulted in advancements 
in the understanding of the causative factors and 
mechanics of landslides and ground failures. 
ÑBy Lawson Smith (deceased) 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Department of the InteriorÑ 
Bureau of Land Management 
The Bureau of Land Management is a Federal 
Agency that manages multiple uses of approximately 
264 million surface acres of Federal land located 
primarily in 12 Western States. A relatively small 
portion of this land is located in steep mountainous 
terrain with geologic and climatic conditions resulting 
in high landslide hazards, such as in western 
Oregon, northern California, and northern Idaho. 
Many landslides on public land are the result of 
natural disturbance events, but land-management 
activities, including road building, timber harvest, 
historic mining, and water impoundments, can contribute 
to their occurrence. The Bureau of Land 
Management does not have an agencywide landslide 
hazards program or specialized personnel. The 
bureauÕs local field office landslide hazards prevention 
activities include identification of unstable 
slopes by using aerial photograph interpretation, 
landslide hazards guides, on-site indicators, predictive 
models, and limited inventory and monitoring 
of landslides. 
Prevention and mitigation of landslides are 
accomplished by using a variety of methods. 
Existing roads may be closed and obliterated, 
rerouted, or kept open and stabilized with additional 
runoff control structures, subsurface drainage control, 
or other techniques. Routine road maintenance 
is an important factor in helping to reduce 
landslide hazards. Prudent route analysis and 
design to minimize landslide hazard are employed 
for new roads in landslide prone areas. Hazardous-
fuels management can reduce the risk of catastrophic 
wildfires that could increase landslide 
hazards. Timber management silvicultural practices 
are employed to maintain root strength where 
needed for slope stability. Sites that are a threat to 
human health and safety, roads and recreational 
facilities, water quality, fisheries and aquatic habitat, 
and other resource values are stabilized, and 
sediment is controlled with revegetation and 
structural controls. 
ÑBy William Ypsilantis 
Bureau of Land Management 
Department of the InteriorÑ 
National Park Service 
Many national parks are geologically active, 
exposing park visitors, staff, and infrastructure to 
geologic hazards. Landslides, including slope failures, 
mudflows, and rockfalls, adversely affect 
parks, causing deaths and injuries, closing roads and 
trails, and damaging park infastructure. Recent 
examples include several rockfalls in Yosemite 
Valley, each with one fatality; damaging landslides 
in Shenandoah National Park triggered by torrential 
rains; repeated slope failures fed by artificial 
aquifers at Hagerman Fossil Beds National 
Monument; landslides that closed roads in Zion and 
Yellowstone National Parks; and the threat of large 
debris flows at Mt. Rainier. USGS scientists have 
provided insights essential to effective response to 
landslides hazards at these and other national parks. 
Because it is a natural process, landslide activity 
is generally allowed to proceed unimpeded in 
national parks unless safety is a concern. However, 
where people have destabilized the landscape (for 
example, by logging, mining, and road building), 
disturbed lands are restored where practical to their 
pre disturbance condition. 
To reduce risk from landslides and other geologic 
hazards, park planners must incorporate information 
from hazard assessments and maps into decisions 
about appropriate sites for facilities such as 
campgrounds, visitor centers, and concession areas. 
Planners face difficult choices as they attempt to balance 
risks from different hazards, such as floods and 
rockfalls in confined valleys, and at the same time 
provide public access to popular but potentially hazardous 
areas. When a landslide or other hazard 
occurs, park personnel must quickly rescue people, 
stabilize structures, and clear debris from roads and 
other public areas. Then park personnel must work 
with experts to assess the nature and extent of the 
event and the risk of recurrence. Short-term studies 
are required to help managers decide whether and 
when to reopen affected areas; then more detailed 
research is often needed to make informed decisions 
about future use of the immediately affected area 
and other areas that may face similar hazards. 

Park interpretive programs inform visitors 
about key resources and issues, enabling the 
public to better understand geologic hazards. 
Interpreters communicate directly with visitors 
through programs such as nature walks and campfire 
presentations, as well as through exhibits in 
visitor centers and, in some cases, books and 
videos sold by cooperating associations and concessionaires. 
The National Park Service is 
increasingly reaching out to a broader audience, 
many of whom may not have the opportunity to 
visit parks, through innovative methods such as 
school programs and Web sites. Interpreters work 
in partnership with the scientific community to 
ensure that complex information can be conveyed 
accurately and in a form that is comprehensible 
and relevant to nonspecialists. 
These and other park programs welcome additional 
help to assess landslide hazards in parks, 
provide input to park planning so that infrastructure 
can be located away from zones of greatest 
landslide risk, respond quickly after significant 
landslide events, and improve communication with 
the public. 
ÑBy Lindsay McLelland 
National Park Service 
Department of the InteriorÑ
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 
and Enforcement
The Office of Surface MiningÕs (OSM) role in 
landslide mitigation is confined to those landslides 
that are related to past coal mining activity, as 
authorized by the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act. A coal mining technique in the 
Appalachians involving mountaintop removal and 
valley filling is monitored by OSM to prevent serious 
landslides. Most abandoned mine land landslide 
areas are reclaimed through State or Indian 
Tribe abandoned mine land programs, funded with 
OSM grants. The Office of Surface Mining, 
through its Federal Reclamation Program, has 
responsibility for those States and Tribes that do 
not have approved programs. 
When there is an immediate danger to the 
occupants of dwellings caused by a landslide, 
abatement actions are taken immediately through 
OSM or State emergency programs. Otherwise, 
landslide problem areas that endanger human 
health, safety, and general welfare are assigned priorities, 
and mitigation actions are taken based on 
the highest priority. 
Reclamation records, maintained in OSMÕs 
Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System, indicate 
that OSM and the States and Tribes have completed 
reclamation on 3,367 acres of dangerous slides 
at a cost of $125.25 million. Also, 651 acres are 
designated as high priority and have been funded, 
but not yet reported as completed, at $30.69 million. 
An additional 2,276 acres, with an estimated 
cost of $73.77 million, are unfunded. 
ÑBy Gene Krueger 
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement 
Department of the InteriorÑ 
U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) directly 
or indirectly funds and maintains landslide hazard 
expertise in several of its programs. The following 
programs direct research and assessment of landslides, 
debris flows, and lahars caused by storms, 
earthquakes and volcanoes, submarine landslides, 
and riverine and coastal erosion. 
USGS Landslide Hazards Program.ÑThe 
USGS Landslide Hazards Program supports hazard 
investigations and assessments, research on 
monitoring and forecasting landslides, landslide 
emergency response, operation of the National 
Landslide Information Center in Golden, 
Colorado, and research and assessment for the 
implementation of mitigation strategies for 
Federal, State, and local land-management and 
emergency-response agencies. The information 
generated also provides a basis for land-use planning, 
emergency planning, and private decision-
making, including insurance and financial incentives. 
Much of the current work is being conducted 

in the Pacific Northwest, California, and the Blue 
Ridge Mountains in the Eastern United States; 
most real-time monitoring activities are taking 
place in Washington, California, New Mexico, 
and Colorado. 
Earthquake Hazards Program.ÑThe USGS 
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 
supports USGS studies and external, cooperative 
studies of landslides caused by earthquakes, 
including liquefaction investigations in California. 
It also supports seismic instrumentation of landslide 
sites. 
Volcano Hazards Program.ÑThe Volcano 
Hazards Program funds debris-flow research at the 
Cascades Volcano Observatory. The research 
includes field investigations at Mount St. Helens 
and Mount Rainier, Washington, and an experimental 
debris-flow flume in the Willamette 
National Forest, Oregon. The Volcano Disaster 
Assessment Program conducts lahar investigations 
internationally. 
Coastal and Marine Geology Program.Ñ 
The Coastal and Marine Geology Program focuses 
on coastal and submarine landslide studies. The 
areas of investigations include California, 
Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, and Lake Michigan. 
The program also conducts subsidence studies in 
Louisiana. 
National Geologic Cooperative Mapping 
Program.ÑThe National Geologic Cooperative 
Mapping Program supports comprehensive geologic 
mapping as a basis for landslide hazard assessment 
through the matching-fund STATEMAP grants 
program. 
Earth Surface Dynamics Program.ÑThe Earth 
Surface Dynamics Program supports research on 
landslide processes and climate history in the Blue 
Ridge in the Eastern United States. 
Water Resource Programs.ÑWater Resource 
programs conduct research on landslides, debris 
flows, subsidence, and riverine and coastal erosion. 
Research is also supported through USGS District 
Offices in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and other States as 
landslides occur. 
ÑBy Paula L. Gori 
U.S. Geological Survey 
Department of TransportationÑ 
Federal Highway Administration 
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
is a part of the Department of Transportation, with 
field offices across the United States. The FHWA 
performs its mission primarily through the following 
two programs: 
¥ The Federal-Aid Highway Program provides 
Federal financial assistance to the State 
Departments of Transportation to construct 
and improve the National Highway System, 
urban and rural roads, and bridges. The program 
provides funds for general improvements 
and development of safe highways and roads. 
¥ The Federal Lands Highway Program provides 
access to and within national forests, 
national parks, Indian reservations, and other 
public lands by preparing plans, letting contracts, 
supervising construction facilities, and 
conducting bridge inspections and surveys. 
In support these program areas, the FHWA conducts 
and manages a comprehensive research, development, 
and technology program. 
The FHWA has recognized a need for consistent 
understanding and application of soil and rock slope 
stability analysis and mitigation for highway projects 
across the United States. These analyses generally are 
carried out throughout the life of most highway projects; 
that is, during planning, design, construction, 
improvement, rehabilitation, and maintenance. Planners, 
engineers, geologists, contractors, technicians, and 
maintenance workers are involved in the process. 
To this end, the FHWA geotechnical engineering 
program continues to develop and support the development 
of training courses, design manuals, demonstration 
projects, and geotechnical software. The 
FHWA geotechnical engineering program maintains 
an ongoing dialogue and exchange of information 
with and among State Departments of Transportation 
through annual Regional Geotechnical Meetings, 
training courses, and technical assistance provided 
through the FHWA Resource Centers. 
ÑBy Barry D. Siel 
Federal Highway Administration 

Department of TransportationÑ 
Federal Railroad Administration 
The Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) 
primary mission is to promote and regulate railroad 
safety. To support its mission, the FRA sponsors 
research projects to develop and demonstrate techniques 
for advancing railroad safety and for improving 
railroad operating and maintenance practices. 
As with any surface transportation, landslides 
can threaten the safety of railroad operations, but 
landslide mitigation planning and implementation 
for railroads must consider the following characteristics 
of railroad operations and of the U.S. 
railroad network. First, warnings must allow for 
trains to safely stop in advance of a hazard. For 
heavy freight trains or faster passenger trains on 
descending grades, stopping distances are often 1 
to 2 miles. Second, trains cannot steer around 
even the smallest slides or obstructions. And 
third, especially in the Western United States, 
there are relatively few alternative railroad routes, 
and the detour distances for accessing these may 
be hundreds of miles long. 
Landslide mitigation methods on railroads are 
similar to those used for highway transport, mainly 
slide fences, rock or slide sheds (in areas of frequent, 
heavy slides), and anchoring or stabilization of 
unstable rock or soil slopes. Slide fences are often 
tied into the signal systems, so that any slide of 
sufficient intensity to break wires in the fence will 
cause the signals protecting the nearby section of 
track to show a stop indication; the train dispatcher 
may also receive an indication. Because of the mitigation 
efforts that the railroad industry has taken, 
serious accidents, injuries, and fatalities due to slides 
are relatively few, but there are still a considerable 
number of disruptions and delays due to slide 
events. 
Recent FRA landslide mitigation activities 
include sponsoring the demonstration of two techniques 
in the Northwest Corridor (between Vancouver, 
British Columbia, and Eugene, Oregon) Ð 
¥ A cellular confinement method for stabilizing 
slopes subject to failure by weathering 
and erosion of the surface layer and 
¥ A method to install liquid level sensors 
for indicating slope movement 
In addition, the FRA, along with the Association 
of American Railroads (AAR) and the National 
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), sponsored 
a symposium in 2001 on Enhanced Weather 
Information for Railroad Productivity and Safety. A 
major focus of this symposium was weather and 
weather events as causes or triggers of natural hazards, 
including landslides. The FRA also participated 
in the May 2002 Canadian workshop on Natural 
Hazard Mitigation on Railroads. This workshop 
focused on addressing research needs for hazard risk 
management, hazard characterization (prediction of 
frequency and magnitude), and monitoring and 
detection technology. 
Railroad landslide mitigation needs and ideas 
resulting from the 2001 FRA/AAR/NCAR symposium 
and the 2002 Natural Hazard workshop were 
consistent with the objectives of the National 
Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy, particularly 
with respect to the need for improved understanding 
of slide triggers, better monitoring and detection 
technology, and the potential benefits of sharing 
information among different transportation and 
communications organizations with facilities and 
operations close to active slide areas. The FRA will 
continue to support work in these areas in partnership 
with the railroad and research communities. 
ÑBy Donald Plotkin 
Federal Railroad Administration 
Federal Emergency Management Agency 
The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) has many roles in landslide hazard loss 
reduction. FEMA has responsibilities in emergency 
response, disaster recovery assistance, and promotion 
of landslide hazard mitigation. FEMA coordinates 
the Federal GovernmentÕs response to disasters such 
as earthquakes, hurricanes, and volcanic eruptions 
that include landslides through the Federal Response 
Plan. The agency provides financial assistance to 
State and local governments for repair of public 
facilities damaged during these disasters, including 
replacement of lost fill and construction of fill

retaining devices such as gabions and rock toes. Following 
disasters, the agency also supports installation 
of mitigation measures, such as installing drainage 
ditches to direct flow away from the landslide areas. 
FEMA provides relief to individuals who have 
sustained losses due to mudslides and who are 
insured under the National Flood Insurance program. 
However, the distinctions that the agency makes 
between landslides and mudslides have been a source 
of controversy, as the agency provides only limited 
damage coverage. Also encouraging mitigation measures 
in tandem with insurance coverage, which is a 
cornerstone of the flood insurance program, has been 
impossible because, to date, there are no maps that 
delineate mudslide zones and no standards governing 
development in mudslide-prone areas. 
FEMA promotes landslide-hazard mitigation by 
developing State and national guidebooks for landslide 
loss reduction, including a prototype mitigation 
plan that can be incorporated into existing hazard 
mitigation plans. Through its Disaster-Resistant 
Communities project, FEMA is encouraging local 
jurisdictions to implement mitigation programs that 
reduce, among other hazards, landslides. 
ÑBy Ed Pasterick 
Federal Insurance Administration 
National Science Foundation 
According to the National Science Foundation 
Act of 1950, the mission of the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) is to promote the progress of 
science; to advance the national health, prosperity, 
and welfare; and to secure the national defense. 
The NSF provides funding for landslide and slope 
stability research through several programsÑ 
¥ 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 Directorate 
for Geosciences (EAR/GEO) 
In the Directorate for Engineering, funding 
mechanisms include peer reviewed unsolicited proposals, 
support for workshops, Small Grants for 
Exploratory Research, and the CAREER Program 
(http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?gp). The 
GHS Program does not have solicitations directed 
specifically toward landslide and slope stability 
research; all current research in this area is the result 
of unsolicited proposals. Historically, GHS has supported 
development of numerical analysis techniques 
for slope stability, landslide mitigation techniques, 
investigations of seismic slope stability and 
earthquake induced submarine landslides, constitutive 
and rheological model development related to 
slope stability and mud and debris flows, and post-
landslide reconnaissance. Current GHS-funded 
research includes development of probabilistic methods 
of stability analysis, analysis of the role of strain 
localization and dilatancy on slope stability, development 
of Time Domain Reflectometry sensors for 
early warning of slope movement, using geographic 
information systems to evaluate the factors controlling 
seismic slope stability, and stabilization of 
slopes by using in-situ reinforcement. 
In the Directorate for Geosciences, the 
Hydrologic Sciences Program supports work on 
landslide triggering caused by high water contents in 
soils and lubricating slip planes between strata; the 
Geology and Paleontology Program focuses on the 
role of landslides in reshaping the Earth's surface. 
Both programs interact with other NSF earth science 
programs to study landslide triggering by earthquakes 
or volcanic events. Projects include studies 
on diffusive soil transport as a process in hillslope 
evolution and studies on reconstructing landslide 
history. The NFS is also starting a Science and 
Technology Center at the University of Minnesota; 
here new analytical tools will be refined and developed 
to study the various processes that sculpt the 
Earth's surface. A major focus will be the study of 
the patterns in which landslide materials accumulate 
over sequential events. The simulation of this 
process is receiving growing attention as a tool in 
mapping aquifer properties. 
ÑBy Richard J. Fragaszy 
National Science Foundation 

Contacts 
Jerome DeGraff 
Department of Agriculture 
Forest Service 
Sierra National Forest 
1600 Tollhouse Road 
Clovis, CA 93611 
E-mail: Fishlake@worldnet.att.net 
Telephone: 209-297-0706, X4932 
Fax: 209-222-4122 
Jerry DiMaggio 
Department of Transportation 
Federal Highway Administration 
400 7th Street, SW., HNG-31 
Washington, DC 20590 
E-mail: Jerry.Dimaggio@fhwa.dot.gov 
Telephone: 202-366-1569 
Fax: 202-366-3378 
Richard J. Fragaszy 
Geomechanics and Geotechnical Systems 
Civil & Mechanical Systems Division 
National Science Foundation 
4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 545 
Arlington, VA 22230 
E-mail: rfragasz@nsf.gov 
Telephone: 703-292-7011 
Paula L. Gori 
Department of the Interior 
U.S. Geological Survey 
904 National Center 
Reston, VA 20192 
E-mail: pgori@usgs.gov 
Robert Higgins 
Department of the Interior 
National Park Service 
Geologic Resources Division 
P.O. Box 25287Denver, CO 80225 
E-mail: Robert-Higgins@nps.gov> 
Telephone: 303-969-2018 
Fax: 303-987-6792 
Michael J. Klosterman 
Department of Defense 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
441 G Street, NW. 
Washington, DC 20314 
E-mail: michael.klosterman@usace.army.mil 
Telephone: 202-761-5887 
Fax: 202-761-0633 
Gene Krueger 
Department of the Interior 
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 
and Enforcement 
1951 Constitution Ave., NW. 
Washington, DC 20240 
E-mail: GKRUEGER@OSMRE.GOV 
Telephone: 202-208-2937 
Robert Livezey 
Department of Commerce 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
Climate Prediction Center 
N/NP51 NOAA Science Center 
Camp Springs, MD 20746 
E-mail: Robert.E.Livezey@noaa.gov 
Telephone: 301-763-8155 
Fax: 301-763-8395 
Lindsay McLelland 
Department of the Interior 
National Park Service 
908 National Center 
Reston, VA 20192 
E-mail: Lindsay-Mclland@NPS.gov 
Telephone: 202-208-4958, X6610 
Fax: 202-208-4620 
Ed Pasterick 
Federal Insurance Administration 
Federal Emergency Management Agency 
500 C Street, SW. 
Washington, DC 20472 
E-mail: Edward.pasterick@fema.gov 
Telephone: 202-646-3443 

Donald Plotkin 
Research Program Manager 
Department of Transportation 
Federal Railroad Administration 
Office of Research and Development 
1120 Vermont Avenue - Mail Stop 20 
Washington, DC 20590 
E-mail: Donald.Plotkin@fra.dot.gov 
Telephone: 202-493-6334 
Fax: 202-493-6333 
Barry D. Siel 
Department of Transportation 
Federal Highway Administration 
Western Resource Center 
555 Zang Street, No. 400 
Lakewood, CO 80228 
E-mail: barry.siel@fhwa.dot.gov 
Telephone: 303-716-2294 
Fax: 303-969-6727 
William Ypsilantis 
Department of the Interior 
Bureau of Land Management 
P.O. Box 25047Denver Federal Center, Building 50 
Denver, CO 80225Ð0047 
E-mail: bill_ypsilantis@blm.gov 

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