Building a national coordination structure to reduce and manage landslide risk in the United States

Jenny Michelle Riker; Corina Cerovski-Darriau; Jonathan W. Godt; Sarah Renee Hall; Stephen L. Slaughter

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70283007

Building a national coordination structure to reduce and manage landslide risk in the United States

Jenny Michelle Riker·Corina Cerovski-Darriau·Jonathan W. Godt·Sarah Renee Hall·Stephen L. Slaughter

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The National Landslide Hazard Reduction Program is a coordinated Federal effort to reduce landslide risks and losses in the United States. Created in 2021 by the National Landslide Preparedness Act (“the Act”), the Program aims to bolster national capacity to (a) assess landslide hazard and risk, (b) coordinate landslide risk reduction activities, (c) prepare and plan for landslide impacts, and (d) respond to landslide events. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the lead Federal agency for Program implementation. To support implementation, the Act establishes two new coordination bodies: (1) The Interagency Coordinating Committee on Landslide Hazards (ICCLH), with representation from the USGS, National Weather Service, National Science Foundation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other Federal partners; and (2) the Federal Advisory Committee on Landslides (ACL), composed of external advisors from state, Tribal, territorial, and local geological and emergency management organizations, academic institutions, and the private sector. The ICCLH ensures coordination of resources and activities across the many Federal agencies whose missions include landslide hazard and risk. The ACL provides advice and guidance on Program implementation to the USGS and its Federal partners, supporting Program effectiveness, transparency, and accountability. Complementary to these two groups, the new USGS-led National Landslide Hazard and Risk Reduction Work Group brings together local and regional practitioners to share best practices and develop common approaches to landslide hazard and risk management. This presentation will detail USGS efforts over the past 5 years to build a multi-level, multi-sector coordination structure to facilitate landslide loss reduction at a national scale. We will reflect on challenges and opportunities, share examples of successful interagency collaborations, and highlight next steps for the U.S. National Landslide Hazard Reduction Program.

Explore related subjects

Conference Paper

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Jenny Michelle Riker, Corina Cerovski-Darriau, Jonathan W. Godt, Sarah Renee Hall, Stephen L. Slaughter. 2026. Building a national coordination structure to reduce and manage landslide risk in the United States. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70283007

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Authoritative knowledge infrastructure for GeoAI: Implications for scientific spatial data providers

Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (GeoAI) increasingly relies on automated analysis of authoritative geospatial data, exposing limitations in data infrastructures originally designed for simple dissemination rather than for knowledge-driven use. From the perspective of scientific spatial data providers, the challenge is enabling GeoAI responsibly while retaining semantic clarity, provenance, reproducibility, and governance. This short paper (i) examines how GeoAI exposed limitations within existing geospatial data infrastructures, and (ii) identifies provider-side requirements for an authoritative knowledge infrastructure. Drawing on GIScience, scientific workflow, and operational AI literature, the paper outlines implications for national mapping organizations that seek to support advanced analytics without jeopardizing scientific rigor or stewardship responsibilities.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2026

Springs of the Catskill Mountains: A conduit flow system in predominantly siliciclastic strata

The Catskill Mountains of New York state are composed of thick sequences of interbedded mudstone, sandstone, and siltstone that are intercalated with thin beds of paludal limestone and calcareous mudstone. Sandstones often contain rip-up clasts of calcareous material at their bases and contain minor amounts of carbonate cement throughout their mass. This minor amount of calcareous material weathers out to produce thin zones of solutional porosity and permeability integrated within perched aquifers that feed perennial hillslope springs. Solutional features are evident within thin carbonate lenses and along fractures in sandstones, occasionally resulting in explorable cave-sized conduits. This study focuses on the behavior of bedrock springs and seeps in the headwaters of the Neversink River basin above the Neversink Reservoir. Bedrock springs are numerous throughout the Catskill Mountains and serve to provide baseflow to the headwater streams that tends to be more persistent during dry times than other baseflow sources. We observed dissolution-influenced conduits within the bedrock, and suffosional conduits within unconsolidated materials. Continuous water temperature at six springs was monitored at hourly intervals from May to October 2022 to investigate the thermal response of groundwater to daily and seasonal changes in air temperature along with event-based meteorological events. Temperature monitoring was augmented at some springs with time-lapse photography to evaluate persistence of flow. The thermal responses of springs to precipitation events were highly variable across sites, with some springs exhibiting flashy responses indicating a strong connection to the surface, while other springs showed muted or no thermal response to events. The seasonal thermal response also varied across sites having lag times of 23-48 days between peak air temperature and peak spring water temperature. The water temperatures and geochemical compositions of these bedrock springs support a conceptual model of multiple residence times, showing both event and seasonal groundwater storage within the conduit flow system that feeds the springs of the Catskill Mountains.

New York↗

USGS2026

Stability changes after weak layer collapse: Insights from an unexpected dataset

While conducting avalanche mitigation or traveling through the backcountry, avalanche professionals sometimes experience a "whumpf": a collapse-mode crack accompanied by surface cracking that does not produce an avalanche. These whumpfs are a clear warning sign of instability in the surrounding terrain. But assessing the collapsed slope itself, if it is steep enough to avalanche, carries much more uncertainty. Can slopes that whumpf and are steep enough to slide still avalanche? The answer to this question supports avalanche mitigators and ski guides in assessing whether to open such slopes. Previous research on collapsed slopes is limited to one study conducted before tests that estimate crack propagation propensity, such as the Propagation Saw Test (PST), were developed. This work showed that weak layer shear strength decreased immediately after collapsing and then increased over time. However, no research has examined crack propagation propensity after a whumpf. Studying propagation propensity is key for assessing how whumpfs immediately affect slope stability. To improve our understanding of changes in propagation propensity following weak layer collapse, we conducted PSTs on a test slope in the hours and days after an unexpected collapse occurred on a layer of surface hoar. Two PSTs at our study site three days prior to this collapse provided an estimate of weak layer propagation propensity. PST cut lengths decreased immediately following the collapse, suggesting that the collapse increased the propagation propensity. However, over the next 4-5 hours, PST cut lengths steadily increased at our site, likely due to ongoing sintering and strengthening in the collapsed weak layer. By the end of day two, we were no longer able to initiate propagation, suggesting substantial stabilization of the weak layer. Our results support prior findings and observations suggesting that slopes may remain capable of producing avalanches immediately after a collapse but likely stabilize over the next day or two. Although this research does not provide answers about precisely when a slope becomes stable after a collapse, it does highlight uncertainties in our understanding and interpretation of the stability of slopes that have whumped.

Montana↗