Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Landslides”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

74 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program decadal science strategy, 2024–33

Executive Summary Earthquakes represent one of our Nation’s most significant and costly natural hazards, with estimated annual loses from earthquakes close to $15 billion in 2023. Over the past two centuries, 37 U.S. States have experienced an earthquake exceeding a magnitude of 5, and 50 percent of States have a significant potential for future damaging shaking; these statistics speak to the need for nationwide interest and investment in earthquake hazard characterization and risk reduction. Authorized under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) provides the scientific information, situational awareness, and knowledge necessary to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses from earthquakes and earthquake-induced tsunamis, landslides, and soil liquefaction. The EHP supports activities in three focused topical areas: (1) earthquake monitoring, (2) hazard assessment, and (3) applied research, using the results of each—and the coordination among them—to further support risk translation and communication in regions at risk nationwide. For earthquake monitoring, the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), a cooperative effort of USGS networks, university partner regional seismic networks, and real-time geodetic networks, collects and analyzes data on earthquakes; issues timely, reliable notifications of their occurrence and impacts; and provides data for earthquake research, hazard, and risk assessment as a foundation for building an earthquake-resilient Nation. The USGS-operated ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system is a recent addition to EHP’s ANSS infrastructure. In the realm of earthquake hazard assessment, the EHP contributes to earthquake risk mitigation strategies by developing the National Seismic Hazard Model and maps, and other related products, that describe the likelihood and potential effects of earthquakes nationwide, especially in the urban areas of highest risk. The EHP also conducts research on the causes, characteristics, and effects of earthquakes and prioritizes work that directly increases the accuracy and precision of earthquake hazards assessments, earthquake forecasts, and earthquake monitoring and situational-awareness products and that supports the Nation’s earthquake mitigation practices. Bridging the EHP’s efforts across research, hazard assessments, and earthquake monitoring is a broad and comprehensive collection of earthquake information products, including the National Seismic Hazard Model, ShakeAlert, and other products describing impact, such as ShakeMap and PAGER (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response), which have been developed and integrated into EHP’s real-time monitoring systems. EHP funds external partners to carry out many important collaborative activities through an active external grants program—one of the largest in the USGS—and through cooperative agreements with other partners such as the university-operated regional seismic networks, funded as part of the ANSS. To continue its support of earthquake hazard characterization and risk reduction, the EHP aims to strengthen its foundational products and practices while positioning itself to respond to the evolving needs of the Nation and follow best practices of the scientific community. This document describes a strategy for the program to ensure it can meet these demands. The foundational priorities outlined in this strategy represent those activities that remain critical to the core functionality of the program and those that can be supported under current fiscal year 2024-level appropriations. Priorities described as aspirational are important for future growth, and to maintain the program’s position as a leading global resource in earthquake science, but would require increases in appropriated funding to be fully realized. Across the program’s portfolio of activities, several major themes have been identified as the most critical activities to advance EHP science over the coming decade. Together, these activities provide the framework necessary to integrate critical hazard characterization and risk reduction activities across the program. They provide the structure for research to advance the understanding of where, when, and why earthquakes occur and how we can use improved knowledge to drive short-term and actionable forecasts of seismic activity. They expand the usefulness of critical earthquake products and advance the sophistication of those products to keep pace with the rapidly evolving needs of an ever-expanding user base while maintaining the position of the USGS as a global leader in earthquake science. Focus on system-level science. Establish an automated earthquake-processing pipeline. Enhance the accuracy and reliability of the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system and plan for extension to other regions. Implement time-dependent earthquake forecasting. Develop physically realistic models. Expand computational capacity. This science strategy is organized into three primary sections. The first section provides an overview of the EHP and its budget, governance, and program council. Readers familiar with the program may wish to focus on the second section, which describes the core of the science strategy, including priorities across each of the EHP’s major program activities in monitoring, hazard assessment, and targeted research. The third section outlines science priorities that cut across program activities, including those involving collaborations external to the EHP.

American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, U↗
USGS2024

Ground deformation and gravity for volcano monitoring

Introduction When magma accumulates or migrates, it can cause pressurization and related ground deformation. Characterization of surface deformation provides important constraints on the potential for future volcanic activity, especially in combination with seismic activity, gas emissions, and other indicators. A wide variety of techniques and instrument types have been applied to the study of ground deformation at volcanoes (sidebar, p. 2; Dzurisin, 2000, 2003, 2007). Geodetic instruments include continuously recording Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS; of which the United States’ Global Positioning System is one example) stations (fig. D1), borehole tiltmeters, and interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) measurements (from satellites, occupied and unoccupied aircraft systems, and ground-based sensors). Additional geodetic measurements like continuous- and survey-mode gravity (fig. D2) can contribute substantially to interpreting these data. Borehole strainmeters (see chapter K , this volume, by Hurwitz and Lowenstern, 2024) also have outstanding utility for monitoring deformation, although because of cost and permitting challenges, we do not include them as part of standard volcano monitoring networks for U.S. volcanoes. Still other techniques like light detection and ranging (lidar), structure from motion, and optical satellite data can be used to derive gross topographic changes, which can be used to map volcanic deposits, infer eruption rates, and gain insights into the source processes associated with eruptive activity (see chapter G , this volume, on tracking surface changes caused by volcanic activity; Orr and others, 2024). Experience has shown that no single geodetic monitoring technique is adequate to detect and track the entire range of ground-motion patterns that occur at volcanoes, primarily because of the temporal and spatial diversity of volcano deformation (fig. D3). Similarly, the magnitude of surface deformation varies widely. Geodetic monitoring strategies should therefore include multiple techniques and instrument types to cover a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. In identifying recommendations for geodetic instrumentation for volcano monitoring networks, we attempted to maximize the diversity of instrument types to measure the full range of deformation signals and minimize their expense and number; thus, we do not include several well-known deformation-monitoring techniques in our recommendations. Extensometers, for example, measure strains over distances of a few meters and have an excellent record of success in detecting changes in preeruptive localized ground motion across existing cracks, including at Mount St. Helens, Washington (Iwatsubo and others, 1992), and Piton de la Fournaise, Réunion Island (Peltier and others, 2006). Despite being relatively inexpensive, extensometers are best used primarily when localized ground displacements (for example, ground cracks) need to be tracked, and are not necessary at all volcanoes. In considering volcano deformation monitoring strategies, two complicating factors are deserving of special attention. First, not all deformation is driven by subsurface magmatic activity—for example, at many large stratovolcanoes (for example, Mount Rainier), flank collapses and landslides are significant geologic hazards (Reid and others, 2001) that may occur even in the absence of magmatic activity. Monitoring the stability of volcanoes is thus another critical application of geodetic monitoring networks to inform hazard assessment. One of the most famous examples of edifice instability is the large flank collapse that initiated the May 18, 1980, eruption of Mount St. Helens. Deformation monitoring had detected a bulge on the north flank of the mountain in April 1980 that was expanding by several meters per day (Lipman and others, 1981). Given that flank collapses can happen at any time during a period of volcanic unrest (or even outside a period of unrest), the capability to assess edifice stability is critical. Second, although volcanoes are commonly treated as idealized structures that erupt from single points, like centralvent stratovolcanoes, many are characterized by long rift zones from which eruptions may originate, and distributed volcanic fields are characterized by broadly spaced vents. For example, linear dikes are common at Kīlauea, Mauna Loa, and between Mount Shasta and Medicine Lake in California. At Kīlauea, one of these linear dikes emerged more than 40 kilometers (km) away from the summit of the volcano during the lower East Rift Zone eruption in 2018. Other volcanic fields, like Lassen volcanic center, California, or the San Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona, have many small vents spread over a wide area. Although the instrumentation guidelines presented in this chapter remain phrased for central-vent volcanoes, they should be modified as needed in the context of the eruptive characteristics of each individual volcanic system. Spatial analysis of geodetic network coverage could help to ensure adequate instrumentation in areas where volcanism can occur over a broad area as opposed to a central vent. As an example, consider the adjacent volcanoes Mount Shasta and Medicine Lake. If station locations are chosen based only on the distance from the centers of the volcanoes, then any geodetic anomalies between the two volcanoes—an area of potential volcanism as indicated by the presence of volcanic features—may remain undetected by ground-based instrumentation. The spatial analysis is accomplished via a grid of pressure point sources (Mogi, 1958) evenly distributed across the map area, at a depth of 5 km in this example (fig. D4). Each source is inflated until predicted deformations exceed the GNSS white noise uncertainty estimates at one site (Langbein, 2017; Murray and Svarc, 2017). This volume of detectable magma provides a measure of the quality of the coverage (fig. D4). The results indicate that, as of 2022, there is a large area between Mount Shasta and Medicine Lake volcano with existing mapped dikes in which a substantial amount of magma could intrude without being detected geodetically. Applying this style of analysis to individual volcanic systems can provide a guide for designing network geometry given the expected locations of future eruptions.

Scientific Investigations Report↗