USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Earth and Space Science”

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.

1,660 records · Page 26Linked to original sources
USGS2025

Pediment formation and subsequent erosion in Gale crater: Clues to the climate history of Mars

Evidence of paleo-rivers, fans, deltas, lakes, and channel networks across Mars has prompted much debate about what climate conditions would permit the formation of these surface water derived features. Pediments, gently sloping erosional surfaces of low relief developed in bedrock, have also been identified on Mars. On Earth, these erosional landforms, often thought to be created by overland flow and shallow channelized runoff, are typically capped by fluvial sediments, and thus in exceptionally arid regions, pediments are interpreted to record past wet periods. Here we document the Greenheugh pediment in Gale crater, exploiting the observational capability of the Curiosity rover. The absence of a fluvial cap suggests that the pediment was likely cut by wind erosion, not fluvial processes. The pediment was then buried by an aeolian deposit (Stimson sandstone) that mantled the lower footslopes of Aeolis Mons (informally known as Mt. Sharp). This burial terminated active wind erosion, preserving the pediment surface (as an angular unconformity). Groundwater was present prior-to, during, and shortly after Stimson deposition, perhaps contributing to lithification and certainly to early diagenesis. Post lithification, wind erosion first cut canyons in the northern most footslopes (north of Vera Rubin ridge). Unlithified gravels were deposited in these canyons, likely due to runoff from Mt. Sharp. Boulder-rich fluvial and debris flow deposits built a > 70 m thick sequence (Gediz Vallis ridge) on the southern Greenheugh pediment. Continued wind erosion left elevated patches of gravel on the northern footslopes, and exposure age dating shows that erosion essentially ceased before 1 Ga (but possibly much earlier). Erosion to the south led to emergence of Vera Rubin ridge, retreat of the Greenheugh pediment, and the formation of Glen Torridon valley. Hence, this footslope environment of Mt. Sharp records climate-driven periods of wind erosion, aeolian deposition (and groundwater activity), surface runoff and sediment deposition, followed by further significant wind erosion that declined to present very slow rates. This likely occurred during the late Hesperian and possibly into the Amazonian.

Icarus↗
USGS2026

Distributed volcanic fields—Patterns, products, processes, and plumbing

Distributed volcanic fields—also referred to as “monogenetic fields” or simply “volcanic fields”—are found on every continent, on the seafloors, and in every tectonic setting on Earth. Yet, our understanding of what constitutes a distributed volcanic field, and our knowledge of the common products, spatiotemporal patterns in activity, and plumbing systems of these fields, are commonly poor and (or) debated. Here we provide an overview of the current understanding of distributed volcanic fields (DVFs) through review and compilation of published data, with an emphasis on understanding the characteristics of fields that are essential to prepare for future hazardous volcanic activity. Distributed fields can erupt restricted to variable magma compositions. Activity in these fields produces nearly all types of volcanoes, including scoria and spatter cones, maars, low shields, lava fields, stratovolcanoes, and calderas, but monogenetic volcanoes are the defining characteristic of DVFs. The number of vents and lifespans of DVFs vary greatly; vent numbers range from 2 to greater than 1,000, and fields can remain active for 150,000 to 10 million years. Some characteristics of DVFs appear field dependent. Although the volumes of single monogenetic eruptions within DVFs globally are variable (from less than 0.1 to a few cubic kilometers), each field may have a characteristic range in eruption volumes. Eruptions within distributed volcanic fields can have a random distribution and timing, but spatial and (or) temporal vent clustering and alignment are common, and eruptions may be time or volume predictable. Average eruption recurrence intervals in DVFs span over an order of magnitude, from less than 3 to greater than 100 thousand years. Exposures of the shallow portions of older systems reveal that many magma batches end their ascent before reaching the surface, with some dikes stopping within only meters of the surface. Petrologic insights into the deeper plumbing systems of DVF volcanoes indicate variable depths of magma crystallization and (or) stalling, and that magma transport and storage systems may be unique to a particular DVF and its underlying crustal structure. Both seismic and petrologic data for mafic DVF eruptions corroborate intrusions of magma into storage systems in the months to years before eruption, as well as variable ascent rates through the crust (days to weeks). Few distributed fields are closely monitored, as they erupt infrequently, but these observations imply that the amount of time available to install monitoring instrumentation after the first felt seismicity may be short, as precursory activity is frequently on the order of days to months for modern DVF eruptions. Satellite-based geodesy may provide useful warning in such cases. This chapter concludes with outstanding questions and areas for future research that will aid in our understanding and preparedness for future DVF eruptions.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2024

Geologic map of the northwest flank of Mauna Loa volcano, Island of Hawai‘i, Hawaii

Mauna Loa, the largest active volcano on Earth, has erupted 34 times since written descriptions became available in A.D. 1832. The most recent eruption of Mauna Loa occurred on November 27, 2022, after a 38 year hiatus; it lasted for 12 days. Some eruptions began with only brief seismic unrest, whereas others followed several months to a year of increased seismicity. Once underway, Mauna Loa’s eruptions can produce lava flows that may reach the sea in less than 24 hours, severing roads and utilities. For example, lava flows that erupted from the Southwest Rift Zone in 1950 advanced at an average rate of 9.3 kilometers per hour (5.8 miles per hour); all three lobes reached the ocean within ~24 hours. Near the eruptive vents, the flows likely traveled even faster. In terms of eruption frequency, pre-eruption warning, and rapid flow emplacement, Mauna Loa has great volcanic-hazard potential for the Island of Hawai‘i. Volcanic hazards on Mauna Loa can be anticipated, and risk substantially mitigated, by documenting its past activity to refine our knowledge of the hazards, and by alerting the public and local government officials of our findings and their implications for hazards assessments and risk. The map of the north and west flanks of Mauna Loa shows the distribution and relation of volcanic and surficial sedimentary deposits. It incorporates previously reported work published as generalized small-scale maps and a more detailed map. Within the mapped area, lava has flowed from three different source regions: the Northeast Rift Zone (22 percent), the summit (64 percent), and radial vents (14 percent). All three have different points of origin which, in turn, affect the flow characteristics and periodicity of activity. The map area includes the uppermost part of the NERZ and extends from the highest elevation––13,040 feet at the south end of the Kokoolau quadrangle, just below the summit caldera––to the sea northwest and west of the summit. Lava that erupts from the north and west flanks typically flows to the west, northwest, or north, depending on the vent location. Both morphologic lava flow types—‘a‘ā and pāhoehoe—are present. Pāhoehoe units tend to spread out or widen in low-slope regions, such as in the saddle regions between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea or between Mauna Loa and Hualālai. In comparison, ʻaʻā flows generally produce narrower flow lobes that have higher relief. This map is the fifth in a series of five maps that will cover Mauna Loa volcano. NOTE: Map sheet 1 contains lines and type with overprint. This feature may be turned on or off in the Adobe Acrobat page display preferences.

Hawaii↗
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↗
USGS2024

Assessing spatial variability of nutrients, phytoplankton, and related water-quality constituents in the California Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta at the landscape scale—2018 high resolution mapping surveys

Executive Summary This study examined the abundance and distribution of nutrients and phytoplankton in the tidal aquatic environments of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (Delta) and Suisun Bay, comprising three spatial surveys conducted in May, July, and October of 2018 that used continuous underway high frequency sampling and measurements onboard a high-speed boat to characterize spatial variation across the extent of the Delta. The method used involves simultaneously collecting information about the concentration and spatial distribution of all major nutrient forms with analogous information about the major classes of phytoplankton and associated water-quality conditions. The results showed substantial variation across space and time, providing an unprecedented snapshot of the dynamic environmental processes that shape the ways nutrients interact with and affect aquatic habitats in the Delta. The purposes of this study were to improve our understanding of how hydrodynamics, landscape features, and aquatic primary productivity interact to drive nutrient cycling and transport in the Delta and to provide insights into the underlying processes most directly responsible for the conditions at the time of this study, and thus into the range of conditions that may be expected following the wide array of prospective future changes to the Delta. One major anticipated change at the time of this study was the planned upgrade to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, but the study also informs our understanding of potential effects from other changes to the Delta, such as those caused by other nutrient-management actions, flow actions, large-scale wetland restoration, drought, flood, levee failure, and changes to water management. Nutrient loading is the primary driver of nutrient concentrations in the Delta, but several other major drivers interact to shape their distribution and effects: geomorphology, hydrodynamics, landscape features, and aquatic productivity. Hydrodynamics affect timescales of transport and dilution of nutrient loads in the Delta. During transit through the system, channel geometry, tidal mixing, and water exports affect hydrodynamics in diverse ways that influence water-residence and transport times, thereby markedly affecting the range of times during which natural internal cycling can alter nutrient concentrations and forms. Channel geometry and location shape tidal energy and river currents into these observed dynamics. Interactions with Delta aquatic landscapes such as herbaceous tidal marsh, submerged aquatic vegetation, and large expanses of intertidal or subtidal sediments (all highly productive landscapes) exert demand on available nutrient supplies but can also simultaneously transform and generate nutrients. Finally, while phytoplankton require nutrients to sustain production and thus are a potential nutrient sink, the amount and form of nutrients also can influence the occurrence of harmful algal blooms (HABs) that adversely affect aquatic organisms as well as affect the occurrence of beneficial algal blooms that result in production of algae that are favorable for imperiled Delta pelagic aquatic food webs. The surveys revealed a complex mosaic of spatial variation, with nutrient concentrations varying from near zero to well above concentrations considered eutrophic; nutrient concentrations were more often related to the extent of hydrologic transport and mixing than to specific geographic locations or to specific landscape features. Similarly, the surveys identified phytoplankton abundance ranging from near detection to the level of large phytoplankton blooms, with large variation in phytoplankton community composition. Although the study occurred during a period of low bloom activity, phytoplankton productivity appeared to be the strongest potential sink for inorganic nutrients in the Delta, indicating that it is a larger control on nutrient concentrations and distribution than previously understood. Cycling and transformation within the water column only appeared to substantially lower total nutrient concentrations at the longest estimated transport timescales. Contrary to expectations, we did not observe substantial nutrient depletion near landscape-scale features such as open-water habitats, submerged aquatic vegetation beds, extensive wetlands, or exposed sediments, indicating that these habitat types did not act as major sinks for nutrients in the Delta during these surveys. These results indicated that nutrient reduction efforts may have the greatest effect on pelagic phytoplankton productivity in the more productive reaches of the Delta and estuary, but these effects are unlikely to be magnified by changes to nutrient loss within the Delta over conceivable changes in flow conditions, Delta water management actions, or large-scale wetland restoration activities. Nevertheless, local processes were shown to cause substantial loss, and thus integrating of nutrient effects with other indicators of aquatic habitat conditions will help inform planning future actions at specific sites. Finally, we note that the primary contribution of this study was intended to be the survey data themselves. Aside from the results highlighted in this report, the surveys are a benchmark against which future environmental change may be evaluated, including changes to nutrient management or water exports, drought, large-scale wetland restoration, and climate change. Further, although we highlight some of the main findings from the surveys in this report, the necessarily limited scope precludes examination of many topics for which these surveys may be highly informative. To facilitate the utility of these data to stakeholders, managers, and researchers, we have released the data online (Bergamaschi and others, 2020) and created an online data exploration portal ( https:​//ca.water​.usgs.gov/​bay-​delta/​2018-​delta-​wide-​mapping-​surveys.html ) where users may query the surveys in a variety of ways to test hypotheses, examine relationships, assess spatial trends, and download data. The data exploration portal is intended to be an immersive experience that allows users to gain greater understanding of the complex interactions that shape Delta aquatic environments. This report is intended as a companion to the portal, allowing the reader to challenge and further explore the highlighted findings. This study was a collaboration between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Delta Regional Monitoring Program, with additional funding provided from U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Matching Funds Program.

California↗
USGS2026

Lunar analog study using portable gamma-ray neutron detector: Radiochemical mapping of silicic-to-basaltic volcanic terrains in the San Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona

Studying lunar silicic volcanism provides key insights into the Moon’s crustal evolution, magmatic processes, and volcanic history. The Lunar-VISE (Lunar Vulkan Imaging and Spectroscopy Explorer) mission will investigate the Gruithuisen domes, a unique lunar region hypothesized to have formed through silicic volcanism. Using instruments on a Firefly Aerospace lander and a Honeybee Robotics rover, Lunar-VISE will analyze mineralogy, geochemistry, and surface properties to determine the origin and evolution of the domes, with a gamma-ray and neutron spectrometer (LV-GRNS) among its payload instruments. In preparation for this mission, we conducted preliminary fieldwork using a handheld gamma-ray neutron detector with NaI(Tl) and Cs LiYCl :Ce (CLYC) scintillators. This study focuses on various rhyolitic and basaltic volcanic centers in the San Francisco Volcanic Field (SFVF) near Flagstaff, Arizona—specifically Sugarloaf Peak, Bonito Lava Flow, and Robinson Mountain, a region containing several well-characterized lunar analog sites. The SFVF was selected for this study due to its broad compositional diversity spanning basaltic to rhyolitic compositions, its well-preserved volcanic morphologies, and its extensive use in previous NASA field campaigns and astronaut training exercises, making it an ideal terrestrial laboratory for testing planetary exploration techniques. We measured natural radioactivity, specifically from potassium (K), thorium (Th), and uranium (U) and other elements in their decay chains, which serve as diagnostic tracers of magmatic differentiation and crustal evolution processes, to assess geochemical variability across compositionally diverse terrains. The detector’s sensitivity was assessed across varying concentration levels. Regionally averaged concentrations of radioisotopes were determined by gamma-ray spectroscopy at selected sites. Our measurements reveal significant compositional variations between sites, with Sugarloaf Peak (rhyolitic, silicic dome) exhibiting the highest average radioisotope concentrations (K: 3.29 ± 0.24 wt%, U: 14.35 ± 1.81 ppm, Th: 27.14 ± 2.43 ppm), while Bonito Lava Flow (K: 1.13 ± 0.08 wt%, U: 3.86 ± 0.52 ppm, Th: 7.52 ± 1.02 ppm), and Robinson Mountain (K: 1.46 ± 0.16 wt%, U: 5.59 ± 1.06 ppm, Th: 11.75 ± 1.98 ppm) show lower concentrations aligned with basaltic compositions. Gamma-ray fluxes were elevated by a factor of approximately three to four at Sugarloaf Peak relative to nearby basaltic terrains, consistent with expected geochemical differentiation patterns. Furthermore, at meter scales, proximity to geological features significantly affects measurements. Th concentrations adjacent to a cliff face at Sugarloaf’s base were 28% higher than values measured 3-5 meters away from the same feature, demonstrating localized compositional heterogeneity. Analysis of station-by-station measurements reveals that K, U, and Th concentrations show an elevation trend at Robinson Mountain and generally higher concentrations near Sugarloaf Peak’s summit, suggesting progressive magmatic differentiation and/or the presence of more evolved lithologies at higher elevations. By mapping these elements on Earth using GRNS, we aim to optimize measurement techniques for Lunar-VISE and similar rover-borne missions by demonstrating the applicability of portable GRNS instruments for planetary surface exploration in an analog environment.

Arizona↗
USGS2025

Melt generation sources and conditions in the wake of a migrating slab window: Geochemistry and petrology of the million-year history of primitive volcanism at Clear Lake volcanic field, California

Clear Lake volcanic field (CLVF) is the northernmost and youngest (~2.2 Ma to 8 ka) of the volcanic centers distributed along the San Andreas transform fault in western California. The initial phase of CLVF volcanism (interval one) occurred between ~2.2 and 1.3 Ma and extends ~35 km southeast of Clear Lake, forming a semi-continuous upland plateau capped by lava flows, with isolated volcanic remnants on the periphery. This volcanism is broadly characterized by geochemically primitive compositions that reflect three source compositions and conditions of melt generation. (1) Partial melting of upwelling asthenospheric mantle lherzolite at moderate pressures (1.2–1.4 GPa) and temperatures (1297–1329 °C) produced high-CaO (9.8–11.3 wt %) basalts with high Al 2 O 3 (16.8–17.6 wt %), Mg#s (66–70), MgO (8–10 wt %), Ni (103–262 μg/g), and Cr (284–609 μg/g). These high-CaO basalts contain olivine (Fo 87–91 ) phenocrysts with Cr-spinel inclusions ± subordinate plagioclase and crop out only in the southern part of the CLVF. (2) Partial melting of depleted sub-continental lithospheric mantle harzburgite at variable pressures (0.7–1.5 GPa) and temperatures (1097–1299 °C) produced a compositional continuum of med-K 2 O, calc-alkaline, high-MgO basalts through high-MgO andesites with high Mg#s (67–77), MgO (8–14 wt %) and high Ni and Cr abundances (154–439 and 340–1124 μg/g, respectively). Mineral assemblages are olivine (Fo 88–93 ) with Cr-spinel inclusions ± subordinate clinopyroxene, orthopyroxene and plagioclase. Small (<2.5 cm) mantle harzburgite xenoliths and mantle olivine xenocrysts are also found in several of these samples. These high-MgO basalts through andesites represent the largest volume of primitive compositions and have erupted predominantly along the main, fault-controlled northwest-southeast trending axis of volcanism with peripheral outcrops to the north, west, and east. (3) Partial melting of the Gorda eclogite slab edge produced adakitic silicic slab melts with strong depletion in the heavy rare earth elements (Yb = 0.6 μg/g). Subsequent reaction of those melts with depleted ultramafic rocks during ascent imprinted the adakitic dacites with high Mg#s (65–78) and elevated Ni (117–210 μg/g) and Cr (191–283 μg/g). Phenocrysts of orthopyroxene (En 87–94 ) with spinel inclusions (Cr# = 80–88) and extremely Ni-rich (9483 μg/g) olivine cores (Fo 84–93 ) record those reactions. Small-volume outcrops of the adakites on the eastern periphery of the CLVF track the passing slab edge. The trio of melting sources recorded by early CLVF magmatism reflect the tectonically complex environment and the hot (1097–1329 °C), shallow (0.7–1.5 GPa) melting conditions for these primitive compositions and provide estimates of the heat delivered to the crust. Over time, this flux led to maturation of the CLVF magmatic system toward the more voluminous and silicic volcanism that characterizes the balance of its subsequent volcanic history and maintains the present-day anomalously high heat flow in the region. The current interval (interval four) of volcanic activity at CLVF is characterized by low-volume, fault-controlled eruptions of basaltic andesite and andesite suggestive of mantle magma and heat delivery to the crust, similar to interval one. This analogous activity provides motivation for the current study and begs the question of whether the system is undergoing thermal priming for renewed silicic volcanism.

California↗
USGS2025

Phase 1 technical implementation plan for the expansion of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system to Alaska

Executive Summary The conference report accompanying the fiscal year (FY) 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 117–103) for the U.S. Department of the Interior and related agencies directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to “work with the State of Alaska to develop an implementation plan to be completed within two years in order to put ShakeAlert/Earthquake Early Warning in Alaska” (p. 29). Congress included $1 million in the FY 2022 appropriation to conduct this effort. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, along with partner organizations, has developed the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast, which currently operates in California, Oregon, and Washington. The purpose of the system and its alert delivery partners is to reduce the impact of earthquakes and save lives and property by delivering ShakeAlert-powered alerts that are transmitted to the public via mass notification technologies, and by providing more detailed data streams to institutional users and commercial service providers to trigger automated, user-specific, protective actions. ShakeAlert was designed in such a way that it could be expanded to other U.S. regions with high earthquake risk, after the build-out of seismic and geodetic networks to support ShakeAlert in a specified region is completed and the necessary funding is secured for long-term operation and maintenance. When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves radiate from the rupturing fault like waves on a pond. It is these waves that people feel as earthquake shaking and that can cause damage to structures. Using networks of ground-motion sensors and sophisticated computer algorithms, ShakeAlert can detect an earthquake seconds after it begins, calculate its location and magnitude, and estimate the resulting intensity of shaking. Early warnings of impending shaking are then sent to people and systems that may experience damaging shaking, allowing them to take appropriate protective actions. Depending on the user’s distance from the earthquake, alerts may be delivered before, during, or after the arrival of strong shaking. There will almost always be a region near the earthquake epicenter where alerts arrive after damaging shaking has begun. The ShakeAlert system updates its ground-motion estimates as an earthquake grows larger. In response to the FY 2022 congressional direction, the USGS worked with the State of Alaska to devise this implementation plan for ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). A cooperative agreement was awarded to the Alaska Earthquake Center (AEC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) for their contributions to the plan and their work coordinating with other networks in Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC) throughout the process. The USGS also held a series of Alaska stakeholder engagements. The process of developing the implementation plan was facilitated by contracted staff from Corner Alliance, which is a government consulting firm. This implementation plan describes the details and estimates the costs for a Phase 1 expansion of the ShakeAlert system to Alaska. A geographically limited Phase 1 goal was chosen that covers the highest risk and most populated areas of Alaska. The areas proposed encompass the State’s main population centers and 90 percent of the State’s population. This Phase 1 design is considered very challenging and ambitious from the viewpoint of network operators. The lessons learned if this plan is implemented could be used to consider subsequent phases to expand EEW beyond Phase 1 in Alaska in the future. ShakeAlert is built on the foundation of the sensor networks and data processing infrastructure of the USGS-led Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). This implementation plan calls for a total of 450 high-quality, real-time EEW-capable ANSS seismic stations in Alaska: 270 new stations, 160 upgraded stations, and 20 existing stations. These seismic station numbers are based on a station spacing of 10 kilometers (km) in urban areas, 20 km in seismic source areas that endanger population centers, and 40 km in other areas. The associated costs also include support for some EEW-capable global navigation satellite system (GNSS) stations, with a focus on improving warnings for large subduction zone earthquakes. For effective EEW, ShakeAlert requires low-latency, high-availability, robust telemetry links to deliver continuous, real-time data from field stations to the data centers. The Alaska data processing hardware infrastructure would follow the general design for fail-safe operation that is used for the ShakeAlert system on the West Coast. The ShakeAlert architecture uses two independent layers: the production layer for earthquake processing and the alert layer to make alerting decisions and serve alerts to users. This implementation plan includes two geographically separated data centers in Alaska, each with two fully independent production and alert layers using the same system design developed for the West Coast. As of March 2024, the ShakeAlert system is at version 3.0.1, with more advanced versions in the development and testing pipeline. ShakeAlert originally used two algorithms to determine the location and magnitude of earthquakes using seismic data. A third algorithm that can calculate very large magnitudes of very large earthquakes with geodetic data was added in March 2024. ShakeAlert publishes several data and alert products to meet the needs of different users. All messages include the location of the earthquake, either as a point or a line, and its magnitude. Ground-shaking estimates are published in two forms, as ground-motion contours and a map grid. Providing adequate warning time for strong shaking (the “target threshold”) requires sending alerts at a threshold lower than that strong shaking level (the “alert threshold”). The thresholds for public alerting in Alaska would be a joint USGS and State decision. To have the greatest benefit, ShakeAlert-powered alerts would be delivered to institutional users and individuals by all practical pathways. The USGS alert layer can support thousands of institutional users and alert redistributors, but the USGS does not have the mission nor the infrastructure and expertise to perform mass notifications to the public or implement automatic actions for end users of the alerts. To meet this need, ShakeAlert recruits private sector “technology enablers” that have the necessary expertise to develop end-user implementations using EEW alerts with the goal of stimulating an EEW industry. Earthquake early warning alerts are useless if people do not know how to respond to them. Although the alert messages include instructions about what to do (drop, cover, and hold on), alerts are more effective if people have been trained in advance. Messages about ShakeAlert’s capabilities, limitations, and benefits could be integrated with existing earthquake education programs, including State-run programs. Therefore, ShakeAlert would coordinate with both public and private partners and stakeholders through various partnerships and agreements to accomplish consistent and ongoing public earthquake hazard education. The estimated capital cost of completing the computing infrastructure and sensor networks for the Phase 1 ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska is approximately $66 million in 2024 dollars. The annual operation and maintenance cost of the completed system is estimated to be $12 million per year in 2024 dollars when fully built out.

Alaska↗
USGS2023

Prediction of the probability of elevated nitrate concentrations at groundwater depths used for drinking-water supply in the Puget Sound basin, Washington, 2004–19

The Puget Sound basin encompasses the 13,700-square-mile area that drains to the Puget Sound and the adjacent marine waters of Washington State. Well more than 4 million people live within the basin, with numbers continuing to increase, who rely on the basin’s natural resources including groundwater. The Puget Sound Partnership was created by a Washington State statute to implement a science-based recovery of the Puget Sound to help address impacts to these resources. As part of the recovery, the partnership developed the Puget Sound Vital Signs as measures of ecosystem health that guide the assessment of progress toward Puget Sound recovery goals. The Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council adopted a Drinking Water Vital Sign associated with human health and quality of life, recognizing certain indicators as integral to the sustainability of Puget Sound recovery efforts. One such Vital Sign indicator was the vulnerability of groundwater throughout the aquifers of the Puget Sound basin to elevated nitrate concentrations as defined by the probability of exceeding 2 milligrams/liter (mg/L) at a specific location and well depth. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) led the effort to characterize groundwater vulnerability. For this study, groundwater vulnerability refers to a probability with which a contaminant applied at or near the land surface can migrate to the aquifer of interest for a given set of land-use practices. Nitrate concentration data were selected for evaluation because elevated nitrate concentrations are typically caused by anthropogenic activities and have been associated with deleterious impacts on human health. To identify groundwater vulnerability to elevated nitrate concentrations, logistic regression was used to relate anthropogenic (human associated) and natural variables to the occurrence of elevated nitrate concentrations in untreated groundwater from large public water supply system wells found within the Washington State Department of Health Sentry database. Variables that were analyzed included well depth, soil hydraulic conductivity, precipitation, population density, fertilizer application amounts, and land-use types. Statistically significant models that predicted the probabilities of groundwater nitrate concentrations greater than 2 mg/L based on the predictor variables were created for the time periods 2000–04, 2005–09, 2010–14, and 2015–19. For all time periods, well depth and a measure of the abundance of urban and agricultural land over or near the well consistently helped explain the vulnerability of the well to elevated nitrate concentrations defined as a probability of exceeding 2 mg/L of nitrate. Precipitation and (or) soil hydraulic conductivity were also important predictor variables in the models. The models for each time period were used to create maps of groundwater vulnerability at 150- and 300-foot depths throughout the Puget Sound basin. As expected, the most vulnerable locations were associated with shallower well depths and increased agriculture and urban land cover. Across all four time periods, groundwater vulnerability throughout the Puget Sound was low, with probabilities of exceeding 2 mg/L concentrations of nitrate at depths at 150 and 300 feet typically less than 50 percent. Results also found a slight decrease in probabilities of elevated nitrate concentrations throughout the basin over time. More specifically, additional statistical tests found that groundwater with probabilities of less than about 60 percent declined from 2000 to 2019 and represented more than 75 percent of the modeled Puget Sound basin aquifer. Wells with greater than 60 percent probability increased over the same time period but represented only about 25 percent of the aquifer. The maps and statistical analysis presented in the study provide valuable and informative evaluation of the vulnerability of groundwater in the Puget Sound basin to elevated nitrate concentrations. The probability maps do not represent measured nitrate concentrations in groundwater, but rather they present the probability that nitrate concentrations exceed 2 mg/L. The models and predictions from this study are a viable indicator for the Puget Sound Partnership’s Healthy Human Population—Drinking Water Vital Sign. The logistic regression modeling approach presented here benefits water managers by allowing them to assess temporal trends in a range of probabilities, explore vulnerability changes as new regional land cover and anthropogenic data are generated, and distinguish vulnerabilities at different depths within the aquifer.

Washington↗
USGS2026

High-resolution transboundary vegetation community maps of the Sonoran and Mojave Desert ecoregion to support critical landscape conservation planning and habitat management needs

We produced a 30-m resolution binational land cover map of Bird Conservation Region 33 (BCR 33) for the U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative. The region covers large portions of the Sonoran and Mojave Deserts. The map can support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Migratory Bird Program’s recovery planning efforts and constitutes the first known binational land cover dataset spanning sections of the United States–Mexico border and using a consistent classification system for both countries. The mapped region includes 152 distinct land cover classes, covering a total area of 38,421,453 ha (148,345 mi 2 ), of which 13,148,345 ha (52,706 mi 2 ) are located in Mexico and 24,770,640 ha (95,639 mi 2 ) in the United States. We primarily used Landsat 8 (OLI) imagery, supplemented by limited ground surveys from two field campaigns, drone-based aerial data, and existing vegetation classification frameworks from both countries. The classification applied a data-fusion approach integrating 30-m Landsat 8 imagery, decadal phenology metrics from vegetation indices, and a random forest model trained mainly with datasets from a comprehensive national mapping project from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) GAP Analysis Project (GAP) and federal wildland fire agencies’ Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools (LANDFIRE) (GAP/LANDFIRE) [United States side] and the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) [Mexico side] as well as land cover maps and opportunistic open-access and field observations. Mapping of the full BCR 33 region was carried out in two phases: 1) Phase I, the prototype map, covered a smaller portion of the transboundary area and identified 31 land cover classes, and 2) Phase II, the full BCR 33 map (refer to Figure 1), which resulted in 152 land cover classes. Using a Random Forest classifier, we achieved an overall prediction accuracy of 92% for the Phase I map and 87% for the Phase II full region map. This slight decrease can be attributed to working on a larger, more complex area with a greater number of land cover classes. No formal validation was conducted, aside from using a subset of the collected field observations and training data to assess model performance during and after training. The training sites were further verified using Google Earth (Google, 2026) imagery. Two undergraduate students who worked for over a year visually inspected imagery and open access public images to confirm each training site during model training using in-house developed, online, visual tools. A portion of this field training data was reserved for model validation, and the corresponding results are to be presented in later sections. The project developed an end-to-end, medium- and fine-resolution remote sensing–based data fusion mapping approach. This effort produced a map (Nagler et al., 2025) and the online tools to support a dynamic, live, online map for visualizing the transboundary vegetation communities in BCR 33. The toolset is currently hosted by the University of Arizona (UofA) Vegetation Index and Phenology (VIP) Lab to support FWS partners (https://vip.arizona.edu/viplab_data_explorer?LCM_BCR33). The online map is designed to allow rapid updates using new training, validation, or correction data, making it dynamic and maintainable. The approach we took established a framework for rapid updating and correction of land cover maps, as the model can be quickly retrained with new field observations, updated training data, or other sources. This enables dynamic mapping and change detection of the region’s vegetation. This framework is an advance in data fusion and crowdsourced mapping of complex, vulnerable regions, providing support to regional stakeholders and the wider user community. This transboundary map can inform the protection, conservation, and restoration of vegetation, habitat, and ecosystems, particularly for threatened and endangered species across the two nations using consistent and harmonized binational mapping systems. Beyond supporting land management decisions and stakeholders in the transboundary desert ecoregions, this BCR 33 mapping effort establishes a foundation for future rapid, low-cost, cross-border land cover mapping that can benefit and advance ecosystem management.

Arizona, Baja California, California, Nevada, Sina↗
USGS2024

Streams, springs, and volcanic lakes for volcano monitoring

Introduction Volcanic unrest can trigger appreciable change to surface waters such as streams, springs, and volcanic lakes. Magma degassing produces gases and soluble salts that are absorbed into groundwater that feeds streams and lakes. As magma ascends, the amount of heat and degassing will increase, and so will any related geochemical and thermal signal. Subsurface magma movement can cause pressurization that alters hydrostatic head and may induce groundwater discharge. Fluid-pressure changes have been linked to distal volcano-tectonic earthquakes (White and McCausland, 2016; Coulon and others, 2017) and phreatic eruptions (for example, Yamaoka and others, 2016). Clearly, changes in groundwater and surface waters are both indicators of unrest and clues to how and where magma is rising toward the surface. Where possible, it is prudent to incorporate real-time hydrologic data into multiparameter monitoring of restless volcanoes. Hydrologic dynamics can also be tracked by changes in groundwater levels that are commonly measured in shallow boreholes (see of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–K, 5 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062k. ">chapter K , this volume, on boreholes; Hurwitz and Lowenstern, 2024). Although inferred to be common, relatively few volcano-hydrology anomalies are well documented, and many are essentially anecdotal (Newhall and others, 2001), reflecting the fact that high-resolution time series remain rare. Extreme examples include the 2008 eruption of Nevado del Huila, Colombia, where relatively minor phreatomagmatic eruptions were accompanied by expulsion of as much as 300 million cubic meters of groundwater from fissures high on the volcano (Worni and others, 2011), generating large lahars. Substantial decreases in flow rate from springs about 8 kilometers from the summit of Mayon Volcano, Philippines, have been noted before most eruptions in the 20th century (Newhall and others, 2001). Stream monitoring at Redoubt Volcano in 2009 allowed Werner and others (2012) to recognize that groundwater was unable to absorb (or scrub) the high flux of volcanic gas and that a high CO 2 /SO 2 precursor signal had been evident for 5 months prior to the eruption. A key to better interpreting hydrologic anomalies—or even identifying them—is therefore obtaining adequate baseline data. Most hydrologic monitoring at U.S. volcanoes has been accomplished by intermittent sampling surveys with annual or less frequent sampling (for example, https://hotspringchem.wr.usgs.gov/index.php ). More frequent sampling, however, generally is needed to establish reliable baselines. A recent hydrologic and hydrothermal monitoring experiment at 25 sites and 10 of the 12 level 4 (very high threat) volcanoes in the U.S. portion of the Cascade Range demonstrated that there is sufficient temporal variability in hydrothermal fluxes, even during quiescent periods, that one-time measurements will commonly have limited interpretive value (Crankshaw and others, 2018). Thus, surveys are best augmented with data from streamgages (for example, Evans and others, 2004; Bergfeld and others, 2008). Streamflow (water discharge) data allow measured temperature and specific conductance to be converted to heat and solute mass fluxes, which could be insightful parameters for detecting anomalous activity (McCleskey and others, 2012). At the Yellowstone Caldera, long-term monitoring of river solutes has allowed calculation of the chloride flux, a proxy for heat discharge (Hurwitz and others, 2007; McCleskey and others, 2016) from the subsurface magma. This is readily accomplished because data from streamgages are continuously recorded and archived by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS) (USGS, 2024). Similar studies on stratovolcanoes or shield volcanoes would be scientifically useful, and yet are logistically challenging, requiring streamgages on numerous radial drainages complemented by either frequent manual sampling or numerous deployments of equipment to measure water temperature and specific conductance as a proxy for water chemistry. Another challenge is that some volcanic areas, especially shield volcanoes, are characterized by near-surface porous rocks and soils, such that surface streams are rare and replaced by distant, dilute large-volume springs with only a trace of any original volcanically sourced water (Manga, 2001; Hurwitz and others, 2021). Volcanic lakes are worthy of special attention for monitoring efforts, as their temperature and composition can provide evidence of increased flux of volatile-rich fluids from below. Quantifying changes in volatile and heat release from magma can be simpler in lakes than for volcanoes with radial drainages and no major lakes. Moreover, volcanic lakes pose a range of hazards themselves, including phreatomagmatic eruptions, debris flows, flank collapse, tsunamis, and toxic gas release (Mastin and Witter, 2000; Delmelle and others, 2015; Manville, 2015; Rouwet and others, 2015)—hazards that have historically been responsible for substantial loss of life at many volcanoes worldwide (Manville, 2015). Catastrophic CO 2 release at Lake Nyos, Cameroon, in 1986 suffocated about 1,750 people and about 3,500 livestock and was probably triggered by a large landslide into the gas-saturated lake (Kling and others, 1987; Evans and others, 1993). Gas-charged springs in Soda Bay within Clear Lake (California) have caused almost a dozen deaths to bathers in the past hundred years (ABC News, 2000). A 2005 example of lake overturn and abundant gas release was documented at Mount Chiginagak in Alaska (Schaefer and others, 2008) but did not result in any human casualties. Although thermally stratified lakes, which promote trapping of exsolved magmatic gas, tend to develop in tropical regions, the phenomenon can also arise where salinity creates meromixis (a condition in which a lake does not mix completely), as occurs in Mono Lake, California (Jellison and Melack, 1993; Jellison and others, 1998). If magma erupts or flows into a lake, the interaction between hot magma and cold water can be explosive (Mastin and others, 2004; Zimanowski and others, 2015) and substantially expand the area affected by the eruption. Another hazard is the breaching of crater rims by landslides triggered by volcanic and (or) seismic activity. Under some circumstances, substantial volumes of water can be displaced, leading to large floods and lahars. Late Holocene lake flooding from Aniakchak Crater in the Alaska Peninsula (Waythomas, 2022) and from Paulina Lake in Newberry Crater, Oregon (Chitwood and Jensen, 2000), caused by the failure of outlet sills, testify to the substantial hazards at lake-filled calderas. Several volcanic systems in the United States host lakes known to receive heat and gas from underlying magma. These lakes vary widely in area, depth, and chemical composition. Lakes are present at level 4 volcanoes, including Crater Lake and Newberry Volcano in Oregon; Yellowstone Caldera in Wyoming; Long Valley Caldera, Clear Lake volcanic field, Medicine Lake, and Salton Buttes in California; and Aniakchak Crater, Mount Katmai, Fisher Caldera, Mount Okmok, and Kaguyak Crater, among others, in Alaska. A water lake was present in Halemaʻumaʻu, the crater of Kīlauea, Hawai‘i (fig. F1), from October 2019 to December 2020. Level 3 volcanoes with lakes include Mono Lake volcanic field (Calif.), Mount Bachelor (Ore.), Ukinrek Maars and Mount Chiginagak (Alaska), and Soda Lake (Nevada). In addition, there are lakes at many levels 1 and 2 volcanoes. In the United States, there are no strongly acidic lakes that receive abundant input of magmatic gas, such as those found at Mount Ruapehu (New Zealand), Ijen and Kelud (Indonesia), and Poás (Costa Rica). Nevertheless, many contain fluids that provide clues to magmatic processes below. Since publication of a previous report on recommended instrumentation for volcano monitoring (Moran and others, 2008), continuous hydrologic monitoring has become increasingly feasible. However, changes in water pressure, temperature, and chemistry remain, in general, poorly studied phenomena at volcanoes (Sparks, 2003; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). Recent efforts by the USGS have included the temporary study of Cascade Range volcanoes, which included frequent (15 minute to hourly) temporal sampling of temperature, depth, and conductivity (Crankshaw and others, 2018; Ingebritsen and Evans, 2019). At Yellowstone Caldera, many streamgages have now added thermistors and specific conductance sensors, allowing estimation of time-dependent chloride flux as a proxy for variations in subsurface heat flux (McCleskey and others, 2012, 2016). Efforts to better understand lakes have also accelerated, with bathymetric mapping and sampling carried out at several locations in the United States. Especially thorough work was done at Yellowstone Lake thanks to the Hydrothermal Dynamics of Yellowstone Lake (HD-YLAKE, https://hdylake.org ) project, funded primarily by the National Science Foundation. In addition to geophysical surveys and recovery of cores and other samples, HD-YLAKE investigations included remotely operated vehicle (ROV) investigations of hydrothermal vents on the lake floor (fig. F2). Data collected by the ROV provided a better understanding of the thermal and chemical influx from lake-bottom hydrothermal systems (Sohn and others, 2017). In this chapter, we focus on detecting changes in the chemistry, temperature, discharge, or water levels of streams, springs, and lakes that can be caused by seismicity, volumetric strains, or increases in gas flux associated with ascending magma. There is unavoidable overlap with other chapters of this report. Samples of water and gas can also be obtained in boreholes ( of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–K, 5 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062k. ">chapter K , this volume; Hurwitz and Lowenstern, 2024), both shallow and deep. Gas monitoring ( of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–E, 11 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062e.">chapter E , this volume; Lewicki and others, 2024) relies in part on samples from springs and wells, particularly where measurable gas plumes are absent. Water acts as a trigger and lubricant for landslides and sediment-rich floods, and so hydrology has obvious relevance for lahar monitoring, as discussed in of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–H, 6 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062h. ">chapter H (this volume; Thelen and others, 2024). Shared situational awareness among scientists engaged in geophysical, gas, and hydrologic monitoring will improve overall understanding of the volcanic hazard.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2024

Monitoring marine eruptions

Introduction Submarine volcanoes produce much of the same seismicity and eruptive activity as subaerial volcanoes and can pose hazards to society. Although they can be monitored with similar techniques and methods as described in other chapters of this volume, their submerged location brings unique challenges. This chapter addresses these challenges and provides recommendations for monitoring volcanoes fully or partly in marine environments to meet the capabilities described in other chapters of this volume. The United States and its territories host dozens of submarine volcanoes with most (around 60) in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Approximately 20 of the Northern Mariana Islands submarine volcanoes are known to be hydrothermally active, and 10 have confirmed eruptions since the 1950s (for example, Baker and others, 2008; Tepp and others, 2019a). Nine of those volcanoes were considered by the National Volcanic Threat Assessment (Ewert and others, 2018) to have a combination of eruptive type and summit depth that poses a higher risk of hazardous eruptions, although only one was listed as a moderate (level 3) threat. Other notable submarine volcanoes of interest to the United States that have historically erupted are Axial Seamount off the Washington State coast, Kamaʻehuakanaloa in Hawaiʻi, and Vailuluʻu seamount in American Samoa. All of these, however, have a low risk of hazards because of their depth (greater than 600 meters below sea level) and eruptive type and so are not included in the National Volcanic Threat Assessment. In addition to submarine volcanoes, the submerged flanks of island volcanoes can also be a source of hazardous submarine eruptions—for example, the 1877 eruption of Mauna Loa, Hawai‘i, in Kealakekua Bay (Wanless and others, 2006). The most notable submarine eruption in recent times was the 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai in Tonga, which was one of the largest eruptions on Earth in the past 100 years. It created a massive volcanic plume, unprecedented shock waves, and far-reaching tsunami (Lynett and others, 2022). Other recent submarine eruptions in the Pacific Ocean Basin have produced subaerial plumes that reached aircraft heights (Carey and others, 2014) and large pumice rafts that can affect marine traffic and harbors (for example, Jutzeler and others, 2014; Kornei, 2019). These examples illustrate the potential hazards of major submarine eruptions. Yet, submarine volcanoes are largely unmonitored, and many eruptions occur that are unnoticed or only identified hours or days afterward. Within U.S. territory, submarine volcanoes in the Northern Mariana Islands have been known to produce eruptive activity that can affect society. Reports from fishermen and other marine vessels in the Northern Mariana Islands have noted underwater explosions, sea-surface discoloration, and bubbling water, all of which are known to be signs of submarine volcanic activity. South Sarigan seamount, located about 160 kilometers (km) north of Saipan, erupted in 2010 from greater than 150 meters below the sea surface, resulting in a gas and ash plume that reached more than 11.9 km into the atmosphere (for example, Searcy, 2013; Embley and others, 2014), high enough to affect international air traffic. Precursory and co-eruptive seismicity was detected on the regional Northern Mariana Islands seismic network (Searcy, 2013) and on global monitoring instruments (Green and others, 2013). Monitoring of submarine volcanoes is best accomplished with marine-based instrumentation, which is also useful for monitoring small island volcanoes that may not have the land area necessary for comprehensive subaerial monitoring. The primary marine-based instrumentation used for submarine volcanoes includes ocean-bottom pressure sensors to assess sea-floor deformation, ocean-bottom seismometers (OBSs) to detect seismicity, and both moored and ocean-bottom hydrophones to detect submarine explosions. Other sensors offer important monitoring data, such as turbidity, temperature, and chemistry of hydrothermal emissions. Marine-based instruments are typically deployed in campaign-style networks with no real-time telemetry owing to cost considerations and technical limitations. However, when necessary, marine instruments can be operated in real time using cables to transmit data to land-based facilities; other technologies for this purpose are in use or in development, such as acoustic transmission from the instrument to a moored buoy (Matsumoto and others, 2016) and a winch-based system with a satellite antenna that is part of the instrument mooring (Matsumoto and others, 2019). Emerging technologies for marine-based monitoring may be considered as part of a future monitoring plan. These technologies include ocean gliders and floats with on-board hydrophones that have been used to record earthquakes and submarine eruptions (for example, Matsumoto and others, 2013; Sukhovich and others, 2015) and fiber-optic cables that have been used as strainmeters to detect earthquakes (for example, Marra and others, 2018; Lindsey and others, 2019). Land-based instruments and satellites can also provide some capability for monitoring submarine volcanoes, but they provide more limited observations than marine-based instrumentation.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2025

ShakeAlert®—Communication, education, outreach and technical engagement strategic vision

Executive Summary In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began directly supporting ShakeAlert ® research and in 2012 the ShakeAlert demonstration system began testing ( Given and others, 2018 ). The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the three West Coast States (Washington, Oregon, and California) served by the ShakeAlert System, which is part of the larger Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). With more than 143 million people exposed to potentially damaging shaking in the United States ( Jaiswal and others, 2015 ), earthquakes are a national hazard. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated in the highly populated areas on the active plate tectonic boundaries on the West Coast of the conterminous United States. ShakeAlert is the first public alert system in the United States to provide rapid mass notification of earthquake detection, potentially offering seconds of warning before strong shaking arrives. A few seconds may not seem like much time, but the information in ShakeAlert Messages can be used to trigger automated actions that can prevent injury or death, reduce immediate damage, and speed recovery from earthquakes. The information product issued by the ShakeAlert system is called a ShakeAlert Message and is one of the information products and tools of the ANSS. The ShakeAlert System includes the USGS component, plus the pathways by which ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services are delivered to end users. Alerts can be delivered to cell phones or be used to trigger automated systems to protect equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, such as slowing or stopping a train. ShakeAlert-powered automated actions can include fire house doors that can be opened to prevent jamming, heavy equipment (for example, trains, elevators, and cranes) that can be automatically stopped or parked in safe positions, and pipeline valves that can be closed to prevent surges and spills. A few seconds of warning also may be sufficient for people to take protective actions, such as drop, cover, and hold on or modified protective actions for a broad range of populations. Advance training may increase the benefit of a speedy response to an alert. Outreach and education about EEW may raise awareness of the overall earthquake threat and how people can best react when they receive an alert or feel shaking. ShakeAlert communication, education, outreach, and technical engagement (CEO&TE) efforts are highly collaborative and essential for the success of the ShakeAlert System. This strategic vision informs how the vast ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community operates and works together. The CEO&TE Community delineates a strategic framework that is intended to set the path for a long-term, sustainable approach to CEO&TE through three focus areas and five priorities. Focus Areas Technical engagement.— The objective of this focus area is to expand and broaden ShakeAlert technical engagement and implementation. External engagement.— This focus area targets engagement in long-term communication, education, and outreach planning, implementation, and evaluation. Internal engagement.— The purpose of this focus area is to build and sustain a robust infrastructure to optimize collaboration, information sharing, and project planning among the community of stakeholders charged with implementing ShakeAlert CEO&TE. Priorities The enumeration of the five priorities listed below does not suggest priority ranking. Public safety, preparedness, and resilience; Technical implementation and engagement; Consistent messaging and communication; Integration with other Federal and State earthquake hazards products; and Educational resources development and dissemination. This strategic vision is a tangible outcome of collaboration among many stakeholders beginning in July 2016. Since then, the work of the ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community has grown into an international effort. The USGS has developed, tested, and implemented a broad spectrum of communication, education, and outreach tools and resources—all of which recognize that seconds matter when it comes to safety and mitigating harm from earthquake hazards. The CEO&TE social science research effort has provided invaluable insights into the ShakeAlert System’s human interface. USGS-licensed technical partners develop, test, and implement real-world applications using ShakeAlert Messages. The success of ShakeAlert CEO&TE efforts is predicated on robust collaboration across numerous agencies, organizations, and groups. As such, this strategic vision outlines a “partnership model” that delineates roles and responsibilities to ensure alignment with focus areas and priorities. The partnership model includes the CEO&TE lead agency (USGS); its principal partners (State agencies and university partners); its implementation partners (for example, technical partners who build systems to deliver ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services [focus area one]), earthquake education partners who work to increase public preparedness for seismic events (focus area two); and other organizations that work together to enhance the adoption and effectiveness of the ShakeAlert System. These partners collaborate and convene through a variety of working groups and forums, which are also described in this strategic vision and align with focus area three (internal engagement). The CEO&TE Community collaboratively developed its operating principles and a consensus-based, decision-making strategic framework to guide its collective work. Performance metrics are used to continually measure success. Ultimately, the USGS and ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community are advancing the ShakeAlert System that as of the publication of this strategic vision to “provide earthquake early warning for all” serves more than 50 million people.

Circular↗
USGS2026

Preliminary geologic map of the Sparta East, Sparta West, and parts of the Glade Valley and Whitehead 7.5-minute quadrangles, North Carolina and Virginia, and the epicentral area of the August 9, 2020, Mw 5.1 earthquake near Sparta, North Carolina

Introduction New bedrock and surficial geologic mapping in the Sparta East, Sparta West, and parts of the Glade Valley and Whitehead 7.5-minute quadrangles, North Carolina and Virginia, investigates the geologic framework and causative mechanisms of the August 9, 2020, Mw 5.1 earthquake near Sparta, North Carolina. The mapping documents (1) the coseismic surface rupture from the 2020 earthquake and related brittle structures in the bedrock; (2) the fault contact between the western Blue Ridge and eastern Blue Ridge; (3) lithostratigraphy in the Lynchburg Group, Ashe Metamorphic Suite, and Alligator Back Metamorphic Suite; (4) the nature of the contact between the Lynchburg Group, Ashe Metamorphic Suite, and Alligator Back Metamorphic Suite; and (5) surficial deposits.

North Carolina, Virginia↗