SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

18 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2010

Submarine mass transport within Monterey Canyon: Benthic disturbance controls on the distribution of chemosynthetic biological communities

Documenting mass transport within Monterey Canyon and Fan has been a focus of remotely operated vehicle (ROV) observations, sampling, monitoring, and multibeam mapping studies. These efforts indicate that major mass transport events occur within upper Monterey Canyon (<2 km water depths) with a sub-annual recurrence frequency. However, 14 C-stratigraphies indicate that a sand carrying event has not penetrated through lower Monterey Canyon (>2 km water depths) and onto Monterey Fan for ~100 years. Simultaneous efforts to document the distribution of benthic taxa observed in the video records from 668 ROV dives conducted by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) provide a uniquely detailed record of the occurrence of chemosynthetic biological communities (CBC). The combined results of these studies provide an understanding of the relationship between disturbance caused by episodic mass wasting events and the distribution of CBC. CBC are common within the canyon's axis below ~2.5 km water depth, but have not been found within the canyon's axis at depths shallower than 2 km. Moreover, CBC occur on the canyon walls at essentially any depth, primarily within young (~hundreds of years old) slump scars. The distribution of CBC provides evidence about the disturbance history of the seafloor. Major mass transport events will destroy communities that lie in their path. Erosion associated with major mass transport events can create environments to support CBC by exposing methane-bearing strata. This can happen as a result of slumping events on the sidewalls of the canyon or where major gravity flow events have excavated the base of canyon walls. Once fresh strata are exposed, geochemical conditions to support CBC will persist for a few centuries. Because CBC are composed of slow-growing and long-lived organisms, it will take decades for these communities to be established. Their existence indicates that environmental stability has occurred over a similar time scale.

California↗

USGS2010

Historic and paleo-submarine landslide deposits imaged beneath Port Valdez, Alaska: Implications for tsunami generation in a glacial fiord

During the 1964 M9.2 great Alaskan earthquake, submarine-slope failures resulted in the generation of highly destructive tsunamis at Port Valdez, Alaska. A high-resolution, mini-sparker reflection profiler was used to image debris lobes, which we attribute to slope failures that occurred both during and prior to the 1964 megathrust event. In these reflection profiles, debris lobe deposits are indicated by acoustically opaque units that are separated by undisturbed parallel-layered reflectors. Near-surface debris lobes attributed to the 1964 earthquake include: (1) a debris lobe over 30 m thick that emanates from the fiord-head delta in eastern Port Valdez; and (2) debris flow lobes incorporating large, intact blocks up to 40 m high in western Port Valdez, off the Shoup Glacier moraine. In addition to the near-surface debris lobes, we imaged at least five additional debris lobe deposits buried beneath the 1964 deposit. The debris lobe directly beneath the 1964 deposit has a similar thickness and spatial distribution as the 1964 deposit. However, the older, deeper, debris lobes are thinner, less extensive, and separated by thinner sequences of parallel-layered reflectors. Glacier retreat and concomitant build-up of the fiord-head delta combined with longer time intervals between megathrust events may have resulted in more extensive delta failures and thus thicker debris lobes through time.

Alaska↗

USGS2011

A reevaluation of the Munson-Nygren-Retriever submarine landslide complex, Georges bank lower slope, western north Atlantic

The Munson-Nygren-Retriever (MNR) landslide complex is a series of distinct submarine landslides located between Nygren and Powell canyons on the Georges Bank lower slope. These landslides were first imaged in 1978 using widely-spaced seismic reflection profiles and were further investigated using continuous coverage GLORIA sidescan imagery collected over the landslide complex in 1987. Recent acquisition of highresolution multibeam bathymetry across these landslides has provided an unprecedented view of their complex morphology and allows for a more detailed investigation of their evacuation and deposit morphologies and sizes, modes of failure, and relationship to the adjacent sections of the margin, including the identification of an additional landslide within the MNR complex, referred to here as the Pickett slide. The evacuation zone of these landslides covers an area of approximately 1,780 km2 . The headwalls of these landslides are at a depth of approximately 1,800 m, with evacuation extending for approximately 60 km downslope to the top of the continental rise. High-relief debris deposits, in the form of blocks and ridges, are present down the length of the majority of the evacuation zones and within the deposition area at the base of the slope. On the continental rise, the deposits from each of the most recent failures of the MNR complex landslides merge with debris from earlier continental slope failures, canyon and alongslope derived deposits, and prominent upper-rise failures.

Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Rese↗

USGS2010

Topographic Science

The mission of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center Topographic Science is to establish partnerships and conduct research and applications that facilitate the development and use of integrated national and global topographic datasets. Topographic Science includes a wide range of research and applications that result in improved seamless topographic datasets, advanced elevation technology, data integration and terrain visualization, new and improved elevation derivatives, and development of Web-based tools. In cooperation with our partners, Topographic Science is developing integrated-science applications for mapping, national natural resource initiatives, hazards, and global change science. http://topotools.cr.usgs.gov/.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2013

Historical methane hydrate project review

In 1995, U.S. Geological Survey made the first systematic assessment of the volume of natural gas stored in the hydrate accumulations of the United States. That study, along with numerous other studies, has shown that the amount of gas stored as methane hydrates in the world greatly exceeds the volume of known conventional gas resources. However, gas hydrates represent both a scientific and technical challenge and much remains to be learned about their characteristics and occurrence in nature. Methane hydrate research in recent years has mostly focused on: (1) documenting the geologic parameters that control the occurrence and stability of gas hydrates in nature, (2) assessing the volume of natural gas stored within various gas hydrate accumulations, (3) analyzing the production response and characteristics of methane hydrates, (4) identifying and predicting natural and induced environmental and climate impacts of natural gas hydrates, and (5) analyzing the effects of methane hydrate on drilling safety. Methane hydrates are naturally occurring crystalline substances composed of water and gas, in which a solid water-‐lattice holds gas molecules in a cage-‐like structure. The gas and water becomes a solid under specific temperature and pressure conditions within the Earth, called the hydrate stability zone. Other factors that control the presence of methane hydrate in nature include the source of the gas included within the hydrates, the physical and chemical controls on the migration of gas with a sedimentary basin containing methane hydrates, the availability of the water also included in the hydrate structure, and the presence of a suitable host sediment or “reservoir”. The geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrates have become collectively known as the “methane hydrate petroleum system”, which has become the focus of numerous hydrate research programs. Recognizing the importance of methane hydrate research and the need for a coordinated effort, the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 106-‐193, the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. This Act called for the Secretary of Energy to begin a methane hydrate research and development program in consultation with other U.S. federal agencies. At the same time a new methane hydrate research program had been launched in Japan by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry to develop plans for a methane hydrate exploratory drilling project in the Nankai Trough. Since this early start we have seen other countries including India, China, Canada, and the Republic of Korea establish large gas hydrate research and development programs. These national led efforts have also included the investment in a long list of important scientific research drilling expeditions and production test studies that have provided a wealth of information on the occurrence of methane hydrate in nature. The most notable expeditions and projects have including the following: -‐Ocean Drilling Program Leg 164 (1995) -‐Japan Nankai Trough Project (1999-‐2000) -‐Ocean Drilling Program Leg 204 (2004) -‐Japan Tokai-‐oki to Kumano-‐nada Project (2004) -‐Gulf of Mexico JIP Leg I (2005) -‐Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 311 (2005) -‐Malaysia Gumusut-‐Kakap Project (2006) -‐India NGHP Expedition 01 (2006) -‐China GMGS Expedition 01 (2007) -‐Republic of Korea UBGH Expedition 01 (2007) -‐Gulf of Mexico JIP Leg II (2009) -‐Republic of Korea UBGH Expedition 02 (2010) -‐MH-‐21 Nankai Trough Pre-‐Production Expedition (2012-‐2013) -‐Mallik Gas Hydrate Testing Projects (1998/2002/2007-‐2008) -‐Alaska Mount Elbert Stratigraphic Test Well (2007) -‐Alaska Iġnik Sikumi Methane Hydrate Production Test Well (2011-‐2012) Research coring and seismic programs carried out by the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) and Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), starting with the ODP Leg 164 drilling of the Blake Ridge in the Atlantic Ocean in 1995, have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the geologic controls on the formation, occurrence, and stability of gas hydrates in marine environments. For the most part methane hydrate research expeditions carried out by the ODP and IODP provided the foundation for our scientific understanding of gas hydrates. The methane hydrate research efforts under ODP-‐IODP have mostly dealt with the assessment of the geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrate, with a specific goal to study the role methane hydrates may play in the global carbon cycle. Over the last 10 years, national led methane hydrate research programs, along with industry interest have led to the development and execution of major methane hydrate production field test programs. Two of the most important production field testing programs have been conducted at the Mallik site in the Mackenzie River Delta of Canada and in the Eileen methane hydrate accumulation on the North Slope of Alaska. Most recently we have also seen the completion of the world’s first marine methane hydrate production test in the Nankai Trough in the offshore of Japan. Industry interest in gas hydrates has also included important projects that have dealt with the assessment of geologic hazards associated with the presence of hydrates. The scientific drilling and associated coring, logging, and borehole monitoring technologies developed in the long list of methane hydrate related field studies are one of the most important developments and contributions associated with methane hydrate research and development activities. Methane hydrate drilling has been conducted from advanced scientific drilling platforms like the JOIDES Resolution and the D/V Chikyu, which feature highly advanced integrated core laboratories and borehole logging capabilities. Hydrate research drilling has also included the use of a wide array of industry, geotechnical and multi-‐service ships. All of which have been effectively used to collect invaluable geologic and engineering data on the occurrence of methane hydrates throughout the world. Technologies designed specifically for the collection and analysis of undisturbed methane hydrate samples have included the development of a host of pressure core systems and associated specialty laboratory apparatus. The study and use of both wireline conveyed and logging-‐while-‐drilling technologies have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the in-‐situ nature of hydrate-‐bearing sediments. Recent developments in borehole instrumentation specifically designed to monitor changes associated with hydrates in nature through time or to evaluate the response of hydrate accumulations to production have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the complex nature and evolution of methane hydrate systems. Our understanding of how methane hydrates occur and behave in nature is still growing and evolving – we do not yet know if methane hydrates can be economically produced, nor do we know fully the role of hydrates as an agent of climate change or as a geologic hazard. But it is known for certain that scientific drilling has contributed greatly to our understanding of hydrates in nature and will continue to be a critical source of the information to advance our understanding of methane hydrates.

Report↗

USGS2006

USGS science in Menlo Park -- a science strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

In the spring of 2004, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Menlo Park Center Council commissioned an interdisciplinary working group to develop a forward-looking science strategy for the USGS Menlo Park Science Center in California (hereafter also referred to as "the Center"). The Center has been the flagship research center for the USGS in the western United States for more than 50 years, and the Council recognizes that science priorities must be the primary consideration guiding critical decisions made about the future evolution of the Center. In developing this strategy, the working group consulted widely within the USGS and with external clients and collaborators, so that most stakeholders had an opportunity to influence the science goals and operational objectives. The Science Goals are to: Natural Hazards: Conduct natural-hazard research and assessments critical to effective mitigation planning, short-term forecasting, and event response. Ecosystem Change: Develop a predictive understanding of ecosystem change that advances ecosystem restoration and adaptive management. Natural Resources: Advance the understanding of natural resources in a geologic, hydrologic, economic, environmental, and global context. Modeling Earth System Processes: Increase and improve capabilities for quantitative simulation, prediction, and assessment of Earth system processes. The strategy presents seven key Operational Objectives with specific actions to achieve the scientific goals. These Operational Objectives are to: Provide a hub for technology, laboratories, and library services to support science in the Western Region. Increase advanced computing capabilities and promote sharing of these resources. Enhance the intellectual diversity, vibrancy, and capacity of the work force through improved recruitment and retention. Strengthen client and collaborative relationships in the community at an institutional level. Expand monitoring capability by increasing density, sensitivity, and efficiency and reducing costs of instruments and networks. Encourage a breadth of scientific capabilities in Menlo Park to foster interdisciplinary science. Communicate USGS science to a diverse audience.

Circular↗

USGS2008

7th U.S. / Japan Natural Resources (UJNR) Panel on Earthquake Research: Abstract volume and technical program

The U.S. / Japan Natural Resources (UJNR) Panel on Earthquake Research promotes advanced study toward a more fundamental understanding of the earthquake process and hazard estimation. The Panel promotes basic and applied research to improve our understanding of the causes and effects of earthquakes and to facilitate the transmission of research results to those who implement hazard reduction measures on both sides of the Pacific and around the world. Meetings are held every other year, and alternate between countries with short presentation on current research and local field trips being the highlights. The 5th Joint Panel meeting was held at Asilomar, California in October, 2004. The technical sessions featured reports on the September 28, 2004 Parkfield, California earthquake, progress on earthquake early warning and rapid post-event assessment technology, probabilistic earthquake forecasting and the newly discovered phenomenon of nonvolcanic tremor. The Panel visited the epicentral region of the M 6.0 Parkfield earthquake and viewed the surface ruptures along the San Andreas Fault. They also visited the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD), which had just completed the first phase of drilling into the fault. The 6th Joint Panel meeting was held in Tokushima, Japan in November, 2006. The meeting included very productive exchanges of information on approaches to systematic observation of earthquake processes. Sixty eight technical papers were presented during the meeting on a wide range of subjects, including interplate earthquakes in subduction zones, slow slip and nonvolcanic tremor, crustal deformation, recent earthquake activity and hazard mapping. Through our discussion, we reaffirmed the benefits of working together to achieve our common goal of reducing earthquake hazard, continued cooperation on issues involving densification of observation networks and the open exchange of data among scientific communities. We also reaffirmed the importance of making information public in a timely manner. The Panel visited sites along the east coast of Shikoku that were inundated by the tsunami caused by the 1946 Nankai earthquake where they heard from survivors of the disaster and saw new tsunami shelters and barriers. They also visited the Median Tectonic Line, a major onshore strike-slip fault on Shikoku. The 7th Joint Panel meeting was held in Seattle, Wash., U.S.A. from October 27-30, 2008.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2002

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2002

Information is a resource for Native American governments, communities, organizations, and people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. Native self-sufficiency, economic development, and conservation are cultivated through Native decisions informed with USGS data and analyses. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, streamflow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal Fiscal Year 2002. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes, Tribal organizations, professional societies, and the USGS. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS also recognizes that Tribal institutions have varying needs, interests, and capacities. The USGS strives to be sensitive to the unique circumstances of each of these institutions while supporting their self-driven evolution. The USGS is responding to these needs by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct scientific studies and improve scientific data management. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and, therefore, more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, as described in this report, there are several types of USGS activities that involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. One type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments, or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS--to prove scientific relevance--while helping their fellow citizens. Increasingly, some of the educational activities are becoming parts of formal USGS projects. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. The USGS has a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗

USGS2000

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2000

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is an impartial scientific organization that strives to produce scientific results that are relevant to the people of the United States and their land and resource managers. USGS does not improve the quality of its customers' lives; it provides the informational tools for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and other customers to understand and improve their own lives. In cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, the USGS conducts research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flows, biota, and other data sets are available to American Indian and Alaska Native institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal Fiscal Year 2000. Some of these USGS activities were conducted in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In the year 2000, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Native Alaskans to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. More Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations are using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking such data from the USGS with greater frequency. The increasing use of such technologies allows Tribal governments additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of these governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science, and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and therefore more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involve collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects have a duration of two or three years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some are funded through cooperative agreements or reimbursable accounts, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are cooperating to use USGS knowledge for the benefit of American Indian and Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from an individual or group of USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help us fulfill a mission of the USGS, to make science relevant, while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative to assist American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster knowledge of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, paying the costs themselves, yet bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. As USGS moves to a more regional organizational structure, it will establish contacts in the Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. Within the USGS, this report will help in developing outreach, educational, and program documents for use in future years. It is hoped that USGS employees, American Indians, and Alaska Natives will adapt these activities in new areas and will use the USGS contacts to expand the relevance of the USGS to more Americans.

Report↗

USGS2001

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2001

Information is a resource that can help Native American governments and their people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) makes available technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that can benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal fiscal year 2001. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In 2001, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Alaska Natives to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science, and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and therefore more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS-to make science relevant-while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. Furthermore, the USGS has instituted a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗

USGS2012

The U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Science Strategy, 2012-2022 - Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policy-makers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, state, tribal, territorial, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and non-renewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decision-making is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and well-being of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decision-makers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that USGS scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decision-makers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge. The strategy integrates ecosystem science and decision-making, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play an important role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the agency can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the DOI and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and its application. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework and vision for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected and reinforcing components: • Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. • Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. • Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. • Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decision-making about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. • Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: • Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. • Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. • Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. • Support decision-making. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role over the next decade in advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey ecosystems science strategy—Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Executive Summary Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policymakers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, regional, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and nonrenewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decisionmaking is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and wellbeing of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decisionmakers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decisionmakers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge, and it integrates ecosystem science and decisionmaking, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. We envision the USGS as a leader in integrating scientific information into decisionmaking processes that affect the Nation’s natural resources and human well-being. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the Bureau can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and applying the results. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected components that reinforce our vision of the USGS providing science that is at the forefront of decisionmaking: Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decisionmaking about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. Support decisionmaking. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the four strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific USGS activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role in guiding sound decisionmaking during the next decade by advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Circular↗

USGS2022

Typology development of earthquake displays in free-choice learning environments, to inform earthquake early warning education in the United States

Free-choice learning environments, such as museums, national parks, interpretive trails, and visitor centers, are trusted sources of information in their communities and support lifelong learning. Earthquake education in these spaces creates awareness of earthquake hazards and risk in areas where people live or visit and, in turn, may increase engagement in preparedness behavior. The ShakeAlert® Earthquake Early Warning System helps publics prepare by warning in advance of shaking from significant earthquakes along the West Coast of the United States. ShakeAlert can minimize earthquake damage by prompting automated actions (e.g., slowing trains, shutting off water valves) and prompting personal protective actions like “Drop, Cover, and Hold On” to significantly reduce damage, injury, and loss of life. Individuals and communities must have a basic understanding of earthquake hazards, as well as an awareness of ShakeAlert technology, to know how to respond if they feel shaking or receive an alert. Currently, there is a lack of contemporary scholarship on how free-choice learning environments approach earthquake education through exhibits and displays. We analyzed a sample of existing earthquake exhibits and their themes in the United States and explored how different display types are uniquely engaging. We found that most displays did not include information about how to prepare for an earthquake or associated protective actions. From this and the development of the typology, our research posits a foundational framework for how best to incorporate place-based learning on earthquakes and early warning into centers of free-choice learning which may apply to a range of other natural hazards and will enhance public awareness and safety.

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction↗

USGS2018

Science for a risky world—A U.S. Geological Survey plan for risk research and applications

Executive Summary Natural hazards—including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires, geomagnetic storms, and pandemics—can wreak havoc on human communities, the economy, and natural resources for years following an initial event. Hazards can claim lives and cause billions of dollars in damage to homes and infrastructure as well as lost or compromised economic activity and threats to national security. They also can have adverse environmental, social, economic, and health effects that extend well beyond the immediate area, sometimes with global implications. Changes in population growth, climate, and urbanization may exacerbate hazard impacts. Because of the potential severity of a single hazard event, reducing risk—the potential loss of societally important assets caused by these hazards—is a high priority for everyone, including policy makers, community members, emergency managers, resource managers, utility operators, business owners, and planners. These stakeholders demand usable, user-centric information to support decisions for planning a resilient future and for responding to and recovering from unanticipated events in more adaptable and cost-effective ways. Meeting this demand requires maximizing the use of environmental observations; hazards science; and research on communications, social stressors, and human behavior to deliver risk information in forms that are accessible by decision makers and the public alike. To achieve this, scientists and stakeholders must collaborate to match community needs with actionable insights, research, products, and tools, using advances in technology to improve information discovery and delivery.

Circular↗

USGS2015

Proceedings of the 9th U.S.-Japan natural resources panel for earthquake research

Introduction The UJNR Panel on Earthquake Research promotes advanced study toward a more fundamental understanding of the earthquake process and hazard estimation. The Ninth Joint meeting was extremely beneficial in furthering cooperation and deepening understanding of problems common to both the U.S. and Japan. The meeting included productive exchanges of information on approaches to systematic observation and modeling of earthquake processes. Regarding the earthquake and tsunami of March 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku, the Panel recognizes that further efforts are necessary to achieve our common goal of reducing earthquake risk through close collaboration and focused discussions at the 10th UJNR meeting. We look forward to continued cooperation on issues involving the densification of observation networks and the open exchange of data among scientific communities. We recognize the importance of making information publicly available in a timely manner. We also recognize the importance of information exchange on research policy and strategies, including the frameworks of research organizations. Areas of Cooperation –Specific areas of earthquake research where cooperative research between the U.S. and Japan may lead to significant advancement include, but are not limited to: –Probabilistic earthquake and tsunami hazard estimation, including extraordinarily large earthquakes, both in our respective countries and worldwide, incorporating knowledge of current and past behavior, and physics based computational models; –Real-time information from seismic, geodetic and strain measurements, including borehole strainmeters and seafloor observations using offshore cabled networks; –Technologies for measuring crustal deformation; –Early warning technologies for earthquakes and tsunamis; Studies of recurrence of large and extraordinary large earthquakes using paleoseismic, paleotsunami, geodetic and seismic methods; –Laboratory, theoretical and in situ studies of fault-zone processes; –Studies of episodic tremor and slow slip events using seismic, geodetic, and borehole strain measurements, and simulation techniques; –Systematic studies of earthquake predictability through rigorously evaluated scientific prediction experiments and robust databases; –Studies of near-source ground motions, geological effects and the response of engineered structures. The Panel strongly urges that the appropriate agencies in the U.S. and Japan that are represented on this panel work together with the academic sector to support and coordinate scientific work in these areas of cooperation. The Panel recognizes the importance of promoting the exchange of scientific personnel, exchange of data, and fundamental studies to advance progress in earthquake research. The U.S. and Japan should promote these exchanges throughout the world. The Panel endorses continuation of these activities.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1975

Earthquake shaking and damage to buildings

Ground shaking close to the causative fault of an earthquake is more intense than it was previously believed to be. This raises the possibility that large numbers of buildings and other structures are not sufficiently resistant for the intense levels of shaking that can occur close to the fault. Many structures were built before earthquake codes were adopted; others were built according to codes formulated when less was known about the intensity of near-fault shaking. Although many building types are more resistant than conventional design analyses imply, the margin of safety is difficult to quantify. Many modern structures, such as freeways, have not been subjected to and tested by near-fault shaking in major earthquakes (magnitude 7 or greater). Damage patterns in recent moderate-sized earthquakes occurring in or adjacent to urbanized areas, however, indicate that many structures, including some modern ones designed to meet earthquake code requirements, cannot withstand the severe shaking that can occur close to a fault. It is necessary to review the ground motion assumed and the methods utilized in the design of important existing structures and, if necessary, to strengthen or modify the use of structures that are found to be weak. New structures situated close to active faults should be designed on the basis of ground motion estimates greater than those used in the past. The ultimate balance between risk of earthquake losses and cost for both remedial strengthening and improved earthquake-resistant construction must be decided by the public. Scientists and engineers must inform the public about earthquake shaking and its effect on structures. The exposure to damage from seismic shaking is steadily increasing because of continuing urbanization and the increasing complexity of lifeline systems, such as power, water, transportation, and communication systems. In the near future we should expect additional painful examples of the damage potential of moderate-sized earthquakes in urban areas. Over a longer time span, however, we can significantly reduce the risk to life and property from seismic shaking through better land utilization, improved building codes and construction practices, and at least the gradual replacement of poor buildings by more resistant buildings. Progress toward reducing risk from seismic shaking through better building design is slowed by deficiencies in our knowledge about the nature of damaging ground motion and the failure mechanisms in structures. For example, lacking observational data, seismologists must rely on simplified theoretical and numerical models of the earthquake process to estimate near-fault ground motion, especially for earthquakes as large as magnitude 7 and 8. Because such models have not been adequately tested against data, their reliability is unknown. Engineers lack detailed information about failure processes in structures during an earthquake. Although many structures have been instrumented to measure their response to an earthquake, few records have been obtained from buildings that actually sustained significant structural damage and few structures are properly instrumented to measure all the modes of deformation that are likely to contribute to failure. Moreover, the fact that many structures have withstood ground motion more intense than that assumed in their design indicates that conventional methods of design do not take into account important contributions to earthquake resistance by nonstructural elements and by the ability of structural elements to deform inelastically without necessarily causing failure of the structure. It is fortunate when such reserve resistance exists, but better understanding of the sources of reserve strength is needed to determine how large a margin of safety they confer and how they might be affected by changes in construction practices and materials with time. In the next few years we look forward to significant advances in knowledge and to more effective application of what is already known, largely because of substantial funding of research related to seismic engineering by the National Science Foundation . The increasing number of strong-motion seismographs operating in seismically active regions will likely provide for the first time a number of records of damaging levels of ground motion. Significant effort is being directed toward obtaining near-fault records, although many probable sites of future large earthquakes remain inadequately instrumented, especially outside the conterminous United States. New and more complete information on building response and damage mechanisms will be obtained by improved instrumentation of structures and through laboratory investigations of failure in structures and structural elements. Further developments in computer technology and in computer modeling techniques will permit more realistic simulations of the seismic response of soils and structures that take into account their inelastic behavior and their strain-dependent properties. Earthquake design codes will continually be revised to better utilize existing knowledge concerning the nature of strong ground motion and the dynamic behavior of buildings during earthquakes and to incorporate new knowledge and also experiences gained from future earthquakes. We believe that application of new knowledge, improvements in earthquake-resistant design and construction, and remedial strengthening or replacement of weak existing structures can significantly reduce our current level of exposure to earthquake hazards.

Science↗

USGS2006

The changing shapes of active volcanoes: History, evolution, and future challenges for volcano geodesy

At the very heart of volcanology lies the search for the 'plumbing systems' that form the inner workings of Earth’s active volcanoes. By their very nature, however, the magmatic reservoirs and conduits that underlie these active volcanic systems are elusive; mostly they are observable only through circumstantial evidence, using indirect, and often ambiguous, surficial measurements. Of course, we can infer much about these systems from geologic investigation of materials brought to the surface by eruptions and of the exposed roots of ancient volcanoes. But how can we study the magmatic processes that are occurring beneath Earth’s active volcanoes? What are the geometry, scale, physical, and chemical characteristics of magma reservoirs? Can we infer the dynamics of magma transport? Can we use this information to better forecast the future behavior of volcanoes? These questions comprise some of the most fundamental, recurring themes of modern research in volcanology. The field of volcano geodesy is uniquely situated to provide critical observational constraints on these problems. For the past decade, armed with a new array of technological innovations, equipped with powerful computers, and prepared with new analytical tools, volcano geodesists have been poised to make significant advances in our fundamental understanding of the behavior of active volcanic systems. The purpose of this volume is to highlight some of these recent advances, particularly in the collection and interpretation of geodetic data from actively deforming volcanoes. The 18 papers that follow report on new geodetic data that offer valuable insights into eruptive activity and magma transport; they present new models and modeling strategies that have the potential to greatly increase understanding of magmatic, hydrothermal, and volcano-tectonic processes; and they describe innovative techniques for collecting geodetic measurements from remote, poorly accessible, or hazardous volcanoes. To provide a proper context for these studies, we offer a short review of the evolution of volcano geodesy, as well as a case study that highlights recent advances in the field by comparing the geodetic response to recent eruptive episodes at Mount St. Helens. Finally, we point out a few areas that continue to challenge the volcano geodesy community, some of which are addressed by the papers that follow and which undoubtedly will be the focus of future research for years to come.

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research↗

USGS2018

Leveraging geodetic data to reduce losses from earthquakes

Seismic hazard assessments that are based on a variety of data and the best available science, coupled with rapid synthesis of real-time information from continuous monitoring networks to guide post-earthquake response, form a solid foundation for effective earthquake loss reduction. With this in mind, the Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Natural Hazards Mission Area (NHMA) engages in a variety of undertakings, both established and emergent, in order to provide high quality products that enable stakeholders to take action in advance of and in response to earthquakes. Examples include the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), development of tools for improved situational awareness such as earthquake early warning (EEW) and operational earthquake forecasting (OEF), research about induced seismicity, and new efforts to advance comprehensive subduction zone science and monitoring. Geodetic observations provide unique and complementary information directly relevant to advancing many aspects of these efforts (fig. 1). EHP scientists have long leveraged geodetic data for a range of influential studies, and they continue to develop innovative observation and analysis methods that push the boundaries of the field of geodesy as applied to natural hazards research. Given the ongoing, rapid improvement in availability, variety, and precision of geodetic measurements, considering ways to fully utilize this observational resource for earthquake loss reduction is timely and essential. This report presents strategies, and the underlying scientific rationale, by which the EHP could achieve the following outcomes: The EHP is an authoritative source for the interpretation of geodetic data and its use for earthquake loss reduction throughout the United States and its territories. The USGS consistently provides timely, high quality geodetic data to stakeholders. Significant earthquakes are better characterized by incorporating geodetic data into USGS event response products and by expanded use of geodetic imaging data to assess fault rupture and source parameters. Uncertainties in the NSHM, and in regional earthquake models, are reduced by fully incorporating geodetic data into earthquake probability calculations. Geodetic networks and data are integrated into the operations and earthquake information products of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). Earthquake early warnings are improved by more rapidly assessing ground displacement and the dynamic faulting process for the largest earthquakes using real-time geodetic data. Methodology for probabilistic earthquake forecasting is refined by including geodetic data when calculating evolving moment release during aftershock sequences and by better understanding the implications of transient deformation for earthquake likelihood. A geodesy program that encompasses a balanced mix of activities to sustain missioncritical capabilities, grows new competencies through the continuum of fundamental to applied research, and ensures sufficient resources for these endeavors provides a foundation by which the EHP can be a leader in the application of geodesy to earthquake science. With this in mind the following objectives provide a framework to guide EHP efforts: Fully utilize geodetic information to improve key products, such as the NSHM and EEW, and to address new ventures like the USGS Subduction Zone Science Plan. Expand the variety, accuracy, and timeliness of post-earthquake information products, such as PAGER (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response), through incorporation of geodetic observations. Determine if geodetic measurements of transient deformation can significantly improve estimates of earthquake probability. Maintain an observational strategy aligned with the target outcomes of this document that includes continuous monitoring, recording of ephemeral observations, focused data collection for use in research, and application-driven data processing and analysis systems. Collaborate on research, development, and operation of affordable, high-precision seafloor geodetic methods that improve earthquake forecasting and event response. Advance computational techniques and instrumentation to enable use of strategies like repeat-pass imagery and low-cost geodetic sensors for earthquake response, monitoring, and research. Engage stakeholders and collaborate with partner institutions to foster operational and research objectives and to safeguard the continued health of geodetic infrastructure upon which we mutually depend. Maintaining a vibrant internal research program provides the foundation by which the EHP can remain an effective and trusted source for earthquake science. Exploiting abundant new data sources, evaluating and assimilating the latest science, and pursuing novel avenues of investigation are means to fulfilling the EHP’s core responsibilities and realizing the important scientific advances envisioned by its scientists. Central to the success of such a research program is engaging personnel with a breadth of competencies and a willingness and ability to adapt these to the program’s evolving priorities, enabling current staff to expand their skills and responsibilities, and planning holistically to meet shared workforce needs. In parallel, collaboration with external partners to support scientific investigations that complement ongoing internal research enables the EHP to strengthen earthquake information products by incorporating alternative perspectives and approaches and to study topics and geographic regions that cannot be adequately covered internally. With commensurate support from technical staff who possess diverse skills, including engineering, information technology, and proficiency in quantitative analysis combined with basic geophysical knowledge, the EHP can achieve the geodetic outcomes identified in this document.

Open-File Report↗