USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Safety 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.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2024

Facilitating psychological safety in science and research teams

Science is increasingly dependent on large teams working well together. Co-creating knowledge in this way, usually across disciplines and institutions, requires team members to feel comfortable taking interpersonal risks with each other; in other words, to have what is known as “psychological safety”. Although the importance of psychological safety for team functioning is increasingly well understood, the behaviours necessary to foster psychological safety are harder to define. We suggest that science facilitation expertise offers a path forward for scientific teams – particularly through the integration of outside facilitators or team members taking on the facilitation role – to identify dynamics that can promote or curtail psychological safety, interpret those dynamics accurately, and intervene appropriately to shift a group towards greater psychological safety. We describe how specific practices can support this cycle of observation, interpretation, and action to promote psychological safety across the team process and at key moments. We conclude with recommendations for how research teams might embed these facilitation practices into their work, and how institutions can drive more widespread recognition and development of the expertise needed to cultivate psychologically safe scientific teams.

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications↗
USGS2015

U.S. Geological Survey Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Roadmap 2014

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is responsible for protecting the natural resources and heritage contained on almost 20 percent of the land in the United States. This responsibility requires acquisition of remotely sensed data throughout vast lands, including areas that are remote and potentially dangerous to access. One promising new technology for data collection is unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), which may be better suited (achieving superior science, safety, and savings) than traditional methods. UAS, regardless of their size, have the same operational components: aircraft, payloads, communications unit, and operator control unit. The aircraft is the platform that flies and carries any required payloads. For Department of the Interior missions these payloads will be either a sensor or set of sensors that can acquire the specific type of remotely sensed data that is needed. The aircraft will also carry the payload that is responsible for transmitting live airborne video images, compass headings, and location information to the operator control unit. The communications unit, which transfers information between the aircraft and the operator control unit, consists of the hardware and software required to establish both uplink and downlink communications. Finally, the operator control unit both controls and monitors the aircraft and can be operated either by a pilot on the ground or autonomously. This Roadmap provides operational procedures and lessons learned from completed proof-of-concept UAS missions in areas such as wildlife management, resource monitoring, and public land inspections. This information provides not only an implementation framework but can also help increase the awareness by resource managers, scientists, and others of the ability of UAS technology to advance data quality, improve personnel safety, and reduce data acquisition costs.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey natural hazards science strategy— Promoting the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation

Executive Summary The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in natural hazards is to develop and apply hazard science to help protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The costs and consequences of natural hazards can be enormous, and each year more people and infrastructure are at risk. USGS scientific research—founded on detailed observations and improved understanding of the responsible physical processes—can help to understand and reduce natural hazard risks and to make and effectively communicate reliable statements about hazard characteristics, such as frequency, magnitude, extent, onset, consequences, and where possible, the time of future events. To accomplish its broad hazard mission, the USGS maintains an expert workforce of scientists and technicians in the earth sciences, hydrology, biology, geography, social and behavioral sciences, and other fields, and engages cooperatively with numerous agencies, research institutions, and organizations in the public and private sectors, across the Nation and around the world. The scientific expertise required to accomplish the USGS mission in natural hazards includes a wide range of disciplines that this report refers to, in aggregate, as hazard science. In October 2010, the Natural Hazards Science Strategy Planning Team (H–SSPT) was charged with developing a long-term (10-year) Science Strategy for the USGS mission in natural hazards. This report fulfills that charge, with a document hereinafter referred to as the Strategy, to provide scientific observations, analyses, and research that are critical for the Nation to become more resilient to natural hazards. Science provides the information that decisionmakers need to determine whether risk management activities are worthwhile. Moreover, as the agency with the perspective of geologic time, the USGS is uniquely positioned to extend the collective experience of society to prepare for events outside current memory. The USGS has critical statutory and nonstatutory roles regarding floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, coastal erosion, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and magnetic storms—the hazards considered in this plan. There are numerous other hazards of societal importance that are considered either only peripherally or not at all in this Strategy because they are either in another of the USGS strategic science plans (such as drought) or not in the overall mission of the USGS (such as tornados).

Circular↗
USGS2008

Hazard information management during the autumn 2004 reawakening of Mount St. Helens volcano, Washington

The 2004 reawakening of Mount St. Helens quickly caught the attention of government agencies as well as the international news media and the public. Immediate concerns focused on a repeat of the catastrophic landslide and blast event of May 18, 1980, which remains a vivid memory for many individuals. Within several days of the onset of accelerating seismicity, media inquiries increased exponentially. Personnel at the U.S. Geological Survey, the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network, and the Gifford Pinchot National Forest soon handled hundreds of press inquiries and held several press briefings per day. About one week into the event, a Joint Information Center was established to help maintain a consistent hazard message and to provide a centralized information source about volcanic activity, hazards, area closures, and media briefings. Scientists, public-affairs specialists, and personnel from emergency-management, health, public-safety, and land-management agencies answered phones, helped in press briefings and interviews, and managed media access to colleagues working on science and safety issues. For scientists, in addition to managing the cycle of daily fieldwork, challenges included (1) balancing accurate interpretations of data under crisis conditions with the need to share information quickly, (2) articulating uncertainties for a variety of volcanic scenarios, (3) minimizing scientific jargon, and (4) frequently updating and effectively distributing talking points. Success of hazard information management during a volcanic crisis depends largely on scientists’ clarity of communication and thorough preplanning among interagency partners. All parties must commit to after-action evaluation and improvement of communication plans, incorporating lessons learned during each event.

Washington↗
USGS2012

Selection of the Mars Science Laboratory landing site

The selection of Gale crater as the Mars Science Laboratory landing site took over five years, involved broad participation of the science community via five open workshops, and narrowed an initial >50 sites (25 by 20 km) to four finalists (Eberswalde, Gale, Holden and Mawrth) based on science and safety. Engineering constraints important to the selection included: (1) latitude (&plusmn;30&deg;) for thermal management of the rover and instruments, (2) elevation (<-1 km) for sufficient atmosphere to slow the spacecraft, (3) relief of <100-130 m at baselines of 1-1000 m for control authority and sufficient fuel during powered descent, (4) slopes of <30&deg; at baselines of 2-5 m for rover stability at touchdown, (5) moderate rock abundance to avoid impacting the belly pan during touchdown, and (6) a radar-reflective, load-bearing, and trafficable surface that is safe for landing and roving and not dominated by fine-grained dust. Science criteria important for the selection include the ability to assess past habitable environments, which include diversity, context, and biosignature (including organics) preservation. Sites were evaluated in detail using targeted data from instruments on all active orbiters, and especially Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. All of the final four sites have layered sedimentary rocks with spectral evidence for phyllosilicates that clearly address the science objectives of the mission. Sophisticated entry, descent and landing simulations that include detailed information on all of the engineering constraints indicate all of the final four sites are safe for landing. Evaluation of the traversabilty of the landing sites and target “go to” areas outside of the ellipse using slope and material properties information indicates that all are trafficable and “go to” sites can be accessed within the lifetime of the mission. In the final selection, Gale crater was favored over Eberswalde based on its greater diversity and potential habitability.

Space Science Reviews↗
USGS2023

Latency and geofence testing of wireless emergency alerts intended for the ShakeAlert® earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States of America

ShakeAlert, the earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast of the United States, attempts to provides crucial warnings before strong shaking occurs. However, because the alerts are triggered only when an earthquake is already in progress, and the alert latencies and delivery times are platform dependent, the time between these warnings and the arrival of shaking is variable. The ShakeAlert system uses, among other public alerting platforms like a mobile phone operating system, smartphone apps, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS). IPAWS sends Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs) informing people via their smartphones and other mobile devices about various events, such as natural hazards, child abductions, or public health information about COVID-19. However, little is known about the IPAWS delivery latencies. Given that people may have only a few seconds of notice after they receive an alert to take a protective action before they feel earthquake shaking, quantifying latencies is critical to understanding whether the IPAWS system is useful for EEW. In this study, we developed new methods to test the IPAWS distribution system's performance, both with devices in a controlled environment and as well as with a 2019 community-based feedback form, in Oakland and San Diego County, California, respectively. The controlled environment test used mobile phones (including smart and non-smart phones) and associated devices to determine alert receipt times; the community research form had participants self-report their receipt times. By triangulating the data between the controlled test environment and the community research, we determined the latency statistics as well as whether the geofence (the geographic area where the alert was intended to be sent) held broadly. We found that the latencies were similar between the two tests despite the large differences in population sizes. WEA messages were received within a median time frame of 6–12 s, and the geofence held with only a few exceptions. We use this latency to assess how the system would have performed in two large earthquakes, the 1989 M6.9 Loma Prieta and 2019 M7.1 Ridgecrest earthquakes, which both occurred near our WEA test locations. Our analysis revealed that had IPAWS been available during those earthquakes, particularly Loma Prieta, it would have provided crucial seconds of notice that damaging shaking was imminent in some locations relatively far from the epicenter. Further, we find affordable non-smart phones can receive WEAs as fast as smartphones. Finally, our new method can be used for latency and geospatial testing going forward for IPAWS and other similar alerting systems.

California↗
USGS2008

Cascades Volcano Observatory

Washington's Mount St. Helens volcano reawakens explosively on October 1, 2004, after 18 years of quiescence. Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey's Cascades Volcano Observatory (CVO) study and observe Mount St. Helens and other volcanoes of the Cascade Range in Washington, Oregon, and northern California that hold potential for future eruptions. CVO is one of five USGS Volcano Hazards Program observatories that monitor U.S. volcanoes for science and public safety. Learn more about Mount St. Helens and CVO at http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/.

General Information Product↗
USGS2008

Hawaiian Volcano Observatory

Lava from Kilauea volcano flowing through a forest in the Royal Gardens subdivision, Hawai'i, in February 2008. The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) monitors the volcanoes of Hawai'i and is located within Hawaiian Volcanoes National Park. HVO is one of five USGS Volcano Hazards Program observatories that monitor U.S. volcanoes for science and public safety. Learn more about Kilauea and HVO at http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov.

General Information Product↗
USGS2008

Yellowstone Volcano Observatory

Eruption of Yellowstone's Old Faithful Geyser. Yellowstone hosts the world's largest and most diverse collection of natural thermal features, which are the surface expression of magmatic heat at shallow depths in the crust. The Yellowstone system is monitored by the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO), a partnership among the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Yellowstone National Park, and the University of Utah. YVO is one of five USGS Volcano Hazards Program observatories that monitor U.S. volcanoes for science and public safety. Learn more about Yellowstone and YVO at http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo.

General Information Product↗
USGS2008

Long Valley Observatory

The ~300-year-old lava on Paoha Island in Mono Lake was produced by the most recent eruption in the Long Valley Caldera area in east-central California. The Long Valley Caldera was formed by a massive volcanic eruption 760,000 years ago. The region is monitored by the Long Valley Observatory (LVO), one of five USGS Volcano Hazards Program observatories that monitor U.S. volcanoes for science and public safety. Learn more about the Long Valley Caldera region and LVO at http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/lvo.

General Information Product↗
USGS2008

Alaska Volcano Observatory

Steam plume from the 2006 eruption of Augustine volcano in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Explosive ash-producing eruptions from Alaska's 40+ historically active volcanoes pose hazards to aviation, including commercial aircraft flying the busy North Pacific routes between North America and Asia. The Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO) monitors these volcanoes to provide forecasts of eruptive activity. AVO is a joint program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAFGI), and the State of Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS). AVO is one of five USGS Volcano Hazards Program observatories that monitor U.S. volcanoes for science and public safety. Learn more about Augustine volcano and AVO at http://www.avo.alaska.edu.

General Information Product↗
USGS2009

Three short videos by the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory

This is a collection of videos of unscripted interviews with Jake Lowenstern, who is the Scientist in Charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO). YVO was created as a partnership among the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Yellowstone National Park, and University of Utah to strengthen the long-term monitoring of volcanic and earthquake unrest in the Yellowstone National Park region. Yellowstone is the site of the largest and most diverse collection of natural thermal features in the world and the first National Park. YVO is one of the five USGS Volcano Observatories that monitor volcanoes within the United States for science and public safety. These video presentations give insights about many topics of interest about this area. Title: Yes! Yellowstone is a Volcano An unscripted interview, January 2009, 7:00 Minutes Description: USGS Scientist-in-Charge of Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, Jake Lowenstern, answers the following questions to explain volcanic features at Yellowstone: 'How do we know Yellowstone is a volcano?', 'What is a Supervolcano?', 'What is a Caldera?','Why are there geysers at Yellowstone?', and 'What are the other geologic hazards in Yellowstone?' Title: Yellowstone Volcano Observatory An unscripted interview, January 2009, 7:15 Minutes Description: USGS Scientist-in-Charge of Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, Jake Lowenstern, answers the following questions about the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory: 'What is YVO?', 'How do you monitor volcanic activity at Yellowstone?', 'How are satellites used to study deformation?', 'Do you monitor geysers or any other aspect of the Park?', 'Are earthquakes and ground deformation common at Yellowstone?', 'Why is YVO a relatively small group?', and 'Where can I get more information?' Title: Yellowstone Eruptions An unscripted interview, January 2009, 6.45 Minutes Description: USGS Scientist-in-Charge of Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, Jake Lowenstern, answers the following questions to explain volcanic eruptions at Yellowstone: When was the last supereruption at Yellowstone?', 'Have any eruptions occurred since the last supereruption?', 'Is Yellowstone overdue for an eruption?', 'What does the magma below indicate about a possible eruption?', 'What else is possible?', and 'Why didn't you think the Yellowstone Lake earthquake swarm would lead to an eruption?'

Wyoming↗
USGS1990

Earth sciences and emergency management

As understanding of California's earthquake risk had increased over the past decade, there has been a concurrent expansion of interactions between emergency management professionals and earth scientists. The effort have resulted not from a formal plan-though the U.S National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program has provided much of the support for scientific advances since 1977-but from interactions focused on specific projects. three examples stand out, perhaps suggesting how mutually beneficial exchanges can simultaneously enhance science and public safety.

Earthquakes & Volcanoes (USGS)↗
USGS2017

Development of the next generation of seismic design value maps for the 2020 NEHRP Provisions

During the period January 2015 through August 2018, a joint committee of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) representatives and National Institute of Building Sciences Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) volunteers and staff formed a committee to conduct Project 17. The purpose of Project 17 was to formulate recommendations for the rules by which next-generation seismic design value maps, derived from USGS national seismic hazard models, will be developed for adoption by the 2020 National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations of New Buildings and Other Structures (NEHRP Provisions), ASCE 7-22 and the 2024 International Building Code. Two similar projects, Project 97 and Project 07, had been conducted in the past. Each of these projects established, for a period of approximately ten years, the rules by which design ground motion values referenced by the building codes would be developed both by USGS and by private consultants engaged in site-specific studies. Project 17 was originally commissioned in response to issues identified in adopting the 2014 edition of the USGS national seismic hazard model and the design procedures that reference them for use, including the NEHRP Provisions, building codes and referenced standards. Specific issues included: the engineering profession’s discontent with the fluctuating design values portrayed by successive map editions; discovery that the standard spectral shape referenced by the design provisions did not adequately represent ground motion amplitude and spectral character on some sites; and a change in seismologic characterization of the possible size of earthquakes originating on various faults and source zones. Project 17 was funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and supported by the USGS with some collaborating experts. An initial planning committee met throughout calendar year 2015 to identify key issues to be considered and to develop a work plan for addressing these as part of the 2020 NEHRP Provisions update cycle. The planning committee recommended an effort of approximately 30-months duration during which the USGS would develop draft design maps based on the rules proposed, to allow evaluation and refinement of the recommendations. A Project 17 Committee (P17C) was empaneled and four task subcommittees were formed, each charged with evaluating one of the key issues identified in the planning effort: Stabilizing mapped values; Definition of Acceptable Risk; Development of multi-period spectral parameter data; and, Definition of procedures for computing deterministic caps, should it be necessary to continue use of such caps in development of the maps. A fifth task subcommittee was formed in 2017 to look at ways to stabilize the seismic design category as an extended effort to stabilize mapped values. The P17C met three times per year throughout 2016, 2017 and 2018 to resolve these issues and develop recommendations for an updated technical basis and procedures to be followed in preparing next-generation seismic design value maps for inclusion in the NEHRP Provisions. The P17C documented these in the form of draft proposals for revision of the NEHRP Provisions. In August 2018, the P17C passed these recommendations to the Provisions Update Committee (PUC) for completion, development of consensus and adoption as appropriate.

Report↗
USGS2026

Lunar-VISE landing site selection and characterization at Mons Gruithuisen Gamma

The Lunar Vulkan Imaging and Spectroscopy Explorer (Lunar-VISE) was selected for a Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) delivery to the Gruithuisen domes region of the Moon as part of NASA’s Payloads and Research Investigation on the Surface of the Moon (PRISM) program. The Gruithuisen domes are chemically and morphologically distinct from their surroundings with a thorium-rich, silicic composition. The Lunar-VISE instrument payload is designed to investigate the compositional and thermophysical properties of dome materials in order to understand how late-stage silicic volcanism occurred on the Moon. Selection of a landing site required balancing science and exploration goals with the safety requirements for landing and rover trafficability. Science required access to boulders, potential exposures of bedrock, and if possible, rover access to the dome edge to enable observations of the surrounding maria. Safety considerations included landing hazards, maintenance of line-of-sight communications between the lander and rover, and any early morning or late afternoon shadows that would limit the mission duration. After consideration of several candidate landing sites, a 100-meter diameter landing ellipse centered on 36.45715° N, 319.20398° E, was selected near the edge of a topographic step and blocky ejecta crater (recently named Mareta) near the summit of Mons Gruithuisen Gamma. This location enables access to a field of boulders excavated by a relatively fresh impact providing a diversity of boulders for investigations, as well as views to the surrounding mare and Mons Gruithuisen Delta dome off of the dome edge via only a short rover traverse outside the landing ellipse (traverse < 100 m) while meeting safety requirements in accord with the CLPS risk posture.

Planetary Science Journal↗
USGS2011

Imperfect science: Uncertainty, diversity, and experts

Seismic safety issues related to nuclear reactors in the eastern United States pose special challenges to the Earth and engineering sciences, given the severe consequences that can attend even very infrequent earthquakes. To deal with low-probability, potentially damaging ground motions, two major probabilistic seismic hazard analyses were conducted in the 1980s for nuclear reactors in the eastern United States, that part of the country east of the Rocky Mountains. The first study was performed by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) [ Bernreuter et al ., 1989] and was supported by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). The second was commissioned by the Seismicity Owners Group of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) , [1989]. These studies generally agreed in terms of median hazard estimates, but mean hazard estimates at individual sites varied considerably, in several cases by 2 orders of magnitude or more.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗