Geology topics

Cecily J. Wolfe

Publications and source records attributed to Cecily J. Wolfe.

12 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

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

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

Alaska↗

USGS2024

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

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

American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, U↗

USGS2024

Preliminary observations of the April 5th, 2024, Mw4.8 New Jersey earthquake

On 5 April 2024, 10:23 a.m. local time, a moment magnitude 4.8 earthquake struck Tewksbury Township, New Jersey, about 65 km west of New York City. Millions of people from Virginia to Maine and beyond felt the ground shaking, resulting in the largest number (>180,000) of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) “Did You Feel It?” reports of any earthquake. A team deployed by the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association and the National Institute of Standards and Technology documented structural and nonstructural damage, including substantial damage to a historic masonry building in Lebanon, New Jersey. The USGS National Earthquake Information Center reported a focal depth of about 5 km, consistent with a lack of signal in Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data. The focal mechanism solution is strike slip with a substantial thrust component. Neither mechanism’s nodal plane is parallel to the primary northeast trend of geologic discontinuities and mapped faults in the region, including the Ramapo fault. However, many of the relocated aftershocks, for which locations were augmented by temporary seismic deployments, form a cluster that parallels the general northeast trend of the faults. The aftershocks lie near the Tewksbury fault, north of the Ramapo fault.

New Jersey↗

USGS2014

From field data to volumes: Constraining uncertainties in pyroclastic eruption parameters

In this study, we aim to understand the variability in eruption volume estimates derived from field studies of pyroclastic deposits. We distributed paper maps of the 1959 Kīlauea Iki tephra to 101 volcanologists worldwide, who produced hand-drawn isopachs. Across the returned maps, uncertainty in isopach areas is 7 % across the well-sampled deposit but increases to over 30 % for isopachs that are governed by the largest and smallest thickness measurements. We fit the exponential, power-law, and Weibull functions through the isopach thickness versus area 1/2 values and find volume estimate variations up to a factor of 4.9 for a single map. Across all maps and methodologies, we find an average standard deviation for a total volume of s  = 29 %. The volume uncertainties are largest for the most proximal ( s  = 62 %) and distal field ( s  = 53 %) and small for the densely sampled intermediate deposit ( s  = 8 %). For the Kīlauea Iki 1959 eruption, we find that the deposit beyond the 5-cm isopach contains only 2 % of the total erupted volume, whereas the near-source deposit contains 48 % and the intermediate deposit 50 % of the total volume. Thus, the relative uncertainty within each zone impacts the total volume estimates differently. The observed uncertainties for the different deposit regions in this study illustrate a fundamental problem of estimating eruption volumes: while some methodologies may provide better fits to the isopach data or rely on fewer free parameters, the main issue remains the predictive capabilities of the empirical functions for the regions where measurements are missing.

Bulletin of Volcanology↗

USGS2014

Geophysical advances triggered by 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake

A little more than 50 years ago, on 27 March 1964, the Great Alaska earthquake and tsunami struck. At moment magnitude 9.2, this earthquake is notable as the largest in U.S. written history and as the second-largest ever recorded by instruments worldwide. But what resonates today are its impacts on the understanding of plate tectonics, tsunami generation, and earthquake history as well as on the development of national programs to reduce risk from earthquakes and tsunamis.

Alaska↗

USGS2014

Constraining explosive volcanism: Subjective choices during estimates of eruption magnitude

When estimating the magnitude of explosive eruptions from their deposits, individuals make three sets of critical choices with respect to input data: the spacing of sampling sites, the selection of contour intervals to constrain the field measurements, and the hand contouring of thickness/isomass data, respectively. Volcanologists make subjective calls, as there are no accepted published protocols and few accounts of how these choices will impact estimates of eruption magnitude. Here, for the first time, we took a set of unpublished thickness measurements from the 1959 Kīlauea Iki pyroclastic fall deposit and asked 101 volcanologists worldwide to hand contour the data. First, there were surprisingly consistent volume estimates across maps with three different sampling densities. Second, the variability in volume calculations imparted by individuals’ choices of contours is also surprisingly low and lies between s  = 5 and 8 %. Third, volume estimation is insensitive to the extent to which different individuals “smooth” the raw data in constructing contour lines. Finally, large uncertainty is associated with the construction of the thinnest isopachs, which is likely to underestimate the actual trend of deposit thinning. The net result is that researchers can have considerable confidence in using volume or dispersal data from multiple authors and different deposits for comparative studies. These insights should help volcanologists around the world to optimize design and execution of field-based studies to characterize accurately the volume of pyroclastic deposits.

Bulletin of Volcanology↗

USGS2013

Ambient seismic noise interferometry in Hawai'i reveals long-range observability of volcanic tremor

The use of seismic noise interferometry to retrieve Green's functions and the analysis of volcanic tremor are both useful in studying volcano dynamics. Whereas seismic noise interferometry allows long-range extraction of interpretable signals from a relatively weak noise wavefield, the characterization of volcanic tremor often requires a dense seismic array close to the source. We here show that standard processing of seismic noise interferometry yields volcanic tremor signals observable over large distances exceeding 50 km. Our study comprises 2.5 yr of data from the U.S. Geological Survey Hawaiian Volcano Observatory short period seismic network. Examining more than 700 station pairs, we find anomalous and temporally coherent signals that obscure the Green's functions. The time windows and frequency bands of these anomalous signals correspond well with the characteristics of previously studied volcanic tremor sources at Pu'u 'Ō'ō and Halema'uma'u craters. We use the derived noise cross-correlation functions to perform a grid-search for source location, confirming that these signals are surface waves originating from the known tremor sources. A grid-search with only distant stations verifies that useful tremor signals can indeed be recovered far from the source. Our results suggest that the specific data processing in seismic noise interferometry—typically used for Green's function retrieval—can aid in the study of both the wavefield and source location of volcanic tremor over large distances. In view of using the derived Green's functions to image heterogeneity and study temporal velocity changes at volcanic regions, however, our results illustrate how care should be taken when contamination by tremor may be present.

Hawai'i↗

USGS2012

Coupling at Mauna Loa and Kīlauea by stress transfer in an asthenospheric melt layer

The eruptive activity at the neighbouring Hawaiian volcanoes, Kīlauea and Mauna Loa, is thought to be linked despite both having separate lithospheric magmatic plumbing systems. Over the past century, activity at the two volcanoes has been anti-correlated, which could reflect a competition for the same magma supply. Yet, during the past decade Kīlauea and Mauna Loa have inflated simultaneously. Linked activity between adjacent volcanoes in general remains controversial. Here we present a numerical model for the dynamical interaction between Kīlauea and Mauna Loa, where both volcanoes are coupled by pore-pressure diffusion, occurring within a common, asthenospheric magma supply system. The model is constrained by measurements of gas emission rates indicative of eruptive activity, and it is calibrated to match geodetic measurements of surface deformation at both volcanoes, inferred to reflect changes in shallow magma storage. Although an increase in the asthenospheric magma supply can cause simultaneous inflation of Kīlauea and Mauna Loa, we find that eruptive activity at one volcano may inhibit eruptions of the adjacent volcano, if there is no concurrent increase in magma supply. We conclude that dynamic stress transfer by asthenospheric pore pressure is a viable mechanism for volcano coupling at Hawai‘i, and perhaps for adjacent volcanoes elsewhere.

Hawai'i↗

USGS2010

High‐resolution locations of triggered earthquakes and tomographic imaging of Kilauea Volcano's south flank

The spatiotemporal patterns of seismicity beneath Kilauea's south flank give insight to the structure and geometry of the decollement on which large, tsunamigenic earthquakes have occurred, and its relation to slow slip events (SSEs), which have been observed every 1 to 2 years since 1997. In order to record earthquakes triggered by a SSE that was predicted to occur in March 2007, a temporary network of 20 seismometers was deployed on Kilauea's south flank, termed the SEQ network. While the SSE did not occur until 17 June 2007, theSEQ network recorded over 3000 earthquakes, including those triggered by the SSE. We relocate hypocenters of volcano‐tectonic earthquakes and invert for P and S wave velocity structure using waveform cross‐correlation and double‐difference tomography using data from the SEQ network and the permanent Hawaii Volcano Observatory network (HVO) data, with additional data from other previous temporary arrays. The best‐constrained hypocenters, recorded by both the SEQ and HVO networks, indicate the decollement as a subhorizontal layer of seismicity at 8 km depth less than 1 km thick in most areas, with the western portion of the decollement dipping to the southeast. The seismicity triggered by the June 2007 SSE includes over 400 earthquakes overlapping with the southern edge of the decollement seismicity. A shallower swarm of earthquakes also occurred between 2 and 7 km depth in April 2007 near Apua Point, and may have been indirectly triggered by the M w 8.1 Solomon Islands earthquake at ∼6000 km distance, which occurred 48 h prior to the beginning of the swarm.

Hawaii↗

USGS2010

Kiholo Bay, Hawaii, earthquake sequence of 2006: Relationship of the main shock slip with locations and source parameters of aftershocks

We study the source process of the Kīholo Bay earthquake ( M W 6.7), which occurred beneath the northwest part of the Island of Hawai‘i on 15 October 2006, and static stress drops of small earthquakes that occurred in 2006 and 2007 around the main shock including aftershocks. We relocate the aftershocks to determine the fault plane from the two nodal planes. The relocated aftershocks define an E‐W trending plane that dips to the south, in good agreement with one of the nodal planes given by the Global Centroid Moment Tensor solution. Waveform inversion is performed with multiple time windows to investigate the rupture speed and the slip distribution of the main shock. Waveforms of an aftershock with M W 5.2 are used to calculate empirical Green's functions. Our results indicate that the rupture propagated unilaterally to the west with a rupture speed greater than 3.0 km/s (63% of the shear wave velocity). This westward rupture is consistent with the fact that aftershocks are distributed predominantly to the west of the main shock epicenter. Most aftershocks are located on the edge of patches with a large slip, or asperities and some also occur inside the patches. We also estimate static stress drops of 39 earthquakes (2.5 < M L < 3.5) that occurred in 2006 and 2007 near the source region of the Kīholo Bay earthquake. Static stress drops range from 0.12 to 8.6 MPa and aftershocks around large slip patches of the main shock likely to have larger stress drops.

Journal of Geophysical Research B: Solid Earth↗

USGS2008

Magmatically triggered slow slip at Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii

We demonstrate that a recent dike intrusion probably triggered a slow fault-slip event (SSE) on Kilauea volcano's mobile south flank. Our analysis combined models of Advanced Land Observing Satellite interferometric dike-intrusion displacement maps with continuous Global Positioning System (GPS) displacement vectors to show that deformation nearly identical to four previous SSEs at Kilauea occurred at far-field sites shortly after the intrusion. We model stress changes because of both secular deformation and the intrusion and find that both would increase the Coulomb failure stress on possible SSE slip surfaces by roughly the same amount. These results, in concert with the observation that none of the previous SSEs at Kilauea was directly preceded by intrusions but rather occurred during times of normal background deformation, suggest that both extrinsic (intrusion-triggering) and intrinsic (secular fault creep) fault processes can lead to SSEs.

Hawaii↗

USGS2007

Microearthquake streaks and seismicity triggered by slow earthquakes on the mobile south flank of Kilauea Volcano, Hawai'i

We perform waveform cross correlation and high precision relocation of both background seismicity and seismicity triggered by periodic slow earthquakes at Kilauea Volcano's mobile south flank. We demonstrate that the triggered seismicity dominantly occurs on several preexisting fault zones at the Hilina region. Regardless of the velocity model employed, the relocated earthquake epicenters and triggered seismicity localize onto distinct fault zones that form streaks aligned with the slow earthquake surface displacements determined from GPS. Due to the unknown effects of velocity heterogeneity and nonideal station coverage, our relocation analyses cannot distinguish whether some of these fault zones occur within the volcanic crust at shallow depths or whether all occur on the decollement between the volcano and preexisting oceanic crust at depths of ∼8 km. Nonetheless, these Hilina fault zones consistently respond to stress perturbations from nearby slow earthquakes.

Hawaii↗