Geology topics

David J. Schneider

Publications and source records attributed to David J. Schneider.

31 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

USGS2013

Injection, transport, and deposition of tephra during event 5 at Redoubt Volcano, 23 March, 2009

Among the events of the 2009 eruption at Redoubt Volcano, Alaska, event 5 was the best documented by radar, satellite imagery, and deposit mapping. We use the new Eulerian tephra transport model Ash3d to simulate transport and deposition of event 5 tephra at distances up to 350 km. The eruption, which started at about 1230 UTC on 23 March, 2009, sent a plume from the vent elevation (estimated at 2.3 ± 0.1 km above sea level or a.s.l.) to about 16 ± 2 km above sea level in 5 min. The plume was a few kilometers higher than would be expected for the estimated average mass eruption rate and atmospheric conditions, possibly due to release of most of the eruptive mass in the first half of the 20-minute event. The eruption injected tephra into a wind field of high shear, with weak easterly winds below ~ 3 km elevation, strong southerly winds at 6–10 km and weak westerlies above ~ 16 km. Model simulations in this wind field predicted development of a northward-migrating inverted “v”-shaped cloud with a southwest-trending arm at a few kilometers elevation, which was not visible in IR satellite images due to cloud cover, and a southeast-trending arm at > 10 km elevation that was clearly visible. Simulations also predicted a deposit distribution that strongly depended on plume height: a plume height below 15 km predicted ash deposits that were located west of those mapped, whereas good agreement was reached with a modeled plume height of 15–18 km. Field sampling of the deposit found it to contain abundant tephra aggregates, which accelerated the removal of tephra from the atmosphere. We were able to reasonably approximate the effect of aggregation on the deposit mass distribution by two methods: (1) adjusting the grain-size distribution, taking the erupted mass < = 0.063 mm in diameter and distributing it evenly into bins of coarser size; and (2) moving 80–90% of the mass < = 0.063 mm into a single particle bin ranging in size from 0.25 to 1 mm. These methods produced an area inside the 100 g m − 2 isomass lines that was within a few tens of percent of mapped area; however they under-predicted deposit mass at very proximal (< 50 km) and very distal (> 250 km) locations. Modeled grain-size distributions at sample locations are also generally coarser than observed. The mismatch may result from a combination of limitations in field sampling, approximations inherent in the model, errors in the numerical wind field, and aggregation of particles larger than 0.063 mm.

Alaska↗

USGS2013

Merapi 2010 eruption—Chronology and extrusion rates monitored with satellite radar and used in eruption forecasting

Despite dense cloud cover, satellite-borne commercial Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) enabled frequent monitoring of Merapi volcano's 2010 eruption. Near-real-time interpretation of images derived from the amplitude of the SAR signals and timely delivery of these interpretations to those responsible for warnings, allowed satellite remote sensing for the first time to play an equal role with in situ seismic, geodetic and gas monitoring in guiding life-saving decisions during a major volcanic crisis. Our remotely sensed data provide an observational chronology for the main phase of the 2010 eruption, which lasted 12 days (26 October–7 November, 2010). Unlike the prolonged low-rate and relatively low explosivity dome-forming and collapse eruptions of recent decades at Merapi, the eruption began with an explosive eruption that produced a new summit crater on 26 October and was accompanied by an ash column and pyroclastic flows that extended 8 km down the flanks. This initial explosive event was followed by smaller explosive eruptions on 29 October–1 November, then by a period of rapid dome growth on 1–4 November, which produced a summit lava dome with a volume of ~ 5 × 10 6 m 3 . A paroxysmal VEI 4 magmatic eruption (with ash column to 17 km altitude) destroyed this dome, greatly enlarged the new summit crater and produced extensive pyroclastic flows (to ~ 16 km radial distance in the Gendol drainage) and surges during the night of 4–5 November. The paroxysmal eruption was followed by a period of jetting of gas and tephra and by a second short period (12 h) of rapid dome growth on 6 November. The eruption ended with low-level ash and steam emissions that buried the 6 November dome with tephra and continued at low levels until seismicity decreased to background levels by about 23 November. Our near-real-time commercial SAR documented the explosive events on 26 October and 4–5 November and high rates of dome growth (> 25 m 3 s − 1 ). An event tree analysis for the previous 2006 Merapi eruption indicated that for lava dome extrusion rates > 1.2 m 3 s − 1 , the probability of a large (1872-scale) eruption was ~ 10%. Consequently, the order-of-magnitude greater rates in 2010, along with the explosive start of the eruption on 26 October, the large volume of lava accumulating at the summit by 4 November, and the rapid and large increases in seismic energy release, deformation and gas emissions were the basis for warnings of an unusually large eruption by the Indonesian Geological Agency's Center for Volcanology and Geologic Hazard Mitigation (CVGHM) and their Volcano Research and Technology Development Center (BPPTK) in Yogyakarta — warnings that saved thousands of lives.

Merapi Volcano↗

USGS2013

Doppler weather radar observations of the 2009 eruption of Redoubt Volcano, Alaska

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) deployed a transportable Doppler C-band radar during the precursory stage of the 2009 eruption of Redoubt Volcano, Alaska that provided valuable information during subsequent explosive events. We describe the capabilities of this new monitoring tool and present data captured during the Redoubt eruption. The MiniMax 250-C (MM-250C) radar detected seventeen of the nineteen largest explosive events between March 23 and April 4, 2009. Sixteen of these events reached the stratosphere (above 10 km) within 2–5 min of explosion onset. High column and proximal cloud reflectivity values (50 to 60 dBZ) were observed from many of these events, and were likely due to the formation of mm-sized accretionary tephra-ice pellets. Reflectivity data suggest that these pellets formed within the first few minutes of explosion onset. Rapid sedimentation of the mm-sized pellets was observed as a decrease in maximum detection cloud height. The volcanic cloud from the April 4 explosive event showed lower reflectivity values, due to finer particle sizes (related to dome collapse and related pyroclastic flows) and lack of significant pellet formation. Eruption durations determined by the radar were within a factor of two compared to seismic and pressure-sensor derived estimates, and were not well correlated. Ash dispersion observed by the radar was primarily in the upper troposphere below 10 km, but satellite observations indicate the presence of volcanogenic clouds in the stratosphere. This study suggests that radar is a valuable complement to traditional seismic and satellite monitoring of explosive eruptions.

Alaska↗

USGS2012

The 2010 explosive eruption of Java's Merapi volcano—A ‘100-year’ event

Merapi volcano (Indonesia) is one of the most active and hazardous volcanoes in the world. It is known for frequent small to moderate eruptions, pyroclastic flows produced by lava dome collapse, and the large population settled on and around the flanks of the volcano that is at risk. Its usual behavior for the last decades abruptly changed in late October and early November 2010, when the volcano produced its largest and most explosive eruptions in more than a century, displacing at least a third of a million people, and claiming nearly 400 lives. Despite the challenges involved in forecasting this ‘hundred year eruption’, we show that the magnitude of precursory signals (seismicity, ground deformation, gas emissions) was proportional to the large size and intensity of the eruption. In addition and for the first time, near-real-time satellite radar imagery played an equal role with seismic, geodetic, and gas observations in monitoring eruptive activity during a major volcanic crisis. The Indonesian Center of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation (CVGHM) issued timely forecasts of the magnitude of the eruption phases, saving 10,000–20,000 lives. In addition to reporting on aspects of the crisis management, we report the first synthesis of scientific observations of the eruption. Our monitoring and petrologic data show that the 2010 eruption was fed by rapid ascent of magma from depths ranging from 5 to 30 km. Magma reached the surface with variable gas content resulting in alternating explosive and rapid effusive eruptions, and released a total of ~ 0.44 Tg of SO 2 . The eruptive behavior seems also related to the seismicity along a tectonic fault more than 40 km from the volcano, highlighting both the complex stress pattern of the Merapi region of Java and the role of magmatic pressurization in activating regional faults. We suggest a dynamic triggering of the main explosions on 3 and 4 November by the passing seismic waves generated by regional earthquakes on these days.

Merapi volcano↗

USGS2010

Aviation response to a widely dispersed volcanic ash and gas cloud from the August 2008 eruption of Kasatochi, Alaska, USA

The extensive volcanic cloud from Kasatochi's 2008 eruption caused widespread disruptions to aviation operations along Pacific oceanic, Canadian, and U.S. air routes. Based on aviation hazard warnings issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, the Federal Aviation Administration, and Meteorological Service of Canada, air carriers largely avoided the volcanic cloud over a 5 day period by route modifications and flight cancellations. Comparison of time coincident GOES thermal infrared (TIR) data for ash detection with Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) ultraviolet data for SO 2 detection shows congruent areas of ash and gas in the volcanic cloud in the 2 days following onset of ash production. After about 2.5 days, the area of SO 2 detected by OMI was more extensive than the area of ash indicated by TIR data, indicating significant ash depletion by fall out had occurred. Pilot reports of visible haze at cruise altitudes over Canada and the northern United States suggested that SO 2 gas had converted to sulfate aerosols. Uncertain about the hazard potential of the aging cloud, airlines coped by flying over, under, or around the observed haze layer. Samples from a nondamaging aircraft encounter with Kasatochi's nearly 3 day old cloud contained volcanic silicate particles, confirming that some fine ash is present in predominantly gas clouds. The aircraft's exposure to ash was insufficient to cause engine damage; however, slightly damaging encounters with volcanic clouds from eruptions of Reventador in 2002 and Hekla in 2000 indicate the possibility of lingering hazards associated with old and/or diffuse volcanic clouds.

Alaska↗

USGS2010

Exploring the limits of identifying sub-pixel thermal features using ASTER TIR data

Understanding the characteristics of volcanic thermal emissions and how they change with time is important for forecasting and monitoring volcanic activity and potential hazards. Satellite instruments view volcanic thermal features across the globe at various temporal and spatial resolutions. Thermal features that may be a precursor to a major eruption, or indicative of important changes in an on-going eruption can be subtle, making them challenging to reliably identify with satellite instruments. The goal of this study was to explore the limits of the types and magnitudes of thermal anomalies that could be detected using satellite thermal infrared (TIR) data. Specifically, the characterization of sub-pixel thermal features with a wide range of temperatures is considered using ASTER multispectral TIR data. First, theoretical calculations were made to define a “thermal mixing detection threshold” for ASTER, which quantifies the limits of ASTER's ability to resolve sub-pixel thermal mixing over a range of hot target temperatures and % pixel areas. Then, ASTER TIR data were used to model sub-pixel thermal features at the Yellowstone National Park geothermal area (hot spring pools with temperatures from 40 to 90 °C) and at Mount Erebus Volcano, Antarctica (an active lava lake with temperatures from 200 to 800 °C). Finally, various sources of uncertainty in sub-pixel thermal calculations were quantified for these empirical measurements, including pixel resampling, atmospheric correction, and background temperature and emissivity assumptions.

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research↗

USGS2010

High-resolution satellite and airborne thermal infrared imaging of the 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano: Chapter 22 in The 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano, Alaska

Thermal infrared (TIR) images provided a timely pre- and syn-eruption record of summit changes, lava flow emplacement, and pyroclastic-flow-deposit distribution during the Alaska Volcano Observatory's (AVO) response to the 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano. A series of images from both handheld and helicopter mounted forward looking infrared radiometers (FLIR) captured detailed views during a series of 13 overflights from December 2005 through August 2006. In conjunction with these images, data from the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) provided frequent multispectral synoptic views of the eruption's emissions and deposits. The ASTER Urgent Request Protocol system also facilitated more frequent scheduling and faster data availability during the eruption. Airborne and satellite imaging provided 20 different days of TIR coverage over the 5-month eruptive period, with 4 of those days covered by both FLIR and ASTER. The high-resolution TIR images documented gradual pre-eruption heating of the summit, emplacement of pyroclastic-flow deposits, rapid temperature increase as the lava dome and flows formed, and slow cooling of the volcanic deposits that followed. The high-resolution data uniquely documented segmentation of the lava flows into hot areas of increased flow deformation and cooler, more stable crust on the active flows. In contrast, the satellite TIR data provided synoptic views of the areal distribution of volcanic products at Augustine including the extent and composition of the plumes.

Alaska↗

USGS2010

Timing, distribution, and volume of proximal products of the 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano: Chapter 8 in The 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano, Alaska

During and after the 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano, we compiled a geologic map and chronology of new lava and flowage deposits using observational flights, oblique and aerial photography, infrared imaging, satellite data, and field investigations. After approximately 6 months of precursory activity, the explosive phase of the eruption commenced with two explosions on January 11, 2006 (events 1 and 2) that produced snow-rich avalanches; little or no juvenile magma was erupted. Seismicity suggests that a small lava dome may have extruded on January 12, but, if so, it was subsequently destroyed. A series of six explosions on January 13–14 (events 3–8) produced widespread but thin (0–30 cm) pyroclastic-current deposits on the upper flanks above 300 m altitude and lobate, 0.5- to 2-m-thick pyroclastic flows that traveled down most flanks of the volcano. Between January 14 and 17, a smooth lava lobe formed in the east half of the roughly 400-m-wide summit crater and was only partially covered by later deposits. An explosion on January 17 (event 9) opened a crater in the new lava dome and produced a ballistic fall deposit and pyroclastic flow on the southwest flank. During the interval from January 17 to 27, a rubbly lava dome effused. On January 27, explosive event 10 generated a pyroclastic current that left a deposit, rich in dense clasts, on the north-northwest flank. Immediately following the pyroclastic current, a voluminous 4.7-km-long pyroclastic flow swept down the north flank. Three more explosive blasts on January 27 and 28 produced unknown but likely minor on-island deposits. The cumulative volume of erupted material from the explosive phase, including domes, flows, and fall deposits (Wallace and others, this volume), was 30×10 6 m 3 dense-rock equivalent (DRE). The continuous phase of the eruption (January 28 through February 10) began with a 4-day period of nearly continuous block-and-ash flows, which deposited small individual flow lobes that cumulatively formed fans to the north and northeast of the summit. A single larger pyroclastic flow on January 30 formed a braided deposit on the northwest flank. Roughly 9×10 6 m 3 (DRE) of magma erupted during this period. Around February 2, the magma flux rate waned and a northward lava flow effused and reached a length of approximately 900 m by February 10. Approximately 11×10 6 m 3 (DRE) of magma erupted during the second half of the continuous phase. After a 23-day hiatus, lava effusion recommenced in early March (the effusive phase) and was accompanied by frequent (but volumetrically minor) block-and-ash flows. From March 7 to 14, extrusion increased markedly; two blocky lava-flow lobes, each tens of meters thick, moved down the north and northeast flank of the volcano; and a new summit lava dome grew to be ~70 m taller than the pre-2006 summit. This phase produced 26×10 6 m 3 (DRE) of lava. Active effusion had ceased about March 16, but, in April and May, three gravitational collapses from the west margin of the north lava flow produced additional block-and-ash flows. The basic sequence of the 2006 eruption closely matches that of eruptions in 1976 and 1986.

Alaska↗

USGS2009

A multidisciplinary effort to assign realistic source parameters to models of volcanic ash-cloud transport and dispersion during eruptions

During volcanic eruptions, volcanic ash transport and dispersion models (VATDs) are used to forecast the location and movement of ash clouds over hours to days in order to define hazards to aircraft and to communities downwind. Those models use input parameters, called “eruption source parameters”, such as plume height H , mass eruption rate Ṁ , duration D , and the mass fraction m 63 of erupted debris finer than about 4ϕ or 63 μm, which can remain in the cloud for many hours or days. Observational constraints on the value of such parameters are frequently unavailable in the first minutes or hours after an eruption is detected. Moreover, observed plume height may change during an eruption, requiring rapid assignment of new parameters. This paper reports on a group effort to improve the accuracy of source parameters used by VATDs in the early hours of an eruption. We do so by first compiling a list of eruptions for which these parameters are well constrained, and then using these data to review and update previously studied parameter relationships. We find that the existing scatter in plots of H versus Ṁ yields an uncertainty within the 50% confidence interval of plus or minus a factor of four in eruption rate for a given plume height. This scatter is not clearly attributable to biases in measurement techniques or to well-recognized processes such as elutriation from pyroclastic flows. Sparse data on total grain-size distribution suggest that the mass fraction of fine debris m 63 could vary by nearly two orders of magnitude between small basaltic eruptions (∼ 0.01) and large silicic ones (> 0.5). We classify eleven eruption types; four types each for different sizes of silicic and mafic eruptions; submarine eruptions; “brief” or Vulcanian eruptions; and eruptions that generate co-ignimbrite or co-pyroclastic flow plumes. For each eruption type we assign source parameters. We then assign a characteristic eruption type to each of the world's ∼ 1500 Holocene volcanoes. These eruption types and associated parameters can be used for ash-cloud modeling in the event of an eruption, when no observational constraints on these parameters are available.

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research↗

USGS2009

Volcano monitoring

Volcanoes are not randomly distributed over the Earth's surface. Most are concentrated on the edges of continents, along island chains, or beneath the sea where they form long mountain ranges. More than half of the world's active volcanoes above sea level encircle the Pacific Ocean (see Fig. 1 ). The concept of plate tectonics explains the locations of volcanoes and their relationship to other large-scale geologic features. The Earth's surface is made up of a patchwork of about a dozen large plates and a number of smaller ones that move relative to one another at <1 cm to ~10 cm/yr (about the speed at which fingernails grow). These rigid plates, with average thickness of ~80 km, are separating, sliding past each other, or colliding on top of the Earth's hot, viscous interior. Volcanoes tend to form where plates collide or spread apart ( Fig. 2 ) but can also grow in the middle of a plate, like the Hawaiian volcanoes ( Fig. 3 ). Of the more than 1,500 volcanoes worldwide believed to have been active in the past 10,000 years, 169 are in the United States and its territories ( Ewert et al., 2005 ) (see Fig. 4 ). As of spring 2007, two of these volcanoes, Kilauea and Mount St. Helens, are erupting, while several others, including Mauna Loa, Fourpeaked, Korovin, Veniaminof, and Anatahan, exhibit one or more signs of restlessness, such as anomalous earthquakes, deformation of the volcano's surface, or changes in volume and composition.

Book chapter↗

USGS2008

Use of thermal infrared imaging for monitoring renewed dome growth at Mount St. Helens, 2004

A helicopter-mounted thermal imaging radiometer documented the explosive vent-clearing and effusive phases of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 2004. A gyrostabilized gimbal controlled by a crew member housed the radiometer and an optical video camera attached to the nose of the helicopter. Since October 1, 2004, the system has provided thermal and video observations of dome growth. Flights conducted as frequently as twice daily during the initial month of the eruption monitored rapid changes in the crater and 1980-86 lava dome. Thermal monitoring decreased to several times per week once dome extrusion began. The thermal imaging system provided unique observations, including timely recognition that the early explosive phase was phreatic, location of structures controlling thermal emissions and active faults, detection of increased heat flow prior to the extrusion of lava, and recognition of new lava extrusion. The first spines, 1 and 2, were hotter when they emerged (maximum temperature 700-730°C) than subsequent spines insulated by as much as several meters of fault gouge. Temperature of gouge-covered spines was about 200°C where they emerged from the vent, and it decreased rapidly with distance from the vent. The hottest parts of these spines were as high as 500-730°C in fractured and broken-up regions. Such temperature variation needs to be accounted for in the retrieval of eruption parameters using satellite-based techniques, as such features are smaller than pixels in satellite images.

Washington↗

USGS2008

Growth of the 2004-2006 lava-dome complex at Mount St. Helens, Washington

The eruption of Mount St. Helens from 2004 to 2006 has comprised extrusion of solid lava spines whose growth patterns were shaped by a large space south of the 1980-86 dome that was occupied by the unique combination of glacial ice, concealed subglacial slopes, the crater walls, and relics of previous spines. The eruption beginning September 2004 can be divided (as of April 2006) into five phases: (1) predome deformation and phreatic activity, (2) initial extrusion of spines, (3) recumbent spine growth and repeated breakup, (4) southward extrusion across previous dome debris, and (5) normal faulting of the phase 4 dome to form a depression, a shift to westward extrusion and overthrusting of earlier phase 5 products. Overall, steady spine extrusion gradually slowed from 6 m 3 /s in November 2004 to 0.6 m 3 /s in February 2006. Thermal camera data show that phase 1 activity included low-temperature thermal features, such as fumaroles, fractures, and ground warming related to rapid uplift, as well as deformation in the south moat of the crater. The relatively cold (<160°C) phreatic eruptions of early October heralded activity at a subglacial vent situated along the south-sloping margin of the 1980–86 dome. Thermal infrared imagery, documenting increased heat flow, presaged phase 2 extrusion of the October 11–15, 2004, lava spine. The thermal images of the extruding spine revealed a hot basal margin and highest temperatures of 600–730°C. During phase 3, a recumbent whaleback-shaped spine with a low-temperature shroud of fault gouge and a hot, U-shaped basal margin extruded. This spine pushed southward along the bed of the glacier until it encountered the south wall of the 1980 crater, whereupon it broke up, decoupled, and regrew. Continued southward growth of the recumbent spine pushed cold deformed rock, hot dome rubble, and glacier ice eastward at a rate of 2 m/d. In April 2005, breakup of the whaleback and growth of a lava spine across previous dome rubble heralded phase 4 spine thrusting over previous spine remnants. During phase 4, the active spine pushed southward with an increasingly vertical component and increasing incidence of large rockfalls. In late July, the spine decoupled from its source, the vent reorganized, and a new spine began to grow westward at right angles to the previous growth direction, defining phase 5. Dome migration again plowed glacier ice out of the way at a rate of about 2 m/d, this time westward. In early October, the spine buckled near the vent and thrust over the previous one. A massive spine monolith had been constructed by December 2005, and growth of spines with increasingly steep slopes characterized activity through April 2006. The chief near-surface controls on spine extrusion during 2004-6 have been vent location, relict topographic surfaces from the 1980s, and spine remnants emplaced previously during the present eruption. In contrast, glacier ice has had minimal influence on spine growth. Ice as thick as 150 m has prevented formation of marginal angle-of-repose talus fans but has not provided sufficient resistance to stop spine growth or slow it appreciably. Spines initially emerged along a relict south-facing slope as steep as 40° on the 1980s dome. The open space of the moat between that dome and the crater walls permitted initial southward migration of recumbent spines. An initial spine impinged on the opposing slopes of the crater and stopped; in contrast, recumbent whaleback spines of phase 3 impinged on opposing walls of the crater at oblique angles and rotated eastward before breaking up. Once spine remnants occupied all available open space to the south, spines thrust over previous remnants. Finally, with south and east portions of the moat filled, spine growth proceeded westward. Although Crater Glacier had only a small influence on the growing spines, spine growth affected the glacier dramatically, initially dividing it into two arms and then bulldozing it hundreds of meters, first east and then west, and heaping it more than 100 m higher than its original altitude.

Washington↗

USGS2008

Instrumentation recommendations for volcano monitoring at U.S. volcanoes under the national volcano early warning system

As magma moves toward the surface, it interacts with anything in its path: hydrothermal systems, cooling magma bodies from previous eruptions, and (or) the surrounding “country rock.” Magma also undergoes significant changes in its physical properties as pressure and temperature conditions change along its path. These interactions and changes lead to a range of geophysical and geochemical phenomena. The goal of volcano monitoring is to detect and correctly interpret such phenomena in order to provide early and accurate warnings of impending eruptions. Given the well-documented hazards posed by volcanoes to both ground-based populations (for example, Blong, 1984; Scott, 1989) and aviation (for example, Neal and others, 1997; Miller and Casadevall, 2000), volcano monitoring is critical for public safety and hazard mitigation. Only with adequate monitoring systems in place can volcano observatories provide accurate and timely forecasts and alerts of possible eruptive activity. At most U.S. volcanoes, observatories traditionally have employed a two-component approach to volcano monitoring: (1) install instrumentation sufficient to detect unrest at volcanic systems likely to erupt in the not-too-distant future; and (2) once unrest is detected, install any instrumentation needed for eruption prediction and monitoring. This reactive approach is problematic, however, for two reasons. 1. At many volcanoes, rapid installation of new ground-1. based instruments is difficult or impossible. Factors that complicate rapid response include (a) eruptions that are preceded by short (hours to days) precursory sequences of geophysical and (or) geochemical activity, as occurred at Mount Redoubt (Alaska) in 1989 (24 hours), Anatahan (Mariana Islands) in 2003 (6 hours), and Mount St. Helens (Washington) in 1980 and 2004 (7 and 8 days, respectively); (b) inclement weather conditions, which may prohibit installation of new equipment for days, weeks, or even months, particularly at midlatitude or high-latitude volcanoes; (c) safety factors during unrest, which can limit where new instrumentation can safely be installed (particularly at near-vent sites that can be critical for precursor detection and eruption forecasting); and (d) the remoteness of many U.S. volcanoes (particularly those in the Aleutians and the Marianas Islands), where access is difficult or impossible most of the year. Given these difficulties, it is reasonable to anticipate that ground-based monitoring of eruptions at U.S. volcanoes will likely be performed primarily with instruments installed before unrest begins. 2. Given a growing awareness of previously undetected 2. phenomena that may occur before an eruption begins, at present the types and (or) density of instruments in use at most U.S. volcanoes is insufficient to provide reliable early warning of volcanic eruptions. As shown by the gap analysis of Ewert and others (2005), a number of U.S. volcanoes lack even rudimentary monitoring. At those volcanic systems with monitoring instrumentation in place, only a few types of phenomena can be tracked in near-real time, principally changes in seismicity, deformation, and large-scale changes in thermal flux (through satellite-based remote sensing). Furthermore, researchers employing technologically advanced instrumentation at volcanoes around the world starting in the 1990s have shown that subtle and previously undetectable phenomena can precede or accompany eruptions. Detection of such phenomena would greatly improve the ability of U.S. volcano observatories to provide accurate early warnings of impending eruptions, and is a critical capability particularly at the very high-threat volcanoes identified by Ewert and others (2005). For these two reasons, change from a reactive to a proactive volcano-monitoring strategy is clearly needed at U.S. volcanoes. Monitoring capabilities need to be expanded at virtually every volcanic center, regardless of its current state of unrest, with particular emphases on real-time data transmission and increasing the diversity, quality, and quantity of instrumentation at U.S. volcano observatories. In this report, we present recommendations for the types and numbers of instruments that should be deployed to monitor U.S. volcanoes. These recommendations are the result of discussions among members of a panel of government- and university-based scientists about the status and future directions of volcano monitoring, with discussions framed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)’s National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS) initiative (Ewert and others, 2005).

Scientific Investigations Report↗