Geology topics

Julie A. Herrick

Publications and source records attributed to Julie A. Herrick.

16 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

2025 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands: Overview of model and hazard results

The U.S. Geological Survey recently updated the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI). The first version of the PRVI NSHM was released in 2003, and therefore this 2025 update includes over 20 years of new geologic, geophysical, and engineering data, methods, and models. Updates follow similar efforts performed in the recent 2023 50-state NSHM. However, this is the first NSHM in which we: (1) apply an inversion methodology to subduction interface fault sources in the earthquake rupture forecast (ERF) model; (2) develop scaled backbone median ground-motion models and independent aleatory variability models that are applied in the ground-motion characterization (GMC) model; and (3) calculate epistemic uncertainty related to alternative scenarios in the ERF and GMC models for all grid points in the study region. Long-term time-independent mean hazard calculations were performed for peak ground acceleration and 5%-damped pseudospectral acceleration at 21 spectral periods from 0.01- to 10.0-s, for eight National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program site conditions ranging from V S30 = 150 to 1500 m/s, and for 2%, 5%, and 10% in 50-year probabilities of exceedance (return periods of 2475, 975, and 475 years, respectively). Epistemic uncertainty, in the form of selected percentiles, is also provided for a suite of test sites and all grid points in the study region for limited periods, site conditions, and probabilities of exceedance. Selected results, including comparisons with the 2003 PRVI NSHM, are shown and discussed for selected periods, site conditions, and probabilities of exceedance. When comparing the 2025 PRVI NSHM with the 2003 PRVI NSHM, hazard is generally higher at shorter periods and lower at longer periods, as a result of updates in both ERF and GMC models. The 2025 PRVI NSHM is applicable for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2026

Ground-motion characterization for the 2025 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

We develop the ground-motion characterization (GMC) for the 2025 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (NSHM-PRVI) for earthquakes in active crustal, subduction interface, and subduction intraslab regimes. Using ground-motion models (GMMs) from the Next-Generation Attenuation (NGA)-West2 and NGA-Subduction projects, the GMC is parameterized by scaled-backbone models for median ground motions and by independent logic trees of aleatory variability. We introduce several novel GMC features into the U.S. NSHM: (1) use of regional ground-motion data for modeling median ground motions; (2) development of scaled-backbone models for median ground motions; and (3) development of independent logic trees of aleatory variability from variance components of GMMs and computed from multiple ground-motion datasets, and incorporating regional ground-motion data effects on variability. We compute probabilistic seismic hazard curves and maps to evaluate the contributions from the GMC components and for comparison with the 2003 GMC. Contributions of the GMC to epistemic uncertainty in seismic hazard are evaluated through spatial variations in epistemic uncertainty in hazard maps, comparisons between mean hazard curves and fractiles, as well as investigations of the contributions of logic-tree branches to hazard maps and curves. Comparisons between seismic hazard from the 2025 and 2003 GMCs allow examination of the changes in hazard curves and mapped values with 2% and 10% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years. The 2025 GMC exhibits modest changes in median predictions, relative to the 2003 GMC; overall, values of aleatory variability are higher, except at long periods ( ), resulting in changes to probabilistic ground motions at low probabilities of exceedance (<10% probability of exceedance in 50 years). Changes in hazard at 2% and 10% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years are also relatively modest (within 20%) at most sites, with the impacts from the 2025 GMC exhibiting minor reductions and increases at 0.2 and 1.0 s periods, respectively, relative to the 2003 GMC.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2025

Using gridded seismicity to forecast the long-term spatial distribution of earthquakes for the 2025 Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands National Seismic Hazard Model

Gridded (or background) seismicity models are a critical component of probabilistic seismic hazard assessments, accounting for off‐fault and smaller‐magnitude earthquakes. They are typically developed by declustering and spatially smoothing an earthquake catalog to estimate a long‐term seismicity rate that can be used to forecast future earthquakes. Here, we present new gridded seismicity models for use in the 2025 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI). The previous PRVI NSHM was released in 2003, and our new models incorporate updates to both data and methodology. We utilize an updated earthquake catalog based on improved Puerto Rico Seismic Network data with newly characterized completeness epochs. The catalog is divided into crustal, subduction interface, and intraslab seismicity using new methods and Slab2 subduction zone geometries. To forecast the long‐term spatial distribution of earthquakes, we use an updated methodology developed for the 2023 U.S. 50‐state NSHM, considering three declustering methods and two spatial smoothing methods based on 2D Gaussian kernels. To adapt it for the complex seismotectonics of the region, we also adopt probabilistic methods to account for events with unknown depths and uncertainties in tectonic classification, and develop a new method for spatial scaling to counteract the effects of spatial variability in network coverage while maintaining the use of smaller events. Finally, we test the performance of these spatial models in forecasting the location of M w ≥ 5earthquakes in the region. Our updated methodology improves the representation of epistemic uncertainty relative to the 2003 model, and our results demonstrate the effectiveness of the new measures we have introduced to address heterogeneities in network detection and systematically evaluate forecast performance.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2025

2023 Earthquake Ground-Motion Workshop for the Central and Eastern United States, with a focus on the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains—Agenda and abstracts

The U.S. Geological Survey held a virtual workshop December 7–8, 2023, to share research and ideas about earthquake ground motions in the Central and Eastern United States, with a focus on the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. The workshop was organized to learn about potential regionalization of ground-motion characteristics (source, path, and site), consider new explanatory variables for site response, and hear and discuss updates on ground-motion research on the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. The workshop was organized into a series of contributed presentations and three panel discussions held during 2 days. This report documents the agenda, contributed abstracts, and panel summaries.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2024

Geologic input databases for the 2025 Puerto Rico – U.S. Virgin Islands National Seismic Hazard Model update: Crustal faults component

The last National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (PRVI) was published in 2003. In advance of the 2025 PRVI NSHM update, we created three geologic input databases to summarize new onshore and offshore fault source information in the northern Caribbean region between 62°–70° W and 16°–21° N. These databases, of fault sections, fault‐zone polygons, and geologic estimates of fault activity (fault‐slip rate and earthquake recurrence intervals) at specific sites, document updates to fault parameters used in prior seismic hazard models in PRVI. Fault sources were reviewed from published studies since 2003, which document substantial changes to the understanding of fault location, geometry, or activity. New fault section sources were added for features that meet the criteria of (1) length ≥7 km, (2) unequivocal evidence of recurrent tectonic Quaternary activity, and (3) documentation that is publicly available in a peer‐reviewed source. In addition, we revised several broad areal sources, such as the Mona and Anegada extensional zones. The 2003 model included three fault sections and two fault‐zone polygons (areal sources). These databases include 35 fault sections, 6 fault‐zone polygons, and 51 earthquake geology sites. To characterize fault activity rates, slip‐rate bins were assigned based on landscape expression and paleoseismic trench observations for faults without published slip‐rate sites. Additional fault sources were evaluated but not included in these databases due to a lack of published information about fault location, geometry, or recurrent Quaternary activity. The PRVI NSHM 2025 geologic input databases describe crustal faulting; the geometries and coupling of Puerto Rico subduction zone and Muertos Trough models are considered in a separate database. Updates to the fault sections, fault‐zone polygons, and earthquake geology databases can help inform the location and recurrence rate of damaging earthquakes in the PRVI NSHM implementation.

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands↗

USGS2024

The 2023 Alaska National Seismic Hazard Model

US Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs) are used extensively for seismic design regulations in the United States and earthquake scenario development, as well as risk assessment and mitigation for both buildings and infrastructure. This 2023 update of the long-term, time-independent Alaska NSHM includes substantial changes to both the earthquake rupture forecast (ERF) and ground motion models (GMMs). The ERF includes numerous additions to the finite-fault model, considers two deformation models, and introduces updated declustering and smoothing algorithms in the gridded background seismicity model. For the Alaska–Aleutian subduction zone, megathrust earthquakes occur on an updated structural and segmentation model, and the moment magnitude (M) 8+ rupture and rate model include a logic tree branch that considers slip rates derived from geodetic models of interface coupling. The megathrust model considers multiple models of down-dip width, and magnitudes are computed using newly developed scaling relations. For subduction intraslab events and subduction interface events with M < 7, the 2023 update uses a smoothed seismicity model with rupture depths derived from Slab2. The 2023 model updates GMMs in all tectonic settings using the recently published Next Generation Attenuation Subduction (NGA-Sub) GMMs for subduction interface and intraslab events, and the NGA-West2 GMMs for active crustal settings. Collectively, additions and updates to the Alaska NSHM result in hazard increases across most of south-central Alaska relative to the previous model, published in 2007. These changes are primarily due to the adoption of updated rate models for the large-magnitude interface events and the NGA-Sub GMMs that have much higher aleatory variability (sigma), consistent with global observations, and that include models of epistemic uncertainty.

Alaska↗

USGS2024

The 2023 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model: Subduction ground motion models

The US Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Models (NSHMs) are used to calculate earthquake ground-shaking intensities for design and rehabilitation of structures in the United States. The most recent 2014 and 2018 versions of the NSHM for the conterminous United States included major updates to ground-motion models (GMMs) for active and stable crustal tectonic settings; however, the subduction zone GMMs were largely unchanged. With the recent development of the next generation attenuation-subduction (NGA-Sub) GMMs, and recent progress in the utilization of “M9” Cascadia earthquake simulations, we now have access to improved models of ground shaking in the US subduction zones and the Seattle basin. The new NGA-Sub GMMs support multi-period response spectra calculations. They provide global models and regional terms specific to Cascadia and terms that account for deep-basin effects. This article focuses on the updates to subduction GMMs for implementation in the 2023 NSHM and compares them to the GMMs of previous NSHMs. Individual subduction GMMs, their weighted averages, and their impact on the estimated mean hazard relative to the 2018 NSHM are discussed. The updated logic trees include three of the new NGA-Sub GMMs and retain two older models to represent epistemic uncertainty in both the median and standard deviation of ground-shaking intensities at all periods of interest. Epistemic uncertainty is further represented by a three-point logic tree for the NGA-Sub median models. Finally, in the Seattle region, basin amplification factors are adjusted at long periods based on the state-of-the-art M9 Cascadia earthquake simulations. The new models increase the estimated mean hazard values at short periods and short source-to-site distances for interface earthquakes, but decrease them otherwise, relative to the 2018 NSHM. On softer soils, the new models cause decreases to the estimated mean hazard for long periods in the Puget Lowlands basin but increases within the deep Seattle portion of this basin for short periods relative to the 2018 NSHM.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2024

The 2023 US National Seismic Hazard Model: Ground-motion characterization for the conterminous United States

We update the ground-motion characterization for the 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States. The update includes the use of new ground-motion models (GMMs) in the Cascadia subduction zone; an adjustment to the central and eastern United States (CEUS) GMMs to reduce misfits with observed data; an updated boundary for the application of GMMs for shallow, crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions (i.e. western United States (WUS)) and stable continental regions (i.e. CEUS); and the use of improved models for the site response of deep sedimentary basins in the WUS and CEUS. Site response updates include basin models for the California Great Valley and for the Portland and Tualatin basins, Oregon, as well as long-period basin effects from three-dimensional simulations in the Greater Los Angeles region and in the Seattle basin; in the CEUS, we introduce a broadband (0.01- to 10-s period) amplification model for the effects of the passive-margin basins of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. In addition, we summarize progress on implementing rupture directivity models into seismic hazard models, although they are not incorporated in the 2023 NSHM. We implement the ground-motion characterization for the 2023 NSHM in the US Geological Survey’s code for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, nshmp-haz-v2 , and present the sensitivity of hazard to these changes. Hazard calculations indicate widespread effects from adjustments to the CEUS GMMs, from the incorporation of Coastal Plain amplification effects, and from the treatment of shallow-basin and out-of-basin sites in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles region, as well as locally important changes from subduction-zone GMMs, and from updated and new WUS basins.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2024

Earthquake rupture forecast model construction for the 2023 U.S. 50‐State National Seismic Hazard Model Update: Central and eastern U.S. fault‐based source model

As part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s 2023 50‐State National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), we make modest revisions and additions to the central and eastern U.S. (CEUS) fault‐based seismic source model that result in locally substantial hazard changes. The CEUS fault‐based source model was last updated as part of the 2014 NSHM and considered new information from the Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities (CEUS‐SSCn) Project. Since then, new geologic investigations have led to revised fault and fault‐zone inputs, and the release of databases of fault‐based sources in the CEUS. We have reviewed these databases and made minor revisions to six of the current fault‐based sources in the NSHM, as well as added five new fault‐based sources. Implementation of these sources follows the current NSHM methodology for CEUS fault‐based sources, as well as the incorporation of a new magnitude–area relationship and updated maximum magnitude and recurrence rate estimates following the methods used by the CEUS‐SSCn Project. Seismic hazard sensitivity calculations show some substantial local changes in hazard (−0.4 g to 1.1 g ) due to some of these revisions and additions, especially from the addition of the central Virginia, Joiner ridge, and Saline River sources and revisions made to the Meers and New Madrid sources.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2024

The 2023 U.S. 50-state National Seismic Hazard Model: Changes in 2023 compared to 2018 ground motions

We present the 2023 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for all 50 states that applies new smoothed seismicity, fault rupture, and ground motion models. New data and methods are introduced in the 2023 earthquake rupture forecast that include: new earthquake catalogs - excluding induced earthquakes, alternative declustering methods, spatially smoothed seismicity distributions, full-catalog scaled rates to account for aftershocks, updated CEUS-WUS attenuation boundary, new magnitude-scaling equations, new geodetic and geologic deformation models, and alternative fault system solutions accounting for a more complete representation of epistemic uncertainty potential for earthquake generation in Alaska, Hawaii, and the conterminous U.S. Improved ground motion models consider new Next Generation Attenuation NGASubduction, modified NGA-East, and adjustments to account for regional biases in ground shaking observations. Semi-empirical and 3D simulations of ground motion are applied to account for shaking at 21 oscillator periods, 2 peak motions, and 8 site conditions. Site effects models are constructed for western U.S. basins (Seattle, Portland/Tualatin, San Francisco, Central Valley of California, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City) and for sites with deep sedimentary wedges found across the central and eastern U.S. Gulf Coast and Atlantic coastal plain regions. These models result in substantial changes compared to the older NSHMs and are differentiated for the earthquake rupture forecast and ground motion model changes to display sensitivities and impacts.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2023

The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications

The US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was updated in 2023 for all 50 states using new science on seismicity, fault ruptures, ground motions, and probabilistic techniques to produce a standard of practice for public policy and other engineering applications (defined for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years). Changes in 2023 time-independent seismic hazard (both increases and decreases compared to previous NSHMs) are substantial because the new model considers more data and updated earthquake rupture forecasts and ground-motion components. In developing the 2023 model, we tried to apply best available or applicable science based on advice of co-authors, more than 50 reviewers, and hundreds of hazard scientists and end-users, who attended public workshops and provided technical inputs. The hazard assessment incorporates new catalogs, declustering algorithms, gridded seismicity models, magnitude-scaling equations, fault-based structural and deformation models, multi-fault earthquake rupture forecast models, semi-empirical and simulation-based ground-motion models, and site amplification models conditioned on shear-wave velocities of the upper 30 m of soil and deeper sedimentary basin structures. Seismic hazard calculations yield hazard curves at hundreds of thousands of sites, ground-motion maps, uniform-hazard response spectra, and disaggregations developed for pseudo-spectral accelerations at 21 oscillator periods and two peak parameters, Modified Mercalli Intensity, and 8 site classes required by building codes and other public policy applications. Tests show the new model is consistent with past ShakeMap intensity observations. Sensitivity and uncertainty assessments ensure resulting ground motions are compatible with known hazard information and highlight the range and causes of variability in ground motions. We produce several impact products including building seismic design criteria, intensity maps, planning scenarios, and engineering risk assessments showing the potential physical and social impacts. These applications provide a basis for assessing, planning, and mitigating the effects of future earthquakes.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2023

The USGS 2023 Conterminous U.S. time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast

We present the 2023 U.S. Geological Survey time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast for the conterminous United States, which gives authoritative estimates of the magnitude, location, and time‐averaged frequency of potentially damaging earthquakes throughout the region. In addition to updating virtually all model components, a major focus has been to provide a better representation of epistemic uncertainties. For example, we have improved the representation of multifault ruptures, both in terms of allowing more and less fault connectivity than in the previous models, and in sweeping over a broader range of viable models. An unprecedented level of diagnostic information has been provided for assessing the model, and the development was overseen by a 19‐member participatory review panel. Although we believe the new model embodies significant improvements and represents the best available science, we also discuss potential model limitations, including the applicability of logic tree branch weights with respect different types of hazard and risk metrics. Future improvements are also discussed, with deformation model enhancements being particularly worthy of pursuit, as well as better representation of sampling errors in the gridded seismicity components. We also plan to add time‐dependent components, and assess implications with a wider range of hazard and risk metrics.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2023

Divisions of geologic time—Major chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units

Introduction Effective communication in the geosciences requires consistent use of stratigraphic nomenclature, especially divisions of geologic time. A geologic time scale is composed of standard stratigraphic divisions that are based on rock sequences and is calibrated in years (Harland and others, 1982). Over the years, the development of new dating methods and the refinement of previous ones have stimulated revisions to geologic time scales. Since the mid-1990s, geologists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), State geological surveys, academia, and other organizations have sought a consistent time scale that can be used in communicating ages of geologic units in the United States. Many international debates have occurred over the names and boundaries of units, and various time scales have been used by the geoscience community in years past (for example, U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Names Committee [USGS GNC], 2007, 2010, 2018). However, the numerical ages assigned to geochronologic units frequently change as the science of stratigraphy moves forward. Once ratified, changes in numerical ages are recorded by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) on their website ( https://stratigraphy.org/chart ). In addition, such advances in stratigraphy and changes in geochronology require that any time scale be periodically updated. Therefore, the time scale presented in this report (hereafter referred to as “Divisions of Geologic Time”) is dynamic, and it is modified as needed to include accepted changes of unit names and boundary age estimates (USGS GNC, 2007, 2010, 2018).

Professional Paper↗

USGS2021

A probabilistic framework to model distributions of VS30

The time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity in the upper 30 m depth from the ground surface, or V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ , is often used as a predictor to describe local site effects in ground‐motion models. Although V S 30 "> V S 30 is typically determined from in situ measurements, it is not always feasible to obtain such measurements due to project restrictions or site accessibility. This motivates the development and use of proxy‐based V S 30 "> V S 30 predictions that leverage more readily available secondary information such as surface geology, topographic slope, or geomorphic terrain classes to estimate the mean V S 30 "> V S 30 and associated uncertainty. Traditionally, empirical distributions of V S 30 "> V S 30 have been observed to have long right tails, leading to high levels of associated uncertainty. In this study, we present a physical framework that is grounded in fundamental principles of geostatistics and probability to explain the uncertainty and skewness associated with V S 30 "> V S 30 measurements. Specifically, by invoking Lyapunov’s central limit theorem, we hypothesize that the distribution of V S 30 "> V S 30 can be theoretically approximated by a reciprocal–normal distribution. We show that a non‐normal and skewed distribution of V S 30 "> V S 30 is to be expected and is not a sign of measurement error or sampling bias, although sampling bias can exaggerate such skewness. Our framework also enables us to propose the mode as a characteristic value of V S 30 "> V S 30 measurements, as opposed to the mean or median, which can overestimate the most probable value.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2020

VS30 and Dominant Site Frequency (⁠fd⁠) as Provisional Station ML Corrections (⁠dML⁠) in California

New seismic stations added to a regional seismic network cannot be used to calculate local magnitude ( ⁠ M L "> M L ⁠ ) until a revised regionwide amplitude decay function is developed. Each station must record a minimum number of local and regional earthquakes that meet specific amplitude requirements prior to recalibration of the amplitude decay function. Station component adjustments ( ⁠ d M L "> d M L ⁠ ; Uhrhammer et al. , 2011 ) are then calculated after inverting for a new regional amplitude decay function, constrained by the sum of d M L "> d M L ⁠ for long‐running stations. Therefore, there can be significant delay between when a new station starts contributing real‐time waveform packets and when data can be included in magnitude determinations. We propose the use of known estimates of seismic site conditions such as the time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity ( ⁠ V S "> V S ⁠ ) of the upper 30 m ( ⁠ V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ ) and the site dominant frequency ( ⁠ f d "> f d ⁠ ) to calculate d M L "> d M L ⁠ ⁠ . Previously established d M L "> d M L ⁠ ⁠ , measured V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ ⁠ , and f d "> f d data are available for between 126 and 458 horizontal components (east–west and north–south) at 81 seismic stations in the California Integrated Seismic Network; d M L "> d M L ⁠ d M L "> data range from −1.10 to 0.39, V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ values range from 202 to 1464    m / s "> 1464 m / s ⁠ , and 440 f d "> f d values are compiled from earthquake and microseismic records that range from 0.13 to 21 Hz. We find V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ and d M L "> d M L ⁠ exhibit a positive coefficient of determination ( ⁠ R = 0.59 "> R = 0.59 ⁠ ), indicating that as V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ increases, d M L "> d M L ⁠ increases. This implies that greater site amplification (lower V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ ⁠ ) results in smaller d M L "> d M L ⁠ ⁠ . f d "> f d and d M L "> d M L ⁠ also generally exhibit a positive correlation ( ⁠ R 2 < 0.56 "> R 2 < 0.56 ⁠ ), which implies lower d M L "> d M L values are related to site resonance at depth‐dependent frequencies. Using the developed relationships, V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ or f d "> f d measurements can be used to establish a provisional d M L "> d M L ⁠ for newly established stations. This procedure allows new stations to contribute to regional network M L "> M L determinations immediately without the need to wait until a minimum set of earthquake data has been recorded.

California↗

USGS2014

2012 volcanic activity in Alaska: Summary of events and response of the Alaska Volcano Observatory

The Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO) responded to eruptions, possible eruptions, volcanic unrest, or suspected unrest at 11 volcanic centers in Alaska during 2012. Of the two verified eruptions, one (Cleveland) was clearly magmatic and the other (Kanaga) was most likely a single phreatic explosion. Two other volcanoes had notable seismic swarms that probably were caused by magmatic intrusions (Iliamna and Little Sitkin). For each period of clear volcanic unrest, AVO staff increased monitoring vigilance as needed, reviewed eruptive histories of the volcanoes in question to help evaluate likely outcomes, and shared observations and interpretations with the public. 2012 also was the 100th anniversary of Alaska’s Katmai-Novarupta eruption of 1912, the largest eruption on Earth in the 20th century and one of the most important volcanic eruptions in modern times. AVO marked this occasion with several public events.

Alaska↗