Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems”

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.

220 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
USGS2025

Groundwater hydrology, groundwater and surface-water interactions, water quality, and groundwater-flow simulations for the Wet Mountain Valley alluvial aquifer, Custer and Fremont Counties, Colorado, 2017–19

In 2017, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, began a study to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Wet Mountain Valley alluvial aquifer, Custer and Fremont Counties, Colorado. The study included collection of data pertaining to groundwater hydrology, groundwater and surface-water interactions, and water quality in the alluvial aquifer. In addition to providing foundational information on the hydrology of the alluvial aquifer, a numerical groundwater-flow model was developed to estimate the potential effects of additional storage of groundwater in the alluvial aquifer. Groundwater-level elevation data from 30 wells were used to estimate groundwater-flow directions in the alluvial aquifer, which were generally from the southwest to northeast, away from the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and towards perennial streams in the center of the valley. Although some seasonal variation was apparent in groundwater-level elevation records, no statistically significant seasonal trends were indicated. Statistically significant long-term trends were indicated in groundwater-level elevation records for 8 of the 30 wells, and of these wells with statistically significant trends, all but 1 indicated a negative trend of groundwater-level elevations. Spatial evaluation of wells with statistically significant negative groundwater-level elevation trends showed many are in areas of denser well drilling for domestic or other uses, indicating increasing groundwater use could potentially be causing groundwater-level elevation declines. There were instances of wells with no statistically significant groundwater-level elevation trends also located in areas of greater density of well completions. Additional investigations may be necessary to more fully characterize the processes responsible for negative groundwater-level elevation trends. Streamflow gain or loss calculations were completed for low flow in 2017–19 and for high flow in 2018 in nine reaches of streams within the study area. Stream reaches of the upper Texas Creek, upper Grape Creek, upper-middle Grape Creek, and Taylor Creek displayed consistent streamflow loss in each period from 2017 to 2019. These stream reaches represent long-term sources of recharge to the alluvial aquifer. Streamflow gain or loss varies through time in other stream reaches (lower Texas Creek, lower-middle Grape Creek, lower Grape Creek below Westcliffe, and lower Grape Creek above DeWeese Reservoir). The temporally variable behavior indicates these stream reaches may be sources of groundwater recharge or areas of groundwater discharge, likely depending on temporal dynamics between the elevation of the water table and the stream. Water-quality samples were collected from 10 groundwater wells and 10 stream sites during September through November 2019. All groundwater and stream samples were analyzed for major and trace elements and stable isotopes of water. A subset of groundwater samples was also analyzed for the environmental tracers sulfur hexafluoride, tritium, and noble gases. Comparison of water-quality results to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drinking water-quality standards indicated no constituents exceeded primary standards for human health. Spatial evaluation of water quality indicated the concentrations of various constituents are likely controlled by groundwater and surface-water interactions and by spatial variability in bedrock geology underlying the alluvial aquifer. Specifically, streams shown to gain from groundwater had water chemistry constituent compositions similar to groundwater, whereas streams exiting the Sangre de Cristo Mountains tended to have compositions consistent with snowmelt. Groundwater geochemistry appeared to be partially controlled by oxidation-reduction processes and by proximity to igneous rocks in the Wet Mountains. Environmental tracers used to estimate groundwater age indicated all sampled groundwater contained tracers representing modern recharge (approximately less than 65 years old) but mixing of premodern recharge (approximately more than 65 years old) also occurs. Spatial evaluation of environmental tracers indicated large faults may be conduits for upwelling of older groundwater. No trends were observed in groundwater age with well depth, indicating all sampled wells are located within the zone of active groundwater flow. The presence of modern groundwater in wells with statistically significant negative groundwater-level elevation trends indicates groundwater storage depletions may be partially offset by capture of modern recharge. Repeated sampling of groundwater age would be necessary, however, to determine if any trends in groundwater age exist, which may indicate changing groundwater recharge, storage, or discharge. Additional investigations could also consider quantifying groundwater age in deeper wells to more fully define the depth of active groundwater flow. A numerical groundwater-flow model was developed to estimate components of the water budget, simulate groundwater and surface-water interactions, and evaluate the potential effects of aquifer storage and recovery. Simulated groundwater-level elevations from the calibrated groundwater-flow model are similar to the observed pattern of groundwater-level elevations with higher elevations in the western part of the study area along the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Simulated water-budget components indicate most of the recharge to the alluvial aquifer is derived from streamflow losses, which is consistent with observations of losing streams along the mountain front. The largest groundwater discharge component of the alluvial aquifer was to streams in the center of the valley, where observations of stream gain or loss indicated the predominance of gaining conditions. Comparison of groundwater and surface-water interactions between the calibrated groundwater-flow model for 2000-19 (the base-case model) and a simulation including additional recharge, representing potential aquifer storage and recovery operations, indicated the additional recharge distributed throughout the area had minimal effects on streamflow in the nearby Grape Creek. An analysis of subregional groundwater budgets showed approximately 54 percent of the additional recharge flowed back to nearby Grape Creek, and the other 46 percent was distributed laterally into adjacent cells in the alluvial aquifer. The comparison of simulations and subregional water budget show the additional recharge did not substantially alter groundwater-level elevations or basin wide groundwater storage. Although the analysis of additional recharge provided in the numerical groundwater-flow model considers only one of many possible recharge scenarios, the model provides a useful tool that could be modified for various scenarios to understand potential effects of managed aquifer recharge.

Colorado↗
USGS2024

Streams, springs, and volcanic lakes for volcano monitoring

Introduction Volcanic unrest can trigger appreciable change to surface waters such as streams, springs, and volcanic lakes. Magma degassing produces gases and soluble salts that are absorbed into groundwater that feeds streams and lakes. As magma ascends, the amount of heat and degassing will increase, and so will any related geochemical and thermal signal. Subsurface magma movement can cause pressurization that alters hydrostatic head and may induce groundwater discharge. Fluid-pressure changes have been linked to distal volcano-tectonic earthquakes (White and McCausland, 2016; Coulon and others, 2017) and phreatic eruptions (for example, Yamaoka and others, 2016). Clearly, changes in groundwater and surface waters are both indicators of unrest and clues to how and where magma is rising toward the surface. Where possible, it is prudent to incorporate real-time hydrologic data into multiparameter monitoring of restless volcanoes. Hydrologic dynamics can also be tracked by changes in groundwater levels that are commonly measured in shallow boreholes (see of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–K, 5 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062k. ">chapter K , this volume, on boreholes; Hurwitz and Lowenstern, 2024). Although inferred to be common, relatively few volcano-hydrology anomalies are well documented, and many are essentially anecdotal (Newhall and others, 2001), reflecting the fact that high-resolution time series remain rare. Extreme examples include the 2008 eruption of Nevado del Huila, Colombia, where relatively minor phreatomagmatic eruptions were accompanied by expulsion of as much as 300 million cubic meters of groundwater from fissures high on the volcano (Worni and others, 2011), generating large lahars. Substantial decreases in flow rate from springs about 8 kilometers from the summit of Mayon Volcano, Philippines, have been noted before most eruptions in the 20th century (Newhall and others, 2001). Stream monitoring at Redoubt Volcano in 2009 allowed Werner and others (2012) to recognize that groundwater was unable to absorb (or scrub) the high flux of volcanic gas and that a high CO 2 /SO 2 precursor signal had been evident for 5 months prior to the eruption. A key to better interpreting hydrologic anomalies—or even identifying them—is therefore obtaining adequate baseline data. Most hydrologic monitoring at U.S. volcanoes has been accomplished by intermittent sampling surveys with annual or less frequent sampling (for example, https://hotspringchem.wr.usgs.gov/index.php ). More frequent sampling, however, generally is needed to establish reliable baselines. A recent hydrologic and hydrothermal monitoring experiment at 25 sites and 10 of the 12 level 4 (very high threat) volcanoes in the U.S. portion of the Cascade Range demonstrated that there is sufficient temporal variability in hydrothermal fluxes, even during quiescent periods, that one-time measurements will commonly have limited interpretive value (Crankshaw and others, 2018). Thus, surveys are best augmented with data from streamgages (for example, Evans and others, 2004; Bergfeld and others, 2008). Streamflow (water discharge) data allow measured temperature and specific conductance to be converted to heat and solute mass fluxes, which could be insightful parameters for detecting anomalous activity (McCleskey and others, 2012). At the Yellowstone Caldera, long-term monitoring of river solutes has allowed calculation of the chloride flux, a proxy for heat discharge (Hurwitz and others, 2007; McCleskey and others, 2016) from the subsurface magma. This is readily accomplished because data from streamgages are continuously recorded and archived by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS) (USGS, 2024). Similar studies on stratovolcanoes or shield volcanoes would be scientifically useful, and yet are logistically challenging, requiring streamgages on numerous radial drainages complemented by either frequent manual sampling or numerous deployments of equipment to measure water temperature and specific conductance as a proxy for water chemistry. Another challenge is that some volcanic areas, especially shield volcanoes, are characterized by near-surface porous rocks and soils, such that surface streams are rare and replaced by distant, dilute large-volume springs with only a trace of any original volcanically sourced water (Manga, 2001; Hurwitz and others, 2021). Volcanic lakes are worthy of special attention for monitoring efforts, as their temperature and composition can provide evidence of increased flux of volatile-rich fluids from below. Quantifying changes in volatile and heat release from magma can be simpler in lakes than for volcanoes with radial drainages and no major lakes. Moreover, volcanic lakes pose a range of hazards themselves, including phreatomagmatic eruptions, debris flows, flank collapse, tsunamis, and toxic gas release (Mastin and Witter, 2000; Delmelle and others, 2015; Manville, 2015; Rouwet and others, 2015)—hazards that have historically been responsible for substantial loss of life at many volcanoes worldwide (Manville, 2015). Catastrophic CO 2 release at Lake Nyos, Cameroon, in 1986 suffocated about 1,750 people and about 3,500 livestock and was probably triggered by a large landslide into the gas-saturated lake (Kling and others, 1987; Evans and others, 1993). Gas-charged springs in Soda Bay within Clear Lake (California) have caused almost a dozen deaths to bathers in the past hundred years (ABC News, 2000). A 2005 example of lake overturn and abundant gas release was documented at Mount Chiginagak in Alaska (Schaefer and others, 2008) but did not result in any human casualties. Although thermally stratified lakes, which promote trapping of exsolved magmatic gas, tend to develop in tropical regions, the phenomenon can also arise where salinity creates meromixis (a condition in which a lake does not mix completely), as occurs in Mono Lake, California (Jellison and Melack, 1993; Jellison and others, 1998). If magma erupts or flows into a lake, the interaction between hot magma and cold water can be explosive (Mastin and others, 2004; Zimanowski and others, 2015) and substantially expand the area affected by the eruption. Another hazard is the breaching of crater rims by landslides triggered by volcanic and (or) seismic activity. Under some circumstances, substantial volumes of water can be displaced, leading to large floods and lahars. Late Holocene lake flooding from Aniakchak Crater in the Alaska Peninsula (Waythomas, 2022) and from Paulina Lake in Newberry Crater, Oregon (Chitwood and Jensen, 2000), caused by the failure of outlet sills, testify to the substantial hazards at lake-filled calderas. Several volcanic systems in the United States host lakes known to receive heat and gas from underlying magma. These lakes vary widely in area, depth, and chemical composition. Lakes are present at level 4 volcanoes, including Crater Lake and Newberry Volcano in Oregon; Yellowstone Caldera in Wyoming; Long Valley Caldera, Clear Lake volcanic field, Medicine Lake, and Salton Buttes in California; and Aniakchak Crater, Mount Katmai, Fisher Caldera, Mount Okmok, and Kaguyak Crater, among others, in Alaska. A water lake was present in Halemaʻumaʻu, the crater of Kīlauea, Hawai‘i (fig. F1), from October 2019 to December 2020. Level 3 volcanoes with lakes include Mono Lake volcanic field (Calif.), Mount Bachelor (Ore.), Ukinrek Maars and Mount Chiginagak (Alaska), and Soda Lake (Nevada). In addition, there are lakes at many levels 1 and 2 volcanoes. In the United States, there are no strongly acidic lakes that receive abundant input of magmatic gas, such as those found at Mount Ruapehu (New Zealand), Ijen and Kelud (Indonesia), and Poás (Costa Rica). Nevertheless, many contain fluids that provide clues to magmatic processes below. Since publication of a previous report on recommended instrumentation for volcano monitoring (Moran and others, 2008), continuous hydrologic monitoring has become increasingly feasible. However, changes in water pressure, temperature, and chemistry remain, in general, poorly studied phenomena at volcanoes (Sparks, 2003; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). Recent efforts by the USGS have included the temporary study of Cascade Range volcanoes, which included frequent (15 minute to hourly) temporal sampling of temperature, depth, and conductivity (Crankshaw and others, 2018; Ingebritsen and Evans, 2019). At Yellowstone Caldera, many streamgages have now added thermistors and specific conductance sensors, allowing estimation of time-dependent chloride flux as a proxy for variations in subsurface heat flux (McCleskey and others, 2012, 2016). Efforts to better understand lakes have also accelerated, with bathymetric mapping and sampling carried out at several locations in the United States. Especially thorough work was done at Yellowstone Lake thanks to the Hydrothermal Dynamics of Yellowstone Lake (HD-YLAKE, https://hdylake.org ) project, funded primarily by the National Science Foundation. In addition to geophysical surveys and recovery of cores and other samples, HD-YLAKE investigations included remotely operated vehicle (ROV) investigations of hydrothermal vents on the lake floor (fig. F2). Data collected by the ROV provided a better understanding of the thermal and chemical influx from lake-bottom hydrothermal systems (Sohn and others, 2017). In this chapter, we focus on detecting changes in the chemistry, temperature, discharge, or water levels of streams, springs, and lakes that can be caused by seismicity, volumetric strains, or increases in gas flux associated with ascending magma. There is unavoidable overlap with other chapters of this report. Samples of water and gas can also be obtained in boreholes ( of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–K, 5 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062k. ">chapter K , this volume; Hurwitz and Lowenstern, 2024), both shallow and deep. Gas monitoring ( of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–E, 11 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062e.">chapter E , this volume; Lewicki and others, 2024) relies in part on samples from springs and wells, particularly where measurable gas plumes are absent. Water acts as a trigger and lubricant for landslides and sediment-rich floods, and so hydrology has obvious relevance for lahar monitoring, as discussed in of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–H, 6 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062h. ">chapter H (this volume; Thelen and others, 2024). Shared situational awareness among scientists engaged in geophysical, gas, and hydrologic monitoring will improve overall understanding of the volcanic hazard.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2024

Simulation of groundwater flow in the Long Island, New York regional aquifer system for pumping and recharge conditions from 1900 to 2019

The U.S. Geological Survey has developed a transient, groundwater-flow model that simulates hydrologic conditions in the Long Island aquifer system as part of an ongoing (since 2016) multiyear, cooperative investigation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The goals of this investigation are to assist stakeholders and resource managers to evaluate the response of the hydrologic system to changes in future hydraulic stresses. Responses in the hydrologic system include changes in water levels in the hydrogeologic units; discharge to streams, coastal waters, and subsurface infrastructure; and the extent of saline groundwater in the aquifers. Hydraulic stresses include future water-supply management and changes in land use and infrastructure. The numerical model synthesizes a diverse set of physiographic, geologic, climatic, land-use, and historical population, water use, and infrastructure data to physically represent the Long Island aquifer system from land surface to bedrock and to simulate annual hydrologic conditions between 1900 and 2019. A three-dimensional hydrogeologic framework was developed from existing and recently collected borehole geologic and geophysical data collected as part of a companion drilling program. Water-transmitting properties of the principal aquifer sediments were defined in three dimensions from new and existing lithologic logs. The distribution of recharge from precipitation was estimated from landscape characteristics and climate data. Anthropogenic recharge from wastewater, leaky infrastructure, and storm runoff were estimated from population, infrastructure, and pumping data. Water-use data, including well locations, depths, and pumping rates, were obtained from historical sources and records and used to estimate pumping stresses continuously in time and space, at an annual average time scale. The data were incorporated into a three-dimensional numerical model using the U.S. Geological Survey finite difference modeling code MODFLOW 6; the model encompassed all of Long Island and surrounding surface waters and simulated historical hydrologic conditions from 1900 to 2019. The calibration process involved trial and error adjustments using prior knowledge to improve general fit to observations followed by an inverse calibration to update and optimize input parameters, using an iterative ensemble smoother algorithm implemented in PEST++ version 5.0. This resulted in a model that generally was in good agreement with observed, dynamically varying hydrologic conditions from 1900 to 2019. The calibrated model was used to develop two base-case models for scenario testing of future, hypothetical conditions where one represented average-annual conditions, and one represented average-seasonal conditions from 2010 to 2019. The model representing average-annual conditions was modified further to represent an alternate sea-level position of 6 feet above the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, and the model representing average-seasonal conditions was modified to represent the average seasonal effects of a 5-year drought imposed upon current hydrologic conditions. Recharge is the sole source of water to the aquifer system; groundwater discharges to coastal water and streams and is withdrawn by pumped wells. Model-estimated annual recharge ranged from about 11 inches in 1965 to 41 inches in 1983. On average, from 2010 to 2019, about 23 percent of water was pumped from wells, and about 47 and 27 percent discharged to coastal waters and streams, respectively; the remaining 4 percent was water that moved into storage in the aquifer matrix. Water levels on Long Island vary naturally during time in response to changes in recharge; the amount of variation is largest in the interior of the island, in areas with highest water table altitudes near groundwater divides and lowest near streams and the coastal waters. The total range of water table altitudes on Long Island between 1900 and 2019 ranged from near 0 to more than 70 feet in western parts of Long Island. The largest range in altitudes is in New York City and is associated with areas of large historical withdrawals between the 1920s and the late 1980s. Water table altitudes generally varied by less than 10 feet in eastern Suffolk County, where the aquifer is under more natural conditions. Saltwater intrusion is of great concern on Long Island, particularly in western Long Island where both the unconfined and confined parts of the aquifer system have been intruded in response to large-scale groundwater withdrawals; however, the volume of freshwater in the islandwide aquifer system only has changed by about 5 percent between 1900 and 2019. The decadal change in the freshwater volume was largest during the early and mid-20th century, corresponding to the largest historical pumping, but that volume change did not exceed 1 percent. The negligible change in freshwater volume suggests that saltwater intrusion as of 2019 was limited at an islandwide scale but continues to occur in local areas of Queens and Nassau Counties, adversely affecting current water supplies and limiting future water supplies for affected communities. The regional groundwater model developed for this investigation is a tool that can be used to help determine the viability of current and future water supplies at a regional scale and can be used to support development of additional models at finer scale to support more focused assessments of groundwater sustainability.

New York↗
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↗