Natural Hazards Science Strategy— 

Public Review Release

By Robert R. Holmes, Jr., Lucile M. Jones, Jeffery C. Eidenshink, 

Jonathan W. Godt, Stephen H. Kirby, Jeffrey J. Love, Christina A. Neal, 

Nathaniel G. Plant, Michael L. Plunkett, Craig S. Weaver, Anne Wein, and 

Suzanne C. Perry

Open-File Report 2012–1088

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Holmes, R.R., Jr., Jones, L.M., Eidenshink, J.C., Godt, J.W., Kirby, S.H., Love, J.J., Neal, C.A., Plant, N.G., Plunkett, 

M.L., Weaver, C.S., Wein, Anne, and Perry, S.C., 2012, Natural hazards science strategy: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2012–1088, 75 p.
iii

Foreword

In 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published a Bureau Science Strategy Facing Tomorrow’s 

Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017. It provided a view of the future, 

establishing science goals that reflected the USGS’s fundamental mission in areas of societal impact such 

as energy and minerals, climate and land use change, ecosystems, natural hazards, environmental health, 

and water. Intended to inform long-term program planning, the strategy emphasizes how USGS science 

can make substantial contributions to the well-being of the Nation and the world. 

In 2010, I realigned the USGS management and budget structure, changing it from a structure associated 

with scientific disciplines—Geography, Geology, Biology and Hydrology—to an issue-based organization 

along the lines of the Science Strategy. My aim was to align our management structure with our mission, our science priorities, our metrics for success, and our budget. An added benefit was that the USGS 

immediately appeared relevant to more Americans and it became easier for those outside the agency to 

navigate our organizational structure to find where within the USGS they would find the solution to their 

problem. External partners rarely approached us with a problem in “geology,” but they might need help 

with an issue in climate change or energy research. 

The new organization is focused on seven science mission areas:

•	Climate and Land Use Change

•	Core Science Systems

•	Ecosystems

•	Energy and Minerals

•	Environmental Health

•	Natural Hazards

•	Water

The scope of each of these new mission areas is broader than the science directions outlined in the USGS 

Science Strategy and together cover the scope of USGS science activities. 

In 2010, I also commissioned seven Strategic Science Planning Teams (SSPTs) to draft science strategies 

for each USGS mission area. Although the existing Bureau Science Strategy could be a starting point for 

this exercise, the SSPTs had to go well beyond the scope of the existing document. What is of value and 

enduring from the work of the programs that existed under the former science disciplines needed to be 

reframed and reinterpreted under the new organization of the science mission areas. In addition, new 

opportunities for research directions have emerged in the five years since the Bureau Science Strategy 

was drafted, and exciting possibilities for cooperating and collaborating in new ways are enabled by the 

new mission focus of the organization.

Scientists from across the Bureau were selected for these SSPTs for their experience in strategic planning, broad range of experience and expertise, and knowledge of stakeholder needs and relationships. 

Each SSPT was charged with developing a long-term (10-year) science strategy that encompasses the 

portfolio of USGS science in the respective mission area. Each science strategy will reinforce others 

because scientific knowledge inherently has significance to multiple issues. Leadership of the USGS and 

the Department of the Interior will use the science vision and priorities developed in these strategies 

for program guidance, implementation planning, accountability reporting, and resource allocation. These 

strategies will guide science and technology investment and workforce and human capital strategies. 

They will inform our partners regarding opportunities for communication, collaboration, and coordination.

The USGS has taken a significant step toward demonstrating that we are ready to collaborate on the most 

pressing natural science issues of our day and the future. I believe a leadership aligned to support these 

issue-based science directions and equipped with the guidance provided in these new science strategies 

in the capable hands of our scientists will create a new era for USGS of which we can all be proud.

Marcia McNutt 

 Director
iv

Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................iii

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

Mission and Roles.................................................................................................................................1

Priority Goals and Actions...................................................................................................................1

Goal 1: Enhanced Observations ................................................................................................2

Core Responsibilities that Must be Sustained...............................................................2

Strategic Actions for the Future.......................................................................................2

Goal 2: Fundamental Understanding of Hazards and Impacts.............................................2

Core Responsibilities that Must be Sustained...............................................................2

Strategic Actions for the Future.......................................................................................3

Goal 3: Improved Assessments Products and Services .......................................................3

Core Responsibilities that Must be Sustained...............................................................3

Strategic Actions for the Future.......................................................................................3

Goal 4: Effective Situational Awareness..................................................................................3

Core Responsibilities that Must be Sustained...............................................................3

Strategic Actions for the Future.......................................................................................3

A Vision of the Future...........................................................................................................................4

Opportunities and Challenges ............................................................................................................4

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................7

Mission Statement................................................................................................................................7

The USGS Role in Hazard Science ....................................................................................................7

Natural Hazards Science Strategy Planning Process....................................................................8

Hazards Mission Priority Goals and Actions....................................................................................8

Goal 1: Enhanced Observations.................................................................................................................11

Core Responsibilities..........................................................................................................................11

Strategic Actions ................................................................................................................................12

Goal 2: Fundamental Understanding of Hazards and Impacts.............................................................17

Core Responsibilities..........................................................................................................................18

Strategic Actions ................................................................................................................................19

Goal 3: Improved Assessment Products and Services .........................................................................24

Core Responsibilities..........................................................................................................................24

Strategic Actions ................................................................................................................................24

Goal 4: Effective Situational Awareness..................................................................................................31

Core Responsibilities..........................................................................................................................31

Strategic Actions ................................................................................................................................31

A Vision of the Future..................................................................................................................................36

A Safer Nation Thanks to USGS Hazards Science .......................................................................36

A Vision of USGS Hazard Science Successes of the Future.......................................................37

Floods .........................................................................................................................................37

Wildfires ......................................................................................................................................37

Earthquakes................................................................................................................................37

Coastal Hazards .........................................................................................................................37
v

Figures

1. Graphic showing four goals with communication throughout .............................................9

2. Map of 169 young volcanoes in the United States and photograph of eruption 

in progress, Redoubt volcano, Alaska, 2009...........................................................................14

3. Photograph showing tsunami wave inundating a coastal town in Japan on 

March 11, 2011 ............................................................................................................................15

4. Photographs showing coastal forest drowned by subsidence caused by the 

1700 earthquake and tsunami deposits for the 1700 and earlier prehistoric 

tsunamis .......................................................................................................................................15

5. Map showing distribution of ANSS backbone stations shown on the National 

Seismic Hazard Map ..................................................................................................................16

Volcanoes....................................................................................................................................38

Geomagnetic Storms.................................................................................................................38

Landslides ...................................................................................................................................38

Tsunamis......................................................................................................................................38

Multi-Hazard Assessment........................................................................................................38

Opportunities and Challenges ...................................................................................................................39

Planning and Interconnections Across the USGS Mission Areas ......................................................44

Water and Hazards.............................................................................................................................44

Climate and Land Use Change and Hazards ..................................................................................45

Energy and Minerals and Hazards...................................................................................................47

Environmental Health and Hazards .................................................................................................47

Ecosystems and Hazards...................................................................................................................48

Core Science Systems and Hazards ...............................................................................................49

Selected References...................................................................................................................................50

Definitions .....................................................................................................................................................53

Appendix A. Hazard Science in the USGS...............................................................................................56

Earthquake Hazards Program...........................................................................................................56

Global Seismographic Network .......................................................................................................56

Geomagnetism Program....................................................................................................................57

Tsunami Investigations ......................................................................................................................57

Landslide Science...............................................................................................................................57

Floods ..................................................................................................................................................58

Hazard, Vulnerability, and Risk Study, and Decision Support .....................................................59

Volcano Hazards .................................................................................................................................59

Appendix B. The Domestic Value of USGS International Efforts in Hazard Science .......................61

Appendix C. Hazards Science Strategy Planning Team: Composition, Charge, 

Philosophy, and Process...............................................................................................................62

Selection Approach and Criteria for Strategic Actions ...............................................................64

Appendix D. Listening Sessions ................................................................................................................65

Meetings with USGS Leadership .....................................................................................................66

Appendix E. Disaster Relief Act of 1974 ...................................................................................................67
vi

6. Map showing ShakeMap for the 2011 magnitude 5.8 earthquake in Virginia, 

which caused widespread damage and evacuations..........................................................16

7. Schematic of the Sun, the solar dynamo, the solar wind, and the Earth’s 

magnetosphere ...........................................................................................................................17

8. Diagram showing examples of flood indicators potentially providing evidence 

of flood magnitude and frequency...........................................................................................19

9. Stratigraphic sequence of three sandy flood deposits separated by rockfall 

and colluvium high along the canyon margin flanking Spring Creek in the 

Black Hills of South Dakota.......................................................................................................19

10. Map of Alaska showing historically active volcanoes and large earthquakes ...............20

11. Photographs of the USGS debris-flow flume during an experiment to examine 

entrainment, or the process by which debris flows grow in size, velocity, and 

potential impact ..........................................................................................................................21

12. Example of earthquake forecasting.........................................................................................22

14. Perspective views of three-dimensional geological model of Mount Rainier 

indicating relative degree of hydrothermal alteration and results of threedimensional slope-stability analysis........................................................................................23

13. Photograph of Mount Ranier, Washington, and communities in the Tacoma area.........23

15. Map showing postfire debris-flow hazards map for part of the area burned 

by the 2009 Station fire, showing potential volume of material expected from 

drainage basins and where that material will travel ............................................................28

16. Photograph of damage from debris flows generated from hillsides burned by 

the 2009 Station fire....................................................................................................................28

17. Screenshot from a prototype HAZUS flood analysis Web service displaying 

flood loss estimates for different river stage levels at a given site....................................29

18. Map showing recent damaging hurricanes assessed by the USGS include Ivan 

(landfall near Gulf Shores, Ala., on Sept. 16, 2004), Katrina (landfall at 

Plaquemines Parish, La., on Aug. 29, 2005), and Ike (landfall near Galveston, 

Tex., on Sept. 13, 2008) ...............................................................................................................30

19. Before and after photographs of Hurricane Ike coastal impacts ......................................30

20. Map showing assessment of inundation potential near Galveston, Tex. for 

Hurricane Ike...............................................................................................................................30

21. Photograph of Rapid Deployment Streamgage installed in Post Creek Cutoff 

near Karnak, Illinois, during the 2011 flooding.......................................................................33

22. Landsat 5 satellite image of the Wallow North Fire in east-central Arizona....................34

23. Screenshot of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Volcano Hazards Program 

Web page.....................................................................................................................................35

24. Photograph of the public views Mount St. Helens from Johnston Ridge on 

October 1, 2004............................................................................................................................36

25. Photograph of explosive activity at Mount St. Helens, October 1, 2004............................36

26. Model of an atmospheric river storm......................................................................................41

27. LiDAR image revealing an intricate pattern of surface ruptures along the 

Borrego fault following the 4 April 2010 El Mayor–Cucapah earthquake (M 7.2) 

in Baja California, Mexico .........................................................................................................42

28. InSAR interferogram of Mount Peulik, a stratovolcano located about 550 km 

southwest of Anchorage, Alaska.............................................................................................42

29. Image of 10-day burn probability perimeters derived from the FSPro analysis...............43

30. Photographs of Kīlauea, the largest stationary source of SO

2

 in the United States.......46
vii

Tables

1. USGS assessment products in current use ...........................................................................26

2. Examples of USGS Products for warnings and situational awareness ............................32

D–1. Stakeholder sessions.................................................................................................................65

31. Photograph of installation of the Deadhorse, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska observatory, 

January 2010................................................................................................................................48

32. Photograph of the island of Kasatochi, before and after eruption in 2008 .......................49

A–1. Pie diagram showing approximate U.S. Geological Survey appropriated and 

reimbursable hazard funding levels ........................................................................................60

Highlights

USGS Hazard Science Makes a Difference..............................................................................................5

Role of USGS in Federal Government.......................................................................................................10

NVEWS: Living Safely With Active Volcanoes........................................................................................14

A Tale of Two Giant Earthquakes and Their Tsunamis ..........................................................................15

U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps: From USGS Science to a More Resilient Nation ..................16

Magnetic Storms and Space Weather.....................................................................................................17

Ancient Floods Provide New Information................................................................................................19

Alaska: A Geohazards Natural Laboratory for the Nation ....................................................................20

Examining the Controls on Debris-Flow Initiation, Mobility, and Magnitude.....................................21

Today’s Chance of an Earthquake: Real-time Forecasts from the Advanced National 

Seismic System...............................................................................................................................22

Using Aerogeophysical Mapping and 3D Analysis to Define Collapse-Prone Areas of 

Volcanoes ........................................................................................................................................23

Postfire Debris Flow ....................................................................................................................................28

Using and Improving Hazus-MH................................................................................................................29

U.S. Geological Survey Role in Assessing Hurricane Impacts ............................................................30

Value of Rapid Deployment Streamgages For Floods............................................................................33

Imagery for Emergency Response: the USGS Hazards Data Distribution System...........................34

USGS Hazard Web Pages: Popular and Highly Rated...........................................................................35

Continuing Lessons in Managing Volcano Hazards: Mount St. Helens..............................................36

MHDP Scenarios for Building Networks and Doing Research............................................................41

Lidar and InSAR: Powerful Tools for Assessments and Forecasts .....................................................42

LANDFIRE: Geospatial Information for Strategic and Tactical Wildfire Planning.............................43

Volcanic Gas and Human Health: New Partnerships to Address Emerging Hazards......................46

Magnetic Orientation For Directional Drilling.........................................................................................48

Hazardous Events and Ecosystem Dynamics .........................................................................................49
viii

Acronyms used in this report

ANSS Advanced National Seismic System

CSS Core Science Systems

HDDS Hazards Data Distribution System

HREC Hazard Response Executive Committee

EROS Earth Resources Observation and Science Center

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GPS global positioning satellites

GSN Global Seismic Network

H-SSPT Natural Hazards Science Strategy Planning Team

MHDP Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NEHRP National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program

NEIC National Earthquake Information Center

NHMA Natural Hazards Mission Area

NISAC National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center

NOAA National Oceanic and Aeronautics Administration

NSF National Science Foundation

NSIP National Streamflow Information System

NVEWS National Volcano Early Warning System

SAFRR Science Application for Risk Reduction Project

USACE Army Corps of Engineers

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USFS United States Forest Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

WMA Water Mission Area
Natural Hazards Science Strategy

By Robert R. Holmes, Jr., Lucile M. Jones, Jeffery C. Eidenshink, Jonathan W. Godt, Stephen H. Kirby, 

Jeffrey J. Love, Christina A. Neal, Nathaniel G. Plant, Michael L. Plunkett, Craig S. Weaver, Anne Wein, 

and Suzanne C. Perry 

Executive Summary

Mission and Roles

The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 

natural hazards is to develop and apply hazard science to help 

protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of the 

Nation. The costs and consequences of natural hazards can be 

enormous, and each year more people and infrastructure are at 

risk. USGS scientific research—founded on detailed observations and improved understanding of the responsible physical 

processes—can help to understand and reduce natural hazard 

risks and to make and effectively communicate reliable statements about hazard characteristics, such as frequency, magnitude, extent, onset, consequences, and where possible, the time 

of future events.

To accomplish its broad hazard mission, the USGS 

maintains an expert workforce of scientists and technicians 

in the earth sciences, hydrology, biology, geography, social 

and behavioral sciences, and other fields, and engages cooperatively with numerous agencies, research institutions, and 

organizations in the public and private sectors, across the 

Nation and around the world. The scientific expertise required 

to accomplish the USGS mission in natural hazards includes a 

wide range of disciplines that this report refers to, in aggregate, as hazard science.

In October 2010, the Natural Hazards Science Strategy 

Planning Team (H–SSPT) was charged with developing a 

long-term (10-year) Science Strategy for the USGS mission in natural hazards. This report fulfills that charge, with 

a document hereinafter referred to as the Strategy, to provide 

scientific observations, analyses, and research that are critical 

for the Nation to become more resilient to natural hazards. 

Science provides the information that decisionmakers need to 

determine whether risk management activities are worthwhile. 

Moreover, as the agency with the perspective of geologic time, 

the USGS is uniquely positioned to extend the collective experience of society to prepare for events outside current memory. 

The USGS has critical statutory and nonstatutory roles regarding floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, coastal erosion, 

volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and magnetic storms—the hazards considered in this plan. There are numerous other hazards 

of societal importance that are considered either only peripherally or not at all in this Strategy because they are either in 

another of the USGS strategic science plans (such as drought) 

or not in the overall mission of the USGS (such as tornados).

Priority Goals and Actions

The USGS conducts hazard research to inform a broad 

range of planning and response activities at individual, local, 

State, national, and international levels. A sustainable society 

requires a responsive government to reduce the loss of life and 

disruption caused by natural hazards. People who are potentially affected by natural hazards need robust assessments to 

prepare for hazardous events, and they need information about 

updated hazards for situational awareness during times of 

crisis. To meet these needs, scientists, in turn, require fundamental understanding of natural processes and observations of 

natural events. Thus, the H–SSPT developed four overarching 

and interrelated goals regarding observations, understanding, 

assessments, and situational awareness. To accomplish each 

goal, this Strategy identifies core responsibilities and strategic 

actions. Core responsibilities are activities that the USGS must 

continue in order to uphold its mission. In many cases, these 

are mandated activities that help to protect lives and assets, 

or strengths developed as a consequence of long-standing 

national need. Strategic actions are high-value, priority efforts 

that go beyond the core responsibilities and will reduce 

uncertainties about hazards, improve communication, and thus 

enhance the ability to provide accurate, effective assessments 

and situational awareness.

We provide a prioritization philosophy, to be applied 

through the collaborative efforts of the USGS Executive 

Leadership Team, Program Coordinators, and Science Centers, 

to accomplish prioritization effectively. For each goal, this 

Strategy identifies key strategic actions that were synthesized 

from hundreds of suggestions provided by USGS hazards 

stakeholders within the past year (2011). Given the spectrum 

of hazards under consideration in this report, along with the 

broad administrative controls for funding USGS hazards science, this report does not prioritize the strategic actions.

The first and highest priority is to maintain the basic 

and applied research, observations, and communication 
2 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

efforts such as assessments and warnings that form the core 

responsibilities. These are areas of USGS activity that must 

be safeguarded in times of decreased funding. Given sufficient funding to support the core responsibilities, the strategic 

actions indicate areas of advancement that will have greatest impact on improved understanding and on the efficacy of 

assessments and situational awareness.

The H-SSPT recommends that strategic actions be prioritized based on the degree to which the strategic action:

• Helps meet USGS core responsibilities (particularly 

statutory responsibilities).

• In a larger context, helps the Federal Government to 

meet its responsibilities in the hazards arena.

• Is important for risk reduction, protecting human 

health, the economy, or national security.

• Addresses a large gap in hazards science understanding 

and reduces uncertainty. 

• Enhances areas where the USGS has a unique role and 

expertise.

• Holds a high potential for investment return in the form 

of improved assessments and awareness.

Goal 1: Enhanced Observations

The USGS acquires comprehensive observations important to natural hazards to improve fundamental understanding, 

assessments, and situational awareness.

Core Responsibilities that Must be Sustained

• Operate monitoring networks for earthquakes, streamflow, volcanic activity and geomagnetic storms, and 

produce datasets of observations and near-real-time 

products.

• Conduct surveys, such as geological mapping and 

acquisition of geophysical data, to enable a better understanding of hazardous processes including 

sources and impacts. 

• Collect the ephemeral data during hazardous events 

that will support future research to reduce loss. 

• Develop long-term chronologies, with associated magnitudes, of hazardous events from both historical and 

paleohazard studies. 

• Distribute this information to the wide range of users 

through a variety of data portals. 

Strategic Actions for the Future

• Enhance the existing monitoring networks to provide 

reliable operation, ensure full interoperability with 

other agencies that rely on uninterrupted data flow 

from the USGS, and improve early warning. 

• Improve the use of monitoring information through 

better near-real-time delivery, new tools for use of 

data, and the merger of existing, critical datasets.

• Take advantage of rapidly changing technology, recognizing that the ability to monitor effectively depends 

on the technology used and the ability to adapt to 

changes.

• Improve overall data quality standards governing 

quality assurance, metadata, additions, curation, and 

timeliness.

• Expand observations of geologic setting, including 

geological mapping and geophysical data acquisition, 

as these observations are essential to understanding 

the frequency, physical mechanisms, and impacts of 

events. 

• Improve data collection during and after hazardous 

events to protect public safety and gather critical, 

ephemeral information. 

• Use geological and historical methods to expand 

hazard chronology and magnitude distribution studies 

needed to define probabilities of occurrence.

Goal 2: Fundamental Understanding of Hazards 

and Impacts

The USGS advances and applies fundamental understanding of natural hazards to improve assessments and situational awareness.

Core Responsibilities that Must be Sustained

• Increase understanding of the underlying physical 

processes that produce the hazard and determine where 

and under what conditions hazards occur. 

• Uphold the tradition of innovation in instrumentation, 

measurement and experimental techniques. 

• Foster USGS scientific expertise to provide expert 

advice as needed in crisis and noncrisis situations. 

• Publish results with peer review and distribute to 

appropriate audiences through relevant mechanisms.
Executive Summary 3

• Create and distribute effective multi-media assessments 

developed through partnerships with users, social and 

behavioral researchers, and educators. 

• Develop multi-hazard assessments to compare the 

relative risk of multiple hazards or assess the combined 

risk of multiple hazards.

• Balance investments in hazard, vulnerability and risk 

assessment to ensure that the USGS improves the accuracy, resolution, and timeliness of hazard assessments 

while engaging with other entities who make use of the 

hazard information.

• Develop event and disaster scenarios and other strategic assessments to incorporate research results into 

decision-making processes. 

• Evaluate the accuracy, use, validity and effectiveness 

of assessments, working with social and behavioral 

scientists and assessment users, in order to improve 

future assessments and demonstrate the value of USGS 

assessments.

Goal 4: Effective Situational Awareness

The USGS provides situational awareness to improve 

emergency response, inform the public, and minimize societal 

disruption.

Core Responsibilities that Must be Sustained

• Collect the data and conduct analyses to inform warnings by the USGS or others of impending crises. 

• Issue warnings and advisories of impending potential 

hazardous events and their termination.

• Provide timely information to emergency managers, 

the media, and the public about hazardous events as 

they occur.

• Invest appropriate resources in hazard education during 

crisis as well as noncrisis times.

Strategic Actions for the Future

• Develop the next generation of tools for rapid event 

detection and response, which will require targeted 

partnerships to define the products and delivery mechanisms that most effectively put USGS information into 

the hands of decisionmakers. 

• Improve data systems critical to situational awareness 

responsibilities, a need that includes making monitoring networks that are more robust, expanding monitoring coverage as needed, and delivering information in 

usable formats. 

Strategic Actions for the Future

• Promote targeted research on physical hazard initiation 

processes, because limited understanding about these 

processes limits the ability to make accurate predictions.

• Promote research on extreme events, which are the 

rare, potentially catastrophic events with the greatest 

societal consequences. 

• Promote research about natural hazard vulnerability, 

risk estimation, and communication.

• Encourage interchange of ideas in research about the 

role of fluids in physical processes, because this broad 

topic of investigation is essential to understanding a 

multitude of hazards phenomena. 

• Promote research in the triggering and interaction of 

multiple hazard processes, which frequently happen in 

nature and have distinct probabilities of occurrence and 

potential impacts.

Goal 3: Improved Assessment Products and 

Services

The USGS develops assessments of natural hazards, 

vulnerability and risk to inform decisions that can mitigate 

adverse consequences.

Core Responsibilities that Must be Sustained

• Create hazard assessments used to inform decision 

making, based on fundamental understanding of natural hazards.

• Evaluate the assessments using observations made at 

national and regional scales and over long time periods 

to capture significant and infrequent events.

• Develop new assessment tools to improve the scientific foundation of assessments as new understanding 

evolves.

• Inform the public about natural hazards to promote 

risk-wise behavior by publishing assessments and 

providing assessment tools using USGS scientific 

information.

Strategic Actions for the Future

• Improve the formulation of assessments, in particular, 

by ensuring there is a process to update assessments 

with the most current understanding, methodology, and 

observations. 
4 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

• Implement 24x7 operations for critical USGS monitoring efforts in order to maximize USGS ability 

to inform partner agencies, respond to hazards, and 

deliver expertise when it is needed.

• Improve provision of scientific expertise for decisions 

and assessments during rapidly changing situations. 

This necessitates training of scientific staff in media 

response.

• Improve internal hazards coordination, which is conducted across the Bureau and over many regions and 

includes data, research, and geospatial support activities. 

• Evaluate warning and response products to improve 

their accuracy, timeliness, and communication, and 

demonstrate the value of the USGS hazard investment 

in observations and fundamental understanding.

A Vision of the Future

If these core responsibilities are upheld, and these 

strategic actions are taken, the USGS will move closer to 

the H-SSPT vision of the future, where the Nation will be 

more resilient because of USGS hazards science. That vision 

includes a USGS that:

• Operates a robust, comprehensive network of instruments that monitor hazardous conditions.

• Leads the Nation in hazards science because of its 

diverse, expert staff.

• Creates easily understood assessments that are routinely used to reduce risk.

• Employs newly developed software tools that bring 

together data and understanding to better manage 

natural disasters and shares these tools with emergency 

managers.

Opportunities and Challenges

Although this Strategy addresses the scientific needs and 

opportunities of the USGS mission in natural hazards, the 

newly formed USGS Natural Hazards Mission Area (NHMA) 

can address important programmatic and policy issues that fall 

outside this report’s structure of four goals, with associated 

core responsibilities and action items. Under its umbrella, the 

NHMA can help to:

• Maintain USGS leadership in hazard science through 

effective workforce planning.

• Address neglected and emerging natural hazard problems and ensure that hazards lacking programs in the 

USGS have proper advocacy, support, and input.

• Coordinate and facilitate international, interagency, and 

cross-Mission Area collaborations that are essential to 

fulfillment of the USGS mission in natural hazards and 

are crucial during hazard crises.

• Collaboratively develop hazard communication products that engage the public’s interest in natural disasters to boost public awareness of USGS hazards efforts 

and risk-wise behavior.

• Engage hazard expertise when it can assist with 

human-caused events such as the Deepwater Horizon 

oil spill and provide critical evaluations of predictions.
Executive Summary 5

USGS Hazard Science Makes a Difference

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hazard programs have a long history of science, service, and products that reduce the 

impacts of hazardous events: 

Trans-Alaska [Oil] Pipeline.

The USGS contributed design inputs to the Trans-Alaska [Oil] Pipeline that help to ensure the pipeline’s thermal stability 

and resistance to strong ground motion and fault offsets during earthquakes. The pipeline design has resulted in successful thermal performance—avoiding surrounding permafrost melting—since it was completed in 1977; and demonstrated 

successful mechanical performance during the 2002 M7.9 Denali earthquake, which ruptured the Denali Fault right under 

the pipeline,. Both cases demonstrate the value of science-based hazard intervention and mitigation (Fuis and Wald, 2003; 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2003/fs014-03/).

USGS Provides Critical Data During 2011 Floods.

The Mississippi River Basin experienced “epic” flooding as a result of sustained rainfall in the upper part of the Basin 

through late spring and early summer 2011. For the first time since 1937, the Birds Point/New Madrid floodway was operated to reduce upstream flooding. Boat-mounted hydroacoustic instruments deployed by USGS scientists were used to 

determine the flow rates coming through the floodway for operational decisions by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as 

well as detailed three-dimensional water velocity vectors, which were measured in the nearby Mississippi River before 

and after activation of the floodway to ensure that commercial barge traffic could move safely along the river. 

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities: Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast.

Since 1988, the USGS has led the science of time-dependent earthquake forecasting. The USGS works closely with the California Earthquake Authority to assess insurance rates by calculating the probability of damaging earthquakes throughout 

the State. USGS scientists, working with colleagues in the California Geological Survey, the Southern California Earthquake 

Center, and others continually seek ways to evaluate and develop the best available science for probabilistic forecasts, 

which provide a bridge between cutting-edge research and a practical application for public safety. This work continues to 

set trends in hazard assessments in the United States and around the world. [http://www.wgcep.org/]

The Vital USGS Streamgage Network and Online Web Interface.

The USGS has a network of some 7,800 near-real-time streamgages and more than 4,000 of these form a major backbone 

of the National Weather Service’s (NWS) flood forecasting operation, as evidenced by the following quote from a NWS 

hydrologist from the Southeastern United States: “The USGS work has been and continues to be crucial to the NWS ability 

to provide accurate river forecasts and warnings to inform State agencies, Dam Operators, Emergency Operations Centers, 

Emergency Managers and the public across Georgia and Florida” (Joel Lanier, Senior Service Hydrologist, NWS Tallahassee, FL, written commun., 2011; http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/rt).

Reducing Global Volcanic Risk.

The Volcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP) is a global volcanic risk mitigation activity cofunded by the U.S. Agency 

for International Development and the USGS. VDAP volcanologists work with local scientists to provide training, equipment, and consultation in order to build capacity and minimize loss. Since 1986, VDAP has responded to dozens of volcanic 

crises around the world, saving thousands of lives and returning with valuable lessons to reduce risk in the United States. 

One of the most important success stories was the accurate forecast of the cataclysmic 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo 

in the Philippines. VDAP’s rapid response to the initial unrest and timely warning of the impending eruption led to a successful evacuation of Clark Air Base, its valuable aircraft, and thousands of residents from densely populated, nearby communities (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Vdap/framework.html, http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Vdap/framework.html, http://pubs.usgs.

gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/, and http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs064-97/).

Coastal Processes.

In collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), the USGS is predicting the likely interactions between storm forcing (for example, surge and waves) and coastal 

topography (beaches, berms, and dunes) during hurricanes in near-real-time. This information provides a powerful shortterm tool to emergency responders and communities to identify areas of greatest likely damage.
6 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

Volcanic Ash Hazards, Impacts, and Preparing the Nation for Ash-Fall Events.

Drifting ash clouds and ash fall from volcanic eruptions can have far reaching impacts. USGS scientists have worked 

closely with NOAA, university, and international partners to understand and explain the effects of volcanic ash on people, 

infrastructure, and ecosystems. A new USGS ash cloud dispersion and ash fall forecast tool, Ash3D, will help warn downwind communities and infrastructure of expected ash fall severity. In addition, USGS leadership, in improving the complex 

global system of ash-cloud warnings for aviation, has made significant contributions to safe and efficient air travel in the 

United States and around the world (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/ash/index.html; and Neal and Guffanti, 2010, http://pubs.

usgs.gov/fs/2010/3116/).

Geomagnetism Leadership.

The USGS provides international leadership in obtaining integrated real-time domestic and global geomagnetic-field 

monitoring, as well as leadership in the development and production of geomagnetic-storm intensity indices. USGS and 

Intermagnet observatories are critical ground-based assets in coordinated monitoring of space weather, which can 

have very damaging impacts to the infrastructure and activities of our modern, technologically based society. The same 

observatories also support forecasts and warnings provided by NOAA, the U.S. Air Force, and space-weather agencies 

in Europe and Japan (Love and others, 2008, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3092/; and Love and Finn, 2011, http://dx.doi.

org/10.1029/2011SW000684).

Living with Landslides.

Landslides occur in all 50 states and cause fatalities and damage nearly every year. The Landslide Handbook—A Guide to 

Understanding Landslides, published in collaboration with the Geological Survey of Canada, is a valuable guide for landslide hazard education. The richly illustrated guidebook discusses the nature of landslides, why and where they occur, 

potential impacts, and what can be done to mitigate these impacts. It has been translated into Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, 

Portuguese, and Japanese with support from the World Bank, China Geological Survey, and Japan Landslide Society. It 

received the 2011 Geological Society of America Burwell Jr. Award (Highland and Bobrowsky, 2008, http://pubs.usgs.gov/

circ/1325/).

Contributions to Burned Area Emergency Response.

After a wildfire there potentially are major impacts to water quality, endangered species, cultural resources, and the threat 

of introduction or spread of invasive species. In many areas, wildfires also increase the likelihood of floods and debris 

flows for the next several storm seasons. USGS burn severity characterizations, derived from satellite imagery, have 

become a primary tool used by Department of Interior and United States Forest Service Burned Area Emergency Response 

Teams to assess the impacts of a wildfire and rapidly develop a mitigation plan to protect communities, water, and ecosystems from subsequent harmful impacts.

Community Exposure to Tsunami Hazards for Emergency Managers.

USGS investigations of the variations in community exposure to tsunami hazards in Oregon, Washington and Hawai`i 

have been put to many and varied uses: education materials, comprehensive land use and mitigation planning, tabletop 

and functional exercises, vulnerability assessment workshops, mapping prioritization, and recommendations for national 

policy on tsunami preparedness. The wide use owes credit to agency partnerships, user engagement, varied communication methods, and guidance from social and behavioral science research, which provided both community vulnerability 

attributes and insight into how to frame the information for decisionmakers (Oregon: Wood, 2007, http://pubs.usgs.gov/

sir/2007/5283/; Washington: Wood and Soulard, 2008, http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5004/; Hawai`i: Wood and others, 2007, 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5208/).

A Scenario that Inspires Earthquake Preparedness.

A southern San Andreas earthquake scenario developed by the USGS Multi Hazards Demonstration Project became the 

basis of the Great Southern California ShakeOut, comprising the largest-ever statewide exercise of emergency responders (“Golden Guardian,” led by the Office of Homeland Security), and the largest public drill ever attempted in the United 

States, with more than 5 million participants. Exercise planners heavily used the scenario, with help from USGS scientists, 

who customized scenario results for individual counties and cities. The USGS also supplied inspiration and organization for 

the inaugural ShakeOut drill, which has now spawned annual events in many states and countries.

USGS Hazard Science Makes a Difference—Continued
Introduction 7

Introduction

Mission Statement

The mission of the USGS in Natural Hazards is to 

develop and apply hazard science to help protect the safety, 

security, and economic well-being of the Nation. A sustainable 

society requires a responsive government to reduce the loss of 

life and disruption caused by natural hazards. The USGS role 

is to make and effectively communicate reliable statements 

about hazard characteristics such as frequency, magnitude, 

extent, speed of onset, consequences, and where possible 

the time of future hazardous events, derived from a growing understanding of the physical processes responsible for 

the hazards. The mission spans a wide range of hazards, and 

therefore, the needed science covers a wide range of disciplines in the natural, social and behavioral sciences that this 

report refers to, in aggregate as, hazard science. Bold terms 

indicate first usage of words that are explained in the Definitions section.

Scientific analysis and research are critical as the Nation 

strives to be more resilient to hazardous events and natural 

disasters. The natural processes leading to events that are 

potentially hazardous to human society are ongoing and only 

hazardous when their effects exceed the range that is expected 

or planned for. As the agency with the perspective of geologic 

time, the USGS is uniquely positioned to extend the collective experience of society to include events over that much 

greater time scale. The science also provides information that 

decisionmakers need to determine what risk is acceptable and 

what risk reduction activities are feasible. Decisions include 

land-use planning—such as not building in floodplains or 

on landslides—ground stabilization, protective structures, 

building code requirements, insurance, personal and societal 

preparedness, and recovery planning. Society cannot prepare 

effectively if it does not know what to plan for. USGS hazard 

science provides that information and strives to communicate 

it effectively.

Hazard science comprises several interlocking components: observations, fundamental understanding, assessments, 

forecasts, warnings, and crisis and disaster response. The 

components are linked and overlapping; progress within 

one component supports and contributes to progress in other 

components. The USGS Hazards Mission Science Strategy 

identifies goals and strategic actions that will lead to more 

accurate, higher resolution, and timely hazard assessments 

and warnings of natural hazards based on sound fundamental 

understanding and supported by robust observations. Effective hazard assessments and warnings will have an increased 

impact on hazard planning, preparedness, and response 

decisions and will result in reduced hazard vulnerability. 

Attaining these goals will continue the existing long-term, 

hazards-related efforts by the USGS that have helped to 

minimize disastrous impacts from events, large and small. For 

example:

• During the 2011 Mississippi River flood, according to 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USGS streamflow 

data, water-quality data, and data communication 

efforts were critically important in preventing an estimated $108 billion in flood damages.

• After recent wildfires in the southwest, interpretations 

of USGS remote-sensing data were used to map fire 

severity, which, in turn, enabled USGS scientists to 

map seasonal probabilities of debris flows. Results 

were shared with local officials before the arrival of 

storms that could have triggered debris flows, providing time to make decisions about land management 

and public safety.

• Each day, USGS volcano monitoring and activity 

notices help airlines fly confidently on efficient, 

ash-free air routes, minimizing costly disruption and 

promoting aviation safety.

Only some of the many natural processes that can impact 

human society are included within the hazards mission of the 

USGS: coastal processes from severe storms including hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, geomagnetic storms, landslides, 

subsidence, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and wildfires. Some 

hazards, like tornados, are not included because the physical 

science—in this case, meteorology—is not within the purview 

of the USGS. Hurricanes are included to the extent that the 

USGS studies the impacts of hurricanes on coastal processes. 

In other cases, such as glacial and other cryosphere-related 

hazards, the science lies within the broad scope of USGS 

science, but the USGS no longer has a sustainable program 

in the area, and existing capacity lies in another part of the 

USGS, in this case Climate and Land Use Change. Other 

hazards were excluded because the physical processes are the 

realm of a different USGS mission. For instance, it is clear that 

drought can be an extreme hazard to human society. However, 

drought is almost synonymous with water availability and the 

science needed to address drought is a core capability of the 

Water mission.

The USGS Role in Hazard Science

The USGS has made a persistent and prominent contribution to protecting the Nation from hazards, by providing 

impartial, scientifically sound information. The USGS has 

critical statutory and nonstatutory roles over a wide range 

of natural hazards. The Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (appendix E) gives the USGS statutory responsibility for warnings of 

geologic hazards, including “earthquakes, volcanic eruptions 

and ash clouds, landslides, mudflows, subsidence, faulting and 

fissuring of the ground surface and glacier-related processes.” 

(quote from Federal Register Note, appendix E). For many 

hazards, other Federal agencies have substantial and often 

lead roles. Thus, for some hazards, the USGS is the lead 

Federal agency with delegated statutory responsibilities over a 

range of roles; whereas for other hazards, the USGS provides 
8 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

expertise and critical monitoring data to support the statutory 

responsibilities of other Federal agencies.

To accomplish this broad hazard science and service 

mission, the USGS maintains an expert workforce of scientists and technicians in the earth sciences, hydrology, biology, 

geography, social and behavioral sciences, and other fields. 

(Appendix B provides information on hazard science within 

the USGS.) The USGS engages cooperatively with numerous 

agencies, research institutions, and organizations, in the public 

and private sectors, with stakeholders across the Nation and 

around the world. The extent, spectrum, and complexity of 

USGS partnerships are broad.

To protect the Nation, the USGS conducts science over a 

wide span of locales and timeframes. Because of commonalities among hazards worldwide, USGS hazard science for the 

United States often is critically informed by, and informative 

to, hazardous events in other countries. Even in countries with 

long written histories—and in some cases active monitoring 

programs—historical and instrumental records provide limited 

information about hazards that occur on geologic, not human, 

time scales. Thus, some recent catastrophic events were unanticipated largely because events like these have not occurred 

during the period of human documentation. The USGS conducts geological investigations of rare giant events as a way to 

expand knowledge beyond the human record and as a way to 

help anticipate such events.

Natural Hazards Science Strategy Planning 

Process

In October 2010, the USGS reorganized its structure 

around various missions, guided by the strategy outlined in 

“Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey 

Science in the Decade 2007–2011” (USGS Circular 1309; 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). The USGS mission in natural 

hazards is administratively under the Natural Hazards Mission 

Area, which serves to guide hazards science efforts throughout the USGS and to promote collaborations with numerous 

outside stakeholders. 

The Natural Hazards Science Strategy Planning Team 

(H–SSPT) was then selected and charged with developing a 

long-term (10-year) science strategy for the mission of the 

USGS in natural hazards. This Strategy is the fulfillment of 

that charge and will be used to guide implementation plans to 

be developed by the programs and regions. USGS and DOI 

leadership will use this report’s goals, actions, and articulation of priorities to develop a decadal roadmap for meeting the 

USGS mission in natural hazards.

The H–SSPT used Circular 1309 as a springboard and 

focus on how best to plan and carry out the natural hazards 

responsibilities and conducted months of discussions with 

stakeholders inside and outside the USGS. The team identified 

four cross-hazard goals required to meet mission responsibilities and the highest priority strategic actions needed to meet 

those goals. The specificity of the strategic actions is intended 

to lie between the long-range vision of Circular 1309 and the 

details of the annual and 5-year plans of the various USGS 

Programs and Projects. (The goals and strategic actions are 

listed in the Hazards Mission Goals and Actions section.)

Staffing of the H–SSPT, the charge to the H–SSPT, and 

the process used in the development of this Strategy are in 

appendix C. The extensive “listening sessions” and information exchanges within many of the USGS offices and among 

USGS partners and stakeholders, including professional societies, other Federal agencies, and selected State and academic 

entities, are in appendix D. Especially noteworthy in this 

effort was the extensive number of public contacts, within and 

outside the USGS and ranging geographically from Alaska to 

Florida.

Hazards Mission Priority Goals and Actions

The USGS conducts hazard science so that it can be used 

to inform the public and decisionmakers at all levels as they 

seek to promote public safety, reduce losses, and improve 

resilience to natural hazards. These decisionmakers need 

scientific assessments of the hazard, vulnerability, and risk to 

prepare for a potential hazardous event; and they need warnings and information for situational awareness during events. 

To create these assessments and warnings, scientists require 

a fundamental understanding of the natural processes and 

observations of the natural events. In other words, to protect 

the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation, 

the USGS needs to observe and understand hazards and use 

this information to create assessments, provide warnings, and 

inform or generate plans for anticipating and responding to 

hazardous events. Thus, this report identifies these four activities as the goals required to fulfill the USGS mission: observations, understanding, assessments, and situational awareness. 

All four goals are linked. The required inputs for all 

assessments are observations and analyses using conceptual, 

statistical, or numerical models that capture the fundamental 

understanding of hazard processes. These models characterize the expected existence, intensity, or likelihood of occurrence of a particular hazard or its consequences. These are 

formulated into assessments that inform decisions about 

mitigation and response activities. Products for situational 

awareness combine the results of assessments, observations, 

and understanding.

As an example of this linkage, consider the National 

Seismic Hazard Maps, the flagship product of the USGS 

Earthquake Program. These maps express the probability that 

a certain level of ground shaking will be experienced at every 

location in the United States over some time frame. To create 

these maps, the USGS has to gather observations of the rate of 

earthquake occurrence across the Nation, map the active faults 

and analyze the information about the faults to estimate their 

rates of motion. They must also gather information about how 

shaking decreases as it travels away from the fault, and how 

other factors may affect the levels of shaking. Observations 
Introduction 9

are analyzed with a fundamental understanding of the earthquake process to create an assessment of the hazard that is 

then used in the building code to determine what level of seismic resistance is required in different areas. The same seismic 

monitoring system that provided the information to make that 

map also provides information about new earthquakes within 

minutes of occurrence that is then used by the public and 

emergency managers for situational awareness as they prepare 

for and respond to those events. The long-term assessment is 

modified with knowledge about how one earthquake makes 

another earthquake more likely and the observation of the 

occurrence of a new event to create a short-term assessment 

that includes the possibility of aftershocks.

The four-goal framework of this report is not the only 

way that these activities might be grouped. In this report, 

assessments and situational awareness differ primarily by the 

time frames in which they are used. Certainly, “hazard assessments” can describe products used in the long term (such as 

a 100-year flood plain or a ground shaking probability map) 

and in a short-term crisis situation (such as a flood forecast 

or earthquake clustering probabilities). However, the team 

created a separate goal for situational awareness because the 

demands of a crisis require special short-term products that 

use monitoring systems (such as river stage or near-real-time 

earthquake location maps) and expert advice. Similarly, the 

boundary between observations and the analysis of the observations to increase fundamental understanding can be fuzzy; 

as is the difference between developing the science to create 

an assessment, the creation of the assessment, and channeling 

the assessment uncertainties back into new research that adds 

to fundamental understanding.

The H-SSPT considered a separate goal for communication but decided communication is so critical it should be built 

into all goals. Also, a separate goal might cause scientists to 

conclude that communication was someone else’s job. Instead, 

aspects of communication can be found throughout and are 

pronounced in assessments and situational awareness, where 

the actions emphasize that the information created for users 

must include the users in the evolution of products to better 

serve their needs.

A particular challenge was how to address the need for 

information about vulnerability and risk, not just hazard. 

Hazard is the physical process that is independent of the 

impacts on humans. Vulnerability studies draw on physical 

science, engineering, and social and behavioral sciences to 

determine what aspects of human society are vulnerable to 

damaging processes. Risk assessment combines the hazard 

with vulnerability to evaluate the probability of losses. Thus, 

risk assessment requires the physical sciences that are a core 

hazard mission strength to be combined with engineering and 

social and behavioral sciences that reside in different parts of 

the USGS, or are completely external. A message from many 

stakeholders was for the USGS to take a larger role in ensuring 

that hazards information results in accurate risk assessments 

that have broader use in the community. Recognizing that 

many aspects of vulnerability and risk analysis can be done by 

others or in partnership with others, this report treats risk as an 

integral part of hazards science and includes the research and 

development of risk assessments as one of the many types of 

assessment that are needed.

Below, a section is devoted to each goal. After defining 

the goal, we describe the core responsibilities that must be 

sustained to fulfill the USGS mission. The report then identifies key strategic actions to make progress in each goal. These 

were selected from hundreds of potential strategic actions 

identified by USGS hazards stakeholders and reported to the 

H-SSPT over the past year.

If an action is in this report, the team considers it important. Given the spectrum of hazards under consideration in this 

report, along with the broad administrative controls for funding USGS hazards science, no prioritization of the strategic 

actions in this report is given. The H-SSPT, instead, provides 

a prioritization philosophy, which when applied through the 

collaborative efforts of the USGS Executive Leadership Team, 

Program Coordinators, and Science Centers, will lead to 

effective prioritization. The highest priority should be given to 

maintaining basic and applied research, including observations 

that maintain our core responsibilities for which the USGS has 

either a statutory responsibility or is a strength that has developed as a consequence of long-standing national need. These 

are areas of USGS activity that must be safeguarded in times 

of decreased funding. Given sufficient funding to support the 

core responsibilities, the strategic actions indicate key areas 

of advancement that will have greatest impact on improved 

fundamental understanding and on the efficacy of natural 

hazard assessments and situational awareness. The H-SSPT 

recommends the prioritization of strategic actions be based on 

the degree to which the strategic action:

Observations

Understanding

Assessments

Situational

awareness

Communication

Figure 1. Four goals with communication throughout. 

This graphic conceptualizes the four goals of this Strategy. 

Assessments and situational awareness require understanding 

and observations. Communication is essential to 

all efforts.
10 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

Millions of people worldwide look to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for rapid, reliable hazard information, either directly 

or through its partners. Under the authority of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-288, see appendix E), the USGS 

has the delegated Federal responsibility to provide notifications and warnings for geologic hazards, including earthquakes, 

volcanic eruptions, and landslides. For a number of other hazards, USGS monitoring capabilities support the statuatory 

responsibilities of partners, specifically: 

•	 Data from USGS national and global seismic networks feed directly to the tsunami warning centers of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

•	 USGS streamgages and storm-surge monitors provide information for NOAA’s flood and severe weather warnings, 

including those for hurricanes. 

•	 Fourteen USGS geomagnetic observatories are used by NOAA and the U.S. Air Force to develop forecasts of geomagnetic storms caused by solar flares and other space weather. 

•	 USGS geospatial information is used in response operations for wildfires and many other types of hazardous events, 

providing crucial coordination of remote sensing and other assets. 

The USGS also is identified in these legislated mandates: 

•	 The USGS is a partner in the congressionally established four-agency National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program (NEHRP). First authorized in 1977, NEHRP strives to reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States. Last reauthorized in 2004, the NEHRP legislation identifies a number of responsibilities 

for the USGS within an umbrella statement that the USGS “shall conduct research and other activities necessary 

to characterize and identify earthquake hazards, assess earthquake risks, monitor seismic activity, and improve 

earthquake predictions.” 

•	 The USGS is a partner in the multi-agency National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, which is led by NOAA and 

includes both federal and state agencies. The Tsunami Warning and Education Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-424) 

establishes a Tsunami Forecasting and Warning Program and includes acknowledgement of the cooperative effort 

involving NOAA, USGS, and the National Science Foundation to provide rapid and reliable seismic information from 

international and domestic seismic networks. 

The USGS currently (2011) co-leads the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction 

(SDR), which supports the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and is charged with establishing clear 

national goals for Federal science and technology investments in disaster reduction, promoting interagency cooperation for natural and technological hazards and disaster planning, facilitating interagency approaches to identification and 

assessment of risk and to disaster reduction, and advising the Administration about relevant resources and the work of SDR 

member agencies.

Within the USGS, the newly established Natural Hazards Mission Area (NHMA) has direct responsibility for six programs 

that were formerly in the Geologic Discipline. These include Coastal and Marine Geology, Earthquake Hazards, Geomagnetism, the Global Seismographic Network, Landslide Hazards, and Volcano Hazards. In addition, NHMA is responsible for 

coordinating and supporting the broader hazards vision of the USGS, including activities related to floods, hurricanes and 

severe storms, tsunamis, and wildfires. Many of the activities in those hazard areas are funded through programs in other 

mission areas. Finally, NHMA will take on responsibility for coordinating USGS response activities following disasters, 

potential disasters, and hazardous events.

• Helps meet USGS core responsibilities (particularly 

statutory responsibilities).

• In a larger context, helps the federal government to 

meet its responsibilities in the hazards arena.

• Is important for risk reduction, protecting human 

health, the economy, or national security.

Role of USGS in Federal Government

• Addresses a large gap in hazards science understanding and reduces uncertainty. 

• Enhances areas where the USGS has a unique role 

and expertise.

• Holds a high potential for investment return in the 

form of improved assessments and awareness.
Goal 1: Enhanced Observations 11

Goal 1: Enhanced Observations

The USGS acquires comprehensive observations important to natural hazards to improve fundamental understanding, 

assessments, and situational awareness.

Understanding hazards begins with observations. Observations are crucial for fundamental understanding, for making 

assessments and warnings, and for the subsequent reduction of 

the impacts of hazards. The USGS observes hazardous events 

across a large range of spatial and temporal scales. Monitoring networks record continuously with sensors located across 

the landscape to create catalogs of events over time, providing 

data for scientific studies, assessments, and warnings, whereas 

surveys are discrete recordings, updated as required with 

improvements in technology or understanding. Bedrock and 

surficial geologic mapping help to determine the geological 

setting for a variety of hazards and provide key understanding 

of earthquake and tsunami hazard sources, ground shaking 

and landslide initiation, and the tectonic setting and long-term 

record of volcanism. Aeromagnetic, magnetotelluric, gravity 

and active-source seismic surveys provide unique constraints 

on subsurface geological structures and hazard sources. Longterm hazards chronologies are developed from historical and 

paleohazards studies to recognize individual events. All these 

kinds of observations are necessary to describe the hazard and 

assess the chance of future events. The community of users 

of USGS observation data is broad and varies from individual 

citizens to specialized research scientists. The agency must 

continually seek feedback and input from data user groups to 

maximize the benefit of these observations.

Core Responsibilities

To fulfill its mission and meet statutory responsibilities, 

the USGS must continue to:

• Operate monitoring networks for earthquakes, streamflow, volcanic activity and geomagnetic storms, and 

produce datasets of observations and near-real-time 

products.

• Conduct surveys, such as geological mapping and 

acquisition of geophysical data, to enable a better understanding of hazardous processes including 

sources and impacts.

• Collect the ephemeral data during hazardous events 

that will support future research to reduce loss.

• Develop long-term chronologies, with associated magnitudes, of hazardous events from both historical and 

paleohazard studies.

• Distribute this information to the wide range of users 

through a variety of data portals.

Monitoring: Monitoring takes many forms in the USGS, but 

the simplest is the development of basic observational datasets 

over time. Monitoring datasets typically consist of measurements at particular locations, and the longer the observations 

are made the more valuable the dataset. One of the distinguishing characteristics of USGS monitoring activities is the 

sustained ability to acquire, interpret, archive and disseminate 

data. The USGS runs large networks of instruments that are 

the primary source of information about earthquakes, volcanic 

activity, floods, and geomagnetic storms. Earthquake and volcano monitoring use networks of global positioning satellites 

(GPS) and arrays of other instruments to measure earth strain. 

Space weather requires real-time data streams, including those 

from geomagnetic observatories. In addition, USGS hazards 

programs deploy temporary arrays of instruments during times 

of crisis, when a disaster or hazardous event may be imminent, 

or immediately after an event has occurred, to capture ephemeral data that quickly will be lost. USGS monitoring network 

data detect volcanic unrest in advance of hazardous eruptions, detect and report hazardous events in near-real-time, 

and transmit data to other agencies. Several other agencies 

use USGS data for crucial infrastructure and public safety 

activities. For example, USGS streamflow data is used by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

for flood warning and flood forecasts and by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers for operation of the Mississippi River and 

Tributaries flood control system. NOAA also uses the USGS 

earthquake information for their tsunami warnings.

Information from monitoring networks serves three 

purposes: First, it provides awareness of the current state of 

potentially hazardous processes and systems, second, it underpins short-term forecasts, and third, it motivates and supports 

targeted research of natural hazards. Remote-sensing data are 

routinely used to monitor for wildfire and volcanic hazards. 

All USGS monitoring involves considerable partnering and 

coordination. Some monitoring needed to fulfill the USGS 

mission in hazards, such as that required for floods, overlaps 

strongly with monitoring needed by other missions of the 

USGS such as water and climate change. In other cases, the 

overlap is with multiple hazards (such as earthquake data that 

provides information about volcanoes and tsunamis). Partners 

outside the USGS are critical to USGS activities and include 

Federal, State, and local agencies, international organizations 

and private firms, who often co-fund, supply data and partner 

in operation of the networks.

Surveys: Surveys include such activities as geologic mapping 

and geophysical surveys, which are the framework for understanding hazardous processes. Bedrock geologic maps include 

interpretations from large-area geophysical surveys. Surficial 

geologic investigations examine stratigraphy and map Quaternary deposits where earthquake shaking, coastal erosion, landslides, flooding, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis interact with 

human development and the natural environment. Modern 

geologic maps are digital and often include material properties 
12 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

such as density or seismic velocity as part of an integrated 

database. The USGS also has a long history of measuring insitu stresses in boreholes, measurements that reflect the state 

of tectonic stress relevant to earthquake and volcano hazards. 

In the last two decades, the introduction of high-resolution 

lidar and multibeam swath mapping has revolutionized the 

ability to unravel complicated landscapes, and hazard history, 

on land, offshore and along the Nation’s coastlines.

Hazards chronology: Whereas direct measurements are 

accurate, and historical records provide us with an understanding of the effects of hazards on society, paleostudies of 

events occurring over geological timescales are necessary for 

assessing rare but potentially catastrophic events. The short 

time available for most instrumental hazard observations 

almost ensures that rare, extreme events are missing in hazards 

assessments. Historical and paleo datasets are complementary, 

and complete chronologies must use them in combination in 

order to estimate event occurrence likelihood and size distribution. The USGS continues to conduct a large number of 

paleohazard and historical studies to document earthquakes, 

landslides, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and space-weather 

events. This is an effort critical to improved hazard assessments and warnings.

Ephemeral Data are perishable and transient. That is, when 

hazardous events occur or threaten, there is a short time period 

when we can collect certain data. Observing what happens as 

events unfold can provide critical data about earth processes 

and what happens to society that cannot be obtained at any 

other time. High water marks from storm surge after a hurricane or tsunami, what a building does during strong earthquake shaking, ashfall following an eruption, liquefaction after 

an earthquake, and environmental changes due to an event are 

all examples of ephemeral data. 

Distribution: A core responsibility is to distribute data from 

observations to appropriate users. USGS monitoring networks 

have a broad base of users who obtain information from the 

web, portable devices, and other methods. All of these data 

are used by the larger scientific community, industry and local 

government. For example, a network of GPS sensors, run 

by the earthquake program, is used by local surveyors as a 

baseline.

Strategic Actions

1. Enhance the existing monitoring networks. Monitoring 

systems need to be continually upgraded to ensure they 

operate reliably during significant events and are fully 

interoperable with other agencies that rely on uninterrupted data flow from the USGS, improving their use for 

situational awareness and issuance of warnings. Priorities 

include: 

a. Maintain the existing national leadership and 

coordination of Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), Global Seismic Network (GSN) and 

National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) 

to ensure the networks do not devolve from national 

networks to disparate regional networks. Completing 

the ANSS, including the ground motion monitoring 

and building instrumentation components. Completing the upgrade to the Global Seismic Network to 

allow better detection and reporting of global seismicity, including potential tsunami generation.

b. Partner closely with the Water Mission Area to 

expand NSIP, in order to accomplish its purposes 

and goals as described in the program plan (http://

pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/ofr99456/). Cooperating with 

the DOI and Water Mission Area to meet a DOI goal 

to secure 30 percent federal NSIP funding for the 

streamgaging network by 2016.

c. Implement a multi-sensor volcano monitoring 

system as outlined in the National Volcano Early 

Warning System (NVEWS) Implementation Plan.

d. Improve geomagnetic monitoring by integrating and 

promoting near-real-time foreign geomagnetic feeds 

and supporting magnetic-observatory operations in 

the Pacific, at the South Pole, and internationally.

e. Expand operation and analysis of GPS sensors and 

data for geodetic monitoring with scientific partners.

f. Cooperate with the Water Mission Area to expand 

and formalize the use of storm-surge sensors for hurricanes and tsunamis, and rapid deployment gages 

for flooding and in the aftermath of major wildfire 

burns.

2. Improve the use of monitoring information. To ensure 

better use, the USGS needs to improve near-real-time 

delivery of data and develop new tools for use of these 

data, merge existing critical time series and establish 

clear paths to use these new data for analyzing hazardous 

events and processes. Priorities include:

a. Ensure real-time (24x7) operational continuity of all 

critical monitoring networks to provide assurance of 

real-time data dissemination to improve warnings 

and situational awareness.

b. Support coordinated and innovative multi-sensor 

monitoring of targeted natural hazard “laboratories,” 

such as earthquake-fault systems and volcanoes.

c. Develop ways to merge disparate data streams and 

resulting analysis to provide a more complete situational awareness product, particularly for earthquake, volcano and tsunami monitoring and warnings.
Goal 1: Enhanced Observations 13

d. Establish a cross-hazard/cross-Mission Area working 

group to define the operational requirements for collection, processing, archiving, analysis, and timely 

distribution of remote-sensing information related to 

hazards and disasters. 

e. Expand linkages with other monitoring networks, 

internally and externally, to enhance efficiency and 

interoperability. Explore whether partnerships (such 

as those developed by Core Science Systems) can 

make hazard data more readily discoverable and 

used. An example would be the current effort toward 

interoperability of hydrologic data by the Integrated 

Water Resources Science and Services (IWRSS) 

Consortium, of which USGS is a part. 

f. Continue innovative web distribution of hazard 

information, especially the development of a single 

portal for multiple hazards.

3. Take advantage of rapidly changing technology. Effective monitoring depends on the technology used and 

the ability to adapt to changes. The USGS should keep 

updated about new technology and mold and integrate 

these new technologies to enhance and improve fundamental understanding, assessments, and warnings. Priorities include:

a. Expand the acquisition, use, and analysis of current 

and future generations of geophysical-survey data 

and remote-sensing data for hazard monitoring and 

event response. Many hazard studies require highresolution surface morphology, which can be realized through lidar and multi-beam swath bathymetry. 

b. Foster development of new technologies specific to 

particular hazards, such as those that are portable, 

smart, and cost effective systems.

c. Promote cross-hazard communication among 

operational and technical development personnel 

concerning new opportunities arising from changing 

technology in instrument development, data acquisition, data transmission, data management, and data 

processing.

4. Improve overall data quality standards. For its data 

to be useful, the USGS must continue and expand data 

quality-assurance efforts. Priorities include:

a. Set quality-assurance and metadata standards and 

best practices for collecting long-term hazard data 

sets.

b. Ensure that both the USGS and the partners who 

help populate USGS databases collect all data to 

these standards.

c. Curate data for quality control and ensure that any 

updates are documented properly.

d. Provide for timely public display of data using web 

technology.

e. Provide adequate flexibility in standards enforcement so as not to interfere with monitoring for 

research purposes.

5. Expand earth framework observations. Natural hazards 

occur within geologic, hydrologic and ecologic frameworks. The characteristics of these frameworks are important in understanding the frequency, physical mechanisms 

and impacts of the events. Earth framework observations 

are needed on a periodic basis and often are most effectively and efficiently carried out in partnership with others, especially NSF-supported earth framework projects 

and surveys in other Mission Areas. Priorities include: 

a. Bedrock geologic mapping, land and seafloor 

morphology, and other map-base coverage needed 

to support hazard assessments including those for 

coastal erosion, earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic 

eruptions.

b. Vegetation, land use, soil cover and other surficial 

geology along with the underlying geotechnical data 

which are a critical requirement for fundamental 

understanding of hazard processes along with the 

production of modern, reliable hazard maps.

c. Aeromagnetic and gravity surveys which need to be 

expanded across much of the nation in support of a 

3-D view of earth structure, in order to understand 

ground shaking potential in urban areas, shallow 

magmatic plumbing systems, volcano-tectonic interactions, volcanic edifice collapse, and fault systems. 

d. Coordination across Mission Areas. Many of the 

efforts require substantial cross-Mission-Area coordination and support in order to improve mapping 

and data quality, and to reduce redundancy and costs.

6. Improve data collection during and after hazardous 

events. The USGS should improve the scientific response 

during and immediately after hazardous events. Priorities 

include the capacity to:

a. Stage and rapidly deploy instrumentation at the onset 

of a hazardous event.

b. Collect ephemeral data, such as high water marks, 

ash fall, damage to the built environment, landslide 

locations, and other data pertinent to response and 

recovery.

c. Fund and staff rapid deployment of expert field 

teams to collect data.
14 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Volcano Hazards Program (VHP) monitors the nation’s volcanoes, in order to warn and 

inform those in harm’s way. VHP also develops testable models for how volcanoes work to improve hazard assessments 

and eruption forecasts. The combination of planning, monitoring, and forecasting can prevent an eruption from becoming 

a disaster. The National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS) is a bold, strategic vision that will modernize and improve 

VHP service to the Nation, through real-time monitoring, a 24x7 capacity to detect volcanic unrest and issue warnings, 

high-quality data for hazards analysis and research, an external grants program to engage the broader scientific community 

in VHP’s mission, and more effective work with cooperators, emergency managers, and stakeholders, including the public. 

Importantly, the NVEWS plan ranks and prioritizes volcanoes for additional instrumentation based on their eruptive history, relative exposure of communities and infrastructure, and the status of existing monitoring networks. NVEWS already 

has improved interoperability among the five U.S. volcano observatories, enhanced high priority monitoring networks, 

and initiated planning to provide improved 24-hour seismic alerting capacity in cooperation with the National Earthquake 

Information Center. Full NVEWS implementation will require time and new resources. However, the program is designed to 

make incremental improvements as funding allows, and to redirect resources, if needed, during volcanic unrest. In concert 

with strong ongoing USGS research on volcanic processes and hazards, the NVEWS focus on vigilance, early warning, and 

preparedness will significantly reduce our national exposure to volcano hazards.

7. Expand hazard chronology and magnitude distribution studies. This action better defines probabilities of 

hazardous event occurrence by drawing on the historical 

and geologic records. This work links to Core Science 

Systems and Energy and Minerals by encouraging geologic studies aimed at establishing paleogeologic records 

and their geologic framework. Priorities include:

a. Paleoflood studies of river systems, in collaboration with the Water Mission Area, to determine the 

chronologies of flood peaks. Increased effort should 

be made for river systems east of the 100th meridian.

b. Paleo-landslide and wildfire chronology studies that 

will examine the link between climate change, landslide activity, and wildfire occurrence.

NVEWS: Living Safely With Active Volcanoes

c. Paleo-earthquake studies to examine hazards in areas 

where hazardous events are poorly understood but 

where there is high vulnerability. Examples of such 

areas are the eastern and central United States, and 

areas with unusual ground motion response.

d. Paleo-investigations of strong earthquake ground 

motion effects, uplift and subsidence, and fault 

motions.”

e. Geologic investigations of eruptive histories of high 

priority volcanoes, including bedrock mapping, tephrochronology, and related petrologic and magmatic 

system studies.

f. Field and modeling studies of earthquake tsunami 

sources in America’s subduction zones and past 

tsunami wave runups along the Nations’s shorelines. 

Figure 2. A, Map of 169 young volcanoes in the United States. B, Photograph of eruption in progress, Redoubt volcano, Alaska, 

2009.

A B
Goal 1: Enhanced Observations 15

11 March 2011, in Northern Japan

This M9 earthquake and huge tsunami caused what Japan’s 

Prime Minister called the worst disaster to strike Japan 

since World War II, with 15,000 dead or missing, economic 

losses approaching $0.6 trillion, and a catastrophic nuclear 

accident. The tsunami waves also caused an estimated 

$120 million in losses in the United States. Japanese design 

and construction standards for earthquake resistance are 

very high and this earthquake produced little structural 

damage. Japan was ready for this earthquake, but had 

underestimated the possible height of tsunami waves. Thus, 

tsunami mitigation measures in northeastern Japan provided inadequate protection, resulting in huge losses.

The Japanese catastrophe left many in the United States 

asking whether such earthquakes and tsunamis are possible here. In the Pacific Northwest, the answer is yes. 

Earthquakes of this magnitude and tsunamis with comparable run-up are expected along the Cascadia subduction 

zone. However, during the last decade, scientific discoveries led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and community preparations based on this new science, have greatly 

increased Cascadia’s readiness.

26 January 1700, Pacific Northwest U.S.

As recently as 1975, the Cascadia subduction zone offshore of Washington, Oregon, and northern California was 

considered a quiet place with no known great earthquakes 

and few events recorded by modern seismic networks. By 

A Tale of Two Giant Earthquakes and Their Tsunamis

g. Event chronologies in the marine environment 

developed with a new generation of high-resolution 

offshore surveys through sediment coring, seismic 

surveys and “acoustic trenching,” and geophysical 

data collection.

h. Coordination in the Natural Hazards Mission Area 

to support new methods development through 

cross-hazards workshops and creation of a standing 

“Working Group for Paleo-Hazards.”

i. Magnetic-storm chronologies and individual storm 

histories.

1987, investigations pioneered by the USGS identified a 

chronology of seven M8 to M9 earthquakes and associated 

tsunamis over the last 3,500 years, showing that giant earthquakes have struck repeatedly. Tree ring dating showed 

the most recent event occurred between August 1699 and 

May 1700. The date was pinpointed after some remarkable 

scientific sleuthing. Tsunami inundations at five Japanese 

coastal towns began at about midnight local time on January 27, 1700, yet no one in Japan felt the ground shake, 

suggesting a distant tsunami source. Computer modeling 

of tsunami wave travel showed that only a M~9 subduction earthquake in Cascadia on January 26, 1700, could 

have produced Japan’s inundation patterns and timing of 

damage. 

Fortunately, scientists have recognized the Cascadia 

hazard. The Cascadia chronology of giant prehistoric 

earthquakes and tsunamis is now the longest record in the 

world, with 20 events known over the past 10,000 years. This 

detailed record transformed Cascadia’s hazard assessment and prompted continuing planning and preparedness 

that, so far, includes installation of tsunami warning sirens, 

creation of tsunami inundation maps, establishment of 

tsunami evacuation routes, scenarios, and considerable 

local training. However, the experience in Japan shows that 

low probability tsunamis with unexpectedly large waves 

cannot be ruled out in Cascadia, and that complacency or 

overconfidence about precautions can lead to losses of life 

and property.

Figure 3. Tsunami wave inundating a coastal town in Japan 

on March 11, 2011.

Figure 4. A, Coastal forest drowned by subsidence caused 

by the 1700 earthquake. B, Tsunami deposits for the 1700 and 

earlier prehistoric tsunamis.

A

B
16 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program requires the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to assess the Nation’s seismic 

hazards. The USGS assessment, known as the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps, is adopted by the Building Seismic Safety 

Council (BSSC) and incorporated as part of the seismic 

provisions in the country’s model building codes. This is the 

only USGS hazard assessment that is developed nationally 

and incorporated into legal statutes. In addition, the National 

Seismic Hazard maps and their datasets underpin nearly all 

earthquake risk assessments done in the United States, inform 

insurance rate structures, and play a key role in other public 

policy decisions. 

The USGS updates the maps about every 6 years, which 

ensures that the “best available science” moves into the 

periodic renewal of building codes and becomes public policy. 

Updating the National Maps is a major effort that involves many 

people and organizations. In a given update cycle, the USGS 

and its partners in academia and the private sector typically 

discuss new discoveries about the behavior of faults and 

potential seismic sources, consider improved estimates of seismic wave attenuation, new approaches for hazard calculations 

and better explanation of uncertainty. The thorough discussion 

of inputs is followed by extensive peer review. The USGS will 

begin the next update cycle in 2012, to deliver updated maps to 

the BSSC in 2013.

A key input to the USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps, 

which help engineers develop safer building practices for 

the country’s earthquake-prone regions, is information from 

the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). To record 

and locate all earthquakes of magnitude 3.5 or greater in the 

lower 48 states, the ANSS includes a backbone network of the 

National Earthquake Information Center, the National Strong 

Motion Project, and in areas of higher activity, 15 regional 

seismic networks operated by the USGS and its partners. 

Congress has charged the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to 

build ANSS to: 

•	 Continuously monitor earthquakes and other seismic disturbances throughout the United States, including earthquakes that may cause a tsunami or precede a volcanic 

eruption, with special focus on regions of moderate to high 

hazard and risk. 

•	 Thoroughly measure strong earthquake shaking at ground 

sites and in buildings and critical structures. Focus is 

largely in urban areas and near major active fault zones. 

•	 Automatically broadcast information when a significant 

earthquake occurs, for immediate assessment of its impact. 

ANSS has greatly improved the delivery of critical seismic 

data to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s tsunami warning centers, for monitoring of the active 

volcanoes, and for situational awareness of emergency 

managers. In regions with sufficient seismic stations, within 

minutes that information includes a ShakeMap (fig. 6) 

showing the distribution of potentially damaging ground 

shaking.

U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps: From USGS Science to a More Resilient Nation

Figure 5. Distribution of ANSS backbone stations shown on 

the National Seismic Hazard Map where hot colors represent 

areas of higher hazard. High hazard areas exist in many parts of 

the nation.

Figure 6. ShakeMap for the 2011 magnitude 5.8 earthquake 

in Virginia, which caused widespread damage and 

evacuations. The ShakeMap shows expected intensity of 

ground shaking and allows emergency managers to quickly 

assess location and severity of most likely damage. The ANSS 

system automatically generates ShakeMaps, usually within 

a few minutes after a large earthquake occurs, then updates 

the maps as more observations become available. When fully 

implemented, ANSS will produce ShakeMaps for all of the 

Nation’s highest-at-risk areas.
Goal 2: Fundamental Understanding of Hazards and Impacts 17

Goal 2: Fundamental Understanding of 

Hazards and Impacts

The USGS advances and applies fundamental understanding of natural hazards to improve assessments and situational awareness.

Understanding the processes that produce hazards and 

risk is the framework that guides pursuit of all three other 

goals. Fundamental understanding provides not only guidance about what to observe and where to observe hazardous 

events, processes, and their sources, and to what accuracy, 

It also enables quantitative assessment of long-term hazards 

and risks, and provides a scientific basis for forecasts, warnings, and post-event information that go beyond short-term 

observations.

Observations of hazard processes and effects are interpreted using applied physics and chemistry, modern earthscience principles, experimental geoscience, and mathematics, 

including statistics. Using these tools, advances in hazard 

science at the USGS throughout the past decades have come 

from statistical analysis of data collected on hazardous events 

and from the testing and improvement of conceptual and 

quantitative theories of natural hazards processes in light of 

new observations.

Whereas the USGS has a leadership role in this arena, 

there are many efforts outside the agency, primarily within the 

academic community, that have similar interests and meaningful resources. Efforts to communicate and coordinate with the 

larger community should be a high priority.

Magnetic storms begin in space but can have serious consequences on Earth. They are caused by the dynamic interaction 

of the solar wind with the magnetosphere, defined by the extent of the Earth’s magnetic field in space, and the ionosphere, 

the electrically conducting part of the Earth’s atmosphere. The largest storm of the 20th century occurred on March 13–14, 

1989. This storm induced electric currents in the Earth’s crust that found their way through ground connections into the 

high-voltage Canadian Hydro-Québec power grid, causing transformer failure and resulting in the loss of electric power to 

more than 6 million people. The same storm also damaged and disrupted the operation of satellites and it severely disrupted 

GPS systems and over-the-horizon radio communication systems used by the U.S. military. The storm of March 1989, large 

though it was, pales in comparison to that of September 1859, when the largest storm in recorded history occurred. If such 

a storm were to occur today, the economic impact to the United States because of disrupted technological systems could 

exceed $1 trillion (Baker and others, 2008). Indeed, it is on, or just above, the surface of the Earth that the practical effects 

of space weather are 

realized. Therefore, 

ground-based sensor networks play 

an important role in 

space-weather monitoring and magnetic 

observatories operated 

by the U.S. Geological 

Survey are an integral 

part of the National 

Space Weather 

Program, a partnership that includes the 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, the National 

Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, 

the National Science 

Foundation, and the 

U.S. Air Force.

Magnetic Storms and Space Weather

Figure 7. Schematic of the Sun, the solar dynamo, the solar wind, and the Earth’s magnetosphere.
18 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

Core Responsibilities

To fulfill its mission and meet statutory responsibilities, the USGS must continue to conduct, sustained research 

targeted to societally relevant goals, that can:

• Increase understanding of the underlying physical 

processes that produce the hazard and determine where 

and under what conditions hazards occur.

• Uphold the tradition of innovation in instrumentation, 

measurement and experimental techniques.

• Foster USGS scientific expertise to provide expert 

advice as needed in crisis and noncrisis situations.

• Publish results with peer review and distribute to 

appropriate audiences through relevant mechanisms.

Scientific research and technical development staff within 

the hazards mission of the USGS are supported through modern laboratory facilities, library and information-technology 

services, and, of course, funding to hire new staff and to promote the work of the staff. Most important, perhaps, is the culture within the USGS that encourages curiosity, the pursuit of 

new ideas, and the communication and publication of results 

and products that improve the ability to respond to hazards.

Hazard science research at the USGS encompasses the 

understanding of an impressive diversity of physical phenomena. In some ways, the fundamental scientific research undertaken within the various hazards projects are each distinctively 

different. But in other ways, there are important commonalities, in terms of the underlying physical processes, and 

methods scientists use to pursue their research. These themes 

of commonality represent opportunities for cross-hazard and 

cross-mission collaborative research, both within the USGS 

and externally. Common themes also are useful for identifying 

expertise gaps in the development of staffing plans.

Physical process expertise: USGS research into natural 

processes leading to hazards have extensive commonalities of 

underlying physics. For example, classical continuum mechanics is important for understanding the behavior of solids and 

their brittle failure, plastic deformation, and fluid flow and 

turbulence that are relevant to research in such subjects as 

plate tectonics, streamflow, landslide initiation and movement, 

earthquake initiation and fault processes, and magmatic intrusion and volcanic eruptions. Understanding the behavior of 

mixtures of solid particles and fluids, and liquid-gas mixtures 

is important for research into coastal erosion, landslides, 

airborne volcanic ash, volcanic eruption dynamics, and riversediment, tsunami, and flood dynamics. Wave propagation is 

fundamental to the sciences of seismology, tsunamis, and geomagnetism. Process-based analysis often is conducted using 

analytical and numerical analysis methods.

Regional expertise and event-driven research: When 

faced with a natural hazardous event that threatens people 

and communities, the Nation looks to the USGS to explain 

the hazard processes, impacts, and the fundamental science 

behind these insights. The credibility and depth of knowledge 

that USGS scientists possess about specific hazard sources on 

the landscape is unique and highly valued. To maintain this 

stature, the USGS must support detailed, long-term investigations by teams of scientists that become the Nation’s resource 

for place-based hazard expertise. Similarly, to speak about 

hazardous processes and impacts with authority, these same 

scientists must where possible witness hazardous events and 

their aftermaths and pursue targeted research during and after 

hazardous events.

Data analysis: USGS scientists use a variety of data analysis 

techniques. Statistical methods are used to analyze hazard 

chronologies and the spatial distribution of events. For example, the probability of earthquake mainshock occurrence often 

is modeled as a stationary process, whereas the probability of 

aftershocks is modeled in terms of transient temporal clustering. Particularly challenging is the analysis of extreme events, 

for which occurrence in time is rare but the hazardous effects 

can be devastating. The time evolution of hazardous processes 

can be studied through time-series analysis. These often are 

applied to continuous data streams acquired from earthquake, 

streamflow, volcano, and geomagnetic monitoring networks. 

Both statistical and time-series analysis methods are important 

for the development of new diagnostic tools used for nearreal-time hazard monitoring and post-event assessment.

Vulnerability and risk analysis: Research engineers and 

geographers, and social and behavioral scientists within the 

USGS pursue vulnerability and risk analysis by leveraging 

USGS hazard information. Hazard vulnerability and risk 

research is vital to providing feedback to hazard researchers, 

collaborating with experts to translate scientific information 

for decision making and supporting numerous agencies and 

consultants that conduct risk analyses for communities and 

sectors. Vulnerability and risk research needs to involve earth 

scientists. Partnerships are important for providing expertise 

from other USGS Mission Areas (regarding human health, 

ecosystem services, water quality and quantity, projected land 

use and cover change), other agencies, engineering expertise, 

social and behavioral scientists, and users. Collaborative 

research activity includes developing knowledge and tools to 

assess vulnerability and risk from hazard assessments; estimating environmental, social, and economic consequences of multiple hazard scenarios; and investigating causes of damages, 

losses, and impacts of rare and large events worldwide.

Innovative instruments, measurements, and experiment 

techniques: Scientists, engineers, and technicians within the 

USGS pursue important innovative measurement, instrument 

development, and experimental work in support of scientific 

understanding and hazards monitoring and warnings, and 

these activities have led to important improvements in hazard 

monitoring and warning capability. Many of the equipment 

innovations often have been in collaboration with the private 

sector. Priority areas for the USGS and its partners include:
Goal 2: Fundamental Understanding of Hazards and Impacts 19

• Advances in monitoring of land-surface deformation 

with GPS and InSAR.

• Applying new mapping technologies to ensure data 

products characterizing wildland fuels and burn severity are current and high quality.

• Field-scale experiments of debris flows.

• Innovative monitoring of landslide hydrology and 

movement.

• Innovations and improvements of seismic monitors and 

reporting.

• Enhanced space-weather analysis techniques.

• Application of Doppler radar to characterize volcanic 

ash clouds.

• Development of acoustic Doppler instruments to 

rapidly measure streamflow and provide detailed threedimensional velocity profiles.

• Advanced laboratory experiments of subsurface geologic processes, including fault friction and permeability and volcanic eruption dynamics.

• Research and applied science on riverine and coastal 

erosion hazards.

Strategic Actions

The USGS must support the fundamental research that 

will improve the quality and timeliness of assessment and 

warning products. The following are frontier research areas 

that are critical for future improvements and advances.

How big? How often? These are key questions confronting scientists, engineers and public policy officials facing 

hazards posed by riverine flooding. The U.S. Geological 

Survey streamflow measurement program helps to answer 

these questions by measuring the magnitude and frequency 

of high flows on many of the Nation’s streams and rivers. At 

some places, measurements extend more than 100 years, 

and many of these long duration records allow reasonable 

estimation for floods that have not happened in the memories of many communities. In some instances, the observed 

flood record is insufficient, because measurements are 

absent, time spans are too short, the records do not show 

consistent patterns, or because operators of critical structures like dams and nuclear facilities need estimates that 

include exceptionally rare floods.

Scientists and engineers can look back in time with an 

approach called paleoflood hydrology, which finds and interprets flood indicators, the physical evidence floods leave 

in their wake, then makes quantitative inferences about 

unobserved or unmeasured floods. Flood indicators include 

physical effects on vegetation and various types of geologic 

evidence, with the best data from layered deposits in areas 

of slack water. Some paleoflood records, such as those in 

Black Hills, South Dakota, extend back thousands of years, 

far exceeding any stream measurement record. Resulting 

inferences include timing, magnitude, and frequency of individual floods at specific sites or for specific rivers. Findings 

from paleoflood studies inform flood hazard assessments, as 

well as understanding of the linkages between climate, land 

use, and flood frequency.

Figure 9. Stratigraphic sequence of three sandy flood 

deposits separated by rockfall and colluvium high along the 

canyon margin flanking Spring Creek in the Black Hills of South 

Dakota. The uppermost deposit was left by the devastating 

flood of June 9, 1972 that affected the central eastern Black 

Hills. Underlying coarser and thicker deposits indicate an even 

larger flood radiocarbon dated to AD 1300–1400.

Figure 8. Examples of flood indicators potentially providing 

evidence of flood magnitude and frequency.

Ancient Floods Provide New Information
20 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

1. Promote targeted research on physical hazard initiation processes. Predictions of many hazards, including 

earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and 

magnetic storms, are limited because of the lack of understanding of the physical process leading to their initiation. 

Important research questions include:

a. What controls the onset, duration, style and magnitude of a hazardous event?

b. How well do observations reflect the physical processes of hazard initiation?

c. What new observations are needed to discriminate 

between alternative models?

2. Promote research on extreme events. Most hazard 

assessment deals with the problem of predicting the 

probability of rare, extreme events from limited information on occurrence based on the instrumental and historical observations of smaller, more frequent events. This 

requires analysis of Quaternary geological, ice-core, 

paleo, and historical records of hazardous events to extend 

and increase the content of the observational record, such 

that extreme events are included. The extension of the 

records will reduce uncertainty in the underlying probability distribution and provide empirical information to 

assess the potential and magnitude of the infrequent large 

events. Important research questions include:

a. To what extent can rare events, such as large earthquakes or magnetic storms, be described as being 

random? 

b. How should scientists characterize the frequency 

of occurrence and extent of hazards, such as floods, 

hurricanes, and wildfires, especially when considering nonstationarity caused by climate fluctuations?

c. What are the impacts of extreme events as portrayed 

in physically realistic scenarios?

d. What are the occurrences of extreme events in 

unstudied areas with high risk (for example, earthquakes in the central United States)?

3. Promote research about natural hazard vulnerability, 

risk estimation, and communication. USGS focus and 

investment in vulnerability and risk assessments varies across hazards depending on statutory requirements, 

maturity of the science, and need. Important research 

questions to be addressed include how to:

a. formulate results of physical science research into 

information useful to vulnerability and risk analyses?

Remote Alaska offers an unparalleled setting in which to 

study natural hazards that threaten our Nation and the World. 

Frequent large earthquakes, volcanic unrest, floods, landslides, 

fire, coastal retreat, and tsunami in Alaska can be examined to 

test and improve forecasts of hazards in more populated areas. 

Alaska has one of the highest rates of seismicity and great 

earthquakes worldwide. Five of these generated local tsunamis 

with wave heights greater than 10 meters. The 1946 tsunami 

sent destructive waves across the Pacific Basin as far as 

Antarctica and the great earthquake of 1964 resulted in tsunami 

fatalities in Oregon, California, and Hawai`i as well as Alaska. 

In the last 10,000 years, 90 volcanoes have erupted, generating 

8 of the planet’s 25 largest Holocene eruptions. Flooding due to 

ice-dam failure, ice-jams, and heavy snowmelt have produced 

some of the largest flood events on record. In addition to threatening communities in Alaska, these hazards endanger one of 

the world’s largest fisheries, critical oil and gas infrastructure, 

and north-Pacific shipping on which our Nation depends. This 

geologically active region of hazard superlatives also presents a tremendous opportunity. Leveraging new and existing 

partnerships, international interest in regional hazard studies, 

and a National Science Foundation initiative in Alaska over 

the next decade, the USGS can make fundamental progress in 

broadly applicable hazard science by investing in Alaska, the 

Last Frontier.

Alaska: A Geohazards Natural Laboratory for the Nation

Figure 10. Map of Alaska showing historically active 

volcanoes (filled black triangles) and large earthquakes

(yellow dots scaled by magnitude). Approximate areas of great 

subduction earthquake rupture are shown in pink with year 

of occurrence. Gray stripes: magnetic anomalies indicative of 

incoming Pacific Plate age. Red lines: major active faults. White 

arrows show directions of relative plate motion with rates in 

mm/year. Map by Peter Haeussler, USGS.
Goal 2: Fundamental Understanding of Hazards and Impacts 21

b. estimate the environmental, economic, and social 

consequences including cascading impacts associated with hazardous events?

c. estimate natural hazard vulnerability, risk, and resilience?

d. most effectively communicate vulnerability and risk 

to encourage appropriate actions?

4. Encourage interchange of ideas in research about 

the role of fluids in physical processes. Some of the 

most important issues in a multitude of hazards phenomena, and in other Mission Areas, involve geological and 

geophysical fluid flows. Important research questions are 

wide-ranging and include:

a. Role of multi-phase fluids in magmatic systems and 

volcanic processes.

b. Multi-dimensional hydraulic modeling of river and 

flood processes and their measurement technology.

c. Subsurface hydrology interactions with volcanic, 

earthquake, landslide and subsidence processes.

d. Coastal processes, including hurricane and tsunami 

runup and inundation. 

e. Role of fluids along faults in the initiation of earthquakes.

f. Terrain-following flows such as debris, tsunami and 

pyroclastic flows.

5. Promote research in the triggering and interaction 

of multiple hazard processes. Each hazard is governed 

by physical processes that can trigger other hazards and 

amplify effects. For example, earthquakes trigger landslides that can set off tsunamis or cause liquefaction that 

destroys more buildings. The USGS should expand the 

research into the nature of the triggering and interaction of 

multiple hazards. Important research questions include:

a. What is the interaction of different hazards? 

b. What parts of the Nation are most vulnerable to triggered hazards?

c. How are the probabilities, uncertainties, and potential impacts of triggered hazards best defined and 

depicted?

Debris flows are fast-moving landslides that cause death and 

destruction every year. However, precise prediction of when or 

where debris flows will occur, and how large they will grow, is 

currently (2011) beyond our understanding. Scientific study of 

debris flows has been hampered by their unpredictable timing, 

location and magnitude, which make systematic observation 

and measurement of these events difficult and dangerous. To 

increase scientific understanding despite these realities, the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the U.S. 

Forest Service, constructed a unique experimental facility 

near Eugene, Oregon, for studying debris flows in a controlled 

environment. The USGS debris-flow flume, operated by the 

Cascade Volcano Observatory, offers unmatched opportunities 

to examine the physical processes of and controls on landslide 

and debris flow initiation, mobility and magnitude. Experimental 

work performed at the flume has fundamentally advanced the 

understanding of debris-flow and landslide process mechanics, 

motivating the development and improvement of hazard assessment and forecasting tools such as assessment of debris flow 

hazard from volcanoes.

Examining the Controls on Debris-Flow Initiation, Mobility, and Magnitude

Figure 11. Photographs of the USGS debris-flow flume during 

an experiment to examine entrainment, or the process by which 

debris flows grow in size, velocity, and potential impact. The 

flume is about 95 meters long and is inclined at 31 degrees. Flow 

discharges at about 10 meters per second onto the concrete run-out pad, where a 1-meter grid provides scale. 

Inset photo shows the agitated flow front encountering bed sediment about 20 meters downslope from the flume headgate.
22 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

d. What controls the distribution, size, and impacts of 

landslides induced by earthquakes?

e. What controls the location, frequency, and magnitude of tsunamigenic landslides?

f. How does storm surge affect coastal erosion?

Earthquake prediction, the ability to forecast that there is a high probability of a large earthquake in a limited area and time, 

has been an elusive goal because none of the studies of small earthquakes, geodetic measurements, geo-electric signals, 

geochemistry, nor any other data have revealed reliable patterns that precede damaging earthquakes. However, scientists 

have recognized one useful pattern in time and space—

that earthquakes cluster. In other words, each earthquake 

makes another earthquake more likely. In most cases the 

resulting, triggered events are smaller than the first event 

and scientists call them aftershocks. But the pattern is 

more general and can be used to predict an increase in the 

probability of earthquakes over greater distances and larger 

magnitudes than an aftershock sequence. Although the 

probabilities of a larger event are small—around 5 percent 

in a week—they represent a many-fold increase compared 

to the probability before the cluster began. This capability 

has been exploited to create an operational earthquake 

forecasting system that calculates changes in earthquake 

probability over a region and publishes the results in nearreal-time online. Such a system can only exist in areas with 

high-performance monitoring networks, the best of the 

Advance National Seismic System.

Real-time earthquake forecasts require all four of the goals 

in this Strategy: monitoring uses fundamental understanding 

to create assessments for better situational awareness.

Today’s Chance of an Earthquake: Real-time Forecasts from the Advanced National Seismic 

System

Figure 12. Example of earthquake forecasting. These maps 

shows the probability of reaching or exceeding shaking 

intensity that can cause damage (MMI VI) in the 24 hours after 

May 25, 2003, 2:07 a.m., PDT. The left frame is the background 

hazard based on the 1996 USGS hazard maps for California. The 

center frame is the time-dependent hazard that exceeds the 

background from several events including 2003 San Simeon, 

1992/1999 Landers/Hector Mine: 1994 Northridge; and 1989 

Loma Prieta. The right frame is the combination of these two 

contributions, representing the total forecast of the likelihood of 

ground shaking in the next 24-hr period.
Goal 2: Fundamental Understanding of Hazards and Impacts 23

Massive avalanches of rock and debris can result from 

the collapse of the flank of a volcano. The chance of flank 

collapse may increase when hot fluids weaken and alter 

the rocks of the volcano edifice. At Mount Rainier volcano (fig. 13), near the city and suburbs of Tacoma in the 

State of Washington, past collapses of hydrothermally 

altered rocks have generated debris flows that have 

traveled long distances. Future occurrences of collapse 

and consequent debris flows threaten areas that are 

now (2011) densely populated. To better understand this 

threat, the USGS has combined detailed geologic mapping with geophysical data to create a three-dimensional 

model of rock strength at Mt. Rainier. This model is 

critical for accurate assessment of the stability of the volcano edifice and provides a means to estimate collapse 

volume, an important constraint on debris-flow travel 

distance and hazard. Such analyses provide a means to 

improve hazard assessments for the surrounding region.

Using Aerogeophysical Mapping and 3D Analysis to Define Collapse-Prone Areas of 

Volcanoes

Figure 13. Mount Ranier, Washington, and communities in the 

Tacoma area.

Figure 14. Perspective views of A, three-dimensional geological model of Mount Rainier indicating relative degree of 

hydrothermal alteration, and B, results of three-dimensional slope-stability analysis. Relative degree of alteration was used 

as a proxy for rock strength in the stability analysis. Relatively stable areas are shown in cool colors and relatively less stable 

areas are show in in warm colors.
24 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

Goal 3: Improved Assessment Products 

and Services

The USGS develops assessments of natural hazards, 

vulnerability and risk to inform decisions that can mitigate 

adverse consequences.

Assessments are a practical tool for decisionmakers to 

increase risk-wise behavior and a primary way that the USGS 

can communicate hazard science. Assessments can address 

natural hazards, vulnerability, and risk. 

Natural hazard assessments identify what is known and 

what is uncertain about past, ongoing, or future hazardous 

events. Hazard assessments can describe recurrence intervals 

and probabilities of occurrence, speed of onset, magnitude, 

duration and spatial extent. For some hazards, assessments 

can provide information (for example, maps) to answer specific questions that are often constrained by time-frame (for 

example, what is the probability of a hazardous event in the 

next 100 years or in the next 5 minutes?), and location (for 

example, is location A less exposed to hazards than location B?). Society benefits from hazard assessment by using 

them to understand and minimize vulnerabilities, and risks, 

and enhance resilience to natural hazards. Vulnerability assessments estimate the susceptibility of the population, the built 

environment, economic activity, and ecosystems to damage 

and disruption from natural hazardous events. Vulnerability 

assessments may include maps of the exposure of populations, businesses, infrastructure, and valuable resources to 

hazards. Vulnerability assessments include characterizations of 

damages, disruptions, and economic losses to specific hazard 

scenarios. Risk assessments combine hazard and vulnerability 

assessments to describe the nature and likelihood of possible 

future hazardous events.

Core Responsibilities

To fulfill its mission and statutory responsibilities, the 

USGS must continue to:

• Create hazard assessments used to support decision 

making, based on fundamental understanding of natural hazards.

• Evaluate the assessments using observations made at 

national and regional scales and over long time periods 

to capture significant and infrequent events.

• Develop new assessment tools to improve the scientific foundation of assessments as new understanding 

evolves.

• Inform the public about natural hazards to promote 

risk-wise behavior by publishing assessments and 

providing assessment tools using USGS scientific 

information.

Assessments produced by the USGS support statutory 

requirements for earthquake and tsunami, volcano, and flood 

hazards (table 1). For example, the USGS Earthquake Program 

has the most visible assessment role under obligations of the 

National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP). 

The goal of NEHRP in the USGS is to mitigate earthquake 

losses that can occur in many parts of the Nation by providing earth science data and assessments essential for land-use 

planning, engineering design, and emergency-preparedness 

decisions. National seismic hazard maps are the basis for 

seismic provisions in model building codes adopted throughout the United States. Urban earthquake hazard maps are used 

by some states in their earthquake regulations and guidelines. 

Other assessments fill critical gaps in the Nation’s hazard 

assessment and response activities or are in development 

for future potential uses. Table 1 highlights the current and 

upcoming USGS assessment products and their uses for each 

hazard. Dependencies between assessments exist such that one 

hazard assessment may feed another (for example, debris flow 

assessments use fire assessments) and vulnerability and risk 

assessments are contingent on hazard assessments. 

The USGS has a national and institutional obligation 

to communicate its hazard assessments to those who can 

use them to plan for, respond to, and recover from hazardous events. An institutional obligation requires the USGS to 

publish hazard assessments that rely on accepted scientific 

principles. Developing tools to utilize the assessments appropriately and ensure their accessibility satisfies statutory and 

nonstatutory obligations to help protect the safety, health, and 

wealth of the nation. 

Strategic Actions

1. Improve the formulation and scope of assessments. 

Priorities include:

a. Implement a robust process to incorporate new data 

and scientific understanding more rapidly to update 

and improve assessment resolution, accuracy, and 

timeliness.

b. Develop probabilistic approaches where possible.

c. Identify knowledge gaps to guide investments in 

observation and research.

d. Incorporate secondary effects (for example basin 

amplification of seismic shaking, post-eruption 

lahars from volcanoes, landslides from earthquakes, 

water-quality impacts from hazardous events) to 

provide more comprehensive estimation of consequences of events.

e. Develop a consistent methodology for urban areas 

where hazard holds special importance because of 

the density of people, buildings, or infrastructure that 

are at risk. This includes adapting the hazard assess-
Goal 3: Improved Assessment Products and Services 25

ment to provide information relevant to building 

codes (for example, seismic hazard maps) across the 

Nation.

f. Develop a consistent visual and electronic file format 

for all USGS flood inundation map products.

g. Cooperate with other mission areas to expand 

vulnerability assessments to include environmental 

health and ecosystem services and to project vulnerability and risk assessments into the future under 

climate and land-use change.

2. Improve assessment distribution. Delivering assessments according to user needs and by multiple media will 

improve the uptake of the information and use in decisions. Priorities include:

a. Include known and potential users in the design and 

creation of assessment products to align better with 

user needs. 

b. Use social and behavioral research to guide presentation of hazard information and mediums of dissemination.

c. Develop alliances to create and provide educational 

materials that include interactive hazards education 

and training in use of assessments.

d. Provide tools for people to create their own assessments.

3. Develop multi-hazard assessments. Currently most 

assessments are single hazard. Users often need to 

compare the relative risk or assess the combined risk of 

multiple hazards within a geographical region. Priorities 

include:

a. Develop tools to compare multiple hazards, across a 

variety of temporal and spatial scales.

b. Create visualizations of multiple hazard assessments.

c. Integrate information about multiple hazards and 

impacts on the built environment to better inform 

urban decisionmakers. 

4. Balance hazard and vulnerability and risk assessment. The need for USGS hazard research to improve the 

accuracy, resolution, and timeliness of assessments that 

focus on the physical characteristics of hazards must be 

balanced against the need to engage and collaborate with 

other agencies, engineers, social and behavioral scientists, planners, and emergency managers in the use of the 

information. Knowledge of vulnerability and risk enables 

earth scientists to relate to decisionmaker concerns before, 

during, and after hazardous events. Priorities include:

a. Identify relevant partnerships that improve and 

expand the usefulness of hazard assessments and 

support partners’ needs without overextending 

USGS resources.

b. Pursue the translation of hazard assessments into 

decision-support methods and tools in those cases 

where the observational base and level of hazard 

understanding is mature and effort is likely to have 

significant societal benefit.

c. Develop and demonstrate the application of hazard 

understanding to vulnerability and risk assessment in 

collaboration with partners who are responsible for 

(i) maintaining the relevant social data and (ii) maintaining the integration of hazard assessments with 

these social data.

5. Develop event and disaster scenarios and other strategic assessments. Scenarios of potential disasters and 

certain hazardous events have proven to be particularly 

useful in helping users understand the results of research 

and incorporate the information in their decision making. 

The USGS should, as appropriate, expand the range of 

hazard, vulnerability and risk assessments and tabletop 

exercises in partnership with current and potential users 

to meet their needs in advance of hazardous events. The 

expansion should include scenario tools and processes 

for use during post-event recovery. These scenarios and 

strategic assessments can and should include events that 

lead to crises and widespread destruction, but also can 

include general levels of disruption to the infrastructure 

and activities of modern civilization.

6. Evaluate assessments. The USGS needs to actively evaluate the accuracy, use, validity, and impact of assessments 

to demonstrate improvements from research investments, 

as well as to demonstrate the effectiveness of the assessments to inform risk reduction and resilience decisions. 

Depending on the scope of the hazard program, the evaluations could be nationwide, regionally with partners, or 

as prototype studies and demonstration projects. Priorities 

include:

a. Where possible and appropriate, the USGS should 

solicit feedback on the efficacy of targeted assessments from partner agencies, such as DOI Bureaus, 

that rely on USGS hazard assessments. DOI lands 

provide opportunities to understand the role that 

hazard assessments play in reducing human and 

ecosystem vulnerability.

b. Work with social and behavioral scientists to evaluate user satisfaction, effectiveness of risk communication, accuracy of interpretation, and appropriateness of response to disseminated hazard maps 

and scenarios, and develop a repository of “lessons 

learned.”
26 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

c. Use scenario process to provide a forum for testing 

how assessments are used, including long-term planning and crisis response.

d. Work with user communities to improve assessments 

based on these evaluations.

Table 1. USGS assessment products in current use.

[R, used in research and development sometimes with prototype users; L, used in legislative or regulatory mandated function; U, produced routinely and sent 

outside the U.S. Geological Survey for hazard management; FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration; NASA, National Aeronautic and Space Administration; NWS, National Weather Service; NTHMP, National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program; WUI, wildlife-urban interface; SAFRR, Science Application for Risk Reduction Project]

Hazard Status Assessment name Description and current use

Coastal Processes R Long-term Shoreline Change Maps Predictive models of future change in shoreline topography from 

shoreline erosion.

Coastal Processes R Community exposure to climatechange-related coastal erosion 

and hurricane storm surge

Geospatial assessments of community exposure to coastal erosion and 

storm-surge hazards influenced by increasing wave heights and sea 

level rise due to climate change

Earthquake L National Seismic Hazard Maps Probability of experiencing certain levels of seismic shaking over long 

time periods. This is used as the basis of the seismic provisions of 

model building codes as mandated by law in some states. In California, basis of insurance rates by the California Earthquake Authority.

Earthquake U Urban hazard maps Probability of experiencing certain levels of seismic shaking over long 

time periods including detailed mapping of soils that amplify shaking. Used as guidelines for some transportation project design.

Earthquake R National Seismic Risk Maps Combination of hazard probabilities with vulnerability to assess potential losses. Under development.

Earthquake R UCERF3 An updated approach to probability of earthquakes including short and 

intermediate term variations in hazard from earthquake clustering.

Flooding L Statewide and regional flood inundation mapping and frequency 

analyses

Used for legislatively mandated FEMA flood insurance mapping. 

Also used for flood mitigation, flood plain management, emergency 

response, and situational awareness.

Flooding R Real-time flood inundation mapping 

(dynamic)

Dynamically generated maps that include characterizing uncertainty.

Flooding R Flood inundation mapping Coupling damage analysis with the flood inundation mapping through 

the Hazus-Multi-Hazard (Hazus-MH) software.

Geomagnetic 

storms

U Magnetic-storm activity maps, 

storm-occurrence statistics

Used by NOAA and U.S. Air Force to issue space-weather warnings, 

used by NASA for product development.

Geomagnetic 

storms

R Magnetic-storm summaries Input to physics-based models, geographic assessment of potential 

hazard.

Landslides U Post-fire debris flow susceptibility 

maps.

Demonstration project in Southern California, in cooperation with 

NWS, generates post-wildfire hazard maps, which support nearreal-time warnings. Used by local public works and emergency 

management.

Landslides R Earthquake-induced landslide hazard maps.Other landslide hazard assessments are done in cooperation with Federal, State, and local partners.

Landslides R Landslide and rock-fall hazard assessments.Other landslide hazard assessments are done in cooperation with Federal, State, and local partners.

Landslides R Landslide inventory, susceptibility 

maps, probabilistic hazard and 

risk assessments and maps.

Development, testing, and demonstration application of hazard assessment tools and methods used for land use and emergency planning.
Goal 3: Improved Assessment Products and Services 27

Hazard Status Assessment name Description and current use

Tsunamis L USGS tsunami source input data 

for NTHMP tsunami inundation 

assessments

Inundation assessments are used by others to plan evacuation routes, 

locate warning sirens, and to identify especially vulnerable facilities. Also used by FEMA to set rates in National Flood Insurance 

Program.

Tsunami R Tsunami inundation scenarios Based on the most credible earthquake tsunami sources and tsunami 

wave-field modeling. Facilitate assessment of coastline inundations 

in demonstration projects.

Tsunami R Factor analysis of demographic 

sensitivity to tsunami

Geospatial modeling to identify hot-spots of demographic sensitivity 

related to preparing for and responding to tsunami. Used by State 

emergency managers to prioritize type and location of outreach.

Tsunami R Pedestrian evacuation modeling Geospatial modeling to determine pedestrian travel times out of 

tsunami-prone areas. Used by State and local emergency managers 

to guide education efforts and to identify potential sites for verticalevacuation strategies.

Volcano U Volcano Hazard Assessment Communication of potential hazard to State and local emergency management and the public, used for emergency response planning.

Volcano R Risk Assessments Combination or hazard and vulnerability to assess potential losses carried out on a few volcanoes.

Volcano R Probabilisitic hazard assessments Probabilistic tephra-fall assessment for critical facilities.

Volcano R Ash cloud dispersion and ash fall 

forecast maps

Graphical and text products indicating areas to be impacted by ash 

clouds and ash fall.

Wildfire U Fire Danger Forecast 7-day forecast of fire probability, prepared routinely for the conterminous Unites States; used by Federal, State, and local fire danger 

forecasters and resource managers.

Wildfire U Burn severity maps Characterization of burn severity for Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) and debris flow susceptibility.

Wildfire R Fire vulnerability and risk in the 

WUI

Improving probability estimates with better weather and fuels information and long-term fire occurrence data. Better characterize burn 

severity as a function of landslide probability. 

Multiple hazards U Community exposure assessments 

for earthquake, tsunami, and 

volcano

Geospatial analysis of variations in community exposure to hazards, 

in terms of developed land, populations, business exposure and 

economic assets. Used by local and State emergency managers for 

outreach, scenario development, prioritization of hazard mapping, 

and response planning

Multiple hazards R Multi-hazard scenarios for earthquakes, winter storms, wildfires, 

and tsunamis. 

Southern California Multi Hazards Demonstration Project (now 

SAFRR Project) collaboratively creates scenario hazard and vulnerability assessments that have been used by FEMA, other federal, 

State, regional, and local entities for exercises and to revise disaster 

plans.

Table 1. USGS assessment products in current use.—Continued

[R, used in research and development sometimes with prototype users; L, used in legislative or regulatory mandated function; U, produced routinely and sent 

outside the U.S. Geological Survey for hazard management; FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration; NASA, National Aeronautic and Space Administration; NWS, National Weather Service; NTHMP, National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program; WUI, wildlife-urban interface; SAFRR, Science Application for Risk Reduction Project]
28 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

In 2009, the Station wildfire, the largest fire in the history of Los Angeles County, burned more than 251 square miles of 

the Angeles National Forest. Numerous mountain front communities were affected by the fire, and then, with the coming 

of winter storms, the same communities faced a new risk. Now these communities were potentially in the paths of debris 

flows. Debris flows are fast-moving, destructive landslides; they cause deaths and property damage annually. Wildfires 

can significantly increase the likelihood of debris flows, which can be generated by rainstorms over the burned area. In 

response to the urgent need for timely debris flow hazard information, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) rapidly performed 

a hazard assessment to estimate potential debris-flow probabilities, volumes, and inundated areas for the Station fire 

burned area (fig. 15).These assessments were then used by 

the National Weather Service Forecast Offices in Southern 

California to issue warnings of debris flow potential during storms. Before the onset of winter rains, reports and 

maps from this assessment also went out to the public, 

the U.S. Forest Service, and Los Angeles City and County 

emergency-response, public-works, and flood-control agencies. Concurrently, the USGS Multi-Hazards Demonstration 

Project mounted an extensive public-information campaign 

to disseminate debris flow hazard information. The information provided by the USGS was widely used to prioritize 

data-collection, hazard-mitigation, and warning efforts, and 

for emergency-response planning.

Postfire Debris Flow

Figure 15. Postfire debris-flow hazards map for part of the area burned by the 2009 Station fire, 

showing potential volume of material expected from drainage basins and where that material 

will travel.

Figure 16. Damage from 

debris flows generated from 

hillsides burned by the 2009 

Station fire.
Goal 3: Improved Assessment Products and Services 29

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a standardized methodology, the software package called 

Hazus-Multi-Hazard (Hazus-MH), to provide a nationally consistent tool to estimate potential losses from earthquake, flood, 

and wind events. Selected USGS hazard assessment products (for example, USGS ShakeMap data) are used in Hazus-MH. 

USGS scientific studies have employed Hazus-MH in scenarios and risk analyses. For example, the USGS ShakeOut earthquake scenario used Hazus-MH to estimate certain building damage and output losses, and the ARkStorm scenario made 

use of Hazus-MH building inventory and employed Hazus-MH algorithms to estimate flood and wind damages and economic 

output losses. The USGS Land Use Portfolio Model uses Hazus-MH to estimate building damage for scenario-based risk 

and return analyses. The USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project generates earthquake risk maps by combining 

probabilistic hazard curves with Hazus-MH building fragility curves.

Concurrently, USGS has identified and undertaken activities to improve the usability of Hazus-MH. A tool called the HazusMH Data Extractor (Beta v1.0) extracts damage and loss-estimate data from a Hazus-MH earthquake or flood estimation to a 

geodatabase for future use. USGS also is working on approaches to run Hazus-MH in batch mode.

In cooperation with FEMA, the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Initiative, incorporated Hazus-MH inundation polygons and 

depth grids and is developing a web-based application of Hazus-MH software. This application will allow local emergency 

response personnel and municipal planners to view flood inundation extent and loss estimates for each flood stage of a 

USGS gage station without requiring an analyst to run Hazus-MH.

Using and Improving Hazus-MH

Figure 17. Screenshot from a prototype HAZUS flood analysis Web service displaying flood loss estimates for different river 

stage levels at a given site. The USGS, FEMA, and NOAA/NWS are evaluating this technology for possible deployment under the 

Integrated Water Resources Science and Services (IWRSS) Consortium.
30 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and its collaborators 

(including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and university 

researchers) conduct sustained investigations of coastal 

hazards associated with major hurricane landfall. 

USGS hurricane research and response activities include 

collection of storm-surge water levels, aerial photography, 

and laser altimetry surveys of pre- and post-storm beach 

conditions.

These efforts document the nature, magnitude, and variability of coastal changes such as beach erosion, overwash 

deposition, island breaching and destruction of infrastructure. Predictive models and assessments of severe storm 

impacts are developed and evaluated, and probabilistic 

assessments are distributed to the public, local, State, 

and Federal agencies. The assessments and observations 

provide information needed to understand, prepare for, and 

respond to coastal disasters.

U.S. Geological Survey Role in Assessing Hurricane Impacts

Figure 20. Assessment 

of inundation potential 

near Galveston, Tex. for 

Hurricane Ike. Severe 

inundation (red colors) 

and coastal change were 

expected where surge 

exceeded the elevations of 

the dunes (East and others, 

2008; http://pubs.USGS.

gov/of/2008/1365/).

Figure 18. Recent damaging hurricanes 

assessed by the USGS include Ivan (landfall 

near Gulf Shores, Ala., on Sept. 16, 2004), Katrina 

(landfall at Plaquemines Parish, La., on Aug. 29, 

2005), and Ike (landfall near Galveston, Tex., on 

Sept. 13, 2008).

Figure 19. Before and after photographs of Hurricane Ike 

coastal impacts.
Goal 4: Effective Situational Awareness 31

Goal 4: Effective Situational 

Awareness

The USGS provides situational awareness to improve 

emergency response, inform the public, and minimize social 

disruption.

The role of the USGS during natural hazardous events, 

disasters and times of potential disasters varies considerably 

between the hazards. The Disaster Relief Act of 1974 gives the 

USGS statutory responsibility to issue alerts about geologic 

hazards, including “earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and ash 

clouds, landslides, mudflows, subsidence, faulting and fissuring of the ground surface and glacier-related processes” (quote 

from Federal Register Note, appendix E). Different warnings 

can be issued and vary between these hazards. In addition, 

the USGS plays a critical role, supplying data and information to other Federal agencies that have the forecasting and 

alert responsibilities for floods, volcanic ash clouds, tsunamis, 

geomagnetic storms, and wildfires. For floods, geomagnetic 

storms, and tsunamis, the USGS supplies data in near-realtime to NOAA. Also, during the aftermath of a hazardous 

event, the USGS rapidly deploys interpretive geospatial 

products. 

Accurate near-real-time information, and effective 

forecasts and warnings are crucial tools to provide situational 

awareness and reduce losses that surround hazardous events. 

For some hazards, it is valuable to provide information about 

how the hazards are evolving (for example, changes in status 

in the magnitude of a magnetic storm), when a hazard has 

ceased, and when the situation is all-clear (the hazardous 

event has ceased). All of this is important to prevent needless 

disruption and cost. The situational awareness role means 

USGS hazards science becomes the face of the USGS during a 

hazardous event. The societal benefit of this role is enormous 

and will necessarily require substantial attention to the broad 

community that relies on this aspect of the USGS. A deliberate effort to communicate with this community of users for 

the purpose of improving our products and services will be 

necessary to maximize the societal benefit of our situational 

awareness efforts.

It takes considerable effort and resources to develop and 

maintain robust alert capabilities. As much or more than any 

other component in the USGS hazards mission, forecasting 

must always be looking to the latest technologies, hardware 

and software solutions to keep its networks and data delivery 

systems functional and valuable. The types of information and 

the time frames when information is needed vary with the hazard (table 2) and with the phase in the hazard mitigation cycle.

Networks of USGS monitoring sites are critical elements in efforts to provide early warning and forecasts of 

hazardous events, and also serve a vital role during response 

and recovery efforts. Rapid public availability of consistent, 

quality-assured data must remain a hallmark of USGS operations and the systems that process, deliver, and archive that 

data must be robust. Goal 1 is necessary for Goal 4.

Core Responsibilities

To fulfill its mission and meet statutory responsibilities, 

the USGS must continue to:

• Collect the data and conduct analyses to inform warnings by the USGS or others of impending crises.

• Issue warnings and advisories of impending potential 

hazardous events and their termination.

• Provide timely information to emergency managers, 

the media and the public about hazardous events as 

they occur. 

• Invest appropriate resources in hazard education during 

crisis as well as noncrisis times.

In addition to warnings, the USGS informs the public and 

first responders with near-real-time information to improve 

their situational awareness. This is a rapidly evolving area 

with several new products that have found eager users in the 

emergency management arena. The current warning and informational products, and some of the users, are listed in table 2. 

The processing and dissemination systems are managed 

primarily within programs under the Hazards Mission Area 

and geospatial products from the Core Science Systems. These 

products are used to protect life and property and the Hazards 

Mission must continue to produce these products.

Implementation of new technologies typically is limited 

by resources and priorities, not capability. The kind, type, 

and frequency of data and scientific analysis that the USGS 

can provide for response activities depends on many variables including site density and the reliability and accuracy of 

equipment in its monitoring networks, how quickly the raw 

data are transmitted and converted to usable information, and 

whether effective, rehearsed procedure and coordination are in 

place to process and disseminate the resulting information.

Strategic Actions

1. Develop next generation of tools for rapid event detection and response. As new understanding is developed 

through research, new tools and products should be developed to inform and advise the public, partner agencies, 

and the emergency-response community during hazardous 

events. This will require targeted partnerships to define 

the products and activities needed for planning, response, 

and recovery efforts and the delivery mechanism that will 

most effectively get USGS information into the hands of 

decisionmakers. Priorities include:

a. Data, Nowcasts, forecasts, and interpretive geospatial products.

b. Operational alarm systems to detect volcanic unrest 

and eruptions.
32 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

c. Earthquake early warnings and operational forecasting of earthquake sequences.

d. Databases and decision-support systems for wildfire 

management, in partnership with the U.S. Forest 

Service.

e. State-of-the-art, near-real-time dynamic flood inundation maps and applications to meet a host of needs 

ranging from flood response and mitigation to damand levee-break simulations.

f. Landslide situational awareness capabilities akin to 

those in the other USGS statutory hazards, volcanoes 

and earthquakes.

g. Coordinated ground and space-based real-time 

magnetic-storm activity predictions.

2. Improve data systems critical to situational awareness 

responsibilities. To serve this role, monitoring networks 

must become more robust and, in some cases, expanded 

to increase data density or to include areas not currently 

(2011) covered. Information also must be delivered in 

formats that are useful to a broad range of users including 

partner agencies, fellow scientists, emergency managers, 

and the general public. Priorities include:

a. Monitoring equipment meets reliability and accuracy 

standards.

b. Equipment maintenance and replacement schedules 

are adequate to ensure network readiness. 

c. Networks provide adequate spatial and temporal data 

density.

d. Appropriate levels of redundancy in sensors and 

telemetry are available in critical locations.

e. Systems (hardware and software) that convert field 

sensor data into an understandable product are reliable and timely.

Table 2. Examples of USGS Products for warnings and situational awareness.

[≥, greater than or equal to; USAID, U.S. Agency for International Development; FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency; NOAA, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration; NASA, National Aeronautic and Space Administration; FAA, Federal Aviation Administration; NWS, National Weather Service; DOD, Department of Defense]

Hazard Product Users

Earthquakes (products 

from Advanced National Seismic System)

Recent Earthquakes. Online maps showing earthquakes 

recorded in the last 7 days. Updated within 2 minutes of a 

U.S. earthquake, 15 minutes globally.

General public, emergency managers, news 

media.

ShakeMap. Map showing distribution of ground shaking 

during all M≥3.5 earthquakes in the United States.

General public, emergency managers, news 

media, transportation, utilities.

PAGER (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for 

Response). Estimates of populations exposed to damaging 

levels of shaking and possible losses and casualties.

USAID, FEMA.

Geomagnetic storms Real-time data feeds, magnetic-storm indices. NOAA, U.S. Air Force, NASA.

Wildfire National 7-day forecasts of fire probability are produced 

using weather forecast, dead and live fuels condition. Fire 

probability forecasts are based on the historical fire occurrence and fuels conditions.

Federal and State fire managers.

Volcanoes Volcano Alert Notifications: A suite of text notification and 

information products on volcano hazards in the United 

States. These products report on the status of U.S. volcanoes, issue forecasts of activity and likely hazards.

Public, emergency managers, news media, FAA, 

NWS, DOD, other Federal, State, and local 

authorities, airlines, business community

Current Volcanic Activity. Online interactive map of volcanoes in the United States.Public, educators, emergency managers, news 

media, FAA, NWS, DOD, other Federal, 

State, and local authorities, airlines, business 

community.

Floods WaterWatch; WaterAlert NWS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, 

State, and local governments. 

Landslides Landslide and debris-flow warning. Rainfall criteria for 

the initiation of landslides and debris flows as developed 

by the USGS and used by the NWS for warnings for postwildfire areas in southern California and the Puget Sound 

region of Washington State. 

NWS issues warnings used by general public, 

emergency managers.
Goal 4: Effective Situational Awareness 33

f. Human resources are available and effectively 

staged.

g. Maintenance and enhancement of data portals and 

web-based distribution systems.

3. Implement 24x7 operation for critical USGS monitoring efforts. In order to maximize USGS ability to inform 

partner agencies, respond to hazards, and deliver scientific 

expertise in a timely fashion, 24x7 operational capability 

must be established for appropriate hazards. For example, 

interagency efficiencies can be realized if the streamgage 

program becomes a true 24x7 network health monitoring 

and response operation. New 24x7 capability might be 

in partnership with other agencies such as NOAA when 

the forecast and response role is a shared responsibility, 

or may be a stand-alone USGS operation for hazards that 

fall completely within the USGS mission. Activities to 

accomplish this could include:

a. Initiate a formal study to determine which hazards 

require 24x7 operations and how best to accomplish 

them, recognizing the need for resources including 

staff.

b. Where feasible, establish a partnership with the 

existing 24x7 operation at the National Earthquake 

Information Center (NEIC) to support continuous 

operations and network health monitoring.

4. Improve application of scientific expertise during 

hazardous events. In the coming decade, emphasis must 

be placed on facilitating rapid access to USGS expertise, 

products, and services by ensuring that programs, facilities, and personnel can:

a. Provide expert information for public safety (such 

as flood stage information or aftershock rates). 

USGS experts should work closely with FEMA and 

State emergency managers to provide the science to 

inform decision making during crisis response.

b. Make timely assessments of rapidly changing hazard 

situations to inform tactical response and strategic 

recovery decisions.

c. Improve the integration of geospatial response capabilities into USGS hazards science.

d. Fund and staff rapid deployment of expert field 

teams to interface with local responders. The effort 

would work across the USGS Mission Areas and 

begin by assessing USGS readiness for a catastrophic event. The USGS would develop strategies 

to deal with high probability hazardous events and 

high risk, low probability events.

Even with 7,800 streamgages in the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) network nationwide, stream stage and 

streamflow data are needed during floods at locations 

that are ungaged. The gages have crucial value for flood 

control reservoir operation, flood forecasting, flood fight 

operations, road closure, and emergency management, 

including evacuations. To meet the need for more gages 

during floods, USGS developed, built, and maintains a 

cache of rapid deployment streamgages (RDG) that can 

be installed to collect and transmit near-real-time data 

within hours to days at critical locations.

During the 2011 floods in the central United States, many 

RDGs were deployed to meet many needs. In Louisiana, RDGs were deployed in the Morganza floodway to 

provide near-real-time data to the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and other stakeholders, including State and 

local governments to monitor water levels in the floodway 

after activation. This enabled U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials to correlate the amount of water allowed 

into the floodway with water levels at various locations 

of the floodway. In Mississippi, an RDG was deployed 

along the Mississippi River for the Yazoo Levee District to 

monitor water levels near remote facilities. In Montana, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota RDGs were deployed in 

the Missouri River, Red River, and Souris River to provide 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation near-real-time stage and streamflow data to 

assist with dam operation decisions.

Figure 21. Rapid Deployment Streamgage installed in Post 

Creek Cutoff near Karnak, Illinois, during the 2011 flooding.

Value of Rapid Deployment Streamgages 

For Floods
34 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

e. Provide training and experience in media response 

during hazardous events, disasters, and potential 

disasters to a wider range of qualified hazard scientists and, as appropriate, enhance coordination of the 

USGS media response at USGS offices in different 

media markets.

5. Improve internal hazards coordination. Centralization 

of USGS hazard activities is not desirable or practical; 

however, improved coordination of these activities would 

produce efficiencies and synergies. Response to disasters and potential disasters is coordinated by the Hazard 

Response Executive Committee. This coordination cuts 

across missions and regions and includes the hazards 

science data and research, in addition to many geospatial 

activities. Priorities include:

a. Identify and build working relationships among 

USGS experts and across Mission Areas to tap during disaster response and recovery.

b. Engage the broader USGS community in a discussion to identify what roles different parts of the 

USGS will play during hazardous events.

c. Coordinate learning from national and international 

disasters and identify and promote hazard research 

that can best inform USGS operations during crises.

d. Conduct Mission-Area-led catastrophic event exercises to help Science Centers plan a robust interdisciplinary response and to determine how the Mission 

Area and other Executive Leadership will support 

USGS response.

e. Coordinate the use of geospatial data during crises 

to meet the needs of internal and external users in 

partnership with the Core Science System Mission 

Area.

When emergencies occur, first responders and disaster 

response teams need access to aerial photography and 

satellite imagery that is acquired within hours of the 

event. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hazards Data 

Distribution System (HDDS) provides quick and easy 

access to imagery and geospatial data for emergency 

response and recovery operations. HDDS provides data 

access and delivery services through both graphic and 

traditional, directory-based interfaces that allow emergency response personnel to select and obtain pre-event 

baseline and post-event emergency response imagery. 

Comparison of before-event images with after-event 

images is a powerful tool for situational awareness, and 

among other information enables decisionmakers to 

identify where impacts may be most severe and where 

access may be limited. To further assist emergency personnel who do not have time for lengthy data searches, 

the HDDS serves as a consolidated storage and pointof-entry system for access to the USGS-hosted datasets 

related to emergency response. 

According to recent (early 2011) system statistics, the 

HDDS serves some 135 terabytes of data representing 

more than 4.5 million files and more than 640 baseline and 

disaster events.

In 2011 alone, HDDS servers have distributed more than 

14 terabytes (490,000 files) of information to the disaster 

response community.

Imagery for Emergency Response: the USGS Hazards Data Distribution System

Figure 22. This Landsat 5 satellite image of the Wallow North 

Fire in east-central Arizona was taken on June 15, 2011. This 

false-colored image uses a 7-, 4-, 2-band combination and shows 

the burn scare in red, the ongoing fire in bright red. Vegetation is

green, smoke is blue and bare ground is tan.
Goal 4: Effective Situational Awareness 35

6. Evaluate warning and response products. Rigorous 

evaluation of situational awareness products will lead to 

better communication and more effective products. Evaluations also can demonstrate the value of the USGS hazard 

investment in observations and fundamental understanding. Priorities include:

a. Partner with social and behavioral expertise to assess 

and improve the accuracy, timeliness, and effectiveness of educational and situational awareness 

products for warnings and response decisions.

b. Partner to validate the accuracy of forecast, warning 

and assessment products.

c. Develop a repository of “lessons learned.”

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hazard Web pages get tens 

of millions of page views each month and offer a vast range 

of information, from characterizing hazardous events, to 

issuing crisis alerts and loss estimates, to earth science 

education. These pages are popular with the media and 

the curious public and are invaluable to scientists, emergency managers, first responders, and public utilities in the 

crucial early minutes and days during a hazard crisis or as 

a disaster unfolds. In quiet times, the Web pages also serve 

as a source of basic hazard education and information 

that assists the Nation—and in some cases the world—to 

prepare for hazardous events. 

USGS Earthquake Hazards

Web pages of the National Earthquake Information Center 

and the Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) provide timely 

information about worldwide earthquake occurrence, 

seismic intensities, and strong-motion impacts. These 

web pages have user hit rates that are the highest in the 

USGS and Department of the Interior (DOI) (9,982,114 visits 

and 30,302,461 page views in the month following the March 

2011 Japan earthquake), are frequently cited, and received 

the highest 5-star-level Community Ratings for DOI sites 

(Data.gov).

USGS Volcano Hazards Program

Volcano Hazards Program (VHP) Web pages are popular to 

national and international audiences, including the aviation 

industry, providing up-to-date information about ongoing 

volcanic activity and alerts, hazards, and background 

information about U.S. volcanoes. VHP Web pages receive 

in excess of 15 million page views per month. During the 

last major eruption in the United States, the 2009 eruption of 

Redoubt Volcano in Alaska, the Alaska Volcano Observatory 

Web site received 28 million page views in just the month of 

March.

USGS Hazard Web Pages: Popular and Highly Rated

Figure 23. Screenshot of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Volcano 

Hazards Program Web page.

USGS Flood Program

The WaterWatch Web pages display maps, graphs, and 

tables that describe real-time, recent, and past streamflow 

conditions for the United States. A user can find information 

at scales from national to watershed. For the period of significant flooding in the United States from March to August, 

2011, more than 730,000 unique users made some 5 million 

page requests.

USGS Geomagnetism

The Web site of the USGS Geomagnetism Program provides 

data and information about geomagnetic activity measured 

at ground-based observatories. The site receives over 

6,000 page views per day, and this traffic can increase 

dramatically during magnetic storms. In preparation for the 

up-and-coming solar maximum, Program staff are developing geomagnetic-activity indices of use for diagnosing the 

changing conditions of near-Earth space weather.
36 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

A Vision of the Future

A Safer Nation Thanks to USGS Hazards 

Science

This plan lays out core responsibilities that the USGS 

must continue to do to fulfill its basic mission in natural 

hazards and a variety of strategic actions that should be taken 

to enhance the USGS mission in hazards science, a mission 

that will directly result in a more resilient Nation in 2022 than 

today. 

In our vision of 2022 and beyond, the USGS operates a 

robust, comprehensive network of instruments that monitor 

hazardous conditions. The Advanced National Seismic System 

is complete. A dense network of stream gauges monitors all 

high-risk flood areas. All 169 geologically young volcanoes 

in the United States are monitored in real time. USGS creates 

real-time estimates of wildfire perimeters. Coastal LiDAR 

to monitor coastal erosion is updated monthly. Many of the 

most at-risk landslide areas are being monitored and we have 

a global real-time geomagnetic network to track the impact 

of solar storms. A USGS 24x7 operations center monitors 

network health on all real-time hazards data, with the ability 

to call in crucial scientific personnel during times of hazards 

crises. 

In this future, the USGS still has the capability to lead 

in hazards science because it has a diverse staff of scientists 

of different ages and disciplines who are experts in hazards 

science fields. Seismologists will have a better understanding 

of why one earthquake grows to be a damaging event while 

another one stays small. We will have the scientific understanding to be able to predict the duration and evolution of 

many hazards, including floods and geomagnetic storms. 

The dramatic May 18, 1980, explosive eruption of Mount 

St. Helens prompted a quantum leap in understanding 

volcanic processes and hazards. The event and its aftermath underscored the importance of adequate monitoring, 

detailed understanding of a volcano’s eruptive history, and 

working with first responders and communities at risk well 

in advance of a crisis. 

These lessons from the 1980s helped prepare for Mount 

St. Helens’ reawakening in 2004. On September 23, instruments on the volcano detected increased seismicity. In early 

October, following a series of explosions, lava broke the 

surface. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) changed alert levels 

and issued warnings as conditions changed, participated in 

response coordination under the National Incident Management System, and worked with the Mount St. Helens 

National Volcanic Monument to manage public access. In 

addition, with 2,000 flights over the Cascade Range daily, 

USGS worked closely with the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure safety of the aviation corridor.

Thoughout the nearly 4-year eruption, the USGS maintained 

constant vigilance, monitoring the volcano, providing status 

reports, assessing changing hazards, and responding to 

rumors. The 2004–2008 activity further strengthened ties 

between USGS and the first responder community, facilitated development of innovative monitoring technologies, 

and provided new insights into how volcanoes work.

Continuing Lessons in Managing Volcano Hazards: Mount St. Helens

Figure 24. The public views Mount St. Helens from Johnston 

Ridge on October 1, 2004.

Figure 25. Explosive activity at Mount St. Helens, October 1, 

2004.
A Vision of the Future 37

USGS science is enriched and informed by the effective interaction and communication among the hazard scientists and 

with the many important academic partners around the world 

needed to tackle difficult problems.

In this future, USGS scientists create and facilitate easily 

understood assessments and this information is used by emergency managers, land-use planners, and the general public to 

make decisions that minimize their risk. Scientific information 

is objectively incorporated into decision making using assessment tools and collaborative processes. Mature hazard vulnerability and risk assessments are automated and are interactive. 

Assessments are dynamic—they can be updated with new 

understanding or new information from events and they are 

responsive to decision needs during post-event recovery. Hazard assessments are comprehensive enough to include multiple 

hazards, environmental impacts, and projected change such as 

land-use or climate. Hazard science is conveyed in ways that 

help people to comprehend uncertainties and despite them, 

manage risk.

In this future, the USGS has developed effective software 

tools to access and interpret the data from these networks and 

interpret them with a physical understanding of the hazards, 

and emergency managers and others use these tools to better 

manage natural disasters. Earthquake early warning will be 

implemented, giving some locations alerts that strong earthquake shaking will be arriving in seconds. Aftershock warnings will be routine across the country. ShakeMaps, describing 

the distribution of shaking, will be produced across the Nation 

from solid observational data and will be used by emergency 

managers, both public and private, to make decisions for a 

better response. Real-time inundation mapping will be regularly used to understand how floods are developing and fewer 

people will be caught unaware. With continuous 24x7 monitoring of our observational systems, we will never be surprised 

by a volcanic eruption or a geomagnetic storm. All these data 

are effectively served to decisionmakers through appropriate 

data portals.

A Vision of USGS Hazard Science Successes of 

the Future

Floods

In the Midwest, several days of severe storms threaten to 

flood large areas. Detailed, real-time inundation maps for both 

present and future flood levels are available and utilized by 

emergency managers and local citizens for all urban areas in 

the threatened area. These maps are tied to USGS streamgage 

data and NWS flood forecasts. These maps provide information for the transfer of patients from a threatened hospital and 

the relocation of a communications center out of the floodprone area. The State of Illinois has pre-deployed pumps and 

sand bags for a floodfight to shore up the towns levee. Emergency management officials in Missouri are able to preplan 

their evacuation decisions and deploy limited resources for 

maximum benefit. 

Wildfires

An intermountain West community watches as a wildfire 

burns across the landscape. But the residents and fire-fighting 

personnel are confident that the wildfire poses little threat to 

their community. This confidence is based on wildfire extent 

forecasts based on the previous decade of research and monitoring by USGS scientists and land management agency officials that have motivated proper preparations and mitigations 

for wildland fuels. These decisions and mitigations protect 

communities from wildfires and significantly reduce the threats 

to water quality, endangered species, cultural resources, and 

the likelihood of debris flows. 

Earthquakes

After decades of being called overdue, the magnitude-7.8 

earthquake on the southern San Andreas fault finally happens. 

Because of improvements to the Advanced National Seismic 

System, the information that an earthquake has begun on the 

San Andreas fault is transmitted to Los Angeles 60 seconds 

before the strong shaking arrives. Automatic controls move 

elevators to the nearest floor and opens the doors, sends messages to cell phones and rings alarms in schools. Because of 

years of education campaigns with annual ShakeOut drills, 

schools quickly move students away from windows into protected locations, surgeons and dentists remove instruments 

from their patients, and in other locations a rapid shut down 

of sensitive manufacturing processes occurs. Utilities with 

lifelines crossing the fault activate shutoff valves and other 

measures to reduce disruption to the grids and prevent fires. 

Through all these activities, much damage has been prevented 

and the path to recovery for California and the Nation is 

smoother.

Coastal Hazards

A family has just moved to a coastal town and is sitting 

in a realtor’s office considering possible locations to buy a 

home. In the same office, an older couple is making a similar 

decision. As different locations are inspected, the two groups 

are consulting their smart-phones for natural hazard assessment information, provided in part by the USGS, including 

the potential erosion of the coast and flooding due to storm 

surge. Each group would like to be as close to the beach as 

possible. The hazard assessment application indicates that the 

probability of damage due to these natural hazards increases 

with proximity to the coast and that there are isolated areas 

that are not near the coast but have higher potential for flooding. The smart-phone application shows realistic scenarios 

at each location indicating impacts from hazards of varying 

severity and the family chooses a location that is much farther 
38 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

from the beach than they would have otherwise preferred. The 

older couple chooses a location right on the beach. Two years 

later, a large storm strikes the area. There is plenty of warning 

for evacuation and there is no loss of life. The older couple’s 

house is destroyed, but they immediately move in with family, who selected a house with an extra apartment should this 

situation occur. Aside from losing some family possessions, 

disruption to each group’s life was minimal.

Volcanoes

In 2022, the Cascades Volcano Observatory successfully 

forewarned the Nation of renewed activity at a long-dormant 

Pacific Northwest volcano. Using satellite radar surveillance 

and ground-based gas, earthquake, and deformation sensors, 

unrest was noted almost 2 months before the eruption began. 

Such lead time enabled emergency managers and nearby 

communities to prepare for the expected hazards outlined 

in the long-term hazard assessment. USGS also accurately 

forecasts the start of the eruption 72 hours in advance permitting communities and industry time to implement response 

plans and move assets out of harm’s way. Once the eruption 

began, USGS ash fall and lahar inundation models provided 

accurate maps to guide community response and evacuations. 

Repeated explosions were detected by lightning, satellite, and 

other alarms ensuring that aircraft were notified within minutes. Though some critical infrastructure was damaged, early 

detection, accurate forecasts, long-term planning, and a coordinated interagency response prevented massive disruptions.

Geomagnetic Storms

In 2020, a mass of solar plasma was ejected from an 

ominously large spot on the face of the Sun. Data from sentinel satellite, positioned in between the Earth and the Sun, 

indicate that a front of solar wind is headed straight for the 

Earth—estimated arrival within 15 minutes. Immediately, 

space-weather agencies of NOAA and the Air Force issue 

warnings to military command centers, airlines, and operators 

of satellites and electric power grids. And just as predicted, 

15 minutes later, USGS scientists confirm that the integrated 

global network of ground-based magnetic observatories has 

measured the sudden commencement of a global-scale magnetic storm, with magnetic activity centered on North America. 

The Department of Homeland Security is notified, and a 

briefing is prepared for the President by representatives of the 

National Space Weather Program. Over the next few days, the 

magnetic storm grows to become the largest ever recorded. 

Beautiful night-time aurora are visible almost everywhere 

around the world, but military satellites are damaged, civilian 

trans-polar airplane flights are cancelled, geophysical surveys 

are disrupted, and over-the-horizon radio communication is 

lost. Fortunately, in response to storm-time status bulletins 

issued by the USGS, preventative measures avert major outages of electric power in the United States.

Landslides

A major hurricane is forecasted to hit the Appalachian 

region bringing record-breaking rainfall. Tools for simulating 

landslide initiation, mobilization, and inundation developed 

by the USGS are used by State and local emergency management personnel trained in their use to provide probabilistic 

estimates of the impact of landslides and debris flows. These 

estimates improve coordination and preparation in advance of 

the storm and improve the situational awareness of the public, 

potentially saving lives and property. 

Tsunamis

(From Online Pacific Science News, Friday, March 18th, 

2022) As coastal communities clean up and assess their losses 

from the tsunami waves spawned by the magnitude 9.2 earthquake that occurred off the Alaska Peninsula early Monday 

morning, scientists and coastal state officials are beginning to 

consider the reasons why the reported loss of life and serious 

injury was so small compared to the large coastal flooding and 

economic losses. Scientists whom we interviewed today said 

that magnitude of this earthquake and extent of the tsunami 

inundation were widely anticipated because of sustained 

field studies of prehistoric tsunami sand deposits in Alaska, 

Hawai`i, and California led by U.S. Geological Survey scientists and their state and university science partners. These 

studies enabled production of tsunami inundation extent maps 

with associated probability, which were used by planners and 

emergency officials to pre-plan evacuations, which in turn was 

so crucial keeping the loss of life to a minimum. 

Multi-Hazard Assessment

Sitting in their corporate office in Dallas, Genac is 

considering options for a power-generating facility in the 

United States. High definition computer screens allow for 

zooming in for a look at one potential location in Louisiana 

on the recently developed national hazard map developed by 

USGS, NOAA, FEMA and the State Geological Surveys. The 

company’s insurer and chief engineer is briefing the board of 

directors on the pros and cons of this location in contrast to 

the other 9 potential locations. The maps not only list each 

hazard magnitude, but have information on probability of 

occurrence and speed of onset. Because of this national hazard assessment map, the company is confident that it will have 

good information as it goes forward to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission for permission to build its new plant. 
Opportunities and Challenges 39

Opportunities and Challenges

Several key challenges and opportunities became clear 

during the listening process. These are important issues that 

cannot be addressed within this Strategy’s structure of goals, 

ongoing core responsibilities,and future action items. The new, 

Natural Hazards Mission Area (NHMA) within the USGS 

provides an opportunity to support and extend hazard science 

and its application, meet the identified challenges, and take 

advantage of the opportunities. Under its scientific umbrella, 

NHMA can help to:

• Exchange new ideas and approaches.

• Bring a broader range of expertise and resources to 

bear on shared problems.

• Encourage innovative and productive collaboration.

• Address neglected and emerging natural hazards problems.

Under its administrative umbrella, NHMA can:

• Ensure that hazards without formal programmatic leadership are supported and coordinated effectively.

• Help to address special issues, which are shared by all 

the sciences of rapid onset events with societal consequences: all work with partners, all need to make their 

science usable by decisionmakers, and all face similar 

tensions between operational and research demands.

• Coordinate development of products across hazards to 

capitalize on shared and similar efforts.

• Develop effective communication of hazards products, 

including online distribution.

• Keep USGS hazard scientists apprised of needs in the 

risk assessment community, and complementary efforts 

in other hazards.

Issue: Maintain Leadership in Hazard Science. USGS 

expertise is one of the most valuable “products” the Bureau 

provides to the Nation in reducing losses from natural hazards. 

The USGS faces a great challenge to maintain and renew its 

expertise, which determines its capacity to monitor, assess, 

understand, and provide situational awareness of natural 

hazards. Long-term funding limitations have eroded the ability 

of the Bureau to mentor and replace departing employees and 

invest in a diverse workforce that can pioneer critical work 

on new, emerging topics with new, cutting-edge approaches. 

In many areas, a critical expertise for crisis response may rest 

with only one expert. The evolution of the workforce provides 

an opportunity to develop and maintain a new, stable structure 

that can preserve the wealth of knowledge that exists within 

the USGS and build an environment in which new scientists 

are able to meet the demands of the coming decade.

Recommendations:

• The aging of the USGS workforce and the need for 

broader responsibilities described in this report require 

greater attention to staffing and facility needs. The 

USGS should start by performing a staffing “gap 

analysis” across the Mission Area.

• Acknowledge that many USGS staff profiles blend 

contributions to both research and operations, refine 

employee evaluation and reward systems to adequately 

reflect the value of this mix.

• Focus research and development to emphasize areas 

where the USGS has a clear mission and leadership; 

collaborate with partners in areas where this can speed 

progress and reduce costs; avoid investing time and 

effort in developments already accomplished elsewhere.

Issue: Coordination across agencies and departments. 

Many departments and agencies in the Federal and State governments—too numerous to list exhaustively—conduct hazard 

science and mitigate risk from natural hazards. Declining 

budgets underscore the need for effective intragovernmental 

coordination. Most prominently, USGS hazard science complements programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF), 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

and the other Department of Interior (DOI) bureaus. Over the 

course of our listening sessions and during external agency 

review, the SSPT heard from several additional agencies and 

departments who noted potential for strengthened collaboration. This list included the Center for Disease Control, the 

National Institute of Environmental Health, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency, and the Department of Agriculture. Maintaining awareness of other agency programs and developing 

cooperative work requires time and personnel. Decisions to 

pursue active collaboration must be made with care to focus 

on high-value, high-return investments. NHMA leadership can 

help facilitate effective collaboration in a number of ways. 

Recommendations:

• Promote awareness of other agency programs and 

develop formal agreements, working groups, and 

response protocols to enhance cross-agency coordination and collaboration.

• Support active involvement in NSF initiatives such as 

CaMRA (Creating a More Disaster Resilient America) 

that will fund interdisciplinary centers to conduct resilience research.
40 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

• Ensure that USGS hazard science supports the mission 

of State Geological Surveys.

• Work with other Mission Areas to create a formal 

USGS liaison process with FEMA to coordinate 

efforts.

• Work with FEMA to ensure the best science, data, and 

models are used in FEMA Regions’ hazard mitigation 

plans and are incorporated into national efforts such as 

the software Hazus-MH and other FEMA-sponsored 

vulnerability and risk analysis tools.

• Work through international organizations and direct 

agreements with foreign partners to share experience, 

methods, and technologies.

• Seek ways to better utilize and leverage other agency 

data, expertise, and infrastructure to save money and 

support USGS hazard mission objectives.

Issues: Hazards without programs. The USGS role regarding different hazards varies because of differences in the Stafford Act mandates and because of shared roles and partnerships with other Federal agencies. In particular, some USGS 

hazard science is funded through a specific program, whereas 

other hazard science is not. Regardless of where a hazard lies 

within the USGS organizational structure, every hazard benefits from the advocacy of a coordinator. The NHMA Associate 

Director needs a point of contact for each hazard, particularly 

during crises.

Recommendations:

• The NHMA should work with relevant Mission Areas 

and Regional Executives to define the USGS science 

role for hazards without existing program structure.

• The USGS should have coordinators for each hazard 

who are knowledgeable about the full spectrum of natural hazards research (including tsunami and wildfire).

Issue: Evolution of the Multi-Hazards Demonstration 

Project (MHDP). In 2012, the MHDP concludes a 5-year 

demonstration of ways that hazards science can improve a 

community’s resilience to natural disasters, with a focus on 

risk assessment products, and on innovative partnerships to 

communicate scientific results. MHDP successes include 

7.9 million participants in ShakeOut earthquake drills, landslide warning systems joint with the National Weather Service, 

scenarios used by emergency management, and increased visibility for USGS hazard science.

Recommendations:

• Use the national reach and perspective of the NHMA 

to strategically initiate and support such projects as 

needed throughout the Nation.

• Continue to develop MHDP-style scenarios and other 

products focused on resilience.

• Make available to other USGS missions, the MHDP 

experience in the use of scenarios as science application, assessment, and communication tools.

Issue: Interagency coordination between NOAA and 

USGS in hazard science and public warning products. The 

USGS has a long-term partnership with NOAA and NOAA’s 

National Weather Service to investigate hazard processes and 

operate hazard warning systems for floods, fires, volcanic 

eruptions, tsunamis, and space-weather events. NOAA issues 

more hazard-related warnings than any other Federal agency; 

thus the USGS/NOAA coordination is critically important. In 

the coming decade, the USGS should strengthen its existing 

partnership with NOAA through increased collaboration in 

fundamental research, operation, maintenance, and delivery of 

reliable monitoring and decision-support tools, and effective 

public education.

Recommendations:

• Collaborate in modeling floods, tsunamis, ash cloud 

dispersion, geomagnetic storms, and other hazard 

processes to develop new and improved operational 

forecast tools.

• Take advantage of NOAA’s training programs to 

develop geological hazard training for the emergency 

management community and for NWS forecasters who 

issue public warning.

• Share information technology, data analysis, and visualization expertise to assist forecasters and the public 

in understanding hazardous processes and vulnerability.

• Pursue cross-agency collaboration in marine geohazard investigations involving NOAA ships and USGS 

marine geoscientists.

• Share lessons learned from assessment of public 

outreach and warning systems to inform and improve 

hazard messaging strategy and increase public understanding of hazards.

• Institute joint messaging where appropriate.

Issue: Fire Science. Wildland fire science faces some particular challenges within the USGS. First, the science issues are 

complex and involve the biophysical properties of landscapes, 

the role of climate and weather affecting the risk, situational 

awareness and resources for firefighters, and the consequences 

of wildland fires for landslide potential, water quality, invasive 

species and ecosystem resilience. Thus, most of the Mission 

Areas have some stake in fire science, yet there is no formal fire science program. Second, the scientists are widely 
Opportunities and Challenges 41

distributed through the USGS and include ecologists, hydrologists, remote-sensing specialists, and landslide geologists 

spread across dozens of science centers. Third, there are many 

other organizations with roles in fire science and response 

much larger than the roles of the USGS. A consequence of this 

complexity has been a fragmented approach to the problems, 

which can reduce the effectiveness of USGS products.

Recommendations:

• These problems could be reduced through more effective coordination between scientists and programs 

across the USGS. Establishment of a USGS Fire 

Science Council, with representation from all pertinent 

Mission Areas, could provide this internal coordination 

and also help the USGS define and clarify its interaction with other agencies involved in wildfire science 

and response. The Fire Science Council could set 

research objectives and help coordinate products and 

response tools to support USGS fire science efforts. 

• USGS should develop a protocol for soliciting, supporting, and assigning USGS fire scientists to Burned 

Area Emergency Response teams.

Issue: Public interest in hazards. The general public has a 

high level of interest in the research activities of the hazards 

mission, and NHMA scientists are often the public face of the 

USGS. Furthermore, the hazards Web pages are some of the 

most read Web pages in the Federal Government. This high 

level of public interest puts a greater responsibility of NHMA 

scientists to strive for excellence in their public interactions. 

Recognizing that informing the public about natural hazards 

and their potential impacts is one of the core responsibilities of 

the USGS, the NHMA must invest in supporting activities that 

facilitate this communication.

ShakeOut (2008) and ARkStorm (2010) scenarios, 

produced by the Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project (MHDP), were respectively based on consensus 

models for a major earthquake on the southern San 

Andreas fault and for a California statewide storm 

emulating winter, 1861–62. Throughout scenario development, a collaborative process engaged partners and 

stakeholders, and tapped the expertise of hundreds. 

These interdisciplinary scenarios applied state-of-theart science for the benefit of policy discussion and 

risk-wise decision making; and stimulated research 

in more than a dozen fields to estimate natural hazard 

processes, physical damages, and societal consequences. Fundamental research results have appeared 

in over 20 scientific publications and merited a special 

issue of Earthquake Spectra. In addition, U.S. Geological Survey scientists created customized distillations 

of scenario results at the request of individual counties and cities. The scenarios continue to contribute to 

disaster planning and mitigation long after initial drills 

and exercises conclude. As just a few examples, FEMA 

adopted the ShakeOut scenario as the basis of a Catastrophic Plan for Southern California, Bank of America 

changed their emergency plans because of ShakeOut, 

and the California Water Agency Response Network 

organized and practiced mutual aid for water systems, 

then applied this practice during response to the 2010 

El Major Cucapah earthquake. The Commander, Navy 

Region Southwest, leveraged ARkStorm for the 2011 

Citadel Rumble emergency response and recovery 

exercise in California and Nevada.

MHDP Scenarios for Building Networks and Doing Research

Figure 26. Researchers on the ARkStorm scenario modeled an 

atmospheric river storm similar to this one. An atmospheric river is 

a relatively narrow region in the atmosphere that transports large 

amounts of water vapor outside of the tropics. ArkStorm brought 

greater recognition of the importance of atmospheric rivers, and 

of limitations in local and state preparations for storms of this size. 

An ARkStorm is just about as likely as a large earthquake on the 

southern San Andreas fault. The storm’s flooding would require 

evacuations of hundreds of thousands of people, far exceeding 

the capabilities of emergency responders. It would cause fewer 

casualties that a southern San Andreas earthquake, but have four 

times the economic consequences, generating long-term business 

interruption in many business sectors.
42 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

Recommendations: The NHMA should encourage public 

interactions with the Hazards Programs by:

• Increasing professional development of Web pages and 

social media.

• Promoting citizen science activities such as “Did You 

Feel It?” (earthquakes), “Did You See It?” (landslides), 

and “Did it Fall?” (volcanoes).

• Engaging fundamental science practices to ensure scientific integrity in its social media and citizen science 

activities.

• Providing training to scientists in improving interaction with the media and working with Science Centers 

to provide professional recognition to scientists who 

devote the time and resources to effective interactions.

• Working with the Office of Communications to create 

partnerships with the Science Centers to improve public products and media interactions.

Issues: Technological and other crises. USGS expertise 

with natural hazards enables us to make important contributions when the event involves similar processes, but is 

human caused. A recent example is the important USGS role 

in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill where USGS 

scientists were central to the interdisciplinary and multiagency scientific and emergency response. This capacity must 

Lidar technology collects images from ground, air, and space, and has profoundly changed the way earth scientists visualize and 

understand the surface of our planet. Lidar data reveal landforms hidden by vegetation and enable geologists to identify previously 

unrecognized landslides, faults, volcanic landforms, and old stream channels. This knowledge can vastly improve the accuracy of

hazard assessments, thus strategic acquisition of lidar is a critical objective in the coming decade. 

InSAR maps ground deformation using radar images from Earth-orbiting satellites. InSAR greatly extends the ability of scientists 

to detect subtle and dramatic changes in the earth’s surface and shows great promise in improving forecasts of many natural 

hazards. The USGS is a leader in many applications of InSAR and works closely with academics and other government agencies 

to acquire, process, and analyze images. Focused investment 

in InSAR expertise and support is a USGS priority in the coming 

decade. 

Lidar and InSAR: Powerful Tools for Assessments and Forecasts

Figure 27. Lidar image revealed an intricate pattern of 

surface ruptures along the Borrego fault following the 

April 4, 2010 El Mayor–Cucapah earthquake (M 7.2) in Baja 

California, Mexico. Such distributed faulting–here more than 

50 meters wide–presents special design challenges to housing 

developers or critical lifeline infrastructure planners in urban 

settings. Detection and interpretation of this rupture pattern 

was possible only because of strategic and timely Lidar image 

acquisition before and after the earthquake. Image courtesy 

M. Oskin and K. Hudnut. 

Figure 28. InSAR interferogram of Mount Peulik, a 

stratovolcano located about 550 km southwest of Anchorage, 

Alaska. The striking bull’s-eye fringe pattern centered on 

the southwest flank of the volcano represents about 17 cm 

of uplift between October 1996 and September 1997. Other 

interferograms for September 1997 to September 1998 indicated 

about 3 centimeters of additional uplift. Model results suggest a 

magmatic intrusion of 50 million cubic meters at 6.6 kilometers 

depth. InSAR tracking of volcano deformation is a powerful tool 

for early detection of volcanic unrest. Image courtesy Z. Lu.
Opportunities and Challenges 43

be maintained by ensuring a diverse, creative, and enthusiastic workforce of natural scientists who are ready and able to 

respond to the Nation’s emerging needs even if they transcend 

USGS statutory boundaries. It will be a challenge to leadership and the scientific staff to effectively manage these tactical 

scientific responses without taxing core programs across the 

Mission Areas.

Recommendation: NHMA should work with DOI and HREC 

to build and maintain ability to rapidly deploy USGS experts 

and equipment during nonnatural crises, as well as natural 

crises.

Issue: International role of USGS hazard science. Natural 

hazards must be considered in a global context. USGS hazard 

scientists make valuable contributions to saving lives and 

preventing suffering abroad. Many USGS hazard programs 

use globally dispersed monitoring networks to produce situational awareness and assessment products. Many of the rare, 

large hazardous events have not occurred in the United States 

during historical times; investigating such events worldwide 

returns critical knowledge and experience to the United States. 

Expertise in hazards is international, and strategically chosen 

collaborations with foreign partners can accelerate and reduce 

costs of needed research and development. Finally, the USGS 

is increasingly called upon to advise the U.S. Government and 

others on potential and actual hazardous events overseas.

Recommendations:

• The Bureau must support continued USGS engagement 

with the global hazard science community.

• In particular, close cooperation with our neighboring 

nations to ensure seamless monitoring and understanding of hazards to the North American continent and 

adjacent regions will require ongoing collaboration.

• Department of Defense and USAID have requested 

assistance identifying potential global disaster ‘hot 

spots’ and in remaining informed during disasters and 

hazardous events overseas; the NHMA can spearhead 

common tools and approaches to provide appropriate 

global hazard situational awareness.

Throughout the Nation, wildfire hazards have a major impact on people, homes, businesses, and the natural resources we 

depend on. Wildfire planning is vitally important and LANDFIRE (Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools) 

is a critical component of strategic and tactical planning for fire operations.

LANDFIRE is an interagency vegetation, fire, and fuel characteristics mapping program, sponsored by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, and executed by U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Forest Service. 

LANDFIRE produces a comprehensive, consistent, scientifically credible suite of spatial data layers for the United 

States. The program is a long-range initiative that periodically updates LANDFIRE data to sustain the value of the 

project and to ensure the timeliness, quality, and improvement of future data products.

LANDFIRE fuel data describe the composition and characteristics of surface fuel and canopy fuel. Specific products 

include fire behavior fuel models, canopy bulk density, 

canopy base height, canopy cover, canopy height, the Fuel 

Characteristic Classification System fuelbeds, and fuel 

loading models. LANDFIRE data are in GIS-ready format as 

required for many fire behavior and effects models. 

LANDFIRE provides key geospatial inputs to the Wildland 

Fire Decision Support System and its tools such as FSPro 

(Fire Spread Probability), a spatial model that calculates the 

probability of fire spread from a current fire perimeter or 

ignition point for a specified time period. 

The USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science Center 

distributes LANDFIRE information.

LANDFIRE: Geospatial Information for Strategic and Tactical Wildfire Planning

Figure 29. The 10-day burn probability perimeters derived 

from the FSPro analysis were used to develop probability zones 

and the associated acres and values within these perimeters. 

LANDFIRE geospatial data from U.S. Geological Survey were 

used to establish existing vegetation and fire fuel conditions for 

the Middle Fork Complex fire in 2007.
44 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

Issue: Critical evaluation of predictions of natural hazards.

Because natural hazards pose a risk to society, predictions of 

the occurrence of hazards are sought by many decisionmakers 

even when those predictions are not scientifically verifiable. 

The Nation often needs critical, scientific evaluation of prediction methods that have raised public concern. Experience has 

shown that trying to ignore misinformation does not make it 

go away, but rather can allow the misinformation to spread. 

Given its expertise, mission, and delegated responsibilities, the 

USGS has an obligation to be the authority about these predictions, which can cause significant social disruption. Evaluation 

of such predictions takes considerable effort, which is likely to 

increase.

Recommendation: The NHMA needs to be proactive in providing scientifically verified information about natural hazards 

and especially predictions when needed for public policy.

Issue: Necessity of in-house Information Technology (IT)

capabilities. Information technology infrastructure and expertise are critical to fulfillment of the USGS mission related to 

natural hazards, in order to maintain and broaden 24x7 monitoring and warning capabilities and in order to make ad hoc 

situational awareness products needed during crises.

Recommendations: The NHMA should:

• Convene occasional workshops where monitoring network operators can identify needed, near- and fartherfuture technologies and expertise.

• Use its position to increase awareness that local management of IT infrastructure is a necessity for monitoring and situational awareness.

Issue: Status of the USGS library. The USGS library has 

been an important resource for USGS research scientists. The 

USGS library has unique holdings not found elsewhere. In the 

new organization, the support systems for the library are not 

as clear.

Recommendation: The NHMA should advocate throughout 

the USGS for continuing support for the USGS library system.

Planning and Interconnections Across 

the USGS Mission Areas

Water and Hazards

Water is a ubiquitous and crucial component to life on 

earth. Characterization of the amount, distribution, movement, 

and quality of the water on earth is an important mission of the 

USGS. The presence or absence of water plays an important 

role in the occurrence and severity of selected hazards and 

the occurrence of selected hazards can play an important role 

in the distribution, movement, and quality of water. As such, 

there are obvious interconnections and interdependencies 

between the USGS Water Mission Area (WMA) and the Natural Hazards Mission Area (NHMA) in carrying out the hazards 

mission of the USGS.

Floods: Floods are a major hazard occurring every year in the 

United States. The USGS real-time streamgage network, the 

centerpiece of the USGS flood science mission and activity, is 

the responsibility of the WMA, with the operational responsibility at the USGS Water Science Centers. Additionally, 

rapid deployment gages are deployed by WMA scientists and 

hydrographers to meet additional data needs during flooding 

and the WMA is taking a lead role in the development of inundation mapping products. Although NSIP is designed to meet 

multiple needs, the most frequent justification for NSIP funding is related to flood monitoring and provision of information 

to the NOAA-NWS flood warning and forecast responsibilities. All five of the stated goals of NSIP (http://water.usgs.gov/

nsip/goals9.html) are closely related to the USGS hazards 

mission.

Hurricane-induced coastal hazards: Landfalling hurricanes 

produce flooding and coastal damages. Storm-surge sensors, 

deployed by the WMA before landfall of Category III or 

greater hurricanes, provide important data to understanding 

coastal hazards, such as storm-surge flooding and shoreline 

erosion. 

Landslides/debris flow: Landslides and debris flows are 

mass wasting processes that typically occur when a critical amount of water infiltrates or is entrained into the earth 

materials.

Wildfire: Following wildfires, the potential for floods, landslides, and debris flows is greatly enhanced. WMA hydrographers collect valuable rainfall and streamflow data in selected 

wildfire burn areas to provide data, both for warning and 

scientific process understanding.

Water-quality impacts from hazards: Following selected 

hazards such as floods, wildfire, and volcanic activity, the 

quality of water can be negatively impacted. WMA scientists 
Planning and Interconnections Across the USGS Mission Areas 45

and technicians collect data and conduct research into the 

impact of the hazards on water quality.

Drought: Worldwide, drought is a critical hazard that interplays with other hazards such as wildfire. The USGS is an 

important contributor to the Vegetation Drought Response 

Index and other drought information products in development by the multiagency National Drought Mitigation 

Center housed at the University of Nebraska. Expertise and 

resources from the Earth Resources Observation and Science 

Center (EROS) and streamflow information managed by the 

WMA contribute to this program. Although drought is recognized as a costly and serious hazard, most data collection and 

scientific research analysis is conducted by the WMA.

Tsunami: Although never used to date, the WMA could 

deploy storm-surge sensors and rapid deployment gages in 

anticipation of a tsunami.

To leverage programmatic overlap between hazards and 

water, the H-SPPT identifies the following priority areas of 

mutual interest:

• Flood science research in such areas as flood probability, regional flood-frequency analysis, paleoflood 

hydrology, rainfall-runoff processes, and riverine 

hydraulics are all carried out under the WMA oversight.

• Develop a sustainable program for the deployment and 

retrieval of sensors and analysis of storm-surge data.

• Enhance and foster further collaboration between 

scientists from WMA programs in rainfall-runoff 

processes, sediment transport, and geomporphology. 

Collaborate with scientists in the NHMA to conduct 

research into mass-wasting phenomena, such as landslides and debris flows.

• Enhance and foster further collaboration between 

WMA scientists with NHMA, Ecosystems, Core 

Science System scientists on the incidence of floods, 

landslides, and debris flows, along with assessing the 

impact on water quality in the burned watersheds.

• Foster collaboration between WMA scientist and 

NHMA in the study of the impacts of hazards on water 

quality.

• The NHMA should support WMA investigations of 

drought where possible.

• NHMA should fully utilize the capabilities in the WMA 

for deployment of long-term gages and rapidly deployable storm-surge sensors in coastal areas susceptible to 

tsunami.

Climate and Land Use Change and Hazards

Climate change has the potential to greatly affect the 

impact of many natural hazards. Extreme rainfall events can 

cause floods that exceed common thresholds and frequency; 

and can induce landslides. Drought can result in increased 

wildfire activity and can change hurricane frequency and 

severity, which affects coastal erosion processes. Climate 

change is expected to alter sea level, exacerbating the effects 

of coastal erosion and likely the damaging effects of tsunami 

events. Understanding the direct effects of climate change in 

relation to natural hazards is critical in order to identify and 

predict hazards, and estimate impacts for the development of 

adaptive management strategies.

Land-use change and projections, also the purview of 

the Climate and Land Use Change (CLU) Mission Area, 

ultimately contribute to the estimation of consequences of 

all natural hazards. Commercial, industrial, and residential 

development in seismic regions, in the shadows of volcanoes, 

along coastal reaches, in the flood plain, on steep slopes, and 

within the wildland urban interface compounds the risk and 

consequences of natural hazards.

The USGS also is directed in the Stafford Act to study 

and issue warnings for glacial processes that could impact 

infrastructure and public safety; however, the NHMA traditionally has not focused on this hazard as a priority. USGS 

work in glaciology, at present (2011), consists of maintenance 

of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska Benchmark Glacier 

Program, and limited glacier dynamic studies. The current 

(2011) urgent global focus on the role of the cryosphere as 

the critical indicator of climate change lends new emphasis 

to the need to understand and monitor the national inventory 

of ice. Moreover, recent work illuminating the substantial 

volumetric contribution of Alaskan glacier ice, particularly 

from calving glaciers, to changing sea level points to an urgent 

need to increase systematic monitoring of ice budgets in the 

Arctic. Outburst floods caused by catastrophic draining of 

glacially dammed lakes have the potential to dramatically alter 

ecosystems and threaten critical infrastructure, yet are poorly 

understood. Current destruction of permafrost in Alaska also 

is rapid and leading to pronounced impacts on communities—especially transportation and energy infrastructure—and 

ecosystems. The USGS CLU along with the Water Mission 

Area is well positioned to play an important role in systematic 

monitoring and the study of glacier dynamics and permafrost 

degradation in support of adaptation to new and emerging 

hazards of a changing climate.

Another related element is the assessment of opportunities for geologic carbon sequestration, including the storage of 

carbon in suitable geologic structures. Carbon sequestration 

may induce earthquakes and have other unintended effects.

CLU is responsible for development and operation of the 

Landsat satellite and manages other land-imaging assets. Hazards Mission has specific requirements for satellite and aerial 

imagery in optical, thermal, and microwave spectral frequencies. An important outcome of the land-imaging activities of 
46 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

CLU is the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters, which provides for the charitable re-tasked acquisition of 

and transmission of space satellite data to relief organizations 

in the event of major disasters.

To leverage programmatic overlap between hazards and 

climate and land-use change the H-SSPT identifies the following priority areas of mutual interest:

• Initiate long-term, interdisciplinary projects focused 

on understanding the impact of climate change on 

sea level rise and coastal processes in order to better understand how sea level rise caused by climate 

change will affect the impacts of natural hazards such 

as tsunamis and coastal erosion.

• Initiate long-term, interdisciplinary studies focused 

on understanding the impact of hazardous events on 

climate change, specifically volcanic out-gassing and 

injection of ash into the atmosphere.

• Investigate use of remote-sensing capability to improve 

hazard identification and assessments. The acquisition 

and application of lidar data is a high priority among 

all elements of the Natural Hazards Mission.

• Evaluate the role of climate change in altering the wildfire frequency and severity to understand and assess 

the hazard to life and property in the wildland urban 

interface.

• Evaluate the potential contribution of climate change to 

hazard exposure, vulnerability, and risk.

• Evaluate the role of land-use and land-cover change to 

increase hazard exposure, vulnerability, and risk.

• Evaluate the seismic hazard associated with geologic 

carbon sequestration and gas reservoir stimulation.

Kīlauea Volcano emits noxious sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas and other pollutants that produce acid rain and volcanic pollution known as vog (fig. 30). Acid rain damages crops and infrastructure and can leach lead into water supplies, while vog 

aggravates respiratory conditions. The USGS Hawai`ian Volcano Observatory (HVO) monitors Kīlauea’s emissions and works 

with health professionals, land managers, and others to better understand vog and enhance public awareness. In the early 

1990s, HVO found that Federal gas and particle standards frequently were exceeded within populated areas of Hawai`i 

Volcanoes National Park and brought attention to volcanic gas as a hazard. In partnership with the National Park Service, 

HVO developed an SO2 color-code advisory system and response plan to help protect visitors and staff. HVO is now involved 

in multidisciplinary, multi-agency efforts to identify, track, and mitigate vog hazards. These include community-based 

health studies, gas and particle monitoring, and research on agricultural impacts. USGS also worked with the University of 

Hawai`i and NOAA to develop a vog forecast system for the State. Ongoing collaboration with the USGS Crustal Imaging and 

Characterization Team has helped apply environmental geochemistry to address environmental and public health impacts of 

volcanic pollution. 

Volcanic Gas and Human Health: New Partnerships to Address Emerging Hazards

Figure 30. Kīlauea is the largest stationary source of SO2 in the United States causing effects to human health, agriculture, and 

business. Studies show increased emergency room visits for respiratory complaints since the onset of the 2008 summit eruption. In 

July 2008, the U.S. Department of Agriculture declared Hawai`i Island a disaster area because of agricultural losses. Local effects 

of Kīlauea’s eruptive plume include potential fluoride toxicity in livestock, rapid corrosion of infrastructure such as fencing, roofing 

and other galvanized metal, and crop loss by farmers. There was an average 43 percent loss of total family income by Protea 

flower growers since 2008 due to volcanic gas and particles.
Planning and Interconnections Across the USGS Mission Areas 47

• Understand the impact of solar activity, as measured by 

geomagnetic activity, on earth’s climate.

• Analysis of seismic noise associated over historical 

timescales associated with changing meteorological 

conditions and sea-ice concentration.

Energy and Minerals and Hazards

As a nation, there are vulnerabilities from energy and 

mineral development, exploration, and related industrial 

activities. Using best practices and risk management enables 

us to use mineral and energy resources safely in our society. 

Many types of expertise typically applied to natural hazards 

can be brought to bear when energy and mineral practices 

cause hazardous events. Moreover, when mining and energy 

resources lie within regions susceptible to natural hazards, the 

vulnerability to a natural disaster can radically increase. The 

Natural Hazards Mission Area can help understand geologic 

structure and processes. The mutual benefit implies a need 

to integrate energy and mineral resource exploitation with an 

understanding of vulnerability to a hazard.

Natural hazards such as earthquake, volcanic eruption, 

and tsunami can cause catastrophic damages to facilities and 

mining and energy operations that contain or produce harmful 

contaminants. Natural hazards such as flood and wildfire can 

result in exposure to contaminates in runoff and smoke, either 

immediately or over the longer term. Understanding the direct 

effects of energy and mineral development in relation to natural hazards is critical in order to identify and predict the hazard 

and develop adaptive management strategies.

The USGS Energy and Minerals Mission Area provide 

scientific information for objective resource assessments and 

unbiased research results on mineral and energy potential, 

production, consumption, and environmental effects.

To leverage programmatic overlap between hazards and 

energy and minerals the H-SSPT identifies the following priority areas of mutual interest:

• Seismic hazards associated with geologic carbon 

sequestration and geothermal exploitation.

• Ground-water contamination because of hydrofracking 

during natural-gas extraction.

• Sink holes associated with underground mine collapse, 

including seismic forensics of collapse.

• Climate-induced changes in the environments of 

marine gas hydrates, possibly generating landslides of 

tsunamigenic significance.

• Coordinated efforts to obtain geophysical survey data 

for priority energy, mineral, and hazard target areas.

• Geothermal energy associated with volcanic systems 

(and some earthquake faults).

• Explore opportunities that might arise from restoration 

of abandoned marine investigations in the exclusive 

economic zone; such abandoned investigations have 

left the Unites States vulnerable in not having sustainable in-house scientific expertise to evaluate oil and 

gas potential. Filling this gap would also increase 

in-house expertise to respond to offshore oil-field 

disasters like the Macondo Well disaster of 2010.

Environmental Health and Hazards

The linkage between natural hazards and environmental health are apparent and profound. Natural hazards, such 

as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis can cause 

catastrophic damages to industrial facilities, in addition to 

mining and energy operations that contain or produce harmful 

contaminants. The Japan 2011 earthquake and tsunami caused 

major loss of life and a nuclear disaster. Natural hazards such 

as floods and wildfire can result in exposure to contaminates 

in runoff, dust, and smoke, either immediately or over the 

longer term. Flood and fire raging through industrial societies 

can have catastrophic impacts as well. Wherever humans and 

animals coexist with potential natural hazard, there should be 

concern for environmental health. Understanding the direct 

effects of hazards on environmental health is critical in order 

to identify and predict the impacts and develop adaptive management strategies.

To leverage programmatic overlap between hazards and 

environmental health the H-SSPT identifies the following 

priority areas of mutual interest:

• Impact of volcanic gas emissions and airborne ash on 

human and environmental health.

• Effects of increased radiation during magnetic storms 

for high-altitude pilots, passengers, and polar-cap-route 

airlines.

• Dust and pollution associated with landslides, wildfires 

and fires burning built-up areas, including water pollution.

• Waterborne diseases and the release of pollutants (pesticides and other chemicals) associated with floods.

• General impact of floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis 

with their encroachment on built-up areas and associated release of pollutants.

• Human-caused disasters causing pollution (for example, the World Trade Center disaster).

• Collection of ephemeral data during and after an event.
48 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

Ecosystems and Hazards

At short time scales associated with hazardous events, 

understanding the direct effects of natural hazards on ecological systems is critical in order to identify and predict risks, 

develop adaptive management strategies, and address wildlife 

issues during response. Natural hazards can affect ecosystem 

resiliency by impacting wildlife and their habitat, marine 

mammals, threatened and endangered species, pollinators and 

plants. The frequency or severity of earthquakes, volcanic 

activity, tsunamis, floods, wildfire, and other natural hazards 

can have far-reaching impacts on ecosystems. During an 

event, hazard information is needed to forecast and respond to 

wildlife issues. Among the direct effects are changes in environmental factors such as topographic/bathymetric changes, 

vegetation, habitat function, and water quality and availability.

At longer time scales associated with ecosystem evolution, ecosystems can modulate the frequency and severity of 

hazards. The adaptive nature of ecosystems implies that resilience to natural hazards is a characteristic of the ecosystem. 

Understanding the processes of natural hazards will be necessary to develop models to predict future changes to ecosystems, to model how external stressors such as natural hazards 

will affect ecosystem resiliency, and to develop management 

alternatives in the face of stressors.

To enhance understanding of the relation between hazards 

and ecological systems, the H-SSPT recommends feedback 

between natural hazard and ecosystem processes be considered by both hazard and ecosystem studies. The emphasis of 

the hazard studies is to include relevant ecosystem processes 

in understanding hazard frequency and severity.

Wildfires are a clear example of a hazard that has a strong 

interaction with ecosystems. Wildfires are a major hazard in 

the United States leading to large annual losses, but also are a 

fundamental process in the functioning of many ecosystems. 

Many of the types of research questions addressed in the Hazards Mission for other hazards are addressed in the Ecosystem Mission Area for wildfire. The Fire Science Coordinator 

is also in the Ecosystem Mission Area connecting the wide 

range of research in the USGS. The Fire Science Coordinator 

needs to work closely with the Associate Director for Hazards to ensure that the USGS fills the Nation’s requirements, 

especially when fires are occurring. To leverage programmatic overlap between Hazards and Ecosystems pertaining to 

wildfire, the H-SSPT identifies the following priority areas of 

mutual interest:

• Frequency of wildfires in different ecosystems.

• Impact of invasive species in changing the fire cycle.

• Changes in fire risk with climate change.

More generally, ecosystem studies should request that 

hazards include relevant hazard vulnerability assessments to 

enhance fundamental ecosystem understanding, as well as the 

understanding of more applied, adaptive management strategies. An important distinction between direct societal impacts 

and ecosystem impacts is that hazardous events may cause 

positive and negative changes in habitat. Just a few examples 

of these important ecosystem impacts attributable to natural 

hazards include disruptions of wildlife habitats because of 

volcanic events and processes, landslide disruptions, and permafrost degradations.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geomagnetism 

Program has begun a novel public-private cooperative 

relationship with the oil-services company Schlumberger 

to install and operate a new magnetic observatory near 

the town of Deadhorse, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. These days, 

in order to minimize costs and environmental impact, 

multiple oil reservoirs are reached from a single platform by directional drilling—first drilling down and then 

out horizontally away from the surface platform. Like a 

compass can be used to estimate direction, a magnetometer in an instrument package that follows the drill bit is 

used to provide in situ orientation. Since the magnetic 

field at high latitudes can be very active, especially during 

magnetic storms caused by the interaction of the solar 

wind the with the Earth’s magnetic field, simultaneous 

monitoring of the changing magnetic field at the surface 

also is required. The combination of data from a magnetic 

observatory and from the drill string enables accurate directional drilling. This is an application of USGS 

monitoring of the effects of space weather that is literally 

“down-to-earth”! As a condition of USGS involvement 

with the Deadhorse-observatory project, the data are 

freely available to the public.

Magnetic Orientation for Directional 

Drilling

Figure 31. Installation of the Deadhorse, Prudhoe Bay, 

Alaska observatory, January 2010.
Planning and Interconnections Across the USGS Mission Areas 49

Core Science Systems and Hazards

The mission of the USGS Core Science Systems (CSS) 

is to create, manage and serve geospatial data about the earth. 

Hazards needs CSS to aid in processing and analyzing observations, and to provide access to geospatial data by scientists 

researching hazards and by outside users managing hazards. 

Integrated data management is a fundamental need of scientists studying hazards and of those who use USGS information, particularly emergency responders and planners.

The emergency-response and planning communities need 

trustworthy hazard data pulled together in one place and made 

easily accessible. Hazard preparation, response, and recovery 

planning require the development of models and interpretive maps of potential hazards that vary spatially throughout 

a region. USGS scientists need to be able to share scientific, 

built environment, and socioeconomic spatial data interoperably during product development and from one product to 

another.

An important responsibility of CSS is to support the 

scientific library of the USGS and to serve the science community. The USGS is considered a primary source of published 

geoscience and the USGS library holds many unique geoscience manuscripts.

The USGS also is directed in the Disaster Reduction Act 

to study, characterize, and issue warnings for land subsidence 

(carbonate karst and evaporite processes, sinkholes, and subsidence because of groundwater or hydrocarbon withdrawal). 

At present (2011), limited efforts in land-subsidence science 

are supported by Core Science Systems.

To leverage programmatic overlap between Hazards and 

Core Science Systems, the H-SSPT identifies the following 

priority areas of mutual interest:

• The geologic mapping under the National Cooperative 

Geologic Mapping Program in CSS is a basic tool for 

assessments in many of the hazards and must continue 

to be supported.

• Many hazards projects are creating geologic databases, 

such as the fault activity database. Hazards needs to 

interface with Core Science Systems to provide information into more general databases and to use CSS 

capabilities to create better databases and interfaces.

• Assessment of land-subsidence processes and impacts.

• Improve tools serving data and other products on line 

and integrated for users, specifically, enhancement of 

the Hazards Data Distribution System (HDDS), one of 

the most widely used dissemination portals for geospatial information and pre- and post-event satellite and 

aerial imagery.

• Improve tools for near-real-time monitoring for situational awareness, emergency and scientific response 

to disasters, potential disasters, and hazardous events.

• Coordinate efforts to obtain geophysical monitoring 

and geophysical survey data for priority hazard target 

areas.

Eruptions, fires, floods, and other hazardous events can have profound impacts on ecosystems, yet few studies document 

the recovery of plants and animals to such a devastating landscape ‘reset’. On August 7, 2008, 3-kilometer-wide Kasatochi 

Volcano in the Aleutian Islands erupted violently, blanketing the island with volcanic debris (fig. 32). A long-term biological 

monitoring site of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR), Kasatochi is now 

an ecosystem recovery experiment in progress. Geologists, botanists, ornithologists, and marine ecologists from 

the USGS, AMNWR, Universities of Alaska and NevadaLas Vegas have returned to Kasatochi and nearby islands 

repeatedly to document impacts and collect post-eruption 

information to monitor the long-term recovery. This ongoing 

program is a unique opportunity to examine how volcanism 

and other processes that reshape the Earth’s surface affect 

ecosystem dynamics. Results can provide insights into similar ecosystem perturbations elsewhere. 

Hazardous Events and Ecosystem Dynamics

Figure 32. The island of Kasatochi, before and after eruption 

in 2008.
50 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

Selected References

Below are listed references that are cited in the text and 

other documents that were used by the H-SSPT in development of this report.

Aster, R., Bergantz, G., Carn, S., Serafino, G., Wilson, J., 

Yepes, H., and White, K., 2007, Review of the United States 

Geological Survey Volcano Hazards Program: American 

Association for the Advancement of Science Research 

Competitiveness Program, 37 p. (Also available at http://

volcanoes.usgs.gov/publications/pdf/aaas2007.pdf.)

Baker, D.N., and others, 2008, Severe space weather events—

Understanding societal and economic impacts: A workshop 

report: The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 

131 p.

California Integrated Seismic Network, available at http://

www.cisn.org/docs.html.

Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy Briefing Paper, 

August 6, 2010, 2 p.

Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences, 

2006, Facing hazards and disasters—Understanding human 

dimensions: The National Academies Press, Washington 

D.C., 24 p.

Committee on the Review of the National Landslide Hazards (Mitigation Strategy) Board on Earth Sciences and 

Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National 

Research Council of the National Academies, 2004, 

Partnerships for reducing landslide risk—Assessment of 

the national landslide hazards mitigation strategy: The 

National Academies Press, Washington D.C., 144 p. (Also 

available at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_

id=10946&page=R1.)

Committee on the Review of the USGS Volcano Hazards 

Program, 2007, Review of the U.S. Geological Survey’s 

volcano hazards program: Washington D.C., National Academies Press, 37 p.

Committee on U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources 

Research, 1999, Hydrologic hazards science at the U.S. 

Geological Survey: Washington D.C., National Academies 

Press, 79 p.

East, J.W., Turco, M.J., and Mason, R.R., Jr., 2008, Monitoring inland storm surge and flooding from Hurricane Ike 

in Texas and Louisiana, September 2008: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2008–1365, 34 p. (Also available 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1365/).

Ewert, J.W., Guffanti, M., and Murray, T.L., 2005, An assessment of volcanic threat and monitoring capabilities in the 

United States—Framework for a National Volcano Early 

Warning System: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2005–1164, 62 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2005/1164/.)

Fuis, G.S., and Wald, L.A., comps., 2003, Rupture in SouthCentral Alaska—The Denali Fault Earthquake of 2002: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 014-03, 4 p. (Also available 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2003/fs014-03/.)

Leith, W.S., Gee, L.S., and Hutt, C.R., 2009, U.S. Geological Survey Global Seismographic Network— Five-Year 

Plan 2006–2010: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2009–1013, 27 p.

Highland, L.M., and Bobrowsky, Peter, 2008, The landslide 

handbook—A guide to understanding landslides: Reston, 

Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1325, 129 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1325/.)

Lanzerotti, L.J., and others, 2006, Report of the assessment 

committee for the National Space Weather Program: Office 

of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and 

Supporting Research, FCM-R24-2006, Silver Spring, Md., 

100 p. 

Love, J.J., Applegate, D., and Townshend, J.B., 2008, Monitoring the Earth’s dynamic magnetic field: U.S. Geological 

Survey Fact Sheet 2007–3092, 2 p. (Also available at http://

pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3092/.)

Love, J.J., and Finn, C.A., 2011, The USGS Geomagnetism 

Program and its role in space weather monitoring: Space 

Weather, v. 9, S07001 (Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1029/2011SW000684.)

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, 2008, Strategic plan for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program—Fiscal years 2009–2013: National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, 66 p.

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, 2010, White 

paper on achieving national disaster resilience—Advisory 

committee on earthquake hazards reduction: National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, 4 p. (Also available at 

http://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/ACEHRWhitePaperFeb2010.pdf.)

National Hydrologic Warning Council, 2006, Flood management benefits of USGS streamgaging program: National 

Hydrologic Warning Council, 48 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008, 

NOAA’s tsunami program 2008–2017 strategic plan, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 33 p.
Selected References 51

National Research Council, 2004, Partnerships for reducing 

landslide risk—Assessment of the National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy: Commitee on the Review of the 

National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy, 144 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2005, Grand challenges for disaster reduction: National and Science Technology Council, 28 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand Challenges Implementation Plan—Coastal Inundation: National 

Science and Technology Council, 4 p. 

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand Challenges Implementation Plan—Drought: National Science 

and Technology Council, 4 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand Challenges Implementation Plan—Earthquake: National Science 

and Technology Council, 4 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand Challenges Implementation Plan—Flood: National Science and 

Technology Council, 4 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand Challenges Implementation Plan—Heat wave: National Science 

and Technology Council, 4 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand Challenges Implementation Plan—Human and ecosystem health: 

National Science and Technology Council, 4 p. 

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand Challenges Implementation Plan—Hurricane: National Science 

and Technology Council, 4 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand Challenges Implementation Plan—Landslide and debris Flow: 

National Science and Technology Council, 4 p. 

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand Challenges Implementation Plan—Space weather: National 

Science and Technology Council, 4 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand 

Challenges Implementation Plan—Technological disasters: 

National Science and Technology Council, 4 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand Challenges Implementation Plan—Tornado: National Science 

and Technology Council, 4 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand Challenges Implementation Plan—Tsunami: National Science 

and Technology Council, 4 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand Challenges Implementation Plan—Volcano: National Science 

and Technology Council, 4 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand 

Challenges Implementation Plan—Wildland fire: National 

Science and Technology Council, 4 p.

National Science and Technology Council, 2006, Grand 

Challenges Implementation Plan—Winter storms: National 

Science and Technology Council, 4 p.

National Space Weather Program Council, 2010, Strategic 

plan: National Space Weather Program Council, 32 p.

National Wildland Fire Management Report to Congress and 

Cohesive Strategy, October 2010, 44 p. 

Neal, C.A., and Guffanti, M.C., 2010, Airborne volcanic 

ash—A global threat to aviation: U.S. Geological Survey 

Fact Sheet 2010–3116, 6 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/fs/2010/3116/.)

Peackock, W., Kunreuther, H., Hooke, W., Cutter, S., Chang, 

S., and Berke, P., 2008, Toward a resiliency and vulnerability observation network—RAVON: Hazard Reduction and 

Recovery Center reports 08–02R, 25 p.

Tsunami Warning and Education Act, Public Law 109-424, 

December 20, 2006, 9 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011, Strategic plan for fiscal 

years 2011-2016: U.S. Department of the Interior, 46 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Requirement for an advanced 

national seismic system: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1188, 55 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

circ/1999/c1188/.)

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004, Understand volcano hazards 

and preventing volcanic disasters—A science strategy for 

the volcano hazards program 2004–2008: U.S. Geological 

Survey, 71 p.

 U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, Earthquake hazards program 

five-year plan—2005-2009: U.S. Geological Survey, 54 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, The U.S. Geological Survey 

landslide hazards program 5-year plan: U.S. Geological 

Survey, 26 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, Facing tomorrow’s challenges—U.S. Geological Survey science in the decade 

2007–2017: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1309, 70 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2007/1309/.)
52 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

U.S. Geological Survey, 2008, Strategic plan for the 

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program—Fiscal years 2009–2013: National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, 66 p. (Also available at http://nehrp.gov/pdf/

strategic_plan_ppt.pdf.)

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010, Volcano hazards program—

Implementation plan for the National Volcano Early Warning System, Pre-decisional draft 27, 46 p.

U.S. Group on Earth Observations, 2010, Achieving and 

sustaining Earth observations—A preliminary plan based on 

a strategic assessment: Office of Science and Technology, 

34 p.

Wood, Nathan, 2007, Variations in city exposure and sensitivity to tsunami hazards in Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5283, 37 p. (Also 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5283/.)

Wood, Nathan, Church, Alyssia, Frazier, Tim, and Yarnal, Brent, 2007, revised 2008, Variations in community 

exposure and sensitivity to tsunami hazards in the State of 

Hawai`i: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation 

Report 2007–5208, v. 1.1, 42 p. (Also available at http://

pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5208/).

Wood, Nathan, and Soulard, Christopher, 2008, Variations in 

community exposure and sensitivity to tsunami hazards on 

the open-ocean and Strait of Juan de Fuca coasts of Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2008–5004, 34 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/sir/2008/5004/.)
Definitions 53

Definitions

Hazard terminology often has different 

meanings and usage to different audiences. 

This glossary defines the terms as used in this 

report. Many of these are taken or modified 

from the United Nation’s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the 

text of this report, the first usage of each term 

appears in bold text.

Adaptive management Adaptive management focuses on learning and adapting, 

through partnerships of managers, scientists, 

and other stakeholders.

Catastrophe A disaster that causes disruption so great that the resilience of a community is far exceeded and impacts are evident 

for years to decades.

Core responsibilities Activities that the 

USGS must continue in order to uphold its 

mission. In many cases, these are mandated 

activities that help to protect lives and assets. 

Crisis A potentially dangerous time or situation when hazardous events are occurring or 

threaten to occur.

Disaster Disruption of the functioning of a 

community or a society involving widespread 

human, material, economic or environmental 

losses and impacts that exceed the ability of 

the affected community or society to cope 

using its own resources.

Early warning Capacities needed to generate and disseminate timely and meaningful 

warning information about an impending 

hazard.

Emergency manager, management The people and organizations who manage resources 

and responsibilities that address all aspects 

of emergencies, in particular, preparedness, 

response and initial recovery steps.

Ephemeral data Data lasting for a very short 

time, especially data about a natural hazard 

that will be cleaned up by society seeking to 

repair damages.

Exposure People, property, infrastructure, or 

other societal or valued natural elements that 

are present in hazard zones and, thus, subject 

to potential losses.

Extreme event An event that is statistically 

unusual for its large size or magnitude, putting it in the tail of a statistical distribution.

Forecast Definite statement or statistical 

estimate of the likelihood of occurrence of a 

future event or conditions for a specific area. 

See prediction and warning.

Hazard A dangerous process, phenomenon, substance, activity or condition that 

may cause loss of life, injury or other health 

impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods 

and services, social and economic disruption, 

or environmental damage.

Hazard Assessment Estimation of the characteristics (historical frequency, future probability, magnitude, duration, speed of onset, 

and spatial extent) of a hazardous natural 

process.

Hazard chronology Enumeration of the 

sequence and magnitude of hazardous events 

in the geologic and historic record.

Hazard science An aggregate of a wide 

range of disciplines in the natural, social and 

behavioral sciences that address hazards.

Hazardous event The specific occurrence of 

a hazard, which may or may not have negative 

effects (disaster and catastrophe are hazardous 

events with substantial negative effects).

Mitigation Action, including education, that 

eliminates or reduces the potential effects of 

a hazard.

Natural hazard Natural process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury or 

other health impacts, property damage, loss of 

livelihoods and services, social and economic 

disruption, or environmental damage.

Nowcast Statement of current conditions.

Paleo A modifier indicating prehistoric, that 

is, before written records based on eyewitness accounts. A paleo-hazard is a hazard that 

existed in prehistory. Paleo-hazard studies 

investigate the geologic record of hazardous 

events in prehistory.
54 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

Partner An organization or individual that 

works with the USGS to produce or provide 

information or other products. One category 

of stakeholder.

Prediction A specific statement that identifies a particular outcome at a certain time; 

predictions are a testable result based on a 

model or an understanding of process.

Resilience The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, 

absorb, accommodate and recover from the 

effects of a hazardous event.

Risk The likelihood of a hazard causing 

losses. Risk is a combination of the probability of a hazard occurring and the value of 

assets in harm’s way.

Risk assessment A product describing the 

nature and extent of risk by analyzing potential hazards and vulnerability that together 

potentially could harm people, property, 

services, livelihoods and the environment on 

which they depend.

Scenario A study that posits the occurrence 

of a single disaster and estimates a single set 

of realistic outcomes from that event; components typically include hazard, risk and 

vulnerability assessments.

Situational awareness Information about 

what is happening, where and how big. 

Extensively used by emergency management 

to encompass the maps, facts, and first person 

accounts that they use to understand the scope 

of an unfolding disaster and make decisions 

about response.

Stakeholder A person, organization, agency, 

or industry that needs or benefits from USGS 

information.

Statutory Required by law or regulation.

Strategic actions High-value potential 

efforts that will reduce uncertainties about 

hazards and improve communication, and 

thus enhance the ability to provide accurate, 

effective assessments and situational awareness.

Uncertainty An expression of the degree to 

which a value is not known, whether because 

of limited information, disagreement, or 

inherent variation. The expressions may be 

put in terms of ranges of values, percentages, 

or more qualitative statements.

Urban Area where a hazard holds special 

importance because of the density of people, 

buildings, or infrastructure at risk.

User Someone who makes use of information or products. One category of stakeholder.

Vulnerability The degree to which a system 

(such as a social system, a built environment, 

or an economic system) is susceptible to damaging effects of a hazard.

Warning A statement about the elevated 

probability of a potentially dangerous, hazardous event in the near future.
Appendixes
56 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

Appendix A. Hazard Science in the USGS

Earthquake Hazards Program

The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program monitors the 

Nation’s earthquakes, studies why they occur and how they 

shake the ground, provides quantitative earthquake-hazard 

assessments, helps promote loss-reduction measures using 

these results, and provides crucial scientific information to 

assist emergency responders when earthquakes occur. The 

USGS Earthquake Hazards Program operates under the 

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), 

created by Congress in 1977. To meet the challenges and 

potential of NEHRP, activities supported by the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program are managed under four broad interrelated objectives:

• Improve quantification of seismic hazards—The USGS 

produces quantitative hazard-assessment products that 

enable the public and private sectors to assess earthquake hazards and implement effective mitigation 

strategies.

• Complete the modernization and expansion of nearreal-time earthquake notification and monitoring systems—The USGS is tasked with collecting, interpreting, and disseminating information on earthquakes that 

occur throughout the United States and on significant 

quakes worldwide for disaster response, earthquake 

preparedness, national security, scientific research, and 

public hazard awareness.

• Achieve better scientific understanding of earthquake 

processes and effects—The USGS pursues research on 

earthquake occurrence and effects for the purpose of 

developing and improving hazard-assessment methods 

and loss-reduction strategies.

• Provide national and local leadership to engage 

communities in earthquake safety practices—The 

USGS works with user communities to ensure that 

its products are readily available, easily understood, 

and appropriately used for earthquake mitigation and 

response.

The USGS is the only Federal agency with responsibility 

for recording and reporting earthquake activity nationwide. 

The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program focuses both on 

the Nation as a whole and on particular regional needs and 

problems in areas where earthquake risk is the greatest. Citizens, emergency responders, and engineers rely on the USGS 

for accurate and timely information on where an earthquake 

occurred, how much the ground shook in different locations, 

and what the likelihood is of future significant ground shaking.

The USGS is working to improve its earthquake monitoring and reporting capabilities through the Advanced National 

Seismic System (ANSS). Full implementation of ANSS will 

result in 6,000 new instruments on the ground and in structures in at-risk urban areas, as well as a backbone of modern 

seismic instruments for the Nation. Once in place, the ANSS 

will provide emergency response personnel with near-realtime (within 5–10 minutes of an event) information on the 

intensity and distribution of ground shaking that can be used 

to guide emergency-response efforts. Similarly, information 

on building “shaking” will equip engineers with the data they 

need to improve building designs in the future. 

Global Seismographic Network

The Global Seismographic Network (GSN) is a permanent digital network of state-of-the-art seismological and 

geophysical sensors connected by a telecommunications 

network. The GNS serves as a multi-use scientific facility 

and societal resource for monitoring, research, and education. 

Formed in partnership among the USGS, the National Science 

Foundation (NSF), and the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), the GSN provides near-uniform, 

worldwide monitoring of the Earth, with over 150 modern 

seismic stations distributed globally. The USGS Albuquerque 

Seismological Laboratory, the International Deployment of 

Seismometers group at University of California, San Diego, 

and other affiliate organizations cooperate in operating the 

GSN. The IRIS Data Management Center archives the data 

from the GSN.

The central focus in creating the GSN was for seismological needs, but the infrastructure is inherently multi-use and 

can be extended to other disciplines. GSN instrumentation is 

capable of measuring and recording with high fidelity all seismic vibrations from high-frequency, strong ground motions 

near an earthquake to the slowest global Earth oscillations 

excited by great earthquakes. Several GSN stations currently 

incorporate microbarographs, GPS, geomagnetic, and meteorological packages.

Together with the USGS National Earthquake Information Center operated by ANSS, the GSN are principal global 

sources of data and information for earthquake locations and 

earthquake emergency response. The GSN provides essential 

data for tsunami warning response globally and collaborates 

closely with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tsunami Warning Centers, Japanese Meteorological 

Agency, and the Australian Tsunami Warning System. The 

International Monitoring System for the Comprehensive 

Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) works 

closely with GSN and about 30 GSN stations are linked 

directly to the CTBTO International Data Centre.

The Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) is one 

of the more unique facilities within the USGS. Established in 

1961, the lab initially served as a quiet site for testing seismometers, but quickly became the installation, maintenance 

depot, and data collection center for earlier global seismic 

networks. The ASL occupies a 160-acre site located in a 
Appendixes 57

remote area of the Isleta Pueblo adjacent to the south boundary of Kirtland Air Force Base, about 15 miles southeast of 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. The laboratory’s remote location 

in the Manzanito Hills allows operation and testing of seismograph instruments without major disturbance from human 

noise sources. The ASL has two subsurface vaults mined into 

a granite hill, five boreholes, and several surface vaults. The 

extremely low-noise seismometer test facilities at ASL are 

quite important.

Geomagnetism Program

The USGS Geomagnetism Program monitors the Earth’s 

magnetic field at 14 ground-based observatories that are situated across the United States and its territories. Several of the 

Program’s observatories have been in continuous operation 

for over a century. Today, each observatory produces 1-second resolution data, and these are available in real-time for 

purposes of magnetic-storm monitoring. The Program has, 

recently (2011), begun to produce standard magnetic indices that measure magnetic-storm and magnetic-disturbance 

intensity. These are used for operational diagnosis of changing space-weather conditions and as inputs to physics-based 

models of the magnetosphere and ionosphere. Program staff 

conducts research on observatory data for purposes of mitigating geomagnetic hazards.

The USGS Geomagnetism Program is part of the U.S. 

Government’s National Space Weather Program (NSWP), 

which coordinates space-weather responsibilities across a 

diversity of Federal agencies, including those of NOAA’s 

Space Weather Prediction Center, National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, the Department of Defense, and the 

National Science Foundation. The USGS observatory network 

was identified as a “critical ground-based asset” in a recent 

review of NSWP. Internationally, the work of the USGS 

Geomagnetism Program is coordinated with foreign national 

geomagnetism institutes through the INTERMAGNET 

organization a voluntary consortium dedicated to promoting 

the operation of observatories according to modern standards. 

Long-term archives of observatory data are maintained in the 

World Data System.

Tsunami Investigations

Tsunamis share an important feature with giant cyclonic 

storms—Distant sources can raise huge waves that threaten 

U.S. shorelines. This fact makes tsunami hazards and risks 

to the United States shorelines a global matter. Over the last 

decade, global deaths and destruction caused by tsunamis 

have exceeded those caused by all other geohazards. Official USGS priorities in tsunami hazards are (1) identify and 

quantify tsunami sources, such as earthquake faults, volcanoes, and landslides, (2) assess tsunami sources and hazards 

and model tsunami generation, (3) improve understanding of 

how tsunamis are generated and incorporate this information 

into probabilities of tsunami hazards in different areas, and 

(4) assess tsunami inundations by interpreting tsunami effects. 

Tsunami investigations by the USGS span five different USGS 

Programs and six different Science Centers. 

Destructive tsunami waves depend on three factors: the 

nature of the tsunami source that moves the seafloor and displaces the sea surface, the propagation of tsunami waves in the 

deep ocean that depends largely on the deep-water bathymetry 

between the source and the receiving coastline segment, and 

the detailed shape of the shallow seafloor bathymetry and 

near-shore topography and the geologic framework at the 

receiving shoreline. The USGS contributes at varying levels to 

all of these components of tsunami science.

Many important components of tsunami warnings and 

risk assessments are led by NOAA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Vital USGS contributions to 

the interagency effort include (1) Geologic investigations of 

pre-historic tsunamis based on field investigations of prehistoric tsunami deposits and paleoseismic investigations in 

subduction zones that supplement and extend the historical 

and instrumental records (for example, Cascadia). (2) Inputs 

to tsunami models, including the locations of likely offshore 

sources, the instrumental record and the historical records 

of offshore earthquakes and submarine volcanoes, as well 

as, the historic record. (3) Advanced models of near-shore 

tsunami inundation that include edge waves and other phenomena that conventional far-field models do not consider. 

(4) Investigations sediment transport by tsunamis that inform 

us about where to look for and how to interpret paleotsunamic 

deposits based on sediment transport models and recent posttsunami surveys. Distinguishing between tsunami deposits and 

storm-surge deposits continues to be an ongoing challenge. 

(5) Probabilistic tsunami hazard assessments that depend on 

where, how big, and how often these tsunami events occur 

based on the above observations. 

Landslide Science

Landslide and related hazards occur in every State in the 

United States. Landslides are part of the erosion process in 

mountainous regions and along river, valley, and coastal bluffs 

in areas with more subdued topography. Losses from landslides are increasing rapidly as landslide-prone environments 

are developed for transportation corridors, housing, industry, 

and recreation. USGS landslide hazard science focuses on 

landslides that occur in association with other natural hazards 

such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods and heavy 

rainfall, hurricanes, and wildfire.

Landslide science in the USGS is supported primarily by 

the Landslide Hazards Program (LHP); however, substantial 

work is supported by the Earthquake and Volcano Hazards 

Programs, and the Coastal and Marine Geology Program. The 

LHP and its predecessor have operated since the mid-1970s as 

a Congressionally authorized program dedicated to the reduction of damages and avoidance of hazards from landslides. 
58 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

The focus of the program is national, but it also responds to 

requests for assistance in foreign countries from the Department of State, as well as from international organizations such 

as the World Bank and the United Nations. As the only Federal 

program dedicated to landslide science, the LHP provides 

results of investigations for use by private consultants in geology and geotechnical engineering and by planners and decisionmakers at all levels of government and the private sector.

The results of USGS landslide science efforts have led 

to noteworthy improvement in understanding the nature and 

scope of landslide processes, hazards, and problems. Research 

on landslide hazards addresses fundamental questions of 

where and under what conditions landslides are likely to 

occur, as well as their size, speed, and impacts. Such research 

is essential if the Natural Hazards Mission Area is to make 

good progress in protecting the people and assets exposed to 

landslide hazards triggered by severe storms, earthquakes, volcanic activity, coastal processes, wildfire, and climate change 

in the United States.

The USGS currently (2011) maintains several Natural Landslide Observatories in the Pacific Coast and Rocky 

Mountain regions. These observatories collect near-real-time 

information on precipitation, hydrology, and landslide movement for specific landslide-prone areas. These monitoring 

observations are critical to advance the understanding of 

landslide processes, perform hazard assessments, respond 

to landslide emergencies, and forecast landslide activity in 

changing environments. Maintaining and expanding this network through the use of emerging observation and monitoring 

technology is critical for landslide and debris-flow warnings issued by the National Weather Service and to advance 

the understanding of the role of climate change on landslide 

hazards.

The state-of-the-art understanding of landslide and 

debris-flow processes is generally inadequate to make reliable 

forecasts of landslide timing, frequency, or magnitude for most 

areas of the Nation. Predictive tools are not mature and gaps 

in the understanding of debris-flow, bedrock and submarine 

landslide processes exist. USGS landslide science goals are 

to perform directed, topical research to improve this understanding. This requires maintaining the efforts and facilities to 

examine debris-flow and landslide mechanics and the development of new computational tools.

Assessing the hazard posed by landslides requires applying and conveying the combined experience and knowledge 

of the USGS by means of developing tools for hazard assessments. Hazard assessments are provided for demonstration 

areas and where the USGS has a clear role. The USGS also 

develops tools for landslide hazard forecasting, provides 

information for post-fire debris-flow warnings issued by the 

National Weather Service, responds to landslide emergencies, 

and increases public awareness of landslide hazards. Effective progress in these areas requires working with partners to 

provide landslide information for assessing risk, documenting 

damaging landslide events, and expanding the ability of the 

USGS to use ground, aerial-, and space-based remote-sensing 

data.

Floods

Although the USGS doesn’t have a formal flood program, 

USGS scientists and engineers conduct numerous research and 

investigative studies on flooding and hydrographers collect 

streamflow and stage data at over 7,800 streamgages, 4,000 of 

which are crucial to the flood forecasting statutory responsibility of the NOAA’s National Weather Service. 

USGS flood science can be loosely categorized into 

the following categories, with acknowledgement of overlap: 

monitoring methods, flood documentation, stochastic flood 

hydrology (probability, uncertainty, and trends), paleoflood 

hydrology, process understanding and modeling, and flood 

impacts on natural and built environments. Stochastic flood 

hydrology involves the study of the probability and frequency 

of floods and their linkage to the topographic, vegetative, 

geologic, land-use and climatic characteristics of the stream 

basin. Using stochastic techniques, the USGS has developed 

equations for estimating the magnitude of floods for selected 

frequencies in each State and many of the U.S. territories. 

Flood process understanding and modeling includes hydrologic research into, and development of models that simulate 

the physical processes of rainfall-runoff, snowmelt-runoff, 

open-channel hydrodynamics, river mechanics, and morphological change. This research is conducted at various levels of 

the USGS organizational structure. 

The USGS streamgage program, which is conducted 

by the USGS, state-based Water Science Centers, is funded 

by a number of sources including the National Streamflow 

Information Program, Water Cooperative Program, and other 

Federal, State, and local agencies. Data from the streamgage 

program has multiple purposes other than flood monitoring 

and science, such as the assessment of water availability; 

design of water-related infrastructure; regulation of in-stream 

flows for ecosystem sustainability and water quality; and 

operational support for management of navigation, recreation, 

and water supply and irrigation systems. As part of flood 

investigations, the USGS often conducts post-flood analysis 

at nongaged streams to estimate peak water levels, streamflow 

rates, depths, velocities and other useful information.

In addition to research and investigative studies on flooding and collection of streamflow data, the USGS is actively 

involved in research efforts aimed at improving monitoring 

methods, along with continued emphasis on improving data 

dissemination during floods. In recent years, the USGS has 

partnered with the NWS in an effort to standardize realtime inundation mapping products that will be a noteworthy 

improvement over the real-time stage and flood forecast products that have traditionally been delivered by the two agencies 

during flood events.
Appendixes 59

Hazard, Vulnerability, and Risk Study, and 

Decision Support

Natural disaster consequences are less the result of nature 

than the actions and inactions of people before, during, and 

after an event. The USGS Geographical Analysis and Monitoring (GAM) program has extended hazard science with the 

stated goals of (1) vulnerability and risk assessment studies, 

and method development to improve the scientific basis for 

these assessments, as well as, disaster mitigation, response, 

and recovery activities, and (2) tool development to aid decision making about resource allocations. In the past, additional 

seed funding for some vulnerability and risk activities has 

originated from venture capital and headquarters and regional 

funds. Hazard programs (for example, earthquake, volcano, 

and landslide) also have supported development and implementation of vulnerability and risk assessments pre- and 

post-event. Finally, USGS vulnerability and risk assessment 

activities have been enabled by partners (for example, FEMA, 

NOAA, Environmental Protection Agency). Whereas vulnerability assessments have been multi-hazard and hazard specific, 

risk assessments primarily have been conducted in the domain 

of a hazard.

The Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project produced 

a comprehensive vulnerability assessment for the southern 

California ShakeOut and California ARkStorm scenarios that 

included infrastructure/building and content damages, health 

and safety implications, agricultural damages and losses, disruptions to goods and people movement, sector exposure, lifeline services, economic impacts, and environmental impacts. 

These assessments were accomplished with USGS geographical expertise supplemented by collaborations with social and 

behavioral science experts. Also, demographic and socioeconomic exposure, and sensitivity analyses have been conducted 

for tsunami, volcano, earthquake and coastal change hazards 

in Oregon, Washington, and Hawai`i. These vulnerability 

assessments have influenced hazard mapping and mitigation 

priorities, mitigation planning, disaster response and recovery 

planning, and policy recommendations. 

Vulnerability assessments of specific hazards include 

(1) DOI resource vulnerability to wildfire, (2) vulnerability of 

homes to wildfire in the Wildland Urban Interface, (3) realtime potential earthquake facility damage assessment (that is, 

ShakeCast), (4) fatality and economic loss impact estimates 

following significant earthquakes worldwide (that is, PAGER), 

and, (5) estimation of landslide losses post-event.

Risk assessments include (1) with FEMA, developing 

vulnerability and risk assessments from flood inundation maps 

tied to USGS real-time streamgage data and NWS flood forecast sites, (2) Google Earth viewable “risk maps” for selected 

building types, probabilities, and planning horizons across 

the conterminous United States, (3) forecasting fire risk in the 

Wildland Urban Interface , and (4) with NPS, a ground-breaking study of rockfall hazard and risk assessment in Yosemite 

Valley, California. Increasingly, vulnerability and risk assessments are being served through web-based geospatial tools to 

allow users to interact with hazard information and create their 

own assessments.

Volcano Hazards

The USGS has a long and rich tradition of exploring 

the world’s volcanic landscapes and deriving critical insights 

into how volcanoes work. The mission of the Volcano Hazard 

Program (VHP) is to minimize social and economic disruption 

by understanding volcanic processes in order to detect unrest 

and deliver timely, accurate warnings. The United States and 

its Territories host 169 geologically young volcanoes including Novarupta, the source of Earth’s largest eruption of the 

20th century. Of these, 55 are considered high or very high 

threat due to eruption frequency and style and the population 

and infrastructure in harm’s way. To enhance public safety 

and deliver helpful hazard information to the Nation, the VHP 

devotes resources to four mutually supportive areas of focus: 

volcano monitoring and observation, fundamental process 

research, hazard assessment, and communication of critical 

hazard information.

The VHP maintains a workforce of about 120 research 

and operational geologists, geophysicists, engineers, and support staff housed primarily at its five volcano observatories in 

Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, California, and Yellowstone. A 

number of geoscientists from universities and State surveys 

are partners in these observatories through formal cooperative 

agreements. The U.S. Agency for International Development 

co-funds the Volcano Disaster Assistance Program, an international volcano crisis response and mitigation team that has 

saved thousands of lives and built local capacity in dozens of 

nations around the world since its founding in 1986.

Volcano monitoring is most effective when multiple data 

streams are combined. VHP employs seismic and geodetic 

networks to detect unrest and selectively uses satellite surveillance, gas surveys, infrasound, pressure sensors, lightning, 

web cameras, thermal cameras, water and spring sampling to 

track activity at the nation’s volcanoes. The VHP portfolio of 

fundamental research into volcanic and related earth processes 

involves field investigations of volcanic deposits and eruptive 

histories, laboratory simulations and experiments, and development of models to explain how volcanoes work. Volcano 

hazard assessments integrate understanding of volcanic systems, eruptive history, and processes to portray areas vulnerable to volcanic phenomena. Additional assessments done 

in partnership evaluate elements of vulnerability to support 

risk assessment and planning. Volcanic events are relatively 

rare but may unfold rapidly; thus, practiced eruption response 

plans must be in place before unrest occurs. VHP scientists 

work with Federal, State, and local agencies and the private 

sector to promote preparedness and develop effective communication strategies. Additionally, VHP works both domestically 

and internationally to educate and inform the public, emergency and critical infrastructure managers regarding the nature 

and potential impacts of volcanic events.
60 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

VHP partners with USGS scientists from the Earthquake, 

Landslide, Coastal and Marine Programs, the Water Mission 

Area, the Earth Materials and Human Health project, EROS 

data center, and the Advanced Systems Center on collaborative 

research and operational activities. Externally, VHP has strong 

ties with NOAA, NASA, FAA, the Smithsonian Institution, 

and other DOI agencies. VHP scientists and observatories collaborate with domestic and international academic colleagues. 

Finally, to ensure that volcano science is well applied to the 

support of public safety and preparedness, VHP scientists 

nurture strong partnerships with emergency management at 

multiple levels.

In 2005, Ewert and others completed a systematic evaluation and ranking of the Nation’s volcanoes according to threat 

and current level of monitoring. Based on the results, the 

VHP and its partners prepared a plan to close critical gaps in 

monitoring and eruption response capability for the U.S. This 

plan, the National Volcano Early Warning System or NVEWS, 

is currently (2011) before Congress for authorization. 

Figure A–1. Approximate U.S. Geological Survey appropriated and reimbursable hazard funding levels.

Earthquake

$73.9M

Flood

$59.8M

Volcanic eruption

$24.5M

Coastal hazards

$10.5M

Tsunami

$5.7M

Landslide

$3.4M

Geomagnetic storm

$2.7M

Societal impacts and

decision support

$4.3M

Wildfire

$4.9M Geospatial

$3.0M

Earthquake—Includes Earthquake Hazards and Global Seismographic Network (GSN) 

programs

Flood—Includes reimbursable funding and appropriated funding in the following: National 

Streamflow Information Program, Cooperative Water Program, National Water Quality 

Assessment Program, and National Stream Quality Accounting Network (Note: This is 

both streamflow and water quality.)

Volcanic eruption—Includes Volcano Hazards Program

Coastal hazards (storm and erosion)—Includes Coastal and Marine Geology Program

Tsunami—Includes multi-hazards program

Landslide—Includes Landslide Hazards Program

Geomagnetic storm—Includes Geomagnetism Program and Air Force support

Societal impacts and decision support—Includes Geographic Analysis and Monitoring 

Program (Note: Reimbursable funds are for famine early warning project at EROS. If 

drought was considered under hazards, then we would have a significant additional 

reimbursable contribution.)

Wildfire

Geospatial—Includes National Geospatial Program and Land Remote Sensing Program 

(these products and activities cross all hazards and serve internal and external 

partners)

EXPLANATION

Hazard type—funding is in millions of dollars (M)
Appendixes 61

Appendix B. The Domestic Value of USGS International Efforts in Hazard 

Science

Many hazards need to be considered in a global context. 

In our ever-shrinking global context, the USGS is increasingly 

called upon to advise the U.S. Government and other interests 

on hazard events overseas. Expertise and experience in hazard 

science is international and to remain on the cutting edge of 

understanding, continued USGS involvement in global hazard 

science activities is critical. Hazard events that occur in other 

countries, such as large earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, 

affect the global economy, and therefore affect the United 

States. Very large events factor into our national security. 

Furthermore, some hazards are inherently global in scale: hurricanes migrate across oceans, tsunamis that affect the United 

States are usually initiated by earthquakes on the other side 

of the world, and geomagnetic storms encompass the whole 

Earth. Finally, many of the largest events are very rare and 

may not have occurred in the United States during historical 

times. Investigating such events wherever they occur worldwide brings back knowledge and benefits to the United States 

that are inestimable.

International work cross cuts all four hazards missions goals:

Observation. Some hazard programs, such as those of 

Earthquake and Geomagnetism, use global datasets to provide worldwide event notification and elements of hazard and 

risk assessments. Engagement with the global community in 

deploying monitoring networks, developing tools and methodologies to observe hazard processes and issue forecasts, 

and conduct geological and chronological studies of hazard 

sources and events is vital to a comprehensive understanding 

of our Nation’s risk. Close cooperation with our international 

neighbors to ensure seamless monitoring and understanding of 

hazards to the North American continent and adjacent regions 

will require ongoing collaboration.

Fundamental understanding. Because of commonalities 

among hazards worldwide, USGS hazard science for the 

United States is critically informed by direct study of and 

response to hazard events overseas. Moreover, the frequency 

of natural hazard events in other countries provide superb 

and often unmatched opportunities to further USGS research 

into natural hazard processes and impacts. Exceptionally 

large hazard events are rare and may not have occurred in the 

United States in recent historical times. Studying their occurrence and effects outside the United States adds to the fund of 

knowledge and helps to assess U.S. hazards and their associated risks. Scientific insights from responding to hazard events 

around the planet provide direct lessons learned that are of 

benefit to domestic risk reduction. 

Assessments and reducing global losses. As in the United 

States, global vulnerability and risk are increasing dramatically as growth and development occur in hazardous areas of 

the planet. Natural hazard events and disasters are increasingly 

global in scope and impact as economies become more and 

more interdependent. Diplomatic and humanitarian concerns 

alone should motivate appropriate USGS involvement in 

mitigation and response activities abroad, carefully done in 

cooperation with local organizations and with funding from 

other U.S. Government agencies or foreign governments. The 

successes of the USAID-supported Volcano Disaster Assistance Program and Natural Hazards Participating Agency 

Services Agreement are powerful examples of applying USGS 

expertise to save lives and reduce suffering abroad while promoting the interests of the Nation.

Situational awareness. The USGS provides expert guidance 

and information to the U.S. Government and other interests 

regarding hazards and hazard events around the world. The 

USGS is in a unique position to provide a global perspective 

on hazard ‘hot spots’ to facilitate planning and preparedness 

activities of Department of Defense and other U.S. Government agencies. While mindful not to tax the focus on domestic 

hazard science and response or undermine authority of local 

response agencies abroad, the USGS can and should play an 

important role in tracking and communicating global hazard 

events.
62 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

Appendix C. Hazards Science Strategy Planning Team: Composition, Charge, 

Philosophy, and Process

Our Team

In every USGS Mission Area, a Science Strategy Planning Team has been appointed to develop a long term, 10-year 

Science Strategy. The Hazards Science Strategy Planning 

Team (H–SSPT) comprises two co-chairs, and a seat for 

each of the hazards within USGS purview, plus a seat for the 

societal consequences that play a pivotal role in resilience. The 

initial team make-up is as follows:

The Co-Chairs:

• Robert Holmes, National Flood Coordinator

• Lucile Jones, Chief Scientist, Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project

The Seats:

• Coastal Processes—Nathaniel Plant, Oceanographer, 

St. Petersberg Coastal and Marine Science Center

• Earthquake—Craig Weaver, Pacific Northwest 

Regional Coordinator, Earthquake Hazard Program

• Flood—Mickey Plunkett, Director, Mississippi Water 

Science Center

• Geomagnetism & Space Weather—Jeffrey Love, 

USGS Advisor for Geomagnetic Research

• Landslide—Jonathan Godt, Research Physical Scientist, Geologic Hazards Science Center

• Societal Consequences—Anne Wein, Operations 

Research Analyst, Western Geographic Science Center

• Tsunami—Steve Kirby, Research Geophysicist and 

Senior Scientist, Earthquake Science Center, Chair, 

USGS Tsunami Source Working Group

• Volcano—Tina Neal, Geologist, Volcano Science 

Center

• Wildfire—Jeff Eidenshink, Deputy Director, Earth 

Resources Observation and Science Center

Team Facilitator:

• Sue Perry, Staff Scientist, Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project

Our Charge:

The charge to the H–SSPT, by design, is very similar to 

the SSPT charges for other Mission Areas. The H–SSPT paid 

close attention to its charge, which was given by the Director 

at the start of the strategic planning process and is here reproduced verbatim:

“Charge to USGS Strategic Science Planning Team

“Natural Hazards

“Purpose. The Natural Hazards Strategic Science Planning Team (SSPT) is charged with developing a long-term 

(10-year) Strategic Science Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Natural Hazards mission area and the programs 

that support it. The strategic science vision and articulation 

of priorities developed by this Team will be used by USGS 

leadership in the development of guidance, implementation 

planning, and accountability reporting.

“Background. The USGS Science Strategy, “Facing 

Tomorrow’s Challenges, U.S. Geological Survey Science in 

the Decade 2007-2017,” sets forth six bold new strategic science directions and one cross-cutting science direction. These 

strategic science directions are interrelated and have been 

used to design the new USGS organization and define our new 

mission areas. This charter pertains to the Natural Hazards 

mission area.

“Team Leadership. The Team will have two co-chairs 

nominated by the USGS Executive Leadership Team (ELT) 

and appointed by the Director. The co-chairs serve for a term 

of 4 years and report directly to the USGS Associate Director 

(AD) for Natural Hazards, who will serve as the ELT lead for 

this effort. As an “executive champion” for the Team, the ELT 

lead will ensure regular interactions with the Director and the 

ELT. Co-chairs will also comprise an SSPT Advisory Team 

which will have as its primary goal to ensure cross-mission 

area coordination. It is estimated the time commitment for cochairs will be 35–40 percent.

“Team Composition. The Team will consist of approximately 10 scientists and managers recommended by bureau 

leadership through both a nomination process and a call for 

interest. The final Team composition is approved by the Director. Team members are selected from throughout the USGS 

for their scientific expertise in the mission area and leadership 

skills. One member will be from the Office of Budget and 

Performance to provide technical assistance with respect to 

budget formulation, the appropriations process, and management analysis. Membership on the SSPT is rotational with 

time limited to a maximum of 3 years; Team membership will 

be staggered, with members serving between one and three 

years. It is estimated that the time commitment for Team members will be 20–25 percent.

“Outcomes and Products. The co-chairs will lead the 

SSPT in the development of a 10-year Strategic Science Plan 

and high-level budget, ensuring coordination and input from 

USGS scientists, managers, and stakeholders. The Natural 

Hazards Strategic Science Plan will begin with the framework 

provided in the USGS Science Strategy and build on, update, 
Appendixes 63

and expand upon it with actions the USGS can undertake over 

the next 10 years. The Natural Hazards Strategic Science Plan 

and other work products will be reviewed by USGS leadership 

and others as appropriate, and delivered to the USGS Director 

by the ELT lead. The ELT lead will ensure the ELT is actively 

engaged by seeking feedback and input at appropriate junctures, and will similarly facilitate interaction of the Team with 

USGS scientists, managers, and stakeholders. 

“The primary product of the Team is a 10-year Natural 

Hazards Strategic Science Plan that encompasses the portfolio of USGS science under the AD, as well as other relevant 

USGS science. The Plan should be succinct and include a 

summary of USGS goals and planned outcomes. The Plan 

should serve as a strategic framework that articulates priorities and primary activities to assist leadership in determining 

actions to be taken in the short-term. It will serve as a key 

guiding document for USGS leader-ship in science planning 

and execution, but will not explicitly address annual activities 

or short-term actions. Bureau leaders expect to use it as a basis 

for budget initiatives, national guidance, and regional implementation strategies. Accordingly, while the Plan should be 

long-term, strategic and visionary, its goals should be carefully 

crafted so that they can be used by management. Careful attention should be paid to the linkages to other mission areas and 

opportunities for collaboration.”

Our Process:

The H–SSPT proceeded under an aggressive schedule. 

On December 1, 2010, the team members were appointed by 

the Bureau Director, and on August 1, 2011, the team delivered a first draft plan to the Associate Director of the Hazards 

Mission Area. In the intervening 8 months, the team met its 

charge through these activities, in roughly chronological order 

(although most steps were iterative):

• Selected hazards to be considered. This SSPT has been 

inclusive in considering a broad portfolio of natural 

hazards, including those outside mandated responsibilities under the USGS and other Federal programs, but 

for which the Nation is underserved.

• Identified USGS activities essential to fulfilling the 

hazards mission. These became the four overlapping 

goals discussed throughout this Strategy:

• Goal 1: OBSERVATIONS. The USGS acquires comprehensive observations important to natural hazards 

to improve fundamental understanding, assessments, 

and situational awareness.

• Goal 2: UNDERSTANDING. The USGS advances 

and applies fundamental understanding of natural 

hazards to improve assessments, and situational 

awareness.

• Goal 3: ASSESSMENTS. The USGS develops 

assessments of natural hazards, vulnerability and 

risk to inform decisions that can mitigate adverse 

consequences.

• Goal 4: SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. The USGS 

provides situational awareness to improve emergency response, inform the public, and minimize 

societal disruption.

• Determined key stakeholders to reach in listening 

sessions. Stakeholders is a broad designation that 

includes partners and collaborators within and outside 

the USGS, and users of USGS information, including decisionmakers at all levels of government, in the 

public and private sectors, as well as, in the media and 

the general public. 

• Met with as many stakeholders as we could reach. 

Before composing this Strategy, team members held 

more than 60 formal listening sessions and informal 

discussions, in person, by webinar, and by conference 

call, at USGS offices, professional meetings of natural 

scientists, social scientists, engineers, and emergency 

managers, and the offices of other agencies including the Federal Aviation Agency, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration, and National Weather Service. 

We worked top down and bottom up, talking to upper 

management and the regional workforce. Attending 

team members briefed the others about each session. 

Appendix E lists the formal sessions. Informal discussions were too numerous to list.

• Sought input from USGS leadership. The H–SSPT 

held meetings with the executive leadership team, the 

regional executives, and program coordinators. In addition, the H–SSPT interviewed hazard-related program 

coordinators by way of questionnaires. See appendix C 

for the list of contributors for these meetings.

• Incorporated input from electronic submissions. In 

addition, the team read and discussed electronic 

submissions made through email and browser-based 

questionnaires.

• Held biweekly team meetings by phone conference. 

The first of these meetings included a briefing from 

each team member as a representative of that seat, to 

inform the others about the work within and makeup of 

each team member’s “world’ within the USGS.

• Held six face to face meetings, each 2–3 days long. 

These in-person sessions were used to debate the focus 

of the Strategy, its goals and action items.

• Actively used email and the confluence blog-based 

technology to shared ideas and materials.
64 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

Selection Approach and Criteria for Strategic 

Actions

Before we wrote a single word of this Strategy, we spent 

months talking with stakeholders within and outside the 

USGS, and engaging in discussions as a team. During this 

process, a large number of worthy actions and ideas were 

either developed by the team or proposed by stakeholders. 

Early in deliberations the team realized it needed a set of criteria and methodology for action item screening and selection. 

These criteria and methodology were necessary for the team 

to absorb the range of ideas, to distill the number down to a 

manageable set, and to explain or defend decisions regarding 

the final action items included in this report.

Some programs and activities automatically rose to 

the top and received special consideration. These are USGS 

programs and activities that are crucial to the basic mission of 

the USGS, either through federally mandated responsibility 

or because they provide essential earth and biological science characterization. These are programs and activities that 

were judged by USGS stakeholders and this team as pivotal 

to USGS hazard science activities, and thus, must be protected and preserved. Examples of these programs include the 

streamgage network, seismographic networks, and geomagnetic observatories.

Some action items carried additional weight because 

they have great potential to improve the effectiveness and 

broaden the use of USGS science, and thus maximize benefit 

to society. However, the team also strongly felt that the USGS 

must not simply pursue the latest “hot” science topic driven 

simply by the inertia of societal interest or “topic du jour”. 

There are important elements to our science that may have 

no quick payoff or societal appreciation, and that might take 

years to mature and become relevant. Such science should be 

supported, but also repeatedly evaluated to ensure that we are 

holding to the spirit of science in the public interest.

A recurring theme in stakeholder sessions was that the 

USGS risks becoming “a mile wide and an inch deep” in its 

scientific undertakings and abilities. The team also tried to 

balance the need to focus collective hazards science activities 

around mission and societal needs, while remaining agile and 

open to the new directions that will be essential to fulfilling 

that mission in the future. Individual creativity and science 

opportunities that are not yet foreseen will always be crucial.

The team needed a Strategy that had substance and detail, 

without being prescriptive or encroaching in the domain of 

program plans. The team tried to balance big ideas and grand 

vision with actions that could proceed in varied budget climates.

With its initial charge and all these considerations in 

mind, the team developed a quantitative ranking scheme to 

form the final action items for this Strategy. Every candidate 

action item was ranked based on each of the following criteria. 

(Scores in each category could vary as indicated in parentheses.)

• Does it fit the USGS hazards mission? (1–5)

• Is it a fundamental and crucial USGS national capability, such as basic data and information networks or a 

function on which others depend? (1–5)

• Would achieving this item have a large effect on 

economy, human health, or national security of the 

United States? (each 0–2)

• Does it address large gaps in hazards scientific knowledge? (0–2)

• Is it a scientific endeavor where there is a lack of others 

doing this work? (0–1)

• Is it fundamental research that has a high likelihood of 

being of substantial relevance within 20 years? (0–2)

• Does it have a component that allows for better assessment and quantification of risk? (0–2)

• Does it involve multiple hazards? (0–1)

• Does this utilize new or existing partnerships? (0–2)

• Does this represent a USGS targeted hazard that is 

underrepresented in the action items for this report 

(such as wildfire)? (0,1)

• Are there synergies with other Mission Areas? (0–2)

• Does this improve use of USGS information to better 

societal decision making? (0–2)

This quantification took the team about 75 percent of the 

way to the final action items in this Strategy; additional team 

thought and discussion completed the journey. The action 

items in this Strategy distill, merge, and organize the individual actions into more broadly encompassing efforts that span 

more hazards, over longer time frames, than the individual 

suggestions.
Appendixes 65

Appendix D. Listening Sessions

Table D–1. Stakeholder sessions.

[MHDP, Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project for Southern California; USGS, United States Geological Survey; EHP, Earthquake 

Hazards Program; AVO, Alaska Volcano Observatory; SC, Science Center; JPL, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; NSF, National Science Foundation; AGU, American Geophysical Union; NWS, National Weather Service; NEIC, National Earthquake Information 

Center; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; ESRL, Earth System Research Laboratory; NEMA, National 

Emergency Managers Association; USAID, United States Agency for International Development; EM, Emergency Management; 

FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency; CVO, Cascades Volcano Observatory; DOGAMI, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries; USACE, Army Corps of Engineers; METOC, U.S. Navy Meteorologic and Oceanographic Command; 

NORTHCOM, United States Northern Command]

Date Location Meeting (M) or Organization (O)

1/11/2011 Los Angeles, Calif. M: MHDP Tsunami Scenario Kickoff Meeting

1/12/2011 Pasadena, Calif. O: USGS EHP

1/20/2011 Anchorage Ark. O: USGS–AVO

1/2011 Golden, Colo. O: USGS EHP

1/2011 Albuquerque, N. Mex. O: USGS Seismographic Laboratory

1/2011 Urbana, Ill. O: USGS Water SC

1/23/2011 Seattle, Wash. M: American Meteorological Society

1/31/2011 Pasadena, Calif. O: JPL–Caltech remote sensing

1/5-7/2011 Austin, Tex. M: NSF Geoprisms Implementation Workshop

12/2010 San Francisco, Calif. M: AGU listening session

2/1-3/2011 Portland, Oreg. M: National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program Coordinators

2/2011 Kansas City, Mo. O: NWS River Forecast Center

2/7-8/2011 Menlo Park, Calif. M: USGS Six listening sessions

2/7/2011 Menlo Park, Calif. O: USGS Landslides

2/7/2011 Menlo Park, Calif. O: USGS–Gump

2/9/2011 Sacramento, Calif. O: USGS Water SC

3/1–3/2011 Menlo Park, Calif. M: USGS National Marine Geohazards Workshop

3/1/2011 Minneapolis, Minn. M: Advisory Council on Water Information

3/14/2011 Denver, Colo. O: Crustal Geophysics & Geochemistry SC

3/14/2011 Denver, Colo. O: USGS Potential Field 

3/14/2011 Golden, Colo. O: USGS Landslide

3/14/2011 Golden, Colo. O: USGS NEIC

3/15/2011 Denver, Colo. M: USGS listening session

3/16/2011 Golden, Colo. M: USGS listening session

3/17/2011 Boulder, Colo. O: NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center

3/17/2011 Boulder, Colo. O: NOAA ESRL

3/17/2011 Boulder, Colo. O: NOAA NWS

3/17/2011 Boulder, Colo. O: NOAA National Geophysical Data Center

3/17/2011 Boulder, Colo. O: University of Colorado Hazards Center

3/20–23/2011 Alexandria, Va. M: NEMA listening session

3/2011 Boise, Idaho M: National Interagency Fire Center

3/21/2011 Reston, Va. O: NWS Aviation Service Branch

3/21/2011 Silver Springs, Md. O: NOAA NWS

3/21/2011 Washington, D.C. O: USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance

3/22/2011 IoWash. Cit, Iowa O: USGS Water SC

3/22/2011 Vancouver, Wash. O: USGS Societal Impacts
66 Natural Hazards Science Strategy

Date Location Meeting (M) or Organization (O)

3/22/2011 Washington, D.C. M: FEMA listening session at NEMA meeting

3/22/2011 Reston, Va. M: NWS listening session at NEMA meeting

3/24/2011 Reston, Va. O: FEMA

3/28/2011 Tampa, Fla. M: National Surface Water listening session

3/31/2011 St. Petersburg, Fla. M: USGS listening session

3/4/2011 By phone O: USGS Hawai`ian Volcano Observatory

4/12–16/2011 Seattle, Wash. M: American Association of Geographers

4/14/2011 Memphis, Tenn. M: Seismological Society of America listening session

4/19/2011 Anchorage, Alaska M: USGS AVO listening session

4/2011 Hawaii O: USGS Hawai`i Volcano Observatory

4/21/2011 Vancouver, Wash. M: USGS CVO listening session

4/22/2011 Portland, Oreg. O: Oregon State Geologist

4/22/2011 Portland, Oreg. O: DOGAMI landslide staff

4/22/2011 Denver, Colo. and phone M: USGS Wildfire listening session

4/25/2011 Boulder, Colo. M: electric power grid industry at NOAA workshop

4/26/2011 Webinar M: USGS listening session

5/10/2011 San Diego, Calif. M: National Hydrologic Warning Council

5/18/2011 Louisville, Ky. M: National Association of Floodplain Managers

5/2–6/2011 Miami, Fla. M: USGS Coastal sediments

5/2011 by phone O: Nuclear Regulatory Commission

5/25/2011 Web based M: emergency managers forum and poll

5/5/2011 Mo. O: USACE, NOAA/NWS, USGS flood

6/11/2011 Alaska O: Alaska State EM

6/14/2011 Dubuque, Iowa M: Association of American State Geologists listening session

6/8/2011 Washington, D.C. M: Space Weather Enterprise Forum

7/6/2011 Colorado Springs, Colo. O: METOC, NORTHCOM

8/2011 Minn. M: USGS Water Mission Area

Meetings with USGS Leadership

In addition, the team also had multiple telephone and face 

to face discussions with USGS program coordinators regional 

executives; and hazard program coordinators contributed written questionnaires. Individual team members had one-on-one 

meetings too numerous to list.

Table D–1. Stakeholder sessions.—Continued

[MHDP, Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project for Southern California; USGS, United States Geological Survey; EHP, Earthquake 

Hazards Program; AVO, Alaska Volcano Observatory; SC, Science Center; JPL, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; NSF, National Science Foundation; AGU, American Geophysical Union; NWS, National Weather Service; NEIC, National Earthquake Information 

Center; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; ESRL, Earth System Research Laboratory; NEMA, National 

Emergency Managers Association; USAID, United States Agency for International Development; EM, Emergency Management; 

FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency; CVO, Cascades Volcano Observatory; DOGAMI, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries; USACE, Army Corps of Engineers; METOC, U.S. Navy Meteorologic and Oceanographic Command; 

NORTHCOM, United States Northern Command]
Appendixes 67

Appendix E. Disaster Relief Act of 1974
68 Natural Hazards Science Strategy
Appendixes 69
70 Natural Hazards Science Strategy
Appendixes 71
72 Natural Hazards Science Strategy
Appendixes 73
74 Natural Hazards Science Strategy
Appendixes 75