370. Heliker et al. (1984) The Nisqually Glacier, Mount Rainier, Washington, 1857-1979
     Nisqually Glacier on Mount Rainier, Washington has a long record of terminus position observations and ice-surface altitude measurements along specific profiles, and has been the topic of numerous scientific studies. From the earliest observations in 1857 to the present many individuals and several different organizations have been involved in data collection at Nisqually Glacier. In order to preserve the long-term data, it was assembled and reduced to a standard format for this report. A comprehensive bibliography of scientific publications relating to the glacier is included. Between 1857 and 1979, Nisqually Glacier receded a total of 1,945 meters and advanced a total of 294 meters. Advances occurred from 1963-68 and from 1974-79. Ice-surface altitude changes of as much as 25 meters occurred between 1944 and 1955.
500. (2024) Mount Rainier National Park climate futures summary
     Climate change is already threatening resources, assets, and visitors in national parks, and, increasingly, park decisions require consideration of plausible climate change implications and potential adaptations. This climate futures summary for Mount Rainier National Park describes both recent changes in climate and plausible climate futures to help inform and support a broad range of climate assessments and climate adaptation efforts and activities.
499. Driedger et al. (2024) Lawetlat'la—Mount St. Helens—Land in Transformation
     This poster provides an overview of Mount St. Helens’ eruption history and emphasizes the continuous transformation of the volcanic landscape and its ecosystems. After each eruption, the landscape and ecosystems are not so much restored as they are morphed into new forms and patterns.
498. Driedger et al. (2024) Following the tug of the audience from complex to simplified hazard maps at Cascade Range volcanoes
     Volcano-hazard maps are broadly recognized as important tools for forecasting and managing volcanic crises and for disseminating spatial information to authorities and people at risk. As scientists, we might presume that hazards maps can be developed at the time and with the methods of our discretion, yet the co-production of maps with stakeholder groups, who have programmatic needs of their own, can sway the timing, usability, and acceptance of map products. We examine two volcano hazard map-making efforts by staff at the U.S. Geological Survey. During the 1990s and early 2000s scientists developed a series of hazard assessments and maps with detailed zonations for volcanoes in Washington and Oregon. In 2009, the National Park Service expressed the need for simplified versions of the existing hazard maps for a high-profile visitor center exhibit. This request created an opportunity for scientists to rethink the objectives, scope, content, and map representations of hazards. The primary focus of this article is a discussion of processes used by scientists to distill the most critical information within the official parent maps into a series of simplified maps using criteria specified. We contextualize this project with information about development of the parent maps, public response to the simplified hazard maps, the value of user engagement in mapmaking, and with reference to the abundance of guidance available to the next generation of hazard-mapmakers. We argue that simplified versions of maps should be developed in tandem with any hazard maps that contain technical complexities, not as a replacement, but as a mechanism to broaden awareness of hazards. We found that when scientists endeavor to design vivid and easy-to-understand maps, people in many professions find uses for them within their organization’s information products, resulting in extensive distribution.
497. Iverson and George (2024) Numerical modeling of debris flows: A conceptual assessment: Advances in debris-flow science and practice
     Real-world hazard evaluation poses many challenges for the development and application of numerical models of debris flows. In this chapter we provide a conceptual overview of physically based, depth-averaged models designed to simulate debris-flow motion across three-dimensional terrain. When judiciously formulated and applied, these models can provide useful information about anticipated depths, speeds, and extents of debris-flow inundation as well as debris interactions with structures such as levees and dams. Depth-averaged debris-flow models can differ significantly from one another, however. Some of the greatest differences result from simulation of one-phase versus two-phase flow, use of parsimonious versus information-intensive initial and boundary conditions, use of tuning coefficients versus physically measureable parameters, application of dissimilar numerical solution techniques, and variations in computational speed and model accessibility. This overview first addresses these and related attributes of depth-averaged debris-flow models. It then describes model testing and application to hazard evaluation, with a focus on our own model, D-Claw. The overview concludes with a discussion of outstanding challenges for development of improved debris-flow models and suggestions for prospective model users.
496. Vallance (2024) Lahars: Origins, behavior and hazards: Advances in debris-flow science and practice
     Volcanic debris flows that originate at potentially active volcanoes are called lahars. Lahars are like debris flows in non-volcanic terrain but can most notably differ in origin and size. Primary lahars occur during eruptions and may have novel origins such as turbulent mixing of hot rock moving across ice- and snow-clad volcanoes and eruptions through crater lakes. Lahars range in volume to more than a cubic kilometer (10⁹ m³), with the biggest ones caused by huge deep-seated flank collapses of water-saturated edifice rock. Because they can be so voluminous, can have high water contents, and commonly can be clay rich, these lahars can travel tens to even hundreds of kilometers. Long transport causes evolution of flow types from flood flow to hyperconcentrated flow to debris flow. Lahars capable of traveling far downstream are commonly sufficiently liquefied that they drape valley slopes and leave behind thin deposits as they pass downstream. Only in valley bottoms are lahars likely to emplace thick deposits, and even there the deposits are apt to be much thinner than peak flow depths. Flows with long transport change character with time and distance downstream. Deposits, especially those in valley bottoms, can accrete during intervals that represent a significant proportion of the time it takes the flow to pass (typically minutes). The combination of flows changing character and their progressive accretion imposes distinctive characteristics on their deposits such as normal and inverse grading. Historically, lahars have caused thousands of fatalities and destroyed entire towns. Perhaps the most disastrous known lahar occurred in 1985 at Nevado del Ruiz in Colombia and killed more than 23,000 people. Since that disaster, an increasing awareness of lahar hazards has led to efforts to mitigate them. In recent decades, improved land-use decisions, monitoring and communication have improved hazard responses and saved many lives. Lahar hazard maps and development of lahar inundation models have helped planners and people at risk to better understand the nature of the risk owing to lahars.

View More Publications...

The U.S. Geological Survey Cascades Volcano Observatory and the University of Washington Pacific Northwest Seismic Network continue to monitor Washington and Oregon volcanoes closely and will issue additional notifications as warranted.

Website Resources

For images, graphics, and general information on Cascade Range volcanoes: https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/cvo
For seismic information on Oregon and Washington volcanoes: http://www.pnsn.org/volcanoes
For information on USGS volcano alert levels and notifications: https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcano-notifications-deliver-situational-information

Jon Major, Scientist-in-Charge, Cascades Volcano Observatory, jjmajor@usgs.gov

General inquiries: vhpweb@usgs.gov