Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · ofr20181013

Modeled inundation limits of potential lahars from Mount Adams in the White Salmon River Valley, Washington

Abstract

Lahars large enough to reach populated areas are a hazard at Mount Adams, a massive volcano in the southern Cascade Range of Washington State (fig. 1). It is considered to be still active and has the potential to erupt again. By definition, lahars are gravity-driven flows of water-saturated mixtures of mud and rock (plus or minus ice, wood, and other debris), which originate from volcanoes and have a variety of potential triggering mechanisms (Vallance, 2000; Vallance and Iverson, 2015). Flowing mixtures can range in fluid consistency from something like a milkshake to something more like wet concrete, and they behave like flash floods, in that they can appear suddenly in river channels with little warning and commonly have boulder- or log-choked flow fronts. Lahars are hazardous because they can flow rapidly in confined valleys (commonly 20–35 miles per hour [mph] or 9–16 meters per second [m/s]), can travel more than 100 miles (mi) (161 kilometers [km]) from a source volcano, and can move with incredible destructive force, carrying multi-ton boulders and logs that can act as battering rams (Pierson, 1998). The biggest threats from lahars to downstream communities are present during eruptive activity, and impacts to communities can be dire. For example, a very large eruption-triggered lahar in Colombia in 1985 surprised and killed more than 20,000 people in a large town located about 45 mi (72 km) downstream and out of sight of the volcano that produced it (Pierson and others, 1990). Mount Adams, one of the largest volcanoes in the Cascade Range, is a composite stratocone composed primarily of andesite lava flows. It has been the most continuously active volcano within the 480-mi 2 Mount Adams volcanic field—a region covering parts of Klickitat, Skamania, Yakima, andLewis Counties and part of the Yakama Nation Reservation in Washington State (Hildreth and Fierstein,1995, 1997). About 500,000 years in age, Mount Adams reached its present size by about 15,000 years ago, primarily through the episodic effusion of lava flows; it has not had a history of major explosive eruptions like Mount St. Helens, its neighbor to the west. Timing of the most recent eruptive activity (recorded by four thin tephra layers) is on the order of 1,000 years ago; the tephras are bracketed by 2,500-year-old and 500-year-old ash layers from Mount St. Helens (Hildreth and Fierstein, 1995, 1997). Mount Adams currently shows no signs of renewed unrest. Eruptive history does not tell us everything we need to know about hazards at Mount Adams, however, which are fully addressed in the volcano hazard assessment for Mount Adams (W.E. Scott and others, 1995). This volcano has had a long-active hydrothermal system that circulated acidic hydrothermal fluids, formed by the solution of volcanic gases in heated groundwater, through fractures and permeable zones into upper parts of the volcanic cone. Acid sulfate leaching of rocks in the summit area may still be occurring, but chemical and thermal evidence suggests that the main hydrothermal system is no longer active at Mount Adams (Nathenson and Mariner, 2013). However, these rock-weakening chemical reactions have operated long enough to change about 0.4 cubic miles (mi 3 ) (1.7 cubic kilometers [km 3 ]) of the hard lava rock in the volcano’s upper cone to a much weaker clay-rich rock, thus significantly reducing rock strength and thereby slope stability in parts of the cone (Finn and others, 2007). The two largest previous lahars from Mount Adams were triggered by landslides of hydrothermally altered rock from the upper southwestern flank of the cone, and any future large lahars are likely to be triggered by the same mechanism. Mount Rainier also has had extensive hydrothermal alteration of rock in its upper edifice, and it also has a history of large landslides that transform into lahars (K.M. Scott and others, 1995; Vallance and Scott, 1997; Reid and others, 2001). The spatial depiction of modeled lahar inundation zones accompanying this report, shown in two different map perspectives, is intended to augment (not replace) the existing hazard maps for Mount Adams (W.E. Scott and others, 1995; Vallance, 1999). The maps in this report show potential areas of inundation by lahars of different initial volumes, which are determined by a computer model, LAHARZ (Iverson and others, 1998; Schilling, 1998). One map sheet presents LAHARZ-determined inundation areas on a normal plan-view shaded-relief map of the study area; the other gives an oblique perspective of the landscape with raised topography, as if one were viewing the landscape at an angle from an aircraft (Jenny and Patterson, 2007). LAHARZ was developed after the original hazard maps (based only on mapping of geologic deposits) were made. Predicted inundation zones on these maps provide an alternative approach to estimation of areas that could be inundated as lahars of different volumes pass through the valley. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the exact location of the hazard-zone boundaries shown on these maps, as well as on earlier maps.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 45.682198608003404° to 46.25° latitude; -121.8333° to -121.25° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Julia P. Griswold, Thomas C. Pierson, Joseph A. Bard. 2018-05-09. Modeled inundation limits of potential lahars from Mount Adams in the White Salmon River Valley, Washington. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181013

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona