Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · sir20245062I

Monitoring marine eruptions

Abstract

Introduction Submarine volcanoes produce much of the same seismicity and eruptive activity as subaerial volcanoes and can pose hazards to society. Although they can be monitored with similar techniques and methods as described in other chapters of this volume, their submerged location brings unique challenges. This chapter addresses these challenges and provides recommendations for monitoring volcanoes fully or partly in marine environments to meet the capabilities described in other chapters of this volume. The United States and its territories host dozens of submarine volcanoes with most (around 60) in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Approximately 20 of the Northern Mariana Islands submarine volcanoes are known to be hydrothermally active, and 10 have confirmed eruptions since the 1950s (for example, Baker and others, 2008; Tepp and others, 2019a). Nine of those volcanoes were considered by the National Volcanic Threat Assessment (Ewert and others, 2018) to have a combination of eruptive type and summit depth that poses a higher risk of hazardous eruptions, although only one was listed as a moderate (level 3) threat. Other notable submarine volcanoes of interest to the United States that have historically erupted are Axial Seamount off the Washington State coast, Kamaʻehuakanaloa in Hawaiʻi, and Vailuluʻu seamount in American Samoa. All of these, however, have a low risk of hazards because of their depth (greater than 600 meters below sea level) and eruptive type and so are not included in the National Volcanic Threat Assessment. In addition to submarine volcanoes, the submerged flanks of island volcanoes can also be a source of hazardous submarine eruptions—for example, the 1877 eruption of Mauna Loa, Hawai‘i, in Kealakekua Bay (Wanless and others, 2006). The most notable submarine eruption in recent times was the 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai in Tonga, which was one of the largest eruptions on Earth in the past 100 years. It created a massive volcanic plume, unprecedented shock waves, and far-reaching tsunami (Lynett and others, 2022). Other recent submarine eruptions in the Pacific Ocean Basin have produced subaerial plumes that reached aircraft heights (Carey and others, 2014) and large pumice rafts that can affect marine traffic and harbors (for example, Jutzeler and others, 2014; Kornei, 2019). These examples illustrate the potential hazards of major submarine eruptions. Yet, submarine volcanoes are largely unmonitored, and many eruptions occur that are unnoticed or only identified hours or days afterward. Within U.S. territory, submarine volcanoes in the Northern Mariana Islands have been known to produce eruptive activity that can affect society. Reports from fishermen and other marine vessels in the Northern Mariana Islands have noted underwater explosions, sea-surface discoloration, and bubbling water, all of which are known to be signs of submarine volcanic activity. South Sarigan seamount, located about 160 kilometers (km) north of Saipan, erupted in 2010 from greater than 150 meters below the sea surface, resulting in a gas and ash plume that reached more than 11.9 km into the atmosphere (for example, Searcy, 2013; Embley and others, 2014), high enough to affect international air traffic. Precursory and co-eruptive seismicity was detected on the regional Northern Mariana Islands seismic network (Searcy, 2013) and on global monitoring instruments (Green and others, 2013). Monitoring of submarine volcanoes is best accomplished with marine-based instrumentation, which is also useful for monitoring small island volcanoes that may not have the land area necessary for comprehensive subaerial monitoring. The primary marine-based instrumentation used for submarine volcanoes includes ocean-bottom pressure sensors to assess sea-floor deformation, ocean-bottom seismometers (OBSs) to detect seismicity, and both moored and ocean-bottom hydrophones to detect submarine explosions. Other sensors offer important monitoring data, such as turbidity, temperature, and chemistry of hydrothermal emissions. Marine-based instruments are typically deployed in campaign-style networks with no real-time telemetry owing to cost considerations and technical limitations. However, when necessary, marine instruments can be operated in real time using cables to transmit data to land-based facilities; other technologies for this purpose are in use or in development, such as acoustic transmission from the instrument to a moored buoy (Matsumoto and others, 2016) and a winch-based system with a satellite antenna that is part of the instrument mooring (Matsumoto and others, 2019). Emerging technologies for marine-based monitoring may be considered as part of a future monitoring plan. These technologies include ocean gliders and floats with on-board hydrophones that have been used to record earthquakes and submarine eruptions (for example, Matsumoto and others, 2013; Sukhovich and others, 2015) and fiber-optic cables that have been used as strainmeters to detect earthquakes (for example, Marra and others, 2018; Lindsey and others, 2019). Land-based instruments and satellites can also provide some capability for monitoring submarine volcanoes, but they provide more limited observations than marine-based instrumentation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gabrielle Tepp. 2024-10-04. Monitoring marine eruptions. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062i

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

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗

Streamflow assessment of Birch Creek, southern boundary of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, Pondera County, northwestern Montana—Synoptic and continuous streamflow measurements through 2022

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Blackfeet Water Department, performed this study to assist water-resource managers in understanding and quantifying irrigation diversions, instream flows, and the spatial and temporal streamflow dynamics of Birch Creek in northwestern Montana. Birch Creek forms the southernmost boundary of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and is highly valued culturally as an aquatic life and wildlife resource and as a principal source of water for irrigation. The study area included Birch Creek from Swift Dam to 53.3 miles downstream just above its confluence with the Two Medicine River. The study period was calendar year 2022, but selected historical information was also included in the study. Birch Creek streamflow originates through releases from Swift Reservoir, with the largest releases typically occurring during the irrigation season (May–October) to primarily meet the needs of downstream irrigators. This study included the compilation and collection of (1) continuous streamflow measured at streamgages installed for this study, (2) instantaneous streamflow measurements made during four synoptic events, and (3) reported daily values of Swift Reservoir outflow and irrigation diversions. Continuous streamflow data were available from two U.S. Geological Survey streamgages: Birch Creek below Heart Butte Road, near Heart Butte, Montana (upper streamgage; station 06094900), at river mile 12.9 and Birch Creek at Bullhead Bridge near Valier, Mont. (lower streamgage; station 06098120), at river mile 53.3. The upper streamgage (station 06094900) was primarily affected by the regulated releases from Swift Dam with daily mean streamflow typically slightly higher than the reported Swift Reservoir outflows. Daily mean streamflow ranged from 9.87 cubic feet per second (ft 3 /s) (November 18, 2022) to 640 ft 3 /s (June 22, 2022) during September 16, 2021–December 31, 2022. The mean annual streamflow was 122 ft 3 /s in water year 2022 (a water year is the 12-month period from October 1 to September 30 and is designated by the year in which it ends), about 13 percent greater than the mean annual reported Swift Reservoir outflows. The lower streamgage (station 06098120) was downstream from all major tributaries and diversions within the Birch Creek drainage basin. Daily mean streamflow ranged from 6.02 ft 3 /s (September 8, 2022) to 95.0 ft 3 /s (June 5, 2021) during August 26, 2020–December 31, 2022. Mean annual streamflow was 27.8 ft 3 /s for water year 2022. Flows at the lower streamgage (station 06098120) were typically lower than at the upper streamgage (station 06094900) from late April to early October, whereas flows from early October to late spring were similar to or greater than those at the upper streamgage. The upper streamgage had a total streamflow volume of 87,960 acre-feet (acre-ft) for water year 2022, whereas the lower streamgage had a total streamflow of 20,357 acre-ft. A net volume of about 67,603 acre-ft was removed from Birch Creek through diversions, losses to groundwater, and evapotranspiration along that reach during water year 2022. Most of the changes in main-stem streamflow could be accounted for by the tributary inflows or diversion outflows. The most dynamic streamflow gains and losses occurred along the upper few miles of Birch Creek. Streamflow was consistently lost to the groundwater system immediately below Swift Dam and then returned to levels that slightly exceeded the outflow at the dam near river mile 11.0. The overall net gains for the entire 53.3-mile study reach ranged from 15.5 to 42.6 ft 3 /s among the synoptic events. On several occasions, streamflow fell below minimum instream flow conditions specified in the Blackfeet Compact (water rights compact among the Blackfeet Tribe, State of Montana, and United States), which are subject to a 15-year deferral period (until June 12, 2033). Notably, a section of Birch Creek immediately downstream from Swift Dam was completely dry during the October 18, 2022, synoptic event.

Montana↗