Geology ReportsSearch

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Final Project Report”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

822 records · Page 13Linked to original sources

Estimating habitat availability for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead (O. mykiss) to inform reintroduction planning in the middle Snake River basin, USA

Anadromous fishes have been blocked from the middle Snake River basin since the construction of flood control, irrigation, and hydroelectric projects during the 19 th and 20 th centuries, culminating with the construction of Hells Canyon Dam (river kilometer [rkm] 398) in 1967. Seven large watersheds in the blocked area of the basin are under consideration for Pacific salmon reintroduction. The primary objective of this study was to identify and characterize potential reintroduction sites with high-quality rearing and spawning habitat for Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) and steelhead ( O. mykiss ) upstream of the Hells Canyon Complex in Idaho, Oregon, and Nevada, USA. We created and tested habitat models to predict rearing presence/absence, rearing abundance, and spawning presence/absence using channel morphology, hydrology, and stream temperature variables obtained from regional peer-reviewed datasets. Habitat models were trained with salmonid presence and abundance records collected in the lower Snake River basin (downstream of Hells Canyon Dam), where anadromous fish can currently access, from 1993 to 2011. Model performance was tested with set-aside data comprised of randomly selected reaches and independent environmental DNA data. An index model was created in the middle Snake River basin for each species by combining results from the habitat models. Modeling covariates differed by species and life stage and included different combinations of August stream temperature, summer flow, channel slope, and quadratic terms for temperature and slope. The habitat models predicted high versus low Chinook salmon and steelhead probability and abundance with 66% to 85% accuracy depending on species and life stage. The index models predicted a total of 2,887 km of Chinook salmon habitat and 2,434 km of steelhead habitat in the blocked area. The three basins in the blocked area with the greatest amount of predicted habitat were the Powder River, South Fork Payette River, and North Fork Payette River for Chinook salmon, and the Powder River, South Fork Boise River, and South Fork Payette River for steelhead. The modeling approach presented here is complementary to other planning efforts for Chinook salmon and steelhead reintroduction in the blocked area of the Snake River basin, and similar approaches may be useful for reintroduction planning in other systems.

Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming

Hidden system identification: Basin modeling as a tool for examining sedimentary geothermal resource potential

Three-dimensional (3D) geologic and temperature models have been developed for the onshore U.S. Gulf Coast. The results from these models identify areas of moderate- to high-temperature (90°-150°C and >150°C; respectively) geothermal resources at depths <6 km. This modeling study addresses the fundamental challenge of predicting where opportune temperature and lithology coincide. Unlike traditional geothermal systems with surface expressions of hydrothermal circulation (e.g., hot springs, fumaroles, sinter), sedimentary geothermal systems (SGS) are generally hidden. Historically, simplified efforts to predict subsurface temperatures in sedimentary basins have focused on linear temperature extrapolation that does not consider the variable thermal properties of different lithologies or lithologic changes with depth (e.g., compaction, lithification). Therefore, the need to understand basin architecture and predict temperatures in 3D within SGS is paramount to identifying geothermal resources and determining economic feasibility. Basin modeling software has long been used to characterize the subsurface conditions of sedimentary basins, including temperature, in the pursuit of finding hydrocarbons. This tool can also be adapted to evaluate the potential of geothermal resources in a sedimentary basin by predicting the confluence of desirable temperatures and reservoir lithologies. In this work, PetroMod basin modeling software was used to create a regional geologic model of the onshore U.S. Gulf Coast, covering over 500,000 km 2 calibrated to temperature data from wells. Inputs include structural surfaces from commercial databases, lithology information derived from published literature, and corrected bottom-hole temperatures (BHT) from over 6,000 wells. The resulting 3D geologic model can be used to predict temperatures throughout the basin. Maps were exported showing the depth, depositional unit, and reservoir lithology at which temperatures of 90°C and 150°C were reached, revealing over 400,000 km 2 of moderate- to high-temperature resources at depths <6 km. These maps function as a first-order screening tool to identify areas where low-, moderate-, or high-grade resource potential may exist, based on temperature and if optimal reservoir lithologies or depositional units of interest are present. Depending on the success criteria of a project, the same maps can be exported for any isotherm or incorporate other 1407 Gardner and Birdwell subsurface properties. The methodology employed in this work can be applied in any sedimentary basin with available subsurface data. Further calibration incorporating other data, including pressure and porosity, can expand the utility of basin modeling for geothermal evaluations. Basin modeling is a powerful but underutilized tool for identifying prospective geothermal resources in sedimentary basins.

Conference Paper

ShakeAlert®—Communication, education, outreach and technical engagement strategic vision

Executive Summary In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began directly supporting ShakeAlert ® research and in 2012 the ShakeAlert demonstration system began testing ( Given and others, 2018 ). The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the three West Coast States (Washington, Oregon, and California) served by the ShakeAlert System, which is part of the larger Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). With more than 143 million people exposed to potentially damaging shaking in the United States ( Jaiswal and others, 2015 ), earthquakes are a national hazard. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated in the highly populated areas on the active plate tectonic boundaries on the West Coast of the conterminous United States. ShakeAlert is the first public alert system in the United States to provide rapid mass notification of earthquake detection, potentially offering seconds of warning before strong shaking arrives. A few seconds may not seem like much time, but the information in ShakeAlert Messages can be used to trigger automated actions that can prevent injury or death, reduce immediate damage, and speed recovery from earthquakes. The information product issued by the ShakeAlert system is called a ShakeAlert Message and is one of the information products and tools of the ANSS. The ShakeAlert System includes the USGS component, plus the pathways by which ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services are delivered to end users. Alerts can be delivered to cell phones or be used to trigger automated systems to protect equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, such as slowing or stopping a train. ShakeAlert-powered automated actions can include fire house doors that can be opened to prevent jamming, heavy equipment (for example, trains, elevators, and cranes) that can be automatically stopped or parked in safe positions, and pipeline valves that can be closed to prevent surges and spills. A few seconds of warning also may be sufficient for people to take protective actions, such as drop, cover, and hold on or modified protective actions for a broad range of populations. Advance training may increase the benefit of a speedy response to an alert. Outreach and education about EEW may raise awareness of the overall earthquake threat and how people can best react when they receive an alert or feel shaking. ShakeAlert communication, education, outreach, and technical engagement (CEO&TE) efforts are highly collaborative and essential for the success of the ShakeAlert System. This strategic vision informs how the vast ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community operates and works together. The CEO&TE Community delineates a strategic framework that is intended to set the path for a long-term, sustainable approach to CEO&TE through three focus areas and five priorities. Focus Areas Technical engagement.— The objective of this focus area is to expand and broaden ShakeAlert technical engagement and implementation. External engagement.— This focus area targets engagement in long-term communication, education, and outreach planning, implementation, and evaluation. Internal engagement.— The purpose of this focus area is to build and sustain a robust infrastructure to optimize collaboration, information sharing, and project planning among the community of stakeholders charged with implementing ShakeAlert CEO&TE. Priorities The enumeration of the five priorities listed below does not suggest priority ranking. Public safety, preparedness, and resilience; Technical implementation and engagement; Consistent messaging and communication; Integration with other Federal and State earthquake hazards products; and Educational resources development and dissemination. This strategic vision is a tangible outcome of collaboration among many stakeholders beginning in July 2016. Since then, the work of the ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community has grown into an international effort. The USGS has developed, tested, and implemented a broad spectrum of communication, education, and outreach tools and resources—all of which recognize that seconds matter when it comes to safety and mitigating harm from earthquake hazards. The CEO&TE social science research effort has provided invaluable insights into the ShakeAlert System’s human interface. USGS-licensed technical partners develop, test, and implement real-world applications using ShakeAlert Messages. The success of ShakeAlert CEO&TE efforts is predicated on robust collaboration across numerous agencies, organizations, and groups. As such, this strategic vision outlines a “partnership model” that delineates roles and responsibilities to ensure alignment with focus areas and priorities. The partnership model includes the CEO&TE lead agency (USGS); its principal partners (State agencies and university partners); its implementation partners (for example, technical partners who build systems to deliver ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services [focus area one]), earthquake education partners who work to increase public preparedness for seismic events (focus area two); and other organizations that work together to enhance the adoption and effectiveness of the ShakeAlert System. These partners collaborate and convene through a variety of working groups and forums, which are also described in this strategic vision and align with focus area three (internal engagement). The CEO&TE Community collaboratively developed its operating principles and a consensus-based, decision-making strategic framework to guide its collective work. Performance metrics are used to continually measure success. Ultimately, the USGS and ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community are advancing the ShakeAlert System that as of the publication of this strategic vision to “provide earthquake early warning for all” serves more than 50 million people.

Circular

Upper crustal seismic velocity structure of the Hayward fault zone, San Francisco Bay, California, USA: Results from the 2016 East Bay Seismic Experiment (EBSI-16)

We developed Vp, Vs, Vp / Vs ratio, and Poisson’s ratio models of the uppermost crust (<4 km depth) from the eastern San Francisco (SF) Bay (California, USA) to near the Calaveras fault along a 15-km-long, linear profile. Upper crustal velocities are highly variable beneath, west, and well east of the Hayward fault. We observe eight notable features, from west to east: (1) Near San Francisco Bay, there is an ~2-km-wide structure with high Vp / Vs ratios (up to 5) and Poisson’s ratios (up to 0.48) extending from the surface to the base of our model, which we suggest the structure is a near-vertical fault that lies along a straight-line projection between the Silver Creek fault to the south and the Point Richmond fault to the north. The structure may be part of an ~90-km-long fault along the eastern SF Bay. (2) The western East Bay Plain, the lower lying area between the bay and the hills, includes up to 800 m of low-velocity sediments ( Vp ~1600–3000 m/s, Vs ~500 m/s to ~1000 m/s), underlain by higher velocity basement rocks ( Vp ~3000–5800 m/s; Vs ~1000–1500 m/s). (3) Between ~1 km and 3 km east of the Bay shoreline, sediments thin in a series of steps (likely faults) toward the Hayward fault. (4) Between ~3 km west and ~1 km east of the Hayward fault (at the East Chabot fault) at depths greater than 1 km, basement Vp (up to 6000 m/s) and Vs (up to 2800 m/s) are high, and Vp / Vs ratios (<2) and Poisson’s ratios (<0.3) are low, suggesting crystalline rocks. Furthermore, a near-vertical zone of low Vp / Vs ratios and Poisson’s ratios is between near-surface traces of the Hayward and East Chabot faults, likely corresponding to the San Leandro Gabbro of Ponce et al. (2003) . (5) Eastward of the East Chabot fault in the upper 1.5 km, basement Vp (~3000 m/s to ~4200 m/s) and Vs (~1200–2000 m/s) are lower than those west of the fault. (6) In the eastern Hayward/Oakland Hills, there are zones of laterally varying, high- and low-velocity ( Vp ~2500–3000 m/s) Jurassic–Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments in the shallow subsurface that likely extend much deeper than imaged. (7) Seismic energy that propagates westward from sources east of the Hayward fault (HF) appear weaker than energy that propagates eastward from sources west of the HF, suggesting that the HF acts as a partial barrier to shallow seismic energy propagation into the more populated eastern SF Bay area. (8) Unlike many fault zones, it appears that the active trace of the Hayward fault (in our study area) is not cored by a prominent, low-velocity zone relative to rocks to the east and west of the active trace. However, the active trace does mark a prominent change from relatively higher velocities to the west and lower velocities to the east.

California

Timing and geometry of the Chemehuevi Formation reveal a late Pleistocene sediment pulse into the Lower Colorado River

The Chemehuevi Formation is a distinctive 50−150-m-thick wedge-shaped Pleistocene sedimentary unit deposited by the Colorado River. It lines the perimeters of the river’s floodplains and bedrock canyons for more than 600 km between the mouth of the Grand Canyon and the delta region in the Gulf of California. The formation is composed of a basal tan to light-yellowish-brown and pale-orange mud-dominated facies overlain and interbedded by a light-yellow-brown sand-dominated facies. The unit is one of two extensively exposed aggradational packages in the Lower Colorado River corridor, in addition to a series of other smaller alluvial terrace deposits. The Chemehuevi Formation appears to represent the response of a fully integrated Colorado River system to a significant perturbation, in contrast to the Bullhead Alluvium, which is likely a unique result of Pliocene river integration. The aggradation of the Chemehuevi Formation in the Lower Colorado River corridor may be similarly due to a unique event in the Colorado River system, or it may instead be a well-preserved sedimentary sequence recording typical behavior of the Colorado River below the Grand Canyon in the late Pleistocene. As such, multiple causal mechanisms have been proposed, but no study to date has conclusively explained the Chemehuevi Formation. To help resolve its timing, duration, and origin, we applied post-infrared infrared stimulated luminescence, carbonate U-Th series, and zircon sensitive high-resolution ion microprobe U-Th series geochronology to determine the ages of key exposures of the unit over a wide spatial area. These new data demonstrate that the Chemehuevi Formation was deposited ca. 110−90 ka. The depositional ages collectively overlap, suggesting that deposition occurred rapidly relative to the resolution of the geochronometers. The new depositional timing coincides with a shift from glacial to interglacial conditions after the marine isotope stage 5-6 transition. This observation is consistent with a climate-induced sediment pulse as a causal mechanism, yet correlations with similar deposits in the Colorado River headwaters or in neighboring catchments appear elusive. Potentially, climate transitions between glacial and interglacial periods induced a sediment pulse from hillslopes of the Colorado River system that resulted in the Chemehuevi Formation. An alternative or additional explanation is that the Chemehuevi Formation represents release of lava dam−impounded sediment in the Grand Canyon. The surface geometry of the Chemehuevi Formation projects upstream to the approximate location of lava dams, and the largest possible lava dam impoundment (the Upper Prospect dam) is comparable in volume to the formation. The lava dam hypothesis appears to be a possible explanation for the Chemehuevi Formation. However, tying deposition to a specific lava dam or series of lava dams remains challenging due to discrepancies in timing and volume. The combined effects of a series of lava dams may have led to the Chemehuevi Formation, as the last Pleistocene lava dam eruption coincides with the onset of deposition. Alternatively, the formation may result from the combined effects of both regional climate transitions and the lava dams that created a transient reservoir to compound a climate transition−driven sediment pulse. The geochronologic data presented here do not allow us to distinguish between the lava dam or climate transition hypotheses but will need to be reconciled with any future proposed depositional model.

Arizona, California, Nevada

Salinas Valley integrated hydrologic and reservoir operations models, Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, California

The area surrounding the Salinas Valley groundwater basin in Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties of California is a highly productive agricultural area, contributes significantly to the local economy, and provides a substantial portion of vegetables and other agricultural commodities to the Nation. This region of California provides about half of the Nation’s lettuce, celery, broccoli, and spinach each year. Thus, this agricultural area provides significant volumes of agricultural products not just for California but the entire United States. Changes in population and increased agricultural development, which includes a shift toward more water-intensive crops, and climate variability, have put increasing demand on both surface water and groundwater resources in the valley. This has resulted in water management challenges in the Salinas Valley that are predominantly related to distribution of water supply throughout the basin. Where and when the water is present in the surface and subsurface does not coincide with where and when the water is needed. To deal with the distribution issue, historically water has been used conjunctively in the valley. Conjunctive use is a water management strategy that coordinates surface water and groundwater use to maximize water availability. Groundwater is used throughout the Salinas Valley to meet water demands when surface water supplies are insufficient. Availability of surface water is constrained by climate. Precipitation and streamflow vary seasonally and year to year. Although there are two reservoirs in the Salinas Valley to capture and store water during wet periods, the only conveyance of reservoir water to coastal agricultural areas is the Salinas River. Increasing demand on groundwater and surface water resources throughout the Salinas Valley has resulted in undesirable effects of unsustainable water use, such as surface water depletion, groundwater level declines, storage depletion in the principal aquifers, and seawater intrusion. To address these escalating issues, local communities, water management agencies, and groundwater sustainability agencies are evaluating how to sustainably manage both their surface water and groundwater resources. To meet water demands and reduce undesirable effects of unsustainable water use, continued conjunctive management of surface water and groundwater would ideally incorporate strategies to deal with increases in demand and a variable climate. To evaluate the challenging water management issues in the Salinas Valley, the U.S. Geological Survey, Monterey County Water Resource Agency, and the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency developed a comprehensive suite of models that represent the Salinas Valley Hydrogeologic system called the Salinas Valley System Model. The Salinas Valley Geologic Framework was developed to characterize the subsurface using various topographic and geologic data sources, including information on hydrogeologic units, their surfaces and extents, geologic structures, lithology, and elevations from borehole data and cross sections, as well as details on faults and existing models. The Salinas Valley Watershed Model simulates the entire Salinas River watershed. Monthly surface water inflows into the integrated hydrologic model domain were simulated using the Salinas Valley Watershed Model. The historical model uses historical climate data, water and land use data, and reservoir releases to simulate agricultural operations, including landscape water demands, diversions, and reclaimed wastewater. The operational model adds an embedded reservoir operations framework to the simulation of the historical model that allows specified operational rules to simulate reservoir releases and changes in reservoir storage. The operational model assumes current reservoir operations and constant land use, which differs from historical conditions. Thus, the operational model is a hypothetical baseline model that can be used by local water managers to evaluate and quantify potential benefits of water supply projects. Together, the geologic framework, watershed, historical, and operational models form a tool that can be used to simulate irrigated agriculture and associated reservoir operations of the integrated hydrologic system of the Salinas Valley.

EarthArXiv

Streams, springs, and volcanic lakes for volcano monitoring

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

Scientific Investigations Report