Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Annual 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.

778 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program decadal science strategy, 2024–33

Executive Summary Earthquakes represent one of our Nation’s most significant and costly natural hazards, with estimated annual loses from earthquakes close to $15 billion in 2023. Over the past two centuries, 37 U.S. States have experienced an earthquake exceeding a magnitude of 5, and 50 percent of States have a significant potential for future damaging shaking; these statistics speak to the need for nationwide interest and investment in earthquake hazard characterization and risk reduction. Authorized under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) provides the scientific information, situational awareness, and knowledge necessary to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses from earthquakes and earthquake-induced tsunamis, landslides, and soil liquefaction. The EHP supports activities in three focused topical areas: (1) earthquake monitoring, (2) hazard assessment, and (3) applied research, using the results of each—and the coordination among them—to further support risk translation and communication in regions at risk nationwide. For earthquake monitoring, the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), a cooperative effort of USGS networks, university partner regional seismic networks, and real-time geodetic networks, collects and analyzes data on earthquakes; issues timely, reliable notifications of their occurrence and impacts; and provides data for earthquake research, hazard, and risk assessment as a foundation for building an earthquake-resilient Nation. The USGS-operated ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system is a recent addition to EHP’s ANSS infrastructure. In the realm of earthquake hazard assessment, the EHP contributes to earthquake risk mitigation strategies by developing the National Seismic Hazard Model and maps, and other related products, that describe the likelihood and potential effects of earthquakes nationwide, especially in the urban areas of highest risk. The EHP also conducts research on the causes, characteristics, and effects of earthquakes and prioritizes work that directly increases the accuracy and precision of earthquake hazards assessments, earthquake forecasts, and earthquake monitoring and situational-awareness products and that supports the Nation’s earthquake mitigation practices. Bridging the EHP’s efforts across research, hazard assessments, and earthquake monitoring is a broad and comprehensive collection of earthquake information products, including the National Seismic Hazard Model, ShakeAlert, and other products describing impact, such as ShakeMap and PAGER (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response), which have been developed and integrated into EHP’s real-time monitoring systems. EHP funds external partners to carry out many important collaborative activities through an active external grants program—one of the largest in the USGS—and through cooperative agreements with other partners such as the university-operated regional seismic networks, funded as part of the ANSS. To continue its support of earthquake hazard characterization and risk reduction, the EHP aims to strengthen its foundational products and practices while positioning itself to respond to the evolving needs of the Nation and follow best practices of the scientific community. This document describes a strategy for the program to ensure it can meet these demands. The foundational priorities outlined in this strategy represent those activities that remain critical to the core functionality of the program and those that can be supported under current fiscal year 2024-level appropriations. Priorities described as aspirational are important for future growth, and to maintain the program’s position as a leading global resource in earthquake science, but would require increases in appropriated funding to be fully realized. Across the program’s portfolio of activities, several major themes have been identified as the most critical activities to advance EHP science over the coming decade. Together, these activities provide the framework necessary to integrate critical hazard characterization and risk reduction activities across the program. They provide the structure for research to advance the understanding of where, when, and why earthquakes occur and how we can use improved knowledge to drive short-term and actionable forecasts of seismic activity. They expand the usefulness of critical earthquake products and advance the sophistication of those products to keep pace with the rapidly evolving needs of an ever-expanding user base while maintaining the position of the USGS as a global leader in earthquake science. Focus on system-level science. Establish an automated earthquake-processing pipeline. Enhance the accuracy and reliability of the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system and plan for extension to other regions. Implement time-dependent earthquake forecasting. Develop physically realistic models. Expand computational capacity. This science strategy is organized into three primary sections. The first section provides an overview of the EHP and its budget, governance, and program council. Readers familiar with the program may wish to focus on the second section, which describes the core of the science strategy, including priorities across each of the EHP’s major program activities in monitoring, hazard assessment, and targeted research. The third section outlines science priorities that cut across program activities, including those involving collaborations external to the EHP.

American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, U↗
USGS2024

Diel temperature signals track seasonal shifts in localized groundwater contributions to headwater streamflow generation at network scale

Groundwater contributions to streamflow sustain aquatic ecosystem resilience; streams without significant groundwater inputs often have well-coupled air and water temperatures that degrade cold-water habitat during warm low flow periods. Widespread uncertainty in stream-groundwater connectivity across space and time has created disparate predictions of energy and nutrient fluxes across headwater networks, hindering predictions of cold-water habitat resilience under climate change scenarios. Recently, annual paired air and water temperature signals have been harnessed to indicate stream water thermal sensitivity and the dominance of deep versus shallow groundwater influence, although the utility of diel air–water temperature signal metrics for hydrologic inference has remained unexplored. Here we analyzed two consecutive years of locally paired, air–water temperature data from 47 headwater stream sites in the Catskill Mountains, New York, USA, and discovered characteristic seasonal patterns in diel temperature signal sinusoid metrics (amplitude ratio, phase lag, and mean ratio) driven by shifts in streamflow generation mechanisms and stream network position. Hydrologic interpretations of observed patterns were supported by stream heat budget model scenarios and additional analysis of paired air–water temperature data from two streams in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, USA, with well characterized stream-groundwater connectivity. We found that within smaller tributaries, streamflow generation transitions from runoff to groundwater dominance were driven by hillslope drying during seasonal periods of lower precipitation. This was evidenced by significant correlations (p < 0.01) between daily water:air temperature signal amplitudes (non-linear decreases of ∼ 50 %) and derived base-flow index at 22 of the 28 sites, indicating enhanced local groundwater influence on streamflow promotes decoupling of diel air–water temperature signals. Additionally, ratios between daily water:air temperature signal means were lower in tributaries (∼0.68) when compared to main-stem (∼0.8) sites, increasing linearly throughout the observational period. In conceptual stream heat budget models, groundwater inflow had minimal effects on daily phase lags (∼0.2 hr), but increases in fractional groundwater discharge (0–50 %) depressed daily amplitude (∼20 % to 50 %) and mean ratios (∼15 %), supporting the sensitivity of daily metrics to interpreted changes in seasonal groundwater contributions to streamflow. During observational periods (i.e., April through October 2021 and 2022), significant differences (p < 0.01) between tributary and main-stem air–water metrics occurred when base-flow contributions were highest (∼0.93 vs. ∼ 0.68), as sites lower in the network had daily temperature metrics dominated by stream channel thermal inertia, rather than local groundwater connectivity, showing enhanced air–water diel signal coupling during warmer, drier periods. Divergent air temperature coupling across the network was interpreted as being driven by distance from local groundwater source zones, additional lateral groundwater inflows do not contribute a meaningful fraction to channel discharge lower in the network. Given the growing footprint of stream temperature observations, diel air–water temperature signals can provide distributed metrics sensitive to upstream groundwater discharge. Consequently, these metrics can support ongoing efforts by resource managers and researchers seeking to forecast the resilience of cold-water habitat to climate warming and changing precipitation regimes in mountain headwater streams.

New York, Virginia↗
USGS2025

Phase 1 technical implementation plan for the expansion of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system to Alaska

Executive Summary The conference report accompanying the fiscal year (FY) 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 117–103) for the U.S. Department of the Interior and related agencies directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to “work with the State of Alaska to develop an implementation plan to be completed within two years in order to put ShakeAlert/Earthquake Early Warning in Alaska” (p. 29). Congress included $1 million in the FY 2022 appropriation to conduct this effort. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, along with partner organizations, has developed the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast, which currently operates in California, Oregon, and Washington. The purpose of the system and its alert delivery partners is to reduce the impact of earthquakes and save lives and property by delivering ShakeAlert-powered alerts that are transmitted to the public via mass notification technologies, and by providing more detailed data streams to institutional users and commercial service providers to trigger automated, user-specific, protective actions. ShakeAlert was designed in such a way that it could be expanded to other U.S. regions with high earthquake risk, after the build-out of seismic and geodetic networks to support ShakeAlert in a specified region is completed and the necessary funding is secured for long-term operation and maintenance. When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves radiate from the rupturing fault like waves on a pond. It is these waves that people feel as earthquake shaking and that can cause damage to structures. Using networks of ground-motion sensors and sophisticated computer algorithms, ShakeAlert can detect an earthquake seconds after it begins, calculate its location and magnitude, and estimate the resulting intensity of shaking. Early warnings of impending shaking are then sent to people and systems that may experience damaging shaking, allowing them to take appropriate protective actions. Depending on the user’s distance from the earthquake, alerts may be delivered before, during, or after the arrival of strong shaking. There will almost always be a region near the earthquake epicenter where alerts arrive after damaging shaking has begun. The ShakeAlert system updates its ground-motion estimates as an earthquake grows larger. In response to the FY 2022 congressional direction, the USGS worked with the State of Alaska to devise this implementation plan for ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). A cooperative agreement was awarded to the Alaska Earthquake Center (AEC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) for their contributions to the plan and their work coordinating with other networks in Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC) throughout the process. The USGS also held a series of Alaska stakeholder engagements. The process of developing the implementation plan was facilitated by contracted staff from Corner Alliance, which is a government consulting firm. This implementation plan describes the details and estimates the costs for a Phase 1 expansion of the ShakeAlert system to Alaska. A geographically limited Phase 1 goal was chosen that covers the highest risk and most populated areas of Alaska. The areas proposed encompass the State’s main population centers and 90 percent of the State’s population. This Phase 1 design is considered very challenging and ambitious from the viewpoint of network operators. The lessons learned if this plan is implemented could be used to consider subsequent phases to expand EEW beyond Phase 1 in Alaska in the future. ShakeAlert is built on the foundation of the sensor networks and data processing infrastructure of the USGS-led Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). This implementation plan calls for a total of 450 high-quality, real-time EEW-capable ANSS seismic stations in Alaska: 270 new stations, 160 upgraded stations, and 20 existing stations. These seismic station numbers are based on a station spacing of 10 kilometers (km) in urban areas, 20 km in seismic source areas that endanger population centers, and 40 km in other areas. The associated costs also include support for some EEW-capable global navigation satellite system (GNSS) stations, with a focus on improving warnings for large subduction zone earthquakes. For effective EEW, ShakeAlert requires low-latency, high-availability, robust telemetry links to deliver continuous, real-time data from field stations to the data centers. The Alaska data processing hardware infrastructure would follow the general design for fail-safe operation that is used for the ShakeAlert system on the West Coast. The ShakeAlert architecture uses two independent layers: the production layer for earthquake processing and the alert layer to make alerting decisions and serve alerts to users. This implementation plan includes two geographically separated data centers in Alaska, each with two fully independent production and alert layers using the same system design developed for the West Coast. As of March 2024, the ShakeAlert system is at version 3.0.1, with more advanced versions in the development and testing pipeline. ShakeAlert originally used two algorithms to determine the location and magnitude of earthquakes using seismic data. A third algorithm that can calculate very large magnitudes of very large earthquakes with geodetic data was added in March 2024. ShakeAlert publishes several data and alert products to meet the needs of different users. All messages include the location of the earthquake, either as a point or a line, and its magnitude. Ground-shaking estimates are published in two forms, as ground-motion contours and a map grid. Providing adequate warning time for strong shaking (the “target threshold”) requires sending alerts at a threshold lower than that strong shaking level (the “alert threshold”). The thresholds for public alerting in Alaska would be a joint USGS and State decision. To have the greatest benefit, ShakeAlert-powered alerts would be delivered to institutional users and individuals by all practical pathways. The USGS alert layer can support thousands of institutional users and alert redistributors, but the USGS does not have the mission nor the infrastructure and expertise to perform mass notifications to the public or implement automatic actions for end users of the alerts. To meet this need, ShakeAlert recruits private sector “technology enablers” that have the necessary expertise to develop end-user implementations using EEW alerts with the goal of stimulating an EEW industry. Earthquake early warning alerts are useless if people do not know how to respond to them. Although the alert messages include instructions about what to do (drop, cover, and hold on), alerts are more effective if people have been trained in advance. Messages about ShakeAlert’s capabilities, limitations, and benefits could be integrated with existing earthquake education programs, including State-run programs. Therefore, ShakeAlert would coordinate with both public and private partners and stakeholders through various partnerships and agreements to accomplish consistent and ongoing public earthquake hazard education. The estimated capital cost of completing the computing infrastructure and sensor networks for the Phase 1 ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska is approximately $66 million in 2024 dollars. The annual operation and maintenance cost of the completed system is estimated to be $12 million per year in 2024 dollars when fully built out.

Alaska↗
USGS2024

Simulation of groundwater flow and brine discharge to the Dolores River in the Paradox Valley, Montrose County, Colorado

Salinity, or total dissolved solids (TDS), of the Colorado River affects agricultural, municipal, and industrial water users and is an important concern in the Western United States. In the Paradox Valley of southwestern Colorado, natural discharge of sodium-chloride brine to the Dolores River from the underlying core of a salt-valley anticline accounts for about 6 percent of the salinity load to the Colorado River. Formation of the Paradox Valley began during the Miocene, and subsequent erosion exposed the Pennsylvania Paradox Formation in the core of the anticline where a cap rock, collapse features, breccia, and sodium-chloride saturated brine developed at the top of the exposed salt diapir. The discharge of brine to the Dolores River is affected by these dissolution features, along with seasonal hydrologic conditions and density-dependent flow between older dense brine and the younger fresh groundwater in the overlying alluvial aquifer. To reduce TDS concentrations in the Dolores River through the Paradox Valley, the Bureau of Reclamation has pumped brine from a series of shallow wells adjacent to the river since July 1996. The pumped brine is collected and piped to a deep disposal well where it is injected into the Mississippian Leadville Limestone at a depth of about 4,570-meters below land surface. The pumping and injection operation is collectively known as the Paradox Valley Unit (PVU), and by 2015, the PVU had substantially reduced TDS concentrations in the Dolores River by about 70 percent. Since 2019, injection-pressure limits and related seismic activity have constrained deep-well injection and thus brine pumping at the PVU. In cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey developed a MODFLOW-6 three-dimensional, variable-density groundwater flow and TDS transport model of the Paradox Valley to evaluate the effects of PVU pumping operations on brine discharge to the Dolores River and to guide additional research. The finite-difference model grid consists of 76 rows and 48 columns oriented from northwest to southeast in alignment with valley topography and groundwater-flow directions in the near-surface freshwater alluvial aquifer. A 7-layer hydrogeologic framework was developed from existing datasets to represent the alluvial aquifer, cap rock, collapse breccia, and groundwater flow and TDS transport from the underlying Paradox Formation salt to the Dolores River. The model represents a 33-year transient calibration period from 1987 through 2020 that includes pre-PVU conditions from 1987 through June 1996 and post-PVU conditions from July 1996 through 2020. A 1,000-year simulation of groundwater flow and coupled TDS transport computed the initial conditions for the subsequent 33-year transient simulation. Observations of precipitation, streamflow, evaporation, agricultural land use, and PVU brine pumping rates were used to specify appropriate boundary conditions to the model representing time-varying recharge, tributary streamflow, groundwater underflow, evapotranspiration (ET), and PVU pumping. Values for average monthly streamflow and TDS concentration at the upstream streamgage, the Dolores River at Bedrock (USGS streamgage 09169500), were specified as model input where the Dolores River enters Paradox Valley. Observed pumping from the PVU, water levels and TDS concentrations in groundwater, and streamflow and estimated TDS concentrations at the downstream streamgage, the Dolores River near Bedrock (USGS streamgage 09171100), were calibration targets that constrained the manual calibration of model parameters representing aquifer hydraulic conductivity, storage, streambed conductance, recharge, and (ET). Two primary model-calibration targets were the match between observed and simulated TDS mass flux from PVU pumping wells and the match between estimated and simulated TDS mass flux to the Dolores River. The simulated TDS mass withdrawn by pumping wells is calculated by the model as the product of the assigned pumping rate and simulated groundwater TDS concentrations. Because actual pumping rates were assigned as simulated values, the total simulated PVU pumping for the 33-year calibration is within 0.5 percent of the observed values. However, simulated concentrations and thus mass flux of TDS withdrawn by the PVU pumping wells were consistently about 26 percent less than observed values for all the simulated time periods (33-year simulation, pre-PVU, and post-PVU). The representation of brine inflow was explored through additional modeling to evaluate the effect of the simulated brine source on groundwater TDS concentrations. Results indicated that a saturated-salt constant-flux brine source best replicated the magnitude and transient pattern observed for TDS mass flux from PVU pumping wells. The simulated TDS mass flux to the Dolores River is compared to estimates based on observed streamflow and specific conductance (SC) data for the downstream streamgage. The calibrated model provided a close fit of simulated to measured streamflow at the downstream streamgage, and the calibrated model fit to estimated TDS concentrations at the downstream streamgage was reasonable. The greatest differences between simulated and estimated values occurred during drought periods from June 2000 to March 2003, May 2012 to June 2013, and October 2013 to October 2014, when simulated TDS concentrations in the river were greater than estimated concentrations. In general, simulated TDS mass flux to the river for the pre-PVU period is in good agreement with estimated values (2-percent difference), but the model overestimated TDS mass flux to the river by about 41 percent during the post-PVU period. The model uncertainty with respect to TDS mass flux to the river indicates other processes or model parameters not well represented by the model are affecting the system, especially during drought. During model calibration, the most sensitive parameters were identified as vertical hydraulic conductivity of the alluvial aquifer, conductance of the Dolores River streambed, ET extinction depth and rate, and recharge rate. Five 5-year scenarios of conditions for 2021–25 were simulated to assist evaluation of alternative strategies to manage the discharge of brine into the Dolores River. The first scenario simulates no PVU pumping and serves as a base case for comparison to the other scenarios. Two scenarios simulate the effects of varying withdrawal timing at an annual rate about one-third less than during 2010 through 2018. During high-flow spring snowmelt runoff periods when brine discharge is naturally minimized, PVU pumping does not substantially affect salinity in the Dolores River, and comparison of these two scenarios indicates that scheduling brine withdrawals during times of low river stage is nearly as effective at reducing TDS mass flux to the river as pumping brine year-round. Cessation of pumping during periods of high river stage may be advantageous for system maintenance, brine injection, and seismic-risk reduction. The fourth scenario tested the effect of reducing irrigation-return flow on brine discharge and predicted a slight reduction of TDS mass flux to the Dolores River, but not as great a reduction as that of using the PVU to remove brine. The fifth scenario simulated 5 years of drought conditions without PVU pumping and indicates brine discharge during drought about 15 percent greater than during average hydrologic conditions. Results from scenario 5 are consistent with the calibrated model results and indicate that aquifer properties and ET processes and parameters may be affecting simulation results during drought. The Paradox Valley groundwater model provides a reasonable overall match to observed conditions in the Dolores River. The model is useful for evaluating relative differences between brine management scenarios to inform PVU operational decisions and to identify gaps in data and process understanding. Representation of the brine source, hydraulic-conductivity parameters, and recharge and ET processes were identified as potential areas for additional field and modeling research. Additional research in the Paradox Valley might include field-data collection that provides additional information on the hydrogeologic framework, groundwater levels, groundwater TDS concentrations, stream characteristics, and aquifer properties. Additional modeling efforts could benefit from applying advanced tools for model development, calibration, and visualization including parameter-estimation and sensitivity analysis. Statistical evaluation of known model uncertainties such as hydraulic conductivity, streambed conductance, representations of the brine source, recharge, and ET could improve the match between simulated and estimated TDS mass flux from PVU pumping wells and to the Dolores River further informing model predictions and system understanding for the Paradox Valley.

Colorado↗
USGS2024

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↗
USGS2025

The National Map Corps—Federal Emergency Management Agency and Oak Ridge National Laboratory pilot project report

This report provides an overview of the U.S. Geological Survey National Map Corps —Federal Emergency Management Agency and Oak Ridge National Laboratory pilot project in St. James Parish, Louisiana, that began in February 2024 and ended at the end of March 2024. The project used the power of The National Map Corps’ volunteer community to improve building classifications in the original Federal Emergency Management Agency’s U.S.A. Structures dataset. The report highlights the project’s completion and details the work and results achieved through a collaborative effort to enhance geospatial data quality and utility.

Open-File Report↗