Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Research about Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah.

12 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2026

Methods for the computation of streamflow statistics for selected streamgages in or near Nevada through water year 2021

Streamflow statistics are used by Federal, State, and local agencies to protect and manage the water resources of Nevada. Peak-streamflow, low-streamflow, streamflow-duration, mean, minimum, and maximum streamflow statistics were computed for 310 streamgages in Nevada and surrounding States through water year 2021 (the period from October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021) by the U.S. Geological Survey. Trend analyses of a subset of 54 active streamgages with at least 30 years of data that were minimally affected by human activities indicated that most sites had “somewhat likely downward” or “likely downward” trends for peak, mean, and low streamflow. Statistically significant (probability value less than 0.05) negative trends were associated with peak streamflow at 12 percent of sites, annual mean streamflow at 31 percent of sites, and annual 7-day average low streamflow at 28 percent of sites. Statistically significant positive trends were associated with peak streamflow at 2 percent of sites, annual mean streamflow at 3 percent of sites, and annual 7-day average low streamflow at 9 percent of sites. Comparisons with previously computed statistics determined that changes in computational methods, the length of the streamgage record, and instance of wetter than average periods were the most influential on the computed statistics.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗
USGS2026

Conventional hydrothermal power-producing systems of the Great Basin, USA

As part of the update to the electric-grade conventional hydrothermal assessment of the Great Basin, USA, Monte Carlo analyses of identified resources within explored regions will be performed to make estimates of discovered resources and associated uncertainty. Analyses use conditional statistics where estimates are conditioned upon a hydrothermal favorability map, allowing for the likelihood that more resources exist in regions of higher hydrothermal favorability. For these analyses, a dataset of identified hydrothermal systems is compiled, and the new compilation is described herein. Recognizing that a single hydrothermal system may be developed with multiple power plants, and that the hydrothermal upflow zone may be several kilometers across with many measurements characterizing a single hydrothermal system, a procedure was developed and employed to create clusters of points (power plants, measurements, etc.) that are associated with a single system, and a new central point was defined as the best estimator of the center of the hydrothermal system. Hydrothermal systems were uniquely identified by grouping electric-grade hydrothermal measurements and operating power plants within a distance of 10 km. Groups that are >10 km apart are assumed to be different electric-grade hydrothermal systems. While 10 km was used as the threshold, most systems were significantly further apart, and most points within groups were typically within 5 km of each other. A well measurement was considered an electric-grade measurement of a hydrothermal system if it had two properties: a measured temperature of >85 °C and evidence of hydrothermal convection. Other points that were added to the dataset are locations of operating powerplants or locations that have been classified as an electric-grade hydrothermal resource by either the U.S Geological Survey (USGS) or the Great Basin Center for Geothermal Energy. After all points are assigned to systems, new points were computed with the goal of identifying the center of the throat of the hydrothermal upflow zone. If operating powerplants exist for a system, then the arithmetic average of all power plant locations is used. Otherwise, if USGS made an estimate, that location is used. In the absence of both powerplants or USGS estimates, the arithmetic average of all electric-grade measurement locations is used. An example is shown of how these newly compiled locations might be ranked for uncertainty analyses, where higher confidence is assumed if measured temperature is higher and there are many supporting measurements indicating an electric-grade resource. In summary, 28 systems have operating power plants, an additional 78 systems are known identified electric-grade hydrothermal resources, and 99 new systems were identified as probable electric-grade systems with varying levels of confidence. These 205 locations are shown as a function of a recent hydrothermal favorability map, conceptually illustrating the conditional statistics that can be used to make estimates of the undiscovered resources of the Great Basin. An accompanying data release provides summaries of developed capacity by system and USGS estimates of likely total capacity and associated uncertainty.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗
USGS2025

Update of the 2008 provisional Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) assessment for the Great Basin, USA

In response to the Energy Act of 2020, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is updating the Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) resource assessment for the Great Basin, USA. The previous 2008 provisional assessment estimated how much electricity could be generated from EGS resources of the western United States using models of electric-grade heat, models of heat extraction over time, and estimates of how much rock might be stimulated to produce viable amounts of heat. Herein, a similar conceptual strategy is applied, using updated models of heat extraction as a function of fracture spacing and well distance. Previously used reservoir heat delivery models are updated to have a dependence on fracture and well spacing, potentially improving future estimates of EGS resources as ongoing research provides a better understanding about the success of reservoir stimulation as a function of geology and location. For a range of well distances (250-1000 m) and fracture spacings (1-50 m), heat extraction efficiency ranges from 25-62%, demonstrating the importance of accounting for the most likely results of proven viable fracturing technologies. Although fracturing is important, the biggest uncertainty by far in estimating the EGS resource for the Great Basin is estimating which geologic units at what depths can be stimulated sufficiently to produce geothermal energy economically and efficiently. Uncertainties in these factors yield estimates that range over two orders of magnitude with an upper limit of ~174 terawatts-thermal (TWth) produced for 30 years from the upper 7 km of the crust. This upper limit would require significant technological advances to access most of the electric-grade resource across the Great Basin. Assuming that 1% of this estimate will be accessible in the next few decades gives a resource estimate similar to that made in the 2008 provisional assessment. These estimated EGS heat extraction rates far exceed ( greater than 100x) the natural geothermal heat production rate, thus geothermal electricity production at these rates might not be sustainable unless heat is also recharged from other sources (e.g., excess solar energy when supply exceeds demand). In addition to assessment maps and cumulative estimates, the new models of fractured reservoirs developed herein can be used to estimate steady power production given a set of fractures and well spacing, and estimates can be made for setback distances to ensure no thermal interference with nearby powerplants.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗
USGS2024

Updated three-dimensional temperature maps for the Great Basin, USA

As part of the periodic update of the geothermal energy assessments for the USA (e.g., last update by Williams and others, 2008), a new three-dimensional temperature map has been constructed for the Great Basin, USA. Williams and DeAngelo (2011) identified uncertainty in estimates of conductive heat flow near land surface as the largest contributor to uncertainty in previously published temperature maps. The new temperature maps incorporate new conductive heat flow estimates developed by DeAngelo and others (2023). Predicted temperatures at depth are compared with representative measurements (for conductively dominated conditions), showing good agreement under relatively simple uniform conditions. Inputs included radiogenic heat production for all layers of 1.89 μW/m 3 , effective bulk thermal conductivity of 2.7 W/m/°C for all rocks underlying sedimentary basins, and a previously published (Williams and DeAngelo, 2011) empirically driven estimate of increasing thermal conductivity with depth in sedimentary sequences. The resulting three-dimensional temperature model is published in a USGS data release associated with this manuscript (Burns and others, 2023).

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗
USGS2024

Predicting hydrothermal reservoir depth from chemical geothermometers using a three-dimensional temperature model in the Great Basin, USA

Recent work in the Great Basin region of the western United States has made it possible to predict the depth of hydrothermal reservoirs (i.e., the depth at which heat is accumulated prior to ascent via hydrothermal upflow) identified through geochemistry and to contextualize the spatial patterns of these reservoir depths. Chemical geothermometers use the chemical and mineral constituents of hydrothermal fluids to predict the temperature at which fluids equilibrated with the host rocks at depth. Assuming that most of the Great Basin is dominated by conductive conditions until a vertically connected hydrothermal flow path is created (e.g., by faulting), geothermometers reflect the chemical and thermal conditions at the depth interval that the fluid has conductively equilibrated over a long period before a vertical conduit allows convective upflow. By pairing geothermometer temperature estimates with our recent three-dimensional temperature model of conductive heat flow in the Great Basin, we estimate the corresponding reservoir depths and construct a map of circulation depths. The predicted depths from geothermometers have spatial patterns across the Great Basin that relate to patterns seen in other geologic and geophysical data. Deeper springs generally occur disproportionately in areas with higher strain rates and in basins. We posit that current elevated strain rates reflect patterns of historic deformation where ongoing tectonic activity maintains permeable pathways to deeper reservoirs, some of which are estimated to exceed 6 km depth. Basins, as expected, contain a disproportionate number of these deep systems, because the underlying aquifers are closer to the surface in basins, thus requiring less water pressure to reach the surface than in mountain ranges. Most springs estimated to have their source in a deep reservoir occur at places known to host a hydrothermal system; these refined depth estimates of the source reservoir can help to better constrain the source depth for many known hydrothermal systems across the Great Basin.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗
USGS2023

Beyond conductive targets: Characterizing lithium-prospective lacustrine evaporite mineral systems of North America’s Basin and Range Province with regional-scale AEM

The Basin and Range province of North America hosts substantial lacustrine evaporite mineral systems prospective for lithium, a critical mineral currently listed for mineral resource assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey. Airborne electromagnetic (AEM) surveys are being conducted to support these assessments by identifying shallow clays and brines, as well as through improving the shallow subsurface geologic framework of the regional fluid flow system. In 2022-2023, three focus areas with proven lithium resources or considered highly prospective for lithium are being surveyed. Results from this effort can help to improve our understanding of the geologic conditions and geophysical signatures associated with known resource regions and benefit future lithium resource assessments by identifying regions with similar geophysical and geologic characteristics.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗
USGS1971

Basin and range structure: A system of horsts and grabens produced by deep-seated extension

Basin and Range structure can be interpreted as a system of horsts and grabens produced by the fragmentation of a crustal slab above a plastically extending substratum. According to this view, the extension of the substratum causes the basal part of the slab to be pulled apart along narrow, systematically spaced zones which in turn cause the downdropping of complex horizontal prisms (grabens) in the brittle upper crust. The grabens form valleys at the surface; the intervening areas are horsts, or tilted horsts. Not all geologists have agreed, however, that Basin and Range structure consists of a system of horsts and grabens. Instead, the structure is commonly considered to consist of tilted blocks in which the upslope part of an individual block forms a mountain and the downslope part a valley. Recent detailed studies, including geophysical work, suggest that the horst and graben model may be more generally applicable. Many of the valleys in the Great Basin are bounded on both sides by faults that drop the valley block down; these faults are exposed at the surface or can be inferred from steep gravity gradients indicative of steep faulted subsurface bedrock slopes. Some areas that were thought to represent a typical series of tilted blocks may be a series of highly asymmetrical grabens in which one side of a valley is marked by a master fault and the other side by valleyward tilt. With present knowledge, most, or perhaps all, of the major valleys in the Great Basin can plausibly be considered to be grabens, and most or all of the mountains can be considered to be horsts or tilted horsts. The grabens, and the underlying inferred deep zones of extension that cause them, are systematically distributed in the Great Basin. They are generally north-trending features spaced 15 to 20 mi apart. Locally, the pattern is more complex, and individual grabens divide and trend away from each other at acute or high angles. In a few places, the pattern may even be roughly polygonal. The distribution pattern of the grabens and the related deep zones of extension resemble crack patterns in small-scale tensional systems, and both patterns may be mechanically related. By analogy with the small-scale systems, the areas of generally north-trending and parallel grabens require east-west extension, whereas the areas with a possible polygonal pattern of grabens must extend radially. The geometry of block faulting related to Basin and Range structure requires sizable east-west extension, estimated at about 1.5 mi on the average for each major valley and at about 30 to 60 mi across the entire Great Basin. Most of this extension has taken place in the last 17 m.y., or perhaps even in the last 7 to 11 m.y., indicating a rate of extension in the range of 0.3 to 1.5 cm/yr.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗
USGS1971

Tertiary igneous chronology of the Great Basin of western United States — Implications for tectonic models

The chronology of igneous activity in the Great Basin of western United States is used as a time framework for a simple plate model. This chronology suggests that a plate (Farallon plate) became underthrust to sufficient depth by the middle Tertiary to trigger the eruption of volcanic rocks of andesitic to rhyolitic composition in the central part of the Great Basin, 40 m.y. ago. This plate continued to be underthrust until about 19 m.y. ago, at which time it was completely consumed and volcanic activity ceased. When the oceanic ridge reached a certain point under the Great Basin about 16 m.y. ago, this resulted in the widespread eruption of olivine basalt and the main initial phase of Basin and Range faulting.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗
USGS1968

A method for estimating the uncertainty of seismic velocities measured by refraction techniques

Time residuals from 7 5-km segments of 18 crustal seismic-refraction profiles in the Basin and Range province are used to investigate the validity of the linear-regression model and to make large sample estimates of the variance in the travel time distributions. A formula for unbiased estimates of velocity uncertainty is derived, assuming a linear trend with distance for the variances of the travel-time distributions. If the recording units are symmetric about the center of the recording interval, this formula is equivalent to the one derived assuming the variances are equal. At the 95-per cent confidence level the chi-squared test implied 84 per cent of the time-residual samples were inconsistent with the hypothesis that their parent populations had Gaussian distributions. If the number of recording locations expceeds 8, confidence limits computed without the Gaussian assumption suggest the departures from normality are not significant for velocity uncertainty estimates. The large sample estimates of the time-residual populations may be applicable to other areas. This evidence motivated the development of a method, requiring very little numerical calculation, for estimating uncertainties in velocities. The method requires, in addition to the large sample estimates of the travel time variances, information on the quality of the data, the location of the recording interval, and the number of recording units. The method is useful for the design of new experiments and independent estimates of uncertainty reported in the literature.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗
USGS1967

Effects of the Truckee, California, earthquake of September 12, 1966

The Truckee, Calif., earthquake of September 12, 1966, had a magnitude of 5.4 on the Richter scale, as reported by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. It was felt over an area extending from San Francisco eastward to Salt Lake City and from Bakersfield northward beyond Chico, Calif. Ground breakage due to seismic shaking occurred in unconsolidated alluvium along a zone about 10 miles long that trends about N. 30° E. and extends from a point west of Prosser Reservoir, 4 miles northeast of Truckee, to Hoke Valley. The concentration of ground breakage along this zone suggests that it may be related to a subsurface northeastward-trending fault rather than to buried extensions of the northwestward-trending faults that dominate the regional geologic structure. Other effects of the earthquake include the following: (1) Damage to Prosser and Boca Dams, (2) minor damage to several bridges on Interstate Highway 80, (3) several earthquake-generated slumps or landslides on Interstate Highway 80 between Boca Dam and the California-Nevada boundary, (4) damage to the caretaker's house at Boca Dam and a lumber shed at Loyalton, (5) damage by falling rocks to the Farad powerhouse, to the wooden flume which supplies water to the powerhouse, and to the Southern Pacific Lines in Truckee Canyon, (6) minor damage to water wells and water distribution systems, particularly at Truckee, and (7) rejuvenation of springs throughout the Truckee-Russel Valley area.

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