Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · sir20245062H

Monitoring lahars

Abstract

Introduction Lahars, or debris flows that originate from a volcano (Pierson and Scott, 1985; Pierson, 1995), are among the most destructive, far-reaching, and persistent hazards on stratovolcanoes. Lahars may be triggered by syneruptive rapid melting of snow and ice, lake breakouts, or heavy rains in conjunction with large eruptive columns. Alternatively, lahars can follow eruptions, when clastic deposits are mobilized by heavy rainfall or lake breakouts, occurring sporadically for years to decades after large eruptions. Some lahars can travel many tens of kilometers in river drainages stemming from volcanoes, as during the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens (Washington) (for example, Janda and others, 1981), recent eruptions of Redoubt Volcano (Alaska) (fig. H1; Dorava and Meyer, 1994; Waythomas and others, 2013), and the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Philippines) (Major and others, 1996; Pierson and others, 1996). Large lahars are less likely in the absence of eruptive activity, but still possible. The Electron Mudflow at Mount Rainier (approximately A.D. 1500), Wash., is an example of a potential noneruptive lahar, likely initiated by a spontaneous collapse of weak rock, that reached the Puget Lowland after it flowed dozens of kilometers without a recognized eruptive trigger (Sisson and Vallance, 2009). The extreme hazard posed by lahars was demonstrated tragically by the 1985 Nevado del Ruiz (Colombia) catastrophe that claimed the lives of more than 20,000 people (Naranjo and others, 1986). The potential to provide warnings of minutes to hours in advance of lahar arrival in a populated area (for example, Voight, 1990) is a strong reason to provide special monitoring attention to the hazard. Populated river valleys are located downstream from many very high threat and high threat volcanoes, and these areas could be affected by lahars (for example, Hoblitt and others, 1998). The volume and mobility of lahars are two characteristics that can influence the extent of downstream effects (for example, George and others, 2022). The flows that reach the farthest downstream are mobile and voluminous. Additionally, entrainment of material as a lahar travels downstream may increase the volume, and a lahar that starts small may grow to a destructive size under certain conditions. Increasingly, stratovolcanoes host recreational enthusiasts who could be affected by relatively localized geologic hazards, such as rainfall-induced debris flows, glacial outburst floods, rockfalls, and avalanches. These types of events can be common on many volcanoes, occurring seasonally in the case of debris flows and several times per year in the case of avalanches and rockfalls (for example, Allstadt and others, 2018). Many very high threat stratovolcanoes, especially within the contiguous United States, have low eruption frequencies (less than once per century), such that monitoring networks could be used more often for detection and characterization of small surface flows than for identification of volcanic unrest. Such information can be used to validate avalanche forecasts, inform rescue efforts, or notify other agencies of potentially damaged infrastructure (for example, roads, powerlines, or trails). Note that although many of these smaller surface flows create seismic and infrasound waves, the signals are typically highly distorted by the complex volcanic topography and geology. In general, the smaller the flow, the weaker the geophysical signals that it generates, and thus a denser geophysical network is required to study smaller flows (for example, Allstadt and others, 2018). Lahar detection may not be an appropriate or necessary monitoring capability for all volcanoes. Some very high threat volcanoes, like Kīlauea and Mauna Loa, have no lahar hazards currently, and thus no detection, tracking, and characterization capabilities for lahars are needed. At other very high threat volcanoes, such as Pavlof Volcano, Alaska, lahars might be common but pose minimal threat because the volcano is so remote. Ideally, the local observatory would understand the combination of hazard and risk associated with surface flows and assign monitoring and detection capabilities appropriately. Several volcano monitoring techniques (for example, Real-Time Seismic Amplitude Measurement [RSAM], amplitude-based locations, and infrasound array processing) can be adapted to also detect, characterize, and track debris flows, lahars, and other surface flows, so instrumentation installed for detecting volcanic unrest and eruptions can have multiple purposes. The utility of instrumentation for the purpose of monitoring unrest and lahars further justifies the importance and utility of a dense network of monitoring stations, even if the volcano remains quiescent.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Weston A. Thelen, John J. Lyons, Alexandra M. Iezzi, Seth C. Moran. 2024-10-04. Monitoring lahars. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062h

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

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

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

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

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

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

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗