<p> Volcano and Earthquake Monitoring Plan for the Yellowstone Caldera System, 2022–2032 <p> <p> First posted June 21, 2022 <p> <p> For additional information, contact: <p> Director, <p> Yellowstone Volcano Observatory <p> https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/yvo <p> U.S. Geological Survey <p> 345 Middlefield Road, MS 910 <p> Menlo Park, CA 94025 <p> <p> Executive Summary <p> <p> The Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO) is a consortium of nine Federal, State, and academic agencies that: (1) provides timely monitoring and hazards assessment of volcanic, hydrothermal, and earthquake activity in and around Yellowstone National Park, and (2) conducts research to develop new approaches to volcano monitoring and better understand volcanic activity in the Yellowstone region and elsewhere. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) arm of YVO is also responsible for monitoring and reporting on volcanic activity in the Intermountain West of the United States. <p> The previous YVO monitoring plan for the Yellowstone region spanned 2006–2015 and focused on strengthening the region-wide coverage, or backbone, of monitoring systems (Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, 2006). The goals of that plan have largely been achieved thanks to significant investments in instrumentation and infrastructure, especially by the National Science Foundation EarthScope Plate Boundary Observatory (now known as the Network Of The Americas, or NOTA) and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. This revision of the monitoring plan, covering 2022–2032, builds upon these improvements to monitoring systems in the Yellowstone region while also accounting for new insights into the dynamics of the area’s seismic, volcanic, and hydrothermal activity. These additional improvements are designed to fill gaps in the monitoring network and to better understand and track hazards associated with hydrothermal processes. These improvements include: <p> Conversion of remaining analog seismic stations to digital, <p> Addition of Global Positioning System (GPS) stations in the vicinity of Norris Geyser Basin and other areas where changes in deformation rate and style have been observed, <p> Implementation of continuous gas monitoring in several areas of Yellowstone National Park, and <p> Improvements to lake, meteorological, and hydrological monitoring to better track hydrothermal activity, including that occurring on lake bottoms, and to aid in understanding of whether such activity might be influenced by external forces, like environmental conditions. <p> The 2022–2032 monitoring plan for the Yellowstone volcanic system also proposes to improve monitoring of hydrothermal areas to better understand these dynamic systems and their associated hazards. To date, only a single seismometer has been placed within one of Yellowstone National Park’s geyser basins because seismic noise associated with boiling water can hinder interpretation of overall seismic and magmatic activity, but this concern has been mitigated by improvements to backbone monitoring. Deployment of geophysical, geochemical, hydrological, and geological monitoring instruments in geyser basins will be accompanied by campaigns to measure gas and water chemistry and flux, as well as aerial and satellite surveys of gas and thermal emissions. <p> Close collaboration between YVO member institutions and other research agencies is needed to achieve these monitoring goals and to use the derived data to advance understanding of how Yellowstone Caldera and similar volcanic systems work. At the same time, attention must be paid to minimize the impact of monitoring efforts and infrastructure on the environment. YVO thus commits to serving as stewards of the natural, cultural, and historical resources in and around Yellowstone National Park while maximizing scientific gain for the betterment of society. <p>

Assessment of Lunar Resource Exploration in 2022 <p> <p> Circular 1507 <p> <p> By: Laszlo P. Keszthelyi, Joshua A. Coyan, Kristen A. Bennett, Lillian R. Ostrach, Lisa R. Gaddis, Travis S. J. Gabriel, and Justin Hagerty <p> <p> https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1507 <p> <p> First posted May 9, 2023 <p> <p> For additional information, contact: <p> <p> Astrogeology Research Program staff Astrogeology Science Center <p> https://www.usgs.gov/centers/astrogeology-science-center/connect <p> U.S. Geological Survey <p> https://usgs.gov/ <p> 2255 N. Gemini Dr. <p> Flagstaff, AZ 86001 <p> <p> Abstract <p> <p> The idea of mining the Moon, once purely science-fiction, is now on the verge of becoming reality. Taking advantage of the resources on the Moon is part of the plans of many nations and some enterprising commercial entities; demonstrating in-situ (in place) resource utilization near the lunar south pole is an explicit goal of the United States’ Artemis program. Economic extraction and sustainable management of these resources require understanding the nature, quantity, and quality of each resource. This publication aims to provide a relatively simple, but technically rigorous, assessment of the status of lunar resource exploration in 2022. <p> <p> Building on the experience of the U.S. Geological Survey in conducting resource assessments for Earth, we propose a general methodology for quantitative lunar resources assessments. Lunar resources can be categorized as energy, mineral, and water and classified with respect to their certainty and their recoverability. The portion of the technically recoverable resource that can be converted to a commodity within budgetary and other mission constraints can be classified as a "reserve." <p> For energy resources, solar energy is known to be especially abundant along some high ridges near the lunar poles and the technology to exploit it is mature. Mineral resources, largely in the form of loose rock powder that covers the surface of the Moon, are also widely accessible in large quantities. Many different technologies to convert this material into useful commodities (such as landing pads and oxygen) are currently being developed and are likely to be available for industrial-scale application within 30 years. Water ice almost certainly exists in the polar regions of the Moon but there are fundamental unanswered questions about when and how the ice formed—leaving us without knowledge of the form, quantity, quality, and distribution of lunar ice. Until rover missions bring new ground truth data, lunar ice will remain a highly speculative resource that may be both limited and non-renewable. <p>

Optimizing Satellite Resources for the Global Assessment and Mitigation of Volcanic Hazards—Suggestions from the USGS Powell Center Volcano Remote Sensing Working Group <p> <p> Scientific Investigations Report 2022-5116 <p> <p> By: M. E. Pritchard, M. Poland, K. Reath, B. Andrews, M. Bagnardi, J. Biggs, S. Carn, D. Coppola, S.K. Ebmeier, M.A. Furtney, T. Girona, J. Griswold, T. Lopez, P. Lundgren, S. Ogburn, M. Pavolonis, E. Rumpf, G. Vaughan, C. Wauthier, R. Wessels, R. Wright, K.R. Anderson, M.G. Bato, and A. Roman <p> <p> For additional information, contact: <p> Director, Volcano Science Center <p> https://www.usgs.gov/centers/volcano-science-center <p> U.S. Geological Survey <p> 1300 SE Cardinal Court <p> Vancouver, WA 38683 <p> Abstract <p> <p> A significant number of the world’s approximately 1,400 subaerial volcanoes with Holocene eruptions are unmonitored by ground-based sensors yet constitute a potential hazard to nearby residents and infrastructure, as well as air travel and global commerce. Data from an international constellation of more than 60 current satellite instruments provide a cost-effective means of tracking activity and potentially forecasting hazards at volcanoes around the world. These data span the electromagnetic spectrum: ultraviolet, optical, infrared, and microwave (synthetic aperture radar). They can measure volcanic thermal and gas emissions, ground displacement, and surface and topographic change, providing information that addresses one of the grand challenges in volcanology—to overcome our incomplete understanding of the relation between volcanic unrest and eruption, which is currently based on only a few well-studied volcanoes. <p> <p> Although the potential of volcano remote sensing has been recognized for decades, there are many hurdles to clear before remote sensing data can be used fully by all volcano observatories. These include: (1) the limited temporal and spatial coverage of active volcanoes by satellites and the delayed distribution of those data; (2) the lack of background d ata acquired at all volcanoes; and (3) limited access to, and utilization of, remote sensing data in some areas owing to a lack of expertise, licensing, user-friendly formats, data access portals, or computational infrastructure. <p> <p> While remote sensing data will never replace ground-based monitoring, a joint observation strategy provides a powerful means of assessing volcanic activity before, during, and after hazardous eruptions, especially given the unique spatial, temporal, and spectral perspective provided by remote measurements. A coordinated international remote sensing observation strategy for volcanoes—similar to one used by the cryosphere community—along with a volcano space task group to maximize the utility of satellite data for volcano monitoring would be highly beneficial. Such a vision could facilitate (1) global coordination of satellite observations (as done for polar regions) for background monitoring and eruption response, (2) open data that can be rapidly distributed during crises, (3) communication tools and forums for discussion of satellite data, (4) integrated ground and satellite databases of unrest, and (5) global capacity building. <p>