Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · pp1769

The 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano, Alaska

Abstract

Augustine Volcano, the most historically active volcano in Alaska’s Cook Inlet region, again showed signs of life in April 2005. Escalating seismic unrest, ground deformation, and gas emissions culminated in an eruption from January 11 to mid-March of 2006, the fifth major eruption in 75 years. The eruption began with a series of 13 short-lived blasts over 20 days that sent pyroclastic flows; snow, rock, and ice avalanches; and lahars down the volcano’s snow clad flanks; ash clouds drifted hundreds of kilometers downwind. Punctuated explosive activity gave way to effusion of lava and emplacement of thick block-and-ash flows on the volcano’s north flank that continued through mid-February. In mid-March renewed extrusion resulted in the building of a new, higher summit lava dome and two blocky lava flows on the north and northeast flanks of the cone. The eruption resulted in ash fall on many south-central Alaskan communities and disrupted air traffic in the region. Augustine’s frequent eruptions and relatively easy access have long drawn volcanologists to study the accumulation, ascent, and eruption of andesitic to dacitic magma. Studies of the most recent activity before 2006, in 1976 and 1986, revealed that the volcano lately produces explosive eruptions that are preceded by months of unrest and injection of new magma into a storage region in the upper several kilometers of the crust. Each of these eruptions then followed a similar progression from explosive to effusive behavior over several months. Petrologic and geophysical observations suggest that these three eruptions were triggered by similar magma mixing events and that the subsequent ascent and eruption of magma was governed by processes that were roughly constant from one eruption to the next. Geologic studies of the island show that in the more distant past parts of Augustine’s edifice have failed repeatedly, resulting in debris avalanches that entered the sea and, at least once, in 1883, caused a tsunami that hit surrounding Cook Inlet coastlines. Such edifice failures and resultant local tsunamis should be expected in the future. Recognition of Augustine’s frequent activity and hazardous nature led to the installation of a network of telemetered seismometers beginning in 1971, the establishment of a geodetic network in 1988, and the installation of other new instrumentation such as pressure sensors, broadband seismometers, and cameras by the Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO), and the selection of Augustine for geodetic instrumentation through the EarthScope/Plate Boundary Observatory program in 2004. In addition, remote sensing techniques, such as airborne thermal imaging and the advanced spaceborne thermal emission and reflection radiometer (ASTER), provided novel and often critical information as the 2006 eruption progressed. The combination of a long-term seismic network and an array of new monitoring techniques has provided a breadth and depth of understanding of Augustine’s most recent activity that was not possible in the past. This volume contains 28 chapters reporting on a diverse suite of new scientific observations and investigations that were motivated by the 2006 eruption. Understanding the magmatic processes that drive eruptions, identifying eruptive events, tracking the movement of ash clouds, and communicating the resultant hazards to other government agencies and the public are all critical tasks for AVO, and chapters touch upon all of these topics. One goal in this compilation is to synthesize the diverse information into as complete an understanding of the magmatic and eruptive processes as possible. An equally important goal is to provide a framework for diagnosing periods of unrest and formulating forecasts of eruptions that will certainly take place at Augustine in the future. This latter goal is especially important, as Augustine’s frequent eruptive activity suggests that another eruption can be expected within the next several decades. Consequently, the investigations in this volume are intended to provide both a means to better forecast future eruptive episodes and also an opportunity to formulate and test future hypotheses for magmatic and eruptive processes. Future eruptions may follow a course similar to those observed in 1976, 1986, and 2006. However, a major perturbation that upsets conditions within the magmatic system could occur, owing perhaps to the rise of a much larger or different parental magma or to a large edifice failure similar to the 1883 sector collapse. In such events, the comprehensive study of past eruptions will provide data critical to assessing the current state of the magmatic system. In assembling this volume we have sought as consistent and accurate a portrayal of the 2006 eruption as possible. We have asked all authors to refer to the same basic eruption chronology, unless their observations and data require alternative explanations. Naturally, not all techniques or methodologies produce a completely consistent set of observations, nor do the precise conclusions in every paper support one another. We have grouped chapters on the basis of discipline. Papers that focus on specific techniques, methodology, or instrumentation are placed throughout the volume where they best fit with others that rely on their results.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 59.31076795603884° to 59.428315784042574° latitude; -153.60260009765625° to -153.31695556640625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

2010. The 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano, Alaska. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1769

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Allostratigraphy and formalizing the Cold Harbor Alloformation, Virginia Coastal Plain, Eastern Virginia

Introduction Distinct morphologic features in the Virginia part of the Coastal Plain Province (herein referred to as the Virginia Coastal Plain) were noted in one of the earliest geologic surveys in 1839 (Rogers, 1884). South of the James River, Rogers (1884, p. 252) described a western bench that ranged from “a low rocky coast…of the primeval sea” to an eastern facing scarp east of the City of Suffolk, Virginia. His eastern bench extended from the scarp at Suffolk, which he suggested was a former shoreline, to the present Atlantic Ocean. Notably, the eastern plain was described as less dissected than the western plain. In Virginia, creation and publication of topographic maps by the U. S. Geological Survey began in the mid-1880s. By 1905, many areas in eastern Virginia were mapped as 30-minute and 15-minute series with 10-foot (ft) contour interval accuracy (Virginia Division of Mineral Resources [VDMR] , 2008). After the continued release of these early maps that displayed Virginia Coastal Plain morphology in increasingly greater detail, several geological reports were published where scarps and plains were traced, named, and origins proposed (Shaler, 1890; Shattuck, 1901; Clark and Miller, 1906, 1912; Wentworth, 1930). Shattuck (1901) recognized three continuous scarps in Maryland and most importantly suggested that there was a correlation between surficial deposits (geologic formations) and morphologic terraces; this defined the terrace-formation concept that became the basis of geologic mapping of the Upper Pliocene and Pleistocene sediments in the Virginia Coastal Plain. Clark and Miller (1912) described three Pleistocene formations and supported the terrace-formation concept because the sediments within each formation were lithologically similar to one another, and differentiating them by comparing key vertical sections was not helpful. In Virginia, Wentworth (1930) defined and mapped five Pleistocene terraces on the basis of correlating morphologic terraces with their underlying formation sediments. Similarly, Cooke (1931) identified and traced seven marine shorelines and proposed corresponding terrace names from Maryland to Florida. Cooke (1931) also pointed out that the various elevations of scarps were related to interglacial sea-level highstands whereas prior workers called on vertical land movement of emergence and submergence to create shoreline scarps. Cooke’s (1936) geologic map of eastern South Carolina showing the Pleistocene sediments is also based on the terrace-formation concept. Detailed geologic mapping of the Virginia Coastal Plain by Virginia Division of Mineral Resources (VDMR) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) followed lithostratigraphic convention for Early Pliocene and older marine sediments. However, geologic mapping of Upper Pliocene and Pleistocene sediments used the concept of morphologic setting and elevations of scarp toe and flat-plain, or the terrace-formation concept. The 1983 version of the North American Stratigraphic Code (hereafter the Code) (North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature [NACSN] , 1983) introduced allostratigraphy that gave credence to the terrace-formation concept. According to the current Code (NACSN, 2021; Article 58), “an allostratigraphic unit is a mappable body of rock that is defined and identified on the basis of its bounding discontinuities,” and, “formal allostratigraphic units may be defined or distinguish between different (1) superposed discontinuity-bounded deposits of similar lithology, (2) contiguous discontinuity-bounded deposits of similar lithology, or (3) geographically separated discontinuity-bounded units of similar lithology…The lithology of an allostratigraphic unit plays no part in its definition.” However, definition and placement of bounding discontinuities relies on lateral and vertical knowledge of lithology and is so recognized in Article 58e, “A type locality and type area must be designated; a composite stratotype or a type section and several reference sections are desirable.” We understand that each of the terrace formations of Late Pliocene and Pleistocene age were deposited during a marine transgressive event tied to an interglacial sea-level highstand (scarp above the Poquoson Member of the Tabb Formation may be the result of a still-stand as sea level was falling after deposition of the Lynnhaven Member, refer to fig. 1). The base of each map unit is an unconformity (or is at least in part for the base of the Poquoson) and nomenclature for each unit might be changed from “formation” to “alloformation,” as suggested by Doar and Berquist (2009). Figure 1 shows the relative placement of these mapped and named alloformations as used in the Virginia Coastal Plain and Fall Zone (a zone of transition between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Provinces) (Berquist, 2021). Except perhaps for the Poquoson, many of these proposed alloformations are unlikely to interfinger or grade laterally seaward into extensive deep marine sediments. After their deposition, erosion during sea-level fall and then rise for the next depositional event would seemingly obliterate any marine connection without a basal unconformity. All these alloformations contain sediments deposited in fluvial, estuarine, and shallow-marine environments and are bound everywhere by unconformities. This paper documents the Cold Harbor Alloformation as a formal stratigraphic unit and the rationale for mapping the sediments using an allostratigraphic classification. The Cold Harbor Alloformation is composed of sediments from a variety of environments such as gravel beds, shoreline beach sands, marsh and estuarine sand and mud, and shallow marine sands. These sediments are found at elevations up to 240 ft and lie unconformably above older sediments and rocks. Our work relied on observations of outcrops and many auger borings to identify basal unconformities.

Professional Paper↗

Formalization of the Elsing Green Alloformation, Virginia Coastal Plain, Eastern Virginia

The Elsing Green Alloformation is herein formalized as a new Pleistocene alloformation in the Virginia Coastal Plain. This allostratigraphic unit is characterized by an unconformity-bounded terrace deposit occupying a morphologic flat with a mapped elevation range of about 26 to 38 feet (7.9 to 11.6 meters); its landward extent is commonly marked at the base of an erosional scarp where the toe is typically at 38 feet (11.6 meters) and is distinguished by its topographic expression and stratigraphic position. Sediments of this unit were previously mapped as part of the Shirley Formation or Sedgefield Member of the Tabb Formation but differ significantly in their bounding scarps and terrace morphology. The type area is within the Tunstall 7.5-minute quadrangle near Elsing Green Plantation, King William County, Virginia. The reference section is provided by boring 2012270-2. Correlation is proposed with other mid-Pleistocene terrace deposits in the mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, including the younger Lynch Heights Formation of Delaware and the Butlers Bluff Member of the Nassawadox Formation of the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The age of the Elsing Green Alloformation is interpreted to be Marine Isotope Stage 9e (about 330,000 years).

Professional Paper↗

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona↗