Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

John S. Pallister

Publications and source records attributed to John S. Pallister.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2023

Development of a volcanic risk management system at Mount St. Helens—1980 to present

Here, we review volcanic risk management at Mount St. Helens from the perspective of the US Geological Survey’s (USGS) experience over the four decades since its 18 May 1980 climactic eruption. Prior to 1980, volcano monitoring, multidisciplinary eruption forecasting, and interagency coordination for eruption response were new to the Cascade Range. A Mount St. Helens volcano hazards assessment had recently been published and volcanic crisis response capabilities tested during 1975 thermal unrest at nearby Mount Baker. Volcanic unrest began in March 1980, accelerating the rate of advance of volcano monitoring, prompting coordinated eruption forecasting and hazards communication, and motivating emergency response planning. The destruction caused by the 18 May 1980 eruption led to an enormous emergency response effort and prompted extensive coordination and planning for continuing eruptive activity. Eruptions continued with pulsatory dome growth and explosive eruptions over the following 6 years and with transport of sediment downstream over many more. In response, USGS scientists and their partners expanded their staffing, deployed new instruments, developed new tools (including the first use of a volcanic event tree) for eruption forecasting, and created new pathways for agency internal and external communication. Involvement in the Mount St. Helens response motivated the establishment of response measures at other Cascade Range volcanoes. Since assembly during the early and mid-1990s, volcano hazard working groups continue to unite scientists, emergency and land managers, tribal nations, and community leaders in common cause for the promotion of risk reduction. By the onset of renewed volcanic activity in 2004, these new systems enabled a more efficient response that was greatly facilitated by the participation of organizations within volcano hazard working groups. Although the magnitude of the 2004 eruptive sequence was much smaller than that of 1980, a new challenge emerged focused on hazard communication demands. Since 2008, our understanding of Mount St. Helens volcanic system has improved, helping us refine hazard assessments and eruption forecasts. Some professions have worked independently to apply the Mount St. Helens story to their products and services. Planning meetings and working group activities fortify partnerships among information disseminators, policy and decision-makers, scientists, and communities. We call the sum of these pieces the Volcanic Risk Management System (VRMS). In its most robust form, the VRMS encompasses effective production and coordinated exchange of volcano hazards and risk information among all interested parties.

Washington↗
USGS2021

A checklist for crisis operations within volcano observatories

We draw on our experience in assisting with international crises through the volcano disaster assistance program (VDAP) and during the eruptions of Mount St. Helens in 1980–1986 and 2004–2008 to offer recommendations for successful observatory operations during times of crisis. The degree of success in responding to a crisis is profoundly affected by the degree of preparation before a crisis arises—including the building of monitoring systems and databases to improve forecasting and establish effective partnerships with civil protection authorities and communities at risk. Success further depends on teamwork and communication during the crisis and on the level, progression, and duration of unrest itself ( the crisis timeline ). Some factors lie within the purview of the observatory to control; others are external and difficult or impossible to control. We focus on the first. A myriad of specific tasks must be remembered and accomplished before, during, and after crises. Just as airline pilots use checklists to ensure that key items for aviation safety and aircraft performance are not overlooked, we recommend that volcanologists do the same. We offer here a checklist for volcanic crisis responses and encourage observatory scientists and managers to review and revise it to best suit their needs.

Book chapter↗
USGS2020

Ten ways Mount St. Helens changed our world—The enduring legacy of the 1980 eruption

Mount St. Helens was once enjoyed for its serene beauty and was considered one of America’s most majestic volcanoes because of its perfect cone shape, similar to Japan’s beloved Mount Fuji. Nearby residents assumed that the mountain was solid and enduring. That perception changed during the early spring of 1980. Then, on May 18, 1980, following 2 months of earthquakes and small explosions, the volcano’s over-steepened north flank collapsed in a colossal landslide and triggered a near-horizontal blast, followed by a powerful vertical eruption. The high-speed, rock-filled, and gas-charged blast quickly evolved into a gravitationally driven pyroclastic flow, which leveled millions of trees, stripped them of their branches and bark, and scoured soil from bedrock. The vertical eruption that followed fed a towering plume of ash for more than 9 hours. Winds carried the ash from the volcano and deposited it hundreds of miles away. Lahars (volcanic mudflows) buried river valleys. These catastrophic events caused the worst volcanic disaster in the recorded history of the conterminous United States. The events violently transformed Mount St. Helens and left a lasting impression on the hearts and minds of people living in the Pacific Northwest and beyond.

Washington↗
USGS2020

Indonesia and the United States team up to reduce impacts from dangerous volcanoes

With 75 historically active volcanoes, Indonesia is the world’s most volcanically active nation. Its volcanoes are legendary throughout the world, with the notorious 19th-century eruptions at Mount Tambora (1815) and Krakatau (1883), and the eruption that created the giant Toba Caldera in Sumatra (75,000 years ago)—the Earth’s largest volcanic eruption in the past 100,000 years. Just in the past 20 years, more than 36 volcanoes have erupted, some multiple times, threatening millions of people. The Government of Indonesia responds to this daunting volcanic threat from Indonesia’s Center for Volcanology and Geologic Hazards Mitigation (CVGHM) offices in Bandung. From there, dozens of staff members coordinate operations at 77 small observatories spread out across the 5,000-kilometer-long archipelago that is Indonesia. For more than 50 years, the United States has worked in partnership with the Government of Indonesia to reduce the risk of volcanic eruptions and to save lives. Today, the two governments cooperate through an agreement between CVGHM and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Volcano Disaster Assistance Program (VDAP). Each year CVGHM and VDAP representatives convene to discuss priorities for the upcoming 12 months. They outline a series of training efforts, field campaigns, equipment deployments, and timely topics that require further exploration and development.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2019

The 2017-19 activity at Mount Agung in Bali (Indonesia): Intense unrest, monitoring, crisis response, evacuation, and eruption

After 53 years of quiescence, Mount Agung awoke in August 2017, with intense seismicity, measurable ground deformation, and thermal anomalies in the summit crater. Although the seismic unrest peaked in late September and early October, the volcano did not start erupting until 21 November. The most intense explosive eruptions with accompanying rapid lava effusion occurred between 25 and 29 November. Smaller infrequent explosions and extrusions continue through the present (June 2019). The delay between intense unrest and eruption caused considerable challenges to emergency responders, local and national governmental agencies, and the population of Bali near the volcano, including over 140,000 evacuees. This paper provides an overview of the volcanic activity at Mount Agung from the viewpoint of the volcano observatory and other scientists responding to the volcanic crisis. We discuss the volcanic activity as well as key data streams used to track it. We provide evidence that magma intruded into the mid-crust in early 2017, and again in August of that year, prior to intrusion of an inferred dike between Mount Agung and Batur Caldera that initiated an earthquake swarm in late September. We summarize efforts to forecast the behavior of the volcano, to quantify exclusion zones for evacuations, and to work with emergency responders and other government agencies to make decisions during a complex and tense volcanic crisis.

Scientific Reports↗
USGS2019

Character of community response to volcanic crises at Sinabung and Kelud volcanoes

Volcano disaster mitigation is a priority in Indonesia's national development plan due to the large number of active volcanoes, high frequency of eruptions and dense population within volcanic hazards zones. As a consequence of these factors and the many decades of experience in mitigation of volcanic risk, Indonesia demonstrates that effective community response is critical to avoid disasters. Understanding of hazards, risks and early-warning systems are the main factors in building an effective community response. The level of understanding of these factors is proportional to a community's independence in taking appropriate actions and is reflected in the community's preparedness. Further, the experience gained from responses to the eruptions of Sinabung and Kelud as well as from other Indonesian volcanoes shows that a local leader plays an important role in mobilizing a community. Such a leader utilizes knowledge of local culture (local wisdom) and an understanding of the community's character to encourage community members to participate and empower themselves. Sharing of information and the formulation of a disaster mitigation plan by government and community also results in a shared commitment to increase participation and community empowerment. Indonesia uses four volcano alert levels to activate community mitigation plans. In order of increasing criticality, these are: Normal, Advisory (Waspada), Watch (Siaga) and Warning (Awas). Implementation of policies, strategies and actions are tied to each level. In addition, mandatory actions by certain stakeholders are required at certain alert levels. These mandatory actions increase the effectiveness of disaster mitigation by both government and community. A comparison of the crisis responses of the Sinabung and Kelud communities is carried out here in order to better understand problems, learn lessons and improve the process of Indonesia's community mitigation policies. Local culture, the start time of community involvement (in normal versus crisis time), degree and level of government involvement, roles of local leaders, local perception of hazards, and political intervention are all factors that influence a community's response at the time of eruption. We stress that an understanding of the “ community character ,” which includes a number of cultural, social and knowledge parameters is essential for effective crisis management. The responses of Sinabung and Kelud illustrate both the key role of community in disaster mitigation and the synergy that can result from close coordination and collaboration between government and community.

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research↗
USGS2019

Overview of the eruptions of Sinabung Volcano, 2010 and 2013-present, and details of the 2013 phreatomagmatic phase

A small phreatic eruption of Sinabung Volcano, North Sumatra on August 28, 2010, at 18:30 local time marked the first eruption in the past ~1200 years. The eruption took place from two small vents in the south crater area. Explosions and ash emissions from these vents generated multiple ash plumes that reached altitudes of up to 5 km during early- to mid-September. By the end of September, only low level steam plumes were visible and the alert level was reduced from Level 4 (highest) to Level 3. The 2010 eruption effectively ended at this time. Beginning two days after the initial 2010 eruption, activity of the eruption has been monitoring continuously by a telemetered seismic network surrounding the volcano and by remotely sensed observations. This monitoring system was supplemented with a near-field continuous GPS network, beginning in February 2011. Persistent fumarolic emissions continued for almost 3 years following the 2010 eruption, before a new eruption began on 15 September 2013. This eruption continues to the present. The ongoing eruption is divided into 5 major phases: 1) phreatomagmatic phase (July 2013 - 18 December 2013); 2) first dome and collapse phase with pyroclastic density currents (PDCs; block-and-ash flows and related surges) to south (18 December 2013 - 10 January 2014); 3) lava-flow and collapse phase (10 January 2014 - mid-September 2014); 4) second lava dome and collapse phase with PDCs to south (mid-September 2014 - July 2015); 5) lava dome collapse and ash explosion phase with PDCs to southeast and east (August 2015 - present). The volcano erupted intermittently during the early phreatomagmatic phase with small vertical ash explosions. Then the eruption became increasingly vigorous with more repetitive and intense vertical ash explosions during late October through November. The first small pyroclastic density currents (PDCs) began on November 1. These pyroclastic flows descended the southeastern flank to a distance of 2 km.

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research↗
USGS2019

Construction of probabilistic event trees for eruption forecasting at Sinabung volcano, Indonesia 2013–14

Eruptions of Sinabung volcano , Indonesia have been ongoing since 2013. Since that time, the character of eruptions has changed, from phreatic to phreatomagmatic to magmatic explosive eruptions, and from production of a lava dome that collapsed to a subsequent thick lava flow that slowly ceased to be active, and later, to a new lava dome. As the eruption progressed, event trees were constructed to forecast eruptive behavior six times, with forecast windows that ranged from 2 weeks to 1 year: November 7–10, December 12–14, and December 27, 2013; and January 9–10, May 13, and October 7, 2014. These event trees were successful in helping to frame the forecast scenarios, to collate current monitoring information, and to document outstanding questions and unknowns. The highest probability forecasts closely matched outcomes of eruption size (including extrusion of the first dome), production of pyroclastic density currents, and pyroclastic density current runout distances. Events assigned low probabilities also occurred, including total collapse of the lava dome in January 2014 and production of a small blast pyroclastic density current in February 2014.

Sinabung volcano↗
USGS2019

Monitoring, forecasting collapse events, and mapping pyroclastic deposits at Sinabung volcano with satellite imagery

During the ongoing (2013–present) eruption of Sinabung volcano, north Sumatra, we have routinely used a variety of satellite remote sensing data to observe and forecast lava dome and lava flow collapse events, to map the resulting pyroclastic deposits, and to estimate effusion rates. In this paper, we focus on the first two years of the current eruption (September 2013–December 2015), and we summarize major events in 2016. We divide the eruption into 5 major phases: 1) phreatomagmatic (July 2013–18 December 2013), 2) first dome growth and collapse (18 December 2013–10 January 2014), 3) lava-flow (10 January 2014–mid-September 2014), 4) second lava dome and collapse (mid-September 2014–July 2015), 5) lava dome collapse and ash explosion phase (August 2015–present). Throughout the eruption, remotely sensed information has been instrumental in assessing the stability of the lava dome and flow and to forecast collapse events that produce pyroclastic density currents (PDCs: block-and-ash flows, co-ignimbrite surges, and blasts). Forecasts based on remote sensing data in combination with seismic, geodetic and gas-monitoring data have also helped inform decisions related to alert levels and evacuations. Relatively unusual aspects of the Sinabung eruption include the transition from dome to flow morphology (phase 2 to phase 3 transition) and the frequent occurrence during phase 3 of collapses from the lava flow-front and flow-margins—collapses that produced extensive pyroclastic density currents. By analogy to the well-known “Merapi type” collapses and pyroclastic deposits, we propose that lava flow-front and flow-margin collapses with associated PDCs be known as “Sinabung type.” Although detailed study of deposits has not been possible due to continuing hazards, our observations suggest that the transition from lava dome to lava flow and the occurrence of flow-front and flow-margin collapses reflect a particular combination of lava viscosity and steepness of slope. Our observations also show clear evidence of at least one slope-parallel high-velocity and dilute PDC (a “blast”) that emanated from a lava-margin collapse site 500 m downslope from the vent. This 1 February 2014 blast downed and singed a forest out to at least 3.9 km from the collapse site and killed 16 people. We also use a combination of field and remotely sensed data to map the distribution of Sinabung deposits. We estimate eruptive volumes and extrusion rates by combining sequential measurements of lava surface and pyroclastic flow areas with thickness estimates derived from simple geometric assumptions, oblique photographs and Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) derived from remotely sensed data. Our estimates of short-term effusion rates vary widely on a daily to weekly basis, from <1 to >20 m 3 s −1 . In a few cases, periods of increased extrusion precede lava flow-front collapses by a few days to a week, suggesting delays in transmittance of effusion pulses as lava moves from vent to flow front. We find that, as of 1 January 2016, the total area of deposits is 10 7 m 2 , and their approximate deposit volume is about 0.3 km 3 , equivalent to 0.2 km 3 Dense Rock Equivalent (DRE). We anticipate that our deposit maps will be valuable in the future as a framework for the study of the magmatic and textural evolution of eruptive products through time.

Sinabung volcano↗
USGS2017

Volcano crisis communication: Challenges and solutions in the 21st century

This volume, Observing the volcano world: volcanic crisis communication, focuses at the point where the ‘rubber hits the road’, where the world of volcano-related sciences and all its uncertainties meet with the complex and ever-changing dynamics of our society, wherever and whenever this may be. Core to the issues addressed in this book is the idea of how volcanic crisis communication operates in practice and in theory. This chapter provides an overview of the evolution of thinking around the importance of volcanic crisis communication over the last century, bringing together studies on relevant case studies. Frequently, the mechanisms by which volcanic crisis communication occurs are via a number of key tools employed including: risk assessment, probabilistic analysis, early-warning systems, all of which assist in the decision-making procedures; that are compounded by ever-changing societal demands and needs. This chapter outlines some of the key challenges faced in managing responses to volcanic eruptions since the start of the 20th century, to explore what has been effective, what lessons have been learnt from key events, and what solutions we can discover. Adopting a holistic approach, this chapter aims to provide a contextual background for the following chapters in the volume that explore many of the elements discussed here in further detail. Finally, we consider the future, as many chapters in this book bring together a wealth of new knowledge that will enable further insights for investigation, experimentation, and development of future volcanic crisis communication.

Book chapter↗
USGS2017

Field-trip guide to Mount St. Helens, Washington - An overview of the eruptive history and petrology, tephra deposits, 1980 pyroclastic density current deposits, and the crater

This field trip will provide an introduction to several fascinating features of Mount St. Helens. The trip begins with a rigorous hike of about 15 km from the Johnston Ridge Observatory (9 km north-northeast of the crater vent), across the 1980 Pumice Plain, to Windy Ridge (3.6 km northeast of the crater vent) to examine features that document the dynamics and progressive emplacement of pyroclastic flows. The next day, we examine classic tephra outcrops of the past 3,900 years and observe changes in thickness and character of these deposits as we traverse their respective lobes. We examine clasts in the deposits and discuss how the petrology and geochemistry of Mount St. Helens deposits reveal the evolution of the magmatic system through time. We also investigate the stratigraphy of the 1980 blast deposit and review the chronology of this iconic eruption as we travel through the remains of the blown-down forest. The third day is another rigorous hike, about 13 km round trip, climbing from the base of Windy Ridge (elevation 1,240 m) to the front of the Crater Glacier (elevation 1,700 m). En route we examine basaltic andesite and basalt lava flows emplaced between 1,800 and 1,700 years before present, a heterolithologic flow deposit produced as the 1980 blast and debris avalanche interacted, debris-avalanche hummocks that are stranded on the north flank and in the crater mouth, and shattered dacite lava domes that were emplaced between 3,900 and 2,600 years before present. These domes underlie the northern part of the volcano. In addition, within the crater we traverse well-preserved pyroclastic-flow deposits that were emplaced on the crater floor during the summer of 1980, and a beautiful natural section through the 1980 deposits in the upper canyon of the Loowit River. Before plunging into the field-trip log, we provide an overview of Mount St. Helens geology, geochemistry, petrology, and volcanology as background. The volcano has been referred to as a “master teacher.” The 1980 eruption and studies both before and after 1980 played a major role in the establishment of the modern U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Hazards Program and our understanding of flank collapses, debris avalanches, cryptodomes, blasts, pyroclastic density currents, and lahars, as well as the dynamics of magma ascent and eruption.

Washington↗
USGS2014

Using multiple data sets to populate probabilistic volcanic event trees

The key parameters one needs to forecast outcomes of volcanic unrest are hidden kilometers beneath the Earth&rsquo;s surface, and volcanic systems are so complex that there will invariably be stochastic elements in the evolution of any unrest. Fortunately, there is sufficient regularity in behaviour that some, perhaps many, eruptions can be forecast with enough certainty for populations to be evacuated and kept safe. Volcanologists charged with forecasting eruptions must try to understand each volcanic system well enough that unrest can be interpreted in terms of pre-eruptive process, but must simultaneously recognize and convey uncertainties in their assessment. We have found that use of event trees helps to focus discussion, integrate data from multiple sources, reach consensus among scientists about both pre-eruptive process and uncertainties and, in some cases, to explain all of this to officials. Figure 1 shows a generic volcanic event tree from Newhall and Hoblitt (2002) that can be modified as needed for each specific volcano. This paper reviews how we and our colleagues have used such trees during a number of volcanic crises worldwide, for rapid hazard assessments in situations in which more formal expert elicitations could not be conducted. We describe how Multiple Data Sets can be used to estimate probabilities at each node and branch. We also present case histories of probability estimation during crises, how the estimates were used by public officials, and some suggestions for future improvements.

Book chapter↗
USGS2013

The Chaitén rhyolite lava dome: Eruption sequence, lava dome volumes, rapid effusion rates and source of the rhyolite magma

We use geologic field mapping and sampling, photogrammetric analysis of oblique aerial photographs, and digital elevation models to document the 2008-2009 eruptive sequence at Chaitén Volcano and to estimate volumes and effusion rates for the lava dome. We also present geochemical and petrologic data that contribute to understanding the source of the rhyolite and its unusually rapid effusion rates. The eruption consisted of five major phases: 1. An explosive phase (1-11 May 2008); 2. A transitional phase (11-31 May 2008) in which low-altitude tephra columns and simultaneous lava extrusion took place; 3. An exogenous lava flow phase (June-September 2008); 4. A spine extrusion and endogenous growth phase (October 2008-February 2009); and 5. A mainly endogenous growth phase that began after the collapse of a prominent Peléean spine on 19 February 2009 and continued until the end of the eruption (late 2009 or possibly earliest 2010). The 2008-2009 rhyolite lava dome has a total volume of approximately 0.8 km3. The effusion rate averaged 66 m3s-1 during the first two weeks and averaged 45 m3s-1 for the first four months of the eruption, during which 0.5 km3 of rhyolite lava was erupted. These are among the highest rates measured world-wide for historical eruptions of silicic lava. Chaitén’s 2008-2009 lava is phenocryst-poor obsidian and microcrystalline rhyolite with 75.3±0.3% SiO2. The lava was erupted at relatively high temperature and is remarkably similar in composition and petrography to Chaitén’s pre-historic rhyolite. The rhyolite’s normative composition plots close to that of low pressure (100-200 MPa) minimum melts in the granite system, consistent with estimates of approximately 5 to 10 km source depths based on phase equilibria and geodetic studies. Calcic plagioclase, magnesian orthopyroxene and aluminous amphibole among the sparse phenocrysts suggest derivation of the rhyolite by melt extraction from a more mafic magmatic mush. High temperature and relatively low viscosity enabled rapid magma ascent and high effusion rates during the dome-forming phases of the 2008-2009 eruption.

Chaitén Volcano↗
USGS2013

Merapi 2010 eruption—Chronology and extrusion rates monitored with satellite radar and used in eruption forecasting

Despite dense cloud cover, satellite-borne commercial Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) enabled frequent monitoring of Merapi volcano's 2010 eruption. Near-real-time interpretation of images derived from the amplitude of the SAR signals and timely delivery of these interpretations to those responsible for warnings, allowed satellite remote sensing for the first time to play an equal role with in situ seismic, geodetic and gas monitoring in guiding life-saving decisions during a major volcanic crisis. Our remotely sensed data provide an observational chronology for the main phase of the 2010 eruption, which lasted 12 days (26 October–7 November, 2010). Unlike the prolonged low-rate and relatively low explosivity dome-forming and collapse eruptions of recent decades at Merapi, the eruption began with an explosive eruption that produced a new summit crater on 26 October and was accompanied by an ash column and pyroclastic flows that extended 8 km down the flanks. This initial explosive event was followed by smaller explosive eruptions on 29 October–1 November, then by a period of rapid dome growth on 1–4 November, which produced a summit lava dome with a volume of ~ 5 × 10 6 m 3 . A paroxysmal VEI 4 magmatic eruption (with ash column to 17 km altitude) destroyed this dome, greatly enlarged the new summit crater and produced extensive pyroclastic flows (to ~ 16 km radial distance in the Gendol drainage) and surges during the night of 4–5 November. The paroxysmal eruption was followed by a period of jetting of gas and tephra and by a second short period (12 h) of rapid dome growth on 6 November. The eruption ended with low-level ash and steam emissions that buried the 6 November dome with tephra and continued at low levels until seismicity decreased to background levels by about 23 November. Our near-real-time commercial SAR documented the explosive events on 26 October and 4–5 November and high rates of dome growth (> 25 m 3 s − 1 ). An event tree analysis for the previous 2006 Merapi eruption indicated that for lava dome extrusion rates > 1.2 m 3 s − 1 , the probability of a large (1872-scale) eruption was ~ 10%. Consequently, the order-of-magnitude greater rates in 2010, along with the explosive start of the eruption on 26 October, the large volume of lava accumulating at the summit by 4 November, and the rapid and large increases in seismic energy release, deformation and gas emissions were the basis for warnings of an unusually large eruption by the Indonesian Geological Agency's Center for Volcanology and Geologic Hazard Mitigation (CVGHM) and their Volcano Research and Technology Development Center (BPPTK) in Yogyakarta — warnings that saved thousands of lives.

Merapi Volcano↗
USGS2013

The 2010 eruption of Merapi volcano

We briefly present the normal eruption of Merapi volcano. We summarize the 2010 eruption. We list the contribution of the Special Issue of JVGR on the 2010 eruption of Merapi volcano.

Merapi Volcano↗
USGS2012

Faulting within the Mount St. Helens conduit and implications for volcanic earthquakes

The 2004–2008 eruption of Mount St. Helens produced seven dacite spines mantled by cataclastic fault rocks, comprising an outer fault core and an inner damage zone. These fault rocks provide remarkable insights into the mechanical processes that accompany extrusion of degassed magma, insights that are useful in forecasting dome-forming eruptions. The outermost part of the fault core consists of finely comminuted fault gouge that is host to 1- to 3-mm-thick layers of extremely fine-grained slickenside-bearing ultracataclasite. Interior to the fault core, there is an ∼2-m-thick damage zone composed of cataclastic breccia and sheared dacite, and interior to the damage zone, there is massive to flow-banded dacite lava of the spine interior. Structures and microtextures indicate entirely brittle deformation, including rock breakage, tensional dilation, shearing, grain flow, and microfaulting, as well as gas and fluid migration through intergranular pores and fractures in the damage zone. Slickenside lineations and consistent orientations of Riedel shears indicate upward shear of the extruding spines against adjacent conduit wall rocks. Paleomagnetic directions, demagnetization paths, oxide mineralogy, and petrology indicate that cataclasis took place within dacite in a solidified steeply dipping volcanic conduit at temperatures above 500 °C. Low water content of matrix glass is consistent with brittle behavior at these relatively high temperatures, and the presence of tridymite indicates solidification depths of <1 km. Cataclasis was coincident with the eruption’s seismogenic zone at <1.5 km. More than a million small and low-frequency “drumbeat” earthquakes with coda magnitudes (M d ) <2.0 and frequencies <5 Hz occurred during the 2004–2008 eruption. Our field data provide a means with which to estimate slip-patch dimensions for shear planes and to compare these with estimates of slip patches based on seismic moments and shear moduli for dacite rock and granular fault gouge. Based on these comparisons, we find that aseismic creep is achieved by micron-scale displacements on Riedel shears and by granular flow, whereas the drumbeat earthquakes require millimeter to centimeter displacements on relatively large (e.g., ∼1000 m 2 ) slip patches, possibly along observed extensive principal shear zones within the fault core but probably not along the smaller Riedel shears. Although our field and structural data are compatible with stick-slip models, they do not rule out seismic and infrasound models that call on resonance of steam-filled fractures to generate the drumbeat earthquakes. We suggest that stick-slip and gas release processes may be coupled, and that regardless of the source mechanism, the distinctive drumbeat earthquakes are proving to be an effective precursor for dome-forming eruptions. Our data document a continuous cycle of deformation along the conduit margins beginning with episodes of fracture in the damage zone and followed by transfer of motion to the fault core. We illustrate the cycle of deformation using a hypothetical cross section of the Mount St. Helens conduit, extending from the surface to the depth of magmatic solidification.

Washington↗