Geology ReportsSearch

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

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

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper