Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · pp542D

Effects of the earthquake of March 27, 1964, in the Homer area, Alaska

Abstract

The March 27, 1964, earthquake shook the Homer area for about 3 minutes. Land effects consisted of a 2- to 6-foot subsidence of the mainland and Homer Spit, one earthflow at the mouth of a canyon, several landslides on the Homer escarpment and along the sea bluffs, and minor fissuring of the ground, principally at the edges of bluffs and on Homer Spit. Hydrologic effects consisted of at least one and possibly two submarine landslides at the end of the spit, seiche waves in Kachemak Bay, ice breakage on Beluga Lake, sanding of wells, and a temporary loss of water in some wells. Seismic damage to the community was light in comparison with that of other communities closer to the epicenter. One submarine landslide, however, took out most of the harbor breakwater. The greatest damage was due to the subsidence of the spit, both tectonically (2–3 ft) and by differential compaction or lateral spreading (an additional 1–4 ft). Higher tides now flood much of the spit. The harbor and dock had to be replaced, and buildings on the end of the spit had to be elevated. Protection works for other buildings and the highway were needed. These works included application of fill to raise the highway and parts of the spit above high tides. Reconstruction costs and disaster loans totaled about $2½ million, but this amount includes added improvement costs over preexisting values. Homer Spit in particular and the Homer area in general rank as areas where precautions must be taken in selecting building sites. The hazards of landslides, earthflows, compaction and submarine slumping—all of which might be triggered by an earthquake—should be considered in site selection. In plan, Homer Spit resembles a scimitar with its curving blade pointed seaward. It is about 4 miles long and as much as 1,500 feet wide. The spit is composed largely of gravel intermixed with some sand. After the earthquake and the resulting tectonic subsidence and compaction, much of the spit was below high-tide levels and consequently flooded periodically. The entire beach face has retreated. Much of the material eroded from the beach has been redeposited to form a new storm or frontal berm, locally migrating around buildings and covering roads. Beach recession of 10–15 feet is probably the overall average; maximum recession 1 year after the earthquake was 56 feet along one limited section of the distal end of the spit. Subsidence of the mainland has caused accelerated erosion of the beaches and headlands that have been—and are—source areas for the material deposited on Homer Spit. The resulting increased supply of gravel and sand probably will cause the spit to widen gradually on the Cook Inlet side. Similarly, the new frontal berm will probably grow to a height sufficient to prevent overtopping by all but the larger storm swashes. The nature of shore processes on the spit has not been materially altered by subsidence, but the rates of erosion and deposition have been accelerated. The lasting effect of subsidence (excluding flooding) will be enlargement of the beach on the Cook Inlet side and gradual wasting of the beach on the bay side of the spit.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 59.598268° to 59.681295° latitude; -151.655037° to -151.403995° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Roger M. Waller, Kirk W. Stanley. 1966. Effects of the earthquake of March 27, 1964, in the Homer area, Alaska. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp542d

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