Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · pp543D

Geologic effects of the March 1964 earthquake and associated seismic sea waves on Kodiak and nearby islands, Alaska

Abstract

Kodiak Island and the nearby islands constitute a mountainous landmass with an aggregate area of 4,900 square miles that lies at the western border of the Gulf of Alaska and from 20 to 40 miles off the Alaskan mainland. Igneous and metamorphic rocks underlie most of the area except for a narrow belt of moderately to poorly indurated rocks bordering the Gulf of Alaska coast and local accumulations of unconsolidated alluvial and marine deposits along the streams and coast. The area is relatively undeveloped and is sparsely inhabited. About 4,800 of the 5,700 permanent residents in the area live in the city of Kodiak or at the Kodiak Naval Station. The great earthquake, which occurred on March 27, 1964, at 5:36 p.m. Alaska standard time (March 28,1964, 0336 Greenwich mean time), and had a Richter magnitude of 8.4-8.5, was the most severe earthquake felt on Kodiak Island and its nearby islands in modern times. Although the epicenter lies in Prince William Sound 250 miles northeast of Kodiak—the principal city of the area—the areal distribution of the thousands of aftershocks that followed it, the local tectonic deformation, and the estimated source area of the subsequent seismic sea wave, all suggest that the Kodiak group of islands lay immediately adjacent to, and northwest of, the focal region from which the elastic seismic energy was radiated. The duration of strong ground motion in the area was estimated at 2½ minutes. Locally, the tremors were preceded by sounds audible to the human ear and were reportedly accompanied in several places by visible ground waves. Intensity and felt duration of the shocks during the main earthquake and aftershock sequence varied markedly within the area and were strongly influenced by the local geologic environment. Estimated Mercalli intensities in most areas underlain by unconsolidated Quaternary deposits ranged from VIII to as high as IX. In contrast, intensities in areas of upper Tertiary rock ranged from VII to VIII, and in areas of relatively well indurated lower Tertiary and Mesozoic rocks, from VI to VII. Local subsidence of as much as 10 feet was widespread in noncohesive granular deposits through compaction, flow, and sliding that resulted from vibratory loading during the earthquake. This phenomenon, which was largely restricted to saturated beach and alluvial deposits or artificial fill, was locally accompanied by extensive cracking of the ground and attendant ejection of water and water-sediment mixtures. Numerous landslides, including a wide variety of rockfalls, rockslides, and flows along steep slopes, were triggered by the long-duration horizontal and vertical accelerations during the earthquake. The landslides are most numerous in a narrow belt along the southeast coast of Kodiak Island and the nearby offshore islands. Their abundance appears to be related to an area underlain predominantly by Tertiary rocks. Temporary and permanent changes of level occurred after the earthquake in some wells, lakes, and streams throughout the area; ice was cracked, and the salinity of a few wells increased. Permanent change of water level at some localities appears to be related to readjustments of fracture porosity by earthquake-induced movements of bedrock blocks. Increased salinity of wells in coastal areas resulted from encroachment of seawater into aquifiers after subsidence during the earthquake, and to flooding of watersheds by seismic sea waves. Vertical displacements, both downward and upward, occurred throughout the area as a result of crustal warping along a northeast-trending axis. Most of Kodiak and all of Afognak, Shuyak, and adjacent islands are within a regional zone of subsidence whose trough plunges gently northeastward and approximately coincides with the mountainous backbone of Kodiak Island. Subsidence in excess of 6 feet occurred throughout the northern part of the zone-a maximum subsidence of 6½ feet having occurred on Marmot and, eastern Afognak Islands. Southeast of the axis of tectonic tilting, uplift of at least 2lh feet occurred in a narrow zone that includes most of the southeasterly capes of Kodiak Island, the southeastern half of Sitkalidak Island, and Sitkinak Island. The uplift is inferred to extend offshore over much or all of the continental shelf adjacent to the Kodiak group of islands. Within the affected area, tectonic subsidence, which was locally augmented by surficial subsidence of unconsolidated. deposits, caused widespread inundation of shorelines and attendant damage to intertidal organisms, nearshore terrestrial vegetation, and salmon-spawning areas. The most devastating effect of the earthquake on Kodiak Island and nearby islands resulted from seismic sea waves that probably originated along a linear zone of differential uplift in the Gulf of Alaska. A train of at least seven seismic sea waves, having initial periods of 50–55 minutes, struck along all the southeast coast of the island group from 38 to 63 minutes after the earthquake. The southeast shores were repeatedly washed by destructive waves having runup heights along exposed coasts of perhaps as much as 40 feet above existing tide level, and of 8–20 feet along protected shores. Runup heights of the waves were much less on the northwest and southwest sides of the islands, and no wave damage was incurred there. Locally, high-velocity currents that accompanied the waves caused intense erosion and redistribution of unconsolidated natural and artificial shore deposits and of shallow sea-floor deposits. The Alaska earthquake was the greatest natural catastrophe to befall the Kodiak Island area in historic time. The combination of seismic shock and the earthquake-related tectonic deformation and seismic sea waves took 18 lives, destroyed property worth about $45 million, and resulted in estimated losses of income to the fishing industry of an additional $5 million. Most of the damage and all of the loss of life were directly attributable to the seismic sea waves that crippled the city of Kodiak, wiped out the village of Kaguyak, and destroyed most of the village of Old Harbor and parts of the villages of Afognak and Uzinki. Bridges and segments of the highways in the vicinity of the city of Kodiak were washed out, and parts of the Kodiak Naval Station were inundated and damaged. Especially serious to all the damaged communities was the loss of fishing boats, seafood processing plants, and other waterfront installations, which had been the mainstay of the economy. Additional heavy losses resulted from the combined regional tectonic and local surficial subsidence that occurred during the earthquake. Widespread shoreline flooding by high tides necessitated raising, protecting, or removing many installations otherwise undamaged by the earthquake or waves. Structural damage attributable to seismic shock during the earthquake was relatively light and was restricted to areas underlain by saturated unconsolidated deposits. The chief structural failure in the area as a result of shaking was the collapse of part of a cannery built on saturated beach deposits that were partially liquefied during the earthquake. Minor structural damage resulted from differential settlement and cracking of the ground on natural granular deposits and artificial fills. The overwhelming majority of structures are constructed on indurated bedrock; none of these sustained damage other than small losses resulting from shifting about and breakage of their contents.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 56.3778° to 58.6444° latitude; -155° to -151.6917° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

George Plafker, Reuben Kachadoorian. 1966. Geologic effects of the March 1964 earthquake and associated seismic sea waves on Kodiak and nearby islands, Alaska. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp543d

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.

Virginia↗

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).

Virginia↗

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↗