Lessons and 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 546 
This page intentionally left blank
The Alaska Earthquake 

March 27, 1964: 

Lessons and Conclusions 

By EDWIN B. ECKEL 

A summary of what was learned from a great 

earthquake about the bearing of geologic and 

hydrologic conditions on its effects, and about 

the scientific investigations needed to prepare 

for future earthquakes 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 546 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director 

Library of Congress catalog-card No. 70-604792 

First printing 1970 

Second printing 1971 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1970 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 75 cents (paper cover) 
FOREWORD 

Few of the effects of the Alaska earthquake of March 27, 

1964, on earth processes and on the works of man were new 

to science, but never had so many effects been accessible for 

study over so great an area. This earthquake has received 

more intensive study from all scientific disciplines and 

specialties than any single previous natural disaster. 

In a series of six Professional Papers, the U.S. Geological 

Survey has published the results of a comprehensive geologic 

study that began, as a reconnaissance survey, within 24 hours 

after the event and extended, as detailed investigations, 

through several field seasons. Professional Paper 541 described early field investigations and reconstruction efforts; 

542, in seven parts, the effects of the earthquake on Alaskan 

communities; 543, in 10 parts, the regional geologic effects; 

544, in five parts, the worldwide effects on the earth's hydrologic regimen; 545, in four parts, the effects on Alaska's 

transportation, communications, and utilities. This volume, 

Professional Paper 546, "Lessons and Conclusions," is the 

last of the series; it contains a selected bibliography and an 

index for the 28 reports. 

The findings of the Geological Survey study apply not 

only to documentation of the Alaska earthquake itself, but, 

it is hoped, toward 'better understanding of earthquakes jn 

general; their nature, origin, and effects, and of how man 

may plan or build to avoid or minimize their consequences. 

w. T. PECORA, 

Direat01'. 
This page intentionally left blank
Pare 

Abstract---------------------- 1 

Introduction _______ -_--- ____ -- 2 

Geological Survey reports on theearthquake____________ 3 

Acknowledgments---_________ 8 

Tectonics_! __________ -------_-- 8 

The earthquake_____________ 8 

Deformation and vibration of 

the land surface___________ 9 

Vertical deformation_________ 11 

Horisontal deformation_ _ _ _ _ _ 11 

Surface faults_______________ 12 

Mechanism of the earthquake_ 13 

Effects on the physical environment_____________________ 14 

Geologic effects_____________ 14 

Downslope mass movements_ 14 

Ground fissures----------- 19 

Consolidation subsidence___ 21 

Shore processes-__________ 21 

Hydrologic effects____________ 21 

Glaciers__________________ 21 

Ice breakage______________ 22 

Ground water_____________ 22 

Surface water_____________ 23 

Oceanographic effects________ 23 

Local waves______________ 24 

CONTEN·Ts·. 

Effects, etc.-continued 

Oceanographic effects-con. 

Seismio·sea waves ________ _ 

Miscellaneous effects ________ _ 

Audible and subaudible 

earthquake sounds _____ _ 

Magnetic effects-------- __ _ Visible surface waves ______ _ 

Permafrost __ ------------_ Cable breaks _______ -- ____ _ 

Tunnels, mines, and deep 

wells----------·-------- Archeologic remains ______ _ 

Earthquake effects, geology and damage _________________ _ 

Geologic control of vibration damage _________________ _ 

Surface faults ______________ _ 

Landslides ________ -- _______ _ 

Vertical tectonic displacements 

and seismic sea waves _____ _ 

Ground and surface water hydrology _______________ _ 

Beneficial effects of the earth- quake ___________________ _ 

Socioeconomic benefits ______ _ 

Direct geologic benefits _____ _ 

Page 

25 

26 

26 

26 

26 

27 

27 

27 

28 

28 

29 

30 

30 

30 

31 

31 

31 

32 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

FIGURES 

Beneficial effects-continued 

Scientific benefits ___________ _ 

New information----------

New and improved investigative techniques ___ - ___ _ Conclusions __________________ _ 

Scientific preparation for 

future earthquakes _____ _ 

Fundamental research_----

Earthquake forecasting and 

evaluation of earthquake hazards _______________ _ 

Geologic mapping of 

communities ___ - _______ _ 

Instrumenta~ion and meas- urements ______________ _ 

Investigations of actual earth- quakes ________________ _ 

Need for advance planning_ 

Geologic, geophysical, and 

hydrologic investigations_ 

Availability of maps and 

other basic data _______ _ Questionnaires ___________ _ 

Scientific and Engineering 

Task F.orce---------------

Selected bibliography_---- -----

IndeX------------------------

Page 

1. Map showing extent and nature of the effects of seismic vibrations related to the 

earthquake------------------------------------------------------------ 4-5 

2. Map of south-central Alaska, showing areas of tectonic land-level changes________ 10 

l'a&e 

32 

32 

34 

37 

37 

37 

37 

38 

40 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

43 

43 

49 
"One of the greatest earthquakes of all time· struck in south-central Alaska in the late afternoon of March 27, 1964." 
THE ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MAR,CH 27, 1964: 

LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

One of the greatest earthquakes of 

all time struck south-central Alaska on 

March 27, 1964. Strong motion lasted 

longer than for most recorded earthquakes, and more land surface was dislocated, vertically and horizontally, 

than by any known previous temblor. 

Never before were so many effects on 

earth processes and on the works of 

man available for study by scientists 

and engineers over so great an area. 

The seismic'vibrations, which directly 

or indirectly caused most of the damage, 

were but surface manifestations of a 

great geologic event-the dislocation of 

a huge segment of the crust along a 

deeply buried fault whose nature and 

even exact location are still subjects for 

speculation. Not only was the land surface tilted by the great tectonic event 

beneath it, with resultant seismic sea 

waves that traversed the entire Pacific, 

but an enormous mass of land and sea 

floor moved ,several tens of feet horizontally toward the Gulf of Alaska. 

Downslope mass movements of rock, 

earth, and snow were initiated. Subaqueous slides along lake shores and 

seacoasts, near-horizontal movements of 

mobilized soil ("landspreading") , and 

giant translatory slides in sensitive 

clay did the most damage and provided 

the most new knowledge as to the origin, 

mechanics, and possible means of control or avoidance of such movements. 

The slopes of most of the deltas that 

slid in 1964, and that produced destructive local waves, are still as steep 

or steeper than they were before the 

earthquake and hence would be unstable or metastable in the event of another great earthquake. Rockslide 

avalanches provided new evidence that 

such masses may travel on cushions of 

compreseed air, but a widely held 

theory that glaciers surge after an 

earthquake has not been substantiated. 

Innumerable ground fissures, many of 

them marked by copious emisslions of 

By Edwin B. Eckel 

ABSTRACT 

water, caused much damage in towns 

and along transportation routes. Vibrution also consolidated loose granular 

materials. In some coastal areas, local 

subsidence was superimposed on regional tectonic subsidence to heighten 

the flooding damage. Ground and surface waters were measurably affected 

by the earthquake, not only in Alaska 

but throughout the world. 

Expectably, local geologic conditions 

largely controlled the extent of structural damage, whether caused directly 

by seismic vibrations or by secondary 

effects such as those just described. 

Intensity was greatest in areas underlain by thick saturated unconsolidated 

deposits, least on indurated bedrock or 

permanently frozen ground, and intermediate on coarse well-drained gravel, 

on morainal deposits, or on moderately 

indurated sedimentary rocks. 

Local and even regional geology also 

controlled the distribution and extent 

of the earthquake's effects on hydrologic systems. In the conterminous 

United States, for example, seiches in 

wells and bodies of surface water were 

controlled by geologic structures of 

regional dimension. 

Devastating as the earthquake was, 

it had many long-term beneficial effects. Many of these were socioeconomic or engineering in nature; others 

were of scientific value. Much new 

and corroborative basic geologic and 

hydrologic information was accumulated in the course of the earthquake 

studies, and many new or improved 

investigative techniques were developed. Chief among these, perhaps, were 

the recognition that lakes can be 

used as giant tiltmeters, the refinement 

of methods for measuring land-level 

changes by observing displacements of 

barnacles and other sessile organisms, 

and the relating of hydrology to seismology by worldwide study of hydroseisms in surface-water bodies and in 

wells. 

The geologic and hydrologic lessons 

learned from studies of the Alaska 

earthquake also lead direetly to 

better definition of the research 

needed to further our understanding 

of earthquakes and of how to avoid 

or lessen the effects of future ones. 

Research is needed on the origins 

and mechanisms of earthquakes, on 

cnistal structure, and on the generation of tsunamis and local waves. 

Better earthquake-hazard maps, based 

on improved knowledge of negioml geology, fault behavior, and earthquake 

mechanisms, are needed for 'the entire 

country. Their preparation will require 

the close collaboration of engineers, 

seismologists, and geologists. Geologic 

maps of all inhabited places in earthquakeprone parts of the country are 

also needed by city planners and others, 

because the direct relationship between 

local geology and potential earthquake 

damage ts now well understood. 

Improved and enlarged nets @f 

earthquake-sensing instruments, sited 

in relation to known geology, are 

needed, as are many more geodetic 

and hydrographic measurements. 

Every large earthquake, wherever 

located, should be regarded as a fullscale laboratory experiment whose 

study can give scientific and engineering information unobtainable from any 

other source. Plans must be made 

before the event to insure staffing, 

funding, and coordination of effort for 

the scientific and engineering study Of 

future earthquakes. Advice of earth 

scientists and engineers should be 

used in the decision-making processes 

involved in reconstruction after any 

future disastrous earthquake, as was 

done after the Alaska earthquake. 

The volume closes with a selected 

bibliography and a comprehensive index to the entire series d U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers 541-546. 

1 
One of the grea st earthquakes of all time struck in 

south-central Alaska in the late 

afternoon of March 'l:1, 1964 

(fig. 1) . Variously called the 

Good Friday earthquake, the 

Prince William Sound earthquake, and the 1964 Alaska 

earthquake, it devastated the 

most highly developed and populous part of Alaska and took 

more than 180 lives there and 

along the coast of North America. Its effects could be seen or 

felt by people in most of Alaska 

arid adjacent parts of Canada, 

and were measured by instruments throughout the world. 

Strong motion from this 

earthquake lasted longer than 

most recorded ones; it also resulted in measurable vertical 

and horizontal dislocations of 

more land surface than any 

previous earthquake. Few of its 

effects on earth processes and 

on the works of man were new 

to science or engineering, but 

never before had so many 

effects become available for 

study over so great an area. A 

massive relief and reconstruction program began at once--
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

a program in which the Federal 

Government played a greater part 

than for any previous physioal disaster in the United States. 

The Alaska earthquake received 

more intensive study from scientists and engineers of all disciplines and specialties than any 

major earthquake in history. Much 

has been, and is still being, 

learned from these investigations. 

The findings apply not only to 

documentation of the Alaska 

earthquake itself, but toward better understanding of the nature 

and origins of earthquakes in general, of their effects, and of how 

man can plan or build to avoid or 

ameliorate those effeots. 

This report is primarily a summary of geologic and hydrologic 

findings of the U.S. Geological 

Survey with only incidental excursions into the findings of other 

organizations and disciplines. For 

this reason, the enormous amount 

of new information amassed and 

published by others is not stressed, 

though references to it appear in 

the selected bibliography, and all 

of it was used by Survey authors 

as it became available in reaching 

their conclusions. 

The story of the earthquake is 

told in a general nontechnical way 

by Hansen and others (1966). 

More detailed descriptions of many 

facets of the earthquake and its effects, treated partly by topic and 

partly by locality, are contained in 

other reports in this series; the 

bibliographies in each report, of 

course, contain references to many 

other descriptions. No attempt is 

made here to repeat all these details 

or even to summarize them. Instead, the intent is to sort out that 

which was significant or different 

about the Alaska earthquake as 

compared with previous ones. Emphasis is given to the lessons 

learned from it, both technical and 

philosophic, that can be applied to 

359-625 0-7-2 

the studies of future earthquakes 

and to better understanding of the 

elarthquake process. 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

REPORTS ON THE 

EARTHQUAKE 

The Survey's first report on the 

earthquake, by Grantz, Plafker, 

and Kachadoorian (1964), was 

published only a few weeks after 

the event. It described in a remarkably accurate and thorough fashion the essential facts about the 

earthquake and its effects as they 

were learned during the initid 

reconnaissance investigations. This 

preliminary report has been followed by a series of six Professional Papers, under the overall 

title 'LThe Alaska Earthquake, 

March 27, 1964," of which this is 

the concluding volume. Together, 

these reports constitute a comprehensive description of the earthquake's effects on geologic and 

hydrologic materials and processes, considerable emphasis being 

placed on the bearing of those effects on man and his works. They 

are based primarily on the Geological Survey's own investigations, 

but several contributions from 

other authors were sought out and 

included for more complete 

coverage. 

Each report of the Professional 

Paper series is liberally illustrated 

and contains a bibliography. At 

the end of this volume, the entire 

series is indexed and complete bibliographic citations are given under the principal authors' names. 

Parts or all of the series are available for purchase from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C. 20401. 

The several Professional Papers 

and the short titles of their parts 

are listed here, with a brief statement of contents of each. 

Professional Paper 541, "Field investigations and reconstruction 

efforts," by W. R. Hansen and 

others (1966) : This nontechnical introductory volume describes the time, duration, and 

extent of the earthquake, its 

physiographic-geologic setting, 

and its effects on the communities and transportation facilities 

of Alaska; it also contains a 

brief description of the sea-wave 

damages at coastal communities 

in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. 

Biologic, atmospheric, and possible magnetic effects of the 

quake are outlined. Separate 

sections note the governmental 

and private response to the disaster and the contribution of 

both sectors to the reconstruction. The following subtitles 

indicate the contents of the 

sections : 

"A Summary Description of the 

Alaska Earthquake-Its Setting and Effects," by W. R. 

Hansen and E. B. Eckel. 

"Investigations by the Geological Survey," by W. R. 

Hansen. 

"The Work of the Scientific and 

Engineering Task ForceEarth Science Applied To 

Policy Decisions in Early Relief and Reconstruction," by 

E. B. Eckel and W. E. 

Schaem. 

"Activities of the Corps of Engineers-Cleanup and Early 

Reconstruction," by R. E. 

Lyle and Warren George. 

"Reconstruction by the Corps 

of Engineers-Methods and 

Accomplishments," by Warren George and R. E. Lyle. 

"The Year of Decision and Action," by Genie Chance. 

Professional Paper 542 : "Effects 

on Communities," in seven 

chapters : 

A, "Anchorage," by W. R. 

Hansen (1965). Seismic vibration damaged many multistory 
ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 2 7, 19 64 

1.-Map showing extent and nalture of the : 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

"IJ6" I' ' ' \ \ ' \ / 142~ 13R~ 

EXPLANATION 

seismic vibrations related to the earthquake. 
ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 1 

buildings, caused extensive 

ground fissures, and triggered 

disastrous translatory landslides 

in some bluff areas underlain by 

sensitive clays. Because of its 

size, Anchorage had greater 

total property damage than all 

the rest of Alaska. 

B, "Whittier," by Reuben 

Kachadoorian (1965). Land 

subsidence, waves generated by 

submarine landslides, fire, and 

seismic vibration wrecked much 

of the waterfront area in this 

small port-rail terminal. 

C, "Valdez," by H. W. Coulbr 

and R. R. Migliaccio (1966). 

Ground fissures, waves, and fire 

did much damage, and a gigantic submarine slide off the front 

of the delta town site carried 

the wabrfvont away and dictated relocation of the town. 

D, L'Homer," by R. M. Waller 

(1966). Submergence caused by 

tectonic subsidence and by consolidation of sediments exposed 

much of Homer Spit, economic 

heart of the community, to 

the reach of high tides. A separate section by K. W. Stanley 

describes the beach changes on 

Homer Spit that resulted from 

subsidence. 

E, "Seward," by R. W. Lemke 

(1967). Seismic sea waves, submarine slides, and fires destroyed 

the town's waterfront and necessitated relocation of the 

Alaska Railroad terminal. 

Ground fissures damaged numerous buildings, particularly 

in suburban areas. 

F, "Kodiak Area," by Reuben 

Kachadoorian and Gwrge Plafker (1967). Seismic sea waves 

flooded Kodiak, the nearby 

Naval Station, and several 

smaller communities in the Kodiak island group. Regional 

tectonic subsidence caused further damage in many places. 

G, "Various Communities," 

by George Plafker, Reuben 

Kachadoorian, E. R. Eckel, and 

L. B. Mayo (1969). Effects on 

several scores of miscellaneous 

communities, where thew was 

loss of life or significant physical damage, are described, as are 

the extensive wave damage in 

coastal areas and evidene of vibration throughout Alaska. 

P~ofessional Paper 543 : "Regional 

Effects," in 10 chapters: 

A, "Slide-Induced Waves, 

Seiching, and Ground Fracturing at Kenai Lake," by D. S. 

McCulloch (1966). The earthquake dislodged subaqueous 

slides from deltas in Kenai Lake 

that generated destructive waves. 

The lake basin was tilted and a 

seiche wave was excited in it. 

B, "Martin-Bering Rivers 

Areas," by S. J. Tuthill and W. 

M. Laird (1966). Widespread 

geomorphic changes took place 

in a large uninhabited area east 

of the Copper River. Ground fissures--some with associated 

ejections of mud or wateravalanches, and landslides were 

among the more important 

effects. 

C, "Gravity Survey and Regional Geology of the Epicentral Region," by J. E. 

Case, D. F. Barnes, George 

Plafker, and S. L. Robbins 

(1966). Gravity stations 

and reconnaissance geologic 

mapping in the Prince William Sound area provided 

background for other investigations of the earthquake. 

A regional gravity gradient, 

caused by thickening of the 

continental crust and local 

anomalies related to differences in lithology were 

measured. 

D, "Kodiak and Nearby Islands," by George Plafker 

and Reuben Kachadoorian 

(1966). Seismic sea waves 

caused the greatest physical 

damage throughout the Kodiak Island area. Tectonic 

subsidence adversely affected much of the shoreline. Vibration, ground 

fissures, and landslides affected unconsolidated materials but not bedrock. 

E, "Copper River Basin 

Area," by 0. J. Ferrians, Jr. 

(1966). Extensive ground 

fissures formed in flood 

plains, deltas, and the toes 

of alluvial fans. Terrain underlain by permafrost behaved like bedrock and did 

not crack. Avalanches and 

rockslides were released in 

the mountains. 

E', "Ground Breakage in the 

Cook Inlet Area," by H. L. 

Poster and T. V. N. Karlstrom (1967). Ground fissures, many of which ejected 

water or sediment, formed 

on the Kenai Lowland; 

most of them were on thick 

bodies of unconso1ida;ted 

materials. Zonal concentration of ground fissures may 

have been concentrated 

along a buried fault. 

G, "Surface Faults on Montague Island," by George 

Plafker (1967). Two reactivated steep reverse faults 

in Prince William Sound 

are the only known surface 

faults caused by the earthquake. They are probably 

part of a fault system that 

extends discontinuously for 

more than 300 miles from 

Montague Island past the 

southeast coast of Kodiak 

Island. 

H, "Shoreline Erosion and 

Deposition on Montague Island," by M. J. Kirkby and 

A. V. Kirkby (1969). Modification of the shore by sub- 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

aerial and marine processes 

began immediately after 

tectonic uplift. The effeot 

and rate of each process on 

various materials were 

measured. Evidence was 

found of two relative sealevel changes prior to 1964. 

I, "Tectonics of the Earthquake," by George Plafker 

(1969). The earthquake 

was accompanied by crustal 

warping, horizontal distortion, and surface faulting 

over an area of more than 

110,000 square miles. Focal 

mechanism studies, combined with the patterns of 

deformation and seismicity, 

suggest that the earthquake 

probably resulted from 

movement along a complex 

thrust fault that dips at a 

low angle beneath the continental margin. Radiocarbon dating of pre-1964 displaced shorelines provides 

data on long-term tectonic 

movements in the earthquake region and on the 

time interval since the last 

major earthquake-related 

movements. 

J, "Shore Processes and Beach 

Morphology," by K. W. 

Stanley (1968). All coastal 

features began to readjust 

to changed conditions immediately after the earthquake. In the subsided 

areas, beaches flattened and 

receded ; in uplifted areas, 

they were stranded. Emergence and submergence 

posed problems of land use 

and ownership and changed 

wildlife habitats. 

Professional Paper 544, "Effects 

on the Hydrologic Regimen," in 

five chapters : 

A, bcSouth-Central Alaska," by 

R. M. Waller (1966). Surface waters were affected by 

ice breakage, seiching, fissuring of streambeds, and 

temporary damming. 

Ground water was also 

drastically affected, mostly 

in unconsolidated aquifers. 

Many temporary and permanent changes occurred in 

water levels and artesian 

pressures. 

B, L'Anchorage Area," by R. 

M. Waller (1966). Immediate effects on the Anchorage 

hydrologic system included 

increased stream discharge, 

seiches on lakes, and fluctuations in ground-water levels; water supplies were 

temporarily disrupted by 

damming of streams. 

C, "Outside Alaska," by R. 

C. Vorhis (1967). The 

earthquake caused measurable changes of water levels 

in wells and surface waters 

throughout nearly all of the 

United States and in many 

other countries. A separate 

section by E. E. Rexin and 

R. C. Vorhis describes hydroseismograms from a well 

in Wisconsin and one by R. 

W. Coble the effects on 

ground water in Iowa. 

D, "Glaciers," by Austin Post 

(1967). Many rockslide avalanches extended onto the 

glaciers ; some traveled long 

distances, possibly over 

layers of compressed air. 

No large snow and ice avalanches occurred on any of 

the hundreds of glaciers. 

Little evidence of earthquake-induced surges of 

glaciers was found. 

E, "Seismic Seiches," by Arthur McGarr and R. C. 

Vorhis (1968). Hundreds of 

water-level instruments on 

streams, lakes, and reservoirs throughout the United 

States, Clanada, and Australia recorded measurable 

seiches, or hydroseisms. 

Such recorders can thus 

serve as useful adjuncts of 

seismograph networks in 

earthquake studies. 

Professional Paper 545, "Effects 

on Transportation, Communications, and Utilities," in four 

chapters : 

A, "Eklutna Power Project," 

by M. H. Logan (1967). 

Vibration-induced consolidation of sediments damaged the underwater intake 

structure, and permitted 

sand, gravel, and cobbles to 

enter the tunnel. Lesser 

damage was done by vibration and ground fractures. 

A separate section by L. R. 

Burton describes the use of 

a portable television camera 

to locate breaks in underground communication systems. 

B, "Air and Water Transport, 

Communications, and Utilities," by E. B. Eckel (1967). 

All forms of transportation, 

utilities, and communication 

systems were wrecked or 

severely hampered by the 

earthquake. Numerous airports and all seaports were 

affected by vibration, subaqueous slides, waves, fire 

and tectonic uplift or subsidence. Aboveground transmission lines were extensively broken, but buried 

utility lines were virtually 

undamaged except where 

the ground fractured or 

slid. 

C, "The Highway System," by 

R e u b e n Kachadoorian 

(1968). Widespread damage 

resulted chiefly from destruction of bridges and 

roadways by seismic vibration and subsidence of 

foundations. Snowslides, 
ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 19 64 

landslides, and shoreline 

submergence also damaged 

or drowned some roadways. 

D, "The Alaska Railroad," by 

D. S. McCulloch and M. G. 

Bonilla (1970). The rail 

system was extensively 

damaged ; bridges and 

tracks were destroyed, and 

port facilities were lost at 

Seward and Whittier. 

"Landspreading" (a term 

for sediments that were 

mdbilized by vibration and 

moved toward topographic 

depressions) was the single 

most important source of 

trouble. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Sincere thanks go to all the authors whose work is summarized 

here and to all my colleagues who 

played parts in publishing the U.S. 

Geological Survey's series of rep~+ on the earthquake. Early 

dnafts of this report were reviewed 

by the authors of each paper in the 

series and by many obher friends, 

particularly the members of the 

Committee on the Alaska Earthquake Committee, National Academy of Science. All of these were 

TECTONICS 

THE EARTHQUAKE 

The earthquake struck about 

5:36 p.m., Friday, March 27, 

1964, Alaska standard time, or, as 

recorded by seismologists, at 

03 :36 :11.9 to 12.4, Saturday, 

March 28, 1964, Greenwich mean 

time. Its Richter magnitude, computed &y different observatories 

as from 8.3 to possibly as high as 

8.75 (that of the greatest known 

earthquake is 8.9), has generally 

come to be described as 8.68.6. Its 

intensity on the Modified Mercalli 

scale ranged between very wide 

limits, dependicg partly on distance from the epicenter but much 

more on local geologic and hydrologic conditions and distribution 

of population ; hence isointensity 

lines are difficult or impossible to 

draw. 

The epicenter was instrumentally determined to be close to 

College Fiord at the head of 

Prince William Sound, on the 

south flank of the rugged Chugach 

Mountains (fig. 2). Calculations of 

the epicenter vary, but all place it 

within a 9-mile (15-km) radius 

of 61.1" N., 147.7" W. The focus, 

or point of origin, was 12-30 miles 

(20-50 km) below the surface. 

References to a single epicenter or 

depth of focus are misleading in 

that they imply that the earthquake had a point source. As interpreted by Wyss and Brune (1967), 

the earthquake rupture propagated in la series of events, with 

six widely distributed "epicenters" 

recorded during the first 72 seconds. Thus, energy was released 

by the earthquake itself over a 

broad area south and southwest 

of the epicenter; the thousands 

of aftershocks were dispersed 

throughout Ian area of about 

100,000 squlare miles, mainly along 

the Continental Shelf between 

the Aleutian Trench and the 

mainland. 

The long duration of strong 

ground motion intensified many of 

the earthquake's effects and added 

greatly to its scientific significance. At the time, there were no 

instruments in Alaska capable of 

recording the duration of motion, 

but many observers timed or estimated the period of strong shaking as from 1l/z to 7 minutes. In 

very helpful in correcting factual 

and interpretative errors. Special 

thanks are due Wallace R. Hansen, 

George Plafker, and David S. McCulloch, who went beyond the call 

of duty in helping to improve this 

presentation. Catherine Campbell, 

who had primary responsibility 

for processing all the reports in the 

series; land Elna Bishop and her 

associates, Who did the final editing and saw the reports through 

the press, deserve the thanks of 

all authors and readers. Robert A. 

Reilly used imagination, skill, and 

patience in preparing the line 

drawings for these pages. 

most places the time was between 

3 and 4 minutes. The majority of 

observers reported either continuous strong shaking throughout the 

earthquake or gradually diminishing motion. There is evidence, 

however, that in Anchorage and 

possibly elsewhere there were several pulses of strong shaking, separated by periods of diminished 

vibration. 

The earthquake vibrations mere 

felt by people throughout Alaska 

and parts of British Columbia 

(fig. 1) ; they were recorded by 

seismographs throughout the 

world. The vibrations themselves, 

or their immediate effects on bodies of water, were measured on 

streams and lakes and in wells 

throughout the United States and 

in many other countries. Earthquake-caused atmospheric pressure waves and subaudible sound 

waves were also recorded by instruments at widely separated stations in the conterminous States. 

There is general agreement 

among seismologists and geologists that shallow earthquakes are 

caused by sudden release of elastic 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 9 

strain energy that has accumulated in the earth's crust and upper 

mantle. There is no unanimity of 

opinion, however, as to why the 

strains are released when and 

where they are nor as to the details 

of the earthquake-generation process or mechanism. The Alaska 

earthquake of 1964 gave some additional insight into these problems but did not solve them all by 

my means. 

Much has been made by both 

technical and popular writers of 

the fortunate circumstances that 

brought the Alaska earthquake on 

the late afternoon of Good Friday, 

or Passover, at a time of low tides, 

and during the off-season for fishing, when there were few people 

on docks and boats and in nearshore canneries. There is no question that this combination of circumstances resulted in less loss of 

life than would have occurred at 

almmt any other time. 

Wilson and Tgrum (1968) make 

the interesting suggestion that the 

timing of the release of strain was 

perhaps not fortuitous at all, but 

was the product of astronomic 

forces. They base their suggestion 

on the fact that the earthquake occurred near the time of the vernal 

equinox-the date on which the 

religious seasons of Easter and 

Passover are also based-when the 

earth, moon, and sun were in opposition at syzygies and ocean 

tides were at maximum spring 

range. Wilson and Tgrurn inferred 

that six other great earthquakes in 

recent history occurred at or near 

the lunar position of syzygy either 

in opposition or conjunction; 

they concluded that the maximum 

earth and ocean tides that result 

from these conditions are perhaps 

important triggering devices for 

releasing built-up strain in the 

earth's crust. Whether or not their 

hypothesis is correct, the earthquake could hardly have struck 

at a time more favorable to minimizing damage and loss of life. 

DEFORMATION AND 

VIBRATION OF THE 

LAND SURFACE 

An earthquake by definition is a 

shaking of the ground surface and 

the structures on it, but the shaking is really only symptomatic of 

the great geotectonic events that 

are affecting a part of the earth's 

crust. This truism was well demonstrated by the Alaska earthquake. Vibrations from few, if 

any, earthquakes in history have 

been felt by people over a wider 

area, or have persisted for a longer 

time. Much of the damage was 

caused by the vibrations themselves or by their direct resultsground cracks, compaction of sediments, landslides and subaqueous 

slides, and local waves originated 

by such slides. But perceptible and 

disastrous as they were, these effects were insignificant compared 

to the great geologic event that 

caused them, even though most 

other effects of that event were not 

even recognizable as such until 

long after shaking had subsided. 

Indeed, the nature and location of 

the assumed fault along which the 

main event occurred are still subjects for inference and speculation, 

despite intensive studies by many 

able investigators. 

Some other effects were nearly 

or quite as destructive as were the 

seismic vibrations. The uplift and 

subsidence that disrupted ports 

and navigation routes throughout 

the affected area had far-reaching, 

long-term effects (fig. 2). Massive 

tilting of the man both undoubtedly initiated the seismic sea 

waves or tsunamis that wrecked 

Kodiak and other towns in Alaska 

and caused many of the deaths 

there md as far down the coask 

as Crescent Cihy, Calif. The horizontal seaward movement of the 

landmass, though not measurable 

as such without precise geodetic 

studies and interpretations, may itself have initiated disastrous slides 

and waves along the shores of 

"* * * the timing of the relase af strain was perhaps not fmtuitous at all, but was the product of astronomic fom." 
10 

56°15' 

ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 1'964 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

,..,.uuzm>ae/ 

/ ______ ,........ / 

. 

. . 

/ 

I 

/ 

I 

~:' +: 

.... ;·· . 

. . 

/ 

I 

/ 

/ 

/ 

I Bay 

I 

I 

I 

0 

. 

. . . 

144° 

~ ~chin brook 

Island Iter Bay ContrO 

Montague 

Island ' Kayak Island 

I 

s~~ /......----- ~.~ / ~v / 

a~ / / 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

25 50 

EXPLANATION 

Subsidence-uplift boundary 

Highway 

Railroad 

75 100 MILES 

2.-Map of south-central Alaska, showing areas of tectonic land-level changes. 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Prince William Sound 'and elsewhere. 

Perhaps the most significant 

aspect 'of the Alaska earthquake 

was the great expanse of measurable land dislocation. Most of our 

knowledge of the crustal deformation that marks large earthquakes 

comes from analysis of the elastic 

waves that they generate; more direct observations are commonly 

limited by a lack of critical ground 

oontrol. In Alaska these deformations were measurable by geodetic 

and other methods over much of 

the displacement field (Malloy, 

1964, 1965 ; Plafker, 1965 ; Parkin, 

1966, 1969; Small and Parkin, 

1967; and Small and Wharton, 

1969). The vast quantity of available facts are interpreted in tectonic terms by Plafker (1969), 

from whose report most of the following information is taken. 

VERTICAL DEFORMATION 

Over an area of more than 

100,000 square miles, the earth's 

surface was measurably displaced 

by the earthquake (fig. 2). Displacements occurred in two arcuate zones parallel to the continental margin, together about 

600 miles long and as much as 

250 miles wide. West and north 

of a curving isobase line that 

extends around the head of 

Prince William Sound, thence 

southwestward past the southeast 

shores of the Kenai Peninsula 

and the most southeasterly 

fringes of Kodiak Island, the 

land and sea-bottom surface subsided an average of 2% feet and 

a maximum of 7% feet. Southeast, or seaward of the isobase 

line, the surface was uplifted an 

average of 6 feet and a measured 

maximum of 38 feet, on Montague Island, where surface faults 

developed along a zone of severe 

deformation. There is some evidence that the land west of the 

subsided zone, involving the 

Aleutian and Alaska ranges, was 

uplifted a maximum of 1% feet, 

but less is known about this area. 

Besides the tsunamis that 

spread across the entire Pacific 

Ocean, subsidence and uplift 

had other consequences, particularly along the seacoasts. 

Nearly every report in this series 

describes these effects as observed 

in some part of the earthquakeaffected region. Some effects were 

immediately apparent to observers; others were not even 

recognized until hours or days 

later, when anomalous waves had 

subsided and new tide levels were 

affirmed. Only then did people 

begin to realize the magnitude of 

the tectonic changes. 

Real measurements of the distribution and amount of landlevel change required geodetic 

resurveys of previously established land nets and hundreds of 

measurements of vertically displaced intertidal sessile organisms. The fact that certain 

marine plants and animals have 

definite vertical growth limits 

relative to tide levels has long 

been known but, following the 

early lead of Tarr and Martin 

(1912), its usefulness in determining relative land-level changes 

resulting from earthquakes was 

greatly expanded by Plafker 

(1969) and his colleagues. The 

potential accuracy of the method 

is limited only by the number of 

observations that can be made 

with available time, energy, and 

funds; by the accuracy of our 

knowledge as to the growth 

habits of these sessile organisms; 

and by the accuracy of the observer's estimates of tide stages 

at the time of observation. 111 

south-central Alaska it provided 

far more detailed and reliable 

information on the nature and 

size of land deformation than 

could have been determined from 

the relatively sparse geodetic, 

hydrographic, and tide-gage control that was available. 

HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION 

Large-scale horizontal deformation also accompanied the earthquake (Parkin, 1966, 1969; Plafker, 1969). Horizontal movement 

of the land mass was not noted by 

observers and could not in any case 

have been distinguished by human 

senses from the back-and-forth 

sensations caused by the seismic3 

waves. Its net results, however, 

mere measured geodetically. 

Retriangulation by the U.S. 

Coast and Geodetic Survey over 

about 25,000 square miles of uplifted and subsided ground in and 

around the Prince William Sound 

region shows definitely that the 

landmass moved relatively seaward, or southeastward. The 

amount and distribution of the 

displacement has been determined 

relatively but not absolutely. Plafker's interpretation shows systematic horizontal shifts, in a south to 

southwestward direction, of as 

much as 64 feat. Parkin, using the 

same data, found maximum displacements of about 70 feet and in 

slightly different directions. Whatever the differences in detail and 

interpretation, there is little doubt 

that a large mass of land and sea 

floor moved several tens of feet 

toward the Gulf of Alaska. 

The horizontal land movements 

produced no known direct effects 

on man and his structures. Malloy 

(1965), Wilson and TIdrum (1968), 

Plafker (1969), Plafker and others 

(1969), all suggest, however, that 

the sudden seaward land motion 

may well have caused waves in 

certain confined and miconfined 

bodies of surface water. Too, porosity changes that caused temporary water losses from surface 

streams and lakes, and lowering of 

water levels in some wells that tap 
ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 1964 

"The Alaska ealrthquake of 1964 produced only two knawn anrfstce faults, both on uninhabited Montague Island, in Prince 

William Sound." 

confined aquifers, may have 

resulted from the horizontal land 

movements (Waller, 1966a, b) . 

SURFACE FAULTS 

Surface fault displacements accompany many large earthquakes 

and are much feared because of 

potential damage to buildings. 

The Alaska earthquake of 1964 

produced only two surface faults, 

both on uninhabited Montague Island, in Prince William Sound 

(Plafker, 1967). They are significant, however, because of their tectonic implications, their large displacements, and their reverse habits. So far as is known, reverse 

faults rarely accompany earthquakes. The two faults, called the 

Patton Bay fault and tbe Hanning 

Bay fault, were reactivated along 

preexisting fault traces on the 

wuthw&rn part of Montague 

Island. These faults had been 

mapped by Condon and Cass 

(1958). New scarps, fisures, flexures, and large landslides appeared in bedrock and in surficial 

deposits along both traces. Both 

strike northeast and dip steeply 

northwest. Vertical displacements 

are 20 to 23 feet on the Patton Bay 

fault and 16 feet on the shorter 

Hanning Bay fault. Both blocks 

of each fault are uplifted relative 

to sea level, but the northwestern 

block of each is relatively higher 

than the southeastern one. The 

Patton Bay fault is 22 miles long 

on land and extends seaward to 

the southwest at least 17 miles; indirect evidence suggests that the 

fault system extends southwestward on the sea floor more than 

300 miles (Plafker, 1967). 

The faults on Montague Island 

and their postulated extensions 

southwestward are in the zone of 

maximum tectonic uplift. Their 

geologic setting and positions 

relative to the zone of regional uplift and aftershocks suggest to 

Plafker (1969) that they are not 

the primary causative faults of the 

earthquake but are subsidiary 

fractures. The hypothetical causative fault is viewed as a low-angle 

thrust beneath the continental 

margin. 

Inwnclusive evidence suggests 

that ground fissures on the Kenai 

Penhula may dect earthquakeinduced movement along an undiscovered buried fault zone (Foster 

and Karlstrom, 1967). The cracks 

may, however, have been caused by 

refraction of seismic vibrations off 

subsurface bedrock irregularities. 

Similarly, his bathymetric surveys 

indicate to G. A. Rusnak of the 

U.S. Geological Survey (oral 

comrnun., 1968) that the earthquake may have formed faultbounded grabens on the floor of 

Resurrection Bay, as well as somewhat similar displacements in 

Passage Canal. Evidence for these 

suggestions is tenuous, particularly because no direct indications 

of the postulated earthquakecaused structural features have 

been found on land, despite diligent search. 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

MECHANISM OF THE 

EARTHQUAKE 

The widespread vertical and 

horizontal displacements of the 

land surface, and the surface faults 

on Montague Island and southwest 

thereof, were manifestations of a 

great geologic eventthe sudden 

release of crustal strains that 

caused movement along a great 

fault deep beneath the surface. 

Nearly all seismologists and geologists agrea that such a fault 

exists, but its exact position, 

orientation, and sense of displacement are obscure, and will probably remain so. 

The elastic rebound theory for 

the generation of earthquakes 

states that shallow-focus earthquakes (at depths less than about 

40 km.), such as the Alaska one, 

are generated by sudden fracturing or faulting following slow accumulation of deformation and 

strain. When the strength of the 

rocks is exceeded, failure occurs 

and the elastic strain is suddenly 

released in the form of heat, crushing, and seismic-wave radiation. 

Most investigators believe that this 

sequence of events took place in 

Alaska. Most believe further that 

the 1964 earthquake was but one 

pulse in a long history of regional 

deformation; this history is summarized by Plafker (1969). Geologic evidence, supported by numerous new radiocarbon datings, 

indicates that most of the deformed region has been undergoing gradual tectonic submergence 

for the past 930 to 1,360 years; 

Plafker tentatively inbrprets this 

submergence as direct evidence 

that regional strain with a downward-directed component had been 

accumulating in the region for 

abut that length of time. 

Intensive studies of the earthquake, and of its foreshocks and 

aftershocks, have led seismologists 

to agree that movement was initiated on a new or a reactivated old 

major fault or fault zone beneath 

Prince William Sound. Seismologists also agree that the fault is 

elongate, extending several hundred miles southwestward from 

near the epicenter to or beyond 

Kodiak Island and that it is 12 to 

30 miles beneath the surf ace at the 

epicenter of the main shock. Focalmechanism studies are inconclusive as to whether the postulated 

fault dips steeply or at low angles. 

Either angle fits the available data. 

Plafker (1969), who considers 

the focal-mechanism studies by 

seismologists in conjunction with 

the regional geologic history and 

with regional patterns of tectonic 

deformation and seismicity, believes that the fault is most probably a low-angle thrust (reverse 

fault). According to his interpretation, the earthquake originated 

along a complex thrust fault that 

dips northwestward beneath the 

Aleutian Trench. Subsidiary reverse faulting on Montague Island 

occurred in the upper plate. In his 

postulated model, the observed 

and inferred tectonic displacements resulted primarily from (1) 

relative seaward displacement and 

uplift of the frontal end of the 

thrust block along the primary 

fault and subsidiary reverse faults, 

such as those on Montague Island, 

and (2) simultaneous elastic horizontal extension, leading to sub- - sidence, behind the overthrust 

block. 

The concept of a primary lowangle thrust, with the landmass 

moving relatively toward the Gulf 

of Alaska, fits most of the known 

geologic, geodetic, and seismologic facts. Stauder and Bollinger 

(1966) have shown that focalmechanism solutions of the main 

shwk and numerous aftershocks 

based on both P and S waves favor 

a low-angle thrust. These same 

writers, and Savage and Hastie 

(1966), show that the observed 

vertical displacements in the 

major zones of deformation are in 

reasonably close agreement with 

the theoretical displacements obtained by applying dislocation 

theory to a low-angle or horizontal-thrust model. 

The low-angle thrust model does 

not fit all the data, however. For 

example, Press and Jackson 

(1965) and Harding and Algermissen (1969) present alternative 

interpretations of the seismologic 

data that favor a steeply dipping 

fault, rather than a thrust. Savage 

and Hastie (1966) have shown 

that the theoretical surface displacements from such a model diverge considerably from the observations, and they point out that 

the surface-wave fault-plane data 

cited by Press and Jackson in support of a steep fault would apply 

equally well to a low-angle fault 

because rupture propagation was 

along the null axis. However, Pand S-wave solutions of the main 

shock suggest to Harding and Algermissen movement on a steep 

plane. Von Huene and others 

(1967), too, present oceanographic 

evidence from the Gulf of Alaska 

and the Aleutian Trench which 

they interpret to preclude overthrusting of the continental 

margin. 

There appears to be no unambiguous explanation of the mechanism of the Alaska earthquake. 

All major arc-relaited earthquakes, 

such as this one, are difficult 4x1 

study because much of the displacement field is invariably submarine ; data on earthquakes with 

offshore epicenters cannot be obtained as readily as for those centered on land. It can be hoped that 

batter seismograph records of 

long-period motions, {together with 
14 ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH. 27, 1964 

continuing precise geodetic meais- less ambiguous interpretations of subsea displacements and the hyurements that would give evidence the causes of future Alaska earth- pocentral depiths and first motions 

of the strain accumulations and quakes. These data would require of offshore earthquakes in arc endeformations on land, will permit new techniques for determining vironments. 

EFFECTS ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

The shaking and land deformations had profound and lasting 

effects on the geologic, hydrologic, 

and oceanographic environments 

of a large part of south-central 

Alaska and, to a lesser extent, of 

an enormously greater area (fig. 

1). These effects in turn had immediate and drastic effects on man 

and manmade structures. The various categories of effects, which 

were responsible for all the deaths 

and destruction, are discussed in 

succeeding paragraphs. Many (0ther effects, such as those on the 

bird, animal, fish, and shellfish 

populations and their habitats, are 

not described here, though they 

were of outstanding importance 

to science and to the economy of 

Alaska. 

GEOLOGIC EFFECTS 

DOWNSLOPE MASS MOVEMENTS 

Of the many downslope mass 

movements during the earthquake, 

only four kinds provided much 

new knowledge about their character and origins. These were (1) 

the enormous rockslide avalanches 

on some glaciers, (2) the disastrous subaqueous slides from lakeshores and sea coasts, (3) the 

near-horizontal movement of vibration-mobilized soil, and (4) 

the giant translatory slides in 

sensitive clay at Anchorage. 

Earthquakes have long been 

known to cause landslides and rock 

or snow avalanches, but they are 

generally subordinate to other 

more usual causes such as gravity 

interacting with water or ice 

(Varnes, 1958). It is not surprising that a great earthquake in a 

rugged land like south-central 

Alaska should bring down thousands of landslides and avalanches 

in the mountains and many subaqueous slides in the deep Fakes 

and fiords. 

Property damage from slides in 

the mountains was generally limited to roads and railroads. Rockslides contributed to only one 

known death. At Cape Saint 

Elias, a coastguardsman, seriously 

injured by a large rockfall, was 

later drowned by waves (Plafker 

and others, 1969). 

Several writers have attributed 

the relatively small amount of 

damage done by avalanches and 

slides to the sparse population in 

the mountains. That the rockslides 

were unprecedented in size and 

number in recent centuries is demonstrated by the absence of similar 

deposits of debris on most glaciers 

before the 1964 event. Large-scale 

slides triggered by earthquakes 

doubtless do present a serious hazard in the mountainous regions of 

Alaska where steep, unstable 

slopes are present. 

With a few outstanding exceptions, most of the slides and avalanches were comparatively simple 

well-known types and, because 

they caused little physical damage, they received little attention 

by investigators. 

The landslides along the Patton 

Bay and Hanning Bay faults on 

Montague Island (Plafker, 1967) 

are of interest chiefly because they 

are related to the only known 

earthquake-caused surface faults. 

Although their study added little 

to general knowledge of landslide 

processes, Plafker (1967) h,as 

noted that, by their very nature, 

"By far the greatest damage done by 

slides and avalanches was along the 

highway and rail net, south and east 

of Anchorage." 
active thrust faults tend to conceal their traces automatically by 

initiating linear zones of landslides. 

Debris slides and rotational 

slumps developed in many places 

in and near Anchorage (Hansen, 

1965), but they did far less damage and were less important scientifically than the gigantic translatory slides discussed separately 

below. Slides and slumps on steep 

slopes near Whittier (Kachadoorian, 1965), Seward (Lemke, 

1967), and Homer (Waller, 1966a) 

also did little damage .as compared to submarine slides, waves, 

and subsidence. 

Many landslides occurred on the 

Kodiak island group in a great 

variety of geologic settings (Plaf - 

ker and Kachadoorian, 1966), but 

aside from temporarily blocking a 

few roads, they did no significant 

damage. 

By far the greatest damage done 

by slides and avalanches was along 

the highway and rail net, south 

and east of Anchorage. The 

plotted distribution of these features (Kachadoorian, 1968 ; McCulloch and Bonilla, 1970) shows 

how widespread and numerous 

they were along the roads and 

railroads. This distribution probably represents fairly well the distribution of downslope mass 

movements throughout the earthquake-shaken area, with some allowance for the fact that manmade cuts and fills tend to 

diminish slope stability, hence to 

increase the number of slides. 

ROCKSLIDE AVALANCHES 

Glaciers and snowfielde cover 

more than 20 percent of the land 

area that was shlaken violently. Almost 2,000 avalanches and snow 

slides were seen on postearthquake aerial photographs examined by Hackman (1965). Most of 

these he suspected were oaused by 

the earthquake but as Post (1967) 

. L 

"* * * the avalanches initially descended very steep slopes and attained high velocities. * * * These features * * help substantiate the hypothesis that some large 

rock avalanches travel on cushions of compressed air." 

and several others point out, none 

of these snow and ice avalanche5 

were large enough to materially 

affect any glacier's regime. 

As compared with slides of 

snow and ice, rockslide avalianches 

were fewer but much larger. The 

most thoroughly studied of these 

is on Sherman Glacier in the Chugach Mountains, 20 miles east of 

Cordova. There, an enormous mass 

of rock and some snow and ice fell 

from two peaks, traveled at high 

speed, and spread out over half 

of the glacier's ablation ,area 

(Shreve, 1966; Post, 1967; Plafker, 1968). The effects of such deposits on glacier regimes have yet 

to be fully assessed, but reduction 

in ice [ablation sufficient to favor 

positive annual mass balances has 

already been measured. A future 

modest advance of the Sherman 

Glacier's terminus can be expected. 

Various investigations show 

that the Sherman and other ~avalanches tend to have certain common characteristics : (a) the 

areas were cliffs currently undergoing glacial erosion; (b) the unstable rock available for movement was hundreds of thousands 

of cubic yards in volume; (c) the 

avalanches initially descended 

very steep slopes and attained high 

velocities; (d) the rock debris 

spread out over surficial features 

of the glacier surfaces without 

greatly modifying them; and (e) 

the gradients of the aval~anches on 

the glacier surface were very low, 

yet the material traveled very long 

distances (Post, 1967). These 

features together help substantiate the hypothesis that some 

large rock avalanches travel on 
ALASKA EARTHQUAICE, MARCH 2 7, 1964 

cushions of compressed air 

(Shreve, 1959, 1966b, 1968 ; Crandell and Flahnestock, 1965). 

HORIZONTAL MOVEMENTS OF 

MOBILIZED SOIL 

The movements of mobilized 

water-saturated soil toward topographic depressions deserve special mention. These movements 

took place throughout the strongly 

shaken part of Alaska and were 

among the major causes of 

ground fractures along river 

banks, deltas, and elsewhere. They 

were best seen and recorded along 

the highway and railroad systems 

and were major sources of damage 

to both (Kachadoorian, 1968 ; McCulloch and Bonilla, 1970). Elsewhere in thinly populated regions 

like the Martin and Bering River 

area (Tuthill and Laird, 1966), 

lateral spreading did less damage 

but was nevertheless an important 

geomorphic process. 

In detailed studies of earthquake 

damage to the Alaska Railroad, 

McCulloch and Bonilla (1970) observed that ordinary rotational 

slumps were surprisingly rare and 

that the elastic response of unconsolidated sediment was a less important source of damage than 

were near-horizontal displacements or "landspreading." This 

phenomenon has been observed in 

studies of other great eanthquakes. 

McCulloch and Bonilla describe 

the distension that occurs within 

the sediments and note that landspreading takes place on flat or 

nearly flat ground ; thus they differentiate from landsliding, which 

connotes downslope movement. 

Along the railroad, ground fissures, loss of bearing strength, and 

other effects all took their toll ; but 

in terms of dollars lost, dlamage 

caused by landspreading was second only to the loss of terminal 

facilitiss at Whittier and Seward 

aaused by submarine slides, waves, 

and fire (Kachadoorian, 1965 ; 

Lemke, 1967). Water-laid saturated sediments responded to the 

earthquake's vibrations by mobilizing and moving laterally toward 

free topographic faces that ranged 

in size from small drainage ditches 

to wide valleys. The spreading of 

the mobilized sediments generated 

stress in their frozen surfaces and 

caused ground cracking that tore 

apart railroad tracks and highway pavements. In addition, 

streamward spreading of the mobilized sediments compressed or 

skewed numerous bridges by 

streamward movements of banks. 

Even deeply driven piles moved 

toward stream centers, and there 

was a tendency toward compression and uplift beneath some 

bridges. 

Many of the movements took 

place in areas where surfaces were 

nearly flat. Some extended as much 

as a quarter of a mile back from 

the topographic depression and 

offset rail lines or other linear features. McCulloch and Bonilla conclude that the tendency toward 

mobilization of sediments should 

be considered in design of structures in earthquake-prone areas. 

They suggest that it might be minimized by eliminating strong surface irregularities and linear features insofar as possible; skewing 

of bridgm might be reduced by 

placing crossings at right angles 

to streambanks. 

SUBAQUEOUS SLIDES 

Subaqueous slides, and gigantic 

local waves that were closely related to them in time and origin, 

caused high loss of life and property. A very few similar slides and 

their associated waves have been 

known from other earthquakes, 

but none had received much study. 

Throughout the earthquakeshaken area, steep-fronted deltas 

collapsed into many of the deeper 

lakes. The new fronts were generally steeper and less stable than 

the old ones (Tuthill and Laird, 

1966 ; Ferrians, 1966 ; Lemke, 

1967). Except on Kenai Lake 

(McCulloch, 1966), none of these 

slides did much damage, and they 

were not studied intensively. The 

several slides along the shores of 

Kenai Lake yielded more information on the mechanics of sliding 

and the distribution of resultant 

debris than was available for the 

seacoast slides. McCulloch (1966) 

found that sliding removed the 

protruding parts of deltas--often 

the youngest and least consolidated 

parts-and steepened the delta 

fronts. He suggests that protruding portions should be the least 

stable, for they contain the most 

mass bounded by the shortest possible failure surface. Fathograms 

show that large slides spread for 

thousands of feet over the horizontal lake floor and that some of 

the debris moved so rapidly that it 

pushed water waves ahead of it 

and up on the opposite shores. 

Because of the presence of 

coastal communities, submarine 

slides in the fiords of Prince William Sound and along the south 

coast of the Kenai Peninsula were 

far more destructive than those on 

lakes. The most disastrous ones 

were at Valdez (Coulter and Migliaccio, 1966), Seward (Lemke, 

1967), and Whittier (Kachadoorian, 1965), but there were also 

slides at Homer on Cook Inlet 

(Waller, 1966a) and at many other 

inhabited places. Some of these, 

and their associated waves, did 

more damage in proportion to the 

size of the communities affected 

than did the better known ones at 

Seward and Valdez (Plafker and 

Mayo, 1965; Plafker and others, 

1969). In addition to those known 

to be related to submarine slides, 

there were numerous destructive 

waves of unknown origin throughout much of Prince William 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 17 

Sound. Some of the unexplained 

waves may have been related to 

unidentified submarine slides, but 

some are believed to have been 

generated by permanent horizontal 

shifts of the land relative to partly 

or wholly confined bodies of water 

(Plafker, 1969; Plafker and 

others, 1969). How much of the 

sliding was caused by direct prolonged vibration and how much by 

the southeasterly shift of the landmass during the earthquake is 

unknown. It seems probable, however, that vibration was the primary cause of most of it. 

All the subaqueous slides that 

were studied in any detail left new 

slopes nearly or quite as steep as 

the preearthquake ones, some even 

steeper. This is the most significant 

and ominous finding from the investigations of these features, for 

it means that the delta fronts are 

still only marginally stable and 

hence are subject to renewed sliding, triggered by future earthquakes. The lesson is clear-any 

steep-faced delta of fine to moderately coarse materials in deep 

water presents inherent dangers of 

future offshore slides and destmctive waves, whether or not it has 

slid in the past. 

One somewhat unexpected result 

of the offshore slides, observed on 

Kenai Lake and at Valdez and 

Whittier, may well have occurred 

on other narrow lakes or fiords: 

the wide and rapid spread of slide 

debris on the bottom. Some of the 

debris at Kenai Lake crossed the 

lake, pushed water ahead of it, and 

caused wave runups on the far 

shores (McCulloch, 1966). This 

feature means that, under some 

conditions at least, the shore opposite a steep-faced delta may be 

almost as poor a place for buildings 

or anchorages as is the delta itself. 

In summary, the 1964 earthquake showed that any deep-water 

delta, such as those in the fiords 

and many lakes of south-cen.tra1 

Alaska, may produce subaqueous 

slides and associated destructive 

waves if shaken by a severe earthquake. Such deltas commonly contain much sand or finer grained 

material, are saturated with water, 

and have steep fronts; hence they 

are apt to have very low stability 

under dynamic conditions. 

TRANSLATORY LANDSLIDES 

IN ANCHORAGE 

All the highly destructive landslides in the built-up parts of Anchorage moved chiefly by translation rather than rotation--that is, 

they moved laterally on nearly 

horizontal slip surfaces, following 

drastic loss of strength in an already weak layer of sensitive clay. 

The translatory slides at Anchorage ranged from block glides, in 

which the slide mass remained 

more or less intact, to those that 

are best classed as failures by lateral spreading (Varnss, 1958). 

Translatory slides, caused by 

earthquakes or other agencies, are 

uncommon, but they have long 

been known, and studied to some 

extent, in Scandinavia, Chile, and 

the United States (Hansen, 1965). 

The Anchorage slides of 1964, 

however, promise to become a classic reference point in the scientific 

and engineering literature on nearhorizontal mass movement of material. They had many novel aspects, and, because facts were 

needed for far-reaching decisions 

on the reoonstruction of important 

parts of a thriving city, the Anchorage translatory slides pmbably received more study by soils 

engineers and geologists than any 

comparable group of landslides in 

history. 

Several million dollars was 

spent by the Corps of Engineers 

in intensive soils studies of all 

the Anchorage slides: (1) to determine where reconstruction 

should be permitted, (2) to build 

.a gigantic stabilizing buttress 

in the midst of downtown Anchorage, and (3) to experiment 

"All the highly destructive landslides in the buiht-up paxts of Anchorage moved chiefly by taanwlation rather than rotation-that 

is, they moved laterally on nearly horizontal surfaws, follolwing drastic loss of strength in an already weak layer d 

sensitive day." 
18 ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCB: 27, 1964 

with explosive and electroosmotic methods of stabilizing 

the great slide at Turnagain 

Heights. The slides at Anchorage have also sparked other 

studies of the stability of slopes 

in sensitive clays, particularly 

under dynamic conditions. 

All the Anchorage slides involved a hitherto obscure but 

now famous geologic formationthe Bootlegger Cove Clay of 

Pleistocene age (Miller and 

Dobrovolny, 1959). This deposit 

of glacial estuarine-marine origin 

underlies much of Anchorage; it 

is overlain by outwash gravel. 

All the destructive slides occurred where the Bootlegger Cove 

Clay crops out along steep bluffs. 

The formation is comprised 

largely of clay and silt, with a 

few thin, discontinuous lenses of 

sand. The middle part of the 

formation contains zones characterized by low shear strength, 

high water content, and high 

sensitivity; these failed under the 

earthquake's vibrations. 

The most thorough report on 

the geology of the Anchorage 

slides, as distinct from the soils 

engineering aspects, is that by 

Hansen in which he reconstructed the highly complex Turnagain slide by maps and cross 

sections (Hansen, 1965, pls. 1, 

2). Many other reports on the 

mechanics of the Anchorage 

slides or on theoretical and experimental work engendered by 

the Anchorage experience have 

already appeared in the civil 

engineering literature (Shannon 

and Wilson, Inc., 1964; Long 

and George, 1967a, b; Seed and 

Wilson, 1967), and more will 

appear in the future. 

As described by Hansen (1965) 

earthquake vibrations reduced 

the shear strength of saturated 

sensitive zones in the clay. A 

prismatic block of earth moved 

laterally on a nearly horizontal 

surface toward a free face, or 

bluff. Tension fractures formed 

at the head of the slide and allowed collapse of a wedge-shaped 

mass, or graben. Pressure ridges 

were formed at the toe of the 

slide block. In complex slides, 

and with continued shaking, the 

process was repeated so that slice 

after slice moved forward toward 

or beyond the former bluff face. 

Seed and Wilson (1967) agree 

in most respects with Hansen's 

view of the mechanics of the Anchorage slides. They are much 

more inclined, however, to ascribe 

the initial translatory motion to 

liquefaction of layers or lenses of 

sand in the clay than to weakening 

of the clay itself. Seed has found 

by experiment with modified triaxial shear devices that laboratoryreconstructed sand, similar to that 

in the Bootlegger Cove Clay, liquefies and loses all its shear strength 

with far fewer vibratory pulses 

than are required to liquefy the 

clay. He is doubtlessly correct as 

to the initizting mechanism, but 

there is no question that drastic 

weakening of the clay contributed 

to the lateral movements once they 

had begun. Even under static conditionsprior to the earthquake, the 

bluffline at Turnagain Heights 

was being undermined at its foot 

in a oontinuous zone of clay slumps 

and liquefied-clay mudflows. 

Large-scale field tests were made 

at Turnagain Heights to determine 

if remodeling by blasting or treatment by electro-osmo6is might add 

to the strength of the jumbled mass 

of clay that slid =award during 

the 1964 earthquake. Neither 

method produced very promising 

results, but when the tests were 

abandoned the Corps of Engineers 

and its consultants had determined 

that the landslide material along 

Knik Arm had naturally regained 

dl its preearthquake strength. The 

Corps concluded therefore that the 

new slopes in the Turnagain area 

now form a natural buttress to the 

undis%urbed bluff behind the slide 

that should withstand a future 

earthquake similar to that of 19Ci4, 

provided the buttress toe is protected against erosion. In 1969 

there were no plans for such erosion protection. 

The greatest unanswered question about the Anchorage translatory slides is whether they will 

rwur in the event of another great 

earthquake, and if so, what can be 

done to prevent them. There is 

abundant evidence that repeated 

similar slides, some in the same 

places, have been triggered by earlier earthquakes or by other causes 

(Miller and Dobrovolny, 1959 : 

Hansen, 1965 ; McCulloch and Bonilla, 1970). There is also every 

reason to suppose that new slides 

will develop if and when another 

severe earthquake occurs. With 

present knowledge, the most practical means of avoiding or ameliorating future translatory slides 

would seem to be to reduce the 

slopes on bluffs, to avoid loading 

the upper parts of slopes or bluffs, 

or to construct gigantic earth buttrww like that at the Fourth Avenue slide. Other means of slide prevention may be developed in the 

future. Meanwhile, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with 

Anchorage Borough authorities, 

is preparing detailed maps that 

will show, among other things, the 

outcrops of the Bootlegger Cove 

Clay and the distribution of steep 

slopes (Dobrovolny and Schmoll, 

1968). Such maps should be useful 

to borough and city officials in determining the general areas where 

slides are most likely to occur. 

Very detailed investigations will, 

of course, be necessary at any specific site in order to determine the 

soil conditions and to design corrective or preventive measures. 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

GROUND FISSURES 

Ground fissures, also called 

cracks or fractures by various 

authors, are formed by nearly 'all 

severe earthquakes and by some 

smaller ones. Possibly more resulted from the 1964 earthquake 

than from any previously recorded 

earthquake. Certainly they were 

more noticeable and more intensely studied, especially by 

means of aerial photographs. The 

ground surface was frozen in 

nearly all of the earthquake-affected area; this condition not 

only resulted in more fissures 

but favored their preservation 

long enough to permit observation, photographing, and mapping. 

General distribution of fissured 

ground throughout the earthquake-affected area is shown by 

Plafker and others (1969). Only 

a very few of the fissures that 

developed have been mapped, but 

good examples of their patterns, 

character, and geologic settings 

are shown in maps of the Kenai 

Lake area (McCulloch, 1966) ; 

along the railroad and highway 

nets (Kachadoorian, 1968 ; McCulloch and Bonilla, 1970) ; at Valdez 

(Coulter and Migliaccio, 1966) ; 

at Anchorage (Hansen, 1965 ; 

Engineering Geology Evaluation 

Group, 1964) ; at Seward (Lemke, 1967); and elsewhere. In 

addition, Ferrians (1966) and 

Tuhhill and Laird (1966) made 

detailed studies of the fissures 

and associated landforms in the 

Copper River Basin and MartinBearing Rivers areas. The very 

extensive ground breakage on the 

Kenai Lowland mas mapped by 

Foster and Karlstrom (1967). 

Ground fissures, many marked 

by copious emissions of muddy or 

sandy water or by minor local 

collapse features, were widespread 

within about 100 miles of the epicenter, but they were noted as far 

as 450 miles away (fig. 1). 

Flood plains, the tops and 

fronts of deltas, toes of alluvial 

fans, low terraces with steep 

fronts, and lake margins were 

among the geomorphic features 

most affected. Fissures varied 

greatly in length but some individual ones could be traced for 

thousands of feet. Some open fissures were several feet wide; many 

fissures opened and closed with the 

passage of seismic waves. 

Most ground fissures were necessarily studied only at the surface. Soma fissures on the Kenai 

Lowland, however, and on Kodiak 

Island and elsewhere are known 

to have extended at least 20 to 25 

feet beneath the surface, because 

coal, gravel, pumice, and other 

materials that exist at those depths 

were brought to the surface by 

spouting water (Foster and Karlstrom, 1967; Plafker and Kachadoorian, 1967). 

Great quantities of water, mixed 

with varying amounts of sand and 

silt, were ejected as fountains or 

sheets of water from ground fissures in many places (Waller, 

1966b). Most ejections came from 

linear fractures, but in flat-lying 

homogeneous sediments some came 

from point sources. Among the 

chief consequences of the ejections 

were local subsidence of the land 

surface and further cracking by 

removal of water and material 

from below. 

Geologically, most ground fissures were ephemeral features and, 

of themselves, left little permanent evidence of their presence. 

Cracked mats of peat, however, 

were still preserved in 1967, and 

clastic dikes formed by sand or 

mud injections may last for many 

years. Evidence of local subsidence 

caused by ejection of water and 

mud from fissures is somewhat 

more permanent also, as are a few 

other minor landforms that resulted from them. Several unusual 

geologic-geomorphic f e a t u r e s , such as mud-vent deposits, fountain craters, subsidence craters, 

and snow cones, are described by 

Tuthill and Laird (1966) in the 

Martin-Bering Rivers area. Most 

of these are related to the pumping 

of water and sediments from 

ground fissures. Similar deposits 

were left by mud spouts or by 

melting of snow avalanches in 

many parts of the earthqu&eaffected area (Waller, 1966a, b; 

Lemke, 1967; McCulloch and Bonilla, 1970). All these features are 

of some scientific interest, but they 

are ephemeral and are not likely 

to be preserved in the geologic record unless they are soon buried by 

other deposits. 

Widespread damage resulted 

from fissures, though on the whole 

it was minor as compared to that 

from other sources. Ground fissures disrupted buried utility lines 

and did other damage in Anchorage (Hansen, 1965; Burton, in 

Logan, 1967; McCulloch and Bonilla, 1970). At Seward, remaining 

parts of the fan-delta whose front 

slid into Resurrection Bay were 

severely cracked and left unstable. 

Fissures also damaged many 

homes and roads in Forest Acres 

outside of Seward (Lemke, 1967). 

At Valdez, 40 percent of the homes 

and most commercial buildings 

that were not wrecked by the giant 

submarine slide were seriously 

damaged by earth fissures that destroyed their structural integrity, 

broke pipes, and pumped immense 

quantities of sand and silt into 

their lower parts (Coulter and 

Migliaccio, 1966). At the Eklutna 

Lake powerplant, n u m e r o u s 

cracks, some of them damaging, 

developed in both natural and artificially compacted sediments 

(Logan, 1967). At the Cordova 

airport, the foundation of the 
20 ALASKA EARTHQUARE, MARCH 27, 19 64 

FAA office building was split by 

a ground fissure, and underground 

utility lines were broken in so 

many places that most had to be 

replaced (EckeI, 1967). 

All fissures were directly related 

to local geologic conditions. Many 

of them formed in thick coarsegrained unconsolidated deposits, 

where the water table was close to 

the surface and where the topmost 

layers were frozen, hence brittle. 

Many others, as on the mudflats of 

the Copper River Delta, Controller Bay, and near Portage, developed in fine-grained deposits. 

Artificial fills were very susceptible. Many cracks followed backfilled utility trenches. Many highway fills compacted and cracked 

marginally. Few fissures formed 

in well-drained surficial deposits, 

and hardly any in bedrock or in 

permafrost. 

Only on the Kenai Lowland was 

there any suggestion of tectonic 

control of the fracture patterns 

(other, of course, than the regional 

tectonic factors that controlled the 

general distribution of all the 

earthquake's effects). On the lowland, and to some extent in the 

Chugach Mountains north of it, 

hter and Karlstmm (1967) 

noted an alinement of ground 

fractures that suggested to them 

that the fractures might reflect 

earthquake - caused movement 

along hypothetical faults in the 

underlying bedrock. 

Seismic vibration was the ultimate cause of virtually all the fissures. Some were formed directly 

by the shaking, others by differential horizontal or vertical compaction, others by local subsidence. 

Many formed near slopes or surf ace irregularities when underlying materials liquefied or, mobilized by vibration, moved toward 

topographic depressions. The best 

known examples perhaps are the 

ground fractures back of the 

translatory slides at Anchorage 

(Hansen, 1965), the extensive fissures on the Resurrection River 

Delta near Seward (Lemke, 1967), 

and the thousands of fissures along 

the rail and road systems (Kachadoorian, 1968 ; McCulloch and 

Bonilla, 1970). Unconfined slopes 

were not essential to the formation 

of fissures, however; many formed 

on flat unbroken surfaces such as 

that of the Copper River Delta. 

As a possible explanation for the 

origin of a certain type of ground 

fissure that formed in the Copper 

River Basin in flat-lying areas 

where there were no free faces toward which the materials could 

move, Ferrians (1966) suggests 

that surface waves flexing the layer 

of frozen surficial materials, which 

was in a state of tension, caused the 

initial cracking of the surface. The 

passing surface waves subjected 

the saturated sediments beneath 

the seasonal frost to repeated compression and dilation in the horizontal direction ; consequently, 

large quantities of water and siltand sand-sized material were 

ejected from the cracks, and sediment particles were rearranged. 

The net result of them forces 

was horizontal compaction, which 

caused the formation of numerous 

ground cracks that extended for 

great distances and formed a systematic reticulate pattern in the 

flood plains of some of the larger 

rivers. 

Permanently frozen ground, because it behaves dynamically like 

bedrock, had few if any fissures; in 

some places, however, where waterbearing layers were perched between the permafrost and the 

seasonal frost layer at the ground 

surface, there was extensive cracking (Ferrians, 1966). 

Except in a general way, the occurrence and distribution of 

ground fissures would be difficult 

to predict for any given earth- 

"All fissures were directly related to 

local geologic conditions. Many of 

them formed in thick coarse-grained 

unconsdidated deposits, where the 

water table was close to the surface 

and where the topmost Payers were 

frozen, hence brittle." 

quake. The conditions under which 

they develop are now well known, 

and it is possible to identify bodies 

of sediments that are susceptible 

to fissuring during a large earthquake of long duration (McClulloch and Bonilla, 1970). 

Formation of individual fissures 

or fissure systems is so dependent 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

on local geologic and groundwater conditions, however, that 

highly detailed knowledge of local 

surface, subsurface, and su;baerial 

conditions would be required for 

precise predictions. 

CONSOLIDATION SUBSIDENCE 

Seismic vibration caused consolidation of loose granular 

materials in many places. Rearrangement of constituent particles, 

aided by ejection of interstitial 

water through waterspouts or mud 

spouts, caused compaction and 

local differential subsidence of the 

surface. Lateral spreading, too, 

caused lowering of surface levels 

in places. In coastal areas where 

local subsidence was superimposed 

on regional tectonic subsidence, as 

on Homer Spit (Grantz and 

others, 1964; Waller, 1966a), 

Kodiak Island (Plafker and 

Kachadoorian, 1966), and near the 

head of Turnagain Arm (Plafker 

and others, 1969), for example, the 

likelihood of destructive flooding 

was heightened. 

The intake and spillway at 

Eklutna Lake, which feeds the 

Bureau of Reclamation's Eklutna 

hydroelectric plant, provided special instances of damage by consolidation subsidence. The concreits 

intake structure was cracked when 

the lake sediments beneath it compacted and subsided. As a direct 

result, about 2,000 cubic yards of 

sand and rock passed through the 

broken intake and into the main 

tunnel. The concrete spillway gate 

at Eklutna Dam was also severely 

cracked, but not until long after 

the earthquake. As described by 

Logan (1967), saturated alluvium 

below the frozen surface layer 

subsided as it was consolidated by 

the earthquake and left a void below the frozen layer. Later as 

thawing progressed, the frozen 

material collapsed into the void, 

breaking the gate structure. 

SHORE PROCESSE!3 

Thousands of miles of coastlines 

were modified by the earthquake, 

partly by transitory but highly 

destructive water waves and, 

more generally and much more 

permanently, by uplift or subsidence. All but a few reports in 

this series describe such damage, 

particularly at inhabited places 

along the coast. There were, however, comparatively few studies of 

the coastal processes themselves. 

The changes in beach-forming 

processes at Homer Spit, because 

of their economic importance, 

mere investigated in detail by 

Stanley (in Waller, 196th) and 

by Gronewald and Duncan (1966). 

Similarly, but for scientific reasons 

only, stream mouths and beach 

changes caused by sudden uplift 

on Montague Island mere studied 

by Kirkby and Kirkby (1969), and 

the shallow deltaic sediments off 

the mouth of the Copper River 

were investigated by Reimnitz and 

Marshall (1965). The Geological 

Survey itself made few detailed 

studies of shore processes (McCulloch, 1966; Waller, 1966a, b) but, 

with support from the Committee 

on the Alaska Earthquake, National Academy of Sciences, the 

Survey persuaded K. W. Stanley 

(1968) to prepare a general report 

on this subject based on his own 

observations and on summaries of 

the sparse published work of 

others, Periodic detailed observations over many years would be 

needed to provide a more complete 

understanding of the many geologic and biologic adjustments still 

in progress along the coasts. 

All along the coasts, the shoreline began immediately to conform 

to new relative sea levels. Subsided 

beaches moved shoreward, building new berms and slopes. Relatively higher tides attacked 

receding blufflines. Faster erosion 

locally scoured source areas for 

beach nourishment, and thus provided more materi'd to replenish 

losses caused by subsidence. 

Streams whose mouths were 

drowned began to aggrade their 

beds. 

In the uplifted areas, on the 

other hand, beaches were stranded 

above tidewater and some surf -cut 

platforms became terraces or 

benches. Wave erosion of bluffs 

was stopped, and bluff recession 

was slowed to the rate set by subaerial processes. Uplift speeded 

streamflow, with consequent entrenchment and increased sediment load. New beaches began .to 

form below the abandoned ones. 

Within the span of a few 

minutes, the earthquake caused 

chlanges in coastal conditions and 

processes that normally require 

centuries. In the subsided areas it 

also wrought changes that are 

usually associated only with rare 

severe storms. 

HYDROLOGIC EFFECTS 

The hydrologic regimen other 

than glaciers was studied by fewer 

investigato~ls than were most other 

phenomena. Nevertheless, these 

studies produced much new knowledge. Hydrologic effects possibly 

were more extensive than any previously observed on the North 

American continent ; quite certainly they were the greatest ever recorded, for fluctuations of surface 

and ground-water level were measured not only throughout most of 

North America but ir~ many other 

parts of the world. 

GLACIERS 

Glaciers cover about 20 percent 

of the land area that was violently 

shaken by the earthquake. Numerous glaciologists and geomorphologists, particularly those who 
22 ALASKA EARTHQUARE, MARCH 2.7, 19 64 

had continuing interests in the life 

histories of specific glaciers, were 

eager to study the effects of the 

earthquake. But aside from the 

great rock avalanches, surprisingly few effects were observed within 

the first several years. 

Studies added weight to the 

theory that some rock aval~nches 

descend on a cushion of compressed air (Shreve, 1959, 1966b, 

1968). It is also quite clear that 

the avalanche debris will drastically alter the regimens of the 

glaciers by insulating the ice surfaces on which they came to rest. 

Aside from these facts, most of the 

glacial studies had indecisive results. There were several enormous 

rockslide avalanches, but no Iarge 

snow or ice avalanches, and relatively few small ones occurred on 

glaciers, despite the fact that 

avalanche hazard was already 

high tat the time of the earthquake 

(Post, 1967). There were no significant changes in the calving of icebergs from tidewater glaciers, although some glacier fronb were 

shattered and glacial ice was 

bhrown out onto ice-covered lakes 

thgt fronted them (Waller, 

1966b). Few changes occurred in 

glacial streams or ice-dammed 

lakes. There was no evidence of 

dynamic response to earthquake 

shaking or to avalanche loading. 

The glaciers' response to tectonic 

uplift, subsidence, or lateral 

movement was too small to detect, 

at least during the few years that 

have <been available for study. 

By far the most significant conclusion reached by the glaciologists 

was a refutation of Tarr and Martin's theory (1912) that earthquakes are likely to initiate rapid 

advances or surges in glaciers by 

triggering extraordinary numbers 

of avalanches in the glaciers' alimentation area. Post (1967), on 

the basis of long-continued studies, 

thinks that the surges actually 

bear no relation to earthquakes. 

Many such surges involve sudden 

advances of ice from the upper to 

the lower parts of glaciers, with 

little or no advances of the termini. 

Knowledge that surges did not 

immediately result from this 

earthquake does not remove the 

danger that sudden advances of 

glaciers from other causes may increase flood hazards to places like 

Valdez (Coulter and Migliaccio, 

1966). 

ICE BREAKAGE 

In Alaska and nearby Canada, 

ice was broken on lakes, streams, 

and bays over an area of more than 

100,000 square miles (fig. I). The 

cracked ice afforded an easily observed measure of the geographic 

spread of the earthquake's effects, 

but otherwise it had .minimal significance (Waller, 1968a, b; Plafker and others, 1969). Breakage 

did little physical damage except 

to a few beaver houses; in fact, 

the ice cover on many bodies of 

water probably diminished the intensity of destructive wave action. 

Some of the cracking was 

caused directly by seismic vibrations, but much more resulted 

from long-continued seiches, as on 

Portage Lake (Waller, 1966b) 

and on Kenai Lake (McCulloch, 

1966). Horizontal tectonic movements of the landmass may have 

been a factor in causing ice breakage in some places. Cracking of 

ice in lakes and fiords was doubtlessly initiated by subaqueous 

slides off delta fronts and by the 

local waves engendered by the 

slides. Still lacking is a firm explanation as to why the ice on a 

few lakes and stream segments, 

even near the earthquake epicenter, 

was unbroken. Possibly the earthquake vibrations did not coincide 

with the natural periods of these 

water bodies, so that there was no 

buildup of resonance. 

GROUND WATER 

The surging of water in wells 

and the temporary or long-lasting 

changes in water levels as a result 

of earthquakes have possibly been 

known ever since man has had 

wells. Within Alaska these effects 

from the 1964 earthquake were not 

much different from those observed in the past, though their 

magnitudes and durations may 

have been greater. Over most of 

the violently shaken area in southcentral Alaska, ejection of vast 

quantities of sediment-laden water 

through ground fractures lead in 

places to subsidence of the waterbearing sediments. As described 

by Waller (1966a, b), the water 

in many shallow wells surged, 

with or without permanent 

changes in level, pump systems 

failed, and water became turbid. 

In some of the subsided areas, 

coastal salt water encroached into 

some wells. Most of these effects 

were temporary, but some were 

permanent or semipermanent. 

Many artesian wells were also 

greatly affected. In several of these 

wells, at Anchorage for example, 

artesian-pressure levels dropped as 

much as 15 feet, either permanently or for several months. Perhaps this change was caused by 

porosity-increasing grain rearrangements in the aquifers, or by 

material displacements that permitted freer discharge of water at 

submarine exposures of the aquifers. Significantly, all such wells 

were in areas of known or inferred 

regional horizontal extension and 

vertical subsidence where porosityincreasing changes must have occurred in the aquifers (Plafker, 

1969). 

The observations of the earthquake's effects on ground water 

outside A'laska were of tremendous scientific significance. Other 

earthquakes have caused fluctuations or disturbances in the 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

ground-water regime at far-distant points, but never before have 

such effects been noted at as many 

recording stations and over the entire world (Vorhis, 1967; McGarr 

and Vorhis, 1968). "Hydroseisms" 

(a word coined by Vorhis to include all seismically induced water-level fluctuations other than 

tsunamis) were recorded in more 

than 700 water wells in Europe, 

Asia, Africa and Australia, and 

in all but four of the 50 States. 

Most records showed only brief 

fluctuation of the water level, but 

the fact that about a fourth of 

them showed either a lasting rise 

or decline in water level suggests 

that the earthquake caused a redistribution of strain throughout 

North America. Especially sensitive well stations recorded both 

the surface seismic waves that 

traveled the long way and those 

that traveled the short way around 

the globe. Some wells as far away 

as Georgia were muddied. 

SURFACE WATER 

Research into the earthquake's 

effects on surface waters yielded 

even more significant information 

than studies related to ground water. Within Alaska the effects were 

widespread, though they taught 

little that was new (Waller, 1966 

a, b). Seiches dewatered some 

lakes, fissures in streambeds and 

lakeshores caused water losws, regional tilting may have reduced 

the flow of some rivers, and landslides or avalanches blocked or 

diverted some streams. Recording 

gages on streams measured seiches 

like those on lakes. Perhaps the 

most interesting side effect of 

local surface-water reaction to the 

earthquake was the realization 

that some large Alaskan lakes may 

be useful as giant tiltmeters for 

future vertical strain measurements (McCulloch, 1966 ; Hansen 

and others, 1966). 

The observations of the effects 

on surface waters outside Alaska 

also were scientifically illuminating. The worldwide distribution 

of these effects was first reported 

by Vorhis (1967) ; later the findings were elaborated by McGarr 

and Vorhis (1968) to answer 

some of the theoretical questions 

that arose earlier. 

Seismic seiches caused by the 

Alaska earthquake were recorded 

at more than 850 gaging stations 

on lakes, ponds, and streams 

throughout North America and at 

four stations in Australia. The 

wiches are believed to be related to the amplitude distribution of short-period seismic surface waves, particularly those 

having periods that coincide with 

similar-length oscillation periods 

of certain bodies of water. They 

were concentrated in areas underlain by thick soft sediments or 

where sediment thickness increases 

abruptly. Major tectonic features 

exerted a strong control; the 

Rocky Mountains, for example, 

provided a wave guide along 

which seiches were more numerous 

than to either side. 

Preliminary as they are, the 

findings of McGarr and Vorhis 

have far-reaching significance in 

the understanding of the worldwide amplitude distribution of 

short-period seismic surface 

waves. Most importantly, McGarr 

and Vorhis (1968) have shown 

that records of seiches on surfacewater bodies, as measured by the 

network of water-level recorders 

that is necessarily much denser 

than any seismograph network 

can be, are powerful potentid 

tools in future studies of seismic waves and of earthquake 

intensities. 

Another lesson learned from the 

earthquake's effects on hydrology 

was that long-continued records - 

from properly equipped aobservation wells and gaging stations are 

essential to proper interpretation 

of postearthquake observations. 

OCEANOGRAPHIC 

EFFECTS 

Violent waves of diverse kinds 

and origins wrought havoc along 

the shores of south-central and 

southeast Alaska and on the no&hern Pacific shores from British 

Columbia to California; they also 

took most of the lives that were 

lost. Had the coast been more 

heavily populated or had the earthquake struck at high tide, damage 

would have been even more extensive than it was. 

The terminology applied to 

earthquake-generated water waves 

differs among various authorities, 

but in this series a general distinction is made between seismic sea 

waves, or tsunamis, and local 

waves. Local waves were generated {along the coast or in lakes 

and affected areas of limited extent ; they characteristically struck 

during or immediately after the 

earthquake. Seismic sea waves, or 

tsunamis, on the other hand, comprised a train of long-pesod waves 

that spread rapidly over the entire 

Pacific Ocean and struck the Alaskan coast, after shmaking had subsided. Locally, seiches, caused by 

the to-and-fro sloshing of water in 

partly or wholly confined basins, 

complicated the overall wave picture. 

Within Alaska, there were few 

instrumentally determined records 

of the waves, because all nearby 

tide gages were destroyed or incapacitated. The nature of both 

seismic sea waves and local waves, 

therefore, was deduced from the 

accounts of eyewitnesses, from direct observations of wave effects 

on shores, and from indirect underwater investigations. 

The wave histories at specific 

communities, and descriptions of 
24 ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 2 7, 1964 

their effects, are discussed in re- LOCAL WAVES dicate removal of material from 

ports on Whittier (Kachadoorian, Knowledge of the origin and im- Upper parts of slopes and deposi19G5) ; Valdez (Coulter and Mig- portance of earthquake-induced tion of slide debris in deeper water. 

liaccio, 1966) ; Homer local waves, hitherto very ~ame, Many of the destructive local 

1966a) ; Kodiak (Kachadwrian was greatly augmented by studies waves, however, cannot be dtriband Plafker, 1967) ; and Seward of the ~l~~k~ earthquake. one of uted with any assurance to sub- 

(Lemke, 1967). the most striking characteristics of aqueous slides. Some formed in 

Wave effects were also studied the ,, their localized shallow embayments or semialong most of the shores of Prince and seemingly erratic distribution, enclosed basins, where slides are 

William Sound, along the south though actually it was the distri- unlikely to have occurred. It seems 

end of the Kenai Peninsula, and on bution of the causative slides that possible that the horizontal disthe Kodiak island group (Plafker was erratic, rather the waves. placement of the landmass may 

and Kachadoorian, 1966; and Furthermore, the local waves have been either a primary or a 

Plafker and others, 1969). Con- struck during the arthquake, or contributing cause (Malloy, 1965 ; 

currently oceanographic studies of immediately after it, and had gen- Plafker, 1969, and Plafker and 

the effects of slides and waves were erally subsided long befsre the ar- others, 1969). lother factors that 

being studied in much of Prince rival of the train of seismic sea may have played a part are reWilliam Sound, Resurrection waves, or tsunamis. gional tilt, submarine faulting, 

Bay, and Ailiak Bay (G. A. Rus- There is much evidence of the and seismic vibrations, but none of 

nak, unpublished data). genetic relationship of the local these should have caused waves as 

The and significance of waves to subaqueous slides. In large as some of those observed. 

the seismic sea waves, both near the Plafker (1969) has suggested that general, this evidence consists of origin and throughout the long-period high-amplitude the Pacific, 

were investigated by Van Dorn wave-damage patterns that seiche waves recorded at Kenai 

(1964), among others. Though nec- radiate from the vicinity of deltaic ~~k~ may have bean caused priessarily based in larga part on a or morainal deposits, (2) presence marily by horizontal shift of the 

synthesis of facts collected by of subaerial scapps or ove~t~p- lake basin rather than by regional 

others after the earth- ened near-shore slopes, and (3) tilt as originally suggested by Mcquake, the exhaustive treatment of bathymetric measurements that in- Cull~ch (1966). 

all the kinds of waves and of their 

effects on coastal engineering struc- "* * * violent local waves * * * generated directly or 

tures by Wilson and T@rum (1968) indirectly by the earthquake at many places throughout the affected area * * * were more destructive is the most comprehensive that has than any similar waves ever recorded from previous 

appeared. earthquakes." 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 25 

The origin of many of the local 

waves must remain in doubt, but 

it is known, (1) that violent local 

waves were generated directly or 

indirectly by the earthquake at 

many places throughout the affected area, (2) that, except for 

the giant waves of Lituya Bay 

(Miller, 1960), they were more destructive than any similar waves 

ever recorded from previous earthquakes, and (3) that a basis for 

predicting the recurrence of some 

of them exists. 

SEISMIC SEA WAVES 

The first of a train of seismic 

sea waves (tsunamis) struck the 

shores of Kodiak Island, the Kenai 

Peninsula, and Prince William 

Sound from 20 to 30 minutes after 

the earthquake. Succeeding waves, 

with periods ranging roughly 

from 1 to 1% hours, followed during the night-the highest waves 

of the series commonly striking 

around midnight near the time of 

high tide. These waves were generally much lower in amplitude 

than the locally generated waves, 

and in some places resembled high 

fast-moving tides more than they 

did breaking waves. They flooded 

large areas and wrecked many vessels and shore installations, particularly where the land had 

already subsided because of tectonic downdrop or wmpaction of 

sediments. 

Outside Alaska, the seismic sea 

waves were measured instrumentally at many stations around the 

Pacific, even as far away as 

Antarctica (Donn, 1964; Donn 

and Posmentier, 1964). The second measurement ever recorded of 

the passage of a seismic sea wave 

in the open ocean was made near 

Wake Island (Van Dorn, 1964). 

The first such measurement, also 

made on the gage near Wake Island, recorded the tsunami from 

the March 9, 1957, earthquake in 

the Aleutian Trench (Van Dorn, 

1959). 

The seismic sea waves were generated on the Continental Shelf 

within the Gulf of Alaska. This 

mas shown clearly by the arrival 

times of initial wlaves, the distribution of wave damage, and the 

orientation of damaged shorelines. 

Other evidence, such as tide-gage 

records outside the area affected 

by the earthquake, demonstrates 

conclusively that the violent upward tilt of an enormous segment 

of the sea floor provided the force 

that initiated the seismic sea 

waves and oriented the wave train. 

The waves thus began along the 

linear belt of maximum tectonic 

uplift that extends from Montague Island to near Sitkalidak 

Island, southwest of Kodiak Island (Van Dorn, 1964; Spaeth 

and Berkman, 1965; PararasCarayannis, 1967; Plafker, 1969; 

Wilson and TZrum, 1968). Most 

of the shallow Continental Shelf 

off the coast of south-central 

Alaska was involved in the upward tilting of the sea floor, which 

forced a great quantity of water 

to drain rapidly from the shelf 

and into deeper water. Reconstruction of the source volume 

from available data on the area 

and amount of uplift suggests that 

the potential energy of the seismic 

sea waves was of the order of 

2 x ergs, or roughly 0.1 to 0.5 

percent of the seismic energy released by the earthquake (Pkfker, 

1969). 

The source area of a train of 

seismic sea waves and their originating mechanisms were better 

defined for the Alaska earthquake 

of 1964 than for most other earthquakes that have been studied. As 

Van Dorn says (1964), "Never before has sufficient detailed knowledge been obtained on sea-floor 

motion, type of motion, and the 

deep-water spectrum offshore, to 

permit a convincing reconstruction of the generating mechanism." Furthermore, the seismic 

sea waves generated by the Alaska 

earthquake largely confirmed empirical-statistical data used by 

oceanopaphers to relate the size 

of the source area and tsunami 

heights and periods to the energy 

released by the initiating earthquake (Wilson and TZrum, 1968). 

"The first of a train of seismic sea waves (tmmmis) struck the shores of Kodiak 

Island, the Kenai Peninsula, and Prince William &und from 20 to 30 minutes 

after the mrthquake. * * * They flaoded large areas, and wrecked many ves~wh 

and shore iwtallatims, particularly where the land had already subs~Med because 

af tedonic downdrop or compaction of sediments." 
ALASKA EARTHQUARE, MARCH 27, 1'964 

MISCELLANEOUS 

EFFECTS 

The earthquake had many other 

effects of great economic, sociologic, and biologic importance. 

These are summarized briefly by 

Hansen and others (1966) and are 

treated at length by many writers. 

There remain a few effects, at least 

partly related to geology, that are 

worth noting here. 

AUDIBLE AND SUBAUDIBLE 

EARTHQUAKE SOUNDS 

Audible sounds that accompany 

or even precede the onset of an 

earthquake have been reported 

many times in history, but such 

sounds have never been instrumentally recorded and seldom have 

they been scientifically authenticated. The Alaska earthquake of 

1964 followed the pattern-numerous observers reported hearing 

sounds, but, so far as is known, no 

instrumental records were made of 

these sounds. 

On Kodiak Island, several witnesses heard a low-pitched rumbling noise about 5 seconds before 

the initial tremors were felt. Many 

Kodiak people also heard deep 

rumbles just before some of the 

aftershocks were felt (Plafker and 

Kachadoorian, 1966). At Homer, 

too, and at Portage Lake near 

Turnagain Arm, some people 

heard rumbling sounds a few seconds before feeling the initial 

shock. They also heard sounds 

variously described as rumbling, 

cracking, and popping during the 

period of violent earth motion 

(Waller, 1966 a, b), as well as the 

windlike noise of rapidly swaying 

tree branches. Crackling sounds in 

the ground were heard at South 

Naknek, 350 miles southwest of the 

epicenter (Plafker and others, 

1969). Observers at Valdez (Coulter and Migliaccio, 1965), in the 

Copper River Basin (Ferrians, 

1966), on the Kenai Peninsula, in 

Prince William Sound, and at 

many other places also heard 

sounds during the quake (Chance, 

1966%). 

That the Alaska earthquake produced sounds audible to alert observers over a wide area seems a 

well established fact, though the 

cause of the sounds has not been 

determined. In all probability 

there were many causes, operating 

at different places and at slightly 

different times. Cracking or bending of trees, breaking of ice on 

water bodies or in glaciers, and 

ground fractures in frozen nearsurface soils all probably made 

audible sounds. How much, if any, 

of the sound effects can be ascribed 

to deeper sources, such as breaking 

of rock along faults in depth or to 

crunching of sands and gravels as 

they were consolidated by vibration or as they formed slides on 

land or under water, is unknown. 

It seems possible, however, that 

some of the sounds, particularly 

those that preceded recognizable 

ground vibrations, were caused by 

processes such as these. It also 

seems possible that the earthquake 

tremors, coupled to the overlying 

air envelope, caused audible vibrations. This explanation would 

apply particularly to the fastmoving, lower amplitude P waves 

that can often be heard but not 

felt. 

Although audible sound waves 

are not known to have been recorded, subaudible sound waves 

were recorded. Waves of very low, 

subaudible frequencies were recorded by the National Bureau of 

Standards at stations in Washington, D.C., Boulder, Colo., and Boston, mas^. These sound waves, generated by the earthquake itself and 

by seismic waves as they passed 

through the earth, excited the atmosphere. In addition, Rayleigh 

waves (surface seismic waves) 

that displaced the ground created 

subaudible sound waves that traveled upward, with amplification, 

to the ionosphere. The wultant 

oscillakion of the ionosphere was 

detected by mean6 of reflected radio waves (Bolt, 1964; Davies and 

Baker, 1965 ; Leonard and Barnes, 

1965; Smith, 1966; and Row, 

1967). 

MAGNETIC EFFECTS 

A recording magnetometer in 

the city of Kodiak recorded several magnetic disturbanaes a little 

more than 1 hour before the earthquake struck. Moore (1964) thinks 

that the magnetic events so recorded may have resulted from 

piezo-magnetic effects of rocks undergoing a change in stress. He 

also suggests that magnetic monitoring may provide a means of 

predicting major earthquakes in 

time ix save lives and property. 

VISIBLE SURPACE WAVES 

As with audible sound waves, 

the pasage of visible waves over 

the surface of the ground during 

strong earthquakes has been reported by many observem. The 

Alaska earthquake of 1964 was no 

exception to the general rule; 

many observers reported seeing 

ground waves, biut their observations were not substantiated 

instrumentally. 

On the Kodiak island group, 

surfam waves reportedly were seen 

at Ouzinkie and Afognak. These 

waves, perhaps propagated in 

ground that had become semifluid 

with vibration, were estimated at 

about 30 feet in length and about 

3 feet in height (Plafker and 

Kachadoorian, 1966). 

Many people reported seeing 

surface waves in various parts of 

the Copper River Basin. -4t a 

point 100 miles from the epicenter, 

the waves were said to be about 

10 feet apart and 3 feet high. At 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

165 miles from the epicenter, they 

were reported as longer and lower, 

with lengths of 50 to 60 feet and 

heights of 18 to 20 inches (Ferrians, 1966). 

Perhaps the most reliable observation of surface-wave amplitudes was made by an experienced 

geologist at Valdez. As quoted by 

Coulter and Migliaccio (1966), 

the geologist noticed a 6-foot 

youth standing 410 feet away from 

him. As crests passed the youth, 

he appeared in full sight, with one 

trough between him and the observer. Passage of troughs caused 

him to sink partly out of sight. The 

observations indicate wave heights 

of 3 to 4 feet and lengths of several hundred feet. 

There is no qumtion that many 

people saw, or thought they saw, 

waves on the ground surface in 

many places. Whether all the 

waves were real or imaginary, and 

if real, what caused them, must remain subjects for speculation. 

PERMAFROST 

Because it was one of the few 

well-studied earthquakes that has 

affected perenially frozen ground, 

the 1964 Alaska earthquake added 

much to our knowledge of the reaction of frozen ground to seismic 

shock. Permafrost, or perennially 

frozen ground, has long been a 

perplexing and exasperating engineering problem in arctic and subarctic regions. The perennially 

frozen unconsolidated deposits 

affected by the 1964 quake behaved 

like solid rock and were far less 

susceptible to seismic vibration 

than were similar but unfrozen 

deposits. 

The seismic response of permafrost was studied in detail in the 

Copper River Basin (Ferrians, 

1966). In the basin, most finegrained sediments are perennially 

frozen from depths as great as 200 

feet to within 1 to 5 feet of the surface, except beneath cleared areas 

where the top of the permafrost 

is 10 to 20 feet deep. Coarsegrained deposits along the major 

streams and deposits close to large 

deep lakes generally are free of 

permafrost. 

There were no ground cracks 

and little or no vibration damage 

of any kind where permafrost approaches the surface. Thus ice-rich 

perennially frozen ground appar - 

ently behaved much like bedrock 

in transmitting and reacting to 

earthquake shocks. However, 

perched ground water between 

permafrost and the seasonally 

frozen layer at' the surface caused 

some fissuring and other evidences 

of vibration. 

CABLE BREAKS 

Several underwater cables were 

broken by the earthquake vibrations or by subaqueous slides. The 

only one broken in the heavily devastated area was the Federal Aviation Agency cable under Beluga 

Lake at Homer (Waller, 1966a). 

This break was probably caused 

by vibration, for the lake is shallow and there is no evidence of off - 

shore-slides. 

The Southeastern Alaska coaxial 

submarine cable was broken at a 

point 19% miles south of Skagway, in Lynn Canal, near the 

mouth of the Katzehin River; a 

similar break occurred in this area 

as a result of the 1958 earthquake. 

The 1964 break occurred early on 

the morning of March 28 and was 

apparently caused by a submarine 

slide in silt that was triggered by 

the seismic sea wave (Lt. Col. 

Alexander A 1 v a r a d o , USAF, 

written commun. to George Plafker, May 1, 1964). 

Near Port Alberni, British Columbia, the Commonwealth Pacific Communication Service cable 

from Port Alberni to Hawaii was 

ruptured. This break occurred 

only 2 minutes after the onset of 

the earthquake and was evidently 

caused by seismic vibrations. The 

cables between Port Angeles, 

Washington, ,and Ketchikan and 

between Ketchikan and Sitka were 

unaffected (Comdr. H. G. Conerly, 

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 

oral commun. to George Plafker, 

May 1964). 

TUNNELS, MINES, AND 

DEEP WELLS 

One aspect of the earthquake's 

effects on manmade structures that 

deserves further study is the fact 

that no significant damage has 

been reported to underground 

openings in bedrock such as tunnels, mines, and deep wells, although some rocks and earth were 

shaken loose in places. The Alaska 

Railroad tunnel near Whittier 

(McCulloch and Bonilla, 1970) 

and the coal mines in the Matanuska Valley (Plafker and others, 

1969) were undamaged. The tunnel and penstocks at the Eklukna 

hydroelectric project were damaged only by cobbles and boulders 

that were washed through the intake structures (Logan, 1967). A 

small longitudinal crack in the 

concrete floor of the Chugach Electric Association tunnel between 

Cooper Lake and Kenai Lake is 

believed to have been caused by the 

earthquake (Fred 0. Jones, oral 

commun., 1967). 

The collars of some drilled wells 

were displaced by vibration or by 

consolidation of adjacent soils, and 

a few water wells and one abandoned exploratory oil well near 

Yakataga were sheared off. There 

are, however, no reports of damage to any wells that were more 

than a few hundred feet deep, such 

as the many oil and gas wells in 

and along Cook Inlet. In and near 

the landslide areas in Anchorage, 

most sewers and other underground utility lines were exten- 
28 ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 19 64 

sively fractured or displaced (Burton, in Logan, 1967 ; Hansel?, 1965 ; 

Eckel, 1967 ; McCulloch and Bonilla, 1970). Ground fissures also 

broke many buried pipelines in 

Seward (Lemke, 1967) and elsewhere. In Valdez, Coulter and 

Migliaccio (1966) were able to use 

the horizontal separation of water 

lines to measure the amount of lateral displacement back of the main 

submarine slide. Elsewhere, pipelines that traversed unfissured 

ground received little or no 

damage. 

ARCHEOWGIC REMAINS 

Regional and local subsidence of 

Kodiak Island, as elsewhere, resulted in increased erosion of some 

sediments along the shore. In a few 

places near Ouzinkie, erosion exposed rich accumulations of stone 

and bone artifacts mixed with 

bones of sea animals. The archeologic remains occur at two horizons, separated by dark soil. Apparently they belong to the Aleut 

or Koniag cultures, but some may 

be older (Chaffin, 1966). Elsewhere in the Kodiak group of islands, many coastal archeological 

sites in subsided areas were 

made inaccessible or were subjected b accelerabd erosion (Plafker and Kachadoorian, 1966). 

EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS, GEOLOGY AND DAMAGE 

The earthquake took 130 lives loss of life and the structural dam- ing and subsiding loose sediments. 

and caused more than $300 million age to the earthquake and its ef- The violent local waves that acin damage to manmade structures. fects, especially as these effects companied or followed most suhDets~ils are not recounted here, but were modified by local geology and aqueous slides wero major indirect 

an attempt is made to relate the terrain. effects. Subaqueous slides and 

Aside from a number of casual- waves were together responsible 

ties that resulted from airplane for spreading the few major fires 

and other accidents during the re- that ha,d already started in petroconstruction period, all casualties leum storage areas. These fim, 

to living creatures resulted either incidenbally, taught another imdirectly from the earth tremors portant lesson. In earthquakeand tectonic displacements or in- prone regions, petroleum-storage 

directly from water waves gener- tanks are especially vulnerable to 

ated by them. Ground motion earthquake vibrations; to the excaused structural d,amage primar- tent possible, they should be 

ily by (1) direct shaking of some placed away from built-up areas 

structures, (2) triggering land- and should be protected by revetslides and subaqueous slides, (3) ments to amid spreading of fires 

cracking underlying unconsoli- (Rinne, 1967). 

dated deposits, and (4) consolidat- Tectonic ground displacements, 

both up and down, caused longterm damage to coastal communi- 

"Subaqueous slides and waves were to- ties and facilities, either 

gether responsible for spreading the 

few major fires that had already directly by changing the shore 

started in storage areas.,3 relative to sea level or indirectly 

by the seismic sea waves generated. 

In addition, widespread horizontal tectonic movements may 

have generated some of the destructive local waves. Local waves 

and seismic sea waves together 

took most of the human lives that 

were lost. 

*. ~~. - -- - 

F 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 29 

GEOLOGIC CONTROL OF 

VIBRATION DAMAGE 

The long-known fact that the 

intensity and duration of earthquake vibrations are enhanced 

in unconsolidated water-saturated 

ground was evident in the distribution of vibration damage in 

Alaska. The varied intensity and 

effect of shaking were much more 

closely related to the local geology 

than to distance from the epicenter. In general, intensity was greatest in areas underlain by thick 

saturated unconsolidated deposits, 

least on indurated bedrock, and 

intermediate on coarse gravel with 

low water table, on morainal deposits, or on moderately indurated 

sedimentary rocks of late Tertiary 

age. 

Nowhere was there significant 

vibration damage to structures 

founded on indurated bedrock or 

on bedrock that was only thinly 

veneered by unconsolidated deposits. Where direct comparisons 

could be made, as at Whittier 

(Kachadoorian, 1965) and Cordova (Plafker and others, 1969), 

the difference in the behavior of 

buildings on bedrock and of those 

on loose material was striking. 

Distance from the epicenter, 

too, had far less influence on the 

intensity of vibration damage than 

did the local geology. Buildings on 

bedrock that were only 12 to 25 

miles from the instrumental epicenter mere undamaged except for 

jostled contents (Plafker and 

others, 1969), and the ice on some 

small rock-enclosed lakes in this 

vicinity mas not even cracked 

(Waller, 1966b). Buildings at 

Anchorage, however, more than 75 

miles away from the epicenter but 

founded on unconsolidated materials, were demolished by earthquake vibrations (Hansen, 1965). 

Some structural damage resulted 

from shaking at even greater 

distances. 

The lack of coincidence between 

structural damage and distance 

from the epicenter is partly explained by the fact that the generally accepted instrumental epicenter marks only one of several 

widely scattered points directly 

beneath which strong motion was 

centered at various moments during the history of the earthquake 

(Wyss and Brune, 1967). Moreover, selective damage to larger 

and taller buildings at Anchorage 

is attributed by Steinbrugge 

(1964) to the fact that longer 

period large-amplitude ground 

motions are dominant at some distance from earthquake epicentral 

regions, in contrast to the shortperiod motions that characterize 

close-in localities. 

Locally, seismic vibrations 

caused minor structural damage to 

communities situated on late Tertiary sediments or on unconsolidated materials with low water 

table on the Kenai Peninsula, the 

west shore of Cook Inlet, in the 

Matanuska Valley, and elsewhere 

(Waller, 1966b; Plafker and 

others, 1969). 

By far the most severe vibratory 

damage to buildings or to highway 

and railroad roadbeds and bridges 

occurred in areas of relatively 

thick, noncohesive unconsolidated 

deposits, generally where the 

materials were he grained and 

where the water table was close to 

the surface. Anchorage, the Alaska 

transportation systems (Kachadoorian, 1968; McCulloch and 

I3onilla, 1970), the FAA station 

on the Copper River Delta, and 

Girdwood and Portage on Turnagain Arm (Plafker and others, 

1969) are examples of sites of such 

vibratory damage. At most of 

these places, and many others, 

more damage resulted from 

foundation failure than from direct vibration of buildings. 

Ground cracks, differential compaction, and liquefaction of saturated materials accompanied by 

landspreading toward topographic depressions all were contributory factors. 

"Buildings at Anchomge, however, mow than 75 miles away from the epicenter but founded cm unconsolidated materials, were 

demolished by earthquake vibrations." 
ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 2,7, 1964 

SURFACE FAULTS 

From the standpoint of public 

safety, perhaps the most important bit of knowledge that was reemphasized by the Alaska earthquake is that faults, with breakage 

and displacement of surface materials, are relatively minor causes 

of widespread earthquake damage. 

In Alaska, of course, there were 

no fault displacements in populated places. The only displacements on land were on uninhabited 

Montague Island in Prince William Sound, though there is good 

reason to believe that rocks on the 

sea floor were broken and displaced for a long distance southwestward of the island (Malloy, 

1964; Plafker, 1967). Aside from 

the destruction and death dealt by 

sea waves, all of the damage was 

done by seismic vibration or its 

direct consequences. 

The lesson is clear for all communities in earthquake-prone regions that the presence of an active 

fault, such as the San Andreas in 

California, constitutes only one of 

the dangers from future earthquakes. Delineations of such faults 

and predictions as to where, how, 

and when they may move are 

essential, for they may very well 

localize areas of great destruction 

when an earthquake strikes. The 

lesson of the Alaska earthquake, 

however, is that no one can take 

comfort simply because he, his 

home, or his town is some distance 

removed from an active fault or 

from the possible epicenter of a 

future earthquake. The foundation on which he builds is far more 

significant. 

LANDSLIDES 

Translatory slides at Anchorage 

(Hansen, 1966) and subaqueous 

196'7)) and elsewhere were all VERTICAL TECTONIC 

caused indirectly by seismic vibra- DISPLACEMENTS AND 

tions, though horizontal tectonic SEISMIC SEA WAVES 

displacement of the land may have 

been a factor in starting some of 

them. All of these slides were in 

soft, saturated unconsolidated materials in which the vibration 

caused sufficient loss of strength 

to make preearthquake slopes 

unstable. Such materials were 

consolidated to some extent by vibration, but it is doubtful that 

consolidation was sufficient to 

make any of the materials significantly less prone to failure in the 

event of future earthquakes. 

Many of the violent local waves 

were generated by known subaqueous slides, either as backfills of the 

space left by the downslid material or on opposite shores where the 

spreading slide material pushed 

water ahead of it (McCulloch, 

1966). Subaqueous slides that occurred as a series of small slumps 

apparenhly did not generate 

waves. Many of the other local 

waves that develomd around the 

Tectonic uplift and subsidence 

of the land relative to sea level 

wrought much long-term damage, 

either by inundating shore installations or by raising them above 

all but the highest tides. These effects were independent of local geologic conditions, except where the 

net amount of submergence or 

emergence was affected by vibration-caused surficial subsidence of 

unconsolidated sediments. Homer 

Spit (Waller, 1966a) and several 

oonlmunities on the Kodiak group 

of islands (Kachadoorian and 

Plafker, 1966) provided good examples of submergence resulting 

from both tectonic and surficial 

subsidence. SeIdovia (Eckel, 

1967), Hope, Girdwood, Portage, 

and several other towns (Plafker 

and others, 1969) all underwent 

tectonic subsidence ; remedid raising or relocation of buildings. 

roadways, and wharves was necee 

shores of Prince ~illiam Sound Sary. 

are suspected to have been caused In Prince William Sound, 

by subaqueous slides, though some where the land was technically 

that struck the shores of fiords and raised, dredging of harbors and 

semienclosed embayments must lengthening of piers were neceshave had other causes. sary to compensate for the lower 

'Iides at Whittier (Kachadoorian' "Translatory ~lid~ at Anchorage and subaqueogs slides * * * elsewhple were all 1965)) Valdez (Coulter and Migli- caused indirectly by seismic vibratioa, though horizontal tectonic displacement d 

accio, 1966), Seward (Lemke, the land my have been a faotor in &arting some." 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 31 

relative water levels. Cordova, 

Hinchinbrook Island, and Tatitlek were the places most affected 

(Eckel, 1967; Plafker and others, 

1969). 

Of far greater importance than 

the tectonic uplift and subsidence, 

so far as damage was concerned, 

was an indirect effect-the generation of seismic sea waves (tsunamis) by the sudden uplift of a 

large expanse of the ocean floor. 

Besides the damage they did to 

Alaska, the tsunamis struck southward as far as California. They 

took 12 lives and wrecked the 

waterfront at Crescent City, 

Calif., and did appreciable daniage to shore facilities as far away 

as Hawaii. 

Local geologic conditions had 

little effect on the amount of damage caused by seismic sea waves, 

though local topography, both 

above and below water, was of 

great importance in guiding and 

refracting the waves ,and controlling their runups. One local 

geologic complication of sea-wave 

damage was in the Kodiak harbor; 

here strong currents generated by 

the tsunami scoured all unwnsolidated material from the bedrock 

floor, making pile driving difficult 

or impossible (Kachadoorian and 

Plafker, 1966). 

GROUND AND SURFACE 

WATER HYDROLOGY 

Local geology helped control 

the earthquake's effects on wate~r. 

In areas underlain by unwnsolidated deposits where ground fissures occurred, there was temporary loss of water in the floors of 

some lakes and streams, or ground 

water was emitted from beneath 

the surf ace through mudspouts 

and waterspouts. In some places, 

ejected ground water flooded valley floors (McCulloch and Bonilla, 

1970). Vibration caused rearrangement of particles in aquifers, with 

resultant surges in wells and temporary or permanent changes in 

water levels. Regional or local subsidence led to intrusion of sea 

water in some coastal aquifers. 

Regional geology, too, to a large 

extent controlled the earthquake's 

effects on hydrologic systems, as 

shown in the conterminous United 

States, where McGarr and Vorhis 

(1968) found that seiches in wells 

and bodies of surface water were 

controlled by geologic structures 

of regional or continental dimensions. 

- 

BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF THE EARTHQUAKE 

SOCIOECONOMIC 

BENEFITS 

Devastating as was the Alaska 

earthquake of March 27, 1964, it 

had many long-term beneficial effects. Most of these benefits were in 

the fields of socioeconomics and 

engineering and are only mentioned briefly here. 

Econmiclally, the Federal monies and other funds spent for reconstruction exceeded the total 

damage cost of the earthquake, 

largely because of decisions to 

upgrade or enlarge facilities 

beyond their preearthquake condition. 

Many improvements resulted 

from the aid poured into reconstruction. One whole town, Valdez, 

was razed and rebuilt on a more 

stable site; the area of one of the 

most disastrous landslides in the 

business heart of Anchorage was 

permanently stabilized by a gigantic wrth buttress; new and better 

port facilities were provided in all 

the affected seacoast toms; the 

fishing fleet acquired, under very 

favorable financial terms, new 

boats and modern floating or landbased canneries. The pattern of 

rail-sea transport was drastically 

changed, partly because of the 

discovery that the port of Anchorage could actually be used yearround, despite the ice in Knik Arm 

that had hitherto closed it in winter. (This change of pattern, of 

course, was hardly a benefit to Seward and Valdez.) Forced by pressures of reconstruction, builders 

learned that plastic tents over their 

buildings permitted construction 

work to continue during the subArctic winter. These and many 

other direct benefits from the 

earthquake are summarized by 

George and Lyle and by Chance 

(in Hansen and others, 1966). 

One of the more important 

social-political-economic developments was use by the Federal Government of a new device to channel 

and control reconstruction and rehabilitation aid : The Federal Reconstruction and Development 

Commission for Alaska represented both the legislative and the 

executive arms of Government and 

included the heads of all Federal 

agencies that had a part to play in 

the reconstruction effort. One of 

the Commission's offspring, the 

Scientific and Engineering Task 

Force, brought soils and structural 

engineers, geologists and seismologists together in an effort to apply 
ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 19 64 

"Many improvements resulted frrAn the aid poured into reconstruction. One whole town, Valdez, was razed and rebuilt on a more 

stable site." 

their combined skills to guide 

decisions as to land use (Eckel and 

Schaem, in Hansen and others, 

1966). The many opportunities 

that were provided by the reconstruction effort for team work and 

mutual understanding between engineers and earth scientists were 

themselves among the more valuable byproduct benefits of the 

earthquake. In addition, scientists 

learned much that helps toward a 

better understanding of earthquake mechanisms and effects and 

how to investigate them. They also 

learned many new basic facts 

about the structural and historical 

geology and the hydrology of a 

large part of south-central Alaska. 

Some of these scientific benefits 

from the earthquake and its investigation are worthy of brief 

mention. 

DIRECT GEOLOGIC 

BENEFITS 

Truly beneficial direct geologic 

effects of the earthquake were few. 

Navigation conditions and harbor 

facilities were improved in a few 

places by tectonic uplift or subsidence, and tidewater and beach 

lands were improved or extended. 

For example, the subsidence that 

led to tidal flooding of Homer Spit 

also exposed new deposits of material to erosion, with the result 

that the spit began at once to heal 

itself and to build new storm berms 

(Stanley, in Waller, 1966; Stanley, 1968). Landslide hazards were 

averted, at least for some years to 

cornr, by uplift of Hinchinbrook 

Island ; ellsewhere imminent landslides and avalanches that might 

well have harmed people or property later were harmlessly trigge~ed by the earthquake. Though 

the direct !physical benefits of the 

earthquake were few, the earth 

sciences benefitted greatly from 

the intensive investigations of it. 

The knowledge thus gained added 

not only to the general fund of 

human knowledge; more importantly, it creaked an awareness of 

many potential hazards, previously unrewgnized or ignored, 

both in Almka and in other earthquake-prone areas, and of how to 

apply earth-science knowledge to 

reduce such hazards. 

SCIENTIFIC BENEFITS 

NEW AND CORROBORATIVE 

GEOLOGIC AND 

HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION 

One of the richest rewards of 

the earthquake study lay in the 

additions to geological and hydrologic knowledge and in corroborations of existing theory. The 

myriad observations essential to 

understanding the effects of the 

Alaska earthquake threw much 

new light on earthquake processes 

and earthquake effects in general. 

In addition, the investigations 

added greatly to our scientific 

knowledge of a large part of 

Alaska. Some of the knowledge so 

produced might never have come 

.to light under ordinary circumstances. Other discoveries were advanced by many years under the 

earthquake-generated acceleration 

of basic investigations. 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 33 

The earthquake investigations 

led to better understanding of the 

regional tectonics of south-central 

,4laska. The regional gravity field 

was better defined than it had been 

before, and it was reevaluated in 

terms of ibs relation to the underlying geology and to changes 

caused by the earthquake. Data, 

hitherto unavailable, were provided on the seismicity of the region. Knowledge of the structure 

and age of the rocks was greatly 

expanded. Thanks b the need to 

understand the vertical tectonic 

displacements caused by the earthquake, new knowledge was obtained on the history of submergence and emergence throughout 

Holocene time. Field evidence was 

augmented by many new radiocarbon datings. Reconnaissance 

marine geological and geophysical 

studies were undertaken over much 

of the Continental Shelf, slope, 

and contiguous deep-sea floor. 

These studies have materially increased our understanding of the 

submarine areas. 

Detailed geologic maps became 

available for most of the affected 

cities and towns. Strip geologic 

maps along the ramifying rail and 

highway net provided a skeleton 

control of geologic knowledge of a 

wide area, particularly as to the 

distribution and nature of the un- 

"* * * the translatory slide that was so 

stood, althougl~ extrapolation of the 

will still be extremely difficult!' 

consolidated deposits on which 

man does most of his building. 

Accurate and abundant geodetic 

control, on stable ground, is essential for evaluating tectonic movements in the mobile belts of the 

\vorld; the earthquake of 1964 gave 

impetus to establishment of such 

control. For a significant part of 

Alaska itself, better geodetic 

control resulted from the earthquake-caused need for accurate triangulation and leveling and for 

establishment of tidal bench marks 

and tide gages. These data will be 

invaluable in any studies of future 

tectonic dislocations of the land 

surface. 

Support for the hypothesis that 

some great landslides and avalanches travel on cushions of 

compressed air came from the 

earthquake studies. Conversely, 

evidence was brought to light that 

tends to discount a widely held 

theory of glacial advance as a result of earthquakes (Tarr and 

Martin, 1912). 

One kind of landslide that has 

received little attention in the past 

from geologists and engineersthe translatory slide that was so 

disastrous in Anchorage-is now 

well understood, although extrapolation of the knowledge gained 

to future earthquakes mill still be 

extremely difficult. Extensive studies led to the beginning of an 

explosion of new knowledge on 

the behavior of sensitive clays and 

sands under dynamic conditions. 

A minor byproduct of the Anchorage landslide studies was the 

discovery of microfossils that shed 

new light on the environmental 

conditions under which the Bootlegger Cove Clay was laid down, 

hitherto a puzzling point for geologists. Other byproducts of these 

studies were (1) production of detailed topographic maps of highly 

complex landslide are= and (2) 

development of the "graben rule" 

(Hansen, 1965) by which the 

depth to the sliding plane of a 

translatory slide can be easily and 

rather accurately estimated. 

Too little study was made of 

the response of shore processes to 

sudden changes in relative sea 

levels, but many bibs of useful information were discovered nevertheless. 

The shape, character, and stability of fiord deltas built to deep 

water is now better known than 

before as a result of intensive geologic, soils, hydrographic, and 

hydrologic studies both on land 

and under water. Suoh studies were 

essential to an understanding of 
34 ALASKA EARTHQUARE, MARCH 27, 19 64 

the destructive subaqueous slides 

that had been almost unknown as 

important effects of great earthquakes. 

Knowledge of the water resources of south-central Alaska 

was increased by earthquakeprompted studies of ground and 

surface waters ; much new information also came to light as to the 

relations between earthquakecaused ground fissures and local 

water tables. The study of hydroseisms, or seiches and surges in 

surface-water bodies and wells, 

throughout the world produced 

greater understanding of the relation of hydrology to seismology. 

Seismic sea waves, or tsunamis, 

have been studied intensively for 

many years because of the dangers 

they hold for coastal communities. 

The Alaska earthquake of 1964, 

however, presented an unparalleled opportunity to relate the 

source, generation, and propagation of a sea-wave train to measurable tectonic dislocations of the 

crust. 

NE3V AND IMPROVED 

INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES 

Virtually all investigative techniques known to earth scientists 

were applied in studies of the 

Alaska earthquake. Some, such as 

scuba diving, bathymetric surveys, 

and use of helicopters and fixedwing aircraft were, of course, not 

new, but their widespread application to specific earthquake-connected problems was either new or 

little-used in the past. Many unorthodox photogrammetric, engineering, biological, and geodetic 

techniques and data were applied 

in the attempts to appraise preearthquake conditions in areas of 

poor horizontal and vertical control. 

Some of these techniques, discussed briefly below, were new to 

Alaska or to individual investigators assigned there. A secondary 

result of the earthquake investigations of no mean significance, 

therefore, was the development of 

a large cadre of experienced and 

technologically well-equipped scientists who will be available for 

knowledgeable investigations of 

future great earthquakes. 

Of utmost importance for the 

future is the fact that the knowledge gained from the Alaskan experience can be adapted by the 

scientific community to underline 

possible hazards in other earthquake-prone areas. Thus, it should 

be possible to relate ground conditions to urban planning, zoning 

regulations, land building codes in 

suoh a manner to forestall 

or minimize future earthquake 

disasters. 

USES OF RECORDING GAGEB 

The records from continuously 

recording gages served purposes 

not originally intended. A waterlevel gage at the power station on 

Kenai Lake, for example, enabled 

McCulloch (1966) to make a precise study of seiche action in a 

closed basin and to draw conclusions of far-reaching importiance. 

Again, fluctuations in the recording of an automatic outside-air 

temperature recorder at Whittier 

gave a rough measure of the 

duration of earthquake vibrations there (Kachadoorian, 1965). 

Stream gages on Kodiak Island, 

designed to measure the levels of 

flowing streams, suddenly became 

excellent recorders of wave runup 

and even served as tide gages 

when the mouths of streams on 

which they were installed were 

brought within the reach of tides 

by local and regional subsidence 

(Plafker and Kachadoorian, 1966; 

Waller, 1966b). By far the most 

significant extension of knowledge 

of the usefulness of recording 

gages me from the study of hydroseisms in wells and on surface waters on continent-wide or 

even larger bases. Investigations 

showed that, among other results, 

a network of recording water-level 

gages can act as a valuable adjunct 

to the worldwide seismograph network. It was also shown that any 

earthquake near a coast that is 

capable of causing as great fluctuations as that recorded by the 

Nunn-Bush well in Minnesota is 

also capable of generating a seismic sea wave (Vorhis, 1967; McGarr and Vorhis, 1968). 

TELEVISION FOR UNDBRGROUND 

OBSERVATIONS 

A novel application of television 

to the mapping of cracks in buried 

utilities-and incidentally of fractures or fault displacements in 

the surrounding soil-is described 

by Burton (in Logan, 1967). To 

avoid costly excavation of buried 

utility systems, a small-diameter 

borehole television camera was 

drawn through the ducts. Cracks 

were clearly visible and easily 

measured; their location and the 

amount and direction of offset of 

the ducts added materially to the 

general knowledge gained from 

other sources as to the character 

of ground movements in the Anchorage landslide areas. 

LAKES AS TILTMETERS 

Kenai Lake was the only long 

lake that happened to have bench 

marks at both ends; hence McCulloch (1966) was able to use it as 

a unique giant tiltmeter. It gave 

a permanent record of landwarping caused by the earthquake. McCulloch's method of comparing 

the preearthquake height of the 

lake surface with preearthquake 

bench marks at the two ends of the 

lake necessarily left some ambiguity in the measurements because 

of difficulty in locating the preearthquake bench marks accurately, but it left no doubt whatever 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

"Measurement of the displacement of intertidal sessile marine organisms emerged 

as one of the most useful techniques for determining vertical tectonic movements 

along coasts." 

that the Kenai Lake basin was 

tilted westward about 3 feet. As 

a direct outgrowth of the earthquake investigations, and in order 

to monitor future crustal changes 

in south-central Alaska, a network 

of permanent bench marks has 

now been established on the shores 

of 17 large lakes within a 500-mile 

radius of Anchorage. Thwe bench 

marks were referenced to the water levels of the lakes so that the 

direction and amount of any tilting can be obtained from periodic 

monitoring (Hansen and Eckel, 

1966). A systematic study of these 

lake levels was started by D. S. 

McCulloch and Arthur Grantz in 

the summer of 1966 (written commun., 1968). 

MEASUREMENT OF LAND-LEVEL 

CHANGBS 

Measurement of the displacement of intertidal sessile marine 

organisms emerged as one of the 

most useful techniques for determining vertical tectonic movements along coasts. The technique 

had been used elsewhere, by Tarr 

and Martin (1912), for example, 

who studied the effects of the 

Yakutat Bay earthquake of 1899. 

With the aid of Dr. G Dallas 

Hanna, a marine biologist of the 

California Academy of Sciences, 

however, the method was greatly 

refined 'and was applied by Plafker and his associates after the 

Alaska earthquake of March 27, 

1964, to a far larger area than ever 

before (Plafker, 1969). 

The deeply indented rocky 

coast of the area affected by the 

1964 earthquake was ideal for application of the method. The common acorn barnacle (BaZanus 

baZmwides (Linnaeus) ) , which is 

widely distributed and forms a 

prominent band with a sharply 

defined upper limit relative to tide 

level, was used in hundreds of 

"barnacle-line" measurements ; in 

its absence the common olivegreen rockweed (PUGUS distichus) 

was almost equally useful. The 

normal preearthquake upper 

growth limit of barnacles and 

rockweed relative to mean lower 

low water was determined empirically for the range of tidal conditions in the area at 17 localities 

where the amount of vertical displacement was known from preand post-earthquake tide-gage 

readings. Departures of the postearthquake barnacle line from its 

normal altitude above mean lower 

low water was taken as the amount 

of vertical displacement at any 

given place along the shore. By 

this method, absolute land-level 

changes could generally be measured to an accuracy within 1 foot; 

even under unfavorable circumstances, the error is probably less 

than 2 feet. 

Other methods of determining 

land-level changes along the coasts 

and elsewhere were also employed. 

Changes in gravity, as determined 

before and after the earthquake 

with the same instrument, were 

used by Barnes (1966) in computing elevation changes. In subsided 

areas, it was noted that wells became brackish, vegetation was 

killed by invasion of salt water, 

beach berms and stream deltas 

were shifted landward and built 

up to higher levels, and roads or 

other installations along the 

shores were inundated by the tides. 

In tectonically uplifted areas, indications of uplift include new 

reefs and islands, raised sea cliffs, 

and surf-cut platforms. Wherever 

foasib! , the method used was the 

most accurate known--comparison of pre- and postearthquake 

tide-gage readings at accurately 

placed tidal bench marks of th~e 

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. 

Even mhere gages were destroyed, 

some bench marks were recoverable and new series of readings 

could be made to determine landlevel changes. Unfortunately, 

there were only a few permanent 

automatic recording gages in 

south-central Alaska, and also 

many tidal bench marks were on 

unconsolidated deposits where ties 

to bedrock were difficult or impossible to reestablish. 
36 ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 19 64 

DISTINCTION BETWEEOI LOCAL AND 

REGIONAL SUBSIDENCE 

Clear distinctions between local 

subsidence caused by compaction 

of sediments and more widespread 

subsidence caused by tectonic 

downdrop of the region are not 

always easy to make. One technique used by Plafker and Kachadoorian (1966) on Kodiak and the 

nearby islands was to note the difference in amount of inundation 

of unconsolidated shoreline features as compared with nearby 

rock outcrops. The lowering of the 

rock cliff S, as measured by barnacle 

lines or other means, represents 

tectonic subsidence, whereas the 

lowering of beaches and delta surfaces represents a combination of 

tectonic subsidence and local compaction. By using a similar technique-measuring diff erences in 

the heights of piles whose tops 

were originally level-Plafker and 

Kachadoorian were able to distinguish between local compactionsubsidence of beach deposits md 

tectonic downdrop. 

Casings of deep wells may also 

be helpful in distinguishing local 

and regional subsidence. Near the 

end of Homer Spit, for example, 

the top of a well casing that had 

previously been a known height 

a.bove the ground stood several 

feet higher after the earthquake. 

Such protrusion could only have 

been caused by compaction and 

subsidence of the unconsolidated 

materials around the casing, for 

regional subsidence would have 

carried the casing down along 

with the land surface (Grantz and 

others, 1964, fig. 6). 

EVIDENCE OF WAVE ACTION 

AND RUNW 

As part of their studies of wavedamaged shorelines, various investigators made extensive use of 

natural materials that indicated 

the relative intensity and movement direction of waves (McCulloch, 1966; Plafker and others, 

1969; Plafker and Kachadoorian, 

1966). Runup heights were determined from strandlines of wavedeposited debris, abraded bark or 

broken branches in vegetation 

along the shore, and water stains 

on snow or structures. Movement 

directions of the waves could be 

inferred from the gross distribution of damage along shores, the 

directions in which limbs and 

trunks of trees and brush were 

scarred, bent, and broken off, and 

the directions in which objects 

such as buoys, structures, and 

shoreline deposits were displaced. 

To aid in comparative studies of 

wave-damaged shorelines along 

the coast, Plafker and Mayo devised a scale of relative magnitude 

of wave damage (Plafker and 

others, 1969)-a scale which was 

also used by McCulloch and Mayo 

(McCulloch, 1966) in modified 

form for plotting wave damage 

along the shore of Kenai Lake. 

The magnitude scale evolved is 

summarized below in order of 

increasing damage. 

Wave-magnitude scale 

[After Plafker and others, 1969, pl. 21 

1. Brush combed and scoured in direction of wave travel. Small 

limbs broken and minor scarring 

of trees. Runup heights only a few 

feet above extreme high-water 

level. Some wooden structures 

floated from foundations. 

2. Trees and limbs less than 2 inches 

in diameter broken. Small trees 

uprooted. Driftwood and Aner 

beach deposits thrown up above 

extreme high-water level. Piling 

"As part of their studies of wave-damaged shorelines, * * * investiga- swept from beneath some structors made * * * use of * * * materials that indicated (the * * * tures and wooden structures 

intensity and * * * direction of waves * * *" 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

floated off their foundations. 

Runup reacbed about 25 feet on 

steep shores. 

3. Trees and limbs as mucb as 8 inches 

in diameter broken; some large 

trees overturned. Rocks to cobble 

size eroded from intertidal zones 

and depasited above extreme 

high-water level. Soil stripped 

from bedrock areas. All inundated 

structures except those of reinforced concrete destroyed or 

floated away. Heavy machinery 

moved about. Maximum runup 

height 55 feet. 

4. Trees larger than 8 Inches in diamSCIENTIFIC PREPARATION 

FOR FUTURE 

EARTHQUAKES 

FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH 

Much more research is needed on 

the origins and mechanisms of 

earthquakes, on crustal structure 

and makeup, and on generation 

and prediction of tsunamis, local 

waves, and seiches. Better theoretical and experimental means of determining focal mechanisms are 

particularly needed, not only for 

scientific reasons but to aid earth 

scientists and structural engineers 

in relating focal mechanisms to 

ground motion and in relating the 

response of buildings to seismic 

shock. Study is needed too on all 

phases of rock and soil mechanics, 

with emphasis on the causes and 

nature of rock fracture in the 

earth's interior, on the response of 

different rocks to strong seismic 

motion, and on the behavior of soils 

under dynamic loading. 

Well-conceived research in any 

of these fields is certain to show 

results that apply to the overall 

earthquake problem. Existing research projects should be supported, and new ones, designed to 

fill the gaps in existing knowledge, 

eter broken, uprooted, and overturned. Boulders 'thrown above 

extreme high-water line. Loose 

rocks on cliffs moved. All strucrocks and equipment damaged or 

destroyed in inundated areas. 

Maximum runup height 70 feet. 

5. Extensive areas of total destruction 

of vegetation. Boulders deposited 

50 feet or more above normal extreme high-water level. Maximum 

runup height 170 feet. 

Using a wave-magnitude numbering system modified from an 

early version of Plafker and Mayo, 

CONCLUSIONS 

should be sought out and encouraged. In-depth studies by such 

groups as the Federal Cduncil for 

Science and Technology (1968) 

have clearly defined the needs. The 

rate of accomplishment of research, however, is far less than it 

should be. It cannot be too strongly 

recommended that funds be provided as soon as possible to support 

these necessary research programs. 

EARTHQUAKE FORECASTING 

AND EVALUATION 

OF EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS 

An ability to predict precisely 

the time, place, and magnitude of 

future earthquakes would represent an accomplishment of the 

greatest importance and signXcance to the scientific community. 

Because of the sociologic, political, 

and economic consequences that 

would result from erroneous predictions, and because useful results 

seem to be more easily attainable, 

it is believed that more attention 

should be directed, initially, toward forecasting in tems of the 

probability of earthquakes of certain magnitude ranges within seismic regions, rather than as to the 

exact time when the next earthquake may be expected at a specific 

to allow for the additional damage 

caused by ice, McCulloch (1966) 

mapped the distribution of intensity and maximum mnup of waves 

on the shores of Kenai Lake. The 

highest runup measured there was 

72 feet, where a wave struck a steep 

bank. By measuring the uppr 

limit of wave damage to trees in 

the direction of wave travel, McCulloch also was able to show the 

history of the wave crests that 

overran several deltas. 

place. Every forward step will be 

directly applicable to the development of better and more detailed 

earthquake-hazard maps based on 

improved knowledge of regional 

geology, fault behavior, and earthquake mechanisms. Hopefully, 

each step will also lead to better 

guides for land-use planning, 

hence to closer control of new construction in areas of potential 

earthquake hazards. 

One step toward useful forecasting of future earthquakes that 

should be taken at once is the preparation of earthquake-hazard 

maps. Such maps should be based 

in part on detailed knowledge of 

active faults and their behavior 

during historic and geologic times, 

as well as 'on recent instrumental 

observations of earthquakes and 

fault movements. Although an 

earlier version was adopted by the 

International Conference of 

Building Officials, by military 

construction agencies, and by some 

State and local governments, the 

official seismic risk map of the 

United States (U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1969) is too lacking in detail to be of value for 

other than very broad planning. 
ALASKA EARTHQUARE, MARCH 27, 19 64 

Preparation of useful earthquake-hazard maps, on whatever 

scale, will require close collaboration of earthquake engineers, seismologists, and geologists. These 

maps are essential to local and regional planning officials and to all 

others who are involved in formulation of plans for coping with 

earthquakes; their preparation 

should begin at once. They are, 

perhaps, especially needed by 

building-code officials and by designers of earthquake-resistant 

structures, for the response of 

foundation materials to seismic 

loads and the interactions between 

foundation and structure are just 

as important as antiseismic design 

of the structure. Such maps should 

be revised periodically as more 

geologic and seismic data become 

available. 

GEOLOGIC MAPPING OF 

COMMUNITIES 

Within the area that was tec~o~lically elevated or depressed by the 

Alaska earthquake, virtually all 

inhabited places were damaged or 

devastated, though the kind, 

amount, and causes of damage 

varied widely. Unfortunately, the 

very features that make a site desirable for building are often the 

ones that make it subject to earthquake damage. 

Ports, docks, and canneries obviously have to be built close to 

the shore. But the Alaskan experience indicates that the hazards are 

enormously compounded if such 

facilities are buillt on steep-faced 

deltas or other deposits of unconsolidated materials that are marginally stable under seismic wnditions. At many places, such deposits offer the only level surfaces 

near tidewater for easy or economical construction. If they must be 

utilized, advance knowledge that 

they are vulnerable to future 

"* * * the hazards are enormously campounded if [port, dock, and cannery] facilities 

am built cm steepfaced deltas * * * that are stable under seismic con- ditiollg. * * * If [such sites] must be utilized, knowledge that they are vulnerable 

to future earthquakes may stimulate planning to minimize the hazards." 

earthquakes may stimulzute planning to minimize the hazards. 

The same reasoning applies to 

earthquake hazards inland. If all 

towns, railroads, and highways 

could be builh on bedrock, they 

would be in comparatively little 

danger from any earthquake effects except surface faults, floods, 

or avalanches. Tliere would be vibration damage, of course, but 

much less 'of it than on materials 

other than solid rock. Unfortunately, building sites on bedrock 

are scarce and tend to be ewnomically infeasible, particularly in 

rugged terrain like Alaska's. Man 

mush therefore often build on less 

stable terrain, including watersaturated unconsolidated sediments, on potentially unstable 

slopes, and on or near active faults. 

Even though it is necessary to 

build in earthquake-vulnerable 

areas, builders and planners 

should recognize the potential hazard in advance and build accordingly. 

A vigorous program of geologic 

mapping should therefore be carried out in all inhabited earthquake-prone parts of the country. 

As a direct result of the lessons 

learned from lthe earthquake of 

1964, the U.S. Geological Survey 

began engineering-geologic studies of all of Alaska's coastal communities, whether or not they 

received ealrthquake damage. 

Similarly, the geology of some 

western cities and metropolitan 

complexes in the conterminous 

States is already known or is under study. However, many other 

town8 and cities that may well be 

struck by earthquakes in the future are without adequate geologic 

maps. All such communities, as 

well as places where communities 

are likely to spread or develop in 

the future, should be geologically 

mapped by trained personnel as 

rapidly as is feasible with available funds. The need is increasing 

at a far faster rate than is the required geologic information. 

The minimum geologic map for 

each community would delineake 

all acltive faults and landslidw and 

would discriminate between areas 

underlain by bedrock and khose 

underlain by unconsolidated materials. The next most needed refinement would be .to distinguish 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

areas of fine- and coarse-grained 

soils and to note whether the nearsurface layers are normally dry 

or saturated. The topographic base 

of the geologic map m-ould of 

course also show unconfined slopes 

bordering topographic depressions, even minor ones, where 

earth fissures or lakeral spreading 

of loose materials are to be anticipated. Such maps could be prepared quickly and at datively 

low cost. They would be extremely 

valuable in guiding authorities to 

wise decisions on land use, in the 

location of seismic instruments 

that would develop a maximum of 

useful information, and in the 

preparation or refinement of 

earthquake-hazard maps. 

Much more elaborate-and more 

costly-geologic maps can be prepared, of course. Such maps are 

needed for all larger communities 

and for smaller ones where the 

geologic and soils problems are 

complex. Ideally, these maps 

should contain all the geologic, 

topographic, and hydrologic detail that could have any bearing 

on the relative reaction of parts of 

the community's foundations to 

earthquake stresses. They should 

depict not only the makeup of the 

land, but the character of contiguous water bodies and their bottom 

materials. Knowledge of the 

character, shape, and stability of 

off -shore deposits derived from 

surface observations, brings, bathymetric surveys, and bottom 

sampling would go far toward 

warning coastal residents of their 

danger in the event of an earthquake. Cooperative effort by soils 

engineers, geologists, and oceanographers is needed for this work. 

Provision of good geologic maps 

alone is not enough, of course, to 

insure that the facts they show will 

be used effectively in reducing 

earthquake hazards. This lesson 

was forcefully taught by the 

Alaska experience of 1964. Modern 

geologic maps of Anchorage were 

available, and geologists had 

warned in print that one of the 

map units, the Bootlegger Cove 

Clay, would be unstable in the 

event of future earthquakes. The 

11-arnings went unheeded, however, 

because civic authorities, builders, 

and others either were unaware of 

the existence of the geologic information or ignored its implications. 

Disastrous translatory landslides initiated by the earthquake 

of 1964 amply proved the correctness of the warnings. 

Obviously, means must be sought 

to acquaint ciity planners, engineers, builders and the populace 

with the existence of useful geologic information and with its implications in terms of earthquake 

hazards and land use. 

"JIoderu geologic maps were available and geologists had warned in print that * * * the Bootlegger Cove Clay would be unstable 

in the event of future earthquakes. * * * Disaskmus transhtory landslides initiated by the earthquake of 1% amply proved 

the correotnws of the warnings." 
ALASKA EARTHQUARE, MARCH 2 7, 19 64 

INSTRUMENTATION AND 

MEASUREMENTS 

Suitable networks of recording 

seismographs should be installed in 

all areas where earthquakes are 

considered likely to occur. Where 

feasible, signals from the seismometers should be telemetered by telephone lines or by radio to a central 

recording and data-prcucessing 

Faoility. The seismograph networks should be supplemented by 

other earthquake-sensing instruments, suoh as strain meters, tiltmeters, magnetometers, and gravimeters. In some areas, existing 

networks maintained by university and Federal agencies can be 

used as bases for improved modern 

telemetry networks. In other areas, 

entirely new networks must be 

installed. 

In selecting the sites fir such instruments, it is essential that the 

local and regional geology be 

known in some detail and that the 

instruments be placed so as to obtain the maximum amount of information on the behavior of active 

faults and the effects of the various 

kinds of rock and soils on seismic 

response. It is particularly important that the seismograph networks be of such geometric form 

that earthquakes can be located accurately and immediately by 

means of digital computers and 

related to known or suspected 

active faults. 

In addition to the networks of 

standard seismographs and other 

earthquake-sensing instruments, 

the existing netwo'rks of strongmotion seismogrmphs should be 

strengthened and extended to all 

earthquake zones. Strong-motion 

seismograph recordings are particularly useful in testing the interactions between buildings and different materials on which they rest 

when subjectad to seismic shock, 

and it is, therefore, important that 

strong-motion seismographs be 

sited on the basis of detailed 

knowledge of the local geology. 

The instruments discussed above 

are now available and can be installed immediately. A new generation of instruments is also 

needed-laser strain meters, absolute-stress measuring devices, 

and devices for monitoring 

minute variations with changing 

stress of acoustic velocities in rock. 

These instruments oan be developed, and should be developed 

without delay. 

The arrays of standard and 

strong-motion seismographs in all 

earthquake-prone areas might well 

be supplemented by a nationwide 

system of test wells in confined 

aquifers, equipped to record longperiod seismic waves and to damp 

out subsequent water fluctuations. 

Studies of well records after the 

Alaska earthquake demonstrated 

that hydroseisms oan be used effectively to predict and explain 

certain hydrologic phenomena and 

can also serve as supplemental 

seismic recorders. In addition to a 

system ,of water-level recorders in 

wells, improved stream gages are 

needed, built to withstand earthquake shocks and to remain operational in winter. Such gages provide needed information on the 

reaction of streams and surfacewater supplies to earthquake-induced land movements, and there 

is also abundant evidence that the 

measurements of seic~hes in streams 

and lakes can contribute greatly to 

the study of sites of high seismic 

activity. 

Many more bench marks, triangulation stations, tide gages, 

and tidal bench marks are needed 

in earthquake-prone regions to 

permit accurate measurements of 

lateral or vertical crustal strains 

between, as well as during, major 

earthquakes. To the extent possible, all such stations should be established on bedrock and should 

be so builk as to withstand earthquake vibration, inundation by 

giant waves, and local land movements. Bench marks should also be 

established at the ends of long 

lakes throughout earthquakeprone regions, and their altitudes 

should be resurveyed periodically. 

With a suitable net of tidal bench 

marks and level lines and a suitable number of lake tiltmeters, 

both long-term and sudden warping of the earth's surface oan be 

determined accurately and cheaply. Such data are required to test 

the hypothesis that premonitory 

vertical displacements sometimes 

precede major earthquakes; if 

they do, these displacements could 

be an important prediction tool. 

More information on the normal 

height of barnacles and other 

sessile organisms relative to tide 

levels along all the shores of the 

Pacific would permit students of 

future earthquakes to make quick 

and reasonably accurate measurements of tectonic changes. Effective use of this information 

would also require improved tide 

tables based on tide-gage measurements at many localities. 

Detailed geomorphic studies 

supplemented by many more 

radiocarbon dates along emergent 

and submergent shores are needed 

to clarify the Holocene history of 

vertical land movements. These 

studies would provide an understanding of the distribution and 

recurrence interval of earthquakeinduced changes in land levels 

within the time range of radiocarbon-dating methods. Such studies 

might lead to the development 

of useful earthquake-forecasting 

techniques in some seismically active coastal regions because they 

they can roughly define broad 

areas of susceptibility to future 

major earthquake-related tectonic 

displacements at specific localities. 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

INVESTIGATIONS OF 

ACTUAL EARTHQUAKES 

Every large earthquake should 

be regarded as a full-scale laboratory experiment whose study can 

give ecientific and engineering information unobtainable from any 

other source. For this reason it is 

essential that every earthquake 

strong enough to damage manmade structures or to have measurable effects on the natural 

environment should 'be studied 

thoroughly by scientists and 

engineers. 

NEED FOR ADVANCE PLANNING 

In total, the scientific and engineering investigations of the 

Alaska earthquake were remarkably successful. They resulted in 

accumulation and interpretation 

of far more knowledge, in more 

disciplines, than has ever been 

amassed before for any single 

earthquake. These results were obtained through the efforts of many 

individuals, sponsored by many 

governmental and private groups. 

There was no overall organizational plan for the investigations, 

and except for the work of the 

Committee on the Alaska Earthquake, National Academy of 

Sciences, and for voluntary personal interactions of individuals 

and groups, no dekermined 

attempt was made to coordinate 

and integrate all the studies. This 

approach, even though ultimately 

successful, left some gaps in the 

record and produced some waste 

and duplication of effort when 

time and available skills were 

critical. Such shortcomings in 

future disaster investigations 

could be avoided by advance planning and at least a skeletal permanent organization. 

Presumably the Federal Government will be deeply involved 

not only in relief and reconstruction after, but also in technical 

investigation of, any future earthquake disaster that is at all comparable to the Alaska earthquake 

of 1964. For this reason, it seems 

imperative that the Federal Government should take the lead in 

contingency planning for future 

disastrous earthquakes. This is not 

to say that the Federal Government should act alone in planning 

for disaster or in activating the 

plans made. State and local governments, universities, and other 

groups all have major responsibilities and skills that must be 

brought to bear on the problems. 

Largely as a result of the Alaskan 

experience, numerous well-integrated local and State groups ifi 

several earthquake-prone regions 

are already (1969) active in making plans for the investigation of 

future earthquakes. A great earthquake, however, brings with it an 

immediate need for massive application of resources, both human 

and material, from outside the 

stricken locality or region. Moreover, and as the Alaskan experience made so plain, strong and 

immediate logistic and other support from the military is absolutely essential in dealing with a 

great earthquake disaster, either 

for technical investigations or for 

relief and reconstruction. 

The chief objectives of a planning effort in preparation for future great earthquakes would be 

(1) to define the kind and scope 

of investigations needed for scientific purposes and for protection 

of life and property; (2) to provide guidelines to assume that the 

primary responsibilities of various 

organizations or individuals, governmental or private, are brought 

to boar on all necessary investigations; (3) to provide for coordination between investigative groups; 

and (4) to provide means for 

immediate funding and fielding 

of investigators when disaster 

strikes, including military logistic 

and photographic support. 

It is emphasized that this proposal applies only to preplanning 

for disaster. Once disaster has 

struck, actual investigations must 

be left to individual groups with 

the requisite skills, responsibilities 

and funds. But the better the overall preplanning effort, the better 

integrated and funded will be the 

actual investigations and the better their chances of complete 

coverage. 

GEOLOGIC, GEIWHYSICAL, AND 

HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS 

Once a decision has been made 

to investigate a reported earthquake, a small reconnaissance party should be dispatched at once, 

as was done successfully by the 

U.S. Geological Survey for the 

Alaska earthquake. Preferably it 

should be composed of one or more 

mature geologists and geophysicists who have a thorough knowledge of the local and regionla1 

geology of the disaster area and 

who have had experience with 

earthquakes or other similar natural disasters. The sounder the 

decisions at this stage the better 

will be the results. The dutie~ of 

the reconnaissance party would be 

partly to observe 'and record as 

many ephemeral features as possible but would be primarily to assess the situation and to formulate 

advice as to the size and character 

of the problem and of the task 

force needed to attack it. Many 

investigations would end with the 

reconnaissance phase; a few would 

be found worth full-scale study. 

If further studies are recommended, a field team of investigators should be formed and a leader 

appointed. Team size and makeup 

depend on the character of the 
42 AWLSKA EARTHQUAICE, MARCH 21.7, 1964 

problem and on the skills and 

aptitudes required, but every effort should be made to provide 

coverage of all earth-science aspects of the disaster. Some team 

members, especially in the early 

phases of the investigations, 

should know the local and regional geology. However, both 10- 

cal knowledge and experience in 

disaster studies help in making 

fast, accurate observations of 

ephemeral geologic processes and 

effects. 

Once the field team is formed, 

its members should continue to be 

responsible only to the team leader 

until all field work and reports 

are completed. Decisions should be 

made early as to the general wpe 

and character of preliminary and 

final reports on the earthquake. 

Tliese determinations, however, 

should be flexible enough as to permit pursuit of significant research 

problems as they unfold. 

Every effort must be made to coordinate the geologists' and geophysicists' work with that of all 

other investigative groups in order 

to assure free interchange of information, to avoid confusion and 

duplicakion of effort, and to identify gaps in the investigative 

effort. 

The work required of the field 

team will vary between wide 

tion of all information that can 

lead to better scientific undershding of earthquake processes and 

effects. 

More specifically, the following 

steps should be taken in the geologic investigation, with initial 

emphasis on ephemeral effects that 

may disappear or be modified 

within a few hours or days: 

1. Initiate immediate aerial surveys to 

provide complete stereo-photo covepage, at scales of 1 : 20,000 or 

larger, of all areas in which any 

earthquake effects are photographically recordable. The minimum coverage required might be 

specified by the reconnaissance 

party, to be expanded later as followup investigations progress. All 

of the studies listed below can be 

made or expedited with suitable 

airphoto coverage. 

2. Study relations between the earthquake effects and the local and 

regional geology. 

3. In cooperation with soils engineers, 

investigate any new faults or reactivations of preexisting faults. 

4. Map ground fissures, sand spouts, 

and pressure ridges, especially 

where they affect the works of 

man. 

5. Measure subsidence or uplift of the 

ground surface and distinguish 

between tectonic displacement 

and that caused by consolidation 

of sediments. 

6. Investigate mass movements of materials, such as avalanches, landslides, and underwater sltdes. 

7. Observe changes in stream courses 

horizontal and vertical tectonic 

displacements. 

13. In close aooperation with soils and 

structural engineers, examine the 

effects of shaking and of ground 

movements on structures, paying 

particular attention to the relationship between underlying geology and structural damage. 

14. Produce good map and photographic 

coverage of the earthquake's effects for the permanent record. 

AVAILABILITY OF MAPS AND 

OTHER BASIC DATA 

One of the most important lessons learned from the Alaskan 

earthquake was the value of preearthquake information in studying the effects of the quake. 

Topographic base maps, geologic, 

soils, and glaciologic maps, aerial 

photographs, tidal and other bench 

marks, triangulation stations, records of building foundations-all 

these were invaluable to investigators. 

Current base maps-topographic maps and hydrographic charts-- 

are essential tools for scientific and 

engineering investigators ; so are 

pertinent reports and maps on 

local geology and soils. Detailed 

city plans, preferably those that 

show utility systems as well as 

streets and buildings, are needed 

not only by technical investigators 

but by relief and rehabilitation 

workers and by the general public. 

limits, depending, among other and regimens. ,All such basic materials will be 

things, on the size and gmlogic '. 'lap local and paying needed in quantity immediately special attention to ground-water character of the affected region, on conditions, wherever damaging after an earthquake. The availthe nature and effects of the earth- movements have occurred. ability of such materials should, of 

auake itself. and on the kind, 9. Ascertain the effects of tsunamis course. be made known to citv dffiamount, and distribution of dam- and local waves and the cials ahd other potential users. in shorelines initiated by waves or age done. In general, however, all tectonic movements. 

work done should be aimed at two 10. S t u d y a n y earthquake-caused QUESTIONNAIRES 

principal objectives : (1) collection chlanges in volcanic activity. Questionnaires, widely diskribof all geologic and geophysid 11. Initiate studies, by means of portable seismographs, of aftershocks uted by mail to postmasters and 

information that has any bearing especialls for the uuruose d locat- others or published in local news- - - 

on reconstruction efforts or that ing them and relating them to papens, are an effective means for -- , 

can be used in preventing or alle- active faults. 

12. Initiate geodetic and aerial surveys, determining the extent, distribuviating the damaging effects of fu- both for use in studying earth- tion, and ~h~~~ter of an earthture earthquakes, md (2) cdlec- quake effects and in determining quake's effects, as well as for identi- 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 43 

fying alert and interested SCIENTIFIC AND and soils, was translated into Comeyewitnesses who should be inter- ENGINEERING mission decisions as to availability 

viewed by investigators for more TASK FORCE of Federal funds for specific areas 

detailed facts than can be recorded 

on the returned questionnaire. The 

questionnaire method, supplemented by innumerable interviews, 

mas widely and effectively used in 

studies of the Alaska earthquake 

by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic 

Survey, which routinely gathers 

suoh ,data on all earthquakes, by 

the U.S. Geological Survey, and 

by several other groups. The questionnaire used by the Geological 

Survey in Alaska is reproduced in 

the report by Plafker and others 

(1969). 

Immediately after the Alaska 

earthquake, the Scientific and Engineering Task Force of the Federal Reconstruction and Development Planning Commission for 

Alaska (Eckel and Schaem, in 

Hansen and others, 1966) was set 

up to advise the Commission, and 

through it, the Federal fund-supplying agencies, as to where it was 

safe to permit new construction or 

rebuilding of earthquake-damaged 

structures. The Task Force's advice, based on technical studies of 

the earthquake's effects on geology 

and purposes. 

The approach of the Scientific 

and Engineering Task Force was 

highly successful during the reconstruction period after the Alaska earthquake. Its potential 

longer term benefits to the general 

public were somewhat lessened, 

however, because there were no 

provisions for continuing observance of its recommendations after 

the Federal Commission mas dissolved and because there was no 

control over actions of local governments or use of non-Federal 

funds. 

The selected bibliography below 

includes primarily what the writer 

considers to be the more significant 

papers that had appeared on earthscience aspects of the Alaska earthquake when this paper went to 

press. The few other papers included that do not deal directly 

with the efarthquake of 1964 but 

which are referenced in this volume are marked with asterisks. 

Federal Reconstruction and Development Planning Commission for 

Alaska : 98 p. 

Alaska Department of Health and Welfare, 1964, Preliminary report of 

earthquake damage to environmental health facilities and services 

in Alaska : Juneau, Alaska Dept. 

Health and Welfare, Environmental 

Health Br., 46 p. 

Algermissen, S. T., 1964, Seismological 

investigation of the Prince William 

Sound earthquake and aftershocks 

Many important papers on engi- labs.] : Am. Geophys. Union Trans., 

neering, biology, social science, and v. 45, no. 4, p. 633. 

Barnes, D. F., 1966, Gravity changes other disciplines that touch lightly, during the Alaska earthquake : 

if at all, on geology, seismology, Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 71, no. 

and hydrology are not listed. Ref- 2, p. 451A56. 

erences to such papers can be found Berg, G. V., and Stratta, J. L., 1984, 

in specialized bibliographies. Vir- Anchorage and the Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964: New tually every paper on the Alaska York, Am. Iron and Steel Inst., earthquake, of course, contains 63 P. 

references to other items in the Rlum, P. A., Gaulow, R., Jobert, G., 

literature that provide useful back- and Jobert, N., 1966, On ultra-long 

ground information in under- period seismometers operating unsta.nding facets of the Alaska der vacuum: Royal Soc. [London] 

Proc., ser. A, v. 290, no. 1422, p. earthquake. 318322. 

Alaskan Cons~truction Consultant Com- Bolt, B. A,, 1964, Seismic air waves 

mittee [19641, Reconstruction and from the great 1964 Alaska earthdevelopment survey of earthquake quake: Nature, v. 202, no. 4937, 

damages in Alaska, prepared for p. 1095-1096. 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Bredehoeft, J. D., Cooper, H. H., Jr., 

Papadopoulos, I. S., and Bennett, 

R. R., 1965, Seismic fluctuations in 

an open artesian water well, ifi 

Geological Survey research, 1965 : 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 

5254, p. C51-C57. 

Bull, Colin, and Rlarangunic, Cedomir, 

1967, The earthquake-induced slide 

on the Sherman Glacier, southcentral Alaska, and its glaciological 

effects, in Physics of snow and ice: 

Internat. Conf. Low Temperature 

Sci., Sapporo, Japan, 1966, Proc., 

V. 1, pt. 1, p. 395-408. 

Burton, L. R., 1967, Television examination of earthquake damage to underground communication and electrical systems in Anchorage, in 

Logan, M. H., Effect of the earthquake of March 27, 1964, on the 

Eklutna Hydroelectric Project, Anchorage, Alaska : U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 545-A, p. A25-A30. 

Case, J. E., Barnes, D. F., Plafker, 

George, and Robbins, S. L., 1966, 

Gravity survey and regional geology of the Prince William Sound 

epicentral region, Alaska : U.S. 

Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 5434, 

p. C1-C12. 

Chaffin, Yule, 1966, The earthquake 

created a hobby: Alaska Sportsman, Aug. 1966, p. 39-40. 
44 ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 2'7, 1964 

Chance, Genie, 1966a, Chronology of 

physical events of the Alaskan 

earthquake : Prepared under a National Science Foundation Grant to 

the University of Alaeka. Copyright 

by Genie Chance, 1966. 173 p. 

1966b, The year of decision and 

action, in Hansen, W. R., and 

others, The Alaska earthquake 

March 27, 1964-Field investigations and reconstruction effort : 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 541, 

p. 90-105. 

Chouhan, R. K. S., 1966, Aftershock 

sequence of Alaskan earthquake of 

28th March 1964 : Pure and Applied 

Geophysics [Italy], v. 64, p. 43-48. 

Christensen, M. N., and Bolt, B. A., 

1964, Earth movements-Alaskan 

earthquake, 1964: Sclence, v. 145, 

no. 3637, p. 1207-1216. 

Coble, R. W., 1967, Alaska earthquake 

effects on ground water in Iowa, in 

Vorhis, R. C., Hydrologic effects of 

the earthquake of March 27, 1964 

outside Alaska : U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 544-C, p. C23-C27. 

*Condon, W. H., and Cass, J. T., 1958, 

Map of a part of the Prince William 

Sound area, Alaska, showing linear 

geologic features as shown on aerial 

photographs : U.S. Geol. Survey 

Misc. Geol. Inv. Map 1-273, scale 

1 :125,000. 

Cooper, H. H., Jr., Bredeheeft, J. D., 

Papadopoulos, I. S., and Bennett, 

R. R., 1965, The response of wellaquifer systems to seismic waves : 

Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 70, no. 

16, p. 39153926. 

Coulter, H. W., and Migliaccio, R. R., 

1966, Effects of the earthquake of 

March 27, 1964, at Valdez, Alaska : 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 

542-C, p. C1-C36. 

*Crandell, D. R., and E'ahnestock, R. K., 

1965, Rockfalls and avalanches 

from Little Tahoma Peak on Mount 

Rainier, Washington: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Bull. 1221-A, p. A1-A30. 

Davies, Kenneth, and Baker, D. M., 

1965, Ionospheric effects observed 

around the time of the Alaskan 

earthquake of March 28,1964 : Jour. 

Geophys. Research, v. 70, no. 9, p. 

2251-2253. 

Dobrovolny, Ernest, and Schmoll, H. R., 

1968, Geology as applied to urban 

planning-an example from the 

Greater Anchorage Area Borough, 

Alaska, in Elngineering geology in 

country planning : Internat. Geol. 

Cong., 23d, Prague 1968, Proc., see. 

12, p. 39-56. 

Donn, W. L., 1964, Alaskan earthquake 

of 27 March 1964-remote sdche 

stimulation : Science, v. 145, no. 

3629, p. 261-262. 

Dmn, W. L., and Pmmentier, E. S., 

1964, Ground-coupled air waves 

from the great Alaska earthquake : 

Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 69, no. 

24, p. 5357-5361. 

Eckel, E. B., 1967, Effects of the earthquake of March 27,1964, on air and 

water transport, communications, 

and utilities systems in southcentral Alaska : U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 545-B, p. B1-B27. 

Eckel, E. B., and Schaem, W. E., 1966, 

The work of the Scientific and Engineering Task Force-Earth science 

applied to policy decisions in early 

relief and reconstruction, in Hansen, W. R., and others, The Alaska 

earthquake March 27, 1964-Field 

investigations and reconstruction 

effort: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 541, p. 46-69. 

Engineering Geology Evaluation Group, 

1964, Geologic report-27 March 

1964 earthquake in Greater Anchorage area : Prepared for Alaska 

Housing Authority and the City of 

Anchorage ; Anchorage, Alaska, 

34 P. 

Federal Council for Science and Technology, 1968, Proposal for a tenyear national earthquake hazards 

program : Ad hoe Interagency 

Working Group for Earthquake 

Research, prepared for the Office of 

Science and Technology and the 

Federal Council for Science and 

Technology, Washington, D.C., 81 p. 

Federal Reconstruction and Development Planning Commission for 

Alaska, 1964, Response to disaster, 

Alaskan earthquake, March 27, 

1964 : Washington, U.S. Govt. 

Printing Office, 84 p. 

Ferrians, 0. J., Jr., 1966, Effects of the 

earthquake of March 27, 1964, in 

the Copper River Basin am, 

Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 543-E, p. El-E28. 

Fisher, W. E., and Merkle, D. H., 1965, 

The great Alaska earthquake: Air 

Force Weapons Lab., Kirtland Air 

Force Base, N. Mex., Tech. Rept. 

AFWL-TR-85-92, 2 v., 412 p., including 296 illus. 

Foley, R. E., 1964, Crescent City-tidal 

waves: Shore and Beach (Jour. 

Shore and Beach Preservation 

Aesoc.) v. 32, p. 28 (April 1964). 

Foster H. L., and Karlstrom, T. N. V., 

1967, Ground breakage and associated effects in the Cook Inlet 

area, Alaska, resulting from the 

March 27, 1964, earthquake: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 543-F, 

p. F1-R28. 

Furumoto, A. S., 1967, A study of the 

source mechanism of the Alaska 

earthquake and tsunami of 

March 27, 1964-pt. 2, Analysis of 

Rayleigh wave: Pacific Sci., v. 21, 

no. 3, p. 311316. 

George, Warren, and Lyle, R. E., 1966. 

Reconstruction by the Corps of 

Engineers-methods and accomplishments, in. Hansen, W. R., and 

others, The Alaska earthquake 

March 27, 1964--Field investigations and reconstruction effort: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 541, 

p. 81-89. 

*Grant, U. S., and Higgins, D. F., 1910, 

Reconnaissance of the geology and 

mineral resources of Prince William Sound, Alaska: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Bull. 443, 89 p. *- 1913, Coastal glaciers of Prince 

William Sound and Kenai Peninsula, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Bull. 526, 75 p. 

Grantz, Arthur, Plafker, George, and 

Kachadoorian, Reuben, 1964, Alaska's Good Friday earthquake, 

March 27, 1964--a preliminary 

geologic evaluation : U.S. Geol. 

Survey Circ. 491, 35 p. 

Gronewald, G. J., and Duncan, W. W., 

1966, Study of erosion along Homer 

Spit and vicinity, Kachemak Bay, 

Alaska, in Coastal engineering ; 

Santa Barbara Specialty Conference, 1965: New Tork, Am. Soc. 

Civil Engineers, p. 673-682. 

Hackman, R. J., 1965, Photointerpretation of post-earthquake photography, Alaska : Photogrammetric 

Eng., v. 31, no. 4, p. 604-610. 

Hanna, G D., 1964, Biological effects 

of an earthquake : Pacific Discovery, v. 17, no. 6, p. 24-26. 

1967, The great Alaska earthquake of 1%: Pacific Discovery, 

v. 20, no. 3, p. 25-30. 

Hansen, W. R., 1965, Effects of the 

earthquake of March 27, 1964, at 

Anchorage, Alaska : U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 542-A, p. A1-A68. 

-1966, Investigations by the Geological Survey, in Hansen, W. R, 

and others, The Alaska earthquake 

March 27, 196+Field investigations and reconstruction effort: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 541, 

p. 38-45. 
Hansen, W. R., and Eckel, E. B., 1966, 

A summary description of the 

Alaska earthquake-its setting and 

effects, in Hansen, W. R., and 

others, The Alaska earthquake 

March 27, 1964-Field investigations and reconstruction effort : 

U.S. Cfeol. Survey Prof. Paper 541, 

p. 1-37. 

Hansen, W. R., and others, 1966, The 

Alaska earthquake March 27,1964-- 

Field investigations and reconstruction effort: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 541, 111 p. 

Harding, S. T., and Algermissen, S. T., 

1969, The focal mechanism of the 

Prince William Sound earthquake 

of March 28, 1964, and related 

earthquakes, in Leipold, 1969a, p. 

185-221. 

Huene, Roland von, Malloy, R. J., and 

Shor, G. G., Jr., 1967, Geologic 

structures in the aftershock region 

of the 1964 Alaska earthquake: 

Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 72, no. 

14, P. 3649-3660. 

Huene, Roland von, Shor, G. G., Jr., and 

Reimnitz, Erk, 1967, Geological interpretation of seismic profiles in 

Prince William Sound, Alaska : 

Geol. Soc. America, Bull., v. 78, 

no. 2, p. 259-268. 

*International Conference of Building 

Officials, 1964, Uniform building 

code : Los Angeles, Calif ., 1964 ed., 

v. 1, 503 p. 

Kachadoorian, Reuben, 1965, Effects of 

the earthquake of March 27, 1964, 

at Whittier, Alaska: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 542-B, p. B1- 

B21. 

1968, Effects of the earthquake 

of March 27, 1964 on the Alaska 

highway system : U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 545-C, p. C1-C66. 

Kachadoorian, Reuben, and Plafker, 

George, 1967, Effects of the earthquake of March 27, 1964, on the 

communities of Kodiak and nearby islands: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 542-F, p. F1-F41. 

Kirkby, M. J., and Kirkby, A. V., 1969, 

Erosion and deposition on a beach 

raised by the 1964 earthquake, Montague Island, Alaska: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 543-H, p. H1- 

H41. 

Leipold, L. E., editor-in-chid, 196$a, 

Research studies : seismology and 

marine geology, v. 2, pts. B, C of 

The Prince William Sound, Alaska, 

earthquake of 1964 and aftershocks : U. S. Coast and Geod. Survey Pub. 103,350 p. 

LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

- 1969b, Research studies and interpretative results-geodesy and 

photogrammetry, v. 3 of The Prince 

William Sound, Alaska earthquake 

of 1964 and aftershocks: U.S. Coast 

and Geod. Survey Pub. 103,161 p. 

Lemke, R. W., 1967, Effects of the earthquake of March 27,1964, at Seward, 

Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 542-E, p. El-E43. 

Leonard, R. S. and Barnes, R. A., Jr., 

1965, Observation of ionospheric 

disturbances following the Alaska 

earthquake : Jour. Geophys. Re 

search, v. 70, no. 5, p. 1250-1253. 

Logan, M. H., 1967, Effect of the earthquake of Narch 27, ;964, on the 

Eklutna Hydrolelectric Project, 

Anchonage, Alaska, with a section 

on Television examination of earthquake damage to underground communication and electrical systems 

in Anchorage, by Lynn R. Burton: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 

545-A, p. A1-830. 

Long, Erwin, and George, Warren, 

1967a, Buttress design earthquakeinduced slides: Am. Soc. Civil Engineers Proc., v. 93, paper 5332, 

Jour. Soil Mechanics and Found. 

Div., no. 5514, p. 595-4339. 

1967b, Turnagain slide stabilization, Anchorage, Alaska : Am. 

Soc. Civil Engineers Proc, v. 93, 

paper 5333, Jour. Soil Mechanics 

and Found. Div., no. SM4, p. 611- 

627. 

Lyle, R. E., and George, Warren, 1966, 

Activities of the Corps of Engineers-cleanup and early reconstruction, in Hansen, W. R., and 

others, The Alaska earthquake 

March 27, 196PE'ield investigations and reconstruction effort : 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 541, 

p. 70-80. 

McCulloch, D. S., 1966, Slide-induced 

waves, seiching, and ground fracturing caused by the earthqu'ake 

of March 27, 1964, at Kenai Lake 

Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 543-A, p. A1-A41. 

McCulloch, D. S., and Bonilla, M. G., 

1970, Effects of the Alaska earthqulake, March 27,1964, on The Alaska Railroad. U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Papez 545-D. 

McGarr, Arthur, 1965, Excitation of 

seiches in channels by seismic 

waves : Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 

70, no. 4, p. 847-854. 

McGarr, Arthur, and Vorhis, R. C., 

1968, Seismic seiches from the 

March 1964 Alaska earthquake : 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 544- 

E, p. El-E43. 

Malloy, R. J. 1964, Crustal uplift southwest of Montague Island, Alaska : 

Science, v. 146, no. 3647, p. 1048- 

1049. 

1965, Gulf of Alaska-seafloor 

upheaval : Geo-Marine Technology, 

v. 1, no. 5, p. 22-26. 

Mikumo, Takeshi, 1968, Atmospheric 

pressure waves and tectonic deformation associated with the Alaskan 

earthquake of March 28, 1964: 

Jour. Geophys. Refiearch, v. 73, no. 

6, p. 2009-2025. 

*Miller, D. J., 1960, Giant waves in 

Lituya Bay, Alaska: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 345.43, p. 51-86. 

*Miller, R. D., and Dobrovolny, Ernest, 

1959, Surlicial geology of Anchorage and vicinity, Alaska: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Bull. 1093,128 p. 

Moore, G. W., 1964, Magnetic disturbances preceding the Alaska 1964 

earthquake: Nature, v. 203, no. 

4944, p. 508-509. 

National Board of Fire Underwriters 

and Pacific Fire Rating Bureau, 

1964, The Ala~ska earthquake, 

March 27, 1964: San Francisco, 

Calif., distributed by Am. Insurance Assoc., 35 p. 

Nickerson, R. B., 1969, Fish and the big 

shake: Alaska Sportsman, v. 35, 

no. 3, p. 6-9,51-52. 

Nielsen, L. E., 1965, Earthquake-induced changes in Alaskan glaciers : 

Jour. Glaciology, v. 5, no. 42, p. 

865-867. 

Northrop, John, 1965, T phases from 80 

Alaskan earthquakes, March 28-31, 

1964: Seismol. Soc. America Bull., 

v. 55, no. 1, p. 59-63. 

Page, Robert, 1968, Aftershocks and 

microaftershocks of the great 

Alaska earthquake of 1964: Seismol. Soc. America Bull., v. 58, no. 3, 

P. 1131-1168. 

Pararas-Carayannis, George, 1967, A 

study of the source mechanism of 

the Alaska earthquake and tsunami 

of March 27, 1964-pt. 1, Water 

waves: Pacific Sci., v. 21, no. 3, p. 

301-310. 

Parkin, E. J., 1966, Horizontal displacements, pt. 2 of Alaskan surveys to 

determine crustal movement : Am. 

Congress Surveying and Mapping 

Proc., v. 27, no. 3, p. 423-430; also 

U.S. Coast and Geod. Survey, 11 p. 

1969, Horizontal crustal move 

mente determined from surveys 

after the Alaskan earthquage 

of 1964, in Leipold, IgSDb, p. 35-98. 
ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 19 614 

Plafker, George, 1965, Tectonic deformation associated with the 1964 

Alalska earthquake : Science, v. 148, 

no. 3678, p. 1675-1687. 

1967, Surface faults on Montague Island associated with the 

1964 Alaska earthquake : U.S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 543-G, p. G1- 

642. 

1968, Source areas of the 

Shattered Peak and Pyramid Peak 

landslides at Sherman Glacier : in 

The Great Alaska Earthquake of 

1964, Hydrology: Natl. Acad. Sci. 

Pub. 1603, p. 374382. 

1969, Tectonics of the March 27, 

1964, Alaska earthquake U.S. Geol. 

Survey, Prof. Paper 543-1, p. 11- 

174. 

Plafker, George, and Kachadoorian, 

Reuben, 1966, Geologic effects of 

the March 1964 earthquake and associated seismic sea waves on Kodiak and nearby itslands, Alaska : 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof Paper 543- 

D, p. D1-D46. 

Plafker, George, Kachadoorian, Reuben, Eckel, E. B., and Mayo, L. P., 

1969, Effects of the earthquake of 

March 27, 1964, at various communities: U.S. Geol. Survey, Prof. 

Paper 542-G, p. G1-G50. 

Plafker, George, and Mayo, L. R., 1965, 

Tectonic deformation, subaqueous 

slides, and destructive waves associated with the Alaskan March 27, 

1964 earthquake--an interim geologic evaluation : U.S. Geol. Survey 

open-file report, 21 p. 

Post, A. S., 1965, Alaskan glaciers-recent observations in respect to the 

earthquake-advance theory : Science, v. 148, no. 3668, p. 366-368. 

1967, Effects of the March 1964 

Alaska earthquake on glaciens : 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 544- 

D, p. D1-D42. 

Press, Frank, 1965, Displacements, 

strains and tilts at teleseismic distances : Jour. Geophys. Research, 

v. 70, no. 10, p. 2395-2412. 

Press, Frank, and Jackson, David, 1965, 

Alaskan earthquake, 27 March 

19SVertical extent of faulting 

and elastic strain energy reIease: 

Science, v. 147, no. 3660, p. 867-868. 

Ragle, R. H., Sater, J. E., and Field, 

W. O., 1965, Effects of the 1964 

Alaskan earthquake on glaciers 

and related features : Arctic Inst. 

North America, Research Paper 32, 

44 P. 

Reimnitz, Erk, and Marshall, N. F., 

1965, Effects of the Alaska earthquake and tsunami on recent deltaic sediments : Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 70, no. 10, p. 2363-2376. 

Rexin, E. E., and Vorhis, R. C., 1967, 

Hydroseisms from the Nunn-Bulsh 

Shoe Co. well, Wisconsin, in Vorhis, 

R. C., Hydrologic effects of the 

earthquake of March 27, 1964, outside Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 5444, p. C10-C13. 

Rinne, J. E., 1967, Oil storage tanks, in 

Wood, F. J., ed.-in-chief, Research 

studies : seismology and marine 

geology, pt. A, Engineering seismology, v. 2 of The Prince William 

Sound, Alaska, earthquake of 1964 

and aftershochs: U.S. Coast and 

Geod. Survey Pub. 10-3, p. 245- 

252. 

Row, R. V., 1987, Acoustic-gravity 

waves in the upper atmosphere due 

to a nuclear detonation and an 

earthquake : Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 72, no. 5, p. 1594-1610. 

Saverenskii, Ye. F., Starovoit, 0. Ye., 

and Federov, S. A., 1964, Long-period Rayleigh waves of the Alaskan 

earthquake on March 28, 1964: 

Akad. Nauk SSSR Izv. Ser. Geofiz. 

no. 12, p. 1103-1106 [translation by 

Am. Geophys. Union]. 

Savage, J. C., and Hastie, L. M., 1966, 

Surface deformation associated 

with dip slip faulting: Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 71, no. 20, p. 

4897-4904. 

Scientific and Engineering Task Force 

No. Nine, 1964 [Alaska earthquake 

of March 27, 19641-30-day report, 

prepared for Federal Reconstruction and Development Planning 

Commi~ssion [for Alaska], Honorable Clinton P. Anderson, chm., 83 

P. 

Seed, H. B., and Wilson, S. D., 1967, The 

Turnagain Heights landslide, Anchorage, Alaska: Am. Soc. Civil 

Engineers Proc. v. 93, paper 5320, 

Jour. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Div., no. SM4, p. 325-353. 

Shannon and Wilson, Inc., 1964, Report 

on Anchorage area soil studies, 

Alaska, to U.S. Army Engineer 

District, Anchorage, Alaska : Seattle, Wash., 109 p., app. A-K. 

Sherburne, R. W., Algermissen, S. T., 

and Harding, S. T., 1969, The hypocenter, origin time and magnitude 

of the Prince William Sound earthquake of March 28,1964, in Mpold. 

1969a, p. 44-69. 

*Shreve, R. L., 1959, Geology and mechanics of the Blackhawk landslide, Lucerne Valley, California: 

California Inst. Technology, Pasadena, Ph. P. th-is, 79 p *- 1966a, Air-layer lubrication of 

large avalanches [abs.] : Geol. Soc. 

America Spec. Paper 87, p. 154. 

1966b, Sherman landslide, Alaska: Science, v. 154, no. 3757, p. 

1639-1643. 

*- 1968, The Blackhawk landslide: Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper 

108, 47 p. 

Small, J. B., and Parkin, E. J., 1967, 

Alaskan surveys to determine 

crustal movement-pt. 1, Vertical 

bench mark displacement : Surveying and Mapping, v. 27, no. 3, p. 

41-22. 

Small, J. B., and Wharton, L. C., 1969, 

vertical displacements determined 

by surveys after the Alaskan earthquake of March 1964, in Leipold, 

1969b, p. 21-33. 

Smith, C. P., 1965, Alaska bridges experience an earthquake, pt. 1 of 

Highway destruction in Alaska : 

American Highways, v. 43, no. 4, 

p. 23-27. 

Smith, S. W., 1966, Free oscillations excited by the Alaskan earthquake : 

Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 71, no. 

4, p. 1183-1193. 

Spaeth, M. G., and Berkmran, S. C., I%%, 

The tsunami of March 28, 1964, as 

recorded at tide stations: U.S. 

Coast and Geod. Survey, 59 p. 

1967, The tsunami of March 28, 

1964, as recorded at tide stations: 

Coast and Geodetic Survey Tech. 

Bull. 33, Washington, U.S. Govt. 

Printing Office, 86 p. 

Stacey, F. D., and Westcott, P., 1965, 

The record of a vector proton magnetometer after the March 1!%4 

Alaska earthquake : Jour. Geophys. 

Research, v. 70, no. 14, p. 3321- 

3323. 

Stanley, K. W., 1966, Beach changes On 

Homer Spit, Alaskma, in Waller, R. 

M., 1966, Effects of the earthquake 

of March 27, 1964, in the Homer 

area, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 542-D, p. D20-D27. 

- 1968, Effects of the Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964 on shore 

processes and beach morphology : 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 543- 

J, p. 51521. 

Stauder, William, and Bollinger, G. A., 

1966, The focal mechanism of the 

Alaskan earthquake of March 28, 

1964, and its aftershock sequence : 

Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 71, no. 

22, p. 5283-5296. 
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Steinbrugge, K. V., 1964, Engineering 

seismology aspects, in Prince William Sound, Alaskan earthquakes, 

March-April 1964: U.S. hast and 

Geod. Survey Seismology Div., 

prelim. rept., p. 58-72. 

1967, Introduction to the earthquake engineering of the Prince 

William Sound, Alaska, earthquake : in Wood, F. J., ed.-in-chief, 

Research studies : seismology and 

marine geology, pt. A, Engineering 

seismology, v. 2 of The Prince William Sound, Alaska, earthquake of 

1964 and aftershocks: U.S. Coast 

and Geod. Survey Pub. 10-3, p. 1-6. 

Steinbrugge, K. V., Manning, J. H., 

Degenkolb, H. J., and others, 1967, 

Building damage in Anchorage, in 

Wood, F. J., ed.-in-chief, Research 

studies : seismology and marine 

geology, pt. A, Engineering seismology, v. 2 of The Prince William 

Sound, Alaska, earthquake of 1964 

and aftershocks: U.S. Coast and 

Geod. Survey Pub. 10-3, p. 7-217. 

Stephenson, J. M., 1964, Earthquake 

damage to Anchorage area utilities-March 1964 : Port Hueneme, 

Calif., U.S. Naval Civil Eng. Lab., 

Tech. Note N-607,17 p. 

*Tam, R. S., and Martin, Lawrence, 

1912, The earthquakes at Yakutat 

Bay, Alaska, in September, 1899: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 69, 

135 p. 

Tobin, D. G., and Sykes, L. R., 1966, Relationship of hypocenters of earthquakes to the geology of Al~aska : 

Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 71, no. 

6, p. 1659-1667. 

Tudor, W. J., 1964, Tsunami damage at 

Kodiak, Alaska, and Crescent City, 

California, from Alaska earthquake 

of 27 March, 1964: Port Hueneme, 

Calif., U.S. Naval Civil Eng. Lab. 

Tech. Note N-622, 128 p. 

Tuthill, S. J., 1966, Earthquake origin 

of superglacial drift on the glaciers 

of the Martin River area, southcentral Alaska : Jour. Glaciology. 

v. 6, no. 43, p. 83-88. 

Tuthill, S. J., and Laird, W. M., 1966, 

Geomorphic effects of the earthquake of March 27, 1964, in the 

Martin-Bering Rivers area, Alaska : 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 543- 

B, p. B1-B29. 

U.S. Army Chief of Engineers, Directorate of Military Contruction, Engineering Division, 1964, Report on 

analysis of earthquake damage to 

military construction in Alaska, 27 

March 1964: Washington, D.C., 16 

p., app. 1-6. 

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1964, 

Prince William Sound, Alaskan 

earthquakes, March-April 1964 : 

U.S. Coast and Geod. Survey Seismology Div., prelim. rept., 83 p. 

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1969, 

Seismic risk map of the United 

States: U.S. Coast and Geod. Survey, Environmental Sci. Services 

Adm., Washington, D.C. 

*Van Dorn, W. G., 1959, Local effects 

of impulsively generated waves : 

Scripps Inst. Oceanography Rept. 

11, 80 p., Univ. Calif., La Jolla, 

Calif. 

Van Dorn, W. G., 1964, Source mechanism of the tsunami of March 28, 

1964, in Alaska : Coastal Eng. Conf., 

9th, Lisbon, 1964, Proc., p. 166-190. 

*Varnes, D. J., 1958, Landslide types 

and processes, in Eckel, E. B., ed., 

Landslides and engineering practice: Natl. Research Council, Highway Research Board Spec. Rept. 29 

(NAS-NRC Pub. W), p. 20-47. 

Vorhis, R. C., 1964, Earthquake-induced 

water level fluctuations from a well 

in Dawson County, Ga. : Seismol. 

Soc. Am. Bull., v. 54, no. 4, p. 1023- 

1033. 

1967. Hydrologic effects of the 

earthquake of March 27, 1964, outside Alaska, with sections on Hydroseismograms from the NunnBush Shoe Co. well, Wisconsin, by 

E. E. Rexin and R. C. Vorhis, and 

Alaska earthquake effects on 

ground water in Iowa, by R. W. 

Coble: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 5444, p. C1-054. 

Waller, R. M., 1966a, Effects of the 

earthquake of March 27, 1964, in 

the Homer area, Alaska with a section on Beach changes on Homer 

Spit, by E. W. Stanley: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 542-D, 

p. Dl-D28. 

-1966b, Effects of the earthquake 

of March 27,1964, on the hydrology 

of southcentral Alaska: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Prof. Paper 544-A, p. AlA28. 

- 1966c, Effects of the earthquake 

of March 27,1964, on the hydrology 

of the Anchorage area, Alaska: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 544- 

B, p. B1-B18. 

Waller, R. M., Thomas, H. E., and Vorhis, R.C., 1965, Effects of the Good 

Friday earthquake on water sup 

plies: Am. Water Works Assoc. 

Jour., v. 57, no. 2, p. 123-131. 

Whitten, C. A., 1968, Earthquake danage, Mrrntague Island, AIaska, in 

Manual of color aerial phdography : Falls Church, Va., Am. Soc. 

Photogrammetry, p. 39CL391. 

Wigen, S. O., and White, W. R. H., lw, 

Tsunami of March 27-29,1964, west 

coast of Canada Cabs.] : Am. 

Gsophys. Union Trans., v. 45 no. 4, 

p. 634. 

Wilson, B. W., and T@rum, Alf, 1968, 

The Tsunami of the Alaskan earthquake, 1964-engineering evaluation : US. Army Oops of Engineers, 

Coastal Eng. Research Center, 

Tech. Mem. 25, 448 p., 232 ills., 5 

amen. 

Wilson, S. D., 1967, Landslides in the 

city of Anchorage, in Wood, F. J., 

ed.-in-chief, Research studies : seismology and marine geology, pt. A, 

Engineering seismology, v. 2 of !rhe 

Prince William Sound, Alaska, 

earthquake of 1% and dtershocks: U.S. Coast and Geod. Survey Pub. 10-3, p. 253-297. 

Wood, F. J., ed.-in-chief, 1966, Opepational phases of the Coast and 

Geodetic Survey program in Alaska 

for the period Ma~ch 27 to December 31, 1964, v. 1 of The Prince William Sound, Alaska, earthquake of 

1964 and aftershocks: U.S. Ooast 

and Geod. Survey, Pub. 103, 262 

P. 

1967, Research studies : seismology and marine geology, gt. A, 

Engineering seismology, v. 2 of The 

Prince William Sound, Ailaska 

earthquake of 1964 and aftershocks: U.S. Coast and Geod. Survey Pub. IN, 392 p. 

Wyss, Max, and Brune, J. N., 1967, The 

Alaska earthquake of 28 Ma?ch 

1964 : A complex multiple rupture : 

Seismol. Soc. America, Bull. v. 57, 

no. 5, p. 1017-1023. 

INDEX 

Professional Papers 542-545: The number before the dash indicates the labt digit of the prof . paper. and the letter and number after the dash indicate the chapter and p:ge of 

reference; thus. 2-A3 is page A3 in Prof . Paper 542-A . 

Professional Papers 541 and 546: The number before the desh indicates the last digit of the prof . paper. and the number after the dash indicates the page of reference; thus. 

1-19 is page 19 in Prof . Paper 541 . Italic numbers indicate major references . 

A Page 

Afognak. general .................. l.l9,1.96, 2.F.28 

ground and surface water ................ 3-D23 

ground waves ........................... bD12 

population .............................. ID6 

property losses ........................... ID3 

seismic sea waves ................. S-DSS, 3-D44 

subsidence ............................... 2-F29 

Afognak Island, landslides ................... ID18 

rockslides ................................ IDm 

size ....................................... 8-FS 

subsidence ............................... S-DI 

Afognak River .............................. bD27 

Afognak Strait ............................... SF28 

Africa, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake- ..................................... PC15 

Aftershocks, Copper River Basin ............. 3-E6 

distribution ........................... 1.6, bI5 

Kodiak Island area ...................... %Dl2 

Air transport, effects of earthquake ...... 1.29, 6.B2 

Akhiok ................................ 2.F3, SF39 

Alabama, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ............................... 4-Cl6, 4439 

Alaska-Aleutian province ..................... 1-8 

Alaska Communication System building, 

Whittier ................................... 2-B 13 

Alaska District, Corps of Engineers . 1.70,1.80, 1.81 

Alaska Field Committee ..................... 148 

Alaska Highway ......................... 1.90, IE3 

Alaska Housing Authority. .................. 1-81 

Alaska Omnibus Bill ......................... 149 

Alaska Peninsula ........................ 1.3, $4344 

Alaska Psychiatric Institute, Anchorage, damage ........................................ %A23 

Alanka Range, location .......... 1.7,1.8, SE2, 3-39 

uplift ..................................... 3-123 

Alaska Range geosyncline, location ........... IE3 

Alaska Sales and Service Building, Anchorage ........................................ 2-A23 

Alaskan Construction Consultants Committee ......................................... 148 

Alaskan Continental Shelf, gravity values .... 3-C8 

Alaskan earthquakes, previous ............... l-i 

Alaskan seismic zone ......................... 1-7 

Alberni, B . C ................................. 1-37 

Aleutian Islands, geology ................. 1.7, b145 

Aleutian Islands, tectonic setting. ............ 3-144 

Aleutian Range, description .................. 1-8 

Aleutian Trench, tectonic setting . 3-D28,3-112.3-144 

Aleutian Volcanic Arc ........................ 1.7 . 3D48,3-F25,3-12,3.144, 3-151 

Alexander Archipelago. ...................... 1-12 

Alitak ........................................ 1-94 

Allen Glacier ........................... 1.29, 4.D8l 

Allison Creek delta .......................... 2-C16 

Alluvial deposits, Kodiak Island area ........ 3-Dl5 

Alluvial fans, Seward ........................ 2-El8 

Alnus ........................................ bC4 

Alsek River valley. ......................... 4-D31 

Anchor Block, Eklutna project .............. &A13 

Anchor Point, ground water ................. PA23 

Anchor River valley, landslides ...... SD7, SF17 

Page 

Anchorage ..................... Prof . Paper 642-A 

air transport ............................. 5-B3 

cleanup and restoration ................... 1-73 

communications and utilities ............ bB23 

gravity values ............................ 3-C6 

harbor .................................... 5-B8 

hydrologic effects .......... Prof . Paper 644-B 

landslides ........................ 6.076, 6-17 

power system ............................ bB19 

principal causes of damage ................ 1-72 

restoration of schools ..................... 1-83 

structural damage ................ 1.100, bD143 

Task Force recommendations ............ 1-57 

water system ..................... 4-A16, bB23 

Anchorage area, subsidence .................. PB15 

Anchorage Engineering Geology Evaluation 

Group ....................... 1.66, 1.81 

Anchorage Lowland ........ 1.9, 2.A2, !2-A8, %A22 

Anderson Bay ........................ 2.C30, 2-GI3 

Andreanof-Fox Island region ................ 3-149 

Animal populations, effects of earthquake .... 1-34 

3-R2R 

Antarctica, secondary damage ................ 1-36 

Anton Larson highway, damage ............. SD42 

Archeologic remains, Uzinki .................. 6-28 

Appalachian basin, seiches .................. PE14 

Archimandritof Shoals ................ 2-Dl5 %D20 

Arctic Slope of Alaska ........................ 2-A2 

Arizona, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 4417, PC39 

Arkansas, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... PC18, PC39 

Arkoma basin, seiches ....................... 4-El4 

Army dock, Seward ......................... %El3 

Artesian wells, Anchorage .............. 4-AIS, 622 

south-central Alaska .................... PA18 

zone of subsidence ....................... 3-140 

Artificial fill, Kodiak Island area ............ 3-Dl5 

ear .................................. 2-E22 

Whittier .................................. 2-B5 

Asia, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake PC14 

Assam, India, earthquake ........ 2.C20,4.C7, PC5 

Atmospheric waves... ................... 1-33, 3-139 

Atrevida Glacier ............................. PD39 

Atterberg limits, Bootlegger Cove Clay ....... %A15 

Seward ................................ 2-E2i 

At Island ................................... 1-8 

Augustine Island, Cook Inlet area 2.D18, SF24 

Aucella ....................................... 3-C4 

Augustine Island volcano ................ 1.8, 2.D19 

Australia, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ............................ 4-C14 

Avalanches, Anchor River ................... 3-F17 

Copper River Basin ..................... 3-E24 

before the 1964 earthquake ............... 4-D26 

on glaciers ......................... 4-D3, PD36 

highways ................................ 6C27 

Kodiak Island ........................... 3-Dl8 

Martin-Bering Rivers area ............... 3-B14 

Ragged Mountains ....................... 3-B19 

rockslide ........................... 3~B17, 4-06 

Avalanches-Continued Page 

rotational and debris slides ............ ... 2-A30 

Seward ........................... 2.E14, 2-E33 

Avulsion, legal implications .................. 3420 

B 

Back Bay Creeks ............................ 3-D27 

Backfill waves ............. 3-A3,3-A7, %A15 3-A22 

Bagley Icefield ............................... 4-Dl 

Bainbridge Island ............................ 344 

Balanus balanoides ....................... 3-112; M5 

glandula .................................. 3-112 

Barnacles, indication of land-level changes .... 3-112 

Barren Islands ................................ 3-D6 

Barrow ................................... 1.3, 2-A2 

Barry Glacier ............................... 4-D26 

Bathymetry, Kenai Lake ..................... 3-A3 

Lakeview delta ........................... 3-A4 

Lawing delta ............................ 3-A12 

Rocky Creek delta ....................... 3-A4 

Bay Mouth Bar ....................... 3-H29, 3-H30 

Beaches, Homer Spit ........................ 2-D20 

Kodiak Island area ...................... 3-Dl3 

Montague Island ............ Prof . Paper 6@-H 

Beaches . See also Shore processes; Shorelines . Beach morphology ............... Prof . Paper 643-5 

Bear Creek ......... ................., 2.D1.5, 3.F16 

Bear Mountain ............................... 2-El7 

Bedrock, Copper River Basin ................ 3-E3 

Seward .................................. 2-El7 

Whittier .................................. 2-B3 

Belgium, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ......................... PC15 

Belle Fourche, S.D., fluctuation of well ...... 1-37 

Beluga Lake .................... 2-D5,2-D15, SF23 

Bench marks, height relative to sea level ...... 3-119 

Beneficial effects of the earthquake ........... 6-31 

Bering Glacier .......................... 1.14, 4-Dl3 

Bering Lake, ice fracture ..................... 3-B24 

landslides ............................... 3-B19 

Bering Lake area, uplift ..................... 3-B26 

Bering River area ............... Prof . Paper 643-B 

Bernice Lake powerplant .................... -4-A22 

Berm development, Homer ................... 2-D23 

Bihar-Nepal earthquake of 1934 ........ 2-C20, 3-E8 

Billings Creek ......................... 2-B3, 2-B18 

Biologic effects ............ 134, 3-B26,3.136, 3-J17 

Black Lake, turbidity changes ............. .. 3-B21 

Black Rapids Glacier ....................... PD38 

Bluff Point ........................... 2.D6, 2.D17 

Bluff Road, Anchorage, rotational slides ..... 2-A36 

Bolivina pseudopunctata ...................... 2-A21 

Bootlegger Cove Clay, Anchorage, description 

and effects .......... 1-82, bA12, 2-A33 

ground water ..................... kA19, 4.BlS 

measurements of pore pressures .......... kB1 

Bore holes, Seward .......................... 2-E27 

Valdez ................................... 2-C15 

Bouguer anomaly, Prince William Sound 

region ...................... 3.03, 3-C9 

Boulder Creek . See Rocky Creek delta . 

49 
INDEX 

Page 

Box Creek canyon ..................... 2.E4, 2.E15 

Bradley Lake. Cook Inlet area ......... 3.F24. 4-A7 

Braided Creek ............................... 3-G21 

Breving Lagoon, barrier beach ................ 3-J8 

Bridges, highway .............. 3.D39,3.E25, 6-Ct9 

railroad ..................... Prof . Paper 646-0 

Bristol Bay .................................. 4-All 

British Columbia, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake ................. 137, 4-1215 

Brooks Range, oscillations on lakes .......... PA4 

Bruin Bay fault .............................. 3-153 

Buccellapigida ............................... 2-A21 

inusitata ................................. 2-A21 

Buckner Building, Whittier ........... 2.B13, 2-B20 

Buliminella curta ............................. 2-A21 

Bureau of Indian Affairs ...................... 1-94 

Buskin Lake, subsidence .................... 3-Dl5 

C 

Cachar earthquake .......................... 24320 

Cairn Point, slides ........................... 2-A33 

California, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ............... 137,4.C18, 4-C40 

California earthquake of 1906 .......... 24220, 3-E8 

Camp avalanche ...................... 3.B14, 3.B17 

Campbell Creek, Cook Inlet area ........... 2.A30, 

3.F23, 4.A9 

Campbell Lake ......................... .4.A7, 4-B4 

Canada, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ........................... I 4-1215 

Cannon Beach, Oreg ......................... 1-37 

Cape Chiniak, seismic sea waves ..... 3.D30, 3-D35 

Cape Cleare Station, horizontal control station .............................. 3-G40 

Cape Hinchinbrook Light Station ............ bB7 

Cape Lisburne ........................... 1.3, 2.A2 

Cape Saint Elias ............................ 2-G33 

Cape Suckling, major zone of uplift ........... 3-158 

Capps Glacier ............................... 3-F23 

Caribou Hills ................................. 3-F2 

Casement Glacier ........................... 4-D26 

Caasidulina islandica ......................... 2-A21 

Casualties, Anchorage- ....................... 2-A4 

Califorllia ................................ 1-3i 

Cape Saint Elias ........................ 2-G33 

Chenega ................................. 2-GI5 

Kaguyak ......................... .2-F2, 3.F375 

Kodiak area ....................... 2.F2, 3-D45 

from accidents and natural disasters ...... 1-5 

from earthquakes during last 1, 100 years . 1-4 

Oregon ................................... 1-37 

Point Nowell ............................ 2-G24 

Port Nellie Juan ......................... 2-G25 

Sawmill Bay... ......................... 5-Bll 

Seward .................................. 2-El3 

south-central Alaska ..................... 1-4 

Valdez ................................... 2-Clo 

Whittier .................................. 2-B6 

Cattle ranches, Kodiak Island area .......... 3-D43 

Cenozoic deformation, Prince William Sound 

region ............................ 3-~5 

cenozoic tectonic movements ................. 3-144 

Chakatchama Lake ......................... 3-F23 

Chakok River, Cook Inlet area .............. 3-F17 

Charleston earthquake ................ 2420, 3-E8 

Charlotte Lake .............................. 3-B19 

Chemical quality of well water, A~lchorage 

area ............................. BE 

Chena, vessel at Valdez dock ................. 2.~10 

Chenega Glacier .............................. 4-D34 

Cheuega Island ............................... 1-36 

Chenega village ............ 1-17,1.94,1.016, 5-Bll 

Chester Creek, discharge ........ 2.A9, 4.A10, 4-02 

mud fountains ........................... 2-A29 

slide area ................................. 1-57 

Chickaloon Bay. ...................... 3.F3, 3.F25 

Chigmit Mountains ........................... 5-~4 

Childs Glacier ............................... 4-~21 

Page 

Chilean earthquake. 1822 ..................... 3-143 

1960 ............................... 2.A38, 3.142 

China Poot Bay ............................. 3-F24 

Chiniak ...................................... 2-F3 

Chiniak Bay ................................ 2-F18 

Chiniak highway, damage ................... 3-D39 

Chinitna Bay, height of tides ................. 3-123 

Chirikof Island, uplift ........................ 3-121 

Chistochina .................................. 3-E3 

Chistochina Glacier ......................... 4-D26 

Chistochina Lodge, Glenn highway, damage . 3-E25 

Chistochina River, location .................. 3-E3 

Chitin ....................................... 3-E3 

Chitina River, location ....................... 3-E3 

Chitina River flood plain, ground cracks .... 3-El7 

Cbitina Valley. .............................. 1-97 

Chugach MountAins, avalanches .......... .. 3.B14, 

3.B18, 4.B2 

Cook Inlet area ........................... 3-Fl 

crustal thickness. ........................ 349 

deformation .............................. 3-153 

Eklutna Project .......................... 5-A4 

geographic relation to earthquake area.. .. 1.1, 

1.3, 1-9, 2.A2, 2.B5 2.C1, 3-B2, 345, 

3.E2, 5-A4 

glaciation ......................... 3-B19, 4.D36 

gravity values ............................ 348 

icefields ............................. 4-Dl 

lake levels. .............................. 4-D33 

slides .................................... 3-E24 

subsidence ................... 3.C5,3.D28, 3.E8 

uplift ..................................... 3-C5 

Valdez Group ............................ 3-C4 

Chugach Mountains geosyncline ....... 2.E16, 3.E6 

Chngach National Forest .................... 3-B1 

Chugach Range . See Chugach Mountains . Chugiak, ground water ...................... 4-A19 

Clam Creek ................................. 3-F18 

Clam habitat, damage ........................ 1-36 

Clark, Charles H., eyewitness report .......... 2-C9 

Clear Creek ................................. 2-E23 

Clearview .................................... 1-63 

Cliff mine .............................. 2.C14, 2-C30 

Climate, Copper River Basin ................. 3-E3 

Whittier .................................. 2-B2 

Coastlines . See Shorelines . 

Coastal Trough province ................... 1.8, 1.9 

College Fiord, crustal thickness ............... 3-C9 

gravity values ............................ 3-C8 

icebergs ................................. 4-D36 

Colony Glacier ............................... 4-A4 

Colorado, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 44C18, 4440 

Columbia Glacier ................ .4-A5,4.D4, 4.D33 

Communications, damage ................... 5-B18 

Compression, bridges ........................ bD90 

Connecticut, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake .............. .4.C19, 44C40 

Connors Lake ................................ 4-B4 

Co~~solidatiol~ subsidence ..................... 6-21 

Construction, areas of potential landspreading ........................ 5-D94 

Continental shelf and slope, tectonic deformation ..................... ..3.D2 R,B.G4 

Controller Bay area, deformation ............. 3-150 

Cook, I . P., eyewitness account of Alaska 

earthquake... .................... 5-D3 

Cook Illlet area . earthquake.^. prof. Paper 6.43-F 

Cook Inlet, littoral drift ..................... ED20 

zone of subsidence ........... 3.D28,3.E8, 3.F27 

Cook Inlet-Susitna Lowlal~d.. ................ 1-9 

Cook Inlet trough ............................ 3-F2 

Cooper Landing, general damage ............ 2-G36 

seiches ................................... 3-A28 

side ................................. 3-A24 

Coos Bay, Oreg- ............................. 1-36 

Copalis River... ............................. 1-37 

Copper Center ............................... 3-E3 

Page 

Copper River. glacial melt ................... 4-Dl 

ice fracture- ....................... 3.E10, 4-AS 

location- ............................... 3-~3 

reduction of discharge ................... 4-~33 

tilting of river drainage ................... 3-135 

Copper River Basin- ........... Prof . Paper 643-E 

Copper River Basin, hydrology ............ 4-A19 

seismic respoilse of permafrost ............ 6-27 

subsidence- ............................. 3-E8 

Copper River Delta, Cordova airport ........ 5-B4 

location ............................ 3-B2, 4-A7 

mudvents ................................ 3-B9 

subsidence craters ....................... 3-B13 

uplifted areas ...................... 3-J5, 3-512 

Copper River flood plain, ground cracks .... 3-El7 

Copper River Highway .............. 1.29, 5-C4 

Copper River Lowland. .................. 1.9, 1.10 

Copper River valley ...................... 1-8, 1.92 

Copper Valley Electric Co., damage ........ 3-E25 

Cordova, airport ............................. 5-B4 

communications and utilities. .......... 5-B24 

crustal thickness ........................ 3-C9 

general damage ..................... 1.97, 2-GI8 

ground fractures ......................... 2-GI8 

ground water ............................. 4-A20 

reconstruction ........................ 1.80, 1.88 

shipping- ............................... 5-B10 

uplift ............................. 2.G18, 4-D34 

Cordova Building, Anchorage- .............. 2-A24 

Cordova Post Office, gravity values ......... 3-03 

Cove Creek .......................... 2.B18, 5-B26 

Crab population, effects of earthquake ....... 1-36 

Craters . See Earthquake-fountain craters; 

subsidence craters . Crescent City, Calif ....................... 1.1.1.37 

Cretaceous rocks, Kodiak Island ............. 3-D7 

Prince William Sound region ............ 3-C4 

Cretaceous to Jurassic deformatio~~ ............ 3-153 

Cretaceous to Tertiary deformation .......... 3-152 

Crosswind Lake- ............................ 3-E3 

Crustal changes, Cook Inlet region ......... 3-F25 

Crustal deformation, general .......... 3.18, 3-142 

Crustal structure, local, relationto seismic Surface waves .......................... 4-El8 

1) 

Damage. dollar value ........................ 1-18 

sumlllary . 1-19 

Danger Bay Creeks .......................... 3-D27 

Deceptio~~ Creek, Moiltague Island .......... 3-G13 

Delaware, hydrologic effectsof Alaska earthquake ............................. 4-C19, 4-C40 

Delta materials, Keilai Lake ................. 3-A12 

Lawing delta ............................ 3-A12 

Rocky Creek ............................ 3-A22 

Ship Creek .............................. 3-A18 

spreading ................................ 3-A31 

Deltas and fans, railroad embankments ....... 5-D66 

Delta River .................................. 1-10 

Denali fault system .................... -. ... 3-154 

Denali Highway .............................. 141 

Denmark, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................................... 4-C15 

Densities, ... rocks from Prince William Sound 3-C5 

Dentalina ................................. sp 2-A21 

De Poe Bay, Oreg ............................ 1-37 

Depth soundings, comparisons .........-... -. 3-120 

Diamond Creek 2-Dl 

Disenchantment Bay ........................ 4-D38 

Dislocatio~l theory, representatio~l ...--.. - . 3-167 

Drainage, glacially fed rivers ................. 4-D33 

Martin-Beriling Rivers area ............... 3-B26 

Valdez .................................... 2-C6 

Drift River, Cook Inlet area ................. 3-F23 

Drill holes F.A. 1 and F.A. 2 ................ 2-E38 

Drilling, onshore, Seward .................... 2-E31 

Drilling and soil testing, Anchorage area ..... 2-All 

Seward ............................. area 2-E26 

Dust ............. coat, Chugach Mountains. 3-B19 
INDEX 

E Page 

Eagle Harbor Creek ......................... 3-D27 

Eagle River ........................... 2.A2, 2-A12 

Eagle River valley .......................... 3-F23 

Earthtlows, Homer ........................... 2-D7 

Kodiak group of islands ................. 3-D21 

south-central Alaska ...................... 4-A9 

Earthquake-fountain craters, Martin-Bering 

Rlversarea ................................ 3-Bll 

Economic pattern, effect ...................... 5-B7 

Economic planning, long range ............... 1-50 

Edgerton Highway, damage ................. 3-E27 

location ................................... 3-E3 

Eiby, G A., . on ground waves .----.-...---... 3-E7 

Eklutna Dam, earthquake effects ........ 6-A6.6-21 

Eklutna Glacier .............................. &A1 

Eklutna Hydroelectric Project .. .Prof . Paper 646.A, 

6-21 

Eklutna Lake ................... .3.F20,4-A5, &A1 

Eklutna River ............................... 5-A4 

Eklutna tunnel ............................... 5-A8 

Eklutna valley .............................. SF19 

Elastic rebound theory ....................... 6-13 

Ellamar cannery ............................. 5-Bll 

Ellamar Peninsula, gravity values ........... 3-Cll 

Elmendorf Air Force Base ....... 1-73,2.A2, %AS&, 

4-B4, b-B4 

Elmendorf Moraine ............. 2-Al2,2.A33, 5-B3 

Elphidiella groenlandica ...................... 2-A21 

Elphidium bartletti ........................... 2-A21 

Elphidium clauatum .......................... 2-A21 

frigidurn .................................. 2-A21 

ince~tum ................................. 2-A21 

subarcticum .............................. 2-A21 

Elrington Island, gravity values ............. 3-Cll 

Emergence . See Uplift . Emmons Glacier, rockfall avalanche ......... 4-D26 

Engineering factors influencing damage intensity .............................. 5-1247 

Engineering Geology Evaluation Group ...... 1.57, 

2-A2,2-A10.2-A25,2-A43 

English Bay ............................ 1.96, 4.036 

Eocene to Oligocene deformation ............. 3-151 

Epicenter .................... 1-1,2.A2, 2-E4,3.A2, 

3-D7,3.F1,3-J1,4-E16, F-D6, 6-8 

Epicentral region, Prince William Sound ...... 3-C1 

Erosion, coastal ....................... 2.D24, 3-Jit 

Lakeview slide ............................ 3-A7 

Lawing slide ............................. 3-A12 

Montague Island ........... Prof . Paper 643-H 

Ship Creek .............................. 3-A22 

Europe, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ............................ 4-cis 

Evans Island ................ 1.17,1.36,3-C4, 5.Bll 

Ewan Lake ................................... 3-E3 

Eyak Lake .................................. 4-A20 

Eyak River .................................. kc29 

Eyewitness account, coastal area ......... 3-131 

Homer ................................... 2-D3 

Kenai Lake ...................... 3.A17, 3-A88 

Kentucky ................................ 4-CZ 

Kodiak .................................. 2-Fa 

Martin-Bering Rivers area ................ 3-B27 

New Mexico .............................. PC30 

The Alaska Railroad ..................... 5-D3 

Valdez .................................... 2-c9 

Whittier ................................... 2-B5 

Fairbanks ................ 1.7, 2-B1, 2.122, 2-046 

Fairbanks Committee for Alaska Earthquake 

Recovery ......................... 2-123 

Fairweather fault ............................. 3453 

Fairweather Glacier. ........................ 4-D26 

Fairweather Range, deformation ............. 3-153 

physiography .................. 1.8, 1-14, 3-J3 

Fan deltas, railroad damage ................. 5-D93 

Seward .................................. 2-El8 

Farshore waves... .......... ... 3-A8,3-All, &A22 

Page 

Fathometer profiles. Ship Creek delta ........ 3-A18 

Fault Cove. Montague Island ................ 3-G27 

Faults. amount of damage ..................... 6-30 

Kodiak Island area-.. ................... 3-D27 

major ..................................... 3-153 

Martin-Bering Rivers area ............... 3-B26 

Montague Island ....................... 3-D28, 

Prof . Paper 649-G, 3-125, 6-12, 6-30 

Port Valdez .............................. 2-Cl6 

Prince William Sound Region ........... 3.C5, 

349, 6-12, 6-30 

relation to vertical displacements ......... 3-130 

Fauna of Alaska, drainage .............. 1-34, 2-B6 

See a2ao Seafood industry . Federal aid to Alaska, summary .............. 1-103 

Federal Aviation Agency facilities ............ 5-B4 

Federal Disaster Act ......................... 2-D9 

Federal Field Committee .................... 1-51 

Federal financial assistance. .................. 1-50 

Federal Reconstruction and Development 

Planning Commission for Alaska .. 146, 

1-103 

Fickett Glacier .............................. 4-D21 

Fifth Avenue Chrysler Center, Anchorage.- 2-A24 

Fill failures ................................... &D60 

Finger Lakes ........................... 3-F12, PA8 

Fire, Seward ................ 1.23, 1-73, 2-E4, 2-E5 

Valdez ............................. 1.23, 2-C33 

Whittier .................... 1.23, 2.B6, ZB20 

Fire Islmd ........................... 4-Al9, A-Bl2 

First Avenue slide area, Anchorage .. 1.57,1.59, 1.82 

First Federal Savings and Loan Building, 

Anchorange ..................... 2-A24 

Fish Creek ................... 2.A29, 2.A61, 4-B6 

Fishing industry . See Seafood industry . Fissures . See Ground fractures . Fisaurina sp ................................. ?-A21 

Flood plains, active ......................... 6D93 

inactive ................................. 6D92 

railroad embankments .................. 5-D63 

Flooding, Valdez .............................. 2-C6 

Flora of Alaska ............................... 1-34 

Florence, Oreg ................................ 1-37 

Florida, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 4-C19, 4440 

Fluvial sediments, Copper River Basin ...... 3-E6 

Focal mechnism studies of earthquake .. 3-17, 6-13 

Forb.grass, food of the Canda goose .......... SJ18 

Forest Acres, Seward .................. 1.63, 2-E34 

Fort Randell ................................. 2-A2 

Fort Richardson ........................ 2.A2, %B3 

Fossils, Bootlegger Cove Clay ................ 2-A21 

Valdez Group ............................ 3-C4 

Four Sewns Apartment Building, Anchorage ............................... 2-A24 

Fourth Avenue slide area, Anchorage ........ 1-57, 

1.59, 1.73, 1.82, 2-A4, 2-A13, 

2.A27, 2.A38, 2-A41 

Fourth of July fandelta ...................... 2-E21 

Fourth of July Point .................. 2.E13, 2-El6 

Fox Island-Andreanof region ................. 3-149 

Fox River, Cook Inlet area .................. SF17 

Fractures . See Ground fractures . Fritz Creek ............................. 2.D1, 2-D7 

Frost, relation to ground cracks . 3-E6, 3.E13, 3-E24 

Fowa ......................................... 1-34 

Fowa dialichua ........................... 3-112, 6-35 

Fukni, Japan, earthquake ............. 2.A8, 2.C20 

Fur-bearing animals, Martin-Bering Rivers 

area ............................. SB27 

Furrow, defined ............................. 3-Ell 

G 

Gages. recording. uses ........................ 6-34 

Gaging stations. instruments and records ..... 4-El0 

Gakona ....................................... 3-E3 

Gallano Glacier ............................. 4-D38 

Page 

Geodetic measurements. horizontal displacements ........................... 3-040 

Geographic setting, Afognak ................. 2-F28 

Copper River Basin ...................... 3-E2 

Homer ................................... 2-Dl 

Homer Spit ............................. 2-D20 

Kaguyak ................................ 2-F37 

Kodiak ............................ 2.F3, 2-F17 

Kodiak Island area ................ 2-F3, 3-DS 

Montague Island .................. 3.G4, 3.H2 

Old Harbor .............................. 2-F34 

Geographic setting, Uzinki .............. 2-F33 

Whittier .................................. 2-B2 

Geologic setting, Afognak ................... 2-F28 

Aleutian Islands ......................... 3-145 

Anchorage ............................... 2-All 

Cook Inlet area ........................... SF2 

Copper River Basin ...................... 3-E3 

Eklutna Hydroelectric Project ............ 5-A4 

highway system .......................... 5-C2 

Kaguyak ................................ 2-F37 

Kodiak .................................. 2-F17 

Kodiak Island area ....................... 3-D6 

Montagne Island ................... 3-04, 3.H4 

Old Harbor .............................. 2-F34 

Prince William Sound area ............... 3-C5 

relation to damage ....................... 5-D95 

Seward .................................. 2-El6 

translatory slides ........................ 2-A38 

Uzinki .................................. 2-F33 

Valdez .................................... '2-C3 

Whittier .................................. 2-B3 

Geometry and mode of failure of slides, Anchorage .............................. 2-A40 

Geometry of deformation .................... 3-124 

Geomorphic effects, Martin-Bering Rivers 

area .............................. 3-B3 

Georgia, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake .................... 4.C19, 4-C4'2 

Gibbons, Frank, eyewitness account of, 

seiching ......................... 3-A17 

Girdwood ....................... 154,1.100, 2-036 

Glacial deposits, Copper River Basin ......... 3-E6 

Kodiak group of Islands .................. 3-D7 

Seward .................................. 2-El8 

Glacial outwash terraces, relation to rail damage .............................. 5-D92 

Glacial till, earthflows ....................... 3-D21 

Glaciation, Martin-Bering Rivers area ....... 3-B19 

Glaciers .................. Pr4f . Paper 644.0, 6-21 

Glacier Island, gravity values ............... 3-Cll 

Glenn Highway .............................. 1-29, 

SE3,3-E46,5A-l, 5-C4 

Glennallen, damage ......................... 3-E25 

effects on wells ..................... 3.E8, PA20 

ground motion ............................ 3-E7 

population ............................... 3-E3 

Glennallen Road Camp, damage ............ '3-E25 

Globigerina bulloides .......................... 2-A21 

pachyderms .............................. 2-A21 

Goat Mountain ............................... &A1 

Qodwin Glacier ...................... 2-E18, 2.E21 

Gold Coast, Oreg ............................ 1-37 

Gold Creek delta ............................ 2-C16 

Government Hill slide, Anchorage .......... .. 1-57, 

1.59,1.73,1-82,2.A2,2.A27, 2-A63 

Graben, use of term in Anchorage. .......... 2-A40 

Graben rule ........................... 2-A2, 8-A41 

Grain size of sediments, damage to highways . 6-C@ 

Granitic rocks, Prince William Sound region .. tC4 

Gravel-coated snow cones .................... 3-BZ2 

Graveyard Point ............... .... ........... 2-F28 

Gravity, changes caused by vertical displacements ........................... 3-142 

Gravity survey ..........-....... Prof . paper 643-C 

Gravity waves. ............................. 2-C20 

Grays Harbor County, Wash. ................ 1-37 

Great Cutch earthquake, India .............. 3-143 
INDEX 

Page 

Great Indian Earthquake of 1897 . See Assam. 

India. earthquake . Greenstone. description- ..................... 3-C4 

Greenstone belt, Prince William Sound ....... 3-C9 

Grewingk Glacier ............................ 2-D5 

Ground cracks . See Ground fractures . Ground fissures . See Ground fractures . Ground fractures, Anchorage ................ 2-A27 

caused by landspreading and embankments- .......................... -5-D90 

Chitina River flood plain ................ %El7 

Cook Inlet ................... Prof . Paper 634-F 

Copper River Basin ..................... %Ell 

defined .................................. %Ell 

deltas .................................... PA15 

Girdwood ................................ >a36 

highways ................................ -5411 

Homer ............................ 2-D7, SF12 

Jap Creek fan ...... 2-E34,PA114,5-D55, 6-098 

Kmhemak Bay .................... 3-F3, SF24 

Kenai Lake deltas ........................ -&A33 

Kodiak ................................... 2-F7 

Kodiak group of islands- ................ *Dl3 

Martin-Bering River area. ............... 3-B3 

Matanuska flats ......................... 2-B21 

Mineral Creek fiood plain ................ 5-D99 

origin. .................................. 3-E23 

Portage. .......................... 2-B21, SF19 

relation to frost. ............ 3-E6,3-E13, SE24 

Robe River flats .................... .... 2-B21 

Rocky Creek delta. ....... 3-A33,3-A37, bD76 

Seward... ......................... %E4, 2-ESS 

south-central Alaska. ... 3-B3,4-AS, lrD53, 619 

Tazlina Glacier. ......................... 3-E24 

theory of formation ...................... 2-C20 

Tustumena Lake area ................... 3-F16 

Valdez ............... 2-C1,2-C18,2-C20, 2-C30 

Victory Creek ........................... %A37 

Whittier ................................. 2-B15 

with compaction ........................ 2-A27 

Womens Bay- ............................ 2-F7 

Ground motion, Copper River Basin. ........ 3-E7 

general ............................. 2-C20, 6-B 

Homer ................................... 2-D3 

Kodiak .................................. 2-F19 

Kodiak Island area ................ 3-D7, %Dl2 

Kodiak Naval Station.. .................. 2-F6 

Seward ................................... 2-E4 

Valdez ................................... 2-c30 

Ground Water, affected by earthquake ....... 6-27 

Afognak ................................. 3-D23 

Anchor Point ............................ PA23 

Anchorage area ........................... 4B4 

Bootlegger Cove Clay ................... PB13 

Chugiak ................................. P~l9 

Copper River Basin ............... 3-E8, PA19 

Cordova ................................. 4-A~O 

fluctuation ................................ 3-E8 

Homer ........................... 2-D16.4A21 

Kodiak Island area ...................... 3-D23 

Seward. .......................... 2-En, PA24 

south-central Alaska- ................... PA13 

Ground-Water table, relation to ground 

cracks ........................... &El3 

Growth limit, sessile intertidal organisms .... 3-112 

Gulf of Alaska. .............................. 1-1, 

1-7,1-14,2-E2,2-E41,2-F3,2-F18, 3-E3 

Gulf of Mexico ............................... 1-37 

Gulkana ..................................... 3-E3 

Gulkana Airfield, damage ................... 3-E25 

Gulkana River ............................... IE3 

Gulkana Upland ............................. 1-10 

H 

Halibut Cove ................................ 2-D4 

Hanning Bay fault ... 3.G6,S-G27,3-I25,3-144, 612 

Harbors and ports. ...................... 1.30, 5-BE 

Harding Icefield ................. 2-B2, 2-E17, 4-Dl 

Harriman Fiord, gravity values .............. 3-C8 

Page 

Harriman Glacier ........................... PD36 

Harvard Glacier .............................. PD4 

Hawaii, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake .................... 4423, PC43 

secondary damage ........................ 1-36 

Hebgen Lake, Mont., earthquake- ...... PC1, PC5 

seiching ................................. %A29 

Heiden Canyon .................. 1-17,2-C1, 2-C18 

Hidden Glacier .............................. 4D38 

High-risk areas, Anchorage ................... 1-56 

Seward ...................... 1.63, '2-E25, 2-E32 

Valdez .................................... 1-79 

Highways, Copper River Basin area ......... 3-E25 

Kodiak Island ........................... 3-D39 

overall damage... ...... 1.27, Prof . Paper 646-C 

See also names of highways . Hill Building, Anchorage. ................... 2-A25 

Hillside Apartments, Anchorage ............. >A25 

Hinchinbrook Island, basaltic lavas .......... 344 

submarine scarps ........................ 3-G26 

Hinchinbrook Light Station ................. 2-021 

Hodge Building, Whittier ............. 2-B6, 2-B20 

Holocene deposits, Montagne Island. ........ 3-026 

Holocene faults.... ........................... 3-153 

Holocene vertical shoreline movements ....... 3-155 

Homer .......................... Prof . Pape~ 642-0 

airport ................................... 5-B5 

cleanup and restoration ......... 140,l-88, 1-90 

ground fractures ......................... SF12 

ground water.. .......................... PA21 

risk classifications. ....................... 1-63 

shipping ...................... 1-32,1.90, bB12 

subsidence ................................ 1.32 . 1-90, 2-D4, 2-D13,2-D22, 3413 

Task Force recommendations .... .... ....... 1-61 

Homer area, landslides ...................... SF17 

Homer Spit ........-.----....... ProfPaper 642-0 

beach changes ............................ 3-J1 

damage ............................. 1.63, SF14 

gravel .................................... 5-B5 

Hood Creek ................................. 2-A61 

Hood Lake, landing strip ..................... 2-A9 

mud fountains ............................ PB4 

Hope, general damage ....................... 2-036 

runway ................................... 5-B5 

subsidence ............................... 2-G37 

Horgan, Lake Zurich, Switzerland, turbidity 

current ........................... %All 

Horizontal bridge accelerations .............. 5D91 

Horizontal compaction ...................... 3-E23 

Horizontal displacements ................ 3.126, &11 

Horizontal movements of mobilized soil ...... 6-16 

Hot Springs Cove, B.C ...................... 1-37 

Howe Sound- ................................ 2-C17 

Hunter Flats, alluvial fan ................... &Dl15 

flood plain ............................. 5-Dl11 

Hurricane, Alaska ............................ 1-26 

Hydrodynamic factors, selches ............... PE12 

Hydrodynamic waves ....................... 3-Dl2 

Hydrologic effects ............. Prof . Paper series 644 

See also Ground water; individual feature or 

locality . 

Hydrology, definition of terms ............... 4-E2 

Hydroseism. definition ...................... PC2 

from aftershocks ......................... PC34 

largest recorded outside Alaska .......... PC32 

surface-water bodies ...................... PC5 

wells ............................... 4.C4, PC6 

worldwide occurrence- .................... 6-23 

See also Seiches . Hydroseismogram, definition ................. 4-C2 

Nunn-Bush Shoe Co . well, Wisconsin. .. PC10 

Hypocenter ....................... 3-D7,3-E6, 3-14 

1 

Ice avalanching ........................ 4-D6, 4.D36 

Ice cover, effects on lakes ..................... 4-A4 

effects on streams- ....................... 4-A9 

Paw 

Ice fractures. Bering L8ke ................... 3-B24 

Copper River ...................... 3-E10, 4.A9 

general ................................... 6-22 

Nelchina River .......................... 3-El0 

Sanford River ........................... 3-El0 

Ice ridges ..................................... 4-A5 

Icebergs, College Fiord ...................... PD36 

Icy Point, Alaska ............................ 1-14 

Idaho, hydrologic effects of Alaksa earthquake ..................... 4.C23, 4.C43 

Iliamna Bay, height of tides .............. .... 3-123 

Illinois, hydrologic effects of Alaksa earthquake ..................... 4.C23, PC44 

Indian Creek, Cook Inlet area ................ 3-F16 

Indiana, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 4423, 4.C44 

Ingram, John, eyewitness account, seiching- 3-A28 

Inoceramus ................................... 3-C4 

Instrumentation and measurements .......... 6-40 

Iowa, Alaska earthquake effects on ground 

water ..................... 4-C23.4445 

Iron Monntaln. ........................ 2.E17, 2-E23 

Isr-1, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ........................... 4-C14 

Jackson Point ............................... 2-C30 

Jap Creek .................... 2.E15, 2.E17, 5-B25 

$Tpp Creek canyon ....... 2-E4, 2.E14,2-E20, 2-E33 

Jap Creek fan, grand fractures ............... 2-E34, 

PA114, lrD55, 6.D98 

landslides ............................... 2-El5 

lithology ................................. 2-E20 

Japan, secondary damage .................... 1-36 

Japanese earthquakes ................... 3.E8, 3-143 

Jeanie Creek, Patton Bay fault .............. 3-018 

Juneau ....................................... 1-90 

Jurassic rocks, Kodiak Island ................. 3-D6 

Prince William Sound region ............. 3-C4 

Jurassic to Cretaceous deformation. ...... . 3-153 

Kachemak Bay. beach erosion ................ 3-J4 

ground fractures .................... 3.F3. SF24 

location .................................. 2-Dl 

seiches ................................... 2-Dl4 

subsidence ............................... 5-B12 

Kadiak Fisheries cannery damage .......... 3-D43 

drainage ................................. 3-Dl1 

subsidence ........................ 3-D13, >Dl8 

Kaguyak, damage ................. 1-19,1.94, 2.F87 

population ............................... 3-D6 

property losses ........................... 3-D3 

subsidence ............................. 2-F38 

Kaguyak Bay ............................... 2-F38 

Kalgin Island, Cook Inlet area ............... 3-F24 

Kalsin Bay, damage to bridges .............. 3-D39 

seismic sea waves ........................ FC27 

Kalsin River, damage to bridges ............. 3-D39 

Kansas, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... PC27, PC45 

Karluk, damage ........................ 2.F3, 2-F4O 

population ............................... 3-D6 

Kasilof ~iver .................... 3.F3,3-135, PA10 

Kasitsna Bay ................................ 2-D4 

Katalla, Alaska ............................... 1-41 

Katmai Volcano, deposits .................... 3-D7 

Kayak Island, uplift .......................... 3-117 

Kenai area, general damage .................. 3437 

ground water ............................ 4-A21 

Kenai-Chugach Mountains .............. 1.18, 3-D6 

Kenai Formation ............................. 2-D6 

Kenai Lake. .................... Prof . Paper 6@-A 

fan delta ................................ 5-Dl05 

horizontal displacement ........ 1-40,3-134, &34 

Kenai lineament ............................. 3-126 

Kenai Lowland, Cook Inlet area ..... 1.9.144, S-FS 

ground water ............................ PA21 
INDEX 

page 

Kenai Mountains. Eklutna Project ........... 5-A4 

geography and geology ................... 1.9, 

2-All, 2.B2, >Dl, 2-E16, 3-C5. 3-D6. 

3-F1 . glaciers .................................. 4-D36 

icefields .................................. 4-Dl 

lake levels. ............................. PD33 

regional subsidence ................ 3-D28, 3-160 

Kenai peninsula, airstrips .................... 5-B5 

communities ............................ 2435 

location .................................. 3-A2 

oil and gas ................................ 1-1W 

power system.. .......................... 6B19 

rate of bluff recession ..................... 3-519 

subsidence ............................... 3-168 

waves ................................... 3-123 

Kentucky, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake. .............. 4427, 4445 

Kiana Creek ................................ 3-E21 

Kiana Creek delta, subsidence ............... 3-E21 

Kiliuda Bay, subsidence .................... %Dl3 

Kiliuda Creeks .............................. 3-D27 

King Sahnon, community. .................. 2-044 

Kiniklik, gravity values ...................... 3-C8 

Klondike ..................................... 1-98 

Kluane Glacier .............................. PD39 

Klutina Lake ............ 3-E3.3-E10,3-E13, 3-E21 

Klutina River, diversion .............. 3-E13, 4-A9 

location .................................. 3-E3 

Knight Island, geology.. ............... 344, 3-C6 

gravity values ............... 3-C8.3-C10,3-Cll 

shear zones ............................... 3-C6 

Knik and Matanuska River flood plains ..... &Dl63 

Knik Arm, aquifers.. ........................ PA18 

as geographic boundary. ................. 1-18, 

1-73,l-102,2-A2,2.A28,2-A30, 3-E3 

discharge zones. ......................... 4-B12 

Eklutna Project- ......................... &A4 

slides on west side ....................... 2-A34 

Knik Arms Apartment Building, Anchorage. . %A26 

Kodiak .......................... Prof . Paper 649-F 

city airstrip .............................. 5-B5 

communications and utilities .......... .. 6B24 

Kodiak and nearby islands... ... Prof . Paper 649-0 

Kodiak Island, coastal lakes. ............. .... PA8 

Kodiak Island area, subsidence ........ 3-D13, bB8 

Kodiak Naval Station, damage .. 2-B6,3-D3, 5-B15 

subsidence ............................... 2-F10 

L Street Apartment Building. Anchorage.. .. 2-A26 

L Street slide, Anchorage .................... 2-A43 

L-K Street slide area, Anchorage ............. 1-57. 

1.59,1.82, 1.100; 2.A4,2.A22. 2-A27 

La Coste and Romberggeodeticmeter G.17 .... 3-03 

Lacustrine deposits, Copper River Basin ...... 3-E6 

Kodiak Island area ...................... >Dl5 

LaGrange's equation... ..................... 3-D37 

Lake basins, tilting. ................... $194, SF26 

Lake Charlotte, landslides ................... 3-B19 

Lake Clark-Castle Mountains fault ..... 3-F2, 3-F23 

Lake George .................................. 3-F2 

Lake-ice fracture, Copper River Basin. ...... >El0 

Martin-Bering Rivers area ............... 3-B24 

Lake Louise, location. ........................ 3-E3 

Lake Louise Plateau ......................... 10 

Lake Otis. ................................... 4-B4 

Lake Rose Tead, bridge ..................... 3-D42 

subsidence .............................. %Dl5 

Lake Spenard ................................ PB4 

Lakes, Anchorage area- ...................... CB4 

as tiltmeters ...................... 6-34, 3-F26 

effects .................................... 4-A4 

fluctuations in level.. ..... .3.D24, 3-141. 4-A7 

icefractures .......... 3-B24, bD24, bE10, 4.A4 

Lakeview delta, hathymetry ................. 3-A4 

landslides ........................ SA3, &Dl% 

waves ..................................... %A7 

Page 

Land area affected by earthquake ............ 3-51 

Land ownership, legalities .................... 3-518 

Land snails, effects of earthquake ............ 3-B27 

Landslides, Anchorage area .. 2-A9, 2-A21, I-ASO, 

6 0-76, 6-17 

See a180 Turnagain Heights . Anchor River valley. .................... 2-D7 

Bering Lake ............................. 3-Bl9 

Cape Saint Elias ........................ 2-G33 

causes ................................... 3-D22 

Copper River basin .................... %Ell 

damage to highways ..................... bC26 

damage to railroad ...................... &D72 

effects on lakes ........................... 4-A7 

Homer ...................... 2-D3,2.D6,2.D10 

Jap Creek fan ........................... %El5 

Kenai Lake .............................. %A3 

Klutina Lake. ................. 3-E13, SE21 

Kodiak Island area ...................... 9-D18 

Lake Charlotte .......................... 3-B19 

Little Martin Lake .................... .. 3-B19 

Meadow Creek delta .................... %A24 

ptior to the March 27 earthquake ........ 2-A66 

Prince William Sound... ................. 6-16 

Quartz Creek delta ...................... %A24 

Richardson Highway .................. sE24 

Rocky Creek delta .. 3-A3, 3-A12,3.A22, bD76 

Seward .................... 2-En, 2-E14, 2-E28 

Ship Creek ................ 3-A12, 3-A18, 6B3 

south-central Alaska .............. 4.A7, 530 

Tokun Creek delta ...................... 3-B19 

Tonsina Lake .......................... SE21 

translatory ........................ 2-AS8, 6-30 

Turnagain ~rm .............. 1A.30, bD73 

Turnagain aeights .1.18, 1-57, 1-59, 1.73, 1-82 

2-A2, 2-A13, 2-A28, 2-A38,2-.459, 5-B4, 

518 

Victory Creek ........................... 3-A3 

Valdez .. 2.C1, 2.C7, 2-C10, I.Cl.4, 2-C30, 2435 

Whittier .......................... 2-B15, 2-B21 

Landsliding and lurching ................... 6D56 

Landspreading, bridge damage ...... 3-A31, kD89 

construction in potential areas ........... 5-D94 

general ................................... 6-16 

new term proposed ...................... 5-D57 

Lakeview delta, ground fracture ............. >A33 

lateral spreading .................. 3-A4, 3.All 

slide.. ............................. S.AS, %A12 

Laramide orogeny ............................ 3-152 

Larsen Bay, damage ................... 2-F3, 2-3'40 

erosion by storm waves ................... 3-115 

population ............................... 3-D6 

Latouche Island, earthquake effects ......... 2-022 

gravity values ........................... bCll 

Lawing aimtrip .............................. 5-B5 

Lawing delta, batbymetry ................... %A12 

seiching ................................. >A28 

slides ............................. 2-Al2, &A24 

subsidence ............................... %A29 

waves ................................... %A12 

Leamard Glacier ............................. 2-B3 

Lee's Guide Service, Glenn Highway, 

damage ......................... 3-E25 

Legal problems. littoral rights ................ MI9 

Legislation. special Federal ................... 1-49 

Leveling, comparison of preearthquake and 

postearthquake ................... 3420 

flrst order, at SeuTard .................... 2-El6 

Libya, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ........................... 4414 

Limogram, seiching ........................ %A25 

Liquid limit, soils ........................... %A15 

Liquidity index ............................. 2-A16 

Lisbon earthquake, seiches .................. %A29 

Little Martin Lake, landslides ............... 3-B19 

Little Susitna River ......................... 4-All 

Little Tonsina River bridge, damage ........ 3-E26 

Little Tonsina River landslide, Copper River 

Basin ............................ bE13 

Page 

Lituya Bay. 1958 earthquake. ................ 1-14 

rockslide avalanche ...................... 4-D26 

Logging industry, Kodiak Island area ....... bD44 

Lone Island .................................. 3-C4 

Long Island ................................. SF18 

Longshore material movement ................ 3415 

Louisiana, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake. ............. ..... ... 4-C27, 4-C45 

Love wav e.. ................... .... ......... bD27 

Low-angle thrust theory ...................... 6-13 

Low-water features ........................... 346 

Lowe River ..................... 2-C2,2.C7, 2-C14 

Lowe River valley ........................... 2-C1 

Lowell Creek at Seward .............. 2-E16, &A24 

Lowell Creek canyon ..... 2-E4,Z-E14,2-E18, 2-E33 

Lowell Creek fan ............................ 4-A15 

Lowell Point .................... 1-63, 2-E13, %El6 

Lowell Point fan delta ...................... 2-E21 

Lower Tonsina Hill ......................... 6427 

Lower Tonsina River bridge, damage. ....... 3-E27 

Lucia Glacier ................................ 4-D39 

Maclaren River,location ...................... 3-E3 

MacLeod Harbor, effects on raised beach. .... 9-HI 

Hanning Bay fault ....................... 3-G27 

Magnetic effects of earthquake ............... 1-33 

3.D7, 6.26 

Main Sand Bay ................ 3-H27,3.H29, 3-H30 

Maine, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake .................... 4.C28, 4.C46 

Malaspina piedmont glacier ................... 1-14 

Manitoba, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ........................... 4-CIS 

Marathon Creek ............................. &B25 

Marathon Mountain ......................... 2-El7 

Margerie Glacier ............................. 4-D26 

Marka Creek ................................ 3-D27 

Mapsand other basic data, availability ..... 6.3, M2 

Marmot Bay ................................. 2-F28 

Marmot Island, landslides ................... 3-Dl8 

subsidence .............................. 3-D25 

Martin-Bering Rivers area Prof .... . Paper 649-B 

Martin Lake, landslides. ..................... 3-B19 

snow corner .............................. 3-B22 

Martin River Glacier, rockslid6avalanches ... 4-Dl3 

turbidity changes in lakes ................ S-BI1 

Martin River valley. .................. 3.B2, 3-B19 

Maryland, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 4.C28, 4-C46 

Mass movements- ............................ 6-14 

Massachusetts, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake ............... 4.C28, 4.C46 

Matanuska, railroaddamage ................ 5-Dl56 

Matanuska flats, ground fracturing ........... 2.B21 

Matanuska geosyncline ....................... 3-E3 

Matanuska Glacier .......................... 3-E25 

Matanuska River, location .............. 3.E3, 4-Dl 

Matanusk&Valley, generaldamage.. ...... 2-G45 

geologic and hydrologic environment ..... 4-A23 

power system ..................... 5-B19 

Mayflower Creek, damage to bridges ......... 3-D39 

Meadow Creek delta, slide ................... 3-A24 

Meares Glacier ............................... 4-D4 

Mercalli intensity, grouhd shaking ........... %Dl2 

Homer ............................ 2.D3, 2.D18 

Karluk .................................. 2-F40 

Kodiak group of islands- ......... 2.F29, %Dl2 

Old Harbor .............................. 2-F35 

Merian .............................. formula 3-A25 

Merrill Field .................................. 5-B3 

Mesozoic rocks, Prince William Sound region .. 3-C5 

Michigan, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 4.C28, 4.C46 

Michigan basin, ..................... seiches- 4-El4 

Middle Bay, damage to bridges ............... 3-D39 
INDEX 

Page 

Middleton Island. crustal thickness ........... 349 

general damage .......................... 2-G34 

horizontal displacement .................. 3-130 

uplift ....................... 3-D28, 3-121, 3-160 

MUes Glacier- ................................ 4-A4 

Millers Landing area, wave erosion ........... 341'2 

Million Dollar Bridge. ................. 1-29, LC35 

Mineral Creek ............................... 2-C35 

Mineral Creek bridge ......................... bD40 

Mineral Creek delta ......................... 2-C16 

Mineral Creek fan.. ............. 2-C1,2-C3, 2-C34 

Mineral Creek flood plain, ground cracks .... -5-D99 

Mineralogy, Bootlegger Cove Clay ........... 2-A19 

Miners Lake. ................................. 4-A7 

Mines, effects of earthquake .................. 6-27 

Minnesota, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake .................... 4-C28, 4-C47 

Mission Lake ................................ SF18 

Mississippi, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake .................... 4-C28, 4-C47 

Mississippi delta... ........................... 1-33 

Missouri, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake .................... 4-C28, 4-C48 

Modified Mercalli scale ......... 2-D3, 2-D18, 3-Dl2 

See also Mercalli intensity . Mollusk fragments. .......................... 2-A21 

Montague Island, beach erosion and deposition 

Prof . Paper 643-H 

faults ...... Prof . Paper 64.9-ff, 3-C6,3-125, 6-12 

gravity values.. .......................... 3-C8 

horizontal displacements- ................ 3-130 

subsidence ............................... 3-160 

Uplift ................................... 3-D28, 

Prof . Papers 64.9-G,H, 3-I18,3-143, 3-112 

Montague Strait, gravity values .............. 3-C9 

Montana, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake .................... 4-C29, 4-C48 

Moorcroft, J . W., eyewitness account of sliding-3-A28 

Moose Creek, Cook Inlet area ................ 3-F16 

Moose Pass ............................. 1-40, 3-A28 

Mount Blackburn ............................ 1-11 

Mount Fairweather ........................... 1-8 

Mount Foraker .............................. 1-9 

Mount Gerdine ............................... 1-8 

Mount Hayes ................................. 1-9 

Mount Hubbard .............................. 1-14 

Mount Iliamna ............................... 1-8 

Mount Logan ................................. 1-14 

Mount McKinley ........................ 1-8, 2-All 

Mount McKinley Building, Anchorage ....... 2-A26 

Mount Marathon ............................. 1-90 

Mount Pelee eruption ........................ 1-5 

Mount Saint Elias ............................ 1-8 

Mount Sanford ............................... 1-11 

Momt SpUIT ................................. 3-145 

Mount Susitna ............................... 3-F23 

Mount Vancouver- ........................... 1-14 

Mount Wrangell .............................. 1-11 

Mud fountains- ....................... 2-A29, 4-~4 

Mud volcanoes . See Mudvents . Mudcones .................................... 3-B 13 

Mudvents, Copper River delta ................ 3-B9 

Martin-Bering Rivers area. ............... 3-B8 

Muldrow Glacier- ........................... 4-D38 

Munson Point- ............................... 2-~3 

Myrtle Creek, seismic seawavve. ...... 3-D34, 3-D35 

N 

Nankaido earthquake. ....................... 3-143 

Narrow Cape. fluctuations in well levels ..... 3-D23 

landslide ................................ 3-D2i 

seismic seawaves ................. 3-D30.3-D35 

Uplift .................................... 3-D25 

Narrow Cape spur road, damage ............ 3-D42 

Narrow Strait ............................... 2-F33 

Native Hospital slide, Anchorage .... 2-A41, 8-A49, 

2-A66 

Native villages- ............................... 144 

See a180 particular village . 

Pam 

Navigation aids ............................... 5-B7 

Near Island .................................. 2-F18 

Nebraska, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 4.C29, 4.C48 

Necanicum River- ............................ 1-37 

Neck Point ................................... 3-G7 

Nelchina Glacier ............................. 3-E24 

Nelchina River, ice fracture .................. %El0 

Nelchina River delta, ground cracks ......... >El7 

Nellie Juan River ........................... 4-D34 

Nellie Martin River ......................... 3-G20 

Netland Glacier ............................. 4-D3i 

Nevada, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 4-C29, 4-C49 

New, Lester, eyewitness account ............. 3-B27 

New Hampshire, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake... ............ 4-C29, 4449 

New Jersey, hydrologiceffects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 4-C29, 4-C49 

New Madrid, Mo., earthquakes of 1811 . 2-A38; 2-CZO 

New Mexico, hydrologiceflects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 4-C29, 4-C49 

New York, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 4.C30, kc50 

New Zealand earthquakes .................... 3-143 

News coverage, Task Force decisions .......... 1-65 

Niigata, Japan earthquakes ................... 3-143 

Ninilchik .................................... 4-A23 

Ninilchik runway ............................. 5-B5 

North American Standardization Pendulum 

station ............................ 3-C6 

North Carolina, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake ................ 4.C30.4-C50 

North Dakota, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake ............... 4-C30, 4-CM) 

North Sandy Bay ............. 3-H29,3.H33, 3.H38 

Northwest Territories, Canada, hydroldgic 

effects of Alaskaearthquake ...... 4-C16 

Nunn-Bush Shoe Co . well, Wisconsin, hydroseismograms ..................... kc10 

Nyman Peninsula ..................... 2-F6, 2-F12 

0 

Oceanographic effects ......................... 6-23 

Office of Emergency Planning. ........... 1.46, 1.94 

Ohio. hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 4.C30.4.C50 

Oklahoma, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake .................... 4430, PC51 

Old Harbor, fluctuations in well levels ...... 3-D23 

population ......................... 3-D6, 2-F3 

property losses .................... 1D3, SF24 

seismic sea waves ..... 1.19, 1.94, %F36, 3-D32, 

SD3.3, 3-D35, &All 

subsidence ........................ 3-D16, SF34 

Olds River, erosion of bottom ............... 3-D37 

subsidence ............................... 3-D27 

Olympic Mountains .......................... 1-8 

Ontario, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ........................... kc16 

Orca Group ...................... 3-(24.3-C6,3-a4 

a let ................................... 1-32 

Oregon, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ............... 1.37,4.C31, PC51 

Orogenies, south-central Alaska ............. 3-150 

Oshetna River, location ..................... 3-E3 

Ostracodes .................................. %A21 

Ouzinkie . See Uzinki . P 

P phases on seismograms ..................... 5-D8 

Pacific Border Ranges province. ........ 1.12, 3.D6 

Pacific Coastal forest, Prince William Sound 

area .............................. 3-B2 

Pacific Mountain System ..................... 1-8 

Pacific Ocean basin .......................... 1-7 

Palmer, damage ............... 3-F20,2.G45, 4.A23 

electric power ............................ &A1 

Palmer Creek tidal area ...................... %D6 

Pam 

Palmer Peninsula ............................ 1-36 

Passage Canal ............... 2.B2, 2.~5, 346, 5-~6 

Pateoris hauerinoidea ......................... %A21 

Patton Bay.. ............................... 3-~7 

Patton Bay fault ...... 3-G7,3.125,3-131,M44, 6-12 

Patton River .......................... 3-G7, 3-GI6 

Patton River Valley, Patton Bay fault ...... 3-021 

Paxson ....................................... 3-~3 

Paxson Lakes ................................ 3-E3 

Penetrometer data ........................... 5-D92 

Penny's Department Store Building, Anchorage .......................... 2-A26 

Penstock, Eklutna project ................... bA13 

Pennsylvania, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake. .............. 4431, 4-C51 

Per1 Island .................................. 2-~4 

Permafrost, Copper River Basin ............. 3-E6, 

3-E13,4-A19.6-27 

Perry Island ................................. %a23 

Petroleum and natural gas facilities .......... bB21 

PhUippines, Republic of, hydrologic effects 

of Alaska earthquake ............ PC14 

Physical environment, effects ................. 6-14 

Physiographic divisions ...................... 1-7 

Physiography, Copper River Basin- ......... 3-E2 

Fairweather Range .............. 1-8,1.14, 3-53 

Kenai Lake .............................. %A2 

Martin-Bering Rivers area ................ 3-B2 

relation to damage. ..................... 6-D95 

south-central Alaska ................. 1.7.3.134 

Piezometric levels ..................... 4.B8, 4.B13 

Pinnacle Rock ............................... 2433 

Placer River flood plain .................... 5-Dl18 

Placer River Valley .......................... 4-A15 

Plasticity index, soils ........................ 2-A15 

Pleasant Valley, Nev., earthquake of 1915 .... 3-E8 

Pleistocene deposits, Anchorage area ... 2.Al1, 2-A12 

Copper River Basin ...................... 3-E6 

Point Campbell ............................. 2-A30 

Point Hope ............................... 1-3, 2.A2 

Point Nowell ................................ 2-a24 

Point Woronzof, Bootlegger Cone Clay ....... 2-A12 

landsliding ............................... 2-A33 

Polymorphina sp ............................. 2-A21 

Pony Point, Oreg ............................ 1-37 

Porcupine Creek, delta ...................... 3-A24 

Porcupine Island ................ 3.A3,2.A25.3.A30 

Port Alberni, B.C ........................... 1-37 

Port Bailey, fluctuations in streamflow ...... 3-D24 

Port Bailey cannery, fluctuations in well 

levels ............................ 3-D23 

Port Graham ................................ 2-G37 

Port Gravina, gravity values ............ 3.C8, 3.C9 

Port Gravina pluton, density. ............... 3-C10 

Port Lions .............................. 1-962-F28 

See also Afoguak . Port Nellie Juan ...................... bBll, 8.Gd4 

Port Oceanic ................. -- ..... bBll, $.Gab 

Port of Anchorage area. ................ 2.A9, 8-A87 

Port Royal, Jamica, 1692 slide ................ 3-A3 

Port Valdez .................................. 1.36, 

8.C1, 2.C10,2.C14, PA26, bB15 

Port Valdez valley ..................... 2-C18 

Port Valdez fjord ................... 1.17,1.40,2-C3 

port Wells .................................... 1-36 

Portage, general damage ..................... 2-G40 

ground fractures .................. 2.B21, 3.F19 

railroad damage ........................ 5-Dl39 

regional subsidence ................. - . 5-D80 

Portage Creek flood plain .................. 5- Dl18 

portage Glacier ......................... 2-B2, PA4 

Portage Lake ........................... 2.B2, PA5 

portage Pass .................................. 242 

Ports and harbors ....................... 1.30, 6.BB 

Potatopatch Lake ...................... 2.F19, 4.A8 

potter. .................................. 1.25, 2.M 

Potter Hill landslidiug, Anchorage .... 2.A31, 5.D72 

power Creek ................................ &A10 

Power spectral density function, defined ..... 
INDEX 

Page 

Power systems ........... Prof. Paper 646-A, 5-B19 

Powerplant, Eklutna project ................ 5-A15 

Precipitation, Copper River Basin ............ 3-E3 

Martin-Bering Rivers area ................ 3-B2 

President's Disaster Relief Fund. ............ 147 

Prince William Sound, biologic effects. ....... 1-34 

communities ...................... a-Gl1, 5-Bll 

gravity data ............................. 3-C10 

number of earthquakes .................. -4-D41 

structure of rocks. ........................ 3-C5 

uplift. ............................. 3-D28, 5-B8 

Valdez Group ............................ 3-C4 

water depths ............................. 3-C9 

waves .................................... 3-A1 

Property values, affected by earthquake ...... 3-J19 

Protelphidium orbiculare ..................... 2-A21 

Ptarmigan Creek ............................ &A12 

Puerto Rico, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ............................... 4-C31, 4C52 

Puget Bay ............................ 2-E41.2-G41 

Purple Bluff ........................... 3-07, 3-022 

Q 

Quartz Creek ................................ 3-A30 

Quartz Creek delta, landslide ................ 3-A24 

Quaternary deposits, Kodiak Island ......... 3-Dl1 

Questionnaires, determining earthquakes' effects ......................................... 6-42 

Quingueloeu2ina aeminula .................... 2-A21 

Rabbit Creek ............................... ?-A32 

Radioactive contamination, Kodiak Naval 

Station .................................... 2-F17 

Radiocarbon dating- ......................... 3-159 

Ragged Mountain fault ....................... 3-153 

Ragged Mountains, avalanches .............. 3-B19 

location- ................................. 3-B2 

Railbelt Reporter, damage from earthquake 

described ................................... 5-D3 

Railroads . See The Alaska Railroad . Raspberry Island ............................. 2-F3 

Raspberry Straits, effects of tectonic deformati ....................................... 3-D44 

Rat Island earthquake ....................... 3-149 

Rayleigh waves ........................ 1-33, 5-D25 

Recent sediments ............................. 3-E6 

Recent tectonic history ....................... 3-150 

Reconstruction ................... Prof . Paper 541 

Recording gages, uses ......................... 634 

Redoubt Bay, Cook Inlet area .............. 3-F23 

Reid mechanism of earthquake generation ..... 3-164 

Research, origins of earthquakes .............. 6-37 

Resurrection Bay ............ 1-73,2-E17, 5-B6, 5-D4 

Resurrection River .................... 2-E15.2-Em 

Resurrection River flood plain, distribution of 

damage .................................... bDgs 

Resurrection River valley ...... 2-E17,2-E37, 4-A24 

Resurrection River-Mineral Creek bridges .... 5-D35 

Rhode Island, hydrologic effects ....... 4431, 4-C52 

Richardson Highway, damage .......... 3-E26, 5-C4 

local subsidence .......................... 5-C20 

location .................................. 3-E3 

landslides ................................ 3-Ex 

subsidence ............................... 5C20 

uplift. ............................. 2-Cl8, 3-123 

Richter magnitude, earthquake .............. 2-A2, 

2-E4,2-F2, 3-D7, 3-E6 

first P pulse- ............................. 5-~8 

River drainages, tilting. ...................... 3-135 

River ice, Copper River Basin ............... 3-EIO 

Roads . See Highways . Robe River ............................ 242, 2-c21 

Robe River flats, ground fractures ........... 2-~21 

Roberts, Mrs . Hadley, eyewitness account of 

Seiching ............................. 3-~17, 3-~28 

Rock avalanches, defined. ................... 3-B13 

See a280 Rockslides . 

Page 

Rock densities. Prince William Sound ........ 3-C5 

Rockslides, Copper River Basin ............. 3-E24 

Kodiak group of islands ................. 3-D20 

Martin-Bering Rivers area ............... 3-B17 

on glaciers .................... 4-DO, 4-D26, 615 

Rocky Bay 2-G42 

Rocky Creek delta, bathymetry .............. 3-A4 

ground fracture ............ $-ASS, 3-A37, 5-D76 

landslides ............ 3-A3,3-A12,3-A22, 5-D76 

railroad-bridge damage ................... 3-A31 

Rocky Mountains, atmospheric effects ........ 1-33 

seiches ................................... 4E14 

Rogue River ................................. 136 

Romig Hill slide area, Anchorage .... 1-57,140, 1-82 

Rosdina sp .................................. 2-A21 

Russian Jack Springs ......................... 4-B2 

S 

S waves ..................................... 5-D27 

Saddlebag Glacier. .......................... 4-D2i 

Saint Eh-Chugach fault .............. 3.B2, 3.B19 

Saint Elias Mountains, deformation. ......... 3-153 

physiography .................... 1.8,l-14, 343 

Saint Paul Harbor, Kodiak .................. 2-F18 

Salmon Creek. ............................. 2-E22 

Salmon fishing . See Seafood industry; Biological effects . Salmon River flood plain, distribution of damage ........................................ 5-D98 

Saltery Cove Creek .......................... 3-D27 

Saltery Cove spur road, damage ............. 3-D42 

Saltery Lake, subsidence .................... 3-Dl5 

San Andreas fault ............................ 6-30 

San Diego, Calif .............................. 1-37 

San Francisco Bay, Calif ................. 137 

San Francisco earthquake ............. 2.A8, 5-D23 

San Juan dock, Seward ........ 2.E13,2.E23, 2.E28 

Sen Rafael, Calif ............................. 1-37 

Sand blows ................................... 3-B8 

Sand boils, Anchorage ....................... ?-A29 

Seward .................................. 2-E38 

Sand ejects blankets ......................... 5427 

Sand flows, effects on ground water .......... 4-A14 

Sand ridges ................................... 3-B8 

Sand spouts ................................. 2-E40 

Sand vents, Cook Inlet area .................. 2-F4 

Kodiak group of islands ................. 3-Dl5 

theory of formation ..................... 2-C20 

Sanford River, ice fracture ................... 3-El0 

location .................................. 3-E3 

Santa Cmz, Calit ............................ 1-37 

Sargent Icefield .................. 2.82,4.D1, 4-D34 

Saskatchewan, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake ...................... 4-C16 

Sawmill Bay ........... 1.17,2.C14,5-Bll, d.Gf8 

Sawmill Creek delta ......................... 2-C16 

Schwan Glacier ............................. 4-Dl3 

Scientific and Engineering Task Force and its 

Field Team .... 1-16,1L51,?.E26,2.E41, 

0-9 

Scientific benefits of earthquake .............. 6-32 

Scielltificpreparation for future earthquakes ... 6-37 

Scott Glacier ................................ 4D31 

SeabastoZobus ................................. 2-B8 

Seafood industry, economic pattern ........... 5-B7 

effects of tectonism ....................... 3-133 

Kodiak Island area ...................... 3-D42 

Martin-Bering Rivers area ............... 3-B26 

south-central Alaska .......... 1.25.3.Jl7.5-B6 

Seaside, Oreg... ............................ 1-37 

Seabastodes ................................... 2-B8 

Sediment, relation to highway damage ..... 5-C43 

Sediment compactio~l, Kodiak ............... 2-F18 

Kodiak Naval Station .................... 2-F7 

Seward. ................................. 2-E40 

Whittier ................................. 2-~15 

Sediment displacements, models ............. 5-D90 

Sediment load, effects on streams ............ PA13 

Page 

Sediment thickness. relation to seiches..... ... 4-El3 

Seiches.. .................... Prof . Papers 644.c, E 

Anchorage area ........................... 4-B4 

Cooper Landing ......................... 3-A28 

definition ..................... 2.F2,4.C2, PE2 

Homer ............................ 2.D3, 2.D14 

Kaehemak Bay .......................... 2-Dl4 

Kenai Lake... ................... 3-A25, PA7 

Kodiak Naval Station ................... 2-F17 

Lakes in south-central Alaskh ............ 4-A5 

Passage Canal ........................... 2-B18 

Seward .................................. 2-E41 

Snow River delta ........................ 3-A28 

Valdez ................................... 2435 

worldwide occurrence ..................... 6-23 

Seismic air waves... ......................... 3-D38 

Seismic data, Copper River Basin ............ 3-E6 

Seismic effects, direct, Afognak- .......... ... 2-F28 

Anchorage ............................... 2-A21 

Kaguyak ................................ 2-F38 

Old Harbor .............................. 2-F34 

Uzinki ................................... 2-F33 

Whittier ................................. 2-Bll 

Seismic history, Homer ...................... 2-Dl8 

Valdez .................................... 2-C7 

Seismic sea waves, Afognak .......... 3-D33, 3.D44 

Cape Chiniak .................... 3-D30, 3-D35 

Cape Saint Elias ........................ 2-033 

Chenega ........................... 1.94, 2415 

Cordova ................................. 2-018 

crest heights ............................. 3-D33 

damage to bridges ....................... 5432 

damage to port facilities- ................ LD89 

effects on stream mouths. ................ 3-Jll 

generation ................................ 3-138 

Homer ............................ 2-D4, 2-Dl8 

Kadiak Fisheries cannery ............... 3-D43 

Kaguyak ................................ 2-F37 

Kalsin Bay .............................. LC27 

Kodlak .................................. 2-F19 

Kodiak and nearby islands ....... 4-All, 3-D30 

Kodiak Naval Station ............ 3-11P, 5-B15 

magnitude scale .......................... 6-36 

Montague Island ......................... 3-026 

Myrtle Creek ..................... 3.D24, 3.D25 

Narrow Cape .................... 3-D30, 3.D35 

Old Harbor ............................... 1.19, 

1-94, ?.F36,3-D23,3-D33,3.D35, 4-All 

relation to vertical displacements ... 3.G48, 6.30 

Seward .......... 1-73,1.9l,?-E4,2.E13, 2-E41 

Sitkalidek Island ........................ 3-D35 

south-central Alaska ..................... 6-25 

Terror River ............................ 3-D34 

Three Saints Bay ........................ 3-D30 

Uganik River ........................... 3-D34 

Uzinki .................................. 3-D33 

whit tier^ ................................. 1-99 

Womet~s Bay ...................... 2.F2, 3-D33 

Seismic Sea Wave Warning System .......... 3-D45 

Seismic seiches . See Seiches . Seismic shaking . Anchorage .................. 2-A22 

damage to bridge approaches ............ 5432 

Kodiak ................................... 2-F6 

Seward ................................... 2-E4 

Seismicsurface waves, amplitude distribution . 6-23 

effect on lake ice .......................... 4-A4 

relation to seiches .................. 1-33, 4-El5 

Seismicity ............................... 3-14, 3-145 

Seismographs, suitable networks .............. 6-40 

Seismology, definition of terms ............... 4-E2 

Seldovia, airstrip ............................. 5-B5 

cleanup and restoration ................... 1-80 

geanticline ......................... 3-E3, 3-153 

general damage .......................... 2-042 

shipping ................................. 5-B13 

subsidence ............................... 2-Dl3 

Serpentine Glacier ........................... 4-D36 

Sessile intertidal organisms, growth limit. .... 3-112 
INDEX 

Page 

Seward... ....................... Prof . Paper 548-E 

air transport .............................. 5-B6 

cleanup and restoration ......... 1-73, 1-85, 141 

communications and utilities ......... ... 5-B25 

damage to city wells ..................... &A16 

port destruction ......... 1-17,l-31, kB7, 5-B12 

railroad .................................. bD96 

shipping ................................. 6B12 

subsidence ............................... 2-El6 

Task Force recommendations ............. 1-63 

Seward Peninsula, strong oscillations on 

lakes ............................. &A4 

Shahafka Cove .............................. 2-F18 

Shakespeare Glacier .......................... 2-B3 

Shearwater Bay ................. 1-32,3-D13, 5-B15 

Shearwater cannery- ........................ 5-B15 

Sheep Creek ................................. SF18 

Sheep Mountain, Copper River Basin. ...... 3-E25 

Sheep Mountain Inn, Glenn Highway, damage .............................. 3-E25 

Shelby-tube samplea ........................ 2-E27 

Shelikof Strait ...... 2-F3, 3-D6,3-D33, 3-D35, 3-J2 

SheMsh .................... 1-36,3433, 3-137, 3417 

Sherman glacier .................. 1-14,4-06, 4-D31 

Ship Creek, geographic relation to Anchorage . 1-100, 

1-102, 2-A9,2-A30,2-A36, PA9 

landslide .................... 3-A12,3-A18, 5-B3 

snowslide ................................. 4-B2 

waves ................................... %A22 

Ship Creek Bridge ........................... 5-D45 

Shipping ........................ Prof . Paper 545-B 

Shore processes ................... Prof . Paper 648-J 

Shorelines, Cook Inlet area ........... 3-F12, SF25 

Homer .................................. 2-D25 

Kodiak Island area ...................... 3-D27 

Shoup Bay ................................... 2-C1 

Shoup Glacier stream delta .................. 2-C16 

Shoup Spit .................................. 2-C30 

Shuyak Island, lake levels ................... 3-D24 

rockslides ................................ %DM 

subsidence ............................... 3-D25 

Silt volcanoes ................................. 3-B8 

Silver Lake, gravity values. ................. 3-Cll 

Sinkholes, filling of ice.walled. ............... 3-B21 

Sioux Glacier . See Slide Glacier . Sitka port, damage ........................... bB7 

Sitkalidak Island, cattle ranches ............. 3-D44 

landslides ............................... 3-D20 

seismic sea waves. ....................... 3-D35 

subsidence .............................. 3-Dl5 

Uplift ............................. bD25, 3-D28 

Sitkalidak Passage. ......................... 2-F34 

Sitkalidzk Strait, geography.. ............... SF34 

tectonic deformation- ................... bD44 

SitKinak Island, landslides .................. 3-D20 

uplift .............................. 3-D25, 3-121 

Skilak Glacier ............................... SF17 

Skilak Lake ....... 3-A2, 3-F2, 3-F14, 8-Fly, CA7 

Skilak River Valley .......................... 4-A15 

Slana, ground waves ........................ 3-E7 

Slide Creek, Montague Island- .............. 3-013 

Slide Glacier, avalanches .... 3-B14, 3-B17, &Dl3 

(N.B. Since publication of the earlier volumes of this series, the feature formerly 

referred to as "Sioux Glacier" has been 

officially named "Slide Glacier.") 

Slides . See Landslides, Rockslides, Snow 

avalanches . Small Business Administration's £02 program- 1-99 

Snails, Martin-Bering Rivers area ............ 3-B27 

Snow avalanches, defined .................... 3-B13 

Kodiak Island ........................... %Dl8 

Martin-Bering Rivers area ............... 3-B14 

on glaciers .................. 3-E24,4.M, 4-D36 

Seward .......................... ~~14, ~~33 

Tiekel River .............. 3-E10, 3-E27, k4A9 

Louisiana River ......................... 3~-10 

Snowcones, gravelcoated .................... 3-B22 

Page 

Snow River ................................. 

Snow River bridge .......................... 6D44 

Snow River Crossing, severe damage to roadways ...................................... 5-CIO 

Snow River delta, seiches .................... %A28 

Snow River valley .......................... 2-E40 

Socioeconomic benefits of earthquake ........ 6-31 

Soils, mobilized- ............................. g-16 

plastic limit ............................. 2-A15 

Seward .................................. 2-~27 

Valdez .................................. 2-ci5 

Soldatna, ground water- .................... PA= 

runway .................................. 5-~5 

Soldatns-Sterling area. ...................... &A22 

Sound waves ..................... 3-D13, 3-E7, 6-26 

South Africa, Republic of, hydrologic effects of 

Alaska earthquake. .................. ... 4-C14 

South Carolina, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake .......................... 4432, 4452 

South Dakota, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake ......................... 4432, PC52 

South Fork Campbell Creek ................. kB2 

South-West Africa, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake ............................... 4-1214 

Speciflc gravity, Bootlegger Cove Clay ..... 2-A18 

Spruce Creek ................................ %El7 

Spruce Creek canyon ........................ 2-E21 

Spruce Island. ......................... 2-F3, 2 -F33 

Squarehead Cove, Cook Inlet area ........... 3-F24 

Stair Station, horizontalcontrol station ...... 3440 

Standard Oil dock at Seward. . 2-E13,2-E23, 2-328 

Stariski Creek. .............................. SF17 

Steller Glacier ............................... CD13 

Sterling, groundwater ........................ &A22 

Sterling Highway ..................... 3-F12, 5-C4 

Stewart, M.D., master of Chena, report ...... 2-C10 

Storm beaches, dmerences in heights. ......... 3-117 

Stratigraphy, Copper River Basin ............. 3-E3 

Prince William Sound .................... 3-C1 

Stream crossings, failures of embankments .. bD62 

Streams, Anchorage area ..................... 4-B2 

Homer area .............................. 2-Dl5 

south-central Alaska... ................... 4-A9 

Stream erosion. Montague Island. ............ 3-H7 

Stream-mouth changes ....................... 3410 

Stredow, changes ........... 3-D24, 4.AfO. 3.141 

Strike Creek, Montague Island ............. 3-Q14 

Submarine cable, Valdez to Sitka ............. 2-C16 

Subsidence, Afognak ........................ 2-F29 

axis of Kodiak-Kenai-Chugach Mountains- 3-120 

beaches and shorelines .................. Prof . Paper 64.9-J, 3-141, 345.5 

Buskin Lake ............................ %Dl5 

by consolidation .......................... 6-21 

Chugach Mountains ...................... 3-E8 

Cook Inlet region .................. 3-E8, SF27 

distinction between local and regional- ... 6-36 

effects on marine organisms .............. 3-136 

Girdwood ............................... 2-Q36 

highways ................................ 5429 

Holocene ................................. 3455 

Homer. .. 1-32, 1-90, 2-D4, SD13, &D28, 3413 

investigative techniques .................. 6-36 

Kachemak Bay .......................... bB12 

Kadiak Fisheries cannery ........ 3-D13, %Dl8 

Kenai Mountains... ............... 3-D28, 3-160 

Kenai Peninsula .......................... 3-158 

Kiana Creek delta ....................... 3-E21 

Kiliuda Bay ............................. %Dl3 

Kodiak .................................. 2-F19 

Marmot Island .......................... 3-D25 

Montague Island. ........................ 3-160 

Old Harbor .............................. 2-F35 

Olds River .............................. 3-D27 

Portage .................................. bD8O 

regional- ..................... 3-E8,3-18, 6-D80 

Seldovia ................................ %Dl3 

short term ................................ 3-160 

Sbugak Island ........................... 3-D25 

Subsidence-Continued Page 

Talkeetua Mountains ..................... 3-E8 

Tazlina Lake ............................ 3-~21 

Terror Lake ............................. 3-Dl5 

Turnagain Am- ................. 5-029, sD80 

U.S. Coast Guard Loran Facility ....... 3-Dl5 

Valdez ................................... 2-c18 

Whittier ........................... 2-B9, 2B-15 

Subsidence craters ........................... 3-B11 

Subsidence zone .............................. 3-120 

Surface-water changes, Copper River Basin .. 3-E8 

general- .............................. 6-23, 6-31 

Kodiak Island area ...................... sD23 

Surfacewaves amplitude ...................... 3-14 

Kodiak Island area ...................... %Dl2 

visible .................................... 6-26 

Surprise Glacier ...................... 4-D26, 4-D36 

Surveyor, gravity measurements . 3-C6,3-C9, 3.C10 

Susitna Glacier .............................. 4-D38 

Susitna Lowland ...................... 2.Al1, 3-E3 

Susitna River, location ....................... 3-E3 

Sutton ...................................... 2446 

Sutton branch line drainage. ............... &Dl57 

landslide ................................ 5-D79 

Swanson River oil field, Cook Inlet area .... 3-F12, 

3-F24, 3-140 

T 

Tailrace. Eklutna project .................... &A20 

Talkeetna geanticline ................... 3-E3, 3-153 

Talkeetna Mountains, description ............ 14, 

1-IO,3-F2, &A4 

deformation .............................. 3-153 

location ................................... 3-E2 

subsidence ................................ bE8 

Tanana River- .............................. &All 

Tanya Lake, Cook Inlet area ................ SF16 

Tatitlek .................... 1-17, 1-94, 5-B11, 2-090 

Tazlina Glacier, ground cracks .............. 1E24 

Tazlina Glacier Lodge, damage .............. 3-E25 

Tazlina Lake, fluctuation. ................... %El0 

location .................................. 3-E3 

subsidence ............................... 3-E21 

Tazlina River, location ....................... 3-E3 

Tectonics ........................ Prof . Paper 645-1 . see a280 Subsidence; Uplift . Television, examination of earthquake damage ................................... 6-A%, 6-34 

Tennessee, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake .............................. 4-C32.4-C52 

Terraces, surf-cut Holocene ................... 3-162 

Terror Lake, subsidence ..................... %Dl5 

Terror River, seismic sea waves .............. 3-D34 

Terror River delta, subsidence .............. %Dl5 

Terror River gage, seismic sea waves- ....... 3-D35 

Tertiary aquifer, southcentral Alaska ....... &A19 

Tertiary foothills, avalanches ................ 3-Bl9 

Martin-Bering Riven area... ............. 3-B2 

Tertiary rocks, Kodiak Islands. .............. 3-D7 

predominance of landslides .............. 3-022 

Prince William mund region ............. 3-C4 

Tertiary to Cretaceous deformation .......... 3-152 

Texas, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake .................... 4432, PC63 

The Alaska Railroad ....... 1.25, Prof Paper 646-0 

Anchorage. ........................ 2-A8, %At3 

Lakeview delta .......................... 3-A31 

land-level changes. ....................... 3-123 

Seward. .......................... 2.E13, 2430 

Whlttler .................................. 2-B6 

Theis, C . V., quoted ........................ 4429 

Thompson Pass. south-central Alaska ........ PA9 

Thrall, Mr., eyewitness account of seiching . . 3-4128 

Three Saints Bay, seismic sea waves- ....... 3-D30 

Thrust faults. model .......................... 3-164 

relation to seiches ........................ &El3 

Thumb Cove ................................ 2-El7 

Thurston Canyon ........... ....-. .....---... 2-D7 

Tidalbench marks, height relative to sea level . 3-119 
INDEX 

Page 

Tidal glaciers. dlrect effects of the 1964 earthquake ........................... PD36 

Tidal inlets, Homer- ........................ 2-D27 

Tidal waves . See Seismic sea waves . Tidegage readings, pre- and postearthquake .. 3-110 

Tides, Kodiak .............................. 2-F18 

Kodiak group of islands- ................. 3-D6 

Tiekel River, snow avalanche ... 3.E10,3-E27, PA9 

Tikke Qlader ............................... PD39 

Tilley, Jerry, eyewitness report... .... 2.F22, 3-D30 

Tilting, lake basins. .............. 3-A29,3-134, 6-34 

Tilting, river drainages ....................... 3-135 

Time of earthquake... ....................... 1.1, 

Z.A2,2-BS,2-C1,2-D3,2-E4,2-F2,3-14,3-J1, 6-2 

Tok Junction- ............................... 3-E3 

Tokun Creek delta, landslide ................ 3-B19 

Tokun Lake .................... .. ... 3-B2, 3.B19 

Tonsina Lake, effects of earthquake .......... %El0 

landslides. .............................. 3-E21 

location .................................. 3-E3 

Tonsiua Lodge, damage. .................... 3-E25 

Tonsina River, ice jam ............... >En, PA11 

location .................................. 3-E3 

snow avalanche- ........................ 3-El0 

Topographic strike, relation to fractures. ..... 3-B5 

upper Martin River valley ............... 3-B5 

Tortuous Creek, Montague Island ........... 3-013 

Patton Bay fault. ....................... 3-016 

Tourism i. ................................... 1-103 

Tradihg Bay, Cook Inlet area ................ 3-F23 

Trail Lake ................................... PA7 

Trail River. ................................ %A12 

Trail River valley, lower ................... &Dl08 

Translatory landslides, Anchorage ...... 6.17, 2-A38 

Transmission lines, Eklutna project.. ....... &A23 

Transportation.. ........... .1.25, Prof . Paper 646-B 

Trenches TP-1 and TP.2. ................... 2-E38 

Triassic rocks, Kodiak Island- ............... 3-D6 

Trinity Islands ............................... 1-5 

Troublesome Creek delta .................... 3-F20 

Tdna Lodge, Richardson Highway damage .. 3-E25 

Tsunami, definition .......................... 2-F2 

See also Seismic Sea Waves . Tugidak Island ................. - ..... 2.F3, 3.D6 

Tunnels, effects of earthquake ................ 6-27 

Turbidity changes, lakes on Martin River 

glacier ........................... 3-B21 

Turbidity current, Horgan, Lake Zurich, 

Switzerland ..................... 3-All 

Turnagain Arm, biologic effects .............. 1-34 

fractures in roadway .................... 5-C14 

geographic boundary feature ............. 1.100, 

2.A2,2-B2,2-E16,3-F3, PA18, 4-B 12 

landslides- ....................... 8.A30, 5-D73 

subsidence ........................ 5429, 5D8O 

Turnagain Heights, landslide ................. 1-18, 

1-57,l-59,l-73.1-822-A2,2-A13,2-A28, 

2-A38.b-A69.5-B4,6-18 

Tustumena Lake, Cook Inlet area ........... 3.F2, 

3.F14, PA6, PA16 

tilting of basin ........................... ~1% 

Tuxedni Bay, height of tides- ................ 3-123 

Tuxedni Channel, Cook Inlet area ........... 3-F23 

Twentymile River bridge ................... 6~45 

Twentymile River flood plain .............. 5-~118 

Twin Creek, damage to bridges .............. 3-1339 

Tyonek ................................ 3-F2, $444 

U 

Ugak Bay ................................... %Dl5 

Uganik Island ................................ 2-F3 

Uganik River, seismic sea waves. ........... 3-D34 

umiat.. .................................. 14, 2.~2 

Unakwik Inlet, epicenter ...... 2-E4, 3-E6, 3-J1 

Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 3 ... 1-63 

Unimak Island. .............................. 1-3 

United Arab Republic, hydrologic effects of 

Alaska earthquake ............ *-. PC14 

Page 

United Kingdom. hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake ..................... 4-C 15 

United States. hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake ...................... PC16 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, reconstruction- 1-70 

1-81, 2-E24 

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, releveling. . 3-E8 

revision of nautical charts. ............ .. 5-B8 

U.S. Coast Quard Loran facility, subsidence 3-D15, 

Uplift, beaches and shorelines .... Prof . Paper 643-J 

Chugach Mountains ..................... 3-C5 

Copper River Basin ...................... 3-E8 

Cordova ......................... 2-Q18, PD34 

distribution .............................. 6-11 

effects on biota ........................... 3-136 

Ellamar cannery ......................... 6Bll 

Holocene ................................. 3-165 

Kayak Island ............................ 3-117 

major zone ................................ 3-121 

Martin-Bering Rivers area ............... 3-B26 

Middleton Island ............ 3-D28,3-121, 3-160 

Montague Island ........................ 3-D28, 

Prof . Papers 6@-0, H, 3-118, 3-143, SJ12 

Narrow Cape ............................ 3-D25 

Prince William Sound .............. bD28, 5-B8 

relation to seismic sea waves .............. 6-3 

Sitkalidak Island ................. 3-D25, 3-D28 

Sitkinak Island .................... 3-D25, 3-121 

Valdez ................................... 2-C18 

Upper Trail Lake .......................... &Dl11 

Utah, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake 

4433, PC63 

Utilities ............................... 2-A4, 5-B18 

See also Eklutna Hydroelectric Project . Uyak Bay ................................... 2-F40 

Uzinki, archeologic remains ................... 6-28 

damage.. .......................... 2-F2.2-F33 

ground waves ............................ &Dl2 

population ................................ 3-D6 

property losses ............................ 3-D3 

seismic sea waves ........................ 3-D33 

subsidence ............................... 2-F34 

Uzinki cannery, damage ..................... 3-D43 

Vaiont Dam. over.topping ................... %All 

Valdez ........................... Prof . Paper 6484 

cleanup and restoration ..... 1-40,1.79,1-85, 1.98 

communications and utilities ............. 5-B25 

gravity values ............................ 3-C6 

ground fracturing. ....................... 2-B21 

port and harbor ...................... 1-31.5-B7 

recommendations of Task Force. ......... 1-66 

shipping ................................. 5-B15 

water wells ........................ 4-A17.4.A.26 

Valdez Arm ........................ 1-98,344, 3-C6 

Valdez Development Corp .................... 1-99 

Valdez Glacier ............. 2.C2.2-C6,2-C14, 2-C33 

Valdez Qlacier valley ......................... 2-C1 

Valdez Qroup, description .............. 2-C3, 3-C4 

Valdez Narrows ................. 2-C1,2-Cl0,2.C30 

Valdez outwash delta ................ 2416, 2C35 

Valley alluvium, Seward ..................... 2-E21 

Variegated Qlacier ........................... 4-D39 

Vegetation, indication of subsidence ......... 3-D27 

Vermont, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 4433, PC53 

Venuearia .................................... 3-112 

Vibration damage, Anchorage ................ 2-A22 

Cordova airport. ........................ 2-Q18 

Cape Saint Elias ........................ 2-Q33 

geologic control. .................... 8-046, G28 

surface ................................... 6-9 

Vibration tests, Bootlegger Cove Clay ....... 2-A17 

Vicory Creek ................................. 3-A3 

See Victory Creek . Victor Creek ................................. 3-A3 

See Vlctory Creek . 

Page 

Victory Creek. diversion ..................... %A33 

ground fracture .......................... %A37 

Victory Creek delta, landslide ................. 3-A3 

Viekoda Bay ................................ 3-Dl5 

Virgin Islands, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake ................ 4433, CC63 

Virginia, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake ..................... 4433, CC53 

Volcanic ash, earthflows ..................... 3-D21 

Volcanic eruption, Homer- .................. 2-Dl8 

Volcanic rocks, Kodiak group of islands..... .. 3-D7 

Orca Group ............................... 3-C4 

W 

Wakefield cannery ....................... ..-. - 3419 

Washington. damage from sea waves ........... 1-37 

hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake 

PC33,4-C.54 

Wasilla ....................................... PA23 

Water levels, causes of residual changes ....... kB10 

expanded-scale records.. ................. PC10 

recorders and charts ....................... PC5 

wells at Homer .......................... 2-Dl7 

Water quality, Homer ................ 2-D15, *Dl8 

Water storage, changes... ..................... 4-A8 

Water-system structures, damage. ............ PA9 

Water table, depth ........................... kc44 

response. ................................. PB6 

Water transport, affected by earthquake- ..... 5-B6 

Waves, backfill- ................. 3-A7,3-A12, %A22 

ground . See Ground motion . local ...... 2-B6, 2-B18, 2-C14, 2-C30, 2-024, 

3-A7, 3-A12, 6-24 

sound ....................... 3-D13, 3-E7, 6-86 

types ............... ..-. ................ 2-E41 

source mechanism.. ...................... 3-138 

See also Seiches; seismic sea waves . Waxell Ridge ................................ 4-Dl3 

Wells, Anchorage area ............. 4-B6,4-A13.6-22 

damage .................................. PA16 

fluctuationsinlevel- . . 3-D23,PC39,4-A13, 6-27 

Qlennallen ......................... 3-E8, 4420 

Homer .................................. 2-Dl7 

Seward .................................. %El6 

Well-aquifer systems .......................... 4-B6 

West Anchorage High School ........--... . 2-A27 

West Virginia, hydrologic effects of Alaska 

earthquake ................ 4433, PC54 

Whidbey Bay ......................... 2-E41, .%Up 

Whittier ......................... Prof . Paper 642-B 

air transport .............................. 5-B6 

cleanup and restoration .......... 1.17,l-99, 1.80 

communications and utilities- ........... kB26 

railroad facilities ............. 5-D2,5-D4, 5-DS8 

Whittier to Portage rail line ................ &Dl38 

Wildfowl .................................... 3-J17 

Williston basin, seiches ...................... 4-El4 

Windy Point, Cook Inlet area ............... 3-F16 

Wisconsin, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake .................... 4.C33, 4.C54 

Wolcot Mountain alluvial fan. .............. 5-Dl03 

Womens Bay, damage to bridges ............. 3-D39 

ground fractures. ......................... 2-F7 

seaplaneramps ........................... 5-B4 

seismic sea waves ................. 2-F3, 3-D33 

Woods Canyon .......................... 1-10.4-A9 

Woody Island ................................ 2418 

Worldwide geodetic meter ................... 3-C6 

Worthington Glacier ......................... 3-E26 

Wrangell Mountains. .......... 1-8,l-10,3-E2, 3-145 

Wyoming, hydrologic effects of Alaska earthquake .................... 4-C33, 4454 

Yakutat. earthquake of 1899 ...... 1.12.2.C6. 4.D37 

general damage .......................... 2-Q35 

Yakataga- ............................. 2-Q34, 3-J1 

Yale Glacier ................................ PD4 

Yanert Qlacier ............................ 4-D38 

U.S. GOYERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970 0 359-625 
This page intentionally left blank