Search USGSSearch

USGS · pp543G

Surface faults on Montague Island associated with the 1964 Alaska earthquake

Abstract

Two reverse faults on southwestern Montague Island in Prince William Sound were reactivated during the earthquake of March 27, 1964. New fault scarps, fissures, cracks, and flexures appeared in bedrock and unconsolidated surficial deposits along or near the fault traces. Average strike of the faults is between N. 37° E. and N. 47° E.; they dip northwest at angles ranging from 50° to 85°. The dominant motion was dip slip; the blocks northwest of the reactivated faults were relatively upthrown, and both blocks were upthrown relative to sea level. No other earthquake faults have been found on land. The Patton Bay fault on land is a complex system of en echelon strands marked by a series of spectacular landslides along the scarp and (or) by a zone of fissures and flexures on the upthrown block that locally is as much as 3,000 feet wide. The fault can be traced on land for 22 miles, and it has been mapped on the sea floor to the southwest of Montague Island an additional 17 miles. The maximum measured vertical component of slip is 20 to 23 feet and the maximum indicated dip slip is about 26 feet. A left-lateral strike-slip component of less than 2 feet occurs near the southern end of the fault on land where its strike changes from northeast to north. Indirect evidence from the seismic sea waves and aftershocks associated with the earthquake, and from the distribution of submarine scarps, suggests that the faulting on and near Montague Island occurred at the northeastern end of a reactivated submarine fault system that may extend discontinuously for more than 300 miles from Montague Island to the area offshore of the southeast coast of Kodiak Island. The Hanning Bay fault is a minor rupture only 4 miles long that is marked by an exceptionally well defined almost continuous scarp. The maximum measured vertical component of slip is 16⅓ feet near the midpoint, and the indicated dip slip is about 20 feet. There is a maximum left-lateral strike-slip component of one-half foot near the southern end of the scarp. Warping and extension cracking occurred in bedrock near the midpoint on the upthrown block within about 1,000 feet of the fault scarp. The reverse faults on Montague Island and their postulated submarine extensions lie within a tectonically important narrow zone of crustal attenuation and maximum uplift associated with the earthquake. However, there are no significant lithologic differences in the rock sequences across these faults to suggest that they form major tectonic boundaries. Their spatial distribution relative to the regional uplift associated with the earthquake, the earthquake focal region, and the epicenter of the main shock suggest that they are probably subsidiary features rather than the causative faults along which the earthquake originated. Approximately 70 percent of the new breakage along the Patton Bay and the Hanning Bay faults on Montague Island was along obvious preexisting active fault traces. The estimated ages of undisturbed trees on and near the fault trace indicate that no major disc placement had occurred on these faults for at least 150 to 300 years before the 1964 earthquake.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 59.7643° to 60.3825° latitude; -147.923° to -146.9077° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

George Plafter. 1967. Surface faults on Montague Island associated with the 1964 Alaska earthquake. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp543g

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona

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

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

Arizona

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

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

Professional Paper