DOCSLIB.ORG

Of March 27,1964 on Various Lommunities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27, 1964: EFFECTS ON COMMUNITIES Effects of the Earthquake of March 27,1964 on Various Lommunities By GEORGE PLAFKER, REUBEN KACHADOORIAN, EDWIN B. ECKEL, and LAWRENCE R. MAY0 A description of the damage, principally from waves, vertical tectonic movements, and seismic vibration, to inhabited places throughout the earthquake-aflected part of Alaska GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 542-G UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WALTER J. HICKEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1969 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 ALASKA EARTHQUAKE SERIES The U.S. Geological Survey is publishing the re- sults of investigations of the Alaska earthquake of March 27,1964, in a series of six Professional Papers. Professional Paper 542 ddbesthe effects of the earthquake on communities. Reports on Anchorage, Whithiex-, Valdez, Homer, Sward, and Kodiak have already been published. This report is the final chapter of Professional Paper 542. Other Professional Papers describe the history of the field investigakion and mnstruction efforts; the regional effects of khe earthquake ; the effects on 'the hydrologic regimen; and ths effects on trwsporta- tion, communications, and utilities. The final volume on lessons learned and conclusions drawn is in prepa- ration; it will include an index for the entire series. A selected bibliography and an index for the entire series will be published in the concluding volume, Profesional Paper 546. CONTENTS Page Page Abstract - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - G1 Effects on communities-Con. Effects on communities-Con. Introduction--- --- - -- - - - - - - - - - 2 Prince William Sound-Con. Kenai Peninsula-Con. Acknowledgments- - - - - - - - - - - 3 Latouche and vicinity-- - --- Rocky Bay--_----------_- Earthquake questionnaire- - - - 3 Perry Island -------------_ Seldovia-_- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Categories of earthquake-related Point Nowell -_------------ Whidbey Bay.------------ damage------------------ Port Nellie Juan- _ -------- Communities of western Cook Seismic vibrations- - - -- - - - - - - Port Oceanic-_-- - - - - - -- - - - Inlet and the Alaska Direct vibratory damage- - - Sawmill Bay and vicinity--- Peninsula - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fissured ground--- - - _ - - - - - Tatitlek and vicinity ------- King Salmon and South Cracked ice- - - --- - - ------ Communities of the coastal belt Naknek--..----------- Landslides and avalanches _ _ east of Prince William Tyonek and the west coast Vertical tectonic displace- Sound- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - of Cook Inlet ------_-- ments- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cape Saint Elias- - - _-_---_ Inland communities- - - - _ -- - - Waves and related subaqueous Middleton Island -_-_- -- __- Fairbanks - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - slides - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Yakataga--__--------_---_ Palmer and the Matanuska Local waves and subaqueous Yakutat_----------------- Valley - - _ - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - slides - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Kenai Peninsula communities- Sutton------------------- Seismic sea waves- ..- - - -- -- Cooper Landing ---- ------_ Summary and conclusions - - _ - _ - Effects on communities- _ - ---- - English Bay- - -----__-__-_ Geologic control of vibratory Prince William Sound com- Girdwood- - - _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - damage distribution- - - - - munities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hope-----_-------------- Vertical tectonic displacements Anderson Bay and vicinity- Kenai and vicinity ..----_ - _ and seismic sea waves--_- Chenega- - - -- ----------- - Port Graham ------_-_--__ Local waves and subaqueous Cordova and vicinity - - - - - - Portage---__._-__-------- slides - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - Hinchinbrook Light Station- Puget Bay __-____-_-- References cited -------_-_--_-_ ILLUSTRATIONS PLATES [Plates are in pocket] 1. Map of Alaska, showing distribution of earthquake effects. 2. Map of Prince William Sound, showing distribution of waves and of known or inferred subaqueous slides. FIGURES Pnsc Page 1. Map showing distribution and intensity of wave 8-10. Photographs: damage in the western part of Port 1-aldcz. -__ G12 8. Cordova waterfront ______------------- 2-6. Photographs of wave damage: 9. Ground crack at FAA airport station, Cordova-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2-4. Near Shoup Bay --__----_---._-_-----13, 14 10. Wave damage, Cordova- - -- --- - ------ - $6. At Chenega ......................... 13, 16 11. Geologic map of Capo Hinchinbrook Light Station 7. Map showing distribution nnd intensity of wave area------------_-_--------.-------------- damage at Chenega---_--_----_------------- 17 12. Map showing distribution and intensity of wave damage at Latouche and vicinity __--- - - - - - - - - VI CONTENTS Page Page 13-16. Photographs of wave damage: 20-24. Photographs-Continued 13. AtLatouche------------------------- 22. Fissured and slumped fluvioglacial de- 14. At Port Nellie Juan------------------- posits along Bering Glacier-------- G32 15. At head of Kings Bay--_-..----------- 23. Rockfall debris from Pinnacle Rock at 16. To a barge near Port Nellie Juan- -- ---- Cape Saint Elias- - ----------------- 33 17. Map showing distribution and intensity of wave 24. Fissured road on elevated beach ridge damage at Port Oceanic and vicinity -------- west of Yakataga -------------_----- 34 18. Photograph of wave damage at Port Oceanic-- 25-27. Photographs: 19. Map showing distribution and intensity of wave 25,26. Collapsed water tower, Wildwood damage at Sawmill Bay .................... Station.......................... 38, 39 20-24. Photographa: 27. Collapsed catwalk, Nikiski __--___----- 39 20. Fissured sand dune on Copper River 28. Map of Portage area ........................ 40 Delta-----------_----------------- 29. Photograph of Portage area.. - - _-------------_- 41 21. Fissured tidal flats and sand ejecta along 30. Photograph of Seldovia waterfront __----------- 43 shore of Controller Bay - - - - - - - - - - - - TABLES Page 1. Communities treated in other reports- -----_--------------__-- _ _---___--_--- G2 2. Communities treated in this report-- ---- -,---------------__--_---- -___----- 3 THE ALASKA EARTHQUAKE, MARCH 27,1964: EFFECTS .ON COMMUNITIES EFFECTS OF THE EARTHQUAKE OF MARCH 27,1964 ON VARIOUS COMMUNITIES By George Plafker, Reuben Kachadoorian, Edwin B. Eckel, and Lawrence R. Mayo ABSTRACT The 1964 earthquake caused wide- shores of Anderson Bay and adjacent of unconsolidated drl~osits. required spread damage to inhabited places parts of western Port Valdez probably either the relocation or raising of struc- throughout more than 60,000 square were generated primarily by inassive tures at Portage, Girdwood, and Hope miles of south-central Alaska. This re- submarine slides of glacial and fluvio- on Turnagain Arm. Shoreline sub- port describes damage to all communi- glacial deposits ; the origin of the waves mergence resulting from about 3% feet ties in the area except Anchorage, Whit- that caused damage at most of the other of tectonic subsidence at Seldovia tier, Homer, Valdez, Seward, the com- communities and at extensive unin- iiecessitated raising all waterfront fa- munities of the Kodiak group of islands, habited segments of shoreline is not cilities and the airstrip above the lerel and communities in the Copper River known. At these places the mcwt prob- of high tides. On the other hand, tec- Basin ; these were discussed in previous able generative mechanisms are: un- tonic uplift of the land in the Prince chapters of the Geological Survey's identified submarine slides of urn- Williaili Sound region required deepen- series of reports on the earthquake. At ing of the small-boat harbors at Cordora solidated deposits, and (or) the hori- * the communities discussed herein, zo&l tectonic displacements, of a0 to and Tatitlek, dredging of the waterways damage resulted primarily from sea more than 60 feet, that wawred in the in the Cordova area, and lengthening of waves of diverse origins, displacements Prince William Sound region during some docks or piers at Cordova, the of the land relative to sea level, and the earthquake. Cape Hinchinbrook Light Station, and seismic shaking. Waves took all of the A train of long-period seismic sea in Sawmill Bay. 31 lives lost at those communities; waves that began about 20 minutes Significant structuwl damage from physical damage was primarily from after the start of the earthquake in- direct seismic shaking was largely con- the waves and vertical displacements of undated shores along the Gulf of Alaska fined to fluid containem and ;a pier the land relative to sea level. coast to a maximum height of 35 feet facility near Kenai. Indirect damage Destructive waves of local origin above tide lerei. At the communities from fissuring and differential settling struck during or immediately after the described, they virtually destroyed two of foundation mterials in the vicinity ea~thquakethroughout much of Prince logging camps at \IThidbey Bay and of the Cordova aiffield mused damage William Sound, the southern Kenai Puget Bay on the south coast of the to a building, underground utilities, an Peninsula, and the shores of Kenai Kenai Peninsula, caused moderate aiffield fill, and the highway. Minor Uke. In Prince William Sound, waves damage to boat harbors and docks at amountrs of direct and indirect damsage demolished all but one home at the Seldovia and Cordova,
Recommended publications
  • Deposition and Preservation of Estuarine Sediment, Turnagain Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska

    Deposition and Preservation of Estuarine Sediment, Turnagain Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska

    DEPOSITION AND PRESERVATION OF ESTUARINE SEDIMENT, TURNAGAIN ARM, COOK INLET, ALASKA by DARRON G DEBOER B.S., Kansas State University, 2007 A THESIS submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Geology College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2009 Approved by: Major Professor Allen W. Archer Copyright DARRON GRANT DEBOER 2009 Abstract Turnagain Arm is the hypertidal (commonly exceeding 9 m) west-east trending extension of Cook Inlet in south-central Alaska. The inlet formed from a drowned glacial valley that was subsequently filled with tidal deposits of silt and fine sand. The tidal system is semidiurnal with a prominent diurnal inequality. There are also variations due to spring and neap tides. Turnagain Arm is home to a tidal bore generated during spring tides that can reach heights of up to 2 m and travel at speeds of up to 5 m/s. Current reversals can be dramatic with ebb tidal velocities of 6 m/s changing to flood velocities of 10 m/s over a period of a few minutes. During the initial flood tide, highly turbid water can rise as fast as 10 cm/min. This combination of elements results in a highly dynamic depositional setting. Measurements taken in the inner estuary during several neap-spring cycles in the summers of 2007-08 documented deposition upon mud bars of as much as 8.9 cm per tidal event. Conversely, erosion of up to 13.5 cm per tidal event has been measured. The highest rates of deposition and erosion occurred during the spring tides while much lower rates occur during the neap tides.
  • "Tectonic Deformation Re Great Subduction Zone Earthquakes

    "Tectonic Deformation Re Great Subduction Zone Earthquakes

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ._ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 3 TECTONIC DEFORMATION RELATED TO GREAT SUBDUCTION ZONE EARTliQUAKES George Plafker, U.S. Geological Survey Abstract Vertical and horizontal displacements associated with plate convergence at consuming plate margins are the algebraic sum of interseismic, coseismic, and transient deformat- ions through a complete earthquake cycle on a time scale of tens to thousands of years. Elastic and permanent deformations accumulated during the interseismic period are a function of coupling across the megathrust interface between the underthrusting oceanic crust and the upper plate, and of the direction, rate, and duration of relative plate motions. Coseismic deformations result frbm seaward thrusting of the upper plate and depend upon dip of the megathrust, displacement along the megathrust, and the dip and displacements along subsidiary faults that may break through the upper plate. Transient postseismic displacements may occur that result from relatively slow elastic strain i release or creep deformation following an earthquake, | i Coseismic regional vertical displacements typically involve a central broad asymmetric downwarp elongate parallel to the arc with a flanking zone of marked uplift on the sea- | t ward side, and a zone of relatively minor uplift on the landward side. The major zones I of uplift and subsidence may extend from the trench to its associated volcanic are. In the 1960 Chile earthquake (Mw=9.5] deformation occurred for about 1,050 km parallel to the are over an area of 85,000+ km with shoreline vertical displacements to +5.7 m and -2.3 m.
  • The Alaska Earthquake Regional Effects

    The Alaska Earthquake Regional Effects

    The Alaska Earthquake March 27,1964: Regional Effects This volume was published as separate chapters A-J GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 543 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director CONTENTS [Letters designate the separately published chapters] ('1) Slide-induced waves, seiching, and ground fracturing caused by the earthquake of March 27, 1964, at Kenai Lake, Alaska, by David S. McCulloch. (B) Geomorphic effects of the earthquake of March 27, 1964. in the Martin-Bering Rivers area, Alaska, by Samuel J. Tuthill and Wilson M. Laird. (C) Gravity survey and regional geology of the Prince William Sound, epicentral region. Alaska, by J. E. Case, L). F. Barnes, George Plafker, and S. L. Robbins. (D) Geologic effects of the March 1964 earthquake and associated seismic sea waves on Kadiali and nearby islands, Alaska, by George Plafker and Reuben Kachadooria~~. (E) Effects of the earthquake of Marc11 27. 1964, in the Coljl~erRiver Basin area, Alaska, by Oscar J. Ferrians, Jr. (F) Ground breakage and associated effects ill the Cook Inlet area. Alaska, resulting from the JIarch 27, 1964, earthquake, by Helen L. Foster and Thor x. V. Karlstrorn. (G) Surface faults on Montague Island associated with the 1964 Alahka earthquake, by George Plaflter. (13) Erosion and deposition on a beach raised by the 19ki4 earthyuake. Jfontagne Island, Alaska, by 11. J. Kirkby and Anne V. Kirkby. (I) Tectonics d the March 27,1964, Alaska earthquake. by Grorge I'lafker. (J) Effects of the Alaska earbhquake of March 27. 1964, on shore processes and beach ~norphology, by Kirk W.
  • Quake News from America Roger Bilham Savours Two Rich Accounts of Seismicity Across the Continent

    Quake News from America Roger Bilham Savours Two Rich Accounts of Seismicity Across the Continent

    SEISMOLOGY Quake news from America Roger Bilham savours two rich accounts of seismicity across the continent. iven recent seismic activity — Quakeland: On the Road to America’s Next years, coinciding with a rise in fracking, political as well as geological — it’s Devastating Earthquake was unlikely to represent a natural process. perhaps unsurprising that two books KATHRYN MILES Miles does not take sides, but it’s difficult Gon earthquakes have arrived this season. Dutton: 2017. for the reader not to. One is as elegant as the score of a Beethoven The Great Quake: How the Biggest She visits New York City, marvelling at symphony; the other resembles a diary of Earthquake in North America Changed Our subway tunnels and unreinforced masonry MICHAEL NICHOLS/NGC conversations overheard during a rock con- Understanding of the Planet almost certainly scheduled for destruction by cert. Both are interesting, and both relate HENRY FOUNTAIN the next moderate earthquake in the vicin- Crown: 2017. recent history to a shaky future. ity. She considers the perils of nuclear-waste Journalist Kathryn Miles’s Quakeland is a storage in Nevada and Texas, and ponders litany of bad things that happen when you personalities, opinions and prejudices tell a the risks to Idaho miners of rock bursts — provoke Earth to release its invisible but story of scientific discovery and engineering spontaneous fracture of the working face ubiquitous store of seismic-strain energy, remedy. when the restraints of many million years of either by removing fluids (oil, water, gas) or Miles poses some important societal confinement are mined away. She contem- by adding them in copious quantities (when questions.
  • The Megathrust Earthquake Cycle

    The Megathrust Earthquake Cycle

    Ocean. A little less than four years later, a similar-sized earthquake strikes the Prince William Sound area of Alaska producing a tsunami that ravages Alaska and the west coast of North America. At the time, it was clear Not My Fault: The megathrust these were very large quakes, registering 8.6 and 8.5 on earthquake cycle the Surface Wave magnitude scale, the variant of the Lori Dengler/For the Times-Standard Richter scale that was in use at the time. But only after Posted: May 24, 2017 theresearch of two more Reid award winners Aki and Kanamori (whose work would replace the Richter scale The Seismological Society of America is the world’s with seismic moment and moment magnitude) would largest organization dedicated to the study of the true size of these earthquakes Become clear. When earthquakes and their impacts on humans. The recalculated in the 70s, 1964 Alaska was upped to 9.2 Society’s highest honor is the Henry F. Reid Award and 1960 Chile Became a whopping 9.5, the largest recognizes the work that has done the most to the magnitude earthquake ever recorded on a seismograph. transform the discipline. This year’s recipient is George Plafker for his studies of great suBduction zone Both of these earthquakes occurred before plate earthquakes. tectonics, the grand unifying theory of how the outer part of the earth works, was well known or accepted. In I mentioned Dr. Plafker in my last column as a pioneer of the sixties, many earth scientists Believed great post earthquake/tsunami reconnaissance.
  • CMI Cook Inlet Surface Current Mapping Final Report

    CMI Cook Inlet Surface Current Mapping Final Report

    OCS Study MMS 2006-032 Final Report CODAR in Alaska Principal Investigator: Dave Musgrave, PhD Associate Professor School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks P.O. Box 757220 Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 (907) 474-7837 [email protected] CoAuthor: Hank Statscewich, MS School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks P.O. Box 757220 Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 (907) 474-5720 [email protected] June 2006 Contact information e-mail: [email protected] phone: 907.474.1811 fax: 907.474.1188 postal: Coastal Marine Institute School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences P.O. Box 757220 University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220 ii Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv List of figures................................................................................................................................. iv Abstract........................................................................................................................................... v Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods........................................................................................................................................... 2 Results............................................................................................................................................
  • Fully-Coupled Simulations of Megathrust Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the Japan Trench, Nankai Trough, and Cascadia Subduction Zone

    Fully-Coupled Simulations of Megathrust Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the Japan Trench, Nankai Trough, and Cascadia Subduction Zone

    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Fully-coupled simulations of megathrust earthquakes and tsunamis in the Japan Trench, Nankai Trough, and Cascadia Subduction Zone Gabriel C. Lotto · Tamara N. Jeppson · Eric M. Dunham Abstract Subduction zone earthquakes can pro- strate that horizontal seafloor displacement is a duce significant seafloor deformation and devas- major contributor to tsunami generation in all sub- tating tsunamis. Real subduction zones display re- duction zones studied. We document how the non- markable diversity in fault geometry and struc- hydrostatic response of the ocean at short wave- ture, and accordingly exhibit a variety of styles lengths smooths the initial tsunami source relative of earthquake rupture and tsunamigenic behavior. to commonly used approach for setting tsunami We perform fully-coupled earthquake and tsunami initial conditions. Finally, we determine self-consistent simulations for three subduction zones: the Japan tsunami initial conditions by isolating tsunami waves Trench, the Nankai Trough, and the Cascadia Sub- from seismic and acoustic waves at a final sim- duction Zone. We use data from seismic surveys, ulation time and backpropagating them to their drilling expeditions, and laboratory experiments initial state using an adjoint method. We find no to construct detailed 2D models of the subduc- evidence to support claims that horizontal momen- tion zones with realistic geometry, structure, fric- tum transfer from the solid Earth to the ocean is tion, and prestress. Greater prestress and rate-and- important in tsunami generation. state friction parameters that are more velocity- weakening generally lead to enhanced slip, seafloor Keywords tsunami; megathrust earthquake; deformation, and tsunami amplitude.
  • Nos Cook Inlet Operational Forecast System: Model Development and Hindcast Skill Assessment

    Nos Cook Inlet Operational Forecast System: Model Development and Hindcast Skill Assessment

    NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 40 NOS COOK INLET OPERATIONAL FORECAST SYSTEM: MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND HINDCAST SKILL ASSESSMENT Silver Spring, Maryland September 2020 noaa National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Ocean Service Coast Survey Development Laboratory Office of Coast Survey National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce The Office of Coast Survey (OCS) is the Nation’s only official chartmaker. As the oldest United States scientific organization, dating from 1807, this office has a long history. Today it promotes safe navigation by managing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) nautical chart and oceanographic data collection and information programs. There are four components of OCS: The Coast Survey Development Laboratory develops new and efficient techniques to accomplish Coast Survey missions and to produce new and improved products and services for the maritime community and other coastal users. The Marine Chart Division acquires marine navigational data to construct and maintain nautical charts, Coast Pilots, and related marine products for the United States. The Hydrographic Surveys Division directs programs for ship and shore-based hydrographic survey units and conducts general hydrographic survey operations. The Navigational Services Division is the focal point for Coast Survey customer service activities, concentrating predominately on charting issues, fast-response hydrographic surveys, and Coast Pilot
  • Tsunami Hazards

    Tsunami Hazards

    ISSN 8755-6839 SCIENCE OF TSUNAMI HAZARDS The International Journal of The Tsunami Society Volume 19 Number 3 Published Electronically 2001 SOME OPPORTUNITIES OF THE LANDSLIDE TSUNAMI HYPOTHESIS 126 Phillip Watts Applied Fluid Engineering Long Beach, California 90803, USA A NON-LINEAR NUMERICAL MODEL FOR STRATIFIED TSUNAMI WAVES AND ITS APPLICATION 150 Monzur Alam lmteaz The University of Queensland Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia Fumihiko lmamura Tohoku University Aoba, Sendai 980-8579, Japan MODELING THE LA PALMA LANDSLIDE TSUNAMI 160 Charles L. Mader Mader Consulting Co., Honolulu, HI, USA BOOK REVIEW - The Big One - The Next California Earthquake by George Pararadarayannis copyright @I 2001 THE TSUNAMI SOCIETY P. 0. Box 37970, Honolulu, HI 96817, USA WWW.STHJOURNAL.ORG OBJECTIVE: The Tsunami Society publishes this journal to increase and disseminate knowledge about tsunamis and their hazards. DISCLAIMER: Although these articles have been technically reviewed by peers, The Tsunami Society is not responsible for the veracity of any state- ment , opinion or consequences. EDITORIAL STAFF Dr. Charles Mader, Editor Mader Consulting Co. 1049 Kamehame Dr., Honolulu, HI. 96825-2860, USA EDITORIAL BOARD Dr. Antonio Baptista, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology Professor George Carrier, Harvard University Mr. George Curtis, University of Hawaii - Hilo Dr. Zygmunt Kowalik, University of Alaska Dr. T. S. Murty, Baird and Associates - Ottawa Dr. Shigehisa Nakamura, Kyoto University Dr. Yurii Shokin, Novosibirsk Mr Thomas Sokolowski, Alaska Tsunami Warning Center Dr. Costas Synolakis, University of California Professor Stefano Tinti, University of Bologna TSUNAMI SOCIETY OFFICERS Dr. Tad Murty, President Mr. Michael Blackford, Secretary Dr. Barbara H. Keating, Treasurer Submit manuscripts of articles, notes or letters to the Editor.
  • Admiralty Island National Monument

    Admiralty Island National Monument

    ADMIRALTY ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT DESCRIPTION At a glance: Admiralty Island National Monument (NM) is located on Admiralty Island NM quick facts Admiralty Island, 15 miles southwest of Juneau in south- east Alaska, and is accessible only by water or air. The Date established: Dec. 1, 1978; Dec. 2, 1980 island is characterized by rugged coastline, remote old growth rainforest, towering mountains, and alpine tundra Established by: Presidential proclamation, President with permanent icefields. It hosts the largest concentration Jimmy Carter (1978); Congressional designation, Public of brown bears and nesting bald eagles in the world, as Law 96-487 (1980) well as harbor seals, porpoises and sea lions, humpback Forest Service region: 10, Alaska Region whales, and all five species of Pacific salmon in its waters. More than 90 percent of the monument is designated as State: Alaska the Kootznoowoo Wilderness, nearly 1 million acres. Ad- Associated national forest: Tongass miralty Island has been the home to the Tlingít people for approximately 10,000 years. The monument area continues Total Forest Service acres: 997,226 to provide subsistence for these Alaskan Natives. Angoon, Reasons designated: “archaeological, cultural, and Admiralty Island’s only permanent community, continues historical resources, ecological and scientific value” to be an important cultural base. (Presidential Proclamation, 1978) BACKGROUND The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) of 1971 honored the rights of Alaska Natives to select approxi- People and visitors mately 44 million acres of Federal land in Alaska and au- thorized the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw 80 mil- Nearest metropolitan area: no metro areas within lion acres of land to be studied for possible additions to 500 miles the National Park, Wildlife Refuge, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Forest systems.
  • Table 4.3 TURNAGAIN

    Table 4.3 TURNAGAIN

    Anchorage WetlandsManagement Plan -2012Public HearingDraft Page97 Table 4.3 TURNAGAIN ARM WETLAND DESIGNATIONS, ENFORCEABLE AND ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Note: General Permits: The Corps of Engineers issued five separate General Permits (GPs) to the Municipality that covers development projects in “C” wetlands in Anchorage. The GPs are reviewed and renewed every five years. The most recent Anchorage GPs were issued in April, 2010. Under current GP procedures, the Municipality determines whether a proposed fill project in “C” wetlands is consistent with the GP terms and conditions. The Anchorage GPs are applied to only “C” wetlands as designated in the AWMP. The GPs do not apply to “A” or “B” wetlands and some “C” sites are excluded. Attachment A-Table 1 of the Anchorage GPs identifies which “C” wetland parcels are eligible for and which are excluded from the GPs. Attachment B-Table 3 of the GPs assigns site specific restrictions and design criteria to each eligible “C” wetland. The AWMP Table 4.1 management strategies notes which “C” wetlands are eligible for the GPs and references applicable site-specific restrictions and design criteria assigned to each site in the GPs. Refer to the current GPs for details and explanations of these requirements. Link: http://www.muni.org/departments/ocpd/planning/physical/envplanning/Pages/default.aspx. During the issuance of the current General Permits, the Corps included several previously unmapped wetlands as eligible for the GP. These are referenced as “U” wetlands in the General Permit documents. This AWMP revision includes these “U” sites and designates them as “C.” *(New sites now classified as “D” or “P” and former “U” sites now designated “C” are listed in blue.) Site #, listed in column 1 of the table, references individual wetland sites or collective groups of wetlands that are in the same geographic area and perform similar functions.
  • Geology of the Prince William Sound and Kenai Peninsula Region, Alaska

    Geology of the Prince William Sound and Kenai Peninsula Region, Alaska

    Geology of the Prince William Sound and Kenai Peninsula Region, Alaska Including the Kenai, Seldovia, Seward, Blying Sound, Cordova, and Middleton Island 1:250,000-scale quadrangles By Frederic H. Wilson and Chad P. Hults Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3110 View looking east down Harriman Fiord at Serpentine Glacier and Mount Gilbert. (photograph by M.L. Miller) 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1 Geographic, Physiographic, and Geologic Framework ..........................................................................1 Description of Map Units .............................................................................................................................3 Unconsolidated deposits ....................................................................................................................3 Surficial deposits ........................................................................................................................3 Rock Units West of the Border Ranges Fault System ....................................................................5 Bedded rocks ...............................................................................................................................5