USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · ofr78675

Reconnaissance engineering geology of the Petersburg area, southeastern Alaska, with emphasis on geologic hazards

Abstract

A program to study the engineering geology of most larger Alaska coastal communities and to evaluate their earthquake and other geologic hazards was started following the 1964 Alaska earthquake; this report about the Petersburg area is a product of that program. Field-study methods were of a reconnaissance nature, and thus, interpretations in the report are tentative. Landscape of the northern end of Mitkof Island on which Petersburg is situated is characterized by a gently sloping, muskeg-covered terrain, with altitudes mostly less than 30 m. In contrast, much of the rest of the island is composed of mountainous terrain with many steep valleys. During the Pleistocene Epoch, the Petersburg area presumably was covered by ice several times; glaciers deeply eroded many valleys on Mitkof Island and adjacent areas. The last major deglaciation probably was largely completed by 12,000 years ago. Delayed rebound of the earth's crust, after the melting of large amounts of ice, permitted extensive inundation of land in the Petersburg area. Subsequently, emergence has elevated marine deposits to a present-day altitude of at least 65 m and probably to 75 m. Bedrock in the Petersburg map area is composed of relatively hard metamorphic rocks, chiefly phyllite and probably some graywacke. Rocks are of Middle(?) Jurassic to Early Cretaceous age. Five types of surficial geologic material of Quaternary age were recognized: (1) mixed deposits consisting of diamicton, silt-clay, and sand or sandy pebble gravel, (2) alluvial deposits, (3) shore and delta deposits, (4) organic deposits, and (5) artificial fill. Geologic structure in southeastern Alaska is complex because several cycles of tectonic deformation since at least early Paelozoic time have affected different parts of the region. The latest of the major tectonic events in southeastern Alaska occurred in Tertiary time, with some minor activity continuing into the Quaternary Period. Along the outer coast of southeastern Alaska, active strike-slip movement is occurring along the Chichagof-Baranof and Queen Charlotte faults. A segment of the prominent Coast-Range lineament, part of which may be a fault, lies 18 km northeast of Petersburg. Many earthquakes occur along the outer coast of southeastern Alaska. Most of these shocks are associated with movements along the Chichagof-Baranof, Queen Charlotte, and Transition faults. A few small earthquakes occur in the region between the outer coast and the southern part of the Coast Mountains. 0nly a few earthquakes have been recorded as felt at Petersburg; these shocks and others possibly felt in the Petersburg region are tabulated. Among the recorded earthquakes the highest intensity (about V-VI) as the magnitude 7.1 earthquake of October 24, 1927, that occurred probably along the Chichagof-Baranof fault, and about 225 km northwest of Petersburg; damage was reported as minor. Other large earthquakes along the Chichagof-Baranof fault that affected or probably affected the Petersburg area in a minor way occurred on August 22, 1949 (magnitude 8.1) and on July 30, 1972 (magnitude 7.25). From a consideration of the tectonics and earthquake history of the region, earthquakes similar to the 1927, 1949, and 1972 shocks are expected to recur on segments of the Chichagof-Baranof or Queen Charlotte faults. The closest of these fault segments is about 170 km southwest from Petersburg. The likelihood of destructive earthquakes being generated along faults closer to Petersburg is unknown. A very generalized discussion of possible geologic effects that could occur in the area during a postulated, theoretically reasonable worst case earthquake of magnitude 8 occurring along the outer coast about 170 km southwest from Petersburg notes that ground shaking probably would be strongest on organic deposits and least on bedrock and on firm, compact diamicton. Among other effects that could happen are: (1) liquefaction of some of the few delta and alluvial

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Lynn A. Yehle. 1978. Reconnaissance engineering geology of the Petersburg area, southeastern Alaska, with emphasis on geologic hazards. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr78675

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona