SZO Seminar Notes - April 22, 2015: Potential earthquakes along the Japan Trench - Geologic clues before 3/11

 

Discussion leaders: Brian Atwater & Jody Bourgeois

Papers: Sugawara, D., K. Goto, F. Imamura, H. Matsumoto and K. Minoura (2012), Assessing the magnitude of the 869 Jogan tsunami using sedimentary deposits: Prediction and consequence of the 2011 Tohoku-oki tsunami, Sed. Geol., 282, 14-26.

Arai, H. H. Naruse, R. Miura, K. Kawamura, R. Hino, Y. Ito, D. Inazu, M. Yokokawa, N. Izumi, M. Murayama and T. Kasaya (2013), Tsunami-generated turbidity current of the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake, Geology, doi:10.1130/G34777.1

Sawai, Y., Y. Namegaya, Y. Okamura, K. Satake, and M. Shishikura (2012), Challenges of anticipating the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami using coastal geology, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L21309, doi:10.1029/2012GL053692.

 

For the first part of the seminar Jody described her time in Japan before, during, and in the aftermath of the Tohoku earthquake.   She suggested that the impacts of the Tohoku earthquake would not have been very different even if information about the 869 AD Jogan earthquake had been differently interpreted and more widely considered. She noted that many people were already very well prepared and the most disastrous impact was the destruction of the nuclear power plant, which likely would have happened under many circumstances.  More importantly, we should consider how can tsunami deposits and other geologic/stratigraphic records might best be used to learn and prepare.

 

Jody summarized what she learned on a field trip to the Sendai region in 2010.   At that time scientists knew about the Jogan earthquake and the large run-up its tsunami left, as documented in a sand layer clearly visible in cores, just beneath an ash layer dated at 915 AD.  The Jogan tsunami deposits had been mapped and modeled as a likely a M8.3 event.  The lateral extent of the earthquake is not well known, largely because evidence to the north is difficult to obtain; going northward access becomes difficult, there is no ash marker, and the more rugged (steep walled valleys) topography makes interpretation more difficult. 

 

After the Maule earthquake, the company that owns the Fukashima nuclear plant, Tepco, reviewed the tsunami vulnerability of its power plants and estimated a maximum run-up for Fukashima of 5.7 m from a M8.4, although they considered larger slip values and possible 8 m of run-up. The run-up from Tohoku exceeded 12 m. 

 

Jody also noted that when Tohoku happened forecasts of the tsunami were issued, but these may have led to a false sense of security because the estimates were too small and the precision reported of 10 cm was misconstrued as accuracy. 

 

We discussed the paper by Aria et al., which documents and interprets recordings of turbidity currents.  Notably, the study shows that the turbidity currents were triggered by backwash from the tsunami, not the shaking.  This possibility has not been considered previously (shaking usually assumed to be the trigger).

 

It was noted that the potential for turbidites depended strongly on the sediment supply, which may change drastically over time.  This complicates interpretations of turbidite deposits spanning intervals thousands of years.

 

We discussed the potential of using bathymetry to map old turbidity flows and provide baseline information for future ones.  Surface roughness and other analyses could be useful with such data.  Paul Johnson emphasized that while done routinely, acquisition of standard swath bathymetric data had to be done very carefully.  He noted that only recently has it been possible to collect such data offshore of Washington State, as it was previously prohibited by the Navy as it is/was the corridor for Trident subs.  He also informed us that funding to use the Thompson ship for educational purpose was available from the State for a month each year, and suggested that 80 km wide margin-perpendicular swaths could be acquired in a 10-day cruise, so the entire margin could be mapped over several years.