Field Survey and Geological Effects of the 15 November 2006 Kuril Tsunami in the Middle Kuril Islands

Abstract

Abstract-The near-field expression of the tsunami produced by the 15 November 2006 Kuril earthquake (M w 8.1-8.4) in the middle Kuril Islands, Russia, including runup of up to 20 m, remained unknown until we conducted a post-tsunami survey in the summer of 2007. Because the earthquake occurred between summer field expeditions in 2006 and 2007, we have observations, topographic profiles, and photographs from three months before and nine months after the tsunami. We thoroughly surveyed portions of the islands of Simushir and Matua, and also did surveys on parts of Ketoi, Yankicha, Ryponkicha, and Rasshua. Tsunami runup in the nearfield of the middle Kuril Islands, over a distance of about 200 km, averaged 10 m over 130 locations surveyed and was typically between 5 and 15 m. Local topography strongly affected inundation and somewhat affected runup. Higher runup generally occurred along steep, protruding headlands, whereas longer inundation distances occurred on lower, flatter coastal plains. Sediment transport was ubiquitous where sediment was availabledeposit grain size was typically sand, but ranged from mud to large boulders. Wherever there were sandy beaches, a more or less continuous sand sheet was present on the coastal plain. Erosion was extensive, often more extensive than deposition in both space and volume, especially in areas with runup of more than 10 m. The tsunami eroded the beach landward, stripped vegetation, created scours and trim lines, cut through ridges, and plucked rocks out of the coastal plain.

Stratigraphic records of tsunamis along the Japan Sea, southwest Hokkaido, northern Japan

“…The transportation of beach gravels towards backshore and inland areas often occurs during modern tsunamis, and has been documented from the 1993 Hokkaido Nansei‐oki tsunami (Sato et al, ), the 2001 Perú tsunami (Jaffe, Rubin, & Peters, ), the 2006 Kuril Tsunami (MacInnes et al, ), and the 2011 Tohoku tsunami (Nishina, Kawakami, & Tajika, ). Hirakawa et al () revealed the ages of prehistoric tsunamis and their recurrence intervals along the Pacific coast of eastern Hokkaido from the stratigraphy of cobbly deposits in the surficial soils of marine terraces.…”

Validating Velocities in the GeoClaw Tsunami Model Using Observations near Hawaii from the 2011 Tohoku Tsunami

“…Numerical tsunami models are frequently validated using only wave height and inundation data, which is now plentiful from recent events (e.g., Liu et al (2005); Synolakis and Okal (2005); Satake et al (2006); MacInnes et al (2009MacInnes et al ( , 2013; Okal et al (2010); Fritz et al (2011)), Surface elevation from Deep-Ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART) buoys or other deep-ocean monitors as well as from coastal and harbor tide gauges are used, along with inundation and runup data collected by tsunami survey teams following every major event (e.g., Synolakis et al (2007); Apotsos et al (2011)). See in particular the work of Tang et al (2009), which concerns validation of the MOST tsunami model using data around Hawaii from several past tsunamis.…”

The quest for wisdom: lessons from 17 tsunamis, 2004–2014

“…-We assign a yellow (average) index to the 2006 Kuril Islands earthquake. Even though no casualties were suffered from either the seismic event or the tsunami, this was due to the extreme remoteness of its unpopulated epicentral area, where the 21 m run-up was surveyed only nine months after the event [90]. In the far field, the handling of the warning was nothing short of a failure, with both PTWC and WCATWC repeatedly issuing statements of 'no warning' or even 'no watch', despite the significant moment of the earthquake (M 0 = 3.5 × 10 28 dyn cm).…”