Search for: All records

Abstract Lithology and microfossil biostratigraphy beneath the marshes of a central Oregon estuary limit geophysical models of Cascadia megathrust rupture during successive earthquakes by ruling out >0.5 m of coseismic coastal subsidence for the past 2000 yr. Although the stratigraphy in cores and outcrops includes as many as 12 peat-mud contacts, like those commonly inferred to record subsidence during megathrust earthquakes, mapping, qualitative diatom analysis, foraminiferal transfer function analysis, and 14C dating of the contacts failed to confirm that any contacts formed through subsidence during great earthquakes. Based on the youngest peat-mud contact’s distinctness, >400 m distribution, ∼0.6 m depth, and overlying probable tsunami deposit, we attribute it to the great 1700 CE Cascadia earthquake and(or) its accompanying tsunami. Minimal changes in diatom assemblages from below the contact to above its probable tsunami deposit suggest that the lower of several foraminiferal transfer function reconstructions of coseismic subsidence across the contact (0.1–0.5 m) is most accurate. The more limited stratigraphic extent and minimal changes in lithology, foraminifera, and(or) diatom assemblages across the other 11 peat-mud contacts are insufficient to distinguish them from contacts formed through small, gradual, or localized changes in tide levels during river floods, storm surges, and gradual sea-level rise. Although no data preclude any contacts from being synchronous with a megathrust earthquake, the evidence is equally consistent with all contacts recording relative sea-level changes below the ∼0.5 m detection threshold for distinguishing coseismic from nonseismic changes. 

Abstract The Mw 7.1 47 km deep earthquake that occurred on 30 November 2018 had deep societal impacts across southcentral Alaska and exhibited phenomena of broad scientific interest. We document observations that point to future directions of research and hazard mitigation. The rupture mechanism, aftershocks, and deformation of the mainshock are consistent with extension inside the Pacific plate near the down‐dip limit of flat‐slab subduction. Peak ground motions >25%g were observed across more than 8000  km2, though the most violent near‐fault shaking was avoided because the hypocenter was nearly 50 km below the surface. The ground motions show substantial variation, highlighting the influence of regional geology and near‐surface soil conditions. Aftershock activity was vigorous with roughly 300 felt events in the first six months, including two dozen aftershocks exceeding M 4.5. Broad subsidence of up to 5 cm across the region is consistent with the rupture mechanism. The passage of seismic waves and possibly the coseismic subsidence mobilized ground waters, resulting in temporary increases in stream flow. Although there were many failures of natural slopes and soils, the shaking was insufficient to reactivate many of the failures observed during the 1964 M 9.2 earthquake. This is explained by the much shorter duration of shaking as well as the lower amplitude long‐period motions in 2018. The majority of observed soil failures were in anthropogenically placed fill soils. Structural damage is attributed to both the failure of these emplaced soils as well as to the ground motion, which shows some spatial correlation to damage. However, the paucity of instrumental ground‐motion recordings outside of downtown Anchorage makes these comparisons challenging. The earthquake demonstrated the challenge of issuing tsunami warnings in complex coastal geographies and highlights the need for a targeted tsunami hazard evaluation of the region. The event also demonstrates the challenge of estimating the probabilistic hazard posed by intraslab earthquakes.