Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Scenarios and Response Plans W. H. Bakunl, J. Bredehoeft1, R.O. Burford*. W. L. Ellsworthl, M.J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Scenarios and Response Plans W. H. Bakunl, J. Bredehoeft1 , R.O. Burford*. W. L. Ellsworthl, M.J.S. Johnston1 , L. Jones2 , A. G. Lindh1 , C. Mortensen1 , E. Roeloffs1 , S. Schulz1 , P. Segall 1 , and W. Thatcher1 Open-File Report 86~ This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S, Geological Survey editorial standards. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. lU.S. Geological Survey 2U.S. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Road 525 So. Wilson Menlo Park, CA 94025 Pasadena, CA 91125 Contents Page Forward .................111 Preface ................. v Summary ................. 1 I. Introduction ............. 3 II. Historical Precursors at Parkfield ...... 5 A. Seismicity ............ 5 B. Fault creep ............ 5 III. Potential for Precursory Deformation ..... 5 IV. Summary of Current Instrumentation ...... 7 A. Seismic ............. 7 B. Creep .............. 8 C. Continuous Strain .......... 8 D. Geodetic Survey ........... 9 V. Alert Thresholds ............ 10 A. Seismic ............. 11 B. Creep .............. 13 C. Continuous Strain .......... 16 1. Strain meters ......... 16 2. Water Wells .......... 17 3. Differential Magnetic Field ..... 18 D. Geodetic Survey ........... 19 E. Multiple Network Alerts ........ 20 VI. Response .............. 21 Project Chief Responsibilities ...... 21 Chief Scientist Responsibilities ..... 21 Branch Chief Responsibilities ...... 21 Office Chief Responsibilities ...... 22 VII. Appendices A. Intensive Mom*toring-Reconaissance Efforts . 25 B. Sample Warning Message to Governor's Office of Emergency Services ...... 26 References ............ 27 Figure Captions .............. 29 iii Role of National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council in Development of Earthquake Prediction Scenarios and Response Plans for Parkfield Earthquake For the past 2 years the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) has been involved in a major review of the earthquake monitoring and the earthquake prediction experiment at Parkfield, in reviewing a long-term prediction that was brought to it by personnel from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in recommending that a long-term prediction be officially declared by the Director of USGS, and in urging that a decision matrix and response plan be developed to increase the chances of a successful short-term prediction for Parkfield. In November 1984 the Council reviewed both the earthquake experiment at Parkfield and a draft prepared by USGS personnel in which a long-term prediction was made for a future Parkfield shock. (NEPEC uses the term "long-term earthquake prediction" to refer to a time interval of a few years to about 1 decade.) NEPEC concurred with the general aspects of the USGS prediction and recommended to the Director of USGS that a long-term prediction be issued for Parkfield and that the State of California be notified of its findings. (It should be noted that NEPEC reports to the Director of USGS and that the Director is formally charged with the issuance of earthquake predictions in the United States). NEPEC notes that while the next Parkfield earthquake is most likely to be similar in size to the shocks of 1934 and 1966, the possibility exists that a 25 mile (40 km) segment of the San Andreas fault to the southeast of Parkfield may also be sufficiently advanced in its cycle of strain buildup that it could rupture along with the Parkfield segment in an earthquake near magnitude 7. NEPEC recommended that the highest priority be given to the monitoring and prediction experiment at Parkfield. This was the first instance in which NEPEC has recommended that a prediction of any type be made for a future earthquake in the United States. In early 1985 the State of California asked USGS to give high priority to making a short-term prediction (i.e., one of hours to days) for the next major Parkfield earthquake. In July 1985 NEPEC conducted a review of methods that could be used for short-term and intermediate-term prediction at Parkfield and the reliability of various prediction criteria. NEPEC concluded that any realistic attempts at short-term prediction in the near future in the United States are likely to be of a probabilistic nature and would not be warnings in which there was certainty or near certainty that a physical observation would be followed shortly by a major earthquake. NEPEC also concluded that under some scenarios there could be an abrupt increase in the probability of the earthquake within a few hours, or less, and response to such situations would need to be planned well ahead of time and delegation of authority worked out. It is not a reasonable expectation to involve members of the Council, many of whom do not live in California, in making such an immediate response. At NEPEC 1 s recommendation, a senior USGS scientist (Dr. W.H. Bakun) was appointed USGS project leader for Parkfield in July 1985. NEPEC also recommended that USGS develop a decision tree or decision matrix document that would describe possible anomalous conditions, estimate probabilities that various anomalies are either followed by earthquakes or associated with false alarms, and designate actions to be taken for various alarm levels. A draft of this document was prepared by USGS personnel and presented to NEPEC in September 1985. iv NEPEC strongly endorsed the general concept of the document and recommended it be presented to the Director of USGS. NEPEC further advised that procedures and criteria be developed for ending a prediction, either by specifying a time frame in the initial announcement or by formally retracting the prediction of an event that had not occurred by a certain date. On March 1, 1986, the Council recommended adoption of a revised document and that this document be reviewed at subsequent NEPEC meetings. It should be remembered that this is the first time that an attempt has been made in the United States to devise a plan for short-term response to measured physical parameters that may be indicative of a future earthquake. The parameters and criteria will undoubtedly need to be changed as experience accumulates at Parkfield and elsewhere. The Council is of the opinion that the science of earthquake prediction, especially short-term prediction, is very much in its infancy. Nevertheless, it believes that a rational case can be made for realistic short-term prediction at Parkfield. The scenarios and response plans might well serve as a model for other areas in the future. It needs to be recognized that predictions that may result from this effort will be probabilistic in nature. A great effort must be made to educate the public and its officials about the nature of probabilistic estimates, to get them to realize that major uncertainties in knowledge exist in earthquake forecasting, and that no technique that presently exists is capable of being used to predict earthquakes with complete certainty or near certainty. Parkfield represents an area that is relatively well known and well instrumented. It provides an opportunity to test a number of techniques that might be used in the future for earthquake prediction and to provide data for testing hypotheses about fault mechanics, the earthquake-generating process, and changes that may be precursory to earthquakes. Lynn R. Sykes Higgins Professor of Geological Sciences, Columbia University, Chairman, National Earthquake Prediction Council V United States Department of the Interior GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESIGN, VA. 22092 In Reply Refer To: Mail Stop 905 June 12, 1986 Memorandum To: Director Through: thief Geologist From: Chief, Office of Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Engineering Subject: Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Scenarios and Response Plans The attached subject report has been reviewed and endorsed by the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council. The Council has agreed to review the report periodically and recommend revisions as the science of earthquake prediction and the conditions at Parkfield evolve. The most significant aspect of this report is that, under the highest alert level, its adoption will delegate responsibility and authority for notification of State officials to the Chief Scientist of the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment. Please indicate below your approval of this report and adoption of the procedures it describes. Attachment Approved: JL* Dallas L. Peck Date Director SUMMARY A magnitude 6 earthquake is expected to occur along the San Andreas fault near Parkfield, California before 1993. The Parkfield section of the fault is closely monitored by a variety of geophysical techniques as a prototype earthquake prediction network. It is the intention of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to attempt to issue a short-term warning (minutes-to-days) of the anticipated shock based on observations of precursory phenomena recorded by elements of the prototype earthquake prediction network. The purpose of this report is to define the anomalous conditions that would change the assessment of the imminence of the expected earthquake and the action that would be taken by the USGS. Thus, this report is intended as a USGS planning document that describes the conditions culminating in a communication (a geologic hazards warning) from the USGS to the California Office of Emergency Services (OES). Responsibility for communicating these warnings to the public, to local governments