Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Earthquakes on the Ventura Blind Thrust Fault: Implications for Multifault Ruptures in the Transverse Ranges of Southern California
This is a repository copy of Paleoseismologic evidence for large-magnitude (M-w 7.5-8.0) earthquakes on the Ventura blind thrust fault: Implications for multifault ruptures in the Transverse Ranges of southern California. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/108547/ Version: Accepted Version Article: McAuliffe, L. J., Dolan, J. F., Rhodes, E. J. et al. (3 more authors) (2015) Paleoseismologic evidence for large-magnitude (M-w 7.5-8.0) earthquakes on the Ventura blind thrust fault: Implications for multifault ruptures in the Transverse Ranges of southern California. Geosphere, 11 (5). pp. 1629-1650. ISSN 1553-040X https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01123.1 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ 1 Paleoseismologic evidence for large-magnitude (Mw 7.5–8.0) 2 earthquakes on the Ventura blind thrust fault: Implications for 3 multifault ruptures in the Transverse Ranges of southern California 4 5 Lee J. -
Rockwell International Corporation 1049 Camino Dos Rios (P.O
SC543.J6FR "Mads available under NASA sponsrislP in the interest of early and wide dis *ninatf of Earth Resources Survey Program information and without liaoility IDENTIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF jOr my ou mAOthereot." TECTONIC FEATURES FROM ERTS-1 IMAGERY Southwestern North America and The Red Sea Area may be purchased ftohu Oriinal photograPhY EROS D-aa Center Avenue 1thSioux ad Falls. OanOta So, 7 - ' ... +=,+. Monem Abdel-Gawad and Linda Tubbesing -l Science Center, Rockwell International Corporation 1049 Camino Dos Rios (P.O. Box 1085) Thousand Oaks, California 91360 U.S.A. N75-252 3 9 , (E75-10 2 9 1 ) IDENTIFICATION AND FROM INTERPRETATION OF TECTONIC FEATURES AMERICA ERTS-1 IMAGERY: SOUTHWESTERN NORTH Unclas THE RED SEA AREA Final Report, 30 May !AND1972 - 11 Feb. 1975 (Rockwell International G3/43 00291 _ May 5, 1975 , Type III Fihnal Report for Period: May 30, 1972 - February 11, 1975, . Prepared for NASAIGODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER Greenbelt, Maryland 20071 Pwdu. by NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE US Dopa.rm.nt or Commerco Snrnfaield, VA. 22151 N O T I C E THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGN.IZED THAT CER- TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS-BE'ING RE- LEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. SC543.16FR IDENTIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF TECTONIC FEATURES FROM ERTS-1 IMAGERY Southwestern North America and The Red Sea Area Monem Abdel-Gawad and Linda Tubbesi'ng Science Center/Rockwell International Corporation 1049 Camino Dos Rios, P.O. Box 1085 Thousand Oaks, California 91360 U.S.A. -
HISTORY of the TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST a Compilation
HISTORY OF THE TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST A Compilation Posting the Toiyabe National Forest Boundary, 1924 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Chronology ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Bridgeport and Carson Ranger District Centennial .................................................................... 126 Forest Histories ........................................................................................................................... 127 Toiyabe National Reserve: March 1, 1907 to Present ............................................................ 127 Toquima National Forest: April 15, 1907 – July 2, 1908 ....................................................... 128 Monitor National Forest: April 15, 1907 – July 2, 1908 ........................................................ 128 Vegas National Forest: December 12, 1907 – July 2, 1908 .................................................... 128 Mount Charleston Forest Reserve: November 5, 1906 – July 2, 1908 ................................... 128 Moapa National Forest: July 2, 1908 – 1915 .......................................................................... 128 Nevada National Forest: February 10, 1909 – August 9, 1957 .............................................. 128 Ruby Mountain Forest Reserve: March 3, 1908 – June 19, 1916 .......................................... -
SUMMARIES of TECHNICAL REPORTS, VOLUME X Prepared by Participants in NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM June 1980
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Office of Earthquake Studies SUMMARIES OF TECHNICAL REPORTS, VOLUME X Prepared by participants in NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM June 1980 OPEN-FILE REPORT 80-842 This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Geological Survey standards and nomenclature Menlo Park, California 1980 CONTENTS Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program I. Earthquake Hazards Studies (H) Page Objective 1, Establish an accurate and reliable national earthquake data base.——————————————————• Objective 2. Delineate and evaluate earthquake hazards and risk in the United States on a national scale. ——————————————————————————• 66 Objective 3. Delineate and evaluate earthquake hazards and risk in earthquake-prone urbanized regions in the western United States.——————————————• 77 Objective 4, Delineate and evaluate earthquake hazards and risk in earthquake-prone regions in the eastern United States. ————— —————————— — ———— 139 Objective 5. Improve capability to evaluate earthquake potential and predict character of surface faulting.———————————————— ————————— 171 Objective 6. Improve capability to predict character of damaging ground shaking.———————————————— 245 Objective 7. Improve capability to predict incidence, nature and extent of earthquake-induced ground failures, particularly landsliding and liquefaction.--——— 293 Objective 8. Improve capability to predict earthquake losses.— 310 II. Earthquake Prediction Studies (P) Objective 1. Observe at a reconnaissance -
3.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING Geology The city of Emeryville is situated within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Coast Ranges is the largest of the state’s geomorphic provinces extending approximately 400 miles from the Klamath Mountains (near northern Humboldt County) to the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County. The province lies between the Pacific Ocean and the Great Valley (Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys) provinces and is characterized by a series of northwest trending mountain ridges and valleys, running generally parallel to the San Andreas Fault zone. These mountain ridges and valleys have been formed by tectonic forces that compressed ancient sedimentary deposits over the course of millions of years. The San Francisco Bay is located in a broad depression in the Franciscan bedrock resulting from an east-west expansion between the San Andreas and the Hayward fault systems. The bedrock surface can be found at elevations of 200 to 2,000 feet below mean sea level across the Bay Area. Sedimentary deposits that overlie the Franciscan bedrock originated from millions of years of erosion, deposition, and changes in sea level. Geologists categorize these sedimentary deposits into geologic formations based on the period of deposition and material type, as described below for the San Francisco Bay region. • The Alameda Formation is the deepest and oldest of these sedimentary deposits and consists of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and some shells with predominantly silt and clay sediments surrounding discontinuous layers of sand and gravel. Members of this formation include Yerba Buena Mud (also named Old Bay Mud), and the San Antonio/Merrit/Posey Member, and Young Bay Mud (RWQCB, 2008). -
Geology and Soils
Environmental Checklist and Analysis – Geology and Soils 1 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant No GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the Project: Significant Significant with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 2 3.6.1 Environmental Setting 3 Regional Setting 4 The Project site lies within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province of California, a 5 region with independent and discontinuous northwest-trending mountain ranges, ridges, 6 and intervening valleys (California Geological Survey [CGS] 2002). -
Signature of Author:
KINEMATICMODELS OF DEFORMATIONIN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONSTRAINEDBY GEOLOGICAND GEODETICDATA Lori A. Eich S.B. Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003 SUBMITTEDTO THE DEPARTMENTOF EARTH, ATMOSPHERIC, AND PLANETARYSCIENCES IN PARTIALFULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTSFOR THE DEGREEOF AT THE MASSACHUSETTSINSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY I FEBRUARY2006 1 LIBRARIES O 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Signature of Author: ....................................................................................:. ................................... Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences September 2 1,2005 Certified by: ...................................................%. .......... .%. .............. - ....- .. ......................................... Bradford H. Hager Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Earth Sciences Thesis Supervisor Accepted by: ................................................................................................................................. Maria T. Zuber E. A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics Head, Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences Kinematic Models of Deformation in Southern California Constrained by Geologic and Geodetic Data Lori A. Eich Submitted to the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences on January 20,2006, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences Abstract Using a standardized fault geometry based on -
Activity of the Offshore Newport–Inglewood Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Coastal Southern California, from Relocated Microseismicity by Lisa B
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 94, No. 2, pp. 747–752, April 2004 Activity of the Offshore Newport–Inglewood Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Coastal Southern California, from Relocated Microseismicity by Lisa B. Grant and Peter M. Shearer Abstract An offshore zone of faulting approximately 10 km from the southern California coast connects the seismically active strike-slip Newport–Inglewood fault zone in the Los Angeles metropolitan region with the active Rose Canyon fault zone in the San Diego area. Relatively little seismicity has been recorded along the off- shore Newport–Inglewood Rose Canyon fault zone, although it has long been sus- pected of being seismogenic. Active low-angle thrust faults and Quaternary folds have been imaged by seismic reflection profiling along the offshore fault zone, raising the question of whether a through-going, active strike-slip fault zone exists. We applied a waveform cross-correlation algorithm to identify clusters of microseis- micity consisting of similar events. Analysis of two clusters along the offshore fault zone shows that they are associated with nearly vertical, north-northwest-striking faults, consistent with an offshore extension of the Newport–Inglewood and Rose Canyon strike-slip fault zones. P-wave polarities from a 1981 event cluster are con- sistent with a right-lateral strike-slip focal mechanism solution. Introduction The Newport–Inglewood fault zone (NIFZ) was first clusters of microearthquakes within the northern and central identified as a significant threat to southern California resi- ONI-RC fault zone to examine the fault structure, minimum dents in 1933 when it generated the M 6.3 Long Beach earth- depth of seismic activity, and source fault mechanism. -
More Fault Connectivity Is Needed in Seismic Hazard Analysis
More Fault Connectivity Is Needed in Seismic Hazard Analysis Morgan T. Page*1 ABSTRACT Did the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) go overboard with multifault ruptures? Schwartz (2018) argues that there are too many long ruptures in the model. Here, I address his concern and show that the UCERF3 rupture-length distribution matches empirical data. I also present evidence that, if anything, the UCERF3 model could be improved by adding more connectivity to the fault system. Adding more connectivity would improve model misfits with data, particularly with paleoseismic data on the southern San Andreas fault; make the model less characteristic on the faults; potentially improve aftershock forecasts; and reduce model sensitivity to inadequacies and unknowns in the modeled fault system. Furthermore, I argue that not only was the inclusion of mul- KEY POINTS tifault ruptures an improvement on past practice, as it allows • The UCERF3 model has a rupture-length distribution that the model to include ruptures much like those that have been matches empirical data. observed in the past, but also that there is still further progress • Adding more connectivity to UCERF3 would improve data that can be made in this direction. Further increasing connec- misfits. tivity in hazard models such as UCERF will reduce model mis- • More connectivity in seismic hazard models would make fits, as well as make the model less sensitive to inadequacies in them less sensitive to fault model uncertainties. the fault model and provide a better approximation of the Supplemental Material natural system. RUPTURE-LENGTH DISTRIBUTION In a recent article, Schwartz (2018) criticizes the UCERF3 INTRODUCTION model and suggests that it has too many long ruptures (i.e., The third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast those with rupture lengths ≥100 km). -
Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California
SPECIAL PUBLICATION 42 Interim Revision 2007 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act 1 with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps 1 Name changed from Special Studies Zones January 1, 1994 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION California Geological Survey STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER GOVERNOR THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION MIKE CHRISMAN BRIDGETT LUTHER SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES DIRECTOR CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY JOHN G. PARRISH, PH.D. STATE GEOLOGIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 42 FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act With Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps by WILLIAM A. BRYANT and EARL W. HART Geologists Interim Revision 2007 California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey 801 K Street, MS 12-31 Sacramento, California 95814 PREFACE The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is to regulate development near active faults so as to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture. This report summarizes the various responsibilities under the Act and details the actions taken by the State Geologist and his staff to implement the Act. This is the eleventh revision of Special Publication 42, which was first issued in December 1973 as an “Index to Maps of Special Studies Zones.” A text was added in 1975 and subsequent revisions were made in 1976, 1977, 1980, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1997. The 2007 revision is an interim version, available in electronic format only, that has been updated to reflect changes in the index map and listing of additional affected cities. In response to requests from various users of Alquist-Priolo maps and reports, several digital products are now available, including digital raster graphic (pdf) and Geographic Information System (GIS) files of the Earthquake Fault Zones maps, and digital files of Fault Evaluation Reports and site reports submitted to the California Geological Survey in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Act (see Appendix E). -
I Final Technical Report United States Geological Survey National
Final Technical Report United States Geological Survey National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program - External Research Grants Award Number 08HQGR0140 Third Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area: Science, Hazard, Engineering and Risk Conference Dates: October 22nd-26th, 2008 Location: California State University, East Bay Principal Investigator: Mitchell S. Craig Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences California State University, East Bay Submitted March 2010 Summary The Third Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area was held October 22nd-26th, 2008 at California State University, East Bay. The conference included three days of technical presentations attended by over 200 participants, a public forum, two days of field trips, and a one-day teacher training workshop. Over 100 technical presentations were given, including oral and poster presentations. A printed volume containing the conference program and abstracts of presentations (attached) was provided to attendees. Participants included research scientists, consultants, emergency response personnel, and lifeline agency engineers. The conference provided a rare opportunity for professionals from a wide variety of disciplines to meet and discuss common strategies to address region-specific seismic hazards. The conference provided participants with a comprehensive overview of the vast amount of new research that has been conducted and new methods that have been employed in the study of East Bay earthquake hazards since the last East Bay Earthquake Conference was held in 1992. Topics of presentations included seismic and geodetic monitoring of faults, trench-based fault studies, probabilistic seismic risk analysis, earthquake hazard mapping, and models of earthquake rupture, seismic wave propagation, and ground shaking. -
PDF Linkchapter
Index (Italic page numbers indicate major references) Abalone Cove landslide, California, Badger Spring, Nevada, 92, 94 Black Dyke Formation, Nevada, 69, 179, 180, 181, 183 Badwater turtleback, California, 128, 70, 71 abatement districts, California, 180 132 Black Mountain Basalt, California, Abrigo Limestone, Arizona, 34 Bailey ash, California, 221, 223 135 Acropora, 7 Baked Mountain, Alaska, 430 Black Mountains, California, 121, Adams Argillite, Alaska, 459, 462 Baker’s Beach, California, 267, 268 122, 127, 128, 129 Adobe Range, Nevada, 91 Bald Peter, Oregon, 311 Black Point, California, 165 Adobe Valley, California, 163 Balloon thrust fault, Nevada, 71, 72 Black Prince Limestone, Arizona, 33 Airport Lake, California, 143 Banning fault, California, 191 Black Rapids Glacier, Alaska, 451, Alabama Hills, California, 152, 154 Barrett Canyon, California, 202 454, 455 Alaska Range, Alaska, 442, 444, 445, Barrier, The, British Columbia, 403, Blackhawk Canyon, California, 109, 449, 451 405 111 Aldwell Formation, Washington, 380 Basin and Range Province, 29, 43, Blackhawk landslide, California, 109 algae 48, 51, 53, 73, 75, 77, 83, 121, Blackrock Point, Oregon, 295 Oahu, 6, 7, 8, 10 163 block slide, California, 201 Owens Lake, California, 150 Basin Range fault, California, 236 Blue Lake, Oregon, 329 Searles Valley, California, 142 Beacon Rock, Oregon, 324 Blue Mountains, Oregon, 318 Tatonduk River, Alaska, 459 Bear Meadow, Washington, 336 Blue Mountain unit, Washington, 380 Algodones dunes, California, 101 Bear Mountain fault zone, California,