Geology topics

Chris J. Wills

Publications and source records attributed to Chris J. Wills.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2014

Scenario earthquake hazards for the Long Valley Caldera-Mono Lake area, east-central California (ver. 2.0, January 2018)

As part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) multi-hazards project in the Long Valley Caldera-Mono Lake area, the California Geological Survey (CGS) developed several earthquake scenarios and evaluated potential seismic hazards, including ground shaking, surface fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslide hazards associated with these earthquake scenarios. The results of these analyses can be useful in estimating the extent of potential damage and economic losses because of potential earthquakes and also for preparing emergency response plans. The Long Valley Caldera-Mono Lake area has numerous active faults. Five of these faults or fault zones are considered capable of producing magnitude ≥6.7 earthquakes according to the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2) developed by the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) and the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Program. These five faults are the Fish Slough, Hartley Springs, Hilton Creek, Mono Lake, and Round Valley Faults. CGS developed earthquake scenarios for these five faults in the study area and for the White Mountains Fault Zone to the east of the study area. In this report, an earthquake scenario is intended to depict the potential consequences of significant earthquakes. A scenario earthquake is not necessarily the largest or most damaging earthquake possible on a recognized fault. Rather it is both large enough and likely enough that emergency planners should consider it in regional emergency response plans. In particular, the ground motion predicted for a given scenario earthquake does not represent a full probabilistic hazard assessment, and thus it does not provide the basis for hazard zoning and earthquake-resistant building design. Earthquake scenarios presented here are based on fault geometry and activity data developed by the WGCEP, and are consistent with the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM). Alternatives to the NSHM scenario were developed for the Hilton Creek and Hartley Springs Faults to account for different opinions in how far these two faults extend into Long Valley Caldera. For each scenario, ground motions were calculated using the current standard practice: the deterministic seismic hazard analysis program developed by Art Frankel of USGS and three Next Generation Ground Motion Attenuation (NGA) models. Ground motion calculations incorporated the potential amplification of seismic shaking by near-surface soils defined by a map of the average shear wave velocity in the uppermost 30 m ( V S30 ) developed by CGS. In addition to ground shaking and shaking-related ground failure such as liquefaction and earthquake induced landslides, earthquakes cause surface rupture displacement, which can lead to severe damage of buildings and lifelines. For each earthquake scenario, potential surface fault displacements are estimated using deterministic and probabilistic approaches. Liquefaction occurs when saturated sediments lose their strength because of ground shaking. Zones of potential liquefaction are mapped by incorporating areas where loose sandy sediments, shallow groundwater, and strong earthquake shaking coincide in the earthquake scenario. The process for defining zones of potential landslide and rockfall incorporates rock strength, surface slope, and existing landslides, with ground motions caused by the scenario earthquake. Each scenario is illustrated with maps of seismic shaking potential and fault displacement, liquefaction, and landslide potential. Seismic shaking is depicted by the distribution of shaking intensity, peak ground acceleration, and 1.0-second spectral acceleration. One-second spectral acceleration correlates well with structural damage to surface facilities. Acceleration greater than 0.2 g is often associated with strong ground shaking and may cause moderate to heavy damage. The extent of strong shaking is influenced by subsurface fault dip and near surface materials. Strong shaking is more widespread in the hanging wall regions of a normal fault. Larger ground motions also occur where young alluvial sediments amplify the shaking. Both of these effects can lead to strong shaking that extends farther from the fault on the valley side than on the hill side. The effect of fault rupture displacements may be localized along the surface trace of the mapped earthquake fault if fault geometry is simple and the fault traces are accurately located. However, surface displacement hazards can spread over a few hundred meters to a few kilometers if the earthquake fault has numerous splays or branches, such as the Hilton Creek Fault. Faulting displacements are estimated to be about 1 meter along normal faults in the study area and close to 2 meters along the White Mountains Fault Zone. All scenarios show the possibility of widespread ground failure. Liquefaction damage would likely occur in the areas of higher ground shaking near the faults where there are sandy/silty sediments and the depth to groundwater is 6.1 meters (20 feet) or less. Generally, this means damage is most common near lakes and streams in the areas of strongest shaking. Landslide potential exists throughout the study region. All steep slopes (>30 degrees) present a potential hazard at any level of shaking. Lesser slopes may have landslides within the areas of the higher ground shaking. The landslide hazard zones also are likely sources for snow avalanches during winter months and for large boulders that can be shaken loose and roll hundreds of feet down hill, which happened during the 1980 Mammoth Lakes earthquakes. Whereas methodologies used in estimating ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides are well developed and have been applied in published hazard maps; methodologies used in estimating surface fault displacement are still being developed. Therefore, this report provides a more in-depth and detailed discussion of methodologies used for deterministic and probabilistic fault displacement hazard analyses for this project.

California↗

USGS2008

Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps

The 2008 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps display earthquake ground motions for various probability levels across the United States and are applied in seismic provisions of building codes, insurance rate structures, risk assessments, and other public policy. This update of the maps incorporates new findings on earthquake ground shaking, faults, seismicity, and geodesy. The resulting maps are derived from seismic hazard curves calculated on a grid of sites across the United States that describe the frequency of exceeding a set of ground motions. The USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project developed these maps by incorporating information on potential earthquakes and associated ground shaking obtained from interaction in science and engineering workshops involving hundreds of participants, review by several science organizations and State surveys, and advice from two expert panels. The new probabilistic hazard maps represent an update of the 2002 seismic hazard maps developed by Frankel and others (2002), which used the methodology developed for the 1996 version of the maps (Frankel and others, 1996). Algermissen and Perkins (1976) published the first probabilistic seismic hazard map of the United States which was updated in Algermissen and others (1990). The National Seismic Hazard Maps represent our assessment of the “best available science” in earthquake hazards estimation for the United States (maps of Alaska and Hawaii as well as further information on hazard across the United States are available on our Web site at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/ ).

Open-File Report↗

USGS2008

California fault parameters for the National Seismic Hazard Maps and Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities 2007

This report describes development of fault parameters for the 2007 update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps and the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 2007). These reference parameters are contained within a database intended to be a source of values for use by scientists interested in producing either seismic hazard or deformation models to better understand the current seismic hazards in California. These parameters include descriptions of the geometry and rates of movements of faults throughout the state. These values are intended to provide a starting point for development of more sophisticated deformation models which include known rates of movement on faults as well as geodetic measurements of crustal movement and the rates of movements of the tectonic plates. The values will be used in developing the next generation of the time-independent National Seismic Hazard Maps, and the time-dependant seismic hazard calculations being developed for the WGCEP. Due to the multiple uses of this information, development of these parameters has been coordinated between USGS, CGS and SCEC. SCEC provided the database development and editing tools, in consultation with USGS, Golden. This database has been implemented in Oracle and supports electronic access (e.g., for on-the-fly access). A GUI-based application has also been developed to aid in populating the database. Both the continually updated 'living' version of this database, as well as any locked-down official releases (e.g., used in a published model for calculating earthquake probabilities or seismic shaking hazards) are part of the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/ . CGS has been primarily responsible for updating and editing of the fault parameters, with extensive input from USGS and SCEC scientists.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2008

Overview of the Southern San Andreas Fault Model

This appendix summarizes the data and methodology used to generate the source model for the southern San Andreas fault. It is organized into three sections, 1) a section by section review of the geological data in the format of past Working Groups, 2) an overview of the rupture model, and 3) a manuscript by Biasi and Weldon (in review Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America) that describes the correlation methodology that was used to help develop the ?geologic insight? model. The goal of the Biasi and Weldon methodology is to quantify the insight that went into developing all A faults; as such it is in concept consistent with all other A faults but applied in a more quantitative way. The most rapidly slipping fault and the only known source of M~8 earthquakes in southern California is the San Andreas fault. As such it plays a special role in the seismic hazard of California, and has received special attention in the current Working Group. The underlying philosophy of the current Working Group is to model the recurrence behavior of large, rapidly slipping faults like the San Andreas from observed data on the size, distribution and timing of past earthquakes with as few assumptions about underlying recurrence behavior as possible. In addition, we wish to carry the uncertainties in the data and the range of reasonable extrapolations from the data to the final model. To accomplish this for the Southern San Andreas fault we have developed an objective method to combine all of the observations of size, timing, and distribution of past earthquakes into a comprehensive set of earthquake scenarios that each represent a possible history of earthquakes for the past ~1400 years. The scenarios are then ranked according to their overall consistency with the data and then the frequencies of all of the ruptures permitted by the current Working Group?s segmentation model are calculated. We also present 30-yr conditional probabilities by segment and compare to previous results. A distinctive aspect of the current model is that the probability is higher at both ends of the fault and that the ends have a much greater fraction of smaller events. There is a significant difference in the likelihood of large (M 7.7-8.0) earthquakes along the fault from north to south, with large 1857-like events common on the northern half of the southern San Andreas fault but relatively few M 7.7-8.0 expected on the southern half.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2008

Summary of geologic data and development of A Priori Rupture Models for the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and Garlock faults

This appendix to the WGCEP Earthquake Rate Model 2 summarizes geologic data and documents the development of the rupture models for the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and Garlock faults. For the summary of available geologic data, the documentation is organized by fault and fault segment and includes a summary of slip rates, event timing and recurrence, slip-per-event, and historical seismicity for each segment. This information is compiled from the published literature as well as newer studies that have not yet been published. For the unpublished data, we either are familiar, having visited the paleoseismic sites, or participated in the data collection, or we have solicited the principal investigators at each site for their latest results. While these unpublished results are preliminary, we have chosen to include them because the results were considered in development of the rupture models and it is unlikely that the sites will be formally published before the WGCEP Earthquake Rate Model is finalized. The second part of this document describes the construction of the rupture models used in the WGCEP Earthquake Rate Model 2, and the rationale that went into the construction of these models, with a summary of what types of data were considered when the rupture models were created.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2008

Development of final a-fault rupture models for WGCEP/ NSHMP Earthquake Rate Model 2

This appendix discusses how we compute the magnitude and rate of earthquake ruptures for the seven Type-A faults (Elsinore, Garlock, San Jacinto, S. San Andreas, N. San Andreas, Hayward-Rodgers Creek, and Calaveras) in the WGCEP/NSHMP Earthquake Rate Model 2 (referred to as ERM 2. hereafter). By definition, Type-A faults are those that have relatively abundant paleoseismic information (e.g., mean recurrence-interval estimates). The first section below discusses segmentation-based models, where ruptures are assumed be confined to one or more identifiable segments. The second section discusses an un-segmented-model option, the third section discusses results and implications, and we end with a discussion of possible future improvements. General background information can be found in the main report.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2008

A-priori rupture models for Northern California Type-A faults

This appendix describes how a-priori rupture models were developed for the northern California Type-A faults. As described in the main body of this report, and in Appendix G, “a-priori” models represent an initial estimate of the rate of single and multi-segment surface ruptures on each fault. Whether or not a given model is moment balanced (i.e., satisfies section slip-rate data) depends on assumptions made regarding the average slip on each segment in each rupture (which in turn depends on the chosen magnitude-area relationship). Therefore, for a given set of assumptions, or branch on the logic tree, the methodology of the present Working Group (WGCEP-2007) is to find a final model that is as close as possible to the a-priori model, in the least squares sense, but that also satisfies slip rate and perhaps other data. This is analogous the WGCEP- 2002 approach of effectively voting on the relative rate of each possible rupture, and then finding the closest moment-balance model (under a more limiting set of assumptions than adopted by the present WGCEP, as described in detail in Appendix G). The 2002 Working Group Report (WCCEP, 2003, referred to here as WGCEP-2002), created segmented earthquake rupture forecast models for all faults in the region, including some that had been designated as Type B faults in the NSHMP, 1996, and one that had not previously been considered. The 2002 National Seismic Hazard Maps used the values from WGCEP-2002 for all the faults in the region, essentially treating all the listed faults as Type A faults. As discussed in Appendix A, the current WGCEP found that there are a number of faults with little or no data on slip-per-event, or dates of previous earthquakes. As a result, the WGCEP recommends that faults with minimal available earthquake recurrence data: the Greenville, Mount Diablo, San Gregorio, Monte Vista-Shannon and Concord-Green Valley be modeled as Type B faults to be consistent with similarly poorly-known faults statewide. As a result, the modified segmented models discussed here only concern the San Andreas, Hayward-Rodgers Creek, and Calaveras faults.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2008

Comments on potential geologic and seismic hazards affecting proposed liquefied natural gas site in Santa Monica Bay, California

In a letter to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) dated March 25, 2008, Representative Jane Harman (California 36th district) requested advice on geologic hazards that should be considered in the review of a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility off the California coast in Santa Monica Bay. In 2004, the USGS responded to a similar request from Representative Lois Capps, regarding two proposed LNG facilities offshore Ventura County, Calif., with a report summarizing potential geologic and seismic hazards (Ross and others, 2004). The proposed LNG Deepwater Port (DWP) facility includes single point moorings (SPMs) and 35 miles of underwater pipelines. The DWP submersible buoys, manifolds, and risers would be situated on the floor of the southern Santa Monica Basin, in 3,000 feet of water, about 23 miles offshore of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Twin 24-inch diameter pipelines would extend northeastward from the buoys across the basin floor, up the basin slope and across the continental shelf, skirting north around the Santa Monica submarine canyon. Figure 1 provides locations of the project and geologic features. Acronyms are defined in table 1. This facility is being proposed in a region of known geologic hazards that arise from both the potential for strong earthquakes and geologic processes related to sediment transport and accumulation in the offshore environment. The probability of a damaging earthquake (considered here as magnitude 6.5 or greater) in the next 30 years within about 30 miles (50 km) of the proposed pipeline ranges from 16% at the pipeline's offshore end to 48% where it nears land (Petersen, 2008). Earthquakes of this magnitude are capable of producing strong shaking, surface fault offsets, liquefaction phenomena, landslides, underwater turbidity currents and debris flow avalanches, and tsunamis. As part of the DWP license application for the Woodside Natural Gas proposal in Santa Monica Bay (known as the OceanWay Secure Energy Project), Fugro West, Inc., had already prepared a document discussing geologic hazards in the area, titled 'Exhibit B Topic Report 6 - Geological Resources' (Fugro West, Inc., 2007); hereafter, this will be called the 'Geological Resources document'. The USGS agreed to evaluate the information in the Geological Resources document regarding (1) proximity of active faults to the proposed project, (2) potential magnitude of seismic events from nearby faults, (3) thoroughness of the assessment of earthquake hazards in general, (4) potential hazards from ground rupture and strong shaking, (5) potential hazards from tsunamis, and (6) other geologic hazards including landslides and debris flows. Because two new earthquake probability reports were scheduled to be released in mid-April, 2008, by the USGS and the California Geological Survey (CGS), the USGS suggested a 6-month review period to enable a thorough incorporation of this new information. Twenty-seven scientists from the USGS and the CGS reviewed various sections of the Geological Resources document. This report outlines our major conclusions. The appendix is a longer list of comments by these reviewers, grouped by section of the Geological Resources document. Before discussing our reviews, we first provide a brief overview of geologic hazards in the proposed site area. This report is a snapshot in time and any future work in the area will need to take into account ongoing research efforts. For example, USGS scientists collected seismic reflection data in the spring of 2008 to study the structure and seismic potential of several faults in the area. Their interpretations (Conrad and others, 2008a and 2008b) are too preliminary to be included in this report, but their final results, along with other researchers' studies in the project area, should be considered in any future work on the Deepwater Port project.

California↗

USGS2008

Seismic hazard mapping of California incorporating spatial variability of site conditions

The U.S. Geological Survey has recently released a 2008 version of the probabilistic National Seismic Hazard Maps. These maps plot the peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration (SA) ordinates at 0.2 and 1.0 sec with 2% and 10% probabilities of being exceeded in 50 years, corresponding to earthquake return periods of about 2,475 and 475 years, respectively. These acceleration levels were computed for uniform “firm rock” site conditions, i.e., 760 m/sec average shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m, and therefore these maps do not show the potential spatial variability of ground motion associated with different site conditions, so we have combined the USGS National Seismic Hazard model with the California showing 17 generalized geologic units geologic units that can be defined by their shear-wave velocity (Wills and Clahan 2006), we regrouped these units into to 7 shear-wave velocities. At each shear-wave velocity value, a probabilistic seismic hazard map was generated for the entire state. By combining seismic hazard maps based on the 7 different shear-wave velocity values, a suite of seismic hazard maps was computed for California for 0.2 and 1.0 sec spectral ordinates at 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The improved maps thus explicitly incorporate the site effects and their spatial variability on ground motion estimates. The SA at 1.0 sec map of seismic shaking potential for California has been now published as California Geological Survey Map Sheet 48, which is intended to be accessible and understandable to the general public.

California↗