Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Research about San Francisco Bay region

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including San Francisco Bay region.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2025

Three-dimensional seismic velocity models for the San Francisco Bay region, California from joint body-wave and surface-wave tomography validated by waveform simulation

A high-resolution seismic velocity model for both P and S waves is essential for the San Francisco Bay (SFB) region to accurately simulate earthquake ground motions and assess seismic hazards in this high-risk region. We present new three-dimensional P-wave and S-wave velocity (Vp and Vs) models of the SFB region developed using joint tomographic inversion with a rich set of earthquake and active-source body-wave data and ambient-noise surface-wave data. We designed a dynamic balance strategy to effectively balance the contributions of body-wave and surface-wave data during each iteration of the inversion. Owing to the complementary resolution of body-wave and surface-wave data, our new models are significantly improved compared to previous tomographic models. Major geologic features in the SFB region, including low-velocity basins, high-velocity Franciscan Complex, granite, and gabbro rocks, and across-fault velocity contrasts, are imaged in our Vp and Vs models. Compared to the geology-based U.S. Geological Survey velocity model, our new model has better defined structures for some important areas that are of great concern for seismic hazard assessment, such as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the 2014 magnitude 6.0 South Napa earthquake area. We validated our model by simulating waveforms for a set of moderate-magnitude earthquakes. The good performance of our model in waveform simulation indicates its potential for improving ground motion simulation and seismic hazard assessment in the SFB region.

California↗
USGS2022

Economic consequences of the HayWired earthquake scenario

This study evaluates the economic impacts of a M w 7.0 Hayward fault scenario earthquake on the greater San Francisco Bay Region’s economy and the California economy as a whole using a detailed multiregional, static computable general equilibrium model. Economic impacts in terms of Gross Regional Product (GRP) losses caused by both capital stock (building and content) damages and water and electricity utilities, and telecommunications-service disruptions are estimated. The results indicate that the total losses are primarily caused by capital stock damages. In the 6 months following the earthquake, total GRP losses are estimated to be $44.2 billion (4.2 percent of California’s projected baseline GRP over the period), but this result could be reduced by about 43 percent to $25.3 billion after factoring in microeconomic resilience tactics. The GRP losses associated with lifeline service disruptions are estimated to be $1.4 billion, which can be reduced by over 85 percent when resilience tactics are implemented. The most effective tactics are the ability to make up lost production by people working overtime or extra shifts (production recapture), making greater use of processes that do not need disrupted goods or services (production isolation), and substituting for disrupted supplies and services (input substitution), though their impact varies across the various causal factors influencing GRP losses.

California↗
USGS2020

Science plan for improving three-dimensional seismic velocity models in the San Francisco Bay region, 2019–24

This five-year science plan outlines short-term and long-term goals for improving three-dimensional seismic velocity models in the greater San Francisco Bay region as well as how to foster a community effort in reaching those goals. The short-term goals focus on improving the current U.S. Geological Survey San Francisco Bay region geologic and seismic velocity model using existing data. The long-term goals focus on acquiring new data and leveraging better analytic tools to improve the model and characterize the uncertainty. The plan describes opportunities for contributions by members of the community to develop these seismic velocity models, provides current and potential users with general information on where efforts will likely be focused to improve these models and how new versions of the models will be released, and outlines funding needs and obstacles for improving and maintaining such models. Several aspects of this plan, including how to foster a community effort, are independent of the geographic region and apply to other similar efforts.

California↗
USGS2014

The earthquake cycle in the San Francisco Bay region: A.D. 1600–2012

Stress changes produced by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake had a profound effect on the seismicity of the San Francisco Bay region (SFBR), dramatically reducing it in the twentieth century. Whether the SFBR is still within or has emerged from this seismic quiescence is an issue of debate with implications for earthquake mechanics and seismic hazards. Historically, the SFBR has not experienced one complete earthquake cycle (i.e., the accumulation of stress, its release primarily as coseismic slip during surface‐faulting earthquakes, its re‐accumulation in the interval following, and its subsequent rerelease). The historical record of earthquake occurrence in the SFBR appears to be complete at about M 5.5 back to 1850 ( Bakun, 1999 ). For large events, the record may be complete back to 1776, which represents about half a cycle. Paleoseismic data provide a more complete view of the most recent pre‐1906 SFBR earthquake cycle, extending it back to about 1600. Using these, we have developed estimates of magnitude and seismic moment for alternative sequences of surface‐faulting paleoearthquakes occurring between 1600 and 1776 on the region’s major faults. From these we calculate seismic moment and moment release rates for different time intervals between 1600 and 2012. These show the variability in moment release and suggest that, in the SFBR regional plate boundary, stress can be released on a single fault in great earthquakes such as that in 1906 and in multiple ruptures distributed on the regional plate boundary fault system on a decadal time scale.

California↗
USGS2009

Ground-water quality data in the San Francisco Bay study unit, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program

Ground-water quality in the approximately 620-square-mile San Francisco Bay study unit (SFBAY) was investigated from April through June 2007 as part of the Priority Basin project of the Ground-Water Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001, and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of raw ground-water quality, as well as a statistically consistent basis for comparing water quality throughout California. Samples in SFBAY were collected from 79 wells in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties. Forty-three of the wells sampled were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study unit (grid wells). Thirty-six wells were sampled to aid in evaluation of specific water-quality issues (understanding wells). The ground-water samples were analyzed for a large number of synthetic organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], pesticides and pesticide degradates, pharmaceutical compounds, and potential wastewater-indicator compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate and N-nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, trace elements, chloride and bromide isotopes, and uranium and strontium isotopes), radioactive constituents, and microbial indicators. Naturally occurring isotopes (tritium, carbon-14 isotopes, and stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, boron, and carbon), and dissolved noble gases (noble gases were analyzed in collaboration with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) also were measured to help identify the source and age of the sampled ground water. Quality-control samples (blank samples, replicate samples, matrix spike samples) were collected for approximately one-third of the wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the ground-water samples. Assessment of the quality-control information from the field blanks resulted in applying “V” codes to approximately 0.1 percent of the data collected for ground-water samples (meaning a constituent was detected in blanks as well as the corresponding environmental data). See the Appendix section “Quality-Control-Sample Results.” This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, water typically is treated, disinfected, and (or) blended with other waters to maintain acceptable water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to treated water that is delivered to the consumer, not to raw ground water. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw ground water were compared with regulatory and non-regulatory health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and thresholds established for aesthetic concerns (secondary maximum contaminant levels, SMCL-CA) by CDPH. VOCs were detected in about one-half of the grid wells, while pesticides were detected in about one-fifth of the grid wells. Concentrations of all VOCs and pesticides detected in samples from all SFBAY wells were below health-based thresholds. No pharmaceutical compounds were detected in any SFBAY well. One potential wastewater-indicator compound, caffeine, was detected in one grid well in SFBAY. Concentrations of most trace elements and nutrients detected in samples from all SFBAY wells were below health-based thresholds. Exceptions include nitrate, detected above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US) in 3samples; arsenic, above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US) in 3 samples; cadmium, above the MCL-US in 1 sample; boron, above the CDPH notification level (NL-CA) in 2 samples; and strontium, above the USEPA lifetime health advisory level (HAL-US) in 2 samples. The radioactive constituent radon-222 was detected above the proposed MCL-US in two grid wells, but no wells had detections above the proposed alternative MCL-US. Most of the samples from all SFBAY wells had concentrations of major ions, total dissolved solids, and trace elements below the non-enforceable thresholds set for aesthetic concerns. Six or fewer samples contained chloride, sulfate, or iron at concentrations above the SMCL-CA thresholds. No microbial indicators were detected in SFBAY grid wells.

California↗
USGS2007

Three-dimensional P wave velocity model for the San Francisco Bay region, California

[1] A new three-dimensional P wave velocity model for the greater San Francisco Bay region has been derived using the double-difference seismic tomography method, using data from about 5,500 chemical explosions or air gun blasts and approximately 6,000 earthquakes. The model region covers 140 km NE-SW by 240 km NW-SE, extending from 20 km south of Monterey to Santa Rosa and reaching from the Pacific coast to the edge of the Great Valley. Our model provides the first regional view of a number of basement highs that are imaged in the uppermost few kilometers of the model, and images a number of velocity anomaly lows associated with known Mesozoic and Cenozoic basins in the study area. High velocity ( V p > 6.5 km/s) features at ∼15-km depth beneath part of the edge of the Great Valley and along the San Francisco peninsula are interpreted as ophiolite bodies. The relocated earthquakes provide a clear picture of the geometry of the major faults in the region, illuminating fault dips that are generally consistent with previous studies. Ninety-five percent of the earthquakes have depths between 2.3 and 15.2 km, and the corresponding seismic velocities at the hypocenters range from 4.8 km/s (presumably corresponding to Franciscan basement or Mesozoic sedimentary rocks of the Great Valley Sequence) to 6.8 km/s. The top of the seismogenic zone is thus largely controlled by basement depth, but the base of the seismogenic zone is not restricted to seismic velocities of ≤6.3 km/s in this region, as had been previously proposed.

California↗
USGS2007

Finite-frequency traveltime tomography of San Francisco Bay region crustal velocity structure

Seismic velocity structure of the San Francisco Bay region crust is derived using measurements of finite-frequency traveltimes. A total of 57 801 relative traveltimes are measured by cross-correlation over the frequency range 0.5–1.5 Hz. From these are derived 4862 ‘summary’ traveltimes, which are used to derive 3-D P -wave velocity structure over a 341 × 140 km 2 area from the surface to 25 km depth. The seismic tomography is based on sensitivity kernels calculated on a spherically symmetric reference model. Robust elements of the derived P -wave velocity structure are: a pronounced velocity contrast across the San Andreas fault in the south Bay region (west side faster); a moderate velocity contrast across the Hayward fault (west side faster); moderately low velocity crust around the Quien Sabe volcanic field and the Sacramento River delta; very low velocity crust around Lake Berryessa. These features are generally explicable with surface rock types being extrapolated to depth ∼10 km in the upper crust. Generally high mid-lower crust velocity and high inferred Poisson's ratio suggest a mafic lower crust.

California↗
USGS2003

An empirical model for earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region, California, 2002-2031

The moment magnitude M 7.8 earthquake in 1906 profoundly changed the rate of seismic activity over much of northern California. The low rate of seismic activity in the San Francisco Bay region (SFBR) since 1906, relative to that of the preceding 55 yr, is often explained as a stress-shadow effect of the 1906 earthquake. However, existing elastic and visco-elastic models of stress change fail to fully account for the duration of the lowered rate of earthquake activity. We use variations in the rate of earthquakes as a basis for a simple empirical model for estimating the probability of M ≥6.7 earthquakes in the SFBR. The model preserves the relative magnitude distribution of sources predicted by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities' ( WGCEP, 1999 ; WGCEP, 2002 ) model of characterized ruptures on SFBR faults and is consistent with the occurrence of the four M ≥6.7 earthquakes in the region since 1838. When the empirical model is extrapolated 30 yr forward from 2002, it gives a probability of 0.42 for one or more M ≥6.7 in the SFBR. This result is lower than the probability of 0.5 estimated by WGCEP ( 1988 ), lower than the 30-yr Poisson probability of 0.60 obtained by WGCEP ( 1999 ) and WGCEP ( 2002 ), and lower than the 30-yr time-dependent probabilities of 0.67, 0.70, and 0.63 obtained by WGCEP ( 1990 ), WGCEP ( 1999 ), and WGCEP ( 2002 ), respectively, for the occurrence of one or more large earthquakes. This lower probability is consistent with the lack of adequate accounting for the 1906 stress-shadow in these earlier reports. The empirical model represents one possible approach toward accounting for the stress-shadow effect of the 1906 earthquake. However, the discrepancy between our result and those obtained with other modeling methods underscores the fact that the physics controlling the timing of earthquakes is not well understood. Hence, we advise against using the empirical model alone (or any other single probability model) for estimating the earthquake hazard and endorse the use of all credible earthquake probability models for the region, including the empirical model, with appropriate weighting, as was done in WGCEP ( 2002 ).

California↗
USGS2002

A record of large earthquakes on the southern Hayward fault for the past 500 years

The Hayward fault, a major branch of the right-lateral San Andreas fault system, traverses the densely populated eastern San Francisco Bay region, California. We conducted a paleoseismic investigation to better understand the Hayward fault's past earthquake behavior. The site is near the south end of Tyson's Lagoon, a sag pond formed in a right step of the fault in Fremont. Because the Hayward fault creeps at the surface, we identified paleoseismic events using features that we judge to be unique to ground ruptures or the result of strong ground motion, such as the presence of fault-scarp colluvial deposits and liquefaction. We correlate the most recent event evidence (E1) to the historical 1868 M 6.9 earthquake that caused liquefaction in the pond and recognize three additional paleoruptures since A.D. 1470 ± 110 yr. Event ages were estimated by chronological modeling, which incorporated historical and stratigraphic information and radiocarbon and pollen data. Modeled, mean age and 95-percentile ranges of the three earlier events are A.D. 1730 (1650-1790) yr (E2), A.D. 1630 (1530-1740) yr (E3), and A.D. 1470 (1360-1580) (E4). The ages of these paleoearthquakes yield a mean recurrence of 130 ± 40 yr. Although the mean recurrence is well determined for the period A.D. 1470-1868, individual intervals are less well determined: E1-E2, 140 +80/-70 yr; E2-E3, 100 +90/-100 yr; and E3-E4, 150 +130/-110 yr.

California↗
USGS1999

Seismic activity of the San Francisco Bay region

Moment magnitude M with objective confidence-level uncertainties are estimated for felt San Francisco Bay region earthquakes using Bakun and Went-worth's (1997) analysis strategy for seismic intensity observations. The frequency-magnitude distribution is well described for M ≧ 5.5 events since 1850 by a Gutenberg-Richter relation with a b -value of 0.90. The seismic moment rate Σ M 0 /yr since 1836 is 2.68 × 10 18 N-m/yr (95% confidence range = 1.29 × 10 18 N-m/yr to 4.07 × 10 18 N-m/yr); the seismic moment rate since 1850 is nearly the same. Σ M 0 /yr in the 56 years before 1906 is about 10 times that in the 70 years after 1906. In contrast, Σ M 0 /yr since 1977 is about equal that in the 56 years before 1906. 80% (1σ = 14%) of the plate-motion moment accumulation rate is available for release in earthquakes. The historical Σ M 0 /yr and the portion of the plate-motion moment accumulation rate available for release in earthquakes are used in a seismic cycle model to estimate the rate of seismic activity in the twenty-first century. High and low rates of future seismic activity are both permissible given the range of possible seismic-cycle recurrence times T and the uncertainties in the historical Σ M 0 and in the percentage of plate motion available for release in earthquakes. If the historical seismic moment rate is not greater than the estimated 2.68 × 10 18 N-m/yr and the percentage of the plate-motion moment accumulation available for release in earthquakes is not less than the estimated 80%, then for all T , the rate of seismic moment release from now until the next 1906-sized shock will be comparable to the rate from 1836 to 1905 when M 6 1/2 shocks occurred every 15 to 20 years.

California↗
USGS1999

Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region: 2000 to 2030 - A summary of findings

The San Francisco Bay region sits astride a dangerous “earthquake machine,” the tectonic boundary between the Pacific and North American Plates. The region has experienced major and destructive earthquakes in 1838, 1868, 1906, and 1989, and future large earthquakes are a certainty. The ability to prepare for large earthquakes is critical to saving lives and reducing damage to property and infrastructure. An increased understanding of the timing, size, location, and effects of these likely earthquakes is a necessary component in any effective program of preparedness. This study reports on the probabilities of occurrence of major earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay region (SFBR) for the three decades 2000 to 2030. The SFBR extends from Healdsberg on the northwest to Salinas on the southeast and encloses the entire metropolitan area, including its most rapidly expanding urban and suburban areas. In this study a “major” earthquake is defined as one with M≥6.7 (where M is moment magnitude). As experience from the Northridge, California (M6.7, 1994) and Kobe, Japan (M6.9, 1995) earthquakes has shown us, earthquakes of this size can have a disastrous impact on the social and economic fabric of densely urbanized areas. To reevaluate the probability of large earthquakes striking the SFBR, the U.S. Geological Survey solicited data, interpretations, and analyses from dozens of scientists representing a wide crosssection of the Earth-science community (Appendix A). The primary approach of this new Working Group (WG99) was to develop a comprehensive, regional model for the long-term occurrence of earthquakes, founded on geologic and geophysical observations and constrained by plate tectonics. The model considers a broad range of observations and their possible interpretations. Using this model, we estimate the rates of occurrence of earthquakes and 30-year earthquake probabilities. Our study considers a range of magnitudes for earthquakes on the major faults in the region—an innovation over previous studies of the SFBR that considered only a small number of potential earthquakes of fixed magnitude.

California↗
USGS1998

Slope maps of the San Francisco Bay region, California: A digital database

PREFACE: Topography, the configuration of the land surface, plays a major role in various natural processes that have helped shape the ten-county San Francisco Bay region and continue to affect its development. Such processes include a dangerous type of landslide, the debris flow (Ellen and others, 1997) as well as other modes of slope failure that damage property but rarely threaten life directly?slumping, translational sliding, and earthflow (Wentworth and others, 1997). Different types of topographic information at both local and regional scales are helpful in assessing the likelihood of slope failure and the mapping the extent of its past activity, as well as addressing other issues in hazard mitigation and land-use policy. The most useful information is quantitative. This report provides detailed digital data and plottable map files that depict in detail the most important single measure of ground-surface form for the Bay region, slope angle. We computed slope data for the entire region and each of its constituent counties from a new set of 35,000,000 digital elevations assembled from 200 local contour maps.

California↗
USGS1998

The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989: Forecasts

The magnitude (Mw) 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake struck the San Francisco Bay region of central California at 5:04 p.m. P.d.t. on October 17, 1989, killing 62 people and generating billions of dollars in property damage. Scientists were not surprised by the occurrence of a destructive earthquake in this region and had, in fact, been attempting to forecast the location of the next large earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region for decades. This paper summarizes more than 20 scientifically based forecasts made before the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake for a large earthquake that might occur in the Loma Prieta area. The forecasts geographically closest to the actual earthquake primarily consisted of right-lateral strike-slip motion on the San Andreas Fault northwest of San Juan Bautista. Several of the forecasts did encompass the magnitude of the actual earthquake, and at least one approximately encompassed the along-strike rupture length. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake differed from most of the forecasted events in two ways: (1) it occurred with considerable dip-slip in addition to strike-slip motion, and (2) it was much deeper than expected.

California↗
USGS1998

The Loma Prieta, California, earthquake of October 17, 1989: Liquefaction

The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake both reconfirmed the vulnerability of areas in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay region to liquefaction and provided an opportunity to test methodologies for predicting liquefaction that have been developed since the mid-1970's. This vulnerability is documented in the chapter edited by O'Rourke and by the investigators in this chapter who describe case histories of liquefaction damage and warn us about the potential for even greater damage from liquefaction if an earthquake similar to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, but located closer to their study sites, were to occur.

California↗