Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70207468

Holocene rupture history of the central Teton fault at Leigh Lake; Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming

Abstract

Prominent scarps on Pinedale glacial surfaces along the eastern base of the Teton Range confirm latest Pleistocene to Holocene surface‐faulting earthquakes on the Teton fault, but the timing of these events is only broadly constrained by a single previous paleoseismic study. We excavated two trenches at the Leigh Lake site near the center of the Teton fault to address open questions about earthquake timing and rupture length. Structural and stratigraphic evidence indicates two surface‐faulting earthquakes at the site that postdate deglacial sediments dated by radiocarbon and optically stimulated luminescence to ∼10–11 ka⁠. Earthquake LL2 occurred at ∼10.0 ka (9.7–10.4 ka; 95% confidence range) and LL1 at ∼5.9 ka (4.8–7.1 ka; 95%). LL2 predates an earthquake at ∼8ka identified in the previous paleoseismic investigation at Granite Canyon. LL1 corresponds to the most recent Granite Canyon earthquake at ∼4.7–7.9 ka (95% confidence range). Our results are consistent with the previously documented long‐elapsed time since the most recent Teton fault rupture and expand the fault’s earthquake history into the early Holocene.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 43.671844983221604° to 44.12702800650004° latitude; -110.928955078125° to -110.38238525390625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mark Zellman, Christopher B. DuRoss, Glenn R. Thackray, Stephen Personius, Nadine G. Reitman, Shannon A. Mahan, Cooper Brossy. 2019-11-19. Holocene rupture history of the central Teton fault at Leigh Lake; Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120190129

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗