San Andreas Fault in the Carrizo Plain Field trips

Recently, I pulled together some notes for the SCEC UNREST Field trip in the Carrizo Plain. It was a great conversation to share with the esteemed colleagues.

So I can find it, here are the notes that produced as a handout: LINK

Here are a few other items/guides:

• Field trip along the San Andreas Fault in the Carrizo Plain--Guide I wrote some time ago
• Akçiz, S.O., and Arrowsmith, J.R., 2013, New views on the evolution of the San Andreas fault zone in central California and the Carrizo Plain, in Geologic Excursions from Fresno, California, and the Central Valley: A Tour of California’s Iconic Geology, Geological Society of America, p. 1–12, doi:10.1130/2013.0032(01).
• Poster of B4 lidar data derived DEM of the Wallace Creek-Phelan Creeks area

M 7.1 - 17km NNE of Ridgecrest, CA (was Accumulating links for: M 6.4 - 12km SW of Searles Valley, CA)

I have prepared a summary presentation on the earthquake sequence. The July 17 versions here here: PDF and PPT. They are comprised of material harvested from publicly accessible sites, so I am hoping it is ok to redistribute in this form; I have provided attribution. Let me know if something needs to be udpated.

---

And then the the 4th of July event was a foreshock. As I mentioned below, there was a 9% probability from the USGS that the July 4th event would be followed by something larger, and it actually was. I hope that people are ok; will take until the morning to have a better sense of damage and injuries.

I am regularly updating this page, so occasionally refresh.

Tonight's event is clearly part of the same sequence, although this was along the NW-trending section (and was right-lateral). This is an impressive conjugate pattern (right lateral along the NW orientation and left lateral along the NE orientation). Both orientations and senses of motion are consistent with the overall shear zone deformation in the area. It looks to have ruptured across the Highway 178. There are also lots of mass movements in the area (lots of dust kicked up in videos, and also rock falls onto the roads, etc.).

This event was an M6.9 refined from the M7.1 initial estimate. This is a half magnitude unit larger so it was ~10x more energy, hence the broader felt extent (more people in Phoenix and Las Vegas noted it; e.g., my colleagues and my sister...). If you felt (or not) good to fill out a report. This one will certainly be followed by many aftershocks, and there is again a small chance that a larger one could follow. (Omori’s law: ~logarithmic decay in time for event rate (ratio of big to small aftershocks stays the same.) But you can also think of these events close in time and space as epidemics (epidemic type aftershock sequence, most that follow are smaller, but sometimes a bigger one can follow as we have seen). An event of the July 4 size could be an aftershock now...

Locations from http://www.scsn.org/ and the focal mechanism from USGS. Compare this with the similar one below.

ASU recording: http://earthquake.asu.edu/EQplots/ci38457511.pdf; thanks to John West and Ed Garnero

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A 4th of July earthquake with an impressive conjugate aftershock pattern in the Eastern California Shear Zone.

Locations from http://www.scsn.org/ and the focal mechanism from USGS.

Deferring to USGS/CGS colleagues for the real interpretation, but this looks to be consistent with maybe a primary rupture on one of the trends and then aftershocks climbing up the other. Given the magnitude and length scaling, for the moment, I am going to guess the rupture was on the NE trend and would be left lateral with a few 10s cm cracking (based on image below could be Little Lake Fault zone?). This is also consistent with the conjugate fault pattern mapped in the region (see NW and NE-trending faults on map below).

Update about 2 pm: indeed, decimeter-scale rupture, left lateral, crossing Highway 178. See this tweet. The location is 35.644167, -117.535833--close to where the aftershock trace.

It has a vigorous aftershock sequence which is consistent with expectations. The USGS is employing Operational Earthquake Forecasting to provide probabilistic statements about expected aftershocks in the region.

Locations and active faults from USGS. Fractured Hwy 178 from @neotectonic

It was widely felt in California: USGS DYFI. This is a good reminder about earthquake safety.

Useful links:

• USGS page for the M6.9
• USGS page for the M6.4
• USGS Twitter thread for the M6.4
• Southern California Seismic Network. See also their dedicated page on the event.
• SCEC news item
• Temblor M6.4 summary
• Temblor M6.9 summary
• IRIS page
• IRIS Teachable moment--some nice slides and ppt
• Nice material from Jay Patton
• News
• LA Times M6.9
• LA Times M6.4
• NPR

Goodbye to SoSAFE (Southern San Andreas Fault Evaluation): review and a recent workshop

The SoSAFE activity was a very successful data gathering and interdisciplinary science rallying activity in the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) for 10 years. Its early leader was Dr. Ken Hudnut from the USGS. The original aspiration was to develop understanding of the last 2000 years of activity along the Southern San Andreas Fault. I was fortunate to be invited to help co lead SoSAFE in 2011. Dr. Kate Scharer (USGS) was the other co-leader. Her recent research has been largely focused on understanding the southern San Andreas Fault paleoseismic history. I very much appreciated the chance to work with Kate to help coordinate the research activity of SoSAFE withing SCEC as part of its Planning Committee. Our main efforts included evaluating proposals and helping coordinate and promote the research of our colleagues. We did a few additional activities including the "FieldShop" in which we made a group field trip to discuss and assess small offset landforms along the San Andreas Fault Mojave segment near Pearblossom. The outcome of the FieldShop was a paper lead by Kate: Scharer, K. M., Salisbury, J. B., Arrowsmith, J R., Rockwell, T. K., Southern San Andreas Fault Evaluation field activity: Approaches to measuring small geomorphic offsets and challenges and recommendations for active fault studies, Seismological Research Letters, v. 85, no. 1, ppl 68 - 76, 2014. In addition, we also organized (along with Prof. Mike Oskin from UC Davis) the SoSAFE and Earthquake Geology Geochronology workshop in 2014. The discussions of novel applications of geochronology for earthquake geology were really interesting and helpful for the community. SoSAFE has been sunsetted as an activity within SCEC as it moves into its 5th iteration (SCEC5). Much of the important work of SoSAFE will be subsumed (and hopefully continued) in the San Andreas Fault System Working Group to be led by Kate and Prof. Michele Cooke (UMass). It makes some sense I suppose as a refresh on SCEC structure, but I and others are concerned about the loss of emphasis on paleoseismic data gathering.

Nice cover image produced by Barrett Salisbury (ASU).

In our last SoSAFE activity, Kate and I organized a workshop for Sept. 10, 2016: SCEC SoSAFE Workshop: Recent Successes and Future Challenges. The workshop had 3 main themes:

1. Earthquake recurrence and slip over short and long term: how does it all add up?
2. Integrating earthquake and paleoclimate/paleoenvironmental chronologies on the SoSAFE System
3. Outside looking in: Broad applications of Behavior of high slip rate faults

The workshop was well attended (we capped it at 40 people, but many more wanted to join).

Several synthesis points were evident from the presentations and discussions:

• The opportunity to and importance of documenting the full spectrum of slip behavior at a range of slip speeds (creep to seismic) and both on and off fault. Where in space and time along and adjacent to the fault surface is there deformation, and how might the behavior vary over time? How to capture the integrated effect of fine scale fracturing? (Toké, Milliner, Lindsey)
• Variable slip at a point in successive earthquakes is suggested by detailed evidence from many sites. In some paleoseismic records, we may be seeing both small and large events mixed in the same record. This is a good picture of the earthquake phenomena but a greater challenge for interpretation. (Dawson, Salisbury, Rockwell, Biasi)
• Paleoseismic event recognition and resolveability. Are we under or over counting paleo earthquakes? The consensus among the group (and as analyzed by Biasi) was that both happen and so suggestions of systematic overcounting (e.g., D. Jackson) were not supported by experience. But, there certainly is value in exploring ways to systematize paleoseismic data (evidence, age control, correlation, etc.). (Dawson, Rockwell, Biasi, Milner). Tim Dawson reminded us of the important work of Bonilla and Lienkamper, 1991. The time scale during which many of the comparisons are being made (~1000 yrs) may be too short to completely assess the question of moment rate fluctuation across the SoSAFE system.
• Slip rates vary in space and time probably as a function of evolving fault geometry (at multiple length scales) and mechanical interaction (Cooke, Onderdonk).
• Interpreting offset per event from the reconstruction of fine scale landforms remains challenging. 3D excavation and reconstruction is desired but time consuming (and itself can have subtleties and ambiguities). There is a "... tension between collection of observations at as many locations as possible (assuming there will be signal in the noise [Large N]) versus inclusion of only data that are clearly offsets (rather than deflections) and have good quality ranking." (Scharer, et al. 2014). Interpretation of small geomorphic offsets will not go away given its convenience, the availability of high resolution imagery and topography, and the potential to assess remote structures. But, we must continue to validate and push to understand what we are measuring, entertain alternatives, identify 3D anchor sites, etc. (Salisbury)
• Earthquake simulators are moving forward as the preferred integrative tool for forecasting earthquake behavior across the SAF system ("Paleoearthquake data and slip rates battle it out in UCERF3--RSQSIM to the rescue"--Kevin Milner, USC). Jaqui Gilchrist (USC) gave a nice presentation reviewing the simulator approach. Her faults are quite smooth from the perspective of the many geologists in the room. Importantly, we learned about the tuning that is done by adjusting fault normal stresses to match paleoearthquake rates across the system. She showed that there is a gap between the curated paleoearthquake datasets she has used and the data producers. There is a need for deeper access to paleoearthquake data and metadata. SCEC-VDO was rebuilt in 2016 and is a valuable tool for visualization and exploration.
• Field earthquake geology is time and resource consuming. Assuming that the site conditions are good enough to preserve a high quality record, it is important to recognize that it takes at lot to produce high quality field studies, both in the field, as well as in the geochronology laboratory.

The early afternoon featured thought provoking talks about paleoclimate and paleoenvironmental chronologies. Here are a few of my takeaways:

• Kate showed in her 2014 paper (Scharer, K. et al., 2014b. Paleoearthquakes at Frazier Mountain, California delimit extent and frequency of past San Andreas Fault ruptures along 1857 trace. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(13), pp.4527– 4534.) how using paleosol and sediment accumulation curves would illuminate similarly timed landscape variation in California. She demonstrated that it was likely that earthquakes with overlapping ages at separate paleoseismic sites were different because their evidence was above and below a period of slow sediment accumulation (a paleosol). This is quite exciting and a frontier for earthquake geology. The challenge is what is the best proxy? Paleoprecipitation indicators? or Pollen or fire? How to balance convenience and the ability to measure with environmental sensitivy and ability to date?
• Prof. Matt Kirby (CSU Fullerton) presented a nice review of paleoclimate and paleoenvironmental proxies (temperature, precipitation, circulation, flooding, fire, other geomorphic disturbance). He focused on the rare lake records of southern California and differentiated millenial, centennial, sub-centenial to decadal, and annual time scales and their different drivers (mostly interactions with the Pacific Ocean). The millenial scale offers an opportunity to look at (synchronous formation of large markers along the SoSAFE System--e.g., Wallace Creek at 3,700 years BP and other similarly aged offset landforms). The sub-centennial to decadal (or finer scales) offer the opportunity for further differentiation of paleoearthquakes (e.g., Scharer, et al., 2014b) as well as the formation of small scale markers for single or few event offsets.
• Matt called out the need for common protocols, the value of looking at sections together, and that there were lots of interesting possible sites out there. We can use existing sites as benchmarks and prospect for new ones. This work costs $$!
• Prof. Nick McKay (NAU) offered valuable perspective as well as a potential path forward for organizing paleoseismic and paleoclimate data. He talked about the PAGES2K effort as a distributed global collaboration on past climate. It relies on a cyberinfrastructure of linked paleodata (McKay, N., and Emile-Geay, J., 2015, Technical Note: The linked paleo data framework – a common tongue for paleoclimatology, Climate of the Past, 11, 4309-4327.). He ended with some commentary on the challenges of supporting such a data effort (1) Identify metadata, 2) Structure metadata hierachically, 3) Be thoughtful about Selection Criteria, 4) Iterative data and metadata assimilation, and 5) Flexible scientific control).

Many thanks to our colleagues for their great ideas and community spirit in support of SoSAFE. Adieu!!

Short Course just completed: Imaging and Analyzing Southern California's Active Faults with High Resolution Topography

We just completed our most recent OpenTopography short course: Imaging and Analyzing Southern California's Active Faults with High Resolution Topography. The course was sponsored by The Southern California Earthquake Center, UNAVCO, EarthScope, and OpenTopography. It was a pleasure to work again Chris Crosby and Ed Nissen and many thanks to Alana Williams (along with Jessica Sutton, Barrett Salisbury, and Gayatri Marliyani) for the local logistical support.

Nice montage put together by Barrett Salisbury for the course advertisement.

We had 90 applications for just 34 slots, so we emphasized early career scientists (mostly graduate students), and research in Southern California given SCEC's sponsorship. We hope to run another course soon (April 2016?) to catch up a bit more with the demand. It was wonderful to meet new people and share our enthusiasm for high resolution topography!

Students hard at work in the computer lab--Ed Nissen at the controls.

New: We recorded some of the talks. I made a summary playlist of my talk as a test. The audio is not great, but it is a summary motivation for the meeting: Sharpening our view of earth processes with high resolution topography

Summary write up for EarthScope newsletter but of relevance here too:

High resolution topographic data has become an important tool for earthquake scientists to make detailed observations and model surface evolution. Within the last decade, several efforts have been made to collect high resolution topographic (HRT) data for active faults (e.g. The B4 project, EarthScope, and numerous National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping--NCALM and USGS projects). These datasets are freely available online through OpenTopography, a NSF funded data distribution portal. The active faulting community has taken great interest in these exciting datasets, using them to generate new and important insights into earthquake processes in Southern California and elsewhere.

The EarthScope program supported the acquisition of several thousand square km of high resolution topography from lidar along active faults of the western US. The target areas included Northern, Southern & Eastern California (everything not already covered by the B4 project along the San Jacinto fault and southern San Andreas Fault; Prentice, et al., 2009), Yakima (Washington), Alaska (portions of the Denali rupture and Totschunda fault--see figure), and the Intermountain Seismic Belt (portions of the Wasatch Fault and Yellowstone). These data have been invaluable for studying deformation processes in a complementary mode to the fault zone drilling, geodetic, and seismological observatories of EarthScope.

Reference:
Prentice, C. S., Crosby, C. J., Whitehill, C. S., Arrowsmith, J R., Furlong, K. P., Phillips, D. A., GeoEarthScope LiDAR illuminates northern California's active faults, EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 90, no. 7, p. 55, 2009.

Anniversary of 1992 Landers California earthquake

The M_w7.3 Landers, California earthquake occurred on June 28, 1992 (USGS page). It is known for a number of interesting features including significant foreshocks and a complex multifault rupture. I was very much interested the surface rupture pattern and had the good fortune of responding quickly to the event with Dallas Rhodes as well as my fellow graduate students. To be there right after the event (in the rather hot summer Mojave Desert) was very exciting. We worked along the Emerson Fault (northern portion of the rupture).

Many colleagues studied the event and lots of cool and important papers were written. I won't summarize all here. I will link to a few and mostly emphasize our geomorphic studies of the rupture along the Emerson Fault.

The main summary paper put together shortly after the event is Sieh, et al., 1993. A structural interpretation of the Emerson Fault deformation is in Aydin and Du, 1995. The McGill and Rubin, JGR, 1999 paper is really cool with some pretty mapping, data synthesis and some cautions about interpreting single event offset data among other things. Here is a video panning along their rupture map:

Here is the mp4 of that video.

Our detailed fracture mapping has not been published in detail. I summarize some of what we did logistically in this document about surveying (scroll to the end). Here is a compilation of the mapping (click to see bigger):

Dallas Rhodes and I were really interested in the potential to study the original forms and initial and ongoing modifications to the remarkable scarp that formed along the Emerson Fault. We set up a survey network and took many pictures along the rupture. We have revisited the site many times over the years to resurvey, describe, and photograph. A description of the initial changes was the first chapter of my dissertation and my first published paper as first author: Arrowsmith and Rhodes, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 1992. Here is a link to a series of annotated photographs in which I wondered if there were multiple senses of motion along the fault surface. Here are some kite photos of the site in 1998. In 2008, we laserscanned the site. Those data are also among the Terrestrial Laser Scanner data on OpenTopography. And, in 2012, we flew some cameras from a balloon over the site and were able to produce some nice 3D models:

Here is the mp4 of that video. This blog post has some more. And, the Johnson, et al., 2014 paper does a nice job of comparing Structure from Motion data (2012) and the 2008 TLS.

I put together a powerpoint on some of the fault scarp work on the Emerson Fault here (video link to lecture) as part of a series of active tectonics lectures. The Haddad et al. 2012 Geosphere paper presents some of the updated work at the site. More to do!

SoSAFE and Earthquake Geology Geochronology workshop report (Southern California Earthquake Center)

Kate Scharer (USGS), Mike Oskin (UC Davis) and I organized a geochronology workshop for the Southern California Earthquake Center community this fall. We emphasized methodologies useful for investigating fault slip behavior over time scales from 10² to 10⁶ years. That included Terrestrial Cosmogenic Nuclides, Uranium Series, and Optically Stimulated Luminescence. We did not talk so much about ¹⁴C given its relative maturity, but we certainly recognize its continued value.

Kate lead the charge on the completion of the workshop report. It has a nice summary of the topics covered (here is the original agenda). I had a sense of a real acceleration in the number and quality of applications of the methods and the resulting rich depiction of deformation rates and their variations across time and space in Southern California. I was particularly moved by the climate modulation on the development of landforms (alluvial fans, channels, etc.) that serve as markers as well as the possible temporal coherence of wet and dry times across the region. I think that this modulation and coherence can be exploited with more intensive application of geochronology.

I learned a lot more geochronology, especially having just been at the EarthScope Geochronology Institute a week or so earlier--note that the talks and some of the videos are up (where we covered some similar topics and where Kate was a speaker on ¹⁴C). It was very nice to see many SCEC friends and colleagues.