Annual Meeting - SCEC.org
Annual Meeting - SCEC.org
Annual Meeting - SCEC.org
- TAGS
- annual
- meeting
- www.scec.org
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Poster Abstracts | Group 2 – FARM<br />
over time. These latest Pleistocene rates, however, are still substantially higher than rates inferred<br />
from elastic block modeling of geodetic data.<br />
2-051<br />
SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL SLIP RATE VARIABILITY ON THE SAN JACINTO<br />
FAULT Le KN, Oskin ME, Rockwell TK, and Owen LA<br />
The role of the San Jacinto fault in accommodating plate boundary motion is pivotal to<br />
understanding fault system behavior in southern California. We present new slip rate results from<br />
alluvial fans displaced by two parallel strands of the southern San Jacinto fault zone: the Clark fault<br />
and Coyote Creek fault. Alluvial fans were mapped in the field with aid of ‘B4’ LiDAR imagery<br />
and dated using cosmogenic 10Be exposure. We find that slip rates 1) varied synchronously by at<br />
least a factor of two over the past ~35 kyr and 2) change significantly along strike as slip is<br />
transferred southeastward from the Clark fault to the Coyote Creek fault. Latest Pleistocene (~35<br />
kyr) to present dextral slip rates for the Clark fault are 4.6 ± 1.6 mm/yr at the Rockhouse Canyon<br />
and 1.5 ± 0.4 mm/yr near the southern Santa Rosa Mountains. For a comparably aged displaced<br />
alluvial fan at Ash Wash along the Coyote Creek fault, we find a slip rate of 3.1 ± 1.0 mm/yr.<br />
Combined, these yield an average rate of slip along the San Jacinto fault system of 7.7 ± 2.6 mm/yr<br />
over the past ~35 kyr. Mid-Holocene to present rates are significantly faster along both fault<br />
strands. Displaced ~5 ka alluvial fans show that the Clark fault slips at a rate of 7.7 ± 1.8 mm/yr at<br />
Rockhouse Canyon and 3.9 ± 1.4 mm/yr at the southern Santa Rosa Mountians. At Ash Wash, the<br />
Coyote Creek fault may have slipped at a rate as high as 12.4 ± 3.5 mm/yr over the past ~2 ka.<br />
Overall these Holocene rates are comparable to geodetic slip-rate estimates of 15 to 21 mm/yr for<br />
the San Jacinto fault zone, and imply that presently it may dominate plate boundary motion in<br />
southern California. The apparently synchronous variation of slip-rate along both strands of the<br />
San Jacinto fault suggests that the rate of loading across the fault zone has varied significantly over<br />
the past ~35 kyr.<br />
2-052<br />
OLD EARTHQUAKES, NEW DATES: AMS 14C DATES ON CHARCOAL FROM<br />
PALLETT CREEK Scharer KM, Gerard TL, and Weldon RJ<br />
The Pallett Creek paleoseismic record holds a keystone position in most attempts to develop<br />
rupture histories for the southern San Andreas fault. Unlike the other long records on the fault,<br />
however, Pallett Creek radiocarbon ages were determined by decay counting methods rather than<br />
accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) methods. The <strong>org</strong>anic layers at Pallett Creek contain a<br />
heterogeneous mix of partially decomposed, in-situ plant material, charcoal and wood detritus,<br />
and invasive roots, all of which would contribute (in competing ways) to the dates of the large<br />
samples required for decay counting methods and the resulting earthquake ages.<br />
We present 40 new AMS dates from the Pallett Creek site and compare these to the original layer<br />
ages of Sieh et al. (1989) and Sieh (1984) and earthquake ages recalculated by Biasi et al. (2002).<br />
Careful examination of samples revealed that charcoal fragments are a common component of the<br />
<strong>org</strong>anic-rich layers. To take advantage of small sample sizes dateable by AMS, 22 dates are from<br />
individual charcoal pieces and 4 dates are from composite charcoal samples (when pieces were too<br />
small for separate dates). The remaining 14 dates are for bulk samples from layers where the<br />
charcoal was too finely disseminated to pick out and include analyses for both AAA and humic<br />
pretreatments.<br />
In general, the AMS dates compare very well to the original large-sample dates. As expected, some<br />
AMS charcoal pieces are >100 cal years older than others in the same layer, indicating old source<br />
166 | Southern California Earthquake Center