Introduction - USGS
Appendix D—Compilation of Creep Rate Data for California Faults and Calculation of Moment Reduction Owing to CreepRay J. Weldon II1, David A. Schmidt2, Lauren J. Austin1, Elise M. Weldon1, Timothy E. Dawson31University of Oregon, 2University of Washington3California Geological SurveyIntroductionThis appendix documents observations of creep on California faults and develops a methodology to estimate seismic moment reduction over the entire fault surface owing to interseismic creep. The data presented here are an update of data originally compiled for appendix P of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 2 (UCERF2; Wisely and others, 2007). Updated time-series data developed from conventional methods, such as short baseline alignment arrays, yield results that are similar to those in UCERF2, although their precision and coverage has improved slightly with time. New geodetic estimates, particularly derived from interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR), have greatly increased the density and coverage provided by conventional techniques, approximately doubling the dataset. Where the two datasets overlap, there is excellent agreement, so all data were combined to estimate along-fault average surface creep rates. Because a single value of surface creep rate is assigned to a fault “minisection” in the UCERF model that can span kilometers to tens of kilometers in length, we smoothed the raw data along strike for each fault and assigned a value for each minisection that is about the average of the smoothed rate over the section, with outliers removed. Some of the outliers are bad data points, such as low negative rates produced by InSAR in some areas, but other outliers are real spikes (high or low) in creep rate with a resolution that cannot be measured at the scale of our model, so our model necessarily removes isolated highs and lows in creep rate and varies smoothly from minisection to minisection.In UCERF2, following the lead of previous working groups and the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Map (USGS NSHMP) precedent, the seismic moment generated by earthquakes from a fault section was reduced by the ratio of surface creep rate to the total fault slip rate for each fault section. For example, if the surface creep rate was one-half the fault slip rate, then the seismic moment was reduced by one-half. Fault theory and a growing body of geodetic and seismologic evidence suggests that creep at the surface generally decreases in rate with depth, so the seismic moment released by earthquakes on partially creeping faults almost certainly is systematically underestimated in UCERF2 and similar previous models. In appendix D, we develop and apply an alternative approach to estimating how creep is extrapolated to the entire fault plane from surface observations, and estimate moment reduction for fault sections using only the surface creep rate and total fault slip rate. In reality, how creep varies with depth almost certainly differs between faults and probably even along strike for individual faults; however, for a uniform model that spans all of California, we need a simple approach that shows the general behavior of all faults. Our new model is simple enough to apply uniformly, improves on the UCERF2 approach, and is consistent with the available data and our current state of knowledge.BackgroundObservation of creep on faults is a critical part of our earthquake rupture model because the moment released as earthquakes is reduced, from what would be inferred directly from the fault’s slip rate, if a fault is observed to creep. There is considerable debate about the extent to which creep (measured at the surface during a short time period) represents the whole fault surface through the entire seismic cycle (for example, Hudnut and Clark, 1989; Wei and others, 2009), and observationally, it is clear that the amount of creep varies spatially and temporally on a fault (for example, Schmidt and others, 2005; Shirzaei and Burgmann, 2013). However, from a practical point of view, a single creep rate needs to be associated with a fault section (or whatever discretization of a fault is selected for the model) and the reduction in seismic moment generated by the fault is accommodated in a seismic hazard model by reducing the surface area that generates earthquakes or by reducing the slip rate on the fault that is converted to seismic energy. UCERF2 followed the practice of past working groups and the USGS NSHMP, and used creep rate (where it was judged to be interseismic) to reduce the area of the fault surface that generates seismic events. In addition to following past practice, this decision allowed the working group to use a reduction of slip rate as a separate factor to accommodate aftershocks, post-seismic slip, possible aseismic permanent deformation along fault zones, and other processes that are inferred to affect the entire surface area of a fault, and, therefore, are better modeled as a reduction in slip rate. In UCERF2, C-zones also were handled by a reduction in slip rate because they are inferred to include regions of widely distributed shear that is not completely released as earthquakes large enough to model. As discussed in the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3 (UCERF3, this report), the current working group decided to adopt a hybrid approach, which is to reduce area for faults with low to moderate creep rates (relative to the fault slip rate) and to add slip rate reduction as the creep rate approaches the slip rate.In UCERF2, the ratio of the rate of creep relative to the total slip rate was used to calculate an “aseismic” fraction of the fault surface, measured down from the surface, so this “depth” reduced the surface area of a fault that generates earthquakes in the model, reducing its seismic moment release. This reduction of surface area of rupture was described by an “aseismicity factor,” assigned to each creeping fault in appendix A of UCERF2 (Wills and others, 2007). An aseismicity factor of less than 1 is only assigned to faults that are inferred to creep during the entire interseismic period. A single aseismicity factor was selected for each section of the fault that creeps from the observations in the UCERF2 database by expert opinion. Uncertainties were not determined for the aseismicity factor, and it, therefore, represented an unmodeled (and difficult to model) source of error. Based on current observations, the UCERF2 approach (which essentially was the approach used by all previous working groups) overestimates the reduction of moment in earthquakes because it does not take into account the now generally accepted fact that creep is shallow and decreases rapidly in rate with depth. Our current approach, accounts for creep rate reduction with depth, and, therefore, is a significant improvement over UCERF2, although it probably only shows the average behavior of creeping faults that almost certainly vary considerably in individual behavior.Creep ObservationsSurface creep commonly refers to relatively aseismic fault slip occurring at or near the surface (Wesson, 1988); while creep is usually accompanied by small earthquakes, it is referred to as “aseismic” because few large earthquakes occur and the rate of surface slip associated with the creep is much greater than would be inferred from the associated microseismicity. Evidence for surface creep is well documented along the San Andreas Fault system (figs. D1 and D2). It is not known if creep is limited to the major strike slip faults or if these faults slip more rapidly so the creep is evident. Additionally, the San Andreas Fault zone has been more intensively surveyed for creep compared to other faults. Because creep usually is only a fraction of a fault’s slip rate, it would be difficult to recognize creep on most California faults that have slip rates of about 1 mm/yr or less.Figure D1.?Map showing creep rates of northern California faults (figure updated from appendix P of UCERF2; Wisely and others, 2007). Heavy black lines indicate documented absence of creep; that is, places where attempts have been made to identify creep so creep can be limited to a small fraction of the fault’s slip rate. Gaps in black lines in faults along the coast are offshore minisections where creep cannot be measured, but where creep rates are likely to be zero like in adjacent onshore minisections. Small (faint) symbols indicate the locations of creep observations that are summarized in table D2.Figure D2.?Map showing creep rates of southern California faults (figure updated from appendix P of UCERF2; Wisely and others, 2007). Heavy black lines indicate documented absence of creep; that is, places where attempts have been made to identify creep and it can be limited to a small fraction of the fault’s slip rate. Small (faint) symbols indicate the locations of creep observations that are summarized in table D2.Fault creep can be continuous in time or consist of a series of steps (creep events; see fig. D3 for an example). Creep that persists for several decades often is referred to as “interseismic creep” and is inferred to span the entire time between large seismic events. Accelerated surface slip also can be observed following a major earthquake, in which case it is referred to as “afterslip.” Short-term fluctuations in creep rate that deviate from long-term rates for weeks or months can be referred to as “transient creep” or “triggered creep” in the case where a localized stress perturbation is imposed (Burford, 1988). Few of our observations include obvious afterslip from a significant local earthquake, but all include small triggered events. From a practical point of view, we do not attempt to distinguish triggered creep from creep that is not obviously associated with an event; we calculate creep rate by using the beginning and end of the available times series.Figure D3.?Graph and diagram showing that creep is composed of long-term, often steady, slip and incremental-slip events associated with or triggered by earthquakes or strain events. Example above, from Wei and others, 2009, shows (left) how steady creep occurs before and after an abrupt creep event in October 2004. Modeling of this event (right) suggests that the abrupt creep event was very shallow, extending only to 3 or 4 kilometers at its deepest point. All of our creep rates include both steady creep and discrete events such as this; for the purpose of this model, we calculate the creep rate from the beginning to the end of the available time series.In addition to updating the creep rates determined from traditional ground-based observations, we have added a significant new data source, based largely on InSAR (fig. D4; table D2). Although many workers have determined creep from geodetic techniques, we have adopted the results of Tong and others (2013) as the most complete dataset that extends the length of the San Andreas Fault system. These Advanced Land Observing Satellite L-band results span a very short time period and do not easily resolve low rates of creep; however, these results represent a completely independent set of observations that generally agree well with traditional land-based techniques and greatly expand coverage, providing a more complete picture of the rapidly creeping faults (fig. D4).Figure D4.?Graphs showing example of creep data profile along the San Andreas Fault, California (figure modified from Tong and others, 2013). There is good agreement between different measurement techniques. Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) has dramatically increased the number of measurements since Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 2, although results in some areas still have considerable scatter owing to the short time scale and limited number of epochs of observations. The aqua line in the lower figure (b) is a hand-drawn smooth fit to the data that illustrates how the data were smoothed to estimate the average creep rates for each minisection in the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3 (UCERF3) model (table D1). Similar smooth curves were drawn for each fault, and average creep rates for each UCERF3 minisection were estimated.Because the creep data are not spatially uniform and because we need a single value to apply to each element of the UCERF model, we drew smooth curves through the surface creep data, ignoring outlier points (see fig. D4B for an example on the San Andreas Fault). We then assigned a value for each minisection (table D1), which can span kilometers to tens of kilometers in length that is approximately the average of the smoothed rate across the section. Some of the outliers are bad data points, such as low negative rates produced by InSAR in some areas, but other outliers are real spikes (high or low) in creep rate with a resolution that cannot be measured at the scale of our model, so our model necessarily removes isolated highs and lows in creep rate and varies smoothly from minisection to minisection. Because each deformation model has a fault slip rate assigned to each minisection, we can determine the ratio of surface creep rate to total fault slip rate for all minisections that creep. This ratio, called the “aseismicity factor,” will be the basis for determining the percentage of seismic moment reduction owing to creep for that part of the fault.How Creep Varies with DepthBecause creep rate varies with depth and generally is observed directly only at the surface, a model is needed to describe, at least on average or in theory, how creep rate changes with depth. Most theory (for example, Savage and Lisowski, 1993) and a growing body of observations (Sieh and Williams, 1993; Manaker and others, 2003; figs. D5 and D6 of this report) suggest that for moderately to relatively slowly creeping faults, creep rate decreases rapidly with depth. The two places with the best resolution of how creep rate varies with depth are along the San Andreas Fault near Parkfield, California, and along the Hayward Fault in the San Francisco Bay Area. Near Parkfield, the surface creep rate diminishes from approximately 25 to 0 mm/yr over about a 40-km stretch of the fault (fig. D4). The overall fault geometry is simple, without junctions or other nearby faults, so it is almost certain that at depth, below the seismogenic zone, the slip rate is constant through this stretch of the San Andreas Fault. The Parkfield region is densely instrumented with Global Positioning System (GPS) sites and other instruments for measuring surface deformation, so it is possible to invert for slip rate at depth along the fault (fig. D5; Murray and others, 2001). Creep rate decreases rapidly with depth, reaching a minimum in the middle part of the seismogenic zone, at a depth of about 5–8 km. Murray and others (2001) inversion also suggests an increase in slip rate with depth through the lower part of the seismogenic zone as the transition depth (where the full slip rate) is approached.The second place where a dense dataset of observations allows inferences of how creep decreases with depth is along the central Hayward Fault. Savage and Lisowski (1993) have modeled how creep decreases with depth and recent inversion of geodetic data allows an image of how creep varies with depth and along strike. We adopt the method of Savage and Lisowski (1993) to calculate profiles of creep rate with surface creep at rates of up to 50 percent of the slip rate (see fig. D9 for the Hayward Fault). At the other end of the creep rate spectrum, it is widely believed that when the surface creep rate equals the fault slip rate, the entire fault surface is creeping at the slip rate and, therefore, no elastic strain (that could be released as seismic moment) accumulates. Although we do not consider this to be established fact, we assume this is the case for our model. For faults that creep at rates of between 50 and 100 percent of their slip rate, we assume that the distribution of creep rate smoothly transitions from the Savage and Lisowski (1993) 50-percent model to fully creeping on the entire fault plane, as shown in figure D9.Figure D5.?Graph showing interseismic creep rate as a function of depth (from Murray and others, 2001) for the Parkfield, California, part of the San Andreas Fault (Parkfield is at 0 kilometers). Blocks are uniformly slipping dislocations in the region between the Creeping Section (left) to the fully locked southern San Andreas Fault to the south (right). The slip rate in the Creeping Section is taken to be 24 millimeters per year and calculated at 33 millimeters per year below the transition zone at a depth of 14 kilometers. In the center of the model, where the resolution is best, the slip rate at the surface (measured creep) decreases with depth down to a minimum rate at 5–8 kilometers, and then the creep rate increases down to the transition zone.Figure D6.?. Graphs showing example (from Schmidt and others, 2005) suggesting that the Hayward Fault, which creeps at about one-half of its slip rate, creeps down to about one-half of its widely accepted locking depth. A growing dataset of dense geodetic observations suggest that, in most cases, creep is shallow relative to the locking depth of seismogenic faults.Another possible approach to determining how creep varies with depth is to examine small, repeating earthquakes (REs) that are inferred to sample the interseismic slip rate of the fault in which their sources are embedded (for example, Templeton and others, 2008). The most complete dataset exists along about a 30-km stretch of the San Andreas Fault near San Juan Bautista (36.64–36.83 degrees N). Over this stretch of the San Andreas Fault, the surface creep rate increases from about 10 to 20 mm/yr, so we can compare slip rates at depth inferred from the small REs to those measured at the surface. Superficially, the southern half of this stretch of the fault shows some agreement with the theory we apply here; figure D7 (fig. S6 in Templeton and others, 2008) shows a decrease in slip rate (in this figure, total RE slip during an interval of time) with depth, and figure D8 (figure S8 in Templeton and others, 2008) shows an increase in depth of creep to the south, which would be expected as the surface creep rate increases to the south. However, the northern part of this study area (figs. 7 and 8 in Templeton and others, 2008; not included here) does not obviously show this relationship (in part because there are virtually no REs at depths of less than 5 km that can be used to document the shallow creep rate), and in detail it is difficult to document a quantitative relationship in the southern part.Figure D7.?Cross section (parallel view) showing southern part of San Andreas Fault and Paicines Fault, California (figure S6 from Templeton and others, 2008) with a decrease in slip rate (in this figure total slip of repeating earthquakes during an interval of time) with depth.Figure D8.?Cross section (perpendicular view) showing southern part of San Andreas Fault, California (figure S8 from Templeton and others, 2008) with an increase in depth of recurring earthquakes, inferred to indicate an increase in depth of creep as the surface creep rate increases from about 13 to 20 millimeters per year (left to right, northwest to southeast) across this part of the San Andreas Fault. Although generally the creep rate (here shown as total recurring earthquake slip during an interval of time) decreases with depth, there is considerable scatter in the data and apparently very different creep rates inferred from closely spaced repeating earthquakes. For this reason, we averaged creep rates across fault sections for the comparison discussed in the text.Creep rates inferred from adjacent REs vary considerably (fig. D8); so in an attempt to see a simple pattern, we averaged the creep rate across each of the five sections defined by Templeton and others (2008) to compare to the surface creep. We also calculated an inferred slip rate from their data others, 2008, presented their data as total slip in centimeters between 1984 and 2005, not slip rate) and included our slip rates as table D3. This was necessary because some RE sequences only had a few events, and the first and last event in the series often did not correspond to the time period 1984–2005; therefore, we divided the average slip per event by the average time between events to calculate the slip rate. This generally produced higher slip rates than those resulting from dividing by the time between 1984 and 2005 because REs do not occur exactly at the beginning and end of the time period, so we generally divided by a shorter time periodSection(NW end lat/long) Ave RE depth (km) Ave RE slip rate (mm/yr) Surface creep rate (mm/yr) 1 (36.8242,-121.5483)51410 2 (36.7822,-121.4809)71012 3N (36.7400,-121.4166)7 913 3S (36.7329,-121.3867)31914 4 (36.7120,-121.3477)41215 5 (36.6687,-121.2870)51019See table 3 for Templeton and others (2008) data that contributed to these averages; see figure D4 for surface creep rates on the San Andreas Fault at the corresponding latitudes.Across the entire stretch of the fault, the average from Templeton and others (2008) is slightly less than the surface creep average (12.3 versus 13.8 mm/yr). There is some suggestion for a decrease in creep rate with depth; nearby average depth increases, section 1 to 2, 3S to 3N, and 4 to 5 have lower rates with depth, although 3S to 4 does not follow this pattern. Additionally, the observed progressive increase in surface creep rate from 10 mm/yr in the north (section 1) to 19 mm/yr in the south (section 5) is not obvious in the data from Templeton and others (2008), and the RE creep rates for sections 1 and 3S almost certainly are higher than the surface rates. Similarly, RE-inferred creep rates on other minor faults discussed by Templeton and others (2008), such as the Quien Sabe (up to 12 mm/yr), are almost certainly an order of magnitude greater than the respective long-term slip rates of those faults.The very high rates inferred from the fastest-slipping individual RE sequences on the San Andreas Fault, up to five times greater than the total fault slip rate, and the fact that the average of some sections exceeds the surface creep rate, suggest that the RE approach may systematically overestimate creep rate or may represent a short acceleration of creep, perhaps triggered by nearby large earthquakes. The latter is suggested by Templeton and others (2008), and the former may result from how the RE rates are calibrated. The RE creep rate was calibrated near Parkfield using the surface creep rate (Nadeau and McEvilly, 1999, 2004; Nadeau, 2007) above RE sequences. If creep decreases with depth, as is widely believed regionally and shown by Murray and others (2001) at Parkfield, slip rates from RE sequences systematically are overestimated in terms of how they have been calibrated.In summary, a review of the Templeton and other, (2008) dataset supports a decrease in creep rate with depth and an increase in the depth of creep with increased creep rate, as theory suggests. However, a much more careful comparison of REs and surface creep rates would be required to quantify this relationship.Moment ReductionIn UCERF2, following the lead of previous working groups and the USGS NSHMP precedent, the seismic moment generated by a fault section was reduced by the ratio of surface creep rate to the total fault slip rate for each fault section. For example, if the surface creep rate were one-half the fault slip rate, the seismic moment released by earthquakes was reduced by one-half. This is incorrect if creep decreases with depth, as we have shown. However, there is no generally accepted quantitative theory for how creep rate decreases with depth and, therefore, for how to calculate the resulting moment reduction. We used the approach of Savage and Lisowski (1993) in this study for creep rates of up to 50 percent of the slip rate, and conceptually extended it (fig. D9).Figure D9.?For creep rates of less than one-half the fault slip rate, we used the formulation of Savage and Lisowski, 1993 (panel A), modified slightly to include a “transition” zone at the base of the locked part of the fault (panel B); this modification does not change the amount of moment released in earthquakes by the fault because it has the same average depth (D) of the abrupt boundary in the Savage and Lisowski, 1993, model and, therefore, the same slip deficit. For a surface creep rate (v) of about one-half the slip rate (V), creep depth (d) is about one-half the locking depth (D), and the creep rate decreases asymptotically to 0 at d. Geodetic models such as those shown in figures D5 and D6 suggest that as creep rate (v) approaches the slip rate (V), the creep rate at depth approaches the creep rate at the surface, creating profiles such as shown in panels C and D. Although the exact shape of the depth profile in panel C is poorly known from theory and observation, we progressively evolved its shape from that in panel B into a flat vertical profile in which creep rate equals slip rate slip at all depths. Narrow horizontal box in panel B shows how moment is calculated in 1-kilometer strips, as discussed in the text.Figure D9A is figure 6 of Savage and Lisowski (1993), and figure D9B modifies it slightly with a tapered transition zone. “V” is the fault slip rate (in this case, 9 mm/yr), and “v” is the creep rate (in this case, 4.5 mm/yr at the surface and decreasing to 0 mm/yr at a depth of 5 km). The “slip deficit” is the fault slip rate, V, minus the creep rate, v (at any given depth) integrated over the surface area of the fault. If a fault does not creep, the slip deficit is the slip rate, and the seismic moment that the fault accumulates is ?*fault area*slip rate. Assuming a unit of fault length, a fault area can be thought of conceptually as depth. If the fault creeps (for example, as in fig. D9B), we could still calculate the seismic moment the fault is accumulating by thinking of the fault plane as a stack of 1-km strips (such as that shown in fig. D9B for a depth of 3–4 km) and calculate the moment for each strip as ?*1 km of fault depth*slip deficit rate (V-v for that 1 km strip), and sum all the 1-km strips to get the total seismic moment accumulation.Potential seismic moment is accumulating not just across the fully locked part of the fault surface, but also across the creeping parts because the creeping fault surface slips at less than the full slip rate. We can then compare this creep-reduced seismic moment to that expected for a fully locked fault and express the result as a simple ratio (fig. D10); in this example we get about20-percent less moment for a fault that creeps at about one-half of its slip rate.Figure D10.?Graph showing moment reduction using the model in figure D9 to calculate slip rate as a function of depth given creep rate, fault slip rate and a fault depth of about12 kilometers. We can calculate moment (?*area*effective slip rate) by integrating with depth the slip rate versus depth profile shown in figure D9. Because ? also is a constant (elasticity constant), we can use this relationship to reduce the seismic moment if we reduce the area and hold the slip rate constant, or to reduce the seismic moment by reducing the average slip rate if we hold the fault surface area constant.The relationships presented by Savage and Lisowski (1993), which allow us to calculate creep rate (v) as a function of depth, break down at about the 50 percent of slip rate level shown here. As shown in figures D5 and D6, the transition zone likely rises up as creep extends deeper and deeper, as shown in figure D9B. Eventually, there is no part of the fault zone that is fully locked, and the creep rate decreases down from the surface and up from the transition zone. As the fault becomes completely unlocked and the creep rate approaches the slip rate, it seems reasonable that there is no slip deficit anywhere on the fault plane. We, therefore, progressively smoothed the slip deficit between the likely situation in figure D9B to figure D9C and finally to figure D9D. We kept the peak in slip deficit between 5 and 8 km, as suggested by the Parkfield inversion (fig. D5), and proportionately reduced its magnitude as the creep rate approached the slip rate, so the profile is completely flat with 100-percent creep.To construct our moment reduction curve (fig. D10), we assumed that there is no moment reduction for a fully locked fault, and 100-percent moment reduction for a fault that creeps at its slip rate. For creep rate to slip rate fractions of 25 and 50 percent, we used the relationships in Savage and Lisowski (1993) to determine creep rate decrease with depth (50-percent case shown in fig. D9) and, for fractions of 80 and 95 percent, we integrated (in 1-km strips) our smoothly extrapolated creep versus depth profiles shown as figures D9C and D9D.Because our model smoothly varies, the relationship between creep rate and slip rate and moment reduction (expressed as a fraction) varies as well. For the current version of the UCERF3 model, we extrapolated between points on figure D10 to determine the moment reduction for each creeping minisection, using its ratio of surface creep (table D1) to slip rate for each deformation model. For now, we have ignored complications, such as varying locking depths, different stressing rates on faults, and so on to generate a model that could be applied easily to all our creeping faults using their creep and slip rates. Although these factors are undoubtedly important and our model is unlikely to match any specific fault, which likely has its unique heterogeneities, this model is substantially better than previous models, because it attempts to account for changes in rate as a function of depth.Finally, as noted in the caption for figure D10, this approach can be used to reduce area or slip rate in a seismic hazard model. Because moment is ?*area*effective slip rate, if either the fault area or slip rate is held constant, a linear relationship exists between moment and the remaining parameter that varies, so the approach outlined above can be applied to either a reduction in area or slip rate. In the current version of UCERF3, we generally reduce the upper fault area for faults with low to moderate creep rates (relative to fault slip rate). This makes sense because most of the moment reduction owing to creep is believed to be shallow (fig. D9), and using the moment reduction factor, we reduce the “effective” fault surface by the appropriate amount. For high creep rate faults, essentially the entire fault surface is creeping (fig. D9), so reducing slip rate over the entire fault surface as well is consistent with the approach we have adopted here.AcknowledgmentsWe greatly appreciate reviews by Roland Burgmann, Wayne Thatcher, Bob Simpson, and Yuri Fialko, and discussion with many members of the UCERF3 team, especially Glenn Biasi, Ned Field, and Morgan Page. We thank Xiaopeng Tong and Dave Sandwell for sharing their InSAR data well in advance of publication and the reproduction of their figure 17 (Tong and others [2013]), Jim Lienkaemper for directing us toward new ground-based data, Kevin Milner for technical assistance, and Beth Wisely for early updates to the original UCERF2 compilation. This project was supported in part by Southern California Earthquake Center grants 157576 and 119939.References CitedAgnew, D.C., and Wyatt, F.K., 2010, Continuous broadband monitoring of crustal deformation near active faults in southern California: U.S. Geological Survey NEHRP Final technical report no. 07HQAG0025, May 31, 2010.Bilham, R., Suszek, N., and Pinkney, S., 2004, California creepmeters: Seismological Research Letters, v. 75, no. 4, p 481–492.Brown, R.D., Jr., and Wallace, R.E., 1968, Current and historic fault movement along the San Andreas Fault between Paicines and Camp Dix, California, in Grantz, A., and Dickinson, W.R., eds., Proceedings, Conference on geologic problems of the San Andreas Fault system: Stanford University Publ. Geol. Sci., v. 11, p. 22–39.Burford, R.O., 1988, Retardations in fault creep rates before local moderate earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault system, central California: Pure and Applied Geophysics, v. 126, p. 499–529.Burford, R.O., and Harsh, P.W., 1980, Slip on the San Andreas Fault in central California from alignment array surveys: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 70, no. 4, p. 1233–1261.Add Freymueller and others, 1999.Galehouse, J.S., and Lienkaemper, J.J., 2003, Inferences drawn from two decades of alignment array measurements of creep on faults in the San Francisco Bay region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 93, p. 2415–2433.Glowacka, E., Sarychikhina, O., Nava, F.A., Suarez, F., Ramirez, J., Guzman, M., Robles, B., Farfan, F., and De Cossio Battani, G.D., 2010, Continuous monitoring techniques of fault displacement caused by geothermal fluid extraction in the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field (Baja California, Mexico): International Association of Hydrological Sciences-Association Internationale des Sciences Hydrologiques publication, p. 326–332.Glowacka, E., Sarychikhina, O., Suarez, F., Nava, F., Farfan, F., Cossio Battani, G.D., and Guzman, M., 2007, Aseismic slip observed on the faults in Mexicali Valley, Baja California, Mexico: American Geophysical Union, Spring Meeting 2007, abstract #G33A-04.Goulty, N.R., Burford, R.O., Allen, C.R., Gilman, R., Johnson, C.E., and Keller, R.P., 1978, Large creep events on the Imperial Fault, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 68, p. 517–521.Harris, R.A., and Segall, P., 1987, Detection of a locked zone at depth on the Parkfield, California, segment of the San Andreas Fault: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 92, no. B8, p. 7945–7962. Hudnut, K., and Clark, M., 1989, New slip along parts of the 1968 Coyote Creek Fault rupture, California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 79, p. 451–465.Kelson, K.I., Lettis, W.R., and Lisowski, M., 1992, Distribution of geologic slip and creep along faults in the San Francisco Bay region, in Borchardt, G., Hirschfeld, S.E., Lienkaemper, J.J., McClellan, P., Williams, P.L., and Wong, I.G., eds., Proceedings of the Second Conference on Earthquake Hazards in the Eastern San Francisco Bay Area: California Department of Conservation, California Division Mines Geology Special Publication 113, p. 31–38.King, C., Nason, R.D., and Burford, R.O., 1977, Coseismic steps recorded on creep meters along the San Andreas Fault: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 82, p. 1655–1662.Lienkaemper, J.J., Baker, B., and McFarland, F.S., 2006, Surface slip associated with the 2004 Parkfield, California, earthquake measured on alinement arrays: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 96, no. 4B, p. S239–S249.Lienkaemper, J.J., Barry, G.R., Smith, F.E., Mello, J.D., and McFarland, F.S., 2013, The Greenville Fault—Its long-term creep rate, post-1980-earthquake transient slip, and seismic potential: in press Bulletin Seismological Society America.Lienkaemper, J.J., Borchardt, G., and Lisowski, M., 1991, Historical creep rate and potential for seismic slip along the Hayward Fault, California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 96, no. B11, p. 18,261–18,283.Lienkaemper, J.J., Galehouse, J.S., and Simpson, R.W., 2001, Long-term monitoring of creep rate along the Hayward Fault and evidence for a lasting creep response to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 28, p. 2265–2268.Lienkaemper, J.J., and McNutt, M.K,. 2010, Recently active traces of the Bartlett Springs Fault, California—A digital database: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 541, 13 p.Lisowski, M., and Prescott, W.H., 1981, Short-range distance measurements along the San Andreas Fault system in central California, 1975 to 1979: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 71, no. 5, p. 1607–1624.Lohman, R.B., and McGuire, J.J., 2007, Earthquake swarms driven by aseismic creep in the Salton Trough, California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 112, B04405, doi:10.1029/2006JB004596. Louie, J.N., Allen, C.R., Johnson, D.C., Haase, P.C., and Cohn, S.N., 1985, Fault slip in southern California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 75, no. 3, p.811–833.Lyons, S., and Sandwell, D., 2003, Fault creep along the southern San Andreas from interferometric synthetic aperture radar, permanent scatterers, and stacking: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 108, no. B1, 24 p., doi:10.1029/2002JB001831.Lyons, S.N., Bock, Y., and Sandwell, D.T., 2002, Creep along the Imperial Fault, southern California, from GPS measurements: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 107, no. B10, p. ETG 12-1–ETG 12-13.Manaker, D.M., Bürgmann, R., and Prescott, W.H., 2003, Distribution of interseismic slip rates and the potential for significant earthquakes on the Calaveras fault, central California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 108, no. B6, p. ETG 3-1– ETG 3-20,doi:10.1029/2002JB001749 .McFarland, F.S., Lienkaemper, J.J., and Caskey, S.J., 2007, Data from theodolite measurements of creep rates on San Francisco Bay region faults, California, 1979–2007: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1367.McFarland, F.S., Lienkaemper, J.J., and Caskey, S.J., 2012, Data from theodolite measurements of creep rates on San Francisco Bay region faults, California, 1979–2011: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1119 (v. 1.3, revised 2012).Murray, J.R., Segall, P., and Cervelli, P., 2001, Inversion of GPS data for spatially variable slip-rate on the San Andreas Fault near Parkfield: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 28, no. 2, p. 359–362.Murray, J.R., Svarc, J.L., and Minson, S.E., 2012, Spatially variable creep rate on the Bartlett Springs and Maacama Faults, northern California, estimated via Bayesian inversion of Global Positioning System data: American Geophysical Union Meeting, abstract.Nadeau, R.M., 2007, Periodic pulsing of the San Andreas Fault—An update, in Berkeley Seismological Laboratory Annual Reports: Berkeley, University of California, accessed July 26, 2013, at , R.M., and McEvilly, T.V., 1999, Fault slip rates at depth from recurrence intervals of repeating microearthquakes: Science, v. 285, p. 718–721.Nadeau, R.M., and McEvilly, T.V., 2004, Periodic pulsing of characteristic microearthquakes on the San Andreas Fault: Science, v. 303, p. 220–222.Oppenheimer, D.H., Bakun, W.H., and Lindh, A.G., 1990, Slip partitioning on the Calaveras fault, California, and prospects for future earthquakes: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 95, p. 8483–8498.Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the state of California: California Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-08, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-706, 33 p. Prescott, W.H., and Burford, R.O., 1976, Slip on the Sargent Fault: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 66, no. 3, p. 1013–1016.Prescott, W.H., Lisowski, M., and Savage, S.C., 1981, Geodetic measurement of crustal deformation on the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras Faults near San Francisco, California: Journal Geophysical Research, v. 86, no. B11, p. 10,853–10,869, doi:10.1029/JB086iB11p10853.Sandwell, D.T., Sichoix, L., Agnew, D., Bock, Y., and Minster, J.B., 2000, Near real‐time radar interferometry of the Mw 7.1 Hector Mine Earthquake: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 27, no. 19, p. 3101–3104.Savage, J.C., and Lisowski, M., 1993, Inferred depth of creep on the Hayward Fault, central California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 98, no. B1, p. 787–793.Schmidt, D.A., Bürgmann, R., Nadeau, R.M., and d'Alessio, M., 2005, Distribution of aseismic slip rate on the Hayward Fault inferred from seismic and geodetic data: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 110, no. B08406, doi:10.1029/2004JB003397. Schulz, S.S., Mavko, G.M., Burford, R.O., and Stuart, W.D., 1982, Long-term fault creep observations in central California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 87, no. B8, 6977-6982.Segall, P., 2002, Testing earthquake recurrence models—Space-time patterns of slip-deficit at Parkfield: U.S. Geological Survey NEHRP Final Technical Report # 02HQGR0061.Shirzaei, M., and Bürgmann, R., 2013, Time-dependent model of creep on the Hayward Fault from joint inversion of 18 years of InSAR and surface creep data: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 118, no. 4, p. 1733–1746, doi:10.1002/jgrb.50149.Shirzaei, M., Taira, T., and Bürgmann, R., 2013, Implications of recent asperity failures and aseismic creep for time-dependent earthquake hazard on the Hayward Fault; Earth and Planetary Science Letters, p. 371–372, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2013.1004.1024.Sieh, K.E., and Williams, P.L., 1990, Behavior of the southernmost San Andreas Fault during the past 300 years: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 95, no. B5, p. 6629–6645, doi:10.1029/JB095iB05p06629.Templeton, D.C., Nadeau, R.M., and Burgmann, R., 2008, Behavior of repeating earthquake sequences in central California and implications for subsurface fault creep: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 98, no. 1, p. 52–65.Templeton, D.C., Nadeau, R.M., and Burgmann, R., 2009, Distribution of postseismic slip on the Calaveras Fault, California, following the 1984 M6.2 Morgan Hill earthquake: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 277, p. 1–8.Titus, S.J., DeMets, C., and Tikoff, B., 2005, New slip rate estimates for the creeping segment of the San Andreas Fault, California: Geology, v. 33, p. 205–208.Titus, S.J., DeMets, C., and Tikoff, B., 2006, Thirty-five-year creep rates for the creeping segment of the San Andreas Fault and effects of the 2004 Parkfield earthquake—Constraints from alignment arrays, continuous Global Positioning System, and creepmeters: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 96, no. 4B, p. S250–S268.Toké, N.A., Arrowsmith, J.R., Rymer, M.J., Landgraf, A., Haddad, D.E., Busch, M., Coyan, J., and Hannah, A., 2011, Late Holocene slip rate of the San Andreas Fault and its accommodation by creep and moderate-magnitude earthquakes at Parkfield, California: Geology, v. 39, p. 243–246, doi:10.1130/G31498.Tong, X., Sandwell, D.T., and Smith-Konter, B., 2013, High-resolution interseismic velocity data along the San Andreas Fault from GPS and InSAR: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 118, no. 1, p. 369-389, doi:10.1029/2012JB009442.Turner, R.C., Nadeau, R.M., and Bürgmann, R., 2013, Aseismic slip and fault interaction from repeating earthquakes in the Loma Prieta aftershock zone: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, no. 6, p. 1079–1083, doi:10.1002/grl.50212.Wallace, R.E., and Roth, E.F., 1967, Rates and patterns of progressive deformation, in The Parkfield-Cholame California Earthquakes of June–August 1966: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 579, p. 23–40.Wdowinski, S., Smith-Konter, B., Boch, Y., and Sandwell, D., 2007, Diffuse interseismic deformation across the Pacific-North America plate boundary: Geology, v. 35, no. 4, p. 3113–314.Wei, M., Sandwell, D., and Fialko, Y., 2009, A silent Mw 4.7 slip event of October 2006 on the Superstition Hills Fault, southern California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 114, B07402, doi:10.1029/2008JB006135.Wei, M., Sandwell, D., Fialko, Y., and Bilham, R., 2011, Slip on faults in the Imperial Valley triggered by the 4 April 2010 Mw 7.2 El Mayor-Cucapah earthquake revealed by InSAR: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 38, L01308, doi:10.1029/2010GL045235.Wei, M., Sandwell, D., and Smith-Konter, B., 2010, Optimal combination of InSAR and GPS for measuring interseismic crustal deformation: Advances in Space Research, v. 46,p. 236–249.Wesson, R.L., 1988, Dynamics of fault creep: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 93, p. 8929–8951.Werner, C.L., Rosen, P., Hensley, S., Fielding, E., and Buckley, S. (not dated), Detection of aseismic creep along the San Andreas Fault near Parkfield, California with ERS-1 Radar interferometry: Pasadena, California, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, accessed July 26, 2012, on the European Space Agency Web site, at , J.F., and Baker, F.B., 1987, Catalog of alignment array measurements in central and southern California from 1983 through 1986: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-280, 157 p.Wills, C.J., Weldon, R.J., II, and Bryant, W.A., 2007, California fault parameters for the National Seismic Hazard Maps and working group on California earthquake probabilities 2007—Appendix A in the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 2 (UCERF 2): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1437-A, and California Geological Survey Special Report 203-A.Wisely, B.A., Schmidt, D.A., and Weldon, R.J., II, 2007, Compilation of surface creep on California faults and comparison of WG-07 deformation model to Pacific North American plate motion—Appendix P in The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 2 (UCERF 2): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1437-P, and California Geological Survey Special Report 203-P.Table D1. Smoothed creep rate averaged over UCERF minisections. [Data are sorted by section name. Zero values are for minisections where there are observations that are sufficient to infer creep is an insignificant fraction of slip rate. All other minisections are assume to creep at 10% of their slip rate (the average ratio for the 249 minisections for which we have data)]Fault sectionMinisectionSmoothed average creep rate (mm/yr)Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.010.5Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.020.2Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.030.0Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.040.2Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.050.9Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.063.0Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.076.0Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.085.0Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.093.0Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.101.5Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.110.5Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.120.3Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.130.2Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.140.2Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.150.1Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.160.1Bartlett Springs 2011 CFM668.170.0Brawley170.01(1)Calaveras (Central) 2011 CFM602.0113.0Calaveras (Central) 2011 CFM602.029.0Calaveras (Central) 2011 CFM602.038.0Calaveras (Central) 2011 CFM602.047.0Calaveras (Central) 2011 CFM602.055.0Calaveras (Central) 2011 CFM602.063.0Calaveras (No) 2011 CFM601.013.0Calaveras (No) 2011 CFM601.026.0Calaveras (No) 2011 CFM601.034.0Calaveras (No) 2011 CFM601.043.0Calaveras (No) 2011 CFM601.052.0Calaveras (So) - Paicines extension 2011 CFM621.0125.0Calaveras (So) - Paicines extension 2011 CFM621.0220.5Calaveras (So) - Paicines extension 2011 CFM621.0323.0Calaveras (So) - Paicines extension 2011 CFM621.0428.0Calaveras (So) - Paicines extension 2011 CFM621.05210.0Calaveras (So) - Paicines extension 2011 CFM621.0622.0Calaveras (So) 2011 CFM603.018.0Calaveras (So) 2011 CFM603.028.0Calaveras (So) 2011 CFM603.0313.0Cerro Prieto172.0135.0Cerro Prieto172.0235.0Cerro Prieto172.0335.0Cerro Prieto172.0435.0Cerro Prieto172.0535.0Cerro Prieto172.0635.0Cerro Prieto172.0735.0Cerro Prieto172.0835.0Concord 2011 CFM622.013.4Concord 2011 CFM622.023.0Concord 2011 CFM622.031.2Elsinore - Coyote Mountain103.011.0Elsinore - Coyote Mountain103.021.0Elsinore - Coyote Mountain103.031.0Elsinore - Coyote Mountain103.041.0Elsinore - Coyote Mountain103.051.0Garlock (Central)341.010.1Garlock (Central)341.020.4Garlock (Central)341.030.5Garlock (Central)341.040.2Garlock (Central)341.050.0Garlock (East)48.010.0Garlock (East)48.020.0Garlock (East)48.030.0Garlock (East)48.040.0Garlock (West)49.010.1Garlock (West)49.020.1Garlock (West)49.030.4Garlock (West)49.041.8Garlock (West)49.051.8Garlock (West)49.061.0Garlock (West)49.070.9Garlock (West)49.080.7Garlock (West)49.090.4Garlock (West)49.100.2Green Valley 2011 CFM623.013.6Green Valley 2011 CFM623.024.4Green Valley 2011 CFM623.034.4Green Valley 2011 CFM623.043.8Greenville (No) 2011 CFM636.012.1Greenville (No) 2011 CFM636.022.1Greenville (No) 2011 CFM636.032.1Greenville (No) 2011 CFM636.042.1Greenville (No) 2011 CFM636.052.1Hayward (No) 2011 CFM639.013.9Hayward (No) 2011 CFM639.024.3Hayward (No) 2011 CFM639.034.2Hayward (No) 2011 CFM639.042.5Hayward (No) 2011 CFM639.051.4Hayward (So) 2011 CFM638.011.6Hayward (So) 2011 CFM638.024.6Hayward (So) 2011 CFM638.035.2Hayward (So) 2011 CFM638.044.7Hayward (So) 2011 CFM638.054.0Hunting Creek - Bartlett Springs connector 2011677.012.0Hunting Creek - Bartlett Springs connector 2011677.022.0Hunting Creek - Bartlett Springs connector 2011677.031.8Hunting Creek - Bartlett Springs connector 2011677.041.3Hunting Creek - Bartlett Springs connector 2011677.050.8Hunting Creek - Berryessa 2011 CFM640.013.1Hunting Creek - Berryessa 2011 CFM640.022.8Hunting Creek - Berryessa 2011 CFM640.032.6Hunting Creek - Berryessa 2011 CFM640.042.5Hunting Creek - Berryessa 2011 CFM640.052.3Imperial97.0139.0Imperial97.0239.0Imperial97.0339.0 Laguna Salada104.0132.0Laguna Salada104.0232.0Laguna Salada104.0332.0Laguna Salada104.0432.0Laguna Salada104.0532.0Laguna Salada104.0632.0Laguna Salada104.0732.0Laguna Salada104.0832.0Laguna Salada104.0932.0Maacama 2011 CFM644.010.0Maacama 2011 CFM644.020.0Maacama 2011 CFM644.032.0Maacama 2011 CFM644.045.6Maacama 2011 CFM644.053.5Maacama 2011 CFM644.063.0Maacama 2011 CFM644.072.2Maacama 2011 CFM644.081.4Maacama 2011 CFM644.092.2Maacama 2011 CFM644.101.5Maacama 2011 CFM644.110.0Quien Sabe648.01(1)Quien Sabe648.01(1)Quien Sabe648.01(1)Quien Sabe648.01(1)Rodgers Creek - Healdsburg 2011 CFM651.013.5Rodgers Creek - Healdsburg 2011 CFM651.023.0Rodgers Creek - Healdsburg 2011 CFM651.032.2Rodgers Creek - Healdsburg 2011 CFM651.041.8Rodgers Creek - Healdsburg 2011 CFM651.051.9Rodgers Creek - Healdsburg 2011 CFM651.065.0Rodgers Creek - Healdsburg 2011 CFM651.074.4Rodgers Creek - Healdsburg 2011 CFM651.081.6San Andreas - Carrizo300.010.0San Andreas - Carrizo300.020.0San Andreas - Carrizo300.030.0San Andreas - Carrizo300.040.0San Andreas - Mojave North286.010.0San Andreas - Mojave North286.020.0San Andreas - Mojave North286.030.0San Andreas - Mojave South301.010.0San Andreas - Mojave South301.020.0San Andreas - Mojave South301.030.0San Andreas - North Coast654.010.0San Andreas - North Coast654.020.0San Andreas - North Coast654.030.0San Andreas - North Coast654.070.0San Andreas - North Coast654.100.0San Andreas - North Coast654.110.0San Andreas - North Coast654.120.0San Andreas - North Coast654.130.0San Andreas - North Coast654.140.0San Andreas - North Coast654.150.0San Andreas - North Coast654.160.0San Andreas - North Coast654.170.0San Andreas - North Coast654.180.0San Andreas - North Coast654.190.0San Andreas - Peninsula655.010.0San Andreas - Peninsula655.020.0San Andreas - Peninsula655.030.0San Andreas - Peninsula655.040.0San Andreas - Peninsula655.050.0San Andreas - Peninsula655.060.0San Andreas - Peninsula655.070.0San Andreas - Peninsula655.080.0San Andreas - San Bernardino North282.010.0San Andreas - San Bernardino North282.020.0San Andreas - San Bernardino North282.030.0San Andreas - San Bernardino North282.040.0San Andreas (Banning)284.080.9San Andreas (Banning)284.070.9San Andreas (Banning)284.060.9San Andreas (Banning)284.050.8San Andreas (Banning)284.040.8San Andreas (Banning)284.030.7San Andreas (Big Bend)287.010.0San Andreas (Big Bend)287.020.0San Andreas (Big Bend)287.030.5San Andreas (Big Bend)287.040.0San Andreas (Cholame) rev285.010.0San Andreas (Cholame) rev285.020.0San Andreas (Cholame) rev285.032.0San Andreas (Coachella) rev295.012.5San Andreas (Creeping Section) 2011 CFM658.0125.0San Andreas (Creeping Section) 2011 CFM658.0225.0San Andreas (Creeping Section) 2011 CFM658.0325.0San Andreas (Creeping Section) 2011 CFM658.0422.0San Andreas (Creeping Section) 2011 CFM658.0524.0San Andreas (Creeping Section) 2011 CFM658.0624.0San Andreas (Creeping Section) 2011 CFM658.0721.0San Andreas (Creeping Section) 2011 CFM658.0821.0San Andreas (Creeping Section) 2011 CFM658.0916.0San Andreas (Creeping Section) 2011 CFM658.1014.0San Andreas (Creeping Section) 2011 CFM658.1113.0San Andreas (Parkfield)32.0115.0San Andreas (San Bernardino South)283.010.2San Andreas (San Bernardino South)283.020.5San Andreas (San Bernardino South)283.030.6San Andreas (San Bernardino South)283.040.7San Andreas (San Bernardino South)283.050.8San Andreas (San Bernardino South)283.060.9San Andreas (Santa Cruz Mts) 2011 CFM657.010.0San Andreas (Santa Cruz Mts) 2011 CFM657.020.0San Andreas (Santa Cruz Mts) 2011 CFM657.030.0San Andreas (Santa Cruz Mts) 2011 CFM657.040.0San Andreas (Santa Cruz Mts) 2011 CFM657.050.0San Andreas (Santa Cruz Mts) 2011 CFM657.062.0San Andreas (Santa Cruz Mts) 2011 CFM657.072.0San Andreas (Santa Cruz Mts) 2011 CFM657.088.0San Andreas (Santa Cruz Mts) 2011 CFM657.098.0San Gregorio (North) 2011 CFM660.070.0San Gregorio (North) 2011 CFM660.090.5San Gregorio (North) 2011 CFM660.101.0San Gregorio (North) 2011 CFM660.110.5San Jacinto (Anza) rev293.011.6San Jacinto (Anza) rev293.020.8San Jacinto (Anza) rev293.030.2San Jacinto (Borrego)99.011.4San Jacinto (Borrego)99.022.0San Jacinto (Borrego)99.034.0San Jacinto (Borrego)99.045.5San Jacinto (Borrego)99.055.5San Jacinto (Coyote Creek)101.010.0San Jacinto (Coyote Creek)101.020.0San Jacinto (Coyote Creek)101.030.6San Jacinto (San Bernardino)119.011.0San Jacinto (San Bernardino)119.022.5San Jacinto (San Bernardino)119.031.0San Jacinto (San Jacinto Valley) rev289.010.1San Jacinto (San Jacinto Valley) rev289.020.1San Jacinto (Stepovers Combined)401.011.2San Jacinto (Superstition Hills)98.013.3San Jacinto (Superstition Hills)98.022.0San Jacinto (Superstition Hills)98.031.0Sargent662.010.4Sargent662.021.1Sargent662.031.9Sargent662.042.7Sargent662.052.9Sargent662.062.9West Napa 2011 CFM665.010.0West Napa 2011 CFM665.020.1West Napa 2011 CFM665.030.0West Napa 2011 CFM665.040.01Special case; use 90% of slip rate for all deformation models.2Paicines rates were smoothed and tapered to match strain transfer between fault zones.3Recorded single value; creep rate is tapered proportionally to the slip rate in model.Table D2. Raw observations.LongitudeLatitudeLocationCreep rate(mm/yr)sig(mm/yr)TypeInstStartEndYearsSourceCommentsCalaveras-121.959837.7458Upper North0.20.1IntAA198019899Galehouse and Lienkaemper (2003)Pre-Loma Prieta rate-121.935937.7044Camp Parks2.80.5IntAA1965197712Lisowski and Prescott (1981)-121.864237.581Veras2.90.3IntGeod1965197611Prescott and others (1981)-121.850837.5358Lower North3.60.5IntAA199720014Galehouse and Lienkaemper (2003)Post-LP-121.81237.4578Reservoir2.20.5IntGeod197019799Prescott and others (1981)-121.713937.3417Grant Ranch9.40.4Int+AftGeod197719847Oppenheimer and others (1990)Post-Coyote Lake-121.524237.0699Central142IntAA1968198921Galehouse and Lienkaemper (2003)Corrected for MH/CL events-121.482637.0096San Felipe132IntGeod197219797Lisowski and Prescott (1981)-121.412836.8699Wright Rd13UndefinedInt+AftCM1971198312Schulz (1982)Post-Coyote Lake-121.412836.8496C-SA Junct12.20.2Int+AftAA1979198910Galehouse and Lienkaemper (2003)Pre-LP; post MH/CL-121.405336.8496C-SA Junct6.40.2Int+AftAA1979198910Galehouse and Lienkaemper (2003)Pre-LP; post MH/CL-121.373636.805Paicines-Tres P.53IntGeod197519794Lisowski and Prescott (1981)-121.323336.805Paicines-Thomas6.20.1IntAA1973198613Wilmesher and Baker (1987)-121.142536.5932Paicines-Pionne103IntGeod197519794Lisowski and Prescott (1981)-121.4063136.84952Seventh Street6.80.0530.6McFarland and others (2011)-121.9608337.74569Corey Place1.80.0529.4McFarland and others (2011)-121.5252137.06981Coyote Ranch17.10.2142.1McFarland and others (2011)-121.7161637.34233Halls Valley1.1Unknown1.2McFarland and others (2011)-121.8038937.44606Marsh Road-7.1Unknown1.2McFarland and others (2011)-121.9371337.70649Shannon Park1.80.458.5McFarland and others (2011)-121.8769337.5985Sunol1.80.367.8McFarland and others (2011)-121.8518337.5357Welch Creek Road4.40.113.5McFarland and others (2011)-121.4138136.86982Wright Road90.0830.6McFarland and others (2011)-121.18936.6287.422.063SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.26636.697-0.5331.552SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.33936.7660.4271.598SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.39636.8425.192.051SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.43636.9248.8811.067SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.48337.0057.1572.284SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.53837.08425.3042.426SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.59837.1619.221.458SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.65637.238-3.4191.843SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.71237.315-3.8554.634SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.76837.3924.5761.833SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.81937.473-4.3785.807SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.85937.55714.6716.272SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.90237.64-2.5852.477SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-121.94537.7214.9221.95SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)Morgan Hill15.2Templeton and others (2009)Average slip rateGarlock-118.29935.0898Cameron5.71.5IntAA19711982Louie and others (1985)spread over 200 m zone-117.65635.452Rand0UndefinedIntAA19711983Louie and others (1985)<0.1; locked east of Keohn Lake-117.35235.532Christmas0UndefinedIntAA19711983Louie and others (1985)<0.5 mm/yr-118.86734.8260.4480.532SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-118.77134.8810.9540.543SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-118.67634.9240.3660.572SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-118.57834.965-0.6190.305SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-118.47934.9951.7170.609SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-118.38635.044-0.3490.477SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-118.29635.098-1.6880.419SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-118.20335.1450.5180.261SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-118.11235.19-0.0250.077SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-118.02535.2460.0730.593SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.94435.309-2.0652.262SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.8635.3680.2551.099SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.76635.4120.0420.255SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.66535.4490.5480.15SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.56135.4770.4670.252SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.45635.504-0.320.055SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.34935.5260.3020.187SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.24235.5511.5830.219SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.13635.5750.5160.19SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.02935.595-0.7020.21SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.9235.604-0.360.097SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.8135.596-0.0880.091SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.735.593-0.8690.483SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.5935.5910.0680.092SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)Concord-122.03737.9758Concord – Salvio Street2.90.03IntAA1979200930McFarland and others (2011)-122.03437.972Concord - Ashbury Drive3.70.03IntAA1979200930McFarland and others (2011)-122.03637.9721.7385.099SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)Hayward-122.354637.989150.1IntAA1968.3331993.05824.725Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.337937.9694.80.2IntAA1980.6091999.8919.281Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.308337.94254.90.4IntAA1989.7481999.6779.929Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.291837.92464.40.3IntAA1989.7481999.86810.12Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.250637.87194.60.1IntAA1966.9121999.65832.746Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.230437.84843.80.1IntAA1974.2581999.69625.438Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.20937.82643.70.2IntAA1993.1121999.896.778Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.197537.81013.70.1IntAA1970.291999.69629.406Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.188237.79513.60.3IntAA1974.2741999.6625.386Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.150437.75463.70.5IntAA1989.6931999.88810.195Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.128537.73195.90.5IntAA1993.3891999.6796.29Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.104537.6955.50.9IntAA1992.621999.667.04Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.089937.679850.1IntAA1967.1671999.8332.663Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.080437.67034.40.1IntAA1980.4781999.8319.352Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.072737.662740.6IntAA1977.0741999.67722.603Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.057937.64816.70.5IntAA1994.5891999.6775.088Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.022237.61435.10.7IntAA1994.5921999.6965.104Lienkaemper and others (2001)-122.000837.59255.10.2IntAA1979.7291999.8320.101Lienkaemper and others (2001)-121.979737.566461.3IntAA1983.7591988.8475.088Lienkaemper and others (2001)-121.960737.54225.60.3IntAA1979.7261989.80810.082Lienkaemper and others (2001)-121.954837.53618.90.6IntCult1940.31987.63647.336Lienkaemper and others (2001)Creep stopped following Loma Prieta-121.934337.51259.50.6IntCult1967.71987.63619.936Lienkaemper and others (2001)Creep stopped following Loma Prieta-121.931637.50978.20.4IntCult1968.71982.313.6Lienkaemper and others (2001)Creep stopped following Loma Prieta-121.94937.5265.7081.137SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.01237.6012.5050.946SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.08337.6732.9070.528SAR200620104Tong and others (2013))-122.14337.7461.2910.586SAR200620104Tong and others (2013))-122.2137.8213.5540.297SAR200620104Tong and others (2013))-122.2737.8964.910.718SAR200620104Tong and others (2013))-122.3390237.96918Contra Costa College5.20.0130.2McFarland and others (2011)-122.3095937.94252Olive Drive5.30.0821.1McFarland and others (2011)-122.2929437.92449Thors Bay Road3.40.0921.1McFarland and others (2011)-122.273437.8998Florida Avenue2.70.0613.2McFarland and others (2011)-122.2506137.87066Memorial Stadium4.70.0344McFarland and others (2011)-122.2410737.86447Dwight Way50.2613.2McFarland and others (2011)-122.2313737.84853Temescal4.10.1136.5McFarland and others (2011)-122.2100537.82638LaSalle Ave40.0617.7McFarland and others (2011)-122.1986337.80999Lincoln3.60.140.5McFarland and others (2011)-122.1893137.7950439th4.20.1436.5McFarland and others (2011)-122.1697737.7742673rd3.40.1116.4McFarland and others (2011)-122.1514837.75453Encina Way2.50.0921.1McFarland and others (2011)-122.1299337.73184Chabot Park40.1517.4McFarland and others (2011)-122.1213137.71749Fairmont3.90.2213.2McFarland and others (2011)-122.1057837.69495167th4.70.0918.2McFarland and others (2011)-122.0912137.67983Rose Street4.60.0430.3McFarland and others (2011)-122.0816237.67021D Street4.50.0230.3McFarland and others (2011)-122.0739737.6627Palisade4.70.1933.7McFarland and others (2011)-122.0590237.64798Sepulchre5.50.0916.2McFarland and others (2011)-122.041437.63097Woodland4.40.1140.7McFarland and others (2011)-122.0232537.61422Chimes6.40.1716.2McFarland and others (2011)-122.0019337.5924Appian Way5.70.0431.1McFarland and others (2011)-121.9809437.56645Gilbert5.40.1327.1McFarland and others (2011)-121.9618737.5421Rockett Drive5.40.0631McFarland and others (2011)-121.9591437.53942Hancock60.1828.7McFarland and others (2011)-121.9558437.53614Union6.60.1117.8McFarland and others (2011)-121.9418137.51973Pine6.30.221.6McFarland and others (2011)-121.9352837.51235Camellia Drive4.50.120.7McFarland and others (2011)-121.9326237.5096Parkmeadow Drive6.10.0918.5McFarland and others (2011)-121.9304637.5072S. Grimmer5.90.2328.3McFarland and others (2011)-121.9289437.50516Onondaga2.90.2228.4McFarland and others (2011)-121.9218237.49629Mission50.1716.6McFarland and others (2011)Imperial-115.35632.683Tuttle Ranch1UndefinedInt??1977Goulty and others (1978)Pre-EQ rate-115.35632.683Tuttle Ranch1.4UndefinedIntCM19751979Louie and others (1985)Pre-EQ rate-115.35632.683Tuttle Ranch6UndefinedAftCM19801984Louie and others (1985)Afterslip from 1979 event-115.478732.8202Ross Road5UndefinedIntCM?1979Louie and others (1985)-115.5132.862Worthington Road138IntAA19741979Louie and others (1985)-115.48832.837S805.4UndefinedInt+TranAA19671978Louie and others (1985)Triggered by 1968 EQLongitudeLatitudeLocationCreep rate(mm/yr)sig(mm/yr)TypeInstStartEndYearsSourceCommentsMaacama-123.355939.4125W. Comm5.80.08IntAA1991200918McFarland and others (2011)-123.166439.1392Sanford R.4.30.08IntAA1993200916McFarland and others (2011)-123.050738.93464Middle Ridge6.13.72.2McFarland and others (2011)-122.8264738.7032Skipstone Ranch-0.11.52.4McFarland and others (2011)-122.92238.7864.7941.988SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.99338.859-1.6831.067SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.04838.9378.4815.452SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.09539.0182.4451.547SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.14339.12.7491.301SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.19139.1813.0141.027SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.24839.26-7.652.828SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.30539.3390.8462.7SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.35339.42-6.3676.17SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.40139.502-8.4326.456SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.45139.584-13.4173.456SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.50239.6650.21.696SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.55739.744-0.9661.532SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)Hopland6.13.7See Lienkaemper emailAlexander Vy-0.11.5See Lienkaemper emailWillits5.80.1See Lienkaemper emailUkiah4.30.1See Lienkaemper emailRodgers Creek-122.708338.4701Nielson Rd0.40.5IntAA198019866Galehouse and Lienkaemper (2003)-122.640538.3478Roberts Rd1.60.1IntAA1986200014Galehouse and Lienkaemper (2003)site not on active trace-122.446938.0987San Pablo1.41.1IntTrilat1978198810Lienkaemper and others (1991)-122.44938.173.8513.335SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.5238.242-2.9191.955SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.59438.313-3.241.706SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.65438.3872.0832.017SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.71238.4653.2221.252SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.717538.47995Fountaingrove Blvd-0.71.11.5McFarland,Lienkaemper,Caskey (2011)-122.7380738.50169Mark West Springs Rd6.14.22.4McFarland,Lienkaemper,Caskey (2011)-122.6944638.43687Solano Drive1.70.137.7McFarland,Lienkaemper,Caskey (2011)-122.5904638.30928Sonoma Mtn Rd1.30.397.7McFarland,Lienkaemper,Caskey (2011)LongitudeLatitudeLocationCreep rate(mm/yr)sig(mm/yr)TypeInstStartEndYearsSourceCommentsSan Andreas-123.689539Point Arena0.50.1IntAA1981200019Galehouse and Lienkaemper (2003)includes LP, coords approx-122.796938.0441Point Reyes-0.10IntAA1985200924McFarland and others (2011)includes LP-122.464637.6443SF Penn-0.30.02IntAA1980199414Galehouse and Lienkaemper (2003)includes LP-122.260537.4171SF Penn0.30.1IntAA1989200011Galehouse and Lienkaemper (2003)includes LP-121.585136.8827SJB0.10.1IntAA198919989Galehouse and Lienkaemper (2003)includes LP-121.520736.8351SJB10.40.2IntAA1990200111Galehouse and Lienkaemper (2003)accelerated by Loma Prieta?-121.648336.9267Chamberland0.80.4IntAA196719725Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-121.5236.8367San Juan140.4IntAA196819779Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-121.346736.72Paicines13.50.4IntAA197219775Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-121.271736.6583Lewis140.4IntAA197319774Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-121.201736.605Cross-Willow19.90.4IntAA197219775Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-121.18536.595Willow Creek22.70.4IntAA197219775Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-121.184536.5933Melendy22.90.4IntAA1967197811Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-121.183536.574River Terrace23.10.4IntAA197019733Burford and Harsh (1980)Block faulting-121.13536.5433Pinnacles23.10.4IntAA197219775Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-121.051736.4817Dry Lake21.90.4IntAA196719747Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-120.97536.3883Eade Ranch31.30.4IntAA197019766Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-120.969336.3833Smith Ranch33.30.4IntAA196719714Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-120.901736.3167DeAlvarez31.40.4IntAA197019777Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-120.798336.2133Monarch Peak17.30.4IntAA196819779Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-120.756736.18Mee Ranch260.4IntAA197019777Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-120.628336.065Slack Canyon300.4IntAA1968197911Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-120.571736.015Bagby ranch23.80.4IntAA197019799Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-120.421735.885Durham Ranch14.60.4IntAA1968197911Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-120.307135.7566Water tank40.4IntAA1966197913Burford and Harsh (1980)End point-120.20535.6517Palo Prieto00.4IntAA197519772Burford and Harsh (1980)<1 mm/yr-121.545336.8549Nyland Fence80.2IntCult1942197836Burford and Harsh (1980)-121.52536.8392Old Highway13.30.2IntCult1926197852Burford and Harsh (1980)-121.383936.7495Cienega Winery12.30.2IntCult1948197628Burford and Harsh (1980)-121.194336.5988Fence, Airline190.2IntCult1937196629Brown and Wallace (1968)-121.184136.5902Corral, Melendy220.2IntCult1945197833Burford and Harsh (1980)-121.16336.5735Wire, Melendy80.2IntCult1951196615Brown and Wallace (1968)-120.982336.3972Lane, BWV250.2IntCult1908196658Brown and Wallace (1968)-120.968736.3828Fence, BWV280.2IntCult1941196625Brown and Wallace (1968)-120.535735.9837Fence, Claassen250.2IntCult1946196620Wallace and Roth (1967)-120.433735.8951Parkfield Brdg220.2IntCult1932197846Burford and Harsh (1980)-120.307235.7567Fence, Cholame180.2IntCult1908197870Burford and Harsh (1980)-120.226735.6728Fence, O'Brien L00.2IntCult1937196629Brown and Wallace (1968)-120.96936.3883Smith Ranch23.21IntGPS1967200336Titus and others (2005)End point-120.79836.18Mee Ranch26.71IntGPS1970200333Titus and others (2005)End point-120.62836.065Slack Cny24.91IntGPS1968200335Titus and others (2005)End point-121.3936.75Cienega Winery12.3UndefinedIntCM1958197618Burford (1988)includes triggered creep-121.536.82SJN8.1UndefinedIntCM196919767Burford (1988)includes triggered creep-121.5236.84XSJ1/29UndefinedIntCM196919767Burford (1988)includes triggered creep-121.4236.77HRS10.9UndefinedIntCM196919767Burford (1988)includes triggered creep-121.2336.65SCR13.8UndefinedIntCM196919767Burford (1988)includes triggered creep-121.1936.6XMR120.3UndefinedIntCM196919767Burford (1988)includes triggered creep-121.1836.59MRB21.2UndefinedIntCM196919767Burford (1988)includes triggered creep-120.6336.07XSC122.1UndefinedIntCM1972198715Burford (1988)includes triggered creep-120.4235.88XDR28.3UndefinedIntCM1972198715Burford (1988)includes triggered creep-120.3635.84CRR13.97UndefinedIntCM1971198716Burford (1988)includes triggered creep-120.3535.82XGH13.25UndefinedIntCM1972198715Burford (1988)includes triggered creep-118.1134.55Una Lake00.5IntAA1970198414Louie and others (1985)below instrument uncertainty-117.88834.457Pallett Creek00.2IntAA1970198414Louie and others (1985)below instrument uncertainty-117.834.422Big Pines01IntAA1970198111Louie and others (1985)below instrument uncertainty-117.4934.2858Cajon00.5IntAA1970198414Louie and others (1985)< 1cm of creep-117.27634.174Waterman01IntAA1970198313Louie and others (1985)below instrument uncertainty-116.96434.058Santa Ana wash00.4IntAA1970198313Louie and others (1985)below instrument uncertainty-116.61633.9325Devers2UndefinedIntAA1972198210Louie and others (1985)-116.23433.777Indio1.50.6IntAA1970198414Louie and others (1985)-115.88733.482Mecca beach0.7UndefinedIntCM198119843Louie and others (1985)-115.94933.541North Shore00.1IntCM1970198414Louie and others (1985)below instrument uncertainty-115.9933.58Red Canyon1.7UndefinedAftAA1967198316Louie and others (1985)afterslip from 1968 EQ?-116.15633.715Dillon road21Int+TranAA1970198414Louie and others (1985)triggered by 1979 EQ?-115.72433.3490.0250.73SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-115.79933.4164.0740.629SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-115.87733.4750.0181.242SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-115.95133.5424.2990.802SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-116.02633.6084.0760.241SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-116.10233.6694.7620.642SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-116.17833.7344.0051.11SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-116.25533.7960.1390.138SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-116.33633.8560.8760.298SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-116.42233.9070.9390.396SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-116.50833.962-0.6180.41SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-116.634.013-0.5980.393SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-116.70134.0420.6240.691SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-116.80634.0631.0891.413SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-116.91234.0782.021.637SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-117.01734.101-0.4041.915SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-117.12134.1240.0810.537SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-117.22334.1510.0130.326SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-117.31934.1940.3460.505SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-117.41134.2450.1160.59SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-117.50334.292-1.9041.885SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-117.59734.339-5.1215.177SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-117.69434.378-1.1871.673SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-117.79134.418-2.0740.611SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-117.88834.457-0.9010.103SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-117.98534.4980.0560.241SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-118.08234.539-1.640.509SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-118.18134.578-0.7980.304SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-118.2834.616-1.6020.884SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-118.37934.652-1.1761.137SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-118.4834.688-5.0930.956SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-118.58234.719-2.2721.089SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-118.68534.749-0.7010.982SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-118.78934.777-1.4250.675SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-118.89334.808-1.7550.681SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-118.99834.824-1.0120.345SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-119.10534.8461.3440.444SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-119.21134.860.2980.413SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-119.31234.8952.1010.872SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-119.40534.941-0.850.765SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-119.49234.998-1.6310.274SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-119.57535.057-1.6470.844SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-119.65535.12-0.1750.565SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-119.73235.1830.6021.22SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-119.80535.250.0162.546SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-119.87735.3190.6090.857SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-119.94635.3870.80.885SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.01335.461-0.5932.139SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.08135.5310.3380.987SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.15235.6-4.4640.845SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.22435.6671.8560.522SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.29435.7382.1430.963SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.35535.823-5.2863.173SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.41835.8814.1591.672SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.49335.94826.7321.783SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.56936.01130.673.531SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.64536.07726.0962.101SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.71936.14628.8213.81SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.7936.20619.4293.77SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.86236.2824.3521.965SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-120.93536.34618.8911.152SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-121.00636.41920.713.553SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-121.07736.48922.4612.733SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-121.14936.55623.4462.106SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-121.22336.62311.0061.55SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-121.30136.6897.1943.438SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-121.38436.74815.4791.59SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-121.47136.80210.2861.826SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-121.55736.8624.5432.084SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-121.64236.9192.1920.524SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-121.72436.9810.3431.174SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-121.89137.098-1.911.456SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-121.97537.16-4.6932.182SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.20637.357-2.6323.124SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.34237.5-3.6715.213SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.65137.8773.7933.884SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.71537.951-1.1832.809SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.84638.0989.0425.003SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.04138.3190.7512.882SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.2538.5321.2162.051SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.32238.603-4.391.316SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.39238.673-8.2933.702SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.46238.743-8.1312.212SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.5338.8170.2421.453SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.59638.892-1.142.282SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.66138.965-3.3853.239SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.6905938.99986Alder Creek0.40.0529.6McFarland and others (2011)-121.5861136.88261Cannon Road0.10.118.2McFarland and others (2011)-122.4656437.64419Duhallow Way-0.30.0229.9McFarland and others (2011)-121.5217136.83502Mission Vineyard Rd11.70.1220.1McFarland and others (2011)-122.2615437.417Roberta Drive0.60.0420.5McFarland and others (2011)-121.572836.87453Searle Rd1.30.267.9McFarland and others (2011)-121.18536.595Willow Creek20.2AA1967200437Titus and others (2006)-120.969336.3833Smith Ranch26.2AA1970200333Titus and others (2006)-120.901736.3167DeAlvarez Ranch24AA1970200434Titus and others (2006)-120.798336.2133Monarch Peak17.4AA1968200436Titus and others (2006)-120.756736.18Mee Ranch23.7AA1970200333Titus and others (2006)-120.756736.18Mee Ranch23AA1970200434Titus and others (2006)-120.628336.065Slack Canyon21.2AA1968200335Titus and others (2006)-120.628336.065Slack Canyon23AA1968200436Titus and others (2006)-120.421735.885Durham Ranch8.7AA1968200436Titus and others (2006)-120.421735.885Durham Ranch13.3AA1968200436Titus and others (2006)-121.236.6Melendy Ranch17.6CM1969200435Titus and others (2006)40 km along fault from creepmeter XSJ2 in San Juan Bautista-120.628336.065Slack Canyon20.8CM1969200435Titus and others (2006)117 km along fault from creepmeter XSJ2 in San Juan Bautista-120.435.8Taylor Ranch9.3CM1985200419Titus and others (2006)144 km along fault from creepmeter XSJ2 in San Juan BautistaSan Gregorio-122.495637.5038Seal Cove-0.20.04IntAA1979200930McFarland and others (2011)Pre-Loma Prieta rate-122.371937.2546Pescadero10.07IntAA1982200927McFarland and others (2011)Pre-Loma Prieta rateSan Jacinto-117.26434.0442Claremont (Colton)01IntAA19731983Louie and others (1985)-116.66933.5861Clark (Anza)02IntAA19771984Louie and others (1985)-116.0533.09Coyote Creek (BW)5.23Int+AftAA19711984Louie and others (1985)accelerated by 1968 EQ-116.00433.033-1.6291.614SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.05633.0998.5790.896SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.14333.1642.2121.18SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.21733.2220.1860.398SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.29633.282-2.1180.745SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.37133.346-0.1840.806SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.45333.407-0.6590.26SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.51633.473-1.1150.675SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.58833.5380.7090.569SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.67933.5940.3171.258SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.76333.6471.1891.053SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.85533.6980.8061.565SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.95233.7532.231.063SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-116.96633.815-12.9482.936SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.05533.8770.3623.404SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.13533.938-5.6531.462SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.21534.0011.4420.678SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.28734.0670.610.69SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.35834.1356.5052.733SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.42434.198-0.3162.192SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.51834.253-0.8752.281SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-117.60234.311-0.3081.204SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)Bartlett Springs-122.952639.4539Bartlett Spgs8.22IntModel199119954Freymueller and others (1999)unconfirmed-122.53239.038Bartlett Spgs0.5170.962SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.62339.107Bartlett Spgs1.7761.369SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.69239.17Bartlett Spgs-4.982.055SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.76839.234Bartlett Spgs0.2680.93SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.83339.304Bartlett Spgs-0.4281.171SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.89939.378Bartlett Spgs-2.3811.95SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.95939.454Bartlett Spgs-0.1232.04SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.0239.533Bartlett Spgs6.9464.026SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-123.2476439.75873Fairbanks Rd0.9Unknown1McFarland and others (2011)-122.9572639.4456Lake Pillsbury3.10.324.8McFarland and others (2011)-122.7143639.1938Newman Spgs01.12McFarland and others (2011)-123.2275539.74003Round Valley-0.20.62McFarland and others (2011)Green Valley-122.149538.1986GV4.40.1IntAA1984200117Galehouse and Lienkaemper (2003)-122.11738.119Green Valley2.50512.888SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.15138.207Green Valley8.2449.109SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.17938.294Green Valley18.71218.421SAR200620104Tong and others (2013)-122.2480638.47626Crystal Lake3.13.83.3McFarland and others (2011)-122.155638.21861Dynasty Court3.2Unknown0.9McFarland and others (2011)-122.1618638.23603Mason Rd0.40.535.8McFarland and others (2011)-122.1131638.11413Parish Rd3.30.63.4McFarland and others (2011)-122.1505438.19848Red Top Rd3.70.0825.9McFarland and others (2011)-122.136838.16584S Ridgefield Way8.8Unknown0.9McFarland and others (2011)LongitudeLatitudeLocationCreep rate(mm/yr)sig(mm/yr)TypeInstStartEndYearsSourceCommentsSuperstition Hills-115.663332.9045Superstition Hills0.5UndefinedIntCM19681979Louie and others (1985)-115.69232.923Superstition1.0662.93SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)-115.76932.984Superstition2.7860.4SAR20062010Tong and others (2013)Greenville-121.6981737.7206Altamont Pass Rd2.1Unknown1.2McFarland and others (2011)Main1.060.21West0.550.11Hunting Creek-122.3887338.81388Hunting Creek1.80.83.1McFarland and others (2011)Saltillo and Cerro Prieto32.426389-115.128Saltillo5.3-7.3Glowacka and others (2009)32.420556115.1281Saltillo2Glowacka and others (2010)Instrument rotated; actual horizontal creep may be lower.32.354444-115.231Cerro Prieto1.3Glowacka and others (2001)Table D3. Creep Rates from Repeating Earthquakes.[Data from Templeton and others, 2008; creep rate (last column) calculated here is average slip per event/average time between slip events. Burst events and events outside area of interest are not included]Sequence label no.Lat (avg)Long (avg)Sequence depth (avg)Median sequence magnitudeTotal slip (mm)Creep rate (mm/yr)3336.8242-121.54836.302.6942320.03236.8238-121.54625.882.0937217.63136.8248-121.54374.301.9126812.73436.8194-121.53625.232.6541419.53536.8192-121.53384.481.5827613.013036.8036-121.53118.301.49522.43636.8119-121.53116.591.5927713.13836.8112-121.52865.572.3926612.63736.8125-121.52855.152.141537.24036.8102-121.52655.311.5126512.54136.8041-121.52647.352.1237917.94336.7990-121.52407.342.491888.93936.8117-121.52294.932.55984.64436.7985-121.52047.052.2332315.34236.8074-121.51993.891.621135.313136.7896-121.51458.721.75612.84536.7983-121.50946.671.2527312.913236.7911-121.50346.921.47522.413336.7912-121.50106.051.33482.213436.7867-121.50006.511.88663.013536.7883-121.49836.341.441527.013636.7832-121.49756.691.77622.84636.7822-121.48094.381.7424211.513736.7683-121.48057.651.48522.413836.7658-121.47838.311.701788.14836.7738-121.47446.461.58552.65136.7711-121.47427.221.631708.15036.7702-121.47416.892.021436.84936.7689-121.47406.492.19793.74736.7748-121.47194.732.8546522.013936.7613-121.47148.341.461547.15236.7731-121.46997.061.221798.414036.7620-121.46978.941.56552.65336.7680-121.46667.041.651728.15436.7627-121.46426.942.981265.914436.7391-121.464115.171.60562.65836.7487-121.46029.442.581999.15536.7662-121.45784.922.2724811.714136.7606-121.45706.532.08743.55636.7609-121.45676.502.201597.35736.7498-121.45378.821.6528713.26136.7488-121.44698.032.481878.65936.7533-121.44446.102.0929813.614236.7488-121.44177.581.92673.26036.7538-121.43946.711.871969.014336.7487-121.43636.451.87653.16236.7449-121.43176.342.2131914.61436.9054-121.42263.881.601125.31936.8580-121.41684.291.51532.56336.7400-121.41666.851.5822110.11536.8848-121.41567.361.821276.01636.8837-121.41447.712.07743.51736.8777-121.41427.901.421004.71836.8768-121.41377.111.881326.26436.7401-121.41066.771.791255.72036.8372-121.40938.442.09743.52136.8301-121.40828.231.34482.32236.8305-121.40788.511.551085.12536.7858-121.40768.671.46512.46536.7360-121.40516.951.962079.56736.7356-121.40306.891.7831014.26636.7350-121.40266.332.3826512.12336.8042-121.39006.141.291406.62436.8010-121.38826.762.14773.66836.7329-121.38672.911.851948.96936.7234-121.36802.802.0837016.97036.7226-121.36742.981.8451423.67136.7207-121.36382.972.1430714.07336.7139-121.35772.671.9146921.514536.7195-121.35715.921.39492.37236.7145-121.35602.962.2147921.97436.7142-121.35583.081.9039918.37636.7120-121.34771.332.11753.4136.8822-121.34626.211.39492.37736.7082-121.34582.951.7342219.37536.7127-121.34571.512.2741418.97836.7031-121.33834.732.1739017.914636.6994-121.33684.611.72602.77936.7045-121.33542.962.35874.08136.6992-121.33264.072.271657.68036.6994-121.33142.972.0629213.48236.6942-121.32484.782.47934.38336.6930-121.32444.671.9534315.78436.6932-121.32403.851.8445020.68736.6859-121.31725.971.681768.08636.6882-121.31714.401.8558226.78536.6890-121.31714.232.2324211.1236.8508-121.31445.671.96693.38836.6852-121.31435.521.8425711.88936.6857-121.31374.281.8545220.714736.6789-121.30975.811.47522.49036.6837-121.30834.012.051456.79136.6827-121.30753.892.0529113.39236.6802-121.30652.782.041446.614836.6767-121.30525.891.67582.714936.6774-121.30486.402.771115.115036.6766-121.30455.351.69592.79336.6788-121.30395.382.47934.3336.8401-121.30194.292.33864.0536.8375-121.30144.091.711195.6436.8396-121.30144.322.271657.89436.6769-121.29963.002.1923710.89536.6746-121.29673.851.8131614.59636.6745-121.29664.342.34863.9636.8336-121.29634.091.60562.69736.6741-121.29593.932.2833315.2736.8327-121.29493.651.391487.0836.8310-121.29036.032.01713.49836.6687-121.28703.042.692129.710136.6655-121.28695.852.151547.110036.6663-121.28692.922.321707.89936.6683-121.28603.253.0739718.21036.7715-121.28598.051.37984.610336.6594-121.28587.662.791125.1936.7770-121.28559.241.7824811.710236.6616-121.28466.532.961245.72636.6894-121.28284.661.531075.110836.6564-121.28188.362.9124111.02736.6872-121.28144.551.65582.710936.6550-121.28077.522.501898.72836.6863-121.28035.141.53542.511036.6543-121.28017.742.56984.511136.6535-121.27817.532.201597.310436.6604-121.27713.413.1742119.311236.6529-121.27707.472.2724811.42936.6812-121.27645.171.72602.810536.6578-121.27523.342.3826512.110636.6563-121.27495.572.6430814.111336.6527-121.27426.582.4336416.711436.6521-121.27336.802.161557.11136.7598-121.27327.881.6723311.011536.6507-121.27216.612.2332314.810736.6570-121.27163.472.731085.011636.6506-121.27106.732.5539017.911736.6530-121.27003.342.041446.611836.6514-121.26835.132.5539017.912136.6458-121.26777.292.541948.912036.6492-121.26645.502.0629213.411936.6515-121.26493.723.0726512.112236.6431-121.26478.562.49944.33036.6706-121.26334.331.65582.712536.6422-121.26097.122.52964.412436.6440-121.25955.742.012139.812336.6452-121.25854.612.2340418.51236.7552-121.25759.951.5922210.512636.6425-121.25695.692.5729613.612836.6422-121.25544.502.1939518.112736.6432-121.25483.952.481878.612936.6411-121.25425.582.771115.11336.7390-121.20429.571.441024.8 ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- introduction usgs
- vista outdoor
- labor cabinet dept of worker s claims
- references for volume i of tobias and johnston veterinary
- the sharpshooter
- f96 20 ga double the shooters corner lake hopatcong nj
- esmc appendix a curriclulum frameworks instructional
- althauser robert p 1989 internal labor markets
- state of maine
Related searches
- introduction to financial management pdf
- letter of introduction sample
- argumentative essay introduction examples
- how to start an essay introduction examples
- introduction to finance
- introduction to philosophy textbook
- usgs maps arizona
- usgs quad maps
- usgs 7 5 minute quadrangle map free download
- usgs historical maps
- usgs historical aerial maps
- usgs topo maps online