Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Lucile M. Jones

Publications and source records attributed to Lucile M. Jones.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2016

Get your science used—Six guidelines to improve your products

Introduction Natural scientists, like many other experts, face challenges when communicating to people outside their fields of expertise. This is especially true when they try to communicate to those whose background, knowledge, and experience are far distant from that field of expertise. At a recent workshop, experts in risk communication offered insights into the communication challenges of probabilistic hazard products, suggested tips, and shared their strategies for making products that a targeted audience can understand and use. Although the workshop was held to broaden the understanding and use of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM), the workshop outcomes presented in this report can benefit anyone who develops products based on technical information. On the basis of research and practice into how people think, use tools, make decisions, and understand scientific/technical information, the social and behavioral scientists, marketers, and social-impact designers at the NSHM workshop provided remarkably consistent guidelines to develop successful science products, such as text, maps, and other products. In this report the guidelines are numbered for clarity, but they can be applied repeatedly, piecemeal, or out of order to fit each project and your resources.

Circular↗
USGS2015

Resilience by Design: Bringing Science to Policy Makers

No one questions that Los Angeles has an earthquake problem. The “Big Bend” of the San Andreas fault in southern California complicates the plate boundary between the North American and Pacific plates, creating a convergent component to the primarily transform boundary. The Southern California Earthquake Center Community Fault Model has over 150 fault segments, each capable of generating a damaging earthquake, in an area with more than 23 million residents (Fig. 1). A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) analysis of the expected losses from all future earthquakes in the National Seismic Hazard Maps (Petersen et al., 2014) predicts an annual average of more than $3 billion per year in the eight counties of southern California, with half of those losses in Los Angeles County alone (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2008). According to Swiss Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurance companies, Los Angeles faces one of the greatest risks of catastrophic losses from earthquakes of any city in the world, eclipsed only by Tokyo, Jakarta, and Manila (Swiss Re, 2013).

California↗
USGS2014

ShakeAlert—An earthquake early warning system for the United States west coast

Earthquake early warning systems use earthquake science and the technology of monitoring systems to alert devices and people when shaking waves generated by an earthquake are expected to arrive at their location. The seconds to minutes of advance warning can allow people and systems to take actions to protect life and property from destructive shaking. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with several partners, has been working to develop an early warning system for the United States. ShakeAlert, a system currently under development, is designed to cover the West Coast States of California, Oregon, and Washington.

California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2013

Improving tsunami resiliency: California's Tsunami Policy Working Group

California has established a Tsunami Policy Working Group to facilitate development of policy recommendations for tsunami hazard mitigation. The Tsunami Policy Working Group brings together government and industry specialists from diverse fields including tsunami, seismic, and flood hazards, local and regional planning, structural engineering, natural hazard policy, and coastal engineering. The group is acting on findings from two parallel efforts: The USGS SAFRR Tsunami Scenario project, a comprehensive impact analysis of a large credible tsunami originating from an M 9.1 earthquake in the Aleutian Islands Subduction Zone striking California’s coastline, and the State’s Tsunami Preparedness and Hazard Mitigation Program. The unique dual-track approach provides a comprehensive assessment of vulnerability and risk within which the policy group can identify gaps and issues in current tsunami hazard mitigation and risk reduction, make recommendations that will help eliminate these impediments, and provide advice that will assist development and implementation of effective tsunami hazard risk communication products to improve community resiliency.

California↗
USGS2013

The SAFRR Tsunami Scenario

The U.S. Geological Survey and several partners operate a program called Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) that produces (among other things) emergency planning scenarios for natural disasters. The scenarios show how science can be used to enhance community resiliency. The SAFRR Tsunami Scenario describes potential impacts of a hypothetical, but realistic, tsunami affecting California (as well as the west coast of the United States, Alaska, and Hawaii) for the purpose of informing planning and mitigation decisions by a variety of stakeholders. The scenario begins with an Mw 9.1 earthquake off the Alaska Peninsula. With Pacific basin-wide modeling, we estimate up to 5m waves and 10 m/sec currents would strike California 5 hours later. In marinas and harbors, 13,000 small boats are damaged or sunk (1 in 3) at a cost of $350 million, causing navigation and environmental problems. Damage in the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach amount to $110 million, half of it water damage to vehicles and containerized cargo. Flooding of coastal communities affects 1800 city blocks, resulting in $640 million in damage. The tsunami damages 12 bridge abutments and 16 lane-miles of coastal roadway, costing $85 million to repair. Fire and business interruption losses will substantially add to direct losses. Flooding affects 170,000 residents and workers. A wide range of environmental impacts could occur. An extensive public education and outreach program is underway, as well as an evaluation of the overall effort.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey natural hazards science strategy— Promoting the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation

Executive Summary The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in natural hazards is to develop and apply hazard science to help protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The costs and consequences of natural hazards can be enormous, and each year more people and infrastructure are at risk. USGS scientific research—founded on detailed observations and improved understanding of the responsible physical processes—can help to understand and reduce natural hazard risks and to make and effectively communicate reliable statements about hazard characteristics, such as frequency, magnitude, extent, onset, consequences, and where possible, the time of future events. To accomplish its broad hazard mission, the USGS maintains an expert workforce of scientists and technicians in the earth sciences, hydrology, biology, geography, social and behavioral sciences, and other fields, and engages cooperatively with numerous agencies, research institutions, and organizations in the public and private sectors, across the Nation and around the world. The scientific expertise required to accomplish the USGS mission in natural hazards includes a wide range of disciplines that this report refers to, in aggregate, as hazard science. In October 2010, the Natural Hazards Science Strategy Planning Team (H–SSPT) was charged with developing a long-term (10-year) Science Strategy for the USGS mission in natural hazards. This report fulfills that charge, with a document hereinafter referred to as the Strategy, to provide scientific observations, analyses, and research that are critical for the Nation to become more resilient to natural hazards. Science provides the information that decisionmakers need to determine whether risk management activities are worthwhile. Moreover, as the agency with the perspective of geologic time, the USGS is uniquely positioned to extend the collective experience of society to prepare for events outside current memory. The USGS has critical statutory and nonstatutory roles regarding floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, coastal erosion, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and magnetic storms—the hazards considered in this plan. There are numerous other hazards of societal importance that are considered either only peripherally or not at all in this Strategy because they are either in another of the USGS strategic science plans (such as drought) or not in the overall mission of the USGS (such as tornados).

Circular↗
USGS2013

The SAFRR tsunami scenario: Improving resilience for California

On March 11, 2011, the Tohoku earthquake and the resulting tsunami devastated Japan with a disaster of unfathomable proportions. Five thousand miles away, the waves from Tohoku caused $50 to 100 million in damages in California. Although this pales in comparison to the loss of lives and property in Japan, the U.S. Government must ask whether California, and the national economy, will someday face worse consequences from other distant-source tsunamis. Unfortunately, the answer is “yes.”

California↗
USGS2013

Natural Hazards Science at the U.S. Geological Survey

The mission of the USGS in natural hazards is to develop and apply hazard science to help protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The costs and consequences of natural hazards can be enormous, and each year more people and infrastructure are at risk. The USGS conducts hazard research and works closely with stakeholders and cooperators to inform a broad range of planning and response activities at individual, local, State, national, and international levels. It has critical statutory and nonstatutory roles regarding floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, coastal erosion, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and magnetic storms. USGS science can help to understand and reduce risks from natural hazards by providing the information that decisionmakers need to determine which risk management activities are worth­while.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2013

SAFRR (Science Application for Risk Reduction) Tsunami Scenario--Executive Summary and Introduction: Chapter A in The SAFRR (Science Application for Risk Reduction) Tsunami Scenario

The Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) tsunami scenario depicts a hypothetical but plausible tsunami created by an earthquake offshore from the Alaska Peninsula and its impacts on the California coast. The tsunami scenario is a collaboration between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the California Geological Survey, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), other Federal, State, County, and local agencies, private companies, and academic and other institutions. This document presents evidence for past tsunamis, the scientific basis for the source, likely inundation areas, current velocities in key ports and harbors, physical damage and repair costs, economic consequences, environmental and ecological impacts, social vulnerability, emergency management and evacuation challenges, and policy implications for California associated with this hypothetical tsunami. We also discuss ongoing mitigation efforts by the State of California and new communication products. The intended users are those who need to make mitigation decisions before future tsunamis, and those who will need to make rapid decisions during tsunami events. The results of the tsunami scenario will help managers understand the context and consequences of their decisions and how they may improve preparedness and response. An evaluation component will assess the effectiveness of the scenario process for target stakeholders in a separate report to improve similar efforts in the future.

California↗
USGS2012

The 1992 Landers earthquake sequence; seismological observations

The ( M W 6.1, 7.3, 6.2) 1992 Landers earthquakes began on April 23 with the M W 6.1 1992 Joshua Tree preshock and form the most substantial earthquake sequence to occur in California in the last 40 years. This sequence ruptured almost 100 km of both surficial and concealed faults and caused aftershocks over an area 100 km wide by 180 km long. The faulting was predominantly strike slip and three main events in the sequence had unilateral rupture to the north away from the San Andreas fault. The M W 6.1 Joshua Tree preshock at 33°N58′ and 116°W19′ on 0451 UT April 23 was preceded by a tightly clustered foreshock sequence ( M ≤4.6) beginning 2 hours before the mainshock and followed by a large aftershock sequence with more than 6000 aftershocks. The aftershocks extended along a northerly trend from about 10 km north of the San Andreas fault, northwest of Indio, to the east-striking Pinto Mountain fault. The M w 7.3 Landers mainshock occurred at 34°N13′ and 116°W26′ at 1158 UT, June 28, 1992, and was preceded for 12 hours by 25 small M ≤3 earthquakes at the mainshock epicenter. The distribution of more than 20,000 aftershocks, analyzed in this study, and short-period focal mechanisms illuminate a complex sequence of faulting. The aftershocks extend 60 km to the north of the mainshock epicenter along a system of at least five different surficial faults, and 40 km to the south, crossing the Pinto Mountain fault through the Joshua Tree aftershock zone towards the San Andreas fault near Indio. The rupture initiated in the depth range of 3–6 km, similar to previous M ∼5 earthquakes in the region, although the maximum depth of aftershocks is about 15 km. The mainshock focal mechanism showed right-lateral strike-slip faulting with a strike of N10°W on an almost vertical fault. The rupture formed an arclike zone well defined by both surficial faulting and aftershocks, with more westerly faulting to the north. This change in strike is accomplished by jumping across dilational jogs connecting surficial faults with strikes rotated progressively to the west. A 20-km-long linear cluster of aftershocks occurred 10–20 km north of Barstow, or 30–40 km north of the end of the mainshock rupture. The most prominent off-fault aftershock cluster occurred 30 km to the west of the Landers mainshock. The largest aftershock was within this cluster, the M w 6.2 Big Bear aftershock occurring at 34°N10′ and 116°W49′ at 1505 UT June 28. It exhibited left-lateral strike-slip faulting on a northeast striking and steeply dipping plane. The Big Bear aftershocks form a linear trend extending 20 km to the northeast with a scattered distribution to the north. The Landers mainshock occurred near the southernmost extent of the Eastern California Shear Zone, an 80-km-wide, more than 400-km-long zone of deformation. This zone extends into the Death Valley region and accommodates about 10 to 20% of the plate motion between the Pacific and North American plates. The Joshua Tree preshock, its aftershocks, and Landers aftershocks form a previously missing link that connects the Eastern California Shear Zone to the southern San Andreas fault.

Journal of Geophysical Research B: Solid Earth↗
USGS2012

Natural hazards science strategy

The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in natural hazards is to develop and apply hazard science to help protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The costs and consequences of natural hazards can be enormous, and each year more people and infrastructure are at risk. USGS scientific research—founded on detailed observations and improved understanding of the responsible physical processes—can help to understand and reduce natural hazard risks and to make and effectively communicate reliable statements about hazard characteristics, such as frequency, magnitude, extent, onset, consequences, and where possible, the time of future events. To accomplish its broad hazard mission, the USGS maintains an expert workforce of scientists and technicians in the earth sciences, hydrology, biology, geography, social and behavioral sciences, and other fields, and engages cooperatively with numerous agencies, research institutions, and organizations in the public and private sectors, across the Nation and around the world. The scientific expertise required to accomplish the USGS mission in natural hazards includes a wide range of disciplines that this report refers to, in aggregate, as hazard science. In October 2010, the Natural Hazards Science Strategy Planning Team (H–SSPT) was charged with developing a long-term (10-year) Science Strategy for the USGS mission in natural hazards. This report fulfills that charge, with a document hereinafter referred to as the Strategy, to provide scientific observations, analyses, and research that are critical for the Nation to become more resilient to natural hazards. Science provides the information that decisionmakers need to determine whether risk management activities are worthwhile. Moreover, as the agency with the perspective of geologic time, the USGS is uniquely positioned to extend the collective experience of society to prepare for events outside current memory. The USGS has critical statutory and nonstatutory roles regarding floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, coastal erosion, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and magnetic storms—the hazards considered in this plan. There are numerous other hazards of societal importance that are considered either only peripherally or not at all in this Strategy because they are either in another of the USGS strategic science plans (such as drought) or not in the overall mission of the USGS (such as tornados).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Preparing for a "Big One": The great southern California shakeout

The Great Southern California ShakeOut was a week of special events featuring the largest earthquake drill in United States history. On November 13, 2008, over 5 million Southern Californians pretended that the magnitude-7.8 ShakeOut scenario earthquake was occurring and practiced actions derived from results of the ShakeOut Scenario, to reduce the impact of a real, San Andreas Fault event. The communications campaign was based on four principles: 1) consistent messaging from multiple sources; 2) visual reinforcement: 3) encouragement of “milling”; and 4) focus on concrete actions. The goals of the ShakeOut established in Spring 2008 were: 1) to register 5 million people to participate in the drill; 2) to change the culture of earthquake preparedness in Southern California; and 3) to reduce earthquake losses in Southern California. Over 90% of the registrants surveyed the next year reported improvement in earthquake preparedness at their organization as a result of the ShakeOut.

California↗
USGS2008

The ShakeOut Scenario

This is the initial publication of the results of a cooperative project to examine the implications of a major earthquake in southern California. The study comprised eight counties: Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. Its results will be used as the basis of an emergency response and preparedness exercise, the Great Southern California ShakeOut, and for this purpose we defined our earthquake as occurring at 10:00 a.m. on November 13, 2008. As members of the southern California community use the ShakeOut Scenario to plan and execute the exercise, we anticipate discussion and feedback. This community input will be used to refine our assessment and will lead to a formal publication in early 2009. Our goal in the ShakeOut Scenario is to identify the physical, social and economic consequences of a major earthquake in southern California and in so doing, enable the users of our results to identify what they can change now?before the earthquake?to avoid catastrophic impact after the inevitable earthquake occurs. To do so, we had to determine the physical damages (casualties and losses) caused by the earthquake and the impact of those damages on the region?s social and economic systems. To do this, we needed to know about the earthquake ground shaking and fault rupture. So we first constructed an earthquake, taking all available earthquake research information, from trenching and exposed evidence of prehistoric earthquakes, to analysis of instrumental recordings of large earthquakes and the latest theory in earthquake source physics. We modeled a magnitude (M) 7.8 earthquake on the southern San Andreas Fault, a plausible event on the fault most likely to produce a major earthquake. This information was then fed forward into the rest of the ShakeOut Scenario. The damage impacts of the scenario earthquake were estimated using both HAZUS-MH and expert opinion through 13 special studies and 6 expert panels, and fall into four categories: building damages, non-structural damages, damage to lifelines and infrastructure, and fire losses. The magnitude 7.8 ShakeOut earthquake is modeled to cause about 1800 deaths and $213 billion of economic losses. These numbers are as low as they are because of aggressive retrofitting programs that have increased the seismic resistance of buildings, highways and lifelines, and economic resiliency. These numbers are as large as they are because much more retrofitting could still be done. The earthquake modeled here may never happen. Big earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault are inevitable, and by geologic standards extremely common, but probably will not be exactly like this one. The next very damaging earthquake could easily be on another fault. However, lessons learned from this particular event apply to many other events and could provide benefits in many possible future events.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2004

Preliminary report on the 22 December 2003, M 6.5 San Simeon, California earthquake

The M w 6.5 San Simeon earthquake struck the central California coast on 22 December 2003 at 19:15:56 UTC (11:15:56 am local time.) The epicenter was located 11 km northeast of the town of San Simeon, and 39 km west-northwest of Paso Robles ( Figure 1 ), as reported by the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN, the California region of the Advanced National Seismic System [ANSS]). The mainshock nucleated at 35.702°N, 121.108°W and a depth of 7.1 km, and the rupture propagated unilaterally to the southeast. The strong directivity of the rupture resulted in a concentration of damage and aftershock activity to the southeast of the hypocenter. The worst earthquake damage occurred in Paso Robles, where two people died in the collapse of an unreinforced masonry building. The accurate and rapid earthquake information provided in near real-time by CISN/ANSS to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services made it possible to focus emergency response in the source area, although the earthquake was felt from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The San Simeon earthquake occurred on a reverse fault striking northwest and most likely dipping to the northeast. Although motion along the Pacific-North America plate boundary in California is dominantly strike-slip, there is a small compressional component through central California. Repeated thrust earthquakes such as the San Simeon event accommodate this compression and build the Coast Ranges. Other recent thrust earthquakes in central California include the 1983 Coalinga (M 6.4) and the 1985 Kettleman Hills (M 6.0) earthquakes. Prior earthquakes in the vicinity of the San Simeon event include a M 5-6 earthquake in 1853, a M 5.7 earthquake in 1906, and the M L 6.2 Bryson earthquake of 1952 ( Figure 1 ) ( McLaren and Savage, 2001 .) The San Simeon earthquake occurred on a previously unknown blind thrust fault. No surface rupture associated with the earthquake has been identified. A number of roads, including State Highway 46, buckled due to the earthquake, but this deformation appears mainly to be failure of road fill due to ground shaking and not the result of tectonic surface rupture. Extrapolation of the fault plane to the surface would roughly align with the surface trace of the Oceanic Fault, but this is thought to be a vertical strike-slip fault. Two models for the kinematics of the region have previously been proposed. The first is a fault-propagation fold model developed by Namson and Davis ( 1990 ) for the Santa Lucia mountains ∼30 km to the southeast of the San Simeon sequence. The mainshock geometry is similar to, although more steeply dipping than, the main blind thrust of this model, implying that this model may be applicable to the San Simeon region as well. The second is the model of McLaren and Savage ( 2001 ), in which the region is dominated by strike-slip faulting with shortening on high-angle reverse faults. This model also may be applicable, although the dip of the San Simeon mainshock is shallower than predicted. The San Simeon earthquake was followed by a vigorous aftershock sequence, with 165 events above M 3 reported by CISN within the first week of the mainshock. Although the event triggered many aftershocks, it did not significantly impact the seismicity rates of other nearby faults such as the San Andreas Fault and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone. The only triggered seismicity seems to be a few small events within the mainshock coda at the Geysers geothermal area, north of San Francisco. The San Simeon earthquake did, however, trigger shallow creep on the San Andreas Fault at Parkfield and hydrologic changes in hot springs in Paso Robles.

California↗
USGS1994

Foreshocks, aftershocks, and earthquake probabilities: Accounting for the landers earthquake

The equation to determine the probability that an earthquake occurring near a major fault will be a foreshock to a mainshock on that fault is modified to include the case of aftershocks to a previous earthquake occurring near the fault. The addition of aftershocks to the background seismicity makes its less probable that an earthquake will be a foreshock, because nonforeshocks have become more common. As the aftershocks decay with time, the probability that an earthquake will be a foreshock increases. However, fault interactions between the first mainshock and the major fault can increase the long-term probability of a characteristic earthquake on that fault, which will, in turn, increase the probability that an event is a foreshock, compensating for the decrease caused by the aftershocks.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS1989

Map showing late Quaternary faults and 1978-84 seismicity of the Los Angeles region, California

The Los Angeles region of California faces the greatest seismic risk of any part of the United States. The region is inhabited by more than 11 million people and is one of the Nation's key commercial and industrial centers. It lies astride a web of potentially active faults, including those segments of the San Andreas fault with the highest probability for generating a great earthquake during the next 30 years (Lindh, 1983; Sykes and Nishenko, 1984; Wesson and Wallace, 1985; U.S. Geological Survey, 1988). Moreover, many potentially active faults that can generate moderate-size, but damaging earthquakes lie within the metropolitan areas. Earthquakes along some of these faults—for example, a magnitude 6.5 event on the Newport-Inglewood zone—could produce losses exceeding those from a great earthquake on the more distant San Andreas fault (Evernden and Thomson, 1985). This map shows, at 1:250,000 scale, known or suspected late Quaternary faults of the Los Angeles region, the ages of their most recent surface movements, and the associated earthquake activity for a recent 7-year period (1978 through 1984). The geologic and seismologic character of these faults and their potential for generating damaging earthquakes recently were evaluated by Ziony and Yerkes (1985). The map is intended primarily to inform scientists, engineers, and planners of the distribution of those faults that may have a potential for generating damaging earthquakes and (or) displacements of the Earth's surface. The map data also should contribute to further investigations of the seismotectonic setting of the Los Angeles region. The mapped area extends from lat 33°15' N. to 34°45' N. and from long 116°45' W. to 120°00' W. This region encompasses parts of the Transverse Ranges (including the Santa Ynez, Santa Susana, Santa Monica, San Gabriel, and San Bernardino Mountains), the Los Angeles basin, part of the Mojave Desert, and segments of the Peninsular Ranges (including the Puente Hills, Santa Ana Mountains, and the northern San Jacinto Mountains). Offshore, it includes the eastern Santa Barbara Channel, several of the Channel Islands, the Santa Monica and San Pedro basins, Santa Catalina Island, and part of the Gulf of Santa Catalina. In addition to the Los Angeles metropolitan area, the cities of Santa Barbara, Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernardino are within the map area.

California↗
USGS1988

The 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, California

The Whittier Narrows earthquake sequence (local magnitude, M L = 5.9), which caused over 358-million dollars damage, indicates that assessments of earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles metropolitan area may be underestimated. The sequence ruptured a previously unidentified thrust fault that may be part of a large system of thrust faults that extends across the entire east-west length of the northern margin of the Los Angeles basin. Peak horizontal accelerations from the main shock, which were measured at ground level and in structures, were as high as 0.6 g (where g is the acceleration of gravity at sea level) within 50 kilometers of the epicenter. The distribution of the modified Mercalli intensity VII reflects a broad north-south elongated zone of damage that is approximately centered on the main shock epicenter.

California↗