Approach to Seismic Hazard Analysis for Dam Safety in the

Sierra Nevada and Modoc Plateau of California

W.U. SAVAGE
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California

W . D . P A G E
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland, California

M.K. MCLAREN, & W.D. EDWARDS

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California

Abstract

In the past decade, techniques to assess seismic hazards have rapidly evolved and improved. Major
advances have been made in understanding the mechanics of faulting, estimating the maximum size
of future earthquakes, recognizing faults having long recurrence intervals, assessing fault
segmentation, understanding the relationship of crustal structure to earthquake potential, and
estimating various ground motion parameters. In light of these advances, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E) is conducting research and site-specific evaluations to improve the basis for
evaluating seismic hazards to its dams, most of which are located in the Sierra Nevada and Modoc
Plateau of central and northern California.

To effectively manage the seismic risks and to meet the needs of state and federal regulatory
agencies, our strategy for understanding seismic hazards in the region includes three components: (
1) Develop a regional tectonic framework so that consistent seismic hazard evaluations can be
performed from site to site; (2) Use state-of-the-art assessments to improve the accuracy of seismic
hazard assessments, thereby avoiding unnecessary conservatism; and (3) Encourage independent peer
review by the professional community and regulatory agencies with the objective of maintaining high
technical standards and improving the state of the art.

Résumé

Au cours de cette dernière décennie, les méthodes d'évaluation de risques sismiques ont rapidement
évolué et se sont ameliorées. De grands pas ont été fait dans la compréhension de la mécanique des
accidents géologiques, l'évaluation des valeurs maximales de tremblements de terre, la connaissance d'
effets à longue périod de récurrence, l'évaluation de la segmentation de failles, la compréhension du
rapport entre la structure de la croute terrestre et le potentiel pour tremblements de terre, et l'
estimation des paramètres de mouvement du sol. En raison de ces avances, la compagnie Pacific
Gas and Electric Company fait des recherches pour améliorer l'évaluation des risques sur ses
barrages, dont la plupart sont situés dans la Sierra Nevada et le Modoc Plateau au centre et nord de
la California.

Pour maitriser les risques sismiques et se soumettre aux besoins des agences régulatoires, notre
stratégie pour comprendre les risques de la région comprend trois parties: (1) Developper un cadre
tectonique régional pour pouvoir effectuer des évaluations des risques sismiques comparables à
chaque site; (2) employer des méthodes à jour pour améliorer la précision des évaluations de risques,

Dam Safety 1991 203

évitant des valeurs trop conservatrices; et 3) encourager une revue independante par des collègues
dans la profession et les agences régulatoires dans le but de maintenir de hauts standards et améliorer
les méthodes.

Introduction

PG&E is a major dam owner and operator in

central and northern California. In its service
territory of 244,000 square kilometers, PG&E
operates 71 hydroelectric powerhouses, for
which water is provided by 103 PG&E dams
and an additional 46 dams that are owned by
water agencies and irrigation districts in
California (Figure 1). In exchange for power
rights, PG&E provides maintenance and
regulatory support for the participating owner
dams. These facilities are located within or
adjacent to several tectonic provinces
(Figures 1 and 2). These provinces have
seismic sources that vary in their earthquake
magnitude potential and in their frequency of
occurrence of significant earthquakes. The
dams also encompass diversity in their ages and
types of construction, compounding the
complexity of addressing seismic issues for
these facilities.

In responding to earthquake hazard issues for

dams, PG&E has taken an active approach in
meeting life safety, system reliability, and
investment protection responsibilities to our se
rvice community and investors, and in
meeting the regulatory requirements of state
and federal agencies. In this paper, we
describe the setting, strategic elements, and
technical implementation of our approach to
making seismic hazard assessments. Seismic
hazard studies are being conducted in
northeastern California, where most of PG&E's
facilities are located and where the tectonic
setting is complex (Figure 3). An active approach is also followed in subsequent engineering
analyses of seismic response, stability, and design. PG&E management, engineering, and scientific
personnel all have contributed to the development of this approach to form a balance among the
competing priorities of annual utility operational plans and budgets, engineering developments and
regulatory practices, and the ongoing improvement in the scientific understanding of earthquake
occurrence and earthquake effects.

Tectonic Setting

PG&E's service territory is affected by three major active plate-tectonic processes (Figures 2 and 3):
the northwestward movement of the Pacific plate with respect to the North American
plate, accommodated primarily by slip along the San Andreas fault system; subduction of the Gorda
plate beneath the North American plate, reflected by the volcanism of the Modoc Plateau and
southern Cascade Range of northern California; and crustal extension in the Basin and Range
province. Most

204 Dam Safety 1991

of PG&E's hydroelectric facilities are located within the region of interaction of these three tectonic
regimes, which have produced distinct tectonic provinces characterized by unique geologic and
structural features (Figure 3). These features are described below for each tectonic province.

These tectonic provinces are also characterized by the distribution of recorded earthquakes (
Figure 4). Since 1855, 29 earthquakes ranging in size from 5.0 to 6.4 occurred in the area shown in
Figure 4 [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Recent instrumental microseismicity recorded since 1970 [7] defines a
general pattern that is consistent with the locations of the larger historical events. A broad
northwest-trending swath of dominantly shallow (depths less than 15 kilometers) seismicity is located
along the boundary between the Basin and Range and the Sierran block, but extends well away from
the boundary to both the northeast and the southwest. Seismicity below a depth of about 15
kilometers forms a north-south trend in the western part of the region south of Lake Shasta, and is
scattered in the northern Sierran Block. The deeper seismicity appears to be associated with the
lower crust [8] and with the subducted Gorda plate beneath the Klamath block [9]. The seismicity
is summarized in the tectonic provinces discussion below.

Sierran Block - The Sierran block is a north-south trending elongate province that extends from the
Sierra Nevada frontal fault system on the east to the Coast Range-Sierran block boundary zone on
the west [ 10] and from the Klamath block, southern Cascades, and Modoc Plateau on the north to
the Garlock fault on the south. The northeastern part of the Sierran block contains a melange of low-
to medium-grade metamorphic rocks that formed during Jurassic subduction, approximately 155
million years ago. The subduction zone was more than 550 kilometers long and 20 to 60 kilometers

Dam Safety 1991 205

Dam Safety 1991 207
the western margin and southern part. A dense northeast-trending concentration of microearthquakes
occurs north of Lake Tahoe. This sequence is related to the magnitude 6.0, Truckee earthquake that
occurred in 1966 on the Dog Valley fault.

Basin and Range - The Basin and Range is a large province that extends east from the Sierra
Nevada and Modoc Plateau across Nevada and Utah to the Wasatch Mountains on the east and from
southern Oregon and Idaho on the north to Arizona and Mexico on the south. The western
boundary is the Sierra Nevada frontal fault system. The northern Basin and Range is typified
by north-striking normal faults that bound prominent north to northeast trending mountain ran
ges and basins. The basins are filled with Cenozoic sediments. Displacement on most range-
front faults occurred throughout the Quaternary, but some faults have not moved in the late
Pleistocene or Holocene. Recent analyses indicates that displacements on some of these faults have
clustered in time (a few thousand years between each event) separated by long periods (tens of
thousands of years) of quiescence (termed temporal clustering), and many faults apparently exhibit
repeated large magnitude earthquakes on defined fault segments [15, 16].

In the Sierra Nevada/Modoc Plateau region most of the seismicity in the western part of the Basin
and Range is concentrated along the north-trending Carson Valley fault zone. Several historical
earthquakes occurred in and near this zone including the largest event in the data set, a magnitude
6.4 event that occurred in 1914, northeast of Reno [5, 6].

Modoc Plateau - The Modoc Plateau tectonic province extends north of Lake Almanor and Honey
Lake into southern Oregon. The eastern margin is defined by a series of normal faults that extend
northward from east of Honey Lake into Oregon. The western boundary is the volcanic rocks of the
southern Cascades. Northwest of Mount Lassen to southeast of Mount Shasta, the boundary is
defined by the Hat Creek graben.

The Modoc Plateau is typified by extensive deposits of Pliocene and Quaternary basaltic lava flows
that blanket the region. Locally, small craters and cinder cones are present. Northwesterly and
northerly trending Quaternary faults are scattered throughout the plateau; they commonly have total
displacements of a few tens to a few hundred meters. Investigations by PG&E indicate that the fault
displacements in this province may be exaggerated by volcanic subsidence [ 17]. A few of the faults
in the Modoc Plateau have had late Pleistocene and possibly Holocene displacements [17, 18]. Late
Quaternary right-slip faulting has also been documented on northwest-trending faults in the Eagle
Lake area [191.

Reported historical and recently recorded seismic activity in this province is low, due in part to the
sparse seismic station distribution in the plateau. Historical earthquakes occurred in the vicinity of
Eagle Lake, and to the north near Goose Lake at the Oregon border.

Southern Cascades - The southern Cascades is a long, northwest-trending narrow province whose
southern part borders the Sierran block, Modoc Plateau, and Klamath block. It is characterized by
large andesitic stratovolcanos that are related to the subduction of the Gorda plate beneath the North
American plate. In northern California, prominent volcanos include Mount Shasta, Mount Lassen,
and Medicine Lake Highlands. The extensive Quaternary volcanic deposits from these volcanoes
define the province. Quaternary tectonic deformation associated with these volcanoes consists of
warping near the volcanoes and short faults some of which have had late Quaternary displacements.

Seismicity in the southern Cascades province is concentrated in the southern half near Lake Almanor,
where the western branch of the Sierra Nevada frontal fault system and the Foothills fault system
converge. There are also clusters of activity east of Mt. Shasta in the Medicine Lake Highlands.
The largest reported earthquake in this province is a magnitude 4.6 event that occurred in 1950 near
Mt. Lassen [1].

Dam Safety 1991 209

Strategy

Earthquake hazard information in the Sierra Nevada and Modoc Plateau is based primarily on
compilations of site-specific studies supplemented by regional reconnaissance. Most neotectonie
investigations were conducted in the late 1970s in response to the 1975 Oroville earthquake. This
earthquake stimulated extensive study of the Foothills faults system for many projects: The more
important of these were for Oroville Dam [20, 21, 221, the proposed Auburn Dam [ 14, 23, 24, 251,
Parks Bar Afterbay Dam [26, 271, and PG&E's proposed Stanislaus Nuclear Project 112, 281.
PG&E commissioned the first integration of seismic hazard information from these studies for the
Sierra Nevada and Modoc Plateau region in 1977 [291.

Although the earthquake hazard data base is extensive at a number of localities, it k not complete
throughout the region. A few detailed investigations have been carried out within the region since
the late 1970s, which are not incorporated into the earlier regional syntheses. In addition, using data
from other geographic regions, new concepts of earthquake hazard analysis have been developed that
permit refined maximum magnitude assessments, earthquake recurrence interpretations, and ground
motion evaluations. In consideration of these factors, PG&E is developing an updated data base for
the region and is applying recent concepts in making seismic hazard evaluations for their facilities.
The strategy that PG&E uses to address earthquake hazards for dams consists of three components:

1. Develop regional framework: Assessing seismic hazards from a regional standpoint is important
because of the wide distribution of PG&E's dams that are located in several tectonic provinces.
Through using a regional framework, consistent seismic hazard evaluations can be performed
from site to site. In addition, knowledge of the tectonic setting enables information from a
specific area where the local characteristics of geologically recent faulting and historical
seismicity are relatively well known to be used in characterization of fault activity in other
localities of comparable tectonic setting.

2. Use state-of-the-art seismic hazard assessments: Scientific developments in geology and

seismology provide an evolving framework within which to quantify earthquake hazard applying
recent methodology in such assessments permits a more accurate specification of earthquake
source characteristics, such as maximum magnitude, recurrence, and style of faulting. These
values can then be applied to the analysis of a facility with a minimum of conservative
assumptions.

3. Encourage independent peer review: Independent review by the scientific and engineering
professional community, including regulatory and academic organizations, leads to the
development and continuity of high-quality project work and to overall professional concurrence
with the technical basis for seismic criteria used for analysis. Independent review is effected by
inviting members of the profession to observe and critically review the results of field
explorations as well as by presenting papers at conferences and publishing results in the
peer-reviewed scientific and engineering literature.

Regional Framework For Fault Evaluations

Application of the regional approach to seismic hazard assessments for an area within the northem
part of the Sierran block is discussed below. This area is not only complex geologically, hut has a
low level of seismicity and a low rate of fault activity (generally faults have long-term average
vertical displacement rates of about 0.01 mm/year). These conditions make the identification of
active faults and the assessment of potential earthquake hazards difficult. Our approach is to perform
increasingly sophisticated and detailed studies from a regional evaluation of geology and tectonics,
to air photo interpretation of possible fault-related features, to quantitative geomorphic analysis, to
detailed site-specific paleoseismic trench investigations.

210 Dam Safety 1901

Dam Safety 1991 211
 Geology of part of the northern Foothills fault system for a 75 kilometers square area is shown in
Figure 6. Bedrock lithologies are broadly grouped by age and origin. These include granitic
intrusives, metamorphic rocks, and serpentine. Tertiary deposits that are significant in the evaluation
of faults include three deposits: 1) Eocene "auriferous" gravel that occur as scattered remnants along
an ancient river course from near Honey Lake across the area that is now the Sierra Nevada in the
vicinity of the Yuba River and into the Central Valley [11, 30]; 2) Miocene Lovejoy basalt; and 3)
Miocene Mehrten Formation (volcanic agglomerate), that occurs extensively in the northern Sierra
Nevada as a cap on many of the major ridges. Undifferentiated Quaternary alluvial deposits
are shown on the regional map to help illustrate areas of local downwarping and/or faulting.

Geologic and geomorphic profiles are powerful tools in the evaluation of low slip rate faults in the
Sierra Nevada. The geologic profile on the Lovejoy basalt (Figure 5) is an excellent example that
illustrates small cumulative displacements over a long time period. Faults with small displacements
are clearly evident on the profile, even though they are not readily observed in the field. Similarly,
geomorphic profiles on the surface of the volcanic deposits of the Mehrten Formation and the surface
of the auriferous gravel also provide information on the location and amounts of displacement on
late-Cenozoic faults of the Foothills fault system. For example, the profile on auriferous
gravel (Figure 7) documents about 35 meters of vertical displacement across the Marys Ravine
fault since the Eocene.

Where Tertiary rocks do not overlie faults, recognition of late Cenozoic faulting on the Foothills fault
system is extremely difficult because erosion in the Foothills during the Quaternary has muted the
geomorphic evidence of faulting and destroyed stratigraphic relationships. Nonetheless, late Cenozoic
faults that have had repeated displacements in the past 6 million years in this geomorphic
environment generally show moderate to strong geomorphic expression on the upland surfaces where
erosion rates have been low. Geomorphic features include linear valleys containing mappable alluvial
deposits, low intervalley saddles, vegetation lineations, spring and seep lines, and aligned side-hill
saddles. Based on the distribution of faults that displace Eocene auriferous gravel, Miocene Lovejoy
basalt and Mehrten Formation, geomorphic expression along the faults, and presence or lack
of geologic evidence of displacements in late Quaternary deposits and soils, we have defined
specific fault segments characterized by late Cenozoic activity. These analyses, as well as previous
estimates

212 Dam Safety 1991

[12, 14] limited the late Cenozoic fault segments to between 5 to 25 kilometers. Typical late
Cenozoic segments of the Foothills fault system in the northern Sierra Nevada are illustrated on
Figure 6. Late Cenozoic activity clearly did not occur along the whole or even substantial lengths
of the much longer Mesozoic faults.

Late Cenozoic faults have distinctive characteristics in bedrock, but these are best observed in trench
exposures where the full width of the fault is exposed. Late Cenozoic faults generally cut across
regional foliation and are characterized by fault gouge, slickensides, fault breccia, and colluvium-
filled fractures [23].

To conclusively evaluate late Pleistocene and Holocene activity, the presence or absence of fault
features in Quaternary deposits that overlie the faults is needed. Such features are best exposed in
trenches and include displaced bedrock-soil contacts, thickened or missing stratigraphic beds and
soils, and slickensided planes that extend into overlying late Quaternary deposits [12, 26, 31]. For
example, the late-Cenozoic Marys Ravine fault was trenched at the Sweetland trench locality (
Figure 8), which is a few hundred meters from the faulted auriferous gravel shown in Figure 7.
The fault in the trench consists of a gouge that cross-cuts regional foliation, showing that it is a late
Cenozoic fault. It is overlain by a sequence of four colluvial units, a buried soil (paleo B), and an
ancient channel. The colluvial units are younger than 100,000 years based on degree of soil
development and correlation to other deposits in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada and Central Valley
[28, 32, 33]. Paleomagnetic measurements on these deposits from the trench indicate that the paleo
B and channel deposits are paleomagnetically reversed and, hence, are older than 730,000 years [34].
Therefore, this fault, although late Cenozoic, has not moved since the early Pleistocene. Other late
Cenozoic fault segments in the Foothill fault system have had more recent displacements; for example
the Spenceville fault has evidence of displacement within the past 30,000 years [23].

The above discussion illustrates the application of a regional approach followed by site specific
investigation in the northern Sierra Nevada. The data developed by these studies provide the input
needed for the characterization of seismic sources.

Seismic Source Characterization

Evaluation of earthquake hazards proceeds from the development of regional and site-specific
information on the geology and seismology of potential seismic sources to a characterization of such
sources in terms that are of significance in engineering design or safety assessments. For critical

Dam Safety 1991 213

facilities such as dams, whose failure and sudden release of large volumes of water have unacceptable
societal consequences, this process is typically performed with identified conservatism in considering
worst cases. The primary seismic source characteristics for these engineering assessments are
location, recurrence, and style of faulting, and maximum earthquake magnitude. The locations of
active faults and their style of faulting are evaluated from the geologic evidence for faulting,
corroborated by regional tectonics and seismicity information. Estimates of maximum magnitude are
derived from analysis of geologic and seismologic data. These three characteristics are important
in evaluating the attenuation of ground motions from the source to the site.

The assessment of maximum earthquake magnitude for a specific seismic source is observationally
and theoretically related to the dimensions of the fault rupture: the length of the rupture, the area
(length times width) of the rupture, and the amount of fault displacement [35]. There are strong
empirical correlations between each of these parameters and the magnitude of historical earthquakes (
e.g., [36, 37, 38]). Typically, maximum earthquakes are estimated by evaluating the maximum
rupture dimensions for a fault and using empirical correlations to calculate the associated magnitude
values.

Studies in the late 1970's on the Foothills fault system used fault parameters to evaluate maximum
magnitudes. Packer and others [25] used the observed maximum displacement on individual faulting
events of about 24 centimeters in empirical relationships to compute an associated maximum
magnitude value of 6 to 6 1/4. They also used the available data supporting maximum surface
rupture lengths of about 5 to 25 kilometers to compute a maximum magnitude range of 6 to 6 3/4,
noting that fault lengths were not well defined at the time of their study. In field studies on the
Cleveland Hill fault which had surface displacement in the 1975 Oroville earthquake,
Woodward-Clyde Consultants [26] found evidence of single-event displacements of 15 centimeters
or less. Using this information along with extensive field studies of faults in the southern Foothills
fault system, Woodward-Clyde Consultants [12] concluded that the maximum potential displacement
of 24 centimeters was conservative for a capable fault within the Foothills fault system. They used
this displacement value to compute a range of maximum magnitude values of 6 to 6 1/2. In a
subsequent study, Woodward-Clyde Consultants [29] conducted a régional review of active faulting
and earthquake potential within the Modoc Plateau, southern Cascades, Plumas block, and Sierran
block. For the Foothills fault system they concluded that the discontinuous faulting, small
Quaternary fault displacements, and historic seismicity indicate a maximum earthquake magnitude
of 6 1/2 for the most significant faults. Smaller faults would have relatively smaller maximum
earthquakes, and maximum magnitude values could be slightly higher for the part of the Foothills
fault system that approached the Sierra Nevada frontal fault system.

In the past decade, research on fault behavior has led to several refinements in the analysis and
interpretation of the extent and timing of past fault ruptures as applied to estimating future ruptures.
These refinements include the characteristic earthquake model [39] and fault segmentation [ 15, 40].
The application of these interpretive concepts to geologic data on faults in the Foothills fault system
provides greater confidence in, and more accurate estimates of, maximum earthquake magnitudes
than were possible in studies completed in the 1970s.

Characteristic Earthquake - Geologic studies of the amount of displacement associated with surface
fault displacement events along the Wasatch and south-central San Andreas fault zones led Schwartz
and Coppersmith [39] to the conclusion that many individual faults and fault segments generate the
same size (or "characteristic") large earthquakes. Characteristic earthquakes have a relatively narrow r
ange of magnitudes near the maximum magnitude that can be produced by the fault.

The concept of characteristic earthquakes appears to apply to the Foothills fault system. The 1975,
magnitude 5.7 Oroville earthquake and associated rupture on the Cleveland Hill fault appear to
represent a characteristic event for several reasons. The 17-kilometer subsurface rupture length
defined by the extended aftershock zone of the earthquake is essentially the entire 12- to 18-kilometer
length of the Cleveland Hill fault lineament at the surface. The 7- to possibly 11-kilometer length
of surface faulting from the earthquake suggests that the earthquake was slightly smaller than the

214 Dam Safety 1991

maximum event, but probably within a half-magnitude unit of it. This earthquake ruptured the upper
seismogenic zone to a depth of 11 kilometers. The vertical surface displacement of about
5 centimeters that occurred during and shortly after the earthquake is smaller than the typical 8 to
15 centimeters of displacement per event estimated from the cumulative displacement of
45 centimeters in the past 100,000 years on the Cleveland Hill fault [26]. However, the displacement
of 5 centimeters observed at the surface is less than the average seismic displacement occurring at
depth, which is in closer agreement with the typical 8- to 15-centimeter displacement. If the Oroville
earthquake had been slightly larger, fault rupture would likely have been more fully expressed at the
surface. The estimated typical maximum displacement of 8 to 15 centimeters for faults in the
Foothills fault system and the maximum displacement of 24 centimeters for the East Maidu fault at
the proposed Auburn dam site [23] are very similar to the late-Quaternary displacements per event
observed on the Cleveland Hill fault. This provides an upper bound for magnitudes of earthquakes
and indicates that a characteristic earthquake of magnitude about 6 is typical for most faults in the
Foothills fault system.

Segmentation - Studies of earthquakes and associated fault ruptures worldwide indicate that faults
typically do not rupture their entire length during individual earthquakes. Rather, they repeatedly
rupture individual segments through successive seismic cycles. The barriers to rupture propagation
from one segment to the next are persistent through time. The locations of fault rupture segments
and the boundaries between segments appear to be physically controlled [15, 41, 42]. The repeated
occurrence of large earthquakes on individual segments is fully consistent with the evidence noted
above for characteristic earthquake occurrence. Some of the more stable and well-defined features
of segmentation boundaries along a fault zone discussed by [43] appear to be:

• Changes in the recency of fault slip

• Changes in the sense of slip
• Major bends or discontinuities
• Large stepovers
• Cross faults
• Changes in cumulative slip

Studies of fault segmentation indicate that the presence of multiple features at segmentation
boundaries are a good indicator of the termination point for future ruptures [35].

Lengths of late-Cenozoic faults that appear to behave as individual rupture segments within the
Foothills fault system can be evaluated using geomorphic, stratigraphic, and structural evidence.
Evidence that is useful for assessing fault rupture segments include:

1. Geomorphic evidence: Lengths of late-Cenozoic fault segments are constrained, in part, by their
geomorphic expression. Repeated late-Cenozoic surface displacements produce geomorphic
features indicative of faulting. These are preserved in areas of low erosion, particularly on
upland surfaces that are present on many of the divides between the major rivers in the Sierra
Nevada. Strong to moderate geomorphic lineaments, particularly where they are more or less
coincident with a mapped bedrock fault or a sheared bedrock contact, are considered to indicate
potential late-Cenozoic faulting. Lineaments that are interpreted to reflect late-Cenozoic
displacements are characterized by various combinations of features: spring and seep lines,
shallow alluvium-filled valleys and basins, long valleys with oversteepened hillside margins, low
drainage-divide saddles, sidehill saddles and benches, vegetation lineations, and nickpoints. Deep
straight canyons reflect erosion along weak bedrock faults and shear zones, but may not in
themselves reflect late-Cenozoic fault segments.

2. Stratigraphie evidence: The lengths of late-Cenozoic fault segments can be constrained by

several stratigraphic relationships. These include: the presence of unfaulted Tertiary deposits
overlying the fault trace, particularly the Miocene Mehrten Formation and the Eocene auriferous
gravel; and the presence of unfaulted Quaternary units, particularly the paleo-B soil hori
zon or the older alluvium or older colluvium, overlying the fault trace.

Dam Safety 1991 215

3. Structural evidence: The lengths of late-Cenozoic fault segments can be constrained by several
structural relationships, including dying out of the bedrock fault and disruption of the continuity
of a bedrock fault where it is cut by intrusive rocks or cross-cutting structures.

Maximum earthquake evaluation - Recent analysis of faults associated with earthquakes using
world-wide case histories has improved the confidence and accuracy of fault rupture lengths and areas
correlated with magnitude [38, 44]. In their analysis, particular emphasis was placed on developing
the data base for the magnitude range between 5.5 and 6.5. Two empirical relationships developed
by Wells and others [38] have been used in recent studies for PG&E:

1. Subsurface rupture length versus moment magnitude. In this relationship for the magnitude range of
5 1/2 to 7 1/2, about 100 cases were used based on the length of the aftershock zone in the
early period following the earthquake. In about half of these cases, particularly for smaller
earthquakes, little or no surface fault rupture was observed. For the larger magnitude values in
the data set, the difference between surface fault rupture length and subsurface rupture length
decreased to a minor level, confirming that the subsurface rupture length measured by early
aftershocks is a physically reliable measure of seismogenic rupture.

2. Rupture area versus moment magnitude. In this relationship, the total rupture surface area for
94 cases in the magnitude range 5 1/2 to 7 1/2 was analyzed. The rupture area was determined
considering both surface fault extent and the aftershocks that occurred during the early period
following the earthquake.

Application of the fault rupture area relationship requires an assessment of the potential down-dip
width of faulting associated with the various segment lengths. For example, the Cleveland Hill fault
is the only fault with a well-documented significant historical earthquake, the 1975 Oroville event.
Early aftershocks associated with this event occurred at depths up to about 11 kilometers [3], and
defined a fault rupture plane for the earthquake that extended up to the ground surface with a dip of
60 degrees [45]. Near the southern end of the Foothills fault system, Wong and Savage [8] noted
the occurrence of deeper crustal seismicity below a depth of 12 kilometers that was unrelated to
upper-crustal or surface geologic faults or other structures. Preliminary analysis of microseismicity
data for the central and northern Sierran block suggests that such separation at a depth of about
12 kilometers occurs generally beneath the northwest part of the Foothills fault system (Bear
Mountains fault zone). Shallower activity is associated with areas of upper crustal faulting, and
deeper activity is associated with structures in the lower crust. In consideration of this evidence, we
have selected the depth of 12 kilometers to represent the maximum depth of faulting associated with
upper crustal fault segments along the Foothills fault system. A fault dip of 60 degrees is assumed
in computing fault area.

In assessing maximum magnitude earthquakes for significant faults, we have concluded that the fault
rupture segments identified using the segmentation analysis described in the previous section are most
appropriately evaluated using the extent of subsurface rupture. For earthquakes in the magnitude r
ange of 5.5 to 6.5, surface fault rupture often underrepresents the extent of seismogenic faulting.
However, repeated characteristic or maximum earthquake activity in this magnitude range, occurring
along the same segment, would create and accumulate the geologic evidence for fault activity along
the length of the segment and establishes the termination of the segment. This geologic information
then provides a good estimate of subsurface rupture length, and thus a good basis to estimate the
maximum earthquake for the segment.

Summary

PG&E's hydroelectric generation system involves about 150 dams located in the Sierra Nevada and
Modoc Plateau region of central and northern California. As a major dam owner, PG&E is
following an active strategy to meet life safety, system reliability, and investment
protection responsibilities to our service community and investors, and to meet regulatory
requirements of state
216 Dam Safety 1991
and federal agencies. Our strategy involves developing a regional framework for earthquake hazard
assessments, using state-of-the-art data and techniques for such assessments, and facilitating
independent peer review. Our approach in implementing this strategy currently is being applied to
the Sierra Nevada and Modoc Plateau region as illustrated in this paper. This approach includes:

1. Integrating regional tectonics, seismic geology, historical seismicity, microseismicity, and crustal
structure to form a comprehensive regional understanding of the neotectonic setting.

2. Performing local studies to acquire data as needed to reduce uncertainties in geologic and seismic
parameters of fault characteristics near specific dam sites.

3. Applying and extending recently developed geologic, seismologic, and earthquake engineering
technologies to the current regional and site-specific information to evaluate fault characteristics,
to estimate maximum earthquakes, and to characterize ground motions.

4. Encouraging multiple independent reviews of earthquake hazard studies by conducting peer

reviews, making field sites available to regulatory agencies and the professional community, and
publishing our results, methods, and data in the open literature.

Acknowledgements

We greatly appreciate the encouragement and support in these studies provided by PG&E's Research
and Development and Hydro Generation Departments. Kevin Coppersmith, Janet Cluff, and Bill
Lettis provided helpful reviews. We thank Laura Velasquez and Wendy Lui for preparing the maps
and drawings, and Heidi Hernandez and Sue Manalang for word processing and page layout.

References

1 Bolt, B. A. and Miller, R. D., 1975, Catalogue of earthquakes in northern California and
adjoining areas, 1 January 1910 - 31 December 1972, Seismographic Stations, University of
California, Berkeley, 567 p.

2 Toppozada, T. R., Parke, D. L., and Higgins, C. T., 1978, Seismicity of California 1900-1931:
California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 135, 39 p.

3 Mantis, C., Lindh, A., Savage, W., and Marks, S., 1979, Catalog of Oroville, California
earthquakes of June 7, 1975 to July 31, 1976: U. S. Geological Survey Open File
Report 79-932, 136 p.

4 Toppozada, T. R., Real, C. R., and Parke, D. L., 1981, Preparation of isoseismal maps and
summaries of reported effects for pre-1900 California earthquakes: California Division of Mines
and Geology, Open File Report 81-11 SAC, 182 p. plus figures.

5 Martinelli, D. M., 1989, Geophysical investigations of the northern Sierra Nevada-Basin and R
ange boundary, west-central Nevada and east-central California: University of Nevada Master's
Thesis, 172 p.

6 Wallace, R. E., (ed), 1990, The San Andreas Fault System, California, U. S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1515, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

7 U. S. Geological Survey, 1990, Formatted earthquake summary data for northern California,
January 1, 1970 through December 31, 1989, 9-track magnetic tape.

Dam Safety 1991 217

 8 Wong, I. G., and Savage, W. U., 1983, Deep intraplate seismicity in the western Sierra Nevada,
central California: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 73, no. 3, pp. 797-812.

9 Walter, S. R., 1986, Intermediate focus earthquakes associated with Gorda Plate subduction in
northern California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 76, no. 2, pp. 583-588.

10 Wong, I.G., Ely, R.W., Killmann, A.C., 1988, Contemporary seismicity and tectonics of the
northern and central Coast Ranges - Sierran block boundary zone, California: Journal of
Geophysical Research, v. 93, no. B-7, pp. 7813-7833.

11 Durrell, C., 1987, Geologic history of the Feather River country, California: Berkeley,
University of California Press, 337 p. plus appendix.

12 Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1978, Foothills fault system study: Appendix C.4 of Volume 6,
Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Site Suitability - Site Safety Report; report for Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, San Francisco, 166 p. plus tables and figures.

13 Huber, N. K., 1981, Amount and timing of Late Cenozoic uplift and tilt of the central Sierra
Nevada, California - evidence from the upper San Joaquin River basin: U. S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1197, 28 p.

14 Alt, J. N., Schwartz, D. P., and McCrumb, D. R., 1977, Regional geology and tectonics,
Volume 3 of the earthquake evaluation studies of the Auburn Dam area: report by
Woodward-Clyde Consultants to the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver; 118 p. plus
appendices.

15 Schwartz, D. P., 1988, Geologic characterization of seismic sources: moving into the 1990s:
in von Thun, J. L., ed., Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II--Recent Advances in
Ground Motion Evaluation, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 1-42.

16 dePolo, C. M., and Clark, D. G., 1988, Historical Basin and Range province surface faulting
and fault segmentation; Proceedings of Workshop XLV: Fault Segmentation and Controls of
Rupture Initiation and Termination: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-315, pp.
131-162.

17 Woodward-Clyde Constultants, 1987, Pit 1 Forebay dam (97-110), Evaluation of seismic

geology, seismicity and earthquake ground motions: report for Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, San Francisco, California, 48 p. plus appendices.

18 Wills, C. J., 1991, Active faults north of Lassen Volcanic National Park, northern California:
California Geology, v. 44, pp. 51-58.

19 Grose, T. L. T., Saucedo, G. J., and Wagner, D. L., 1990, Geologic map of the south half
Eagle Lake Quadrangle, Lassen County, California (draft): Pleasant Hill, California Division
of Mines and Geology Open File Report, scale: 1:100,000.

20 Department of Water Resources, 1977, Performance of the Oroville Dam and related facilities
during the August 1, 1975 Oroville earthquake: California Department of Water Resources
Bulletin 203, 102 p.

21 Department of Water Resources, 1979, The August 1, 1975 Oroville earthquake investigation:
State of California, Department of Water Resources Bulletin 203-78, p. 15-121.

22 Department of Water Resources, 1989, The August 1, 1975 Oroville earthquake

investigation: California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 203-88, 617 p.

218 Dam Safety 1991

23 Schwartz, D. P., Swan F. H., Harpster, R. E., Rogers, T. H., and Hitchcock, D. E., 1977,
Surface faulting potential: Earthquake Evaluation Studies of the Auburn Dam Area, Volume 2:
report by Woodward-Clyde Consultants to the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver; 135 p. plus
appendices.

24 Foxall, B., Turcotte, T., and McNally, K., 1977, Historical seismicity study: in Seismology,
Volume 5 of the earthquake evaluation studies of the Auburn Dam area: report by
Woodward-Clyde Consultants to the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver; 17 p.

25 Packer, D. R., Alt, J. N. and Patwardhan, A., 1977, Maximum credible earthquakes; Volume 7
of the earthquake evaluation studies of the Auburn Dam area: report by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants to the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver; 42 p. plus references.

26 Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1976, Evaluation for potential for earthquakes and surface
faulting, Parks Bar Afterbay Dam, Yuba County, California: report to U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Sacramento, 45 p. plus figures.

27 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977, Fault evaluation study, Marysville Lake project, Parks
Bar alternative, Yuba River, California: report by Sacramento District, 25 p.

28 Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1978, Quaternary studies - Sierran Foothills: Appendix C.5 of

Volume 7, Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Site Suitability - Site Safety Report; report to Pacific Gas an
d Electric Company, San Francisco, 71 p. plus tables and figures.

29 Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1978, Significant faults and seismicity in the northern Sierra
Nevada region of major PG&E dams: report for Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
San Francisco, California, 31 p. plus references, tables, and figures.

30 Lindgren, W., 1911, The Tertiary gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California: U. S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 73.

31 Page, W. D., Swan III, F. H., Biggar, N., Harpster, R., Cluff, L. S., and Blum, R. L., 1978,
Evaluation of Quaternary faulting in colluvium and buried paleosols, western Sierran foothills,
California (abstract): Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 10, no. 3, p.
141.

32 Swan, F. H. and Hanson, K., 1977, Quaternary geology and age dating: Earthquake Evaluation
Studies of the Auburn Dam Area, Volume 4: report by Woodward-Clyde Consultants to the
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver; 83 p. plus appendices.

33 Harden J. W., and Marchand, D. E., 1980, Quaternary stratigraphy and interpretation of soil
data from Auburn, Oroville, and Sonora areas along the Foothills fault system, western Sierra
Nevada, California, U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, p. 80-305.

34 PG&E, 1991, Characterization of potential earthquake sources for Lake Francis Dam: report
to Yuba County Water Agency, Marysville, 36 p. plus figures.

35 Coppersmith, K. J., 1991, Seismic source characterization for engineering seismic hazard
analysis: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Seismic Zonation,
August 26-29, 1991, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 60 p.

36 Bonilla, M. G., Mark, R. K., and Lienkaemper, J. J., 1984, Statistical relations among
earthquake magnitude, surface rupture length, and surface fault displacement: Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, v. 74, pp. 2379-2411.

Dam Safety 1991 219

37 Slemmons, D. B., Bodin, P., and Zhang, X., 1989, Determination of earthquake size from
surface faulting events: Proceedings of the Third Seminar on Seismic Zonation, Guangzhou,
China, pp. 157-169.

38 Wells, D., Coppersmith, K., Zhang, X., and Slemmons, D. B., 1989, New earthquake
magnitude and fault rupture parameters: part I. surface rupture length and rupture area
relationships (abstract): Eastern Section, Seismological Society of America, Seismological
Research Letters, v. 60, no.1, p. 21.

39 Schwartz, D. P., and Coppersmith, K. J., 1984, Fault behavior and characteristic earthquakes:
examples from the Wasatch and San Andreas faults: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 89,
pp. 5681-5698.

40 dePolo, C. M., Clark, D. G., Slemmons, D. B., and Aymard, W. H., 1989, Historical Basin
and Range province surface faulting and fault segmentation: in Schwartz, D. P., and Sibson,
R. H., eds., Conference on Fault Segmentation and Controls of Rupture Initiation and
Termination, U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-315, pp. 131-162.

41 Schwartz, D. P., and Coppersmith, K. J., 1986, Seismic hazards: new trends in analysis using
geologic data: in Wallace, R. E., ed., Active Tectonics, Academic Press, Washington, D. C.,
pp. 215-230.

42 Schwartz, D. P., 1988, Paleoseismicity, persistence of segments, and temporal clustering of

earthquakes -- Examples from the San Andreas, Wasatch, and Lost River fault zones;
Proceedings of Workshop XLV: Fault Segmentation and Controls of Rupture Initiation and
Termination: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-315, pp. 361-375.

43 Knuepfer, P. L. K., 1989, Implications of the characteristics of end-points of historical surface

fault ruptures for the nature of fault segmentation: in Schwartz, D. P., and Sibson, R. H., eds.,
Conference on Fault Segmentation and Controls of Rupture Initiation and Termination, U. S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-315, pp. 193-228.

44 PG&E, 1990, Response to Question SSC 5 on the Final Report of the Diablo Canyon Long Term
Seismic Program: submitted to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 15 p.

45 Savage, W. U., Tocher, D., and Birkhahn, P. C., 1975, Micro-aftershock study of the Oroville,
California, earthquake sequence of August 1975: in Sherburne, R. W., and Hauge, C. J.,
editors, Oroville, California, Earthquake, 1 August 1975, Special Report 124, California Division
of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California, pp. 123-129.

46 Saucedo, G. J., 1989, Geologic map of the Chico quadrangle, California (draft): Pleasant Hill,
California Division of Mines and Geology, scale: 1:250,000.

220 Dam Safety 1991