Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Felt Reports and Intensity Assignments for Aftershocks and Triggered Events of the Great 1906 California Earthquake Aron J. Meltzner1,2 and David J. Wald1 1 U.S. Geological Survey 525 S. Wilson Ave. Pasadena, Calif. 91106 2 Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences California Institute of Technology Pasadena, Calif. 91125 USGS Open-File Report 02-37 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ...................................................... 3 Introduction and Discussion .......................................... 4 References ..................................................... 9 Tables ........................................................ 11 Table 1: Catalog of Aftershock Reports ................................ 11 Table 2: Catalog of Triggered Event Reports (incl. events in So. Cal., AZ, NV, & OR) ..... 135 Table 3: List of Newspapers and Manuscripts Checked ...................... 168 Table 4: Latitude-Longitude Coordinates for Locations in Tables 1-2 and 5-15 ......... 189 Table 5: Primary Reports for the 18 Apr 1906, 14:28 aftershock .................. 198 Table 6: Primary Reports for the 18 Apr 1906 Imperial Valley triggered event ......... 202 Table 7: Primary Reports for the 19 Apr 1906 Santa Monica Bay triggered event ....... 214 Table 8: Primary Reports for the 19 Apr 1906 Western Nevada triggered event ........ 221 Table 9: Primary Reports for the 23 Apr 1906, 01:10 aftershock .................. 224 Table 10: Primary Reports for the 25 Apr 1906, 15:17 aftershock ................. 240 Table 11: Primary Reports for the 17 May 1906, 20:21 aftershock ................. 246 Table 12: Primary Reports for the 6 Jul 1906, 22:55 aftershock .................. 256 Table 13: Primary Reports for the 5 Jun 1907, 00:27 aftershock .................. 260 Table 14: Primary Reports for the 8 Aug 1907, 04:44 and 06:05 aftershocks ........... 268 Table 15: Primary Reports for the 11 Aug 1907, 04:19 aftershock ................. 271 Figure Captions .................................................. 280 Figures ....................................................... 283 Figure 1: Map of the 1906 mainshock rupture ............................ 283 Figure 2: Intensity Map of the 18 Apr 1906, 14:28 aftershock ................... 284 Figure 3: Intensity Map of the 18 Apr 1906 Imperial Valley triggered event .......... 285 Figure 4: Intensity Map of the 19 Apr 1906 Santa Monica Bay triggered event ......... 286 Figure 5: Intensity Map of the 19 Apr 1906 Western Nevada triggered event .......... 287 Figure 6: Intensity Map of the 23 Apr 1906, 01:10 aftershock ................... 288 Figure 7: Intensity Map of the 25 Apr 1906, 15:17 aftershock ................... 289 Figure 8: Intensity Map of the 17 May 1906, 20:21 aftershock ................... 290 Figure 9: Intensity Map of the 6 Jul 1906, 22:55 aftershock .................... 291 Figure 10: Intensity Map of the 5 Jun 1907, 00:27 aftershock ................... 292 Figure 11: Intensity Map of the 8 Aug 1907, 04:44 and 06:05 aftershocks ............. 293 Figure 12: Intensity Map of the 11 Aug 1907, 04:19 aftershock ................... 294 Appendix 1: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale .............................. 295 Appendix 2: 1906-1907 Calendar ....................................... 300 Felt Reports and Intensity Assignments for Aftershocks and Triggered Events of the Great 1906 California Earthquake ABSTRACT The San Andreas fault is the longest fault in California and one of the longest strike-slip faults in the world, yet little is known about the aftershocks following the most recent great event on the San Andreas, the M 7.8 San Francisco earthquake, on 18 April 1906. This open-file report is a compilation of first-hand accounts (felt reports) describing aftershocks and triggered events of the 1906 earthquake, for the first twenty months of the aftershock sequence (through December 1907). The report includes a chronological catalog. For the larger events, Modified Mercalli intensities (MMIs) have been assigned based on the descriptions judged to be the most reliable. INTRODUCTION The 18 Apr 1906 (5:12 a.m. PST) M 7.8 San Francisco earthquake, which broke the northern San Andreas fault from San Juan Bautista to near Shelter Cove (see Figure 1), has been a centerpiece of seismological investigation in California, yet little attention has been paid to its aftershocks and triggered events. Questions as to the size, location, and timing of the largest aftershocks have not heretofore been addressed, even though an earthquake as large as the 1906 mainshock might be expected to have potentially damaging aftershocks. At least one sizable triggered event occurred in the Imperial Valley in southern California (11.3 hours after the mainshock), but the possibility of additional triggered events in other locations has not been explored. This study is an attempt to shed light on some of these unresolved issues, and to improve our understanding of the behavior of aftershocks following large earthquakes on the San Andreas fault. It is also an attempt to expand our knowledge of historical earthquake triggering. Until recently, the seismological community did not generally appreciate the fact that large earthquakes are capable of triggering events at distances far greater than those associated with classic aftershocks; since the 1992 Landers, California, earthquake, however, numerous studies have documented the reality of triggered earthquakes (e.g., Hill et al., 1993; Bodin and Gomberg, 1994; Gomberg and Davis, 1996; Brodsky et al., 2000; Gomberg et al., 2001; Hough, 2001; and Hough and Kanamori, 2002). This report provides additional data for triggering studies. Although several efforts have been made to catalog the aftershocks and triggered events of the 1906 earthquake (e.g., Lawson, 1908, and Townley and Allen, 1939), those efforts were spotty in their completeness and often lacking in enough detail to permit reliable assessments or estimates of magnitude and location. Steeples and Steeples (1996) looked at triggered events that occurred within 24 hours of the 1906 San Francisco mainshock, but their data appear to be flawed by at least one substantial error. [Their erroneous data-a report taken from Lawson (1908) of an event supposed to have taken place at 12:31 p.m. on 18 Apr 1906 in Los Angeles-was not substantiated by a single newspaper or diary in southern California; rather, it appears to be a misdated report of the earthquake that was widely documented to have hit Los Angeles at 12:31 p.m. on 19 Apr 1906.] In spite of this, the historical record is full of useful and valuable information that can enhance the existing catalogs. For the present study, we have searched newspapers, diaries, and other historical documents for felt reports of potential aftershocks and triggered events of the 1906 earthquake. (A "felt report" is any written statement in which the author describes shaking and/or effects caused by an earthquake, or in which the author simply notes that an earthquake was felt.) These newspapers, diaries, and other records were located in libraries throughout California, Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona, and in the U. S. National Archives. Altogether, this work represents the most comprehensive compilation to date of earthquake data from the historical record during the period immediately following the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. DISCUSSION In general, the distinction between an aftershock and a triggered event is based on the distance of said event from its mainshock. An aftershock is generally defined as any earthquake that occurs within one fault rupture length of its mainshock [in this case, within 420 to 470 km of the mainshock rupture (Sieh, 1978)] and during the span of time that the seismicity rate in that region remains above its pre-mainshock background level (e.g., Hough and Jones, 1997). It is not clear that this general definition is applicable given the extraordinary length of the 1906 rupture. Likewise, no definition of a triggered event is universally accepted, but in this report, the term triggered event will apply to any earthquake that occurred more than 470 km from the mainshock rupture, and days to weeks after the mainshock. It will also apply to a number of earthquakes that occurred in or near the periphery of the aftershock zone in Oregon and Nevada-since these events occurred in the Basin and Range province, a tectonic region distinct from most of California, it was felt that they should not be classified as aftershocks-and also to several events that occurred in the periphery of the aftershock zone in southern California. Hough and Jones (1997) suggest that the distinction between aftershocks and triggered events may reflect imprecise taxonomy rather than a clear distinction based on physical processes; the distinction is adopted in this paper as a means to emphasize the surprising number of significant "far-field aftershocks" that occurred in the hours and days following the San Francisco mainshock. It should be emphasized that no particular mechanism of earthquake triggering is being evaluated in this paper; rather, we are merely suggesting that these "far-field aftershocks" are triggered by the mainshock. Although these "far-field aftershocks" are not aftershocks by conventional definitions, their temporal proximity to the mainshock makes it difficult to imagine that they are entirely unrelated to the mainshock. This report includes only those triggered events that occurred within the first week of the mainshock, and only those aftershocks that occurred within a 20-month period following the 1906 mainshock, i.e., between April 1906 and December 1907. The cutoff of one week for triggered events seems logical, as there was a marked clustering of earthquakes in the western U.S. during the first 48 hours following the mainshock, and this regional spurt of activity apparently died off rather soon thereafter. The cutoff of December 1907 for aftershocks is arbitrary, however; analysis of earthquakes in existing catalogs (e.g., Townley and Allen, 1939) makes it clear that the aftershock sequence continued long after the year 1907. Ellsworth et al. (1981) used the record of aftershocks felt at Berkeley to suggest that the aftershock sequence lasted until about 1915. Nevertheless, an investigation limited to the first twenty months has already been a formidable undertaking, and expanding the duration of the study period is left as a possible avenue for further research. The data collected in this study are presented in this report in several formats. Tables 1 and 2 are catalogs of felt reports of aftershocks and triggered events, respectively. These are arranged chronologically and include all the reports found by the present authors in newspapers and other historical documents. These catalogs are intended to be used in conjunction with, but not to replace, Townley and Allen (1939) or Lawson (1908). Most earthquake reports listed in Townley and Allen (1939) and Lawson (1908) were not included in our catalogs; they were listed in our catalogs only for a few selected earthquakes and only when those reports contained information not found in the newspapers, diaries, and other historical documents. A list of all newspapers and historical documents searched is presented in Table 3, and a list of latitude-longitude coordinates for all locations in Tables 1 and 2 is given in Table 4. Tables 5 through 15 are lists of felt reports for eight of the largest aftershocks and three of the largest triggered events. This is mostly the same information presented in Tables 1 and 2, but the reports are grouped geographically (in alphabetical order by county, for each event) rather than chronologically; this format facilitates the assignment of Modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) values for each location, as it allows the reader to readily determine which reports are the most reliable. Maps showing the distribution of intensities assigned in Tables 5 through 15 are presented in Figures 2 through 12, respectively. As mentioned above, before assigning intensities, we attempted to assess the credibility of each report, and to identify reports that were unreliable. Sometimes, reports published far away from a point of observation (hereinafter, "distant reports") contradicted reports published in the same city as the observation (hereinafter, "local reports"). A prime example of this comes in the reports from Ashland and Grants Pass, Oregon, for the 23 Apr 1906 aftershock (see Table 9). We can never be sure why the contradictions exist, but we infer that in the process of communicating the information from the initial point of observation to the ultimate point of publication-whether that communication occurred by telegraph, telephone, or word of mouth-there were abundant opportunities for exaggeration. Additionally, some distant reports may have been based largely or entirely on unfounded rumors. In contrast, if a report was published in the same city as the observation, there is a lesser likelihood for exaggeration. For these reasons, when distant reports contradicted local reports, the local reports were normally considered to be more reliable. Also, there were cases in which distant newspapers reported that an event was felt in a given city, but no local newspapers indicated that it was felt there; in some of these cases, the distant reports were judged to be unreliable. For reports judged to be unreliable, an explanation of our concerns is ordinarily included with the entry in the table. This report is intended to be the data archive for a companion paper (Meltzner and Wald, 2003) analyzing the aftershocks and triggered events of the 1906 earthquake. For analysis of these events and a discussion of the aftershock and triggered event sequence, please refer to that paper. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (A.J.M. & D.J.W.) Many people have helped make this research possible or have helped significantly along the way. We would like to thank Tousson Toppozada of the California Division of Mines and Geology for sharing his thoughts, knowledge, and data, and we want to thank Bill Deverell (Caltech), Bill Bakun (USGS), Lucy Jones (USGS), and Lori Dengler (Humboldt State University) for their ongoing assistance, on our 1857 work, and now for 1906. We would also like to thank Nancy King (USGS) and Sue Hough (USGS) for their thoughtful reviews and very helpful suggestions. We are grateful and indebted to all of you. ADDITIONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS-(A.J.M.) I have had the opportunity to visit many libraries across the state, and I would like to thank all the librarians who have offered assistance. I would in particular like to thank the librarians of the Livermore Public Library for going out of their way to help locate uncatalogued newspapers, as well as the librarians of the King City Library and the librarians at CSU Stanislaus for being so kind and helpful. I am especially grateful to Mary Allely of the Local History Room of the National City Public Library, for being so helpful and resourceful. I am appreciative and impressed that she remembered the details of my visit when I called to ask a question more than six months later. I would also like to express my gratitude for all the assistance I have received over the years from the librarians in the California History Room of the California State Library in Sacramento-thanks for putting up with me, all the times I tried to work a few minutes past closing time! Many of the locations I came across in my research were small towns or obscure places. For these locations, Durham's (1998) California Gazetteer has been an invaluable tool, giving locations and coordinates for anything from land grants to names of hills to obsolete names of small towns. Interestingly, I feel connected to Durham in a way: Durham holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Caltech and worked as a geologist with the USGS (see "About the Author" at the end of his gazetteer); for me, in the course of this research, I earned my Bachelor of Science degree from Caltech (an early form of this report and the accompanying paper served as my senior thesis) and I served as an intern with the USGS. I also wish to acknowledge the use of the Generic Mapping Tools software package by Wessel and Smith (1991) to generate all the figures in this report. This work has been supported by funding from Caltech's Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) Program, from funds awarded in conjunction with the 1998-99 Fritz Burns Prize in Geology at Caltech, and by funding from the U. S. Geological Survey. I am grateful to the SURF Program, to the Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences at Caltech, and to the USGS for their support and insight. REFERENCES Bodin, P. and J. Gomberg (1994). Triggered seismicity and deformation between the Landers, California, and Little Skull Mountain, Nevada, earthquakes, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 84, pp. 835-843. Bolt, B.A. (1968). The focus of the 1906 California earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 58, pp. 457-471. Brodsky, E.E., V. Karakostas, and H. Kanamori (2000). A new observation of dynamically triggered regional seismicity: earthquakes in Greece following the August, 1999 Izmit, Turkey earthquake, Geophys. Res. Let. 27, pp. 2741-2744. California State Mining Bureau [CSMB] (1909). Mineral Productions, County Maps, and Mining Laws of California, Calif. State Mining Bureau Bulletin 56. Carlson, H.S. (1974). Nevada Place Names: A Geographical Dictionary, University of Nevada Press, Reno. Durham, D.L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State, Word Dancer Press, Clovis, CA. Ellsworth, W.L., A.G. Lindh, W.H. Prescott, and D.G. Herd (1981). The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the seismic cycle, in Earthquake Prediction; an International Review, D.W. Simpson and P.G. Richards (Editors), American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 126-140. Gomberg, J. and S. Davis (1996). Stress/strain changes and triggered seismicity at The Geysers, California, J. Geophys. Res. 101, pp. 733-749. Gomberg, J., P.A. Reasenberg, P. Bodin, and R.A. Harris (2001). Earthquake triggering by seismic waves following the Landers and Hector Mine earthquakes, Nature 411, pp. 462-466. Hill, D.P., P.A. Reasenberg, A. Michael, W.J. Arabaz, G. Beroza, D. Brumbaugh, J.N. Brune, R. Castro, S. Davis, D. dePolo, W.L. Ellsworth, J. Gomberg, S. Harmsen, L. House, S.M. Jackson, M.J.S. Johnston, L. Jones, R. Keller, S. Malone, L. Munguia, S. Nava, J.C. Pechmann, A. Sanford, R.W. Simpson, R.B. Smith, M. Stark, M. Stickney, A. Vidal, S. Walter, V. Wong, and J. Zollweg (1993). Seismicity remotely triggered by the magnitude 7.3 Landers, California, earthquake, Science 260, pp. 1617-1623. Hough, S.E. (2001). Triggered earthquakes and the 1811-1812 New Madrid, central United States, earthquake sequence, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 91, pp. 1574-1581. Hough, S.E. and L.M. Jones (1997). Aftershocks: are they earthquakes or afterthoughts?, Eos 78, 505, 508. Hough, S.E. and H. Kanamori (2002). Source properties of earthquakes near the Salton Sea triggered by the 16 October 1999 M 7.1 Hector Mine, California, earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 92, pp. 1281-1289. Lawson, A.C., chairman (1908). The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906: Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission, Vols. I & II and Atlas, Carnegie Inst., Washington, D.C. Meltzner, A.J. and D.J. Wald (2003). Aftershocks and triggered events of the great 1906 California earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., submitted. "Official map of Trinity Co., California" (1915). (Publisher unknown.) Held in California State Library, Sacramento. Richter, C.F. (1958). Elementary Seismology, W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. Sieh, K.E. (1978). Slip along the San Andreas fault associated with the great 1857 earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 68, pp. 1421-1448. Steeples, D.W. and D.D. Steeples (1996). Far-field aftershocks of the 1906 earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 86, pp. 921-924. Toppozada, T.R. and D.L. Parke (1982). Areas damaged by California earthquakes, 1900-1949, Calif. Div. Mines Geol. Open-File Rept. 82-17 SAC. Townley, S.D. and M.W. Allen (1939). Descriptive catalog of earthquakes of the Pacific coast of the United States: 1769 to 1928, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 29, pp. 1-297. United States Geological Survey [USGS] (1908). "Reconnaissance map of the Salton Sink, California." (1906, reprinted 1908). Wessel, P. and W.H.F. Smith (1991). Free software helps map and display data, Eos 72, pp. 441, 445-446. Wood, H.O. and F. Neumann (1931). Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 21, pp. 277-283.