New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Hidden Fault May Threaten Bay Area

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Residents of the San Francisco Bay Area have reason to fear "the big one" because the area is home to a variety of fault lines. Now researchers have reason to believe another earthquake hazard should be added to the map: Results presented today at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco suggest that the earth beneath Marin County may contain a hidden fault line.

The known faults in the San Francisco area include the San Andreas, the Hayward, the Rodgers Creek and the San Gregorio. Measurements of so-called slip rates on these faults, which range from three to 24 millimeters a year, are inconsistent. The movement of the northern San Andreas line and that of the southern portion are off by as much as four millimeters annually. "In the past, the thought was that there must be something wrong with the calculations on the San Gregorio fault," remarks study leader Kevin P. Furlong of Penn State University. Instead, Furlong and his colleagues hypothesized that there could be another fault whose movement would explain the measured discrepancies. "We think we have evidence that there is an additional earthquake hazard in the San Francisco area due to a blind thrust fault," he explains. "Blind thrust faults are notorious because they are hard to find until an earthquake occurs on them."

Upward movement of the area's Mt. Tamalpais could provide indirect evidence of the thrust fault but the uplift is too small to be measured accurately with current Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements and there are not enough historical data for comparison. Instead, the scientists calculated the steepness of rivers on the nearby Bolinas Ridge and determined that their gradually rising slopes were consistent with the uplift of a blind fault. If their calculations are correct and the thrust fault's movement accounts for the entire discrepancy between the other faults' rate of movement, the researchers calculate that it could give rise to an earthquake of magnitude 6 to 6.5 on a timescale of several hundred years. The team is planning experiments to find direct evidence of the fault, but standard seismic imaging does not work on the type of rock in the area, so alternative methods must be employed.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe