GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE MONTEREY AND SEASIDE 7.5-MINUTE QUADRANGLES, 
		MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: A DIGITAL DATABASE

				     By

		J.C. Clark, W.R. Dupre, and L.I. Rosenberg


			       INTRODUCTION

General Statement

  The study area includes the Monterey Peninsula and part of the Carmel Valley
area.  Geologically, this region is situated within the complexly deformed
Salinian block between the active San Andreas fault to the northeast and the
San Gregorio fault zone to the southwest.  It also is characterized by
compressional tectonics related to the San Andreas fault system and includes
many poorly understood subsidiary faults (Greene and others, 1988).
  A series of high-angle faults trends northwestward across the quadrangles.
Most of the faults in the area are discontinuous, with some less than 1 km
long; however, the Tularcitos fault zone continues across the entire mapped
area.  These faults displace the Monterey Formation and locally offset
Quaternary deposits.

Methods of Investigation

  The geologic map in the database shows the combined distribution of the
bedrock and Quaternary deposits in the Monterey and Seaside quadrangles with
emphasis on Quaternary deformation.  The data are updated from the previous
mapping of Clark and others (1974), of Dupre(1990b), and of Rosenberg (1993).
Although this map represents a joint effort, the individual contributions are as follows:
	Clark:  Bedrock and fault mapping, field work from 1973 to 1974, 1984 to
		1995;
	Dupre: Quaternary mapping, field work from 1980 to 1985; and
	Rosenberg:  Fault mapping, landslide mapping, field work from 1988 to 
		1995.
  The offshore geology is compiled from Galliher (1932); Dohrenwend (1971);
Simpson (1972); Greene, Lee, McCulloch, and Brabb (1973); McCulloch and Greene
(1989), and Gardner-Taggert, Greene, and Ledbetter (1993).

Previous Work

  The geology of Carmel area was first described by Lawson (1893).  Lawson
mapped the geologic units near the mouth of the valley and demonstrated the
influence of faulting on the topography.  Beal (1915) and Galliher (1930)
described the regional stratigraphy and geologic structure in the Monterey
area.  Because the focus of these early efforts was on bedrock mapping, the
Quaternary geology of the region was largely uninterpreted.
  Bowen (1965, 1969a, 1969b) mapped the Monterey and Seaside 7.5-minute
quadrangles with emphasis on the Tertiary stratigraphy.  Brown (1962) and
Younse (1980) mapped the Rancho San Carlos and Laureles Grade/Robinson Canyon
areas, respectively.  Their work resulted in the refinement of the stratigraphy
and structure of the Tertiary sedimentary rocks in Carmel Valley.
  Preliminary geologic mapping (Clark and others, 1974) suggested that several
faults in the study area were potentially active.  Bryant (1985) reviewed
published mapping, performed a limited reconnaissance of the area, and
concluded that previously mapped faults were "not sufficiently active" to
require zonation by the State Geologist.  However, analysis of Quaternary
mapping by Dupre(1990b), recent detailed mapping and trenching by
geotechnical consultants, unpublished mapping by Clark (1984-1995), and
investigation of geologic hazards of Carmel Valley by Rosenberg (1993) indicate
that Holocene and late Pleistocene faulting has occurred, the extent and nature
of which were previously unrecognized.  Subsequent work by Rosenberg and Clark
(1994) confirmed this movement along strike-slip and thrust faults in the study
area.

Acknowledgments

  The present study was initiated as part of a regional study of the earthquake
hazards of the San Francisco Bay region and is part of the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) of the U.S. Geological Survey.  Earl E. Brabb
(USGS) established this project, provided base maps, aerial photographs, and 
other materials, and helped to obtain funding for much of the field work.
Partial funding was provided by USGS NEHRP award number 1434-94-G-2443 
to Rosenberg and Clark.  Supplemental funding was provided by the Monterey
County Planning Department under the supervision of Catherine S. West.  We are
also grateful to the USGS Volunteer Scientist Program for sponsoring Clark and
Rosenberg.

  Many people gave freely of their time and resources.  John C. Tinsley (USGS)
and Earl E. Brabb helped by visiting the study area and sharing their opinions.
H. Gary Greene (Moss Landing Marine Laboratories), Joseph W. Oliver (Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District), Oliver E. Bowen (consulting geologist),
and John Logan (consulting geologist) provided unpublished data from their
files.  Kristin McDougall (USGS) identified and interpreted Miocene
foraminifers.  Michael P. Bohan (IUP) digitized the geologic contacts, and 
Carl M. Wentworth (USGS) and Russell W. Graymer (USGS) assisted with developing
the digital map.  The Explanation of Units sheet was created by Zenon C. Valin
(USGS) with assistance from Karen Wheeler (USGS).  Carolyn Randolph prepared
the booklet announcing the release of the database in Open Files.  Special
thanks go to Thomas W. Dibblee, Jr., who participated with Clark in the earlier
field mapping and shared his unique perspective of the regional geology, and to
Richard R. Thorup for sharing his extensive knowledge of the local geology.



				STRATIGRAPHY

General Statement

  Resting nonconformably upon the schist and granodiorite of the Salinian 
basement is an incomplete stratigraphic section ranging in age from Paleocene to
Holocene and having a composite thickness of as much as 1,920 m.  Locally, the
Paleocene rocks are intruded by Oligocene basaltic andesite.

Franciscan Complex, undifferentiated

  Rocks that crop out on the sea floor west of the Carmel Canyon fault were
tentatively assigned to the Franciscan Complex by McCulloch and Greene (1989)
based on the presence of metamorphosed chert west of this fault (H.G. Greene,
oral commun., 1996).

Schist of the Sierra de Salinas

  A distinctive schist unit crops out on the east side of Laureles Grade and
extends southeastward towards Arroyo Seco.  This unit has been referred to as
part of the "Sur Series" (Trask, 1926) and more recently as the "Schist of the
Sierra de Salinas" (Ross, 1976).  The schist is dusky blue to dusky
yellowish-brown, and fine- to medium-grained.  It consists of approximately
35-55 percent quartz, 30 percent plagioclase, and 15-25 percent biotite, with
red garnet locally common (Herold, 1935).  Prominent vein quartz and simple
pegmatite are common in the schist.  The appearance and chemical composition of
the schist suggest derivation from graywacke (Ross, 1976).  Although Cretaceous
granitic rocks intrude the schist, the age of the schist is uncertain;
estimates range from Paleozoic (Bowen and Gray, 1959) to Mesozoic (Ross, 1976).


Granodiorite of Cachagua

  The Cachagua granodiorite represents a small part of the mapped area, cropping
out near Laureles Grade.  The Cachagua is a transitional unit between the
Monterey mass and the adjoining quartz diorite to the southeast (Ross, 1976).
Typically it is gray to light pink, medium- to coarse-grained, and is composed
of approximately 34-45 percent plagioclase, 25-30 percent quartz, and 8-10
percent biotite, with subordinate amounts of orthoclase and microcline
(Herold, 1935).  However, it is a variable unit in both mineral content and
texture, and this variability and local resemblance to the adjoining rocks make
its differentiation difficult (Ross, 1976).

Porphyritic Granodiorite of Monterey

  Two types of granitic rock crop out in the study area.  Ross (1976) named
these rocks the porphyritic granodiorite of Monterey, and the granodiorite of
Cachagua.  Porphyritic granodiorite crops out on the Monterey Peninsula and on
the south side of Carmel Valley.  In the Seaside area, exploratory wells
reached granitic basement at nearly 600 m below sea level.  Well logs and
seismic refraction data reveal that granitic bedrock highs underlie the Carmel
River alluvium.
  The porphyritic granodiorite of Monterey is light gray to moderate pink and
medium-grained with orthoclase phenocrysts ranging from 3 to 10 cm long.
Although the Monterey unit is relatively homogenous and easily recognizable,
there is a considerable range in the ratio of plagioclase to K-feldspar based
largely on the irregular distribution of phenocrysts, in places the mass is not
porphyritic (Ross, 1976).  Numerous light-colored aplite dikes from 2 cm to 1 m 
wide intrude the granitic rock.  Pegmatite dikes composed of coarse-grained
quartz and feldspar are also common.  The pegmatite dikes are typically about
10 cm wide.  Radiometric dating indicates an age of 79.5 Ma for the porphyritic
granodiorite of Monterey (R.W. Kistler, USGS, oral commun., 1995).

Carmelo Formation

  Nonconformably overlying the granitic basement at Point Lobos and at the
northern end of Carmel Bay are Paleocene marine sedimentary rocks known as the
Carmelo Formation of Bowen (1965).  The Carmelo consists mainly of thin- to
thick-bedded and graded arkosic sandstone with interbedded siltstone and graded
pebble and cobble conglomerate.  Porphyritic granodiorite clasts predominate in
the lower conglomerate beds on the north side of the Bay, whereas red, green,
purple, and black siliceous clasts dominate higher in the section.  The Carmelo
rests depositionally upon and is locally faulted against the granodiorite.
Estimates of thickness range from 220 m (Lawson, 1893) to 430 m (Herold, 1934).
Mollusks and foraminifers indicate a Paleocene age for the Carmelo(Bowen, 1965).
Clifton (1981) interpreted sedimentary structures and concluded that the Carmelo
was laid down by turbidity currents in a submarine canyon.  Paleocurrents were
variable but suggest a westward flow (Nili-Esfahani, 1965).

Vaqueros(?) Sandstone

  At Palo Corona Ranch, a thick-bedded, medium- to coarse-grained arkosic marine
sandstone with granitic cobbles and few porphyry pebbles underlies Oligocene
basaltic andesite.  This sandstone may correlate with the Vaqueros Sandstone
found to the south in the Santa Lucia Range.

Basaltic Andesite (Carmeloite)

  Thin flows and flow-breccias of basaltic andesite are discontinously exposed
around Carmel Bay and to the east along Carmel Valley.  These volcanic rocks
have three structural relationships: unconformably overlying granodiorite,
faulted against granodiorite, and intruding the Carmelo Formation.  Termed
carmelote by Lawson (1893), these volcanic rocks are fine grained with olivine
phenocrysts that have been altered to distinctive reddish-brown iddingsite.
  Bowen (1965) estimated the composition as 30-40 percent plagioclase feldspar,
20-30 percent augite, 15-20 percent olivine and pyroxene, 5-15 percent
chlorite, 5-15 percent clay minerals, and 5 percent magnetite.  Silica content
is variable.  X-ray spectroscopic analysis (USGS Branch of Analytical
Laboratories, written commun., 1979) of samples from Arrowhead Point and from
the north side of San Jose Creek canyon yields values of 53.10 and 50.33
percent, respectively; whereas R.B. Cole (written commun., 1995) reports silica
contents of 61.14 and 61.48 percent for samples east of Arrowhead Point.  Thus,
compositionally these rocks range from basaltic andesite to andesite.  Clark
and others (1984) reported a K-Ar age of 27.0 +/- 0.8 Ma (Oligocene) for
samples from Arrowhead Point and estimated a thickness of 20 m for the basaltic
andesite.

Red Beds of Robinson Canyon

  A clastic section as much as 260 m thick in the vicinity of Robinson Canyon
nonconformably overlies the Salinian basement and underlies the Monterey
Formation.  The lower part of this section includes non-marine red beds
consisting mostly of arkosic sandstone with common conglomerate and siltstone
beds.  Brown (1962) referred to this lower unit as the Robinson Canyon Member
of the Chamisal Formation, which Bowen (1965) later defined.
  The sandstone is moderate red on weathered surfaces and yellowish-gray where
fresh, very thick bedded, very coarse to coarse grained, angular to subangular,
and poorly sorted.  The conglomerate consists of very thick beds of limited
extent with well rounded cobbles composed of granodiorite, schist, and felsite.
The siltstone consists of very dark red and dusky green, thin beds that are
laterally continuous over tens to hundreds of meters.  At the type locality in 
Robinson Canyon, the red beds are approximately 140 m thick (Bowen, 1965, p.
51).  Although the age of these red beds is uncertain, stratigraphic position 
and regional correlation with similar units suggest that the red beds are middle
Miocene (Younse, 1980).

Unnamed Sandstone

  The red beds in Robinson Canyon are overlain conformably by marine sandstone.
Bowen (1965) proposed the name "Los Tularcitos Member of the Chamisal
Formation" for this sandstone.  Clark and others (1974) used the name "marine
sandstone" in their regional mapping to include the both the Los Tularcitos
Member of the Chamisal Formation and the Los Laureles Sandstone Member of the
Monterey Formation of Bowen (1965), because both sandstones are overlain
conformably by the Monterey Formation and cannot be differentiated in the
field. Pending further work on these units, the term "unnamed sandstone" is
used in this report.
  The sandstone consists of dark-yellowish-orange, very thick bedded, coarse- to
fine-grained, angular to subangular, poorly to well-sorted arkosic sandstone,
with common very thick cobble-boulder conglomerate beds in the lower part and
rare siltstone beds in the upper part.  Along Potrero Canyon, the red beds are
absent, and the sandstone between the granitic basement and the Monterey
Formation is as much as 175 m thick and contains late Luisian (middle Miocene) 
foraminifers in the upper part.  Also locally common are 1 to 3 m-thick
Leptopecten andersoni shell beds.

Monterey Formation

  The Monterey Formation consists of as much as 900 m of siliceous and
diatomaceous beds along Carmel Valley and on the Monterey Peninsula.  Locally
within the City of Monterey, the Monterey Formation rests directly on the
granitic basement.  North of the Chupines fault zone, the Monterey rarely crops
out but is commonly penetrated in drill holes (see inset map on sheet 2 ).
  Within the study area, there are three mappable units of the Monterey
Formation.  The lower unit, locally differentiated on the Monterey Peninsula,
where it is as much as 30 m thick, is typically thin-bedded, yellowish-brown
semi-siliceous mudstone with interbedded siltstone.  Locally abundant are
benthic foraminifers of the Valvulinera californica Zone diagnostic of upper 
bathyal (150-350 m) depths and of Luisian (middle Miocene) age (K. McDougall,
written commun., 1987).
  The middle unit (Aguajito Shale Member of Bowen, 1965) is as much as 600 m 
thick.  It is thin-bedded and laminated, light brown to white porcelanite with
very thin clay partings between the porcelanite beds and with thin interbeds of
waxy-yellow to brown chert.  This unit contains a few thin, dark-brown
bentonite interbeds and rare thin pelletal and olitic phosphorite interbeds in
the lower part.  Benthic foraminifers are diagnostic of outer neritic to upper
bathyal depths during Luisian (middle Miocene) time to lower middle bathyal
depths during Mohnian (middle to late Miocene) time (Younse, 1980).
  The upper unit (Canyon del Rey diatomite Member of Bowen, 1965) is as much as
250 m thick.  It is mainly very thick bedded and faintly laminated, very pale
orange to white diatomite with thin interbeds and lenses of dark-brown chert
and a few thick interbeds of light-gray vitric tuff.  A sample collected near
the base of this unit south of Canyon del Rey yielded benthic foraminifers
diagnostic of upper (300-500 m) to upper middle bathyal (500-1,500 m) depths
and of an early Mohnian (late Miocene) age (K. McDougall, written commun.,
1994).  Another sample from near the top of this unit east of Laureles Grade is
diagnostic of inner neritic (50-100 m) depths and of a Mohnian (late Miocene)
age (K. McDougall, written commun., 1994), indicating a shallowing of marine
conditions during deposition of this upper unit.
  Correlation with a dated Trapper Creek, Idaho section of a thick vitric tuff
interbed about 60 m stratigraphically above the base of the diatomite unit that
is exposed along Toro Road just east of the map area indicates an age of
10.83 +/- 0.03 Ma (A.M. Sarna-Wojcicki, writen commun., 1996).  With a late Luisian
age for the lowest beds, as sampled on the east side of Potrero Canyon, the
Monterey Formation of this area spans a time interval from about 15 Ma to
somewhat less than 10.83 Ma.

Santa Margarita Sandstone

  Conformably overlying the upper diatomite of the Monterey Formation is a
marine and brackish-marine, white, fine- to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone
mapped as the Santa Margarita Sandstone.  North of the Chupines fault zone, the
Santa Margarita Sandstone is commonly found in the subsurface and crops out
locally north of Canyon Del Rey.  South of Canyon Del Rey, the Santa Margarita
Sandstone is more extensively exposed along the Chupines fault zone.
  Logs of water wells show that the Santa Margarita Sandstone is at least 99 m
thick at Fort Ord, approximately 1.4 km north of the Seaside quadrangle (Oliver,
1994).  Its conformable position above the Monterey diatomite together with
megafossils collected from the Spreckels quadrangle to the east (Herold, 1935;
Bowen, 1965) suggests a late Miocene age for the Santa Margarita.
 
Sedimentary Rocks

  Dredge hauls offshore in Carmel Canyon recovered samples of greenish-gray
siltstone and mudstone of possible Pliocene age.  Also recovered from this area
were samples of coarse-grained, arkosic marine sandstone of Tertiary(?) age
(Greene, 1977).

Continental Deposits, undivided

  Unconformably overlying the Santa Margarita Sandstone is a series of
non-marine, semiconsolidated, fine-grained, oxidized sand and silt beds with
common gravel beds.  Previous workers (Beal, 1915; Herold, 1935) correlated
these beds with the Paso Robles Formation of the southern Salinas Valley, a name
also used in later mapping by Bowen (1965), and Clark and others (1974).
Because of uncertainty of correlation with the type area to the south, Dupre
(1990b) preferred not to use the name "Paso Robles" and called these beds
"continental deposits."  His usage is followed here.
  Continental deposits are exposed in the foothills of the Laguna Seca area, and
are mostly absent south of the Chupines fault zone.  Herold (1935) estimated
the continental deposits to be as much as 230 m thick in nearby San Benancio
Gulch (in the Spreckels quadrangle adjoining the Seaside quadrangle).  Two deep
test holes near Laguna Seca revealed an even greater thickness of the
continental deposits, 335 m, than exposed in outcrop (Staal, Gardner & Dunne,
1991).  Stratigraphic position and regional correlation with similar units
suggest that the continental deposits are Pleistocene and possibly Pliocene in
part.

Sedimentary Deposits

  Unconsolidated marine sediment; seismic characteristics suggest poorly bedded
sands and gravels; Quaternary age (Greene, 1977).

Older Eolian Deposits

  Exposed on the hilltops of Fort Ord is a series of Pleistocene eolian deposits
largely equivalent to the Aromas Sand as mapped by Dupre and Tinsley (1980).
The stratigraphic relationship of the older eolian deposits and the
continental deposits is unclear.  In some areas, the older eolian deposits
appear to unconformably overlie the "Paso Robles" (Bowen, 1965); elsewhere, the
two units may be in part facies equivalents (Dupre, 1990a).
  The older eolian deposits consist of moderately well-sorted sand as much as 
60 m thick that contains no intervening fluvial deposits.  Several sequences of
eolian deposits may be present, each separated by paleosols.  The upper 3-6 m
of each dune sequence is oxidized and relatively well indurated, and all
primary sedimentary structures have been destroyed by weathering; the lower
parts of each dune sequence may be relatively unconsolidated below the
weathering zone.

Terrace Deposits, undivided

  Elevated fluvial terraces are exposed mainly on the north side of the Carmel
River on discontinuous topographic benches and as erosional remnants capping
hilltops (equivalent to the "older alluvium" of Clark and others, 1974).  These
fluvial terrace deposits consist of weakly consolidated to semiconsolidated,
moderately to poorly sorted, fine- to coarse-grained silty sand with pebble to
cobble gravel.  The terrace deposits are weakly to moderately cemented, and
locally are strongly cemented with carbonate in the upper few meters; some are
capped by moderately to fully well developed soils, some with duripans;
expansive soils are locally present.  Their thickness is highly variable, and
is locally as much as 20 m.  At least some of the fluvial terrace deposits in
Carmel Valley correlate with the marine terrace deposits of Pleistocene age on
the Monterey Peninsula (Williams, 1970, p. 52); however, discontinuous 
outcrops and intervening young faults make these correlations difficult.

Coastal Terrace Deposits

  A series of uplifted coastal terraces crops out on the Monterey Peninsula and
ranges in altitude from 10 m to 225 m.  Coastal terrace deposits consist of
semiconsolidated, moderately well sorted marine sand containing thin,
discontinuous gravel-rich layers; some overlain by poorly sorted fluvial and
colluvial silt, sand, and gravel.  These terrace deposits are commonly 
well indurated in the upper part of the weathered zone; many are capped by
maximally developed soils, some having duripans.  The thickness of the coastal
terrace deposits is variable, but generally less than 6 m.
  Coastal dunes have mostly buried the marine terraces in the Fort Ord area,
although evidence of buried terrace scarps still remains (Cooper, 1967).  In
addition, much of what was mapped as Miocene marine sandstone (Los Laureles
Sandstone Member of Bowen, 1965) by Clark and others (1974) on the Monterey
Peninsula actually consists of Quaternary coastal terrace deposits based on
morphology, mineralogy, and stratigraphic relationships.  However,
differentiation between these two units is difficult, especially near
Carmel-by-the-Sea.
  The following age estimates for the coastal terraces are based on correlations
with terraces in the Santa Cruz region (Dupre, 1991).  Assuming that the ages
for the Santa Cruz terraces estimated by Lajoie and others (1991) are correct,
the "best-fit" constant-uplift rate is 0.18 mm/yr for the terraces on the
Monterey Peninsula (table 1).  Alternatively, if the ages of the Santa Cruz
terraces are closer to those reported by Anderson and others (1990), then the
uplift rates may be as much as 0.32 mm/yr.  In either case, all of the coastal
terrace deposits are Pleistocene.
  The two lower coastal terraces probably formed during Sangamon highstands of
sea level.  The Lighthouse terrace (25 m altitude) is the more extensive of the
two terraces and is tentatively correlated with the 124 ka Sangamon highstand
and with the Highway 1 terrace in Santa Cruz, whereas the Ocean View terrace 
(10 m altitude) probably formed during the 102 ka highstand, correlative with
the Davenport terrace in Santa Cruz.  There appears to be no evidence of a 
212 ka highstand preserved in the area; however, the Peninsula College terrace
(60 m altitude) probably formed during the 319 ka highstand.  Higher terraces,
the Sylvan (75 m altitude) and the Monte Vista (130 m altitude) have estimated
ages of 415 ka and 750 ka respectively.  These latter terraces have been
correlated by Dupre (1990a) with terraces near Santa Cruz the Sylvan terrace
with the Western terrace and the Monte Vista terrace with the Wilder terrace.
  The oldest Quaternary marine deposits are the Huckleberry terrace deposits,
which are between 180 +/- 225 m altitude along the summit of the Monterey
Peninsula.  Assuming a constant uplift rate of 0.18 mm/yr, the Huckleberry
terrace deposits are approximately 1.1 +/- 1.3 Ma.  These deposits are the coastal
equivalents of at least some of what Clark and others (1974) mapped as Paso
Robles Formation along the crest of the Santa Lucia Range to the southeast
(Dupre, 1990a).  Table 1 summarizes the terminology and estimated ages of the
terraces.

Table 1.  Marine terrace terminology, Monterey Peninsula.

					Source of data
Age of Deposits	------------------------------------------------------------	
		  Williams(1970)	    McKittrick(1988)	    Dupre(1990a)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
late Pleistocene   "25 foot level"	    "terrace 1"		    "Ocean View"
(10 ka to 125 ka)  (8m)			    (9 +/- 2m)	 	    (10m)
					    100ka*		     102ka#

late Pleistocene   "30 to 50 foot interval   - - - - - - -	    - - - - - -
		   (9 to 15m)

late Pleistocene   "70 foot level"	    "terrace 2"		    "Lighthouse"
		   (21m)		    (27 +/- 3m)		    (25m)
		  			    120ka*		    124ka#

middle Pleistocene "160 foot level"	    - - - - - - - -	    "College"
(125ka to 700ka)   (49m)		   			    (60m)
								    415ka#

middle Pleistocene "225 foot level"	    "terrace 3"		    "Silvan"
	  	   (69m)		    (66 +/- 5m)		    (75m)
					    330ka**		    415ka##

middle Pleistocene "320 foot level"	    - - - - - - - -	    - - - - - - 
		   (98m)	

middle to early    "410 foot level"	    "terrace 4"		   "Monte Vista"
Pleistocene	   (125m)		    (136 +/- 10m)	   (130m)
		   			    700ka**		   750ka##

early Pleistocene  "550 foot level"	    - - - - - - - - 	   - - - - - - -
(700ka to 1800ka)  (167m)		

early Pleistocene  "620 foot level"	    - - - - - - - -	   "Huckleberry"
		   (189m)					   (210m)
								   1200ka##
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*	indicates age based on soil-profile development.
**	indicates age based on extrapolating 0.16 mm/yr rate of uplift inferred
	 from lower terraces. 		
#	indicates age determination by altitude correlation to terraces in the 
	 Santa Cruz region (Dupre, 1991), the ages of which are estimated by 
	 Lajoie and others (1991).  The Lighthouse terrace was estimated as 
	 118 ka by Dupre (1990a); however, Dupre (written commun., 1996)
	 considers this terrace to be 124 ka.
##	indicates age based on extrapolating 0.18 mm/yr rate of uplift  inferred
	 from lower terraces. 	

Older Coastal Dunes

  The late Pleistocene coastal dunes consist of weakly consolidated, well-sorted,
fine- to medium-grained sand deposited in an extensive coastal dune field in
the Fort Ord area.  Thickness ranges from 2 to 25 m.  Where a thin veneer of
coastal dune deposits covers some of the coastal terrace deposits near Seaside,
a subscript (e) follows the symbol of the coastal terrace overlain by these
dune deposits.  The older coastal dunes are locally divided into:
  Younger dune deposits of middle(?) Wisconsinan age consist of weakly
consolidated, well-sorted, fine- to medium-grained sand deposited in an
extensive coastal dune field.  Older dune deposits of early(?) Wisconsinan age
consist of weakly to moderately consolidated, moderately well-sorted silt and
sand deposited in extensive coastal dune fields.  The upper 3-6 m is 
indurated by clay and iron oxide cementation in the weathered zone.

Landslide Deposits

  Landslides in the study area are widespread and range from small, shallow
debris flows to large, deep bedrock slides.  Landslides form in all the
geologic units, but are most common in the Monterey Formation.  Additional
landslides are probably present and are not shown on the map, especially in
areas mapped as colluvium. Some landslides, or parts of them, may be very young
and possibly moving.
  Younger landslides have fresh scarps, disrupted drainages, closed depressions,
and disturbed vegetation.  Older landslides are modified by erosion, resulting
in subdued scarps, reestablished vegetation, and new drainage paths.  Soils
have formed on the some of the older landslide deposits; however, most soils
are poorly developed or absent because of high erosion rates and steep slopes.
  Many of the younger slides are probably early Holocene as indicated by poorly
to moderately defined scarps, hummocky topography, and well-developed
drainages.  From one landslide on the south side of Carmel Valley (sec. 25,
T. 16 S., R. 1 E.), O'Rourke (1980) recorded a soft and wet slickensided clay
slide plane at a depth of 17 m.  Radiocarbon dating of a peat sample found on
top of this slide indicates a minimum age of 9,600 +/- 160 yr B.P. for the
landslide.  This radiocarbon date supports the relatively young age suggested
by the geomorphic features.
  Radiocarbon dating of landslide material also confirms that some of the older,
deep-seated landsliding occurred during the late Pleistocene.  Charcoal
fragments obtained from an 18m deep slide plane of the large landslide on the
east side of Caada de la Segunda have a radiocarbon age of 31,000 yr B.P.;
however, the accuracy of this date is uncertain (A.S. Buangan, Wahler
Associates, oral commun., 1991).
  Samples of decayed plant matter from a slide plane in the large landslide 
complex on the Monterra Ranch south of State Highway 68 have radiocarbon ages of
12,780 +/- 90 and 13,000 +/- 110 yr B.P. (Rogers E. Johnson & Associates 1986,
p. 31).  Ponded alluvium from the base of a closed depression on the upper part
of this landslide yielded a radiocarbon age of 12,360 +/- 400 yr B.P. (Beta 
Analytic sample Beta-1986) (J.M. Nolan, written commun., 1987) and corroborates
the age of this large landslide.  Geomorphic features suggest that the smaller
landslides within the older large landslide are more recently active.

Flandrian Dune Deposits of Cooper (1967)

  The so-called "Flandrian" dune deposits described by Cooper (1967) consist of 
unconsolidated, well-sorted sand as much as 30 m thick, deposited in a belt of
parabolic dunes up to 700 m wide.  Their physical characteristics are similar
to those of younger dune sand.  Johnson (1993) noted a paleosol at the base of
these dunes near Stilwell Hall, approximately 5 km north of the study area.
Dating of charcoal in this paleosol gave 14C ages of 2,130 +/- 80 (Lawrence
Livermore National Lab sample CAMS-4806) and 1,800 +/- 60 yr B.P. (Lawrence 
Livermore National Lab sample CAMS-4807), indicating that these dune deposits
are late Holocene age (Johnson, 1993).

Colluvium

  Colluvial deposits are common in the hillside areas, especially in topographic
swales.  These deposits are up to tens of meters wide, hundreds of meters long,
and are as much as 7 meters thick.  Colluvium consists of a variable mixture of
unconsolidated, heterogeneous deposits of moderately to poorly sorted silt,
sand, and gravel, deposited by slope wash and mass movement.  Some deposits
have undergone minor fluvial reworking.  Locally they include numerous
landslides and small alluvial fans; contacts with alluvial deposits are
generally gradational.  Dating of the colluvium in the study area has yielded
five 14C ages ranging from 1,880 to 7,780 yr B.P. (Rogers E. Johnson &
Associates, 1985; Rosenberg and Clark, 1994).

Older Flood-Plain Deposits

  Older flood-plain deposits are stratigraphically between terrace deposits and
younger flood-plain deposits and are Holocene age.  Older flood-plain deposits
consist of unconsolidated, relatively fine-grained, heterogeneous deposits of
sand and silt, commonly including relatively thin layers of clay.  The grain
size of levee deposits decreases away from abandoned channel-fill deposits.
The older flood-plain deposits are nearly flat to gently sloping and fill an
irregularly shaped valley beneath the present-day Carmel River (Logan, 1983).
Interpretation of well log data suggests that the older flood-plain deposits
are typically less than 18 m thick in the study area, but locally may be as
much as 40 m thick.

Younger Flood-Plain Deposits

  Holocene age younger flood-plain deposits occur in and adjacent to the present
Carmel River channel.  These deposits consist of unconsolidated, relatively
fine grained, heterogeneous deposits of sand and silt, commonly including
relatively thin, discontinuous layers of clay.  The gravel content is variable
and is locally abundant within channel and lower point bar deposits.  The
thickness of the younger flood-plain deposits is generally less than 6 m.  They
typically are incised within older flood-plain deposits, except near the mouth
of the Carmel River, where they occur as a veneer of levee deposits over older
flood-plain deposits and are mapped separately as unit Qyf(a).

Alluvial Deposits

  Alluvial deposits of variable thickness and composition fill the bottoms of
the major hillside drainages.  These deposits consist of unconsolidated,
heterogeneous, moderately sorted silt and sand with discontinuous lenses of
clay and silty clay, and locally include large amounts of gravel.  They may
include deposits equivalent to both the younger and older flood-plain deposits
(Qyf and Qof, respectively) in areas where these were not differentiated.
Their thickness is highly variable and may be more than 30 m near the coast.

Basin Deposits

  Basin deposits consist of unconsolidated, plastic clay and silty clay
containing much organic material, and locally contain interbedded thin layers
of silt and silty sand.  They are deposited in a variety of environments
including estuaries, lagoons, tidal flats, marsh-filled sloughs, flood basins,
and lakes.  Their thickness is highly variable and may be as much as 30 m
underlying some sloughs.

Dune Sand Deposits

  The Holocene dune sand deposits consist of unconsolidated, well-sorted, fine- 
to medium-grained sand, deposited as a linear strip of coastal dunes near
Spanish Bay and Cypress Point.  These deposits are as much as 25 m thick and are
possibly equivalent to the "Flandrian" dune deposits of Cooper (1976) to the
north.

Marine Sand Deposits

  Marine sand deposits include a variety of unconsolidated sediments ranging
from gray coarse and medium sand within 0.5 km of the shore, to fine sand and
dark grayish-green mud at 1 to 2 km offshore (Galliher, 1932).  These deposits
also include submerged offshore gravel bars.

Beach Sand Deposits

  Beach sand deposits consist of unconsolidated, well-sorted, medium- to
coarse-grained sand with local layers of pebbles and cobbles.  Thin
discontinuous lenses of silt are relatively common in back-beach areas.  The
thickness of the beach deposits is variable, in part due to seasonal changes 
in wave energy, and is commonly less than 6 m.  Beach sand deposits may
interfinger with either well-sorted dune sand or, where adjacent to coastal
cliffs, poorly sorted colluvial deposits.

Artificial Fill

  Artificial (man-made) fill is common throughout the study area.  Fill consists
of a highly variable mixture of sand, silt, clay, and gravel with varying
amounts of organic material.  Only the largest deposits are shown, and as a
result areas of artificial fill are under-represented.

			

			   REGIONAL STRUCTURE

  The Monterey and Seaside quadrangles are approximately 31-38 km southwest of
the seismically active San Andreas fault and 6-11 km northeast of the San
Gregorio fault zone.  These two faults mark the northeastern and southwestern
boundaries, respectively, of the Salinian block with its crystalline basement
of granitic and regionally metamorphosed rocks.
  The San Gregorio and Monterey Bay fault zones, both of which are seismically
active, trend southeastward into the area where they are represented by the
Carmel Canyon and Cypress Point faults.  The Carmel Canyon fault, which strikes
N.30 W. along a tributary to Carmel Canyon, is a fault segment within the San
Gregorio fault zone.  The San Gregorio fault zone is at least 130 km long and
may extend northwestward from Big Sur for about 190 km to join the San 
Andreas fault at Bolinas (Greene and others, 1973).
  The Monterey Bay fault zone abuts the San Gregorio fault zone in the
northwestern part of Monterey Bay and consists of a discontinuous series of 
en echelon faults that strike N.40 W.  Individual faults of the latter zone
continue onshore into the Monterey/Seaside area.  First-motion studies of
earthquakes in Monterey Bay (Greene and others, 1973, p. 7) indicate that the 
offshore faults are nearly vertical and that right-lateral, strike-slip
displacement is occurring along these northwest-trending faults. 
  Within the Salinian block, a series of high-angle faults trends northwestward
across the quadrangles.  Many of the faults in the region are discontinuous,
with some less than 1 km long; however, the Tularcitos fault zone continues
across the entire map area.  These faults displace the Monterey Formation and 
locally offset Quaternary deposits.
  The onshore and offshore faults that have the same general orientation appear
genetically related.  Where exposed, fault planes of the northwest-trending
onshore faults are steeply dipping, and the more westerly orientation of fold
axes, especially those truncated by the Tularcitos fault, strongly suggests
right-lateral displacement.  First-motion studies also indicate right-lateral
movement at depth on most of the faults in the study area (Rosenberg and Clark,
1994).

		     
		       FAULT GEOMETRY AND ACTIVITY

Ord Terrace Fault

  The Ord Terrace fault is a northwest-striking, steeply southwest-dipping
reverse fault that separates Monterey Formation from Pleistocene continental
deposits in the subsurface.  Beneath the city of Seaside, abrupt changes in the
subsea elevation of the top of the Monterey define the Ord Terrace fault (see
subsurface structure contour map on sheet 2).  In addition, three water wells
(Ord Village #1, Playa #4, and Monterey Sand "Metz") near the mapped trace of
the fault reportedly produced hydrothermal ground water with temperatures as
high as 28 C.  Although subsurface data are limited, the Ord Terrace fault
extends 7 km southeastward into the Laguna Seca area, as implied by truncated
fold axes and by offset subsurface structural contours on the Monterey
Formation.  The Ord Terrace fault appears to merge with the Chupines fault to
the southeast.
  The logs of two wells approximately 215 m apart, the Luzern test well #5 (well
14, sheet 2) and the now-abandoned Ord Village #1 (well 6, sheet 2), indicate
that the Ord Terrace fault vertically offsets the Monterey Formation by 198 m.
Logs from boreholes on opposite sides of the fault show approximately 180 m of
offset of the continental deposits (Staal, Gardner & Dunne, 1990a, cross
section C-C').
  McCulloch and Greene (1989) show that the northern extension of the Ord
Terrace fault cuts Pleistocene strata and offsets the sea floor.  No indication
of offset Holocene strata is evident from interpretation of well logs.
However, most well logs do not differentiate strata ranging in age from
Pleistocene older eolian deposits ("Aromas Sand") to Holocene dune deposits and
thus are of little value in bracketing the latest time of movement.

Seaside Fault

  The Seaside fault is a buried northwest-striking, steeply southwest-dipping
reverse fault that separates Monterey Formation from Pleistocene continental
deposits.  South of the Seaside fault, the Monterey Formation is typically less
than 30 m deep, whereas north of this fault the Monterey drops off to more than
200 m.  In addition, hydrothermal waters from the East Monterey Hot Springs
well (well 17, sheet 2) support the presence of a fault.  Southeast of Del Rey
Oaks, interpretation of well data suggests that the Seaside fault continues
southeastward to connect with a northwest-striking splinter of the Chupines
fault exposed in the foothills near the intersection of State Highway 68 and 
York Road.
  The logs of two now-abandoned wells approximately 670 m apart, the East Tioga
#8 test well (well 20, plate 2) and the "Tom Philips" (well 47, sheet 2), show 
that the Seaside fault vertically offsets the Monterey Formation by 133 m.  
These logs also show approximately 84 m of offset of Pleistocene continental
deposits (Staal, Gardner & Dunne, 1990a, cross section B-B').
  McCulloch and Greene (1989) show that the offshore extension of the Seaside
fault does not appear to offset Quaternary strata or the sea floor.  Because of
the extensive cultural modification of the Seaside and Fort Ord areas,
surficial evidence of Holocene faulting is lacking.

Chupines Fault

  Several discontinuous northwest-striking faults extending from the Carmel
Valley to the Seaside area comprise the Chupines fault.  Near Laureles Grade,
the Chupines fault places Monterey Formation on the north against older rocks
(Monterey Formation, middle Miocene "Tularcitos sandstone", and granodiorite)
on the south.  A parallel branch of the fault also separates steeply dipping
Pleistocene continental deposits from Monterey diatomite.  On the south side of
State Highway 68, part of the Chupines fault is concealed by alluvium.  The
fault emerges in the foothills and includes two short west- to
northwest-striking branches that juxtapose Santa Margarita Sandstone and
Pleistocene continental deposits against Monterey diatomite.
  The Chupines fault continues northwestward for 5 km beneath the alluvium of
Canyon del Rey toward Monterey Bay.  Outcrops of steeply dipping Monterey
diatomite delineate the trace of the Chupines fault along Canyon del Rey.  The
Monterey Formation is structurally high between the Chupines fault and the
Seaside fault, where it was eroded during low stands of sea level.  Hence,
subsurface contours on the top of the Monterey Formation do not show 
significant displacement.
  Estimates of minimum vertical displacement on faults within the Chupines fault
zone range from about 200 m (Fiedler, 1944) to 300 m (Herold, 1935).
Interpretation of well logs shows Pleistocene continental deposits offset by
approximately 150 m (Staal, Gardner & Dunne, 1988a, cross section B-B').
  Much of the late Quaternary displacement along the Chupines fault may be
strike-slip.  In a trench excavated across the fault (map locality 16, sheet
1), Vaughan and others (1991) found a vertical fault that "projects from two
trench exposures to a right-deflected drainage, yielding a maximum horizontal
slip rate of about 2 millimeters per year over the last 12,000 to 13,000 years."
Prominent saddles and linear drainages along the fault provide additional
geomorphic evidence for strike-slip displacement.  Alternatively, field mapping
and interpretation of aerial photographs suggest that some of these features
could be part of large landslides.
  Stratigraphic evidence indicates post-Pleistocene movement on the Chupines
fault, and other lines of evidence suggest Holocene activity.  McCulloch and
Greene (1989) show the offshore Chupines fault cutting Holocene strata and the
sea floor.  Four epicenters plot within 1 km of the surface trace and suggest
that the Chupines fault is active (Rosenberg and Clark, 1994).

Navy Fault

  The Navy fault is a northwest-striking, steeply southwest-dipping fault
extending from Carmel Valley northwestward to Monterey Bay.  Local shearing,
structural discordances, and the discontinuity of westerly-trending fold axes
delineate the Navy fault, although the trace is locally concealed by alluvium 
and landslide deposits.  Its near alignment with the mapped Tularcitos fault to
the southeast and the similarity in trend strongly suggest that these two
faults are continuous.
  The Navy fault is mapped northwestward from the mouth of Berwick Canyon and is
characterized by locally sheared shale, truncated en echelon fold axes, and
offset fluvial terrace deposits (map localities 21 and 22, sheet 1).
Structural discordances in Monterey shale and truncated fold axes suggest that
the Navy fault continues northwestward to join an offshore fault, although this
part of the fault zone could not be traced on the ground or on aerial
photographs through the Quaternary deposits.  However, an artesian well 365 m 
west of the mapped trace of the Navy fault at the Naval Post Graduate School
suggests the presence of a fault.  This 335-m deep well was drilled in 1882 and
reportedly produced lukewarm, brackish water (Elmer Lagorio, local historian,
written commun., 1994).
  McCulloch and Greene (1989) mapped an offshore extension of the Navy fault as
cutting Holocene strata and offsetting the sea floor.  Galliher (1932) earlier
mapped a small offshore channel trending N.30 W. extending for approximately 
8 km in nearly the same location.  Galliher also noted elongate gravel bars (the
"Italian Ledge" and "Portuguese Ledge" fishing grounds) along this channel.
More recently, H.G. Greene (written commun., 1995) reports finding
approximately 7 km offshore at a depth of between 85-89 m an anomalous
carbonate-cemented conglomerate mound about 80 m long, 40 m wide, and 4 m high.
He postulates that fluids migrating upward along an offshore extension of the
Navy fault zone resulted in cementation of Pleistocene beach gravels and that
late Pleistocene or Holocene deformation associated with this zone caused 
uplift and rifting of the mound.  The Italian and Portuguese Ledges may have a
similar origin.
  Several lines of evidence support strike-slip movement along the Navy fault.
Well-defined geomorphic features such as linear drainages, aligned benches,
and saddles characteristic of strike-slip faults are common along the Navy
fault.  Also, the presence of northwest-trending thrust faults and en echelon
fold axes is consistent with transpression developed along a right-lateral
strike-slip fault.  Seismologic evidence includes one fault plane solution that
shows a combination of reverse and right-lateral motion (Rosenberg and Clark,
1994).  Between two wells across the fault, the "Aguajito 1" well (well 70,
sheet 2) and the "Saucito" wildcat well, the difference in elevation of
granitic basement rock is only 60 m.  This difference is small compared to
other regional reverse faults, and suggests that much of the displacement on
the Navy fault is strike-slip.
  Several earthquakes that plot near the Navy fault indicate continuing Holocene
activity (Rosenberg and Clark, 1994).  Richter (1958) plotted two large 
earthquakes of magnitude 6.1 that occurred in 1926 as within the Monterey Bay
fault zone, but alternatively these events may have been associated with
movement along the San Gregorio fault zone.

Sylvan Thrust Fault

  The Sylvan thrust fault consists of a zone of thrust faults that locally
offset terrace deposits in the Monterey foothills.  A 3-km long thrust fault
exposed on Sylvan Road offsets the 415 ka Sylvan coastal terrace against the
Monterey Formation.  The Sylvan thrust joins the Navy fault southeast of Flagg
Hill.  At that locality, the Sylvan thrust juxtaposes Pleistocene continental 
deposits against Monterey shale in 37-m wide sheared and contorted zone.  Nearby
on Olmstead Road, Monterey shale is tightly folded and intensely faulted, and a
fault offsets a middle Pleistocene fluvial terrace by 10 m (Wright and others,
1990).  Road cuts near Devil Hill also reveal a parallel zone of thrust faults
characterized by contorted and sheared zones of Monterey shale as much as 10 m
wide.
  Locally, faults with small vertical displacements near or associated with the
Sylvan thrust fault  offset terrace deposits and colluvium by 15-20 m (map
locality 15, sheet 1).  A road cut exposing the Sylvan thrust below La Mesa
Elementary School reveals that a group of small thrust faults offsets coastal
terrace deposits and colluvium against Monterey shale by 1-2 m.  At this
exposure, an organic-rich silt layer in faulted colluvium yielded a 14C age of
4,890 +/- 90 yr B.P. indicating Holocene movement (map locality 6, sheet 1).
Other indications of Quaternary movement include steeply dipping and possibly
folded coastal terrace deposits along the Sylvan thrust (map localities 8 and 
9, sheet 1).
  During December 1975 and January 1976, a swarm of 21 small earthquakes
occurred near the Sylvan thrust fault zone.  Most of these earthquakes have
first-motion solutions that indicate right-lateral motion on steeply
southwest-dipping planes (Rosenberg and Clark, 1994), suggesting that the
thrusting is genetically related to strike-slip motion on northwest-trending 
faults.

Tularcitos Fault

  The Tularcitos fault zone extends from the southern part of the Seaside
quadrangle southeastward into the Jamesburg area, where it splays into a zone
of faults near Paloma Creek (Fiedler, 1944), a total distance of approximately
42 km.  In upper Carmel Valley, the fault is buried beneath Quaternary alluvium
and landslide deposits, but is locally delineated by upthrown granitic basement
rock on the southwest and Tertiary sedimentary rock on the northeast.
  Geomorphic features such as deflected drainages and linear closed depressions,
visible in the field and on aerial photographs, delineate this part of the
Tularcitos fault.  On Carmel Valley Road approximately 1 km east of Chupines
Creek, two splays of the Tularcitos fault that dip 82 to 84 SW. offset
colluvium and fluvial terrace deposits by 1 m against Monterey shale.  At this
exposure an offset organic silt horizon in the colluvium yielded a 14C age of
7,780 +/- 160 yr B.P. (Rosenberg and Clark, 1994), indicating that the
Tularcitos fault has Holocene movement.
  A branch of the Tularcitos fault extends along the foothills south of the
Carmel River near the southeastern boundary of the Seaside Quadrangle.  This
branch is marked by a zone of crushed granodiorite thrust over the unnamed
sandstone of middle Miocene age and appears on aerial photographs as a series
of topographic benches and saddles.  A broad flat-lying terrace near the
500-foot contour in the NE. 1/4sec. 30, T. 16 S., R. 2 E. appears to be a
result of uplift along the Tularcitos fault.
  Near mid-Carmel Valley, alluvium conceals the main trace of the Tularcitos
fault.  This portion of the fault was located by plotting bedrock lithology as
interpreted by Logan (1983) from water well logs.  Water well logs and seismic
refraction data also suggest a buried granitic bedrock high near the mouth of
Juan de Matte Canyon.  From Laureles Grade westward to Tomasini Canyon, a
branch of the Tularcitos fault aligns with and cuts the edge of the broad
fluvial terrace.  On Rancho Fiesta Road, a fluvial terrace is tilted 18 degrees
toward the Tularcitos fault (map locality 24, sheet 1).
  Total post-Miocene vertical displacement of the Tularcitos fault is about 
380 m (Fiedler, 1944, p. 237).  Graham (1976, p. 151) postulated that at least
3.2 km and possibly as much as 16 km of right-lateral displacement may have
taken place along the Tularcitos fault, based on the apparent offset of
distinctive beds in the Monterey Formation.  Other evidence of strike-slip 
displacement on the Tularcitos fault includes two earthquake focal mechanisms
with right-reverse-oblique-slip movement.  Offset Holocene colluvium and
clustered epicenters indicate that the Tularcitos fault is active (Rosenberg 
and Clark, 1994).

Berwick Canyon Fault

  The Berwick Canyon fault extends northwestward from the Carmel River about 
5.5 km to just south of State Highway 68, and locally offsets Pleistocene
terrace deposits.  The main trace of the Berwick Canyon fault is defined by
intensely fractured, steeply dipping Monterey shale in an area of otherwise
gently folded beds.  On topographic maps and aerial photographs, the fault
appears as a series of aligned linear drainages and poorly developed topographic
benches and saddles.  The Berwick Canyon fault appears to have sheared and
offset Pleistocene terrace deposits (map locality 23, sheet 1).
  The dip of the fault is probably near-vertical to steeply dipping with a
reverse sense of displacement, based on the geometry and relationship to nearby
faults.  The total amount of displacement is not known, although Younse (1980)
shows approximately 100 m of vertical offset along the Berwick Canyon fault
near Buckeye Canyon.
  Offset terrace deposits demonstrate post-middle Pleistocene movement on the
Berwick Canyon fault.  Vaughan and others (1991) logged an exploratory trench
across the projected fault trace and noted offset colluvial wedges.
Radiocarbon dating of the colluvium indicated two or three episodes of
movement during Holocene time.

Laureles Fault Zone

  The Laureles fault zone extends discontinuously in a zone as much as 0.3 km
wide for approximately 6.5 km along the foothills on the north side of Carmel
Valley.  Faults in the zone are  northwest-striking and nearly vertical,
separating Cretaceous granitic rock and Miocene marine sandstones.  Steep to
near-vertical dipping Monterey shale locally offset against Pleistocene terrace
deposits characterizes the Laureles fault zone from Tomasini Canyon to Laureles
Grade.  An anomalously thick section of middle Miocene sandstone was
encountered in a water well adjacent to the south side of the Laureles fault
about 150 m west of Laureles Grade.  Granite was not encountered to the total
depth of 176 m, although it crops out nearby on the north side of the fault
(R.R. Thorup, oral commun., 1992).
  From Laureles Grade southeastward to Carmel Valley Village, the fault zone
separates Salinian basement on the north from steeply dipping middle Miocene
sandstone.  Northeast of Carmel Valley Village, the Laureles fault zone
continues eastward into a large landslide deposit and dies out.  Fiedler (1944)
showed the Laureles fault zone truncated by a cross-fault; but field evidence
and analysis of aerial photographs do not support this interpretation.
  Estimates of vertical displacement on the Laureles fault zone range from about
180 m (Fiedler, 1944) to 300 m (Herold, 1935).  Clearly offset Quaternary
deposits are limited along the Laureles fault zone, although we have interpreted a scarp east of Juan de Matte Canyon as tectonic in origin rather
than the erosional edge of the terrace deposit, as mapped by Dupre(1990b). 
On a spur ridge approximately 120 m west of Juan de Matte Canyon, an en echelon
segment of the Laureles fault offsets a small patch of Pleistocene fluvial
terrace gravel (map locality 25, sheet 1).  This limited exposure suggests that
the latest movement on the Laureles fault zone is probably post middle(?)
Pleistocene.

Snively Fault

  Brown (1962) mapped a northwest-striking fault on the southwest side of
Snivelys Ridge separating granite and sandstone.  This fault appears to be the
northern extension of the Pion Peak fault of Trask (1926), which Bowen (1965)
named the Snively fault.  The combined length of these faults is approximately
4 km.  The Snively fault has approximately 210 m of reverse throw, and
separates Miocene sedimentary rock from granitic basement rock (Trask, 1926).
  O'Rourke (1980) used exploratory borings and magnetometer data to extend the
Snively fault north beneath the large landslide in the NE 1/4 sec. 25, T. 16 S., R. 1 E.  Rosenberg (1993) field checked 10-m-deep dozer excavations within the
landslide area and found no Quaternary evidence for the concealed portion of
the Snively fault mapped by O'Rourke (1980) and Clark and others (1974).  On
aerial photographs, the fault appears as a prominent linear feature flanked by
several landslides.  Within the study area, Quaternary landslide deposits are
not offset by the Snively fault, suggesting that the fault is not active.

Hatton Canyon Fault Zone

  A group of northwest-striking, near-vertical reverse faults that juxtapose
Monterey shale against Pleistocene terrace deposits constitutes the Hatton
Canyon fault zone.  The Hatton Canyon fault zone extends from Carmel Valley
Road northwest 11.5 km to Point Joe on the coast.
  Along the north side of Carmel Valley Road, the fault is marked by intensely
fractured, steeply dipping Monterey shale in an area of otherwise gently
dipping beds.  On Carmel Valley Road, the fault offsets landslide and terrace
deposits (map locality 19, sheet 1).  Along the projected trend of the fault is
a possible hydrogeologic barrier at September Ranch (map locality 18, sheet 1).
Ground water elevations on the south side of the fault were approximately 3 m 
higher than those on the north side of the fault (Oliver, 1991).  Driller's logs
for the wells along this barrier record a repeated section of shale, indicating
reverse faulting.
  North of the inactive Sierra Quarry, the fault has rotated terrace deposits
(map locality 20, sheet 1).  In a construction excavation, the fault clearly
offset Monterey shale against a fluvial terrace deposit and landslide deposit
(map locality 12, sheet 1).  Colluvium overlying the fault thins abruptly on
the upthrown side of the fault; however, the fault strand is obscure within the
colluvium.  Dating of this colluvium yielded a 14C age of 2,080 +/- 40 yr B.P.,
suggesting Holocene movement.
  About 1 km east of Hatton Canyon, gently folded fluvial terrace deposits above
the mapped trace of the fault are cut by near-vertical clay-filled fractures
that strike approximately N.60 E. (map locality 11, sheet 1).  The Hatton
Canyon fault continues from State Highway 1 to Point Joe.  Although exposures
are poor in the densely vegetated canyons, discordant structural attitudes and
prominent aligned linear drainages suggest faulting.  The Hatton Canyon fault 
may continue offshore as a series of short en echelon faults mapped by H.G.
Greene (oral commun., 1994).
  The total displacement along the Hatton Canyon fault is unknown, but undivided
terrace deposits of Pleistocene age located about 120 m south of map locality
12 are approximately 30 m lower in elevation.  This difference in elevation
suggests at least 30 m of vertical offset during or after Pleistocene time.
Several earthquakes that align with the Hatton Canyon fault indicate recent
activity (Rosenberg and Clark, 1994).

Cypress Point Fault

  The Cypress Point fault extends for 3 km juxtaposing the Carmelo Formation
with granodiorite at Pescadero Point and basaltic andesite with granodiorite at
Carmel Point, with the northeast side relatively downthrown.  Seismic profiles
offshore indicate that a segment of the Cypress Point fault extends
northwestward from Cypress Point for about 3 km as a single continuous fault
(Greene and others, 1973). A zone of discontinuous, en echelon faults continues 
for another 3 km to the southern wall of Monterey Canyon.  The fault is
identified in the seismic reflection profiles principally from juxtaposition of
sediments of questionable Pleistocene age against granodiorite and from linear
topographic expressions on the sea floor.
  At Carmel Point ,vesicular basaltic-andesite flows and basaltic-andesite flow
breccias are faulted against porphyritic granodiorite to the southwest in a 4 
to 7-m wide brecciated zone.  In May 1993, severe beach erosion revealed a
60-m long exposure of the fault striking N.50 W., implying that the faults at
Pescadero Point and Carmel Point are en echelon segments rather than continuous.
  Field work by Clark (1989) on Palo Corona Ranch and along the canyon of San
Jose Creek  to the southeast failed to reveal any significant structural or
stratigraphic discordances that would permit the extension of this fault
southeastward to San Jose Creek canyon or beyond to the Blue Rock/Miller Creek
fault zone 15 km to the southeast, as hypothesized by Ross (1976).
  Exploratory drilling and seismic profiling suggest a vertical displacement of
as much as 30 m for the Cypress Point fault (Staal, Gardner & Dunne, 1989).
Right-lateral displacement is also possible, based on the relatively straight
trend and en echelon character. 
  East of Carmel Point, the terrace platform (about 102 ka, according to Dupre,
1990a) appears to be more than 1 m higher above the basaltic andesite northeast
of the fault than on the granodiorite to the southwest. suggesting late
Quaternary movement on the Cypress Point fault.  Alternatively, this elevation
difference across the fault could result from deposition on an irregular
platform surface.  McCulloch and Greene (1989) show the offshore segment of the 
Cypress Point fault cutting Quaternary strata.


			
			  QUATERNARY DEFORMATION

General Statement

  Several lines of geologic evidence indicate ongoing tectonic deformation in
the study area.  These include faulted, folded, and tilted Pleistocene terrace
deposits; faulted Holocene colluvium; and earthquake epicenters that align with
mapped fault traces.

Structural Framework

 The Tularcitos/Navy fault is the dominant through-going fault in the study
area.  Microseismic data suggest that the Tularcitos/Navy fault extends to
nearly 14 km depth.  En echelon faults, such as the Laureles, appear to branch
off at shallower depths.
  Depth to basement increases northeastward across each block of the zone
between the Chupines, Seaside, and Ord Terrace faults.  One interpretation is
that these faults are imbricated and splay off the Chupines or possibly the
Navy fault .  This is consistent with an uplifted block in a strike-slip fault
zone in which sinuous faults splay from the main fault in "palm tree structure"
(Sylvester, 1988, p. 1687).

Folding and Tilting

  Two types of folds are common in the study area: (1) very tight and broken
folds such as those occurring in the Monterey Formation next to fault zones,
and (2) much broader, open folds that are as much as 8 km long.  The broader
fold axes are oblique to the trend of the through-going faults and trend mainly
N.65-85W.  Most of these major folds are subparallel to faults (N.40-50 W.
trend) and are truncated by faults, suggesting that folding was
penecontemporaneous with strike-slip faulting.
  The number and intensity of folds increase southward between the Chupines
fault and the Hatton Canyon fault.  This is especially evident in the zone
between the Sylvan thrust and the Hatton Canyon fault.  In this zone of
deformation, isolated terrace remnants dip approximately 10 degrees.  The
distribution of earthquakes suggests that this deformation is caused by 
movement on these and related faults at depth, including an inferred blind
thrust fault (Rosenberg and Clark, 1994).
  Folding and tilting of Quaternary deposits is evident at several places.
Northeast of the Chupines fault, outcrops of Pleistocene continental deposits
dip as much as 20 degrees along the paired anticline and syncline south of
Laguna Seca.  Similarly, in the Seaside area, subsurface marker beds in the
Pleistocene continental deposits dip almost 28 degrees along the anticline 
northeast of the Ord Terrace fault (Staal, Gardner & Dunne, 1990a, cross 
section C-C').
  Younger terrace deposits are folded and faulted along the trace of the Sylvan
thrust fault, although soft-sediment deformation is an alternate explanation
locally.  Gently folded and fractured terrace deposits are exposed above the
mapped trace of the Hatton Canyon fault (map locality 11, sheet 1).  These two
examples imply post-middle Pleistocene deformation.
  Tilted terrace deposits ranging in age from early to late Pleistocene are
exposed in the Monterey and Carmel Valley hills.  North of Huckleberry Hill
(map locality 13, sheet 1), an early Pleistocene terrace is tilted approximately
13 degrees.  On the north side of the Carmel River, the youngest and lowest
fluvial terraces are tilted as much as 22 degrees (map localities 7, 8, and 11;
sheet 1).  Because these tilted terraces are adjacent to faults and untilted
terraces are exposed elsewhere, the tilted terraces represent local deformation
rather than regional uplift.

Quaternary Displacement Rates

  Many of the faults in the study area cut Quaternary deposits, and the
Tularcitos, Hatton Canyon, and Sylvan faults offset Holocene colluvium.  The
amount of displacement is easily measured; however, the absolute ages of most
deposits are uncertain.  A framework for determining the relative ages of the
Quaternary deposits is outlined by Dupre(1990a).  Dupre estimated ages of
Monterey terraces by correlating these terraces with known sea level 
highstands and radiometrically dated terraces in Santa Cruz.  Using this age
framework, Quaternary vertical displacement rates range from 0.01 mm/yr
(Cypress Point fault) to 0.41 mm/yr (Sylvan thrust fault) and average about
0.11 mm/yr (Rosenberg and Clark, 1994).  This average rate is slightly lower
than the 0.18 uplift rate for the Monterey area estimated by Dupre(1991).
The lower rate probably reflects that fault displacements produce episodic
uplift, whereas sea level curves represent long-term rates.  The rugged
topography in the study area also indicates relatively high long-term uplift
rates.
  Of the faults in the study area, the Sylvan thrust has the highest rate of
uplift and the greatest number of recorded earthquakes.  This high rate of
uplift is related to transpression between the Hatton Canyon and Navy faults.
The density of fold axes between these faults supports active folding as an
explanation for the high uplift rate on the Sylvan thrust fault.
  The vertical slip rate of the Navy fault is anomalously low at 0.02 mm/yr.
This low rate corroborates the first-motion and geomorphic data indicating
lateral displacement.  Alternatively, the apparent lack of vertical displacement
could result from stripping of Quaternary deposits during lower stands of sea
level. 
  Quaternary horizontal displacement rates are difficult to calculate because of
the absence of suitable markers.  Local erosion rates are rapid; as a result,
features that could be used for estimating horizontal displacement are lacking.  The only estimate of horizontal displacement on local faults is the 2 mm/yr
cited by Vaughan and others (1991) for the Chupines fault.
  Alternatively, the lack of visible horizontal surface displacement can be
explained using the strain partitioning model of Lettis and Hanson (1991).  In
their model, "oblique strain in the lower lithosphere may partition upward in
the brittle crust into nearly pure strike-slip and dip-slip deformation, the
dip-slip component being expressed as reverse faults and folds."  This model
accounts for the strike-slip sense of displacement indicated by focal-plane
mechanisms and for the observed reverse stratigraphic displacement near the
surface.  The implication of this model is that short faults, such as the
Sylvan thrust fault, are the upper crustal expressions of a seismic zone at
depth.

Maximum Earthquakes

  An important issue for planning purposes is assessing the largest size
earthquake that is likely to occur along a fault.  One approach is to determine
the maximum earthquake (Mmax) by using geologic and seismologic data.
Calculating the maximum earthquake involves estimating fault characteristics 
and using empirical relationships to relate these characteristics to 
earthquake magnitude.  Recent work by Wells and Coppersmith (1994) uses moment 
magnitude (Mw) rather than surface wave magnitude (Ms) to estimate maximum 
earthquake magnitudes.  Using the regression equations of Wells and Coppersmith
(1994), maximum earthquakes for local Quaternary faults are listed in table 2.


Table 2.  Maximum earthquakes for local faults.

Fault & main type	Dip   Fault Length (km)	       Rupture	      Moment
of movement	     (degrees)*	Depth (km)		Area	     Magnitude
			     Downdip Width (km)*       (km2)**	       (Mw)#
-----------------      ----	-----------		---		---
Berwick Canyon
(reverse)		85	5.5, 6, 8.0		22		5.5
Chupines
(strike-slip)		85	30, 10, 13		200		6.3
Chupines
(reverse)		85	30, 10, 13		200		6.4
Cypress Point
(reverse)		85	12, 8, 11		64		6.0
Hatton Canyon
(reverse)		80	11, 7, 9.5		52		5.9
Laureles
(reverse)		75	6.5, 5, 6.9		22		5.5
Ord Terrace
(reverse)		75	9.8, 6, 8.3		40		5.8
Seaside
(reverse)		80	18, 6, 8.1		73		6.0
Sylvan thrust
(reverse)		55	4.0, 6, 9.7		19		5.5
Tularcitos/Navy/Monterey Bay
(strike-slip)		85	74, 13, 17		642		6.8
Tularcitos/Navy/Monterey Bay
(reverse)		85	74, 13, 17		642		6.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*	Fault parameters from Rosenberg and Clark (1994) except for the
         Tularcitos/Navy/Monterey Bay fault zone length which is from 
         Rosenberg (1993).
**	Rupture area (RA) equals subsurface rupture length times downdip width.
         Assumes that surface rupture length is approximately 75 percent of
         subsurface length (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994) and that surface
         rupture length is one-half of mapped fault surface length.
#	For reverse faults Mw = 4.33 + 0.90(log(RA)), for strike-slip faults
         Mw = 3.98 + 1.02(log(RA)).


			    REFERENCES CITED

Anderson, R.S., Orange, D.L., and Schwartz, S.Y., 1990, Implications of the 	
	October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake for the emergence of marine 
	terraces along the Santa Cruz coast, and for long term evolution of the 
	Santa Cruz Mountains, in Garrison, R.E., Greene, H.G., Hicks, K.R., 
	Weber, G.E., and Wright, T.L., eds., Geology and tectonics of the 
	central California coastal region, San Francisco to Monterey: American 
	Association of Petroleum Geologists, Volume and Guidebook, Pacific 
	Section, Bakersfield, Calif., p. 205-227.

Beal, C.H., 1915, The geology of the Monterey quadrangle, California: Stanford,
	Calif., Stanford University, M.S. thesis, 88 p., 1 map, scale 1:62,500.

Bowen, O.E., Jr., 1965, Stratigraphy, structure, and oil possibilities in 	
	Monterey and Salinas quadrangles, California: American Association of 
	Petroleum Geologists, 40th annual meeting, Pacific Section, Bakersfield,
	Calif., p. 48-67. 			

_____[1969a], Geologic map of the Monterey 7.5-minute quadrangle: California 
	Division of Mines and Geology unpublished map, scale 1:24,000.

_____[1969b], Geologic map of the Seaside 7.5-minute quadrangle: California 
	Division of Mines and Geology unpublished map, scale 1:24,000.

_____1980, Report of fault investigation at Mesa Hills West subdivision, 
	Monterey County, California: unpublished report, 3 p.


Bowen, O.E., Jr., and Gray, C.H., 1959, Geology and economic possibilities of 
	the limestone and dolomite deposits of the northern Gabilan Range, 
	California: California Division of Mines Special Report 56, 40 p., 1 map
	sheet, scale 1:15,840. 

Brown, E.H., 1962, Geology of the Rancho San Carlos area, Monterey County, 
	California: Stanford, Calif., Stanford University, graduate report, 56 
	p., 2 map sheets, scale 1:12,000.

Bryant, W.A., 1985, Faults in the southern Monterey Bay area, Monterey County, 
	California: California Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation 
	Report FER-167, 13 p., 5 map sheets, scale 1:24,000.

Clark, J.C., 1989, Geologic analysis of the Cypress Point fault in the vicinity 
	of the lower Carmel River Valley: Monterey Peninsula Water Management 
	District open-file report, 7 p.

Clark, J.C., Brabb, E.E., Greene, H.G., and Ross, D.C., 1984, Geology of Point
	Reyes Peninsula and implications for San Gregorio fault history, in
	Crouch, J.K., and Bachman, S.B., eds., Tectonics and sedimentation along
	the California margin: Society of Economic Paleontologists and
	Mineralogists, Pacific Section, Los Angeles, Calif., p. 67-86.

Clark, J.C., Dibblee, T.W., Jr., Greene, H.G., and Bowen, O.E., Jr., 1974,
	Preliminary geologic map of the Monterey and Seaside 7.5-minute
	quadrangles, Monterey County Calif., with emphasis on active faults: 
	U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-577, 
	2 plates, scale 1:24,000.

Clifton, H.E., 1981, Submarine canyon deposits, Point Lobos, California, in
	Frizzell, Virgil, ed., Upper Cretaceous and Paleocene Turbidites,
	central California coast: Society of Economic Paleontologists and
	Mineralogists, Annual Meeting Pacific Section SEPM Field Trip 6, Los
	Angeles, Calif., p. 79-92. Cooper, W.S., 1967, Coastal dunes of
	California: Geological Society of America Memoir 104, 131 p.

Dohrenwend, J.C., 1971, Marine geology of the continental shelf between Point
	Lobos and Point Sur, CaliforniaA reconnaissance: Stanford, Calif.,
	Stanford University, M.S. thesis, 60 p. Dupre, W.R., 1990a, Quaternary
	geology of the Monterey Bay region, California, in Garrison, R.E.,
	Greene, H.G., Hicks, K.R., Weber, G.E., and Wright, T.L., eds., Geology
	and tectonics of the central California coastal region, San Francisco to
	Monterey: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Volume and
	Guidebook, Pacific Section, Bakersfield, Calif., p. 185-191.

_____1990b, Maps showing geology and liquefaction susceptibility of Quaternary
	deposits in the Monterey, Seaside, Spreckels, and Carmel Valley
	quadrangles, Monterey County, California: U.S. Geological Survey
	Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2096, 2 map sheets, scale 1:24,000.

_____1991, Quaternary geology of the southern California Coast Ranges, in
	Morrison, R.B., ed., Quaternary nonglacial geology: Conterminous U.S.:
	Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of America, The Geology of North
	America, v. K-2, p. 176-184.  

Dupre, W.R., and Tinsley, J.C. III, 1980,  Maps showing geology and
	liquefaction potential of northern Monterey and southern Santa Cruz
	Counties, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies
	Map MF-1199, 2 map sheets, scale 1:62,500.

Fiedler, W.M., 1944, Geology of the Jamesburg quadrangle, Monterey
	County, California: California Division of Mines, Report XL of the State
	Mineralogist, v. 40, no. 2, p. 177-250, 2 map sheets, scale 1:62,500.

Fitzgibbon, T.T., 1991, ALACARTE installation and system manual (version 1.0):
	U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-587B.

Fitzgibbon, T.T., and Wentworth, C.M., 1991, ALACARTE user interface--AML code
	and demonstration maps (version 1.0): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
	Report 91-587A.  

Galliher, E.W., 1930, A study of the Monterey Formation, California, at the type
	locality: Stanford, Calif., Stanford University, M.S. thesis, 29 p., 1
	map sheet, scale 1:62,500.

_____1932, Sediments of Monterey Bay, California: California Division of Mines,
	Report XXVIII of the State Mineralogist, v. 28, no. 1, p. 43-79.

Gardner-Taggert, J.M., Greene, H.G., and Ledbetter, M.T., 1993, Neogene folding
	and faulting in southern Monterey Bay, central California, USA: Marine
	Geology, v. 113, p. 166-177.

Graham, S.A., 1976, Tertiary sedimentary tectonics of the central Salinian block
	of California: Stanford, Calif., Stanford University, Ph.D.
	dissertation, 510 p.

Greene, H.G., 1977, Geology of the Monterey Bay region: U.S. Geological Survey
	Open-File Report 77-718, 347 p., 9 plates.

Greene, H.G., Lee, W.H.K., McCulloch, D.S., and Brabb, E.E., 1973, Faults and
	earthquakes in the Monterey Bay region, California: U.S. Geological 
	Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-518, 14 p., 4 map sheets,
	scale 1:200,000.

Greene, H.G., McCulloch, D.S., and Clark, J.C., 1988, Compression of Salinian 
	Block in the Monterey Bay region [abs.]: American Association Petroleum 
	Geologists Bulletin, v. 72, no. 3, p. 382.

Hart, E.W., 1992, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Division
	of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, 32 p.

Herold, C.L., 1934, Fossil markings in the Carmelo Series (Upper Cretaceous[?]),
	Point Lobos, California: Journal of Geology, v. XLII, no. 6, p. 630-640.

_____1935, Preliminary report on the geology of the Salinas quadrangle,
	California: Berkeley, University of California, M.S. thesis, 143 p., 2
	map sheets, scale 1:62,500.

Johnson, D.L., 1993, Geoarcheological, geomorphological, paleoenvironmental, and
	pedological overview of Fort Ord, Monterey County, California-A working
	geotechnical report: unpublished report to U.S. Army Construction
	Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Ill., 66 p., 1 appendix, 4
	map sheets.

Johnson, Rogers E. & Associates, 1985, Preliminary geologic report, Veeder Ranch
	subdivision, Monterey County, California: Monterey County Planning
	Department open-file report, 50 p., 2 appendices.

_____1986, Preliminary geologic report, proposed Monterra Ranch subdivision,
	Monterey County, California: Monterey County Planning Department
	open-file report, 93 p.

Lajoie, K.R., Ponti, D.J., Powell, C.L., II, Mathieson, S.A., and
	Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M., 1991, Emergent marine strandlines and associated 
	sediments, coastal California; a record of Quaternary sea-level
	fluctuations, vertical tectonic movements, climatic changes, and coastal
	processes, in Morrison, R.B., ed., Quaternary nonglacial geology:
	Conterminous U.S.: Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of America, The
	Geology of North America, v. K-2, p 190-203.

Lawson, A.C., 1893, The geology of Carmelo Bay, California: University of 
	California Publications, Bulletin of the Department of Geological
	Sciences, v. 1, p. 1-59, 1 map, scale 1:31,680.

Lettis, W.R., and Hanson, K.L., 1991, Crustal strain partitioning: Implications
	for seismic-hazard assessment in western California: Geology, v. 19,
	p.559-562.

Logan, John, 1982, Hydrogeology of the Seaside area: Monterey Peninsula Water
	Management District open-file report, 56 p., 4 appendices.

_____1983, The Carmel Valley alluvial aquifer: bedrock geometry, hydraulic
	parameters and storage capacity: Monterey Peninsula Water Management
	District open-file report, 30 p., 2 appendices, 2 map sheets, 
	scale 1:12,000.

_____1985, Well data summary--Monterra: unpublished report, 7 p., 1 appendix.
	
McCulloch, D.S., and Greene, H.G., 1989, Geologic map of the central
	California continental margin, in Greene, H.G., and Kennedy, M.P., eds.,
	Geology of the central California continental margin: California
	Division of Mines and Geology California Continental Margin Geologic Map
	Series, Map 5A, scale 1:250,000.

McKittrick, M.A., 1988, Elevated marine terraces near Monterey, California: 
	Tucson, University of Arizona, M.S. thesis, 46 p.

Nili-Esfahani, Alireza, 1965, Investigation of Paleocene strata, Point Lobos,
	Monterey County, California: Los Angeles, University of California, M.A.
	thesis, 228 p.

Oliver, J.W., 1991, Summary of September Ranch aquifer test: Monterey Peninsula
	Water Management District Technical Memorandum 91-03, 19 p., 4
	appendices.

_____1994, Summary of Fort Ord monitor well installations: Monterey Peninsula
	Water Management District Technical Memorandum 94-07, 17 p., 3 
	appendices.

ORourke, J.T., 1980, Geotechnical investigation, Carmel Valley Ranch, Monterey
	County, California: Stanford, Calif., Stanford University, M.S. thesis,
	66 p., 2 map sheets, scale 1:2,400.

Richter, C.F., 1958, Elementary seismology: San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and
	Company, 769 p.

Rosenberg, L.I., 1993, Earthquake and landslide hazards in the Carmel Valley
	area, Monterey County, California: San Jose, Calif., San Jose State
	University, M.S. thesis, 123 p., 2 appendices, 3 map sheets, 
	scale 1:24,000.

Rosenberg, L.I., and Clark, J.C., 1994, Quaternary faulting of the greater
	Monterey area, California: U.S. Geological Survey Final Technical Report
	1434-94-G-2443, 45 p., 3 appendices, 4 map sheets, scale 1:24,000.

Ross, D.C., 1976, Reconnaissance geologic map of pre-Cenozoic basement rocks,
	northern Santa Lucia Range, Monterey County, California: U.S. Geological
	Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-750, 7 p., 2 plates, 
	scale 1:125,000.

Simpson, J.P., III, 1972, The geology of Carmel Bay, California: Monterey,
	Calif., Department of the Navy, Naval Postgraduate School, M.S. thesis,
	74 p.Staal, Gardner & Dunne, 1988a, Phase II hydrogeologic
	investigation, Laguna Seca subarea, Monterey County, California: County
	of Monterey Department of Health open-file report, 33 p., 6 appendices,
	8 map sheets, scale 1:12,000.

_____1988b, Supplemental hydrogeologic assessment, Monterey Research Park,
	Laguna Seca subarea, Monterey County, California: unpublished report to
	NeuvilleCompany, 18 p., 6 appendices, 1 map sheet, scale 1:12,000.

_____1989, Hydrogeologic investigation, Carmel River aquifer, coastal portion,
	Monterey County, California: Monterey Peninsula Water Management
	District open-file report, 25 p., 6 appendices, 4 map sheets, 
	scale 1:2,400.

_____1990a, Hydrogeologic update, Seaside coastal ground water basins, Monterey
	County, California: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
	open-file report, 55 p., 2 appendices, 6 map sheets, scale 1:12,000.

_____1990b, Hydrogeologic investigation, Monterey coastal basin, Monterey
	County, California: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
	open-file report, 27 p., 4 appendices.

_____1990c, Summary of operations, Del Rey Oaks no. 1 test well, Del Rey Oaks,
	California: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District open-file
	report, 15 p., 3 appendices.

_____1991, Laguna Seca Ranch, supplemental hydrogeologic assessment: unpublished
	letter report to Kimball Small Properties, 7 p.

_____1992a, Feasibility study, saline ground water intake system, Monterey Sand
	Company site, Marina, California: Monterey Peninsula Water Management
	District open-file report, 31 p., 6 appendices.

_____1992b, Feasibility study, saline ground water intake/disposal system, Sand
	City, California: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District open-file
	report, v. 1, 51 p., 6 appendices.

Sylvester, A.G., 1988, Strike-slip faults: Geological Society of America
	Bulletin, v. 100, p. 1666-1703.

Trask, P.D., 1926, Geology of Point Sur quadrangle, California: University of
	California Publications, Bulletin of the Department of Geological
	Sciences, v. 16, no. 6, p. 119-186, 1 sheet, scale 1:62,500.

Vaughan, P.R., Allwardt, A.O., and Crenna, P.C., 1991, Late Quaternary activity
	on the Berwick Canyon fault and Chupines fault near Monterey, coastal
	central California [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with
	Programs, Cordilleran Section, v. 23, no. 2, p. 105.

Wells, D.L., and Coppersmith, K.J., 1994, New empirical relationships among
	magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, and surface displacement:
	Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 84, p. 974-1002.

Wentworth, C.M., and Fitzgibbon, T.T., 1991, ALACARTE user manual (version 1.0):
	U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-587C.

Williams, J.W., 1970, Geomorphic history of Carmel Valley and Monterey
	Peninsula, California: Stanford, Calif., Stanford University, Ph.D.
	dissertation, 106 p., 1 map sheet, scale 1:62,500.

Wright, T.L, Greene, H.G., Hicks, K.R., and Weber, G.E., 1990, AAPG June 1990
	field trip road log, coastal geology-San Francisco to Monterey, in
	Garrison, R.E., Greene, H.G., Hicks, K.R., Weber, G.E., and Wright,
	T.L., eds., Geology and tectonics of the central California coastal
	region, San Francisco to Monterey: American Association of Petroleum
	Geologists, Volume and Guidebook, Pacific Section, Bakersfield, Calif.,
	p. 261-314.

Younse, G.A., 1980, The stratigraphy and phosphoritic rocks of the Robinson
	Canyon-Laureles Grade area, Monterey County, California: U.S. Geological
	Survey Open-File Report 80-318, 127 p., 5 plates.