HEIGHT CHANGES ALONG SELECTED LINES 

THROUGH THE DEATH VALLEY REGION, 

CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA, 1905-1984

By Robert O. Castle1, Thomas D. Gilmore1, James P. Walker1, and Susan A. 

Castle2

Open-File Report 2005-1133

2005

Use of any trade, firm or product name is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute 

endorsement by the U.S. Government

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

1 U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA 94025

2 456 W. 12th Street, Claremont, CA 91711
ABSTRACT

Comparisons among repeated levelings along selected lines through the Death Valley 

region of California and adjacent parts of Nevada have disclosed surprisingly large 

vertical displacements. The vertical control data in this lightly populated area is sparse; 

moreover, as much as a third of the recovered data is so thoroughly contaminated by 

systematic error and survey blunders that no attempt was made to correct these data and 

they were simply discarded. In spite of these limitations, generally episodic, commonly 

large vertical displacements are disclosed along a number of lines. Displacements 

in excess of 0.4 m, with respect to our selected control point at Beatty, Nevada, and 

differential displacements of about 0.7 m apparently occurred during the earlier years 

of the 20th century and continued episodically through at least 1943. While this area 

contains abundant evidence of continuing tectonic activity through latest Quaternary time, 

it is virtually devoid of historic seismicity. We have detected no clear connection between 

the described vertical displacements and fault zones reportedly active during Holocene 

time, although we sense some association with several more broadly defined tectonic 

features.

INTRODUCTION

Almost casual geologic reconnaissance through the area within and around Death Valley 

suggests that this region has been characterized by major tectonic activity through latest 

Quaternary time. This view is supported by a number of independent investigations, 

several of which we cite here (Noble and Wright, 1954; Denny,1965; Hill and Troxell, 

1966; Hunt and Maybe,1966; Hooke, 1972; Bull and McFadden, 1977; Butler and others, 

1988; Brogan and others, 1991;Wright and others, 1991; Jennings, 1994; Peterson and 

others, 1995; Knott and others,1997; Knott and others ,1999; Morison, 1999; Frankel and 

others, 2001; Machette and Crone, 2001). While only a handful of these studies argue, if 

only implicitly, for continuing activity into historic time, the gross physiography in itself 

supports this notion. For example, the 3.5-km height difference between Badwater and 

Telescope Peak, about 26 km apart (fig. 1), is clearly consistent with a high relief index 

characteristic of youthful terrains. Similarly, well developed Holocene (?) fault scarps 

characterized by offsets of the order of 2-3 m constitute equally significant evidence of 

continuing tectonic activity in the Death Valley region.

 Even though the Death Valley region has sustained major tectonic deformation during 

Neogene and Quaternary time, it was not until relatively recently that this position 

became generally accepted. One of the reasons that this likelihood received so little 

attention may lie in one of the many geologic conundrums identified with this area. 

Specifically, while it is especially difficult to dismiss the likelihood that we are dealing 

with one of the most tectonically active areas in California, this region is at the same 

time associated with trivial historic seismicity westward nearly to the Sierras (Goter and 

others, 1994; Toppozada and others, 2000).

In this report we attempt to test the geologic presumption that Quaternary deformation 

in and around Death Valley has persisted into historic time through examination and 

2
0 10 20 30 40 50 Km

37°

35° 117° 116°

117° 116°

36°

Garlock

Fault

Panamint Valley Fault Zone

Furnace Creek Fault

Death Valley Fault Zone

Ballart

Panamint Springs

Darwin

Ashford Mill

Death

Valley Junction

Stovepipe Wells

Beatty

Armagosa Valley

Indian Springs

Shoshone

Riggs

Baker

1905

1905 1933 1984

1933 1984 1933 1984

1905 1906

1948 1984 1907 1933

1907 1935

1907 1933 1935

Wildrose 1933

1907 1933 1984

1907

1907 1942/43

1907

1907 1933 1984

1933 1984

1907 1915 1984

A

M A

R

G

O

S

A

R

A

N

G

E

Death Valley

D

E A

T H

V A

L

L

E

Y

P

A

N A

M

I

N

T

R

A

N

G

E

1907 1942/43

1907 1942/43

1933 1943 1983

1933 1943 1983

1933 1943

1933 1983

1983

1912/13 1943

1909 1933 1983

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Figure 1. Index map of the greater Death Valley region, California and Nevada, showing approximate

routes and dates of compared levelings, major physiographic features, and major faults and fault zones.

Junction marks indicated by black dots; locally coincident with red dots showing towns or other

geographic features.

1907 1915 1984

Olancha

1905

3139 USGS

N17

Telescope Peak

Badwater

Towne Pass

3649 USGS

Y163

Y162

analysis of the very limited terrestrial geodetic record. Moreover, our initial examination 

of the data identified a number of early surveys so highly contaminated by systematic 

error or simple blunders that they did not lend themselves to credible correction and were 

discarded for 

purposes of this study. Finally, all, or nearly all, of the early Geological Survey field 

books, from which the early summary books were compiled, were destroyed by fire. 

Thus the source of and our ability to correct for several of these recognized errors was 

effectively foreclosed. In spite of these restrictions, the retained survey data included 

with the summary books revealed a number of surprising results in which we have a fairly 

high degree of confidence. Had we discarded all of the early baseline data it would have 

produced a sharply diminished argument for bringing this report to completion.

3
VERTICAL CONTROL DATA

The height changes reported here are based on the results of comparisons between 

successive geodetic levelings ranging upward from third- to first-order, including several 

“classes” associated with second- and first-order work. While the higher-order surveys 

are generally characterized by greater precision, they are not necessarily more accurate 

in the sense that they more perfectly conform to some stipulated measurement standard. 

For example, while the precision of most third-order work could not be expected to match 

that of double-run first-order or second-order leveling, because the maximum permitted 

sight length has never fallen below 92 m for third-order single-run Geological Survey 

leveling, whereas until 1961 the same requirement for first-order leveling was, set at 150 

m. In other words, in considering a sample size as small as the one on which this study is 

based, the accuracy of each survey should be independently assessed. 

Procedures intended to control the accuracy of the several orders and classes of geodetic 

leveling can be found in the publications of Hayford (1904), Gannett and Baldwin (1908), 

Bowie and Avers (1914), Rappleye (1948), and the Federal Geodetic Control Committee 

(1980). A detailed examination of the procedures intended to limit both systematic and 

random error, as well as blunders (or “busts”) in elevation measurements, is considered 

in Professional Paper 1362 (Castle and others, 1987, p. 4-14), a discussion that focuses 

on the earlier level surveys of both the Geological Survey and the Coast and Geodetic 

Survey. This summary, while it is thought to be especially useful in the context of the 

present investigation, need not be reiterated here. 

Ultimate control on the accuracy of any leveling is dependent in large measure on the 

rejection criteria stipulated for various orders and classes of surveys. The accuracy of 

the third-order leveling of the Geological Survey was controlled by a circuit-rejection 

criterion of 0.05 ft√distance in miles [12 mm(km)1/2 ], a restriction that remained 

unchanged from the beginning of the 20th century until at least 1980 (Wilson, 1898, p. 

345; Federal Geodetic Control Committee, 1980, p. 28). Because third-order leveling 

was rarely double run, there was never a formally defined section-rejection limit for 

third-order work. Where double run, the earlier second-order leveling of the Geological 

Survey was controlled by a section-rejection criterion of either 7.2 mm(km)1/2 or 8.0 

mm(km)1/2 (Gannett and Baldwin, 1908, p.6, 9), although it was subsequently relaxed 

to 8.4 mm(km)1/2, a figure that matched that adopted by the Coast and Geodetic Survey 

(Rappleye, 1948, p. 8). No circuit-rejection criterion is known to have existed for the 

double-run leveling of the Geological Survey. Through at least 1948, the circuit rejection 

criterion for single run second-order leveling of the Coast and Geodetic Survey matched 

the section-rejection limit for double-run work of 8.4 mm(km)1/2 (Rappleye, 1948. p. 8). 

Because no post-1948 second-order work of either the Geological Survey or Coast and 

Geodetic Survey has been included with this study, we need explore this issue no further 

here. Through a period ending around 1980, all of the first-order work of the Coast and 

Geodetic Survey (or its successor, the National Geodetic Survey) was double run to a 

section-rejection criterion at least as restrictive as 4 mm(km)1/2 (Hayford, 1904, p. 213; 

Rappleye, 1948, p. 8). During this same period, the circuit-rejection criterion for all class 

4
II first-order work was at least as restrictive as 5.00 mm(km)1/2 (Federal Geodetic Control 

Committee, 1980, p. 68). With the adoption of both double-scale rods and doublesimultaneous leveling procedures, about or shortly after 1980, single run leveling was 

accepted as the equivalent of class II first-order work; it was, nonetheless, still governed 

by a circuit–rejection criterion of 5.00 mm(km)1/2 (Federal Geodetic Control Committee, 

1980,p. 24, 28, 31-32). Justification for including single-run leveling that meets several 

specifically defined procedural controls with first-order work (originally identified as 

class III first-order leveling) can be found in the report of Whalen and Balazs (1976). All 

of the post-1980 first-order leveling data incorporated in this report were based on singlerun leveling. 

ERRORS IN HEIGHT DETERMINATIONS

Geodetic leveling, of whatever order and class, is thought to be an inherently accurate 

measurement system; it is compromised chiefly by the fact that it is time consumptive. 

That is, should any surface movements occur along the course of a given survey, 

whether at a junction point or elsewhere, it could lead to distorted elevation differences 

between the starting bench mark and marks elsewhere along the line (see, for example, 

Castle and others, 1987, p. 12-13). The longer the elapsed time between the initiation and 

completion of any leveling, the greater the likelihood of errors attributable to continuing 

crustal deformation. 

Since we are interested here in height changes rather than heights as such, the gravitydependent orthometric correction required to convert observed elevation differences into 

true height differences (see, for example, Vanicek and others, 1980) is not generally a 

point of concern. That is, because this correction is path dependent, and because we can 

disregard such changes as may have occurred in geoidal relief over periods of several 

decades or more, we can safely assume that direct comparisons between successively 

determined elevation differences over the same route will almost precisely match 

comparisons between the corresponding height differences. Because our comparisons, 

with only one significant exception, are based on successive surveys over the same route, 

errors associated with imprecisely defined orthometric corrections do not seriously 

impact reported characterizations of height changes dealt with in this region.

The most commonly invoked criticism of geodetic leveling centers on elevation (rod)- 

or refraction (slope)-dependent systematic error (Jackson and others, 1980; Strange, 

1981; Stein and others, 1986). Because our baseline data consist largely of the results of 

early 20th-century third-order leveling based on wooden rods, the focus of any serious 

challenge to the reconstructions developed in this report is most apt to be on rod error.

The first line of defense against wooden-rod error consists of both frequent laboratory 

and field calibrations of rod excess (nominal minus measured length) on which any rod 

corrections must be based. Because the generally paraffin-coated wooden rods were 

subject to humidity- as well as temperature-dependent length changes, regular tapebased field calibrations were especially important. Calibrations at least as far back as 

1897 were always read to values at least as accurate as ± 0.1 mm and changes between 

5
successive laboratory calibrations were generally much less than 1 x 10-4 m/m. Thus, 

even in the absence of regular calibrations, worst-case errors of as much as 100 mm over 

a height difference of 1000 m might occur. However, with regular calibrations, rod error 

in wooden rods probably held to 3-4 x 10-5 m/m or even less

With the adoption of invar rods about 1916, the rod excess was based exclusively on 

successive laboratory calibrations. Although the pre-1965 calibrations of invar rods 

were read to the nearest 0.01 mm, they were generally reported to the nearest 0.1 

mm. However, it was not until 1975 that the rod excess was based on a least squares 

regression of all of the calibrated points along the full length of the graduated section 

of the rod, rather than simply a nominal minus measured cumulative length divided 

by 3. Nonetheless, Mark and others (1981, p. 2787-2790) showed that the traditional 

computation of rod excess was generally sound, such that it differed from the leastsquares computation by a mean value of about 0.0093 mm/m with a standard deviation of 

0.018mm/m. Moreover, the cumulative evidence developed by Mark and others (1981) 

argues that residual rod error attributable to inadequate calibration measurements was 

generally of the order of 2-3 x 10-5 m/m. 

Several attempts have been made to hindcast rod error by comparing the results of 

successive levelings against the corresponding height differences between marks 

(Jackson and others, 1980; Stein, 1981; and Craymer and others, 1995). These attempts 

were necessarily limited by the inability to categorically discriminate between signals 

attributable in whole or in part to rod error and those attributable to actual height 

changes between marks. Moreover, one could not legitimately simply cast aside still 

other evidence, such as that obtained through calibration measurements. The hindcast 

�corrections� of Jackson and others (1980) were so seriously flawed that they were 

categorically dismissed by Mark and others (1981), a conclusion that, to the best of 

our knowledge, has never been challenged. Stein (1981) developed a slope-dependent 

hindcast procedure that suggests that rod errors of the order of 0.3 ± 2.3 x 10-5 m/m were 

the norm, although he identified several exceptions to this generalization. Craymer 

and others (1995) produced the most rigorous hindcast analysis, which proceeded 

from a refinement of Stein’s (1981) technique. Nonetheless, the results of the Craymer 

and others (1995) study demonstrate that a number of stringent conditions must be 

met in defending any statistically based arguments, not the least of which is a clear 

demonstration that “independent checks indicate that caution should be exercised before 

accepting these results as evidence of scale error.” Hence the calibration data remain as 

the most reliable control on rod error. 

The slope-dependent unequal-refraction error is a theoretically expectable error that 

argues that in any given setup the atmospheric refractive deviation error is greater in 

the upslope reading, thereby producing a differential error that diminishes the error-free 

elevation difference in the compared rod readings (see, for example, Castle and others, 

1994). While several experiments seem to support the accumulation of such errors, none 

of these experiments met the procedural requirements identified with geodetic leveling 

of whatever specified order, nor did they consider the observer’s experience in ensuring 

6
that refraction error, whether viewed upslope or down, be minimized. That these two 

considerations have suppressed any accumulation of the path-dependent accumulation of 

the unequal-refraction error to values that no more than compete with random error has 

been demonstrated by Mark and others (1987) through an analysis of field data drawn 

from around the world. Pertinent to the problem at hand, the unequal-refraction error is 

proportional to the square of the sight length and inversely proportional to slope. That 

is, the longer the sight lengths, the greater the error; the shallower the slope below some 

unspecified limit, the less the error--disappearing with zero slope. Because steep slopes 

limit sight lengths and very shallow slopes diminish the error to insignificant values, this 

error tends to reach maximum values with modest slopes falling within the 1-2 percent 

range. Because, with at least one exception, slopes that fit this limitation are relatively 

uncommon in the Death Valley region, we can, for these and the earlier cited arguments 

of both Mark and others (1987) and Castle and others (1994), legitimately disregard the 

unequal-refraction error as a significant contaminant in our data. 

Yet another source of systematic error is attributable to a proclivity towards a 

directionally dependent staff- or instrument-dependent settlement error (see, for example, 

Hayford, 1904, p. 215). Because it is directionally dependent, it is generally contained, if 

not eliminated, by double running or deliberately and regularly reversing the direction of 

running.. However, even with turn-of the-20th century single-run leveling the rods were 

supported by steel plates about 0.15 m in diameter, thereby distributing the load in such a 

way as to minimize settlement. Moreover, even with a degree of randomness introduced 

into the direction of running and a naturally well compacted ground surface (of whatever 

nature), this error is further minimized. While certainly a plausible contaminant in 

the Death Valley region, staff or instrument settlement is much more likely to impact 

broadly defined regional networks. Thus even though settlement errors summing to a 

few millimeters, or perhaps a centimeter or two, may be distributed along one or of the 

described lines, they are certainly much less troublesome than residual rod error.

Random error (noise), which impacts all of our measurements in varying degree, is 

generally described by an expression of the form αL 1/2, where α is in units of mm/km1/2

and L is the distance in kilometers from the reference mark (Table 1). Characterizations 

of random error are experienced based and provide a measure of expected error in any 

geodetic leveling, even were systematic error to be disregarded. Random error is a 

function of both the order of leveling and period during which it took place. Thus it may 

be thought of as procedurally based, since the various orders of leveling generally have 

been associated with procedural changes through time (Table 1). Experienced-dictated 

random error estimates are insensitive predictive tools in considering any given level 

survey. One might assume, for example, that the random error associated with 200 km 

of third-order leveling is necessarily of much greater magnitude than that associated with 

200 km of first-order leveling over the same line. This need not be the case, however, 

especially when it is recalled that the random nature of this error affords no evidence 

of the sense of the error as it accumulated. Thus, if other evidence is available, such as 

circuit closures, it should certainly be used in attempting to more accurately gauge the 

magnitude of any cumulative random error.

7
Table 1. Random error estimates (α) for levelings of various orders and epochs (adapted 

from Vanicek and others, 1980, p.507-508).

________________________________________________________________________

Order Period α

(mm/km1/2)

________________________________________________________________________

1st order before 1917 2.0

1917-1955 1.5

1956 and later 1.0

________________________________________________________________________

2nd order 1917-1955 3.0

1956 and later 2.0

_______________________________________________________________________

3rd order before 1956 6.0

1956 and later 4.0

________________________________________________________________________

R (random error over a distance L in km) = αL1/2

Blunders or “busts” in any survey are gross errors generally attributable to misreadings of 

the rod or transcription errors. Busts are extremely uncommon in double-run or doublescale rod double simultaneous leveling; they are much more common in single-run thirdorder work, but they are by no means uncommon in single-run second-order leveling as 

well. Busts are usually detected through recognition of unacceptably large misclosures, 

abrupt offsets between adjacent marks disclosed through comparisons against subsequent 

surveys along the same line, or relatively large and balanced circuit closures that share 

a common leg or segment. Because single-run third-order work is thought to be much 

more susceptible to busts, several instrumental design features have been incorporated 

in third-order equipment that have clearly minimized reading errors. For example, the 

widely used yard rods dating from the early 20th century were color coded by yard on 

one side of the rod and were read in feet on the opposite side of the rod. In spite of these 

and other ingenious design features, gross errors in both readings and recordings are not 

precluded.

We have identified four busts in the work retained for use in this investigation, all of 

which have been resolved with varying degrees of confidence. Because one can rarely 

“prove” the efficacy of the hindcast nature and magnitude of any bust correction, we have 

chosen to present our results both with and without the removal of the identified busts. 

However, at least one of the busts, the easternmost shown in figure 2, can be disregarded 

since no comparisons are made against the linewhich includes this error. Parenthetically, 

the magnitude of the closure around the relatively large circuit that is achieved through 

summing of the balanced loops that isolates this bust argues that the leveling that 

excludes the isolated segment is of clearly acceptable accuracy.

8
0 10 20 30 

118°

118°

35°30'

117°

117° 116°

116° 

36°

37°

-0.704 ft

-1.281 ft

+0.222 ft

-0.532 ft

-1.031 ft

+0.601 ft

+1.087 ft

Stump Springs

Ash Meadows

Beatty

Death

Valley

Stovepipe

Wells

Keeler

Olancha Darwin

Little

Lake

Ballarat

Indian Wells

Pilot

Knob

Valley

Wingate Pass

Ashford

Mill

Silurian

Lake

Wildrose

Indian Springs

1905 1905

1

905

1905

1905

1906

1906 1

9

0

5

1913

1907

1907

1907

1907

1907

1907

1907

1907

1907

1907

1907

1909

1912/13

1906

3631

3649

5685 1069 3330

2738

2225

2370

1786

-215

-188

-498

Z-238

Z-2267

Z-2775

2203

1103

3575

4746

Figure 2. Misclosures around selected circuits in the Death Valley Region developed from the results of largely third order (single-run) rod-corrected leve

Geological Survey during the period 1905-1913. The line shown between Indian Wells and Keeler, along the western edge of the figure, is the only higher orde

order, double-run) survey included with this figure. Because the original observations were chiefly in feet (or yards), and because our chief purpose here is the 

and correction for, blunders (or "busts")--shown as interruptions in the level line--based on single-run leveling, the misclosures are given in feet, rather than t

equivalents. Data sources: U.S. Geological Survey summary books 6132, 7698, A6668, A8101, A9149, and A9151. See text for details.

9
REFERENCE MARK

All but one of the profiles of height changes developed in this report have been 

reconstructed with respect to a single reference bench mark or control point; we have 

selected bench mark 3139 USGS, located abut 4 km south of Beatty, as a useful, even 

if imperfect reference mark. This mark, which has been in place since first established 

in advance of the1907 leveling, has, apparently remained undisturbed since surveyed in 

1907. This reference mark serves our purpose quite well, since it lies at the edge of the 

study area and virtually all of the profiled levelings hit this or adjacent marks, marks that 

show no movement which matches or exceeds expected random error measured with 

respect to 3139. While this mark is assumed to have remained fixed in height at 956.2778 

m (the 1933 record elevation), and even though our reconstructions are based on this 

presumption, there is clearly defined evidence that 3139 sustained at least modest height 

changes during the 20th century. For example, an earlier investigation shows that while 

this same Beatty mark has, as here, been arbitrarily fixed in height, it is flanked on both 

the northwest and east by height changes of a somewhat episodic nature beginning about 

or shortly after the 1907 baseline leveling (Gilmore, 1992). Thus this exercise requires 

that we at least attempt to define any height changes of 3139 with respect to some 

tectonically near invariant datum point, such as one closely fixed with respect to the geoid 

of specified date or the reference ellipsoid. One such point is bench mark M57, tied to 

the San Diego tide station, a point that has probably remained very close to invariant in 

height during most or all of the 20th century (Castle and Vanicek, 1980). 

The eight separately determined heights for bench mark 3139 (fig. 3), suggest that this 

mark has sustained modest episodic movement, together with at least one possible 

reversal, with respect to M57. This history is quite unlike that of several other marks 

equally distant from San Diego (22Q, Bill Williams River and O10, Hassayampa, both 

in Arizona) that seem to have remained very close to fixed in height over periods of 

more that 70 years—see figure 4 (Gilmore, 1986, figure 3). The individually determined 

heights for these two marks have remained so close to unchanged with respect to M57 

that we can make use of their simple arithmetic means as approximate surrogates for M57 

and thereby provide several alternative, independently determined heights for 3139. All 

of the heights produced for 3139 are based on combinations of levelings of various orders 

and periods associated with a range of estimated random errors (table 1). Moreover, 

several of these heights are based on assumptions of invariance at critical junction marks 

over periods of as much as 50 years and less than rigorous evaluations of systematic 

error, particularly rod error. Nonetheless, we are reasonably certain that none of the 

indicated levelings are contaminated by significant busts. Thus, with one exception, 

there is enough redundancy among more or less temporally equivalent heights that the 

history of height changes for 3139 described below is thought to represent a reasonable 

characterization of the nature of the tectonic activity at this mark through most of the 20th 

century.

The period included by the several heights for 3139 represented in figure 3, is of 

sufficient length as to provide a degree of confidence in the “absolute” signals referred to 

10
this mark. We view this as an important consideration, even though our primary purpose 

here is a description of the relative height changes that have occurred in the Death Valley 

region over a remarkably short segment of historic time (think Mesopotamia or the Nile 

Valley).

The 1907 height is both the earliest and the lowest developed for bench mark 3139 USGS 

(fig. 3). It was obtained through 1906/07 first-order leveling between San Diego (M57) 

and Las Vegas, with an approximate 6-month interuption at Barstow, joined with 1907 

third-order work between Las Vegas and Beatty. Had the 1907 Las Vegas-Beatty leveling 

been replaced by 1915 first-order leveling between these locales, it would have dropped 

the 1907 height by 0.0131 m. The 1909 height (fig. 3) is based on levelings propagated 

out of bench mark 22Q on the Bill Williams River, where the starting height (186.6954 

m) is taken as the simple arithmetic mean of the several heights generated for this mark 

(Gilmore, 1986, Figure 3A, Table A1-A4; see also Castle and others, 1987, p. 58-59 and 

Castle and Gilmore, 1992, p. 1585). The indicated levelings used in producing the 1909 

height include 1931 first-order work between 22Q and Yucca Junction, 1927 first-order 

leveling between Yucca Junction and Yucca, 1909 first-order leveling between Yucca 

and Goffs, 1906/07 first-order leveling between Goffs and Las Vegas, and 1907 thirdorder leveling between Las Vegas and Beatty. Again, were the results of the1915 leveling 

between Las Vegas and Beatty substituted for the 1907 work, it would have dropped the 

1909 height by 0.0131 m. 

There is a gap of about 20 years between the 1909 height for 3139 and the next earliest 

height developed for this mark (fig. 3). The 1931 height is again developed from leveling 

propagated out of the Bill Williams River mark (22Q) and acceptance of the simple 

Figure 3. Successive orthometric heights for bench mark 3139 USGS, Beatty, with respect to tidal bench mark M57, San Diego, as fixed in height.

The orthometric corrections are based on observed or interpolated gravity values.

1907/09

1931/35

1943

1982/84

Height in meters

YEAR

956.4000

956.3000

956.2000

956.1000

956.0000

955.9000

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980

3139 USGS, BEATTY

11
118°

37°

115°

37°

117°

33°

113°

33°

0 50 100 Km

Figure 4. Sketch map showing approximate routes of levelings and junction locations used in the

reconstruction of successive heights given in figure 3.

Beatty

Indian Springs

Shoshone

Las Vegas

Boulder City

Saratoga Spring

Goldstone Baker

Death Valley Junction

3139 USGS

Nipton

Crucero

Ludlow

Goffs Barstow

Cadiz

Mojave

Tidal 8

San Pedro Orange

Colton

San Diego

Searchlight

Needles

Kingman

Yucca

Yucca Junction

Freda Junction

22Q

Vidal

Blythe

Salome

Hassayampa

Parker Dam

PACIFIC OCEAN

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Co ol rad o

River

CALIFORNIA

ARIZONA

Ashford Mill

M57

010

arithmetic mean for 22Q as a reasonable surrogate starting height for M57. The 1931 

height is based on 1931 first-order leveling westward from 22Q to Cadiz, 1944 firstorder work between Cadiz and Ludlow, coupled with an assumption of invariance over 

the Cadiz to Ludlow reach during the period 1931-1944, and 1933 first-order leveling 

northward from Ludlow via Shoshone into Beatty. The 1933 height for 3139 was again 

derived from our surrogate starting height at 22Q on the Bill Williams River. It was 

produced from 1931 first-order work between 22Q and Vidal, 1933 first-order leveling 

between Vidal and Needles, a 1909 tie between adjoining junction marks at Needles,1934 

second-order work from Needles via Searchlight to Nipton, 1935 second-order leveling 

from Nipton to Crucero, and 1933 first-order leveling between Crucero and Beatty via 

Baker and Shoshone. The 1935 height for 3139 is based on leveling emanating out of 

O10, Hassayampa, where the stating height (274.5589 m) is again based on the simple 

arithmetic mean of the several heights for this mark (Gilmore, 1986, Figure 3B, Tables 

B1-B4; see also Castle and Gilmore, 1992, p. 1585). It is derivative from1927 first-order 

12
leveling extending westward from Hassaympa to Salome, 1933 first-order work from 

Salome to Blythe, second-order leveling between Blythe and Needles, the previously 

identified 1909 first-order tie between junction marks in Needles, 1934 second-order 

leveling from Needles via Searchlight to Nipton, second-order work from Nipton to 

Crucero, and the 1933 first-order line from Crucero to Beatty via Baker and Shoshone. 

The 1943 height for 3139 (fig. 3) is based on a previously determined 1935 height for 

bench mark E43, Barstow (Mark and others, 1987, p. 2785), with respect to bench 

mark Tidal 8 at the San Pedro tide station, reconstructed with respect to M57. The 

reconstruction requires: (1) that we calculate the 1935 height for Tidal 8, San Pedro 

with respect to M57, San Diego, by means of a previously established geodetic tie 

between these two marks; and (2) that we subtract about 3 mm from the this geodetically 

determined height difference owing to continuing uplift of San Pedro with respect to the 

San Diego Municipal Pier tide station. Differencing the record height for Tidal 8 against 

this newly generated height for Tidal 8 permits the construction of a starting height 

for E43 with respect to M57, as opposed to Tidal 8 on which the initial value for E43 

was based. The 1943 height for the junction mark at Beatty (B86) is thus based on this 

reconstructed height for E43, coupled with an assumption of invariance at E43 between 

1935 and 1942/43, and the results of 1942/43 first-order leveling between Barstow and 

Beatty via Goldstone, Saratoga Springs, Ashford Mill, and Shoshone into Beatty. The 

last few kilometers between B86 and 3139 are based on 1933 first order leveling and an 

assumption of invariance between B86 and 3139 during the interval 1933-42/43.

Although starting from different Arizona reference points and based in large measure on 

independent levelings, the 1982 and 1984 heights for 3139 agree to within 0.04 m, well 

within either allowable limits or the estimated random error difference. The 1982 height 

for 3139 has been developed from temporally restricted first-order levelings referred to 

bench mark O10, Hassayampa, where the fixed starting height for O10 (274.5589 m) is 

based on the simple arithmetic mean for four successively determined heights for this 

stable mark (Gilmore,1986, Figure 3B, Tables B1-B4). The leveling used in the 1982 

reconstruction consists of 1981/82 first-order work between Hassayampa and Boulder 

City via Salome, Yucca, and Kingman, 1980 first-order leveling from Boulder City 

to Indian Springs via Las Vegas, and 1983/84 first-order leveling from Indian Springs 

via Lathrop Wells into Beatty. The 1984 height for 3139 is based on the results of less 

temporally well constrained leveling proceeding from the fixed height for bench mark 

22Q on the Bill Williams River (see above). The tie between 22Q and Beatty is based 

on 1931 first-order leveling between 22Q and Yucca Junction, a 1927 first-order join 

between adjacent marks at Yucca Junction, an assumption of invariance at Yucca Junction 

with respect to 22Q during the period 1927/31-82, 1982 first-order leveling between 

Yucca Junction and Boulder City via Kingman, 1980 first-order leveling from Boulder 

City to Indian Wells via Las Vegas, and 1983/84 leveling between Indian Wells and 

Beatty via Lathrop Wells.

While we believe that the represented height changes at 3139 USGS (fig. 3) constitute 

a reasonably valid characterization of the vertical history of this mark with respect to 

13
a near invariant tidal bench mark at San Diego, this history invites several questions 

and comments. At least two of the heights shown here (fig, 3) seem inconsistent with 

the cumulative history for 3139. The remarkably low 1907 height, while associated 

with fairly large error bars, suggests either an error in our reconstruction or leveling of 

questionable quality. For example, were our assumption of invariance at the Barstow 

junction mark between June and December of 1906 invalid, the join between the 1906/07 

and 1907 levelings would produce a diminished height at 3139. However, the history 

of 22Q (Castle and others, 1987, p. 58) strongly supports the preceding assumption of 

invariance at Barstow and our other attempts to dismiss the validity of the1907 height of 

3139 are devoid of merit. A similar question surrounds the 1943 height of 3139, which 

argues for a sharp drop below the 1930’s heights. Again, the presumption of invariance 

at E43 Barstow may be invalid, and there is always the possibility of arithmetic error in 

our reconstruction. Regardless, the only option for increasing the 1943 height for this 

mark hangs on the likelihood of unrecognized uplift of E43 between 1935 and 1942/43. 

While clearly a possibility, uplift at Barstow during this interval is inconsistent with 

other evidence which either supports the stability of E43 or, more likely, argues for 

tectonic subsidence rather than uplift during the period 1935-1943 (Mark and others, 

1987, p. 2785, 2787; Castle and others, 1987, p. 62-67). Thus, unless we were to resort 

to unspecified assertion, we would have to conclude that the Beatty area--at least bench 

mark 3139 USGS--was characterized by a history of modest episodic uplift, marked 

by at least one apparently oscillatory displacement during the 20th century. Perhaps 

surprisingly, episodic uplift and partial collapse may be the rule rather than the exception 

in the southwestern United States (see, for example, Castle and others, 1984; Gilmore, 

1986; Castle and others 1987; Castle and Gilmore, 1992).

Accepting the successively indicated heights for 3139 (fig. 3) as a valid approximation 

of the height history for this mark with respect to M57, it argues toward several biases 

in comparing sequentially determined heights for any arbitrarily selected mark referred 

to 3139. For example, if the indicated mark is assumed to have remained unchanged in 

height with respect to some fixed datum, such as the reference ellipsoid, the height for 

this mark based on 1907/09 leveling versus 1931/35 leveling referred to 3139 would 

produce apparent subsidence. Similarly, were we to compare the heights for this same 

mark based on 1931/35 versus 1943 levelings referred to 3139, our selected mark would 

appear to have experienced modest uplift. Because we are concerned here chiefly 

with relative height changes, these biased height changes are generally not a problem. 

However, in attempting to assess any tectonic implications derivative from the height 

changes described in this report a built-in bias attributable to the mobility of 3139 may 

introduce some severely limiting complications.

HEIGHT CHANGES ALONG THE SELECTED LINES

Our characterizations of height changes along the several lines through the Death Valley 

region are in many, if not most cases based on new minus old comparisons among 

levelings of differing orders and various combinations of temporal constraints. In spite 

of a variety of uncertainties predictably introduced by such characterizations, the results 

14
of the described comparisons are sufficiently compelling as to provide a degree of insight 

into the nature of any continuing tectonic activity in this region.

BEATTY TO OLANCHA LINE

 Height changes along the Beatty to Olancha line (fig. 5) are among the most illuminating 

reported here. They are also associated with several troubling problems, two of which we 

believe to be quite significant but still susceptible to reasonable interpretation.

An issue that is thought to be of trivial significance relates to height changes along parts 

of the Beatty-Olancha line based on comparisons among observed elevations, rather 

than appropriately corrected orthometric heights, where the baseline survey follows 

a different route from that of several subsequent levelings. The route divergence of 

concern is limited to the region between the Wildrose area and Darwin (fig. 1). Because 

the two sides of the involved circuit (Darwin-Panamint Springs-Ballarat-Darwin) are 

characterized by similar terrain and both modest and comparable Bouguer gravity 

relief, it is doubtful that the observed gravity othometric corrections around this circuit 

would sum to more than 2-3 cm. More to the point, however, to even bother to include 

properly computed orthometric corrections with these comparisons would impart a 

false sense of confidence in the results, since the third-order western leg (the baseline 

survey) of this circuit could be expected to be identified with random errors that would 

dominate the closure and might greatly exceed the difference between the orthometric 

corrections along the two sides of the circuit. It was for precisely this reason that we did 

not even consider the tedious computation of orthometric corrections in calculating the 

misclosures in the essentially third-order baseline network for the Death Valley region 

(fig. 2). This argument, however, would carry little or greatly diminished validity in 

considering comparisons among first-order or largely first-order work (see Vanicek and 

others, 1980, p. 510-513). This point has already been made, at least implicitly, in our 

calculation of successive heights for 3139 (fig. 3), whether emanating directly from tidal 

bench mark M57 or through the stable marks at Hassayampa and along the Bill Williams 

River.

The most challenging problem encountered in our reconstruction of height changes 

along the Beatty-Olancha line, and possibly the most challenging encountered in the 

preparation of the entire report, centers on the recognition of two fairly large busts 

detected along the western end of this line (fig. 2). While we believe that we can provide 

reasonable explanations and plausible corrections for both busts, because the field 

books were destroyed our confidence in the applied corrections is necessarily limited. 

Nevertheless, the corrected figures can in both cases be tested against the results of 

one of the most meticulous early 20th-century surveys in the western United States, 

where the accuracy of the compared precise survey (second-order or better) can itself 

be independently assessed by comparisons with a first-order survey that was completed 

only two years later (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 1907). Both of the 

indicated busts emerged from a fairly careful examination of data recovered from the 

same 1905 summary book (U.S.G.S. summary book 7698), which is believed to include 

some of the earliest third-order leveling in the entire region. 

15
0

1000

2000

0

-300

-500

200

Olancha

3649

Darwin

4746 2496

Stovepipe Wells

-49

Beatty

3139 USGS

200 150 100 50 0

Distance (km)

Height, in meters

Figure 5. Profiles showing terrain and changes in height along the Beatty to Olancha line with

respect to bench mark 3139 USGS, Beatty. The correction and datum shift to 3139 USGS, to NGS

L-24788, is made through banch mark S408, about 6.7 km distant from 3139 USGS, through NGS L24792. Dotted lines show changes in height had no busts been removed from 1905 datum.

100

-100

-200

-400

-600

-700

Height changes, in millimeters

0

200

100

-100

Height changes, in millimeters

1933

1984

1905/06/07

1905;USGS Summary Book

G7698; 3rd order

1-3/1984;NGS L-24788; 1st order

4-5/1933;NGS L-747; 1st order

1907;USGS Summary Book A6668; 3rd order

1906;USGS Summary Book

A6668; 3rd order

1984

1984

1933

1933

0 50 100 kilometers

16
The 1.281-ft misclosure, near the western edge of the map showing misclosures in 

the Death Valley baseline network (fig. 2), includes one of the two significant busts 

contaminating the Beatty-Olancha line. The culpable leg, which can be fairly easily 

identified, includes the reach between bench marks 4746, Darwin, and 5605 (said to be 

at Mount Vernon Mill--Gannett and Baldwin, 1908, p. 94). While certainty is hardly 

the hallmark of this analysis, the cumulative evidence indicates that the bust occurred at 

or about bench mark 4815B, located about 17 km south of Darwin, where a change was 

made in both instrumentation and crew. This bust, however, can not be easily dismissed 

as some sort of instrumental malfunction. Because we were unable to find a direct tie 

through the junction mark, 4815B, between the line extending south from Keeler, based 

on New York rods, with that extending north from 5685, based on yard rods (U.S.G.S. 

summary book 7698, p. 7-8), we suspect that the tie between the two segments of this 

survey must have been made by means of leveling through an improperly selected 

supplementary or temporary bench mark (SBM). That this could explain this bust is 

supported by a hiatus of weeks or perhaps months between the join based on New York 

rods with that based on yard rods (U.S.G.S. summary book 7698, p. 7-8). If the later 

work based on yard rods and an apparently different crew picked up on the wrong SBM 

(several were probably set), an error consistent with the elevation difference between the 

properly selected SBM and the one that was actually used could easily explain this bust. 

The correction applied to a bust of this type is necessarily arbitrary, since the data that 

tied the two segments are now missing. We can assume a bust of about -1.2 ft between 

bench marks 4746 and 5685. If we accept this as an approximately valid value, we can 

generate a conter-clockwise corrected loop, which starts with the 2740.161-ft value for 

bench mark “B” at Indian Wells, based on the 1905 precise level line of R.A. Farmer, 

and closes on the 3329.511-ft value for the “aluminum tablet” bench mark at Little Lake 

(Gannett and Baldwin, 1908, p.10), which produces a closure of +0.081 ft. While we 

accept the subjectivity of this procedure, additional evidence (see below) supports the 

validity of this subjective judgment. 

There is always the possibility that the indicated +1.2 ft bust was derivative from a 

transposition error, possibly in transferring data from the field books to the summary 

book, or even less likely, in transferring the field observations to the appropriate field 

book(s). However imperfect our judgment regarding an improperly selected SBM, we 

believe that an appeal to transposition error in this case borders on special pleading. 

Nevertheless, we cite at least one case in this report where transposition error seems 

especially likely.

The second bust contaminating the Beatty-Olancha line occurs within the reach between 

bench marks 3631 and 4746 (fig. 2). While the misclosure around this loop sums to only 

-0.704 ft and is conceivably attributable to a concatenation of errors of various sorts, a 

bust provides a much more likely explanation of the indicated misclosure.

A comparison of new (1933 first-order work) minus old (1905 precise and 1905 thirdorder) leveling extending east from Olancha through Keeler (precise) and south to Darwin 

(third-order) discloses a jump in the profiled elevation changes of something less than 0.5 

17
ft., localized between bench marks 3631, Keeler, and 4878B, about 16-17 km south of 

Keeler. We interpret this break in the profiled changes as a bust in the third-order work 

between these two marks. Even though the 3631 mark was not hit in the1933 first-order 

survey, because we view the precise work of R.A. Farmer as virtually unassailable (see 

above and Gannett and Baldwin, 1908, p. 9), it restricts the bust to somewhere between 

3631 and the reach based on 1905 New York rod-leveling extending south from Keeler. 

Because the 1905 third-order leveling, which began at 3631 (U.S.G.S. summary book 

7698, p. 1), was among the earliest third-order surveys in this region, the likelihood of a 

blundered reading by an inexperienced rodman seems especially likely. 

The nature of this blunder is not easily assessed. The use of New York extensible rods 

in the 1905 third-order leveling suggests that the most likely explanation is an even 1-ft 

misreading on the back of the targeted New York rod when the rod was fully extended-

-thus the reading on the downhill rod. However, a complicating factor in attempting to 

explain this misclosure as a simple 1-ft misreading appears on the first page of summary 

book 7698: “Red figures are the mean of two N.Y. rod lines”, the observed values that 

we used in our reconstruction. That two New York rod lines were run south from Keeler 

suggests that a bust was suspected in the earlier third-order leveling, somewhere between 

the Keeler mark (3631) and bench mark 4815B, where the join occurred between the 

New York- and yard-rod lines. Thus the second running of the New York-rod line should 

have picked up any bust and actually may have done so. Accordingly, at least one section 

between 4631 and 4815B was run not twice but three times in order to correct the bust 

and still accommodate the requirement that the values used were the “mean of the two 

N.Y. rod lines.” If the observer, or whomever, inadvertently selected the contaminated 

sectional difference (rather than the bust-free corrected value) as one of his three possible 

choices, the meaning of the two utilized sections would result in a residual error of 0.5 ft. 

Correction for this postulated error between bench marks 3631 and 4878B would reduce 

the indicated misclosure to -0.204 ft.

We can test the validity of the -1.2-ft and -0.5-ft corrections to the line segments 

described above by summing the several legs, including the corrected legs, around each 

of the individual or combined loops (fig, 2), closing each of these summations on the 

1905 precise (R. A. Farmer) line. Thus, referring to either U.S.G.S. summary book 6132 

or Gannett and Baldwin (1908): starting at 2738 (2740.161 ft), Indian Wells, and closing 

on 3330 (3329.511 ft), Little Lake, produces a value of 3329.592 ft; starting at 2738 and 

closing on 3631 (3631.009), Keeler, produces a value of 3631.294 ft; finally, starting at 

3330 and closing on 3631 produces a value of 3631.213 ft--all of which at least roughly 

support our provisional analyses and corrections for the indicated busts. We can further 

test the applicability of our corrections by comparing the resulting observed elevation of 

the westernmost mark on this line at Olancha, 3649B (with respect to the fixed height for 

3139 USGS), against the corresponding observed elevation of 3649B based on1933 firstorder leveling, again with respect to the fixed height for 3149 USGS. The 1905/06/07 

observed elevation of 3649B based on our described reconstruction is 1111.9089 m; that 

based on the 1933 first-order work (NGS line L-747) is 1111.7336 m. Thus, with respect 

to 3139 USGS, 3649B at Olancha apparently subsided 0.17058 m between 1905/06/07 

18
and 1933. Because 3139 is thought to have increased in height by 0.10-0.20 m between 

the early 1900’s and the early 1930’s, the apparent subsidence at Olancha could have 

been anticipated even if it had actually remained unchanged in height with respect to an 

invariant datum. An independent argument supportive of subsidence at 3649 is based 

on repeated levelings emanating from bench mark Tidal 8 at the San Pedro tide station. 

The first two levelings between Tidal 8 and 3649B, based on 1905 and 1926 connections, 

suggest subsidence of almost exactly 0.025 m (Castle and others, 1987, pl. 5)--virtually 

zero when allowing for error in the first of the two levelings, especially (Castle and 

others, 1987, pl. 5). Two successive surveys out of Tidal 8, in addition to the 1926 

connection, produce the following observed elevations for Q45, Olancha, a little less than 

2 km removed from 3649B:

1926—1151.3506 m

1935—1151.2312 m

1962—1151.2046 m.

These changes are again consistent with collapse of something more than 0.10 m at 

Olancha during the critical interval 1905/06/07-1933. While we cannot state whether, 

actual versus apparent subsidence is the more persuasive argument, that they are both 

in the same sense supports the validity of our corrections for the 1905 busts through the 

western part of the 1905/1906/1907 Beatty to Olancha line. Whether this consistency 

lends coherence to our reconstruction of height changes in the Death Valley region is a 

separate issue.

Ballarat Spur

A short spur off the Beatty to Olancha line has been developed from a comparison 

between a 1935 single-run second-order line (NGS line L-4887) against our 1905/06/07 

datum. While this 18-km, essentially north-south spur discloses down-to-the-south 

differential displacement of only about 40 mm (fig. 6), because our data base is so sparse, 

we are inclined to include any reliable information available to us.

We can provide no direct evidence that our join at bench mark 2496 along the BeattyOlancha line (fig. 5) remained unchanged in height during the 1933-35 interval. 

Nevertheless, our analysis of the Beatty to Riggs line (see below) suggests little, if any 

movement through this region between 1933 and 1935.

Height Changes

The profiled height changes along the Beatty to Olancha line referred to the fixed height 

of 3139 USGS, suggest little height-or slope-dependent systematic error along this line 

(fig. 5). Specifically, the absence of any clearly defined correlation between terrain 

and signal is indicated in comparisons against even the baseline turn-of-the-century 

19
work (see especially the reach between Beatty and Panamint Springs). The results of 

comparisons of the1984 fist-order surveys against 1933 first-order work along the eastern 

end of the line suggest modest height-dependent error of the order of 5 x 10-5 m/m in 

one or the other or in some combination of these two surveys. Nevertheless, and while 

the absence of any common marks between Towne Pass and Darwin preclude sweeping 

generalizations, if rod error amounted to even as much as suggested here, the increased 

magnitude of the signal at Darwin and beyond (fig. 5) is at variance with the likelihood 

that it should have no more than matched that in the Towne Pass area.

Based on acceptance of the square-root law, expected random error (1 σ) in the signal 

accumulated between Beatty and Olancha developed from a comparison of the 1933 

survey against the 1905/06/07 baseline survey would be about 90-95 mm. Nevertheless, 

because this random error estimate is dominated by the earlier third-order work, and 

because the observed misclosures around the baseline network, when stripped of 

recognized busts, are all below their estimated random error values (fig. 2), it could be 

argued that this is an exaggerated estimate. The cumulative random error obtained from a 

comparison between the 1984 survey against the 1933 line is estimated to be of the order 

of 25 mm.

If our error estimates are no more than approximately correct, the vertical displacements 

along this line are striking in terms of both their magnitude and their episodic nature 

150 100

Distance (km)

0

1000

1907;USGS Summary Book

A6668; 3rd order

1-3/1935; L4887;2nd order

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

Height, in meters Height changes, in millimeters

Figure 6. Profiles showing terrain and changes in height along the Ballarat spur with respect to

bench mark 3139 USGS, Beatty.

50

-300

-350

0 50 100 kilometers

Ballarat 2496

1935

1907

20
during the indicated periods of comparison . This history is much like that shown 

through and beyond the Long Valley region (Castle and others, 1984), some 100 km 

north-northwest of Death Valley, or that disclosed through the much more detailed 

investigations in southern California (Castle and others, 1984; 1987).

BEATTY TO RIGGS LINE

In terms of their importance to the narrative developed in this report, the height changes 

along the Beatty to Riggs line (fig. 7) probably match those along the Beatty to Olancha 

line. While several significant problems emerged in developing the profiled height 

changes along the Beatty to Riggs line, they are less challenging than those encountered 

along the Beatty to Olancha line. Moreover, even though the baseline leveling along 

the Beatty to Riggs line includes one segment that was surveyed about five years 

later (1912/13) than most of the other leveling around the eastern circuits (fig. 2), the 

associated misclosures argue that the third-order leveling along this line is free of major 

problems. Allowance for the corrections for or the discarding of the busts in those 

segments between Death Valley and Ashford Mill and between Z-2267 and Z-2775, 

respectively, suggests that this earlier leveling approached excellent (see below).

The chief problem addressed here is the magnitude and nature of an apparent bust 

between Death Valley and Ashford Mill (fig. 2). The two misclosures that share this 

segment are almost precisely balanced, and even though both closures are within limits 

for third-order leveling of this vintage, the balanced nature of these two loops virtually 

demands a bust along the common leg between the two. The issue is analogous to that 

disclosed by the balanced closures (-1.037 ft versus +1.057 ft) to the northeast. The 

balanced nature of these misclosures is again clearly consistent with a bust between Z2775 and Z-2267, such that combining the loops lends credence to the accuracy of the 

leveling that defines the larger loop.

Not only are the loops that include the Death Valley-Ashford Mill segment closely 

balanced, the absolute magnitudes of these misclosures (~ 0.6 ft) suggests, if it does not 

compel, the source of the presumed bust. All of the ”1907 lines were run single with 

prism level and yard rods” (Gannett and Baldwin, 1908, p.86-94). Because yard rods are 

graduated in 0.01-yd intervals, conversion of 0.6 ft yields a value of 0.20 yd. Thus it is 

near certain that there was a 0.20-yd bust between Death Valley and Ashford Mill. Given 

the tightly balanced closures of almost exactly 0.6 ft, to argue otherwise would be asking 

too much of chance coincidence. Whether the 0.20-yd error is attributable to a 0.20-yd 

misreading of the rod, a recording error of 0.20 in the since destroyed field book, or a 

transposition error in transferring the data from the field book to the summary book (A6668) is not directly determinable. Because the rod readings are (or should be) checked 

by back of the rod readings in feet, we suspect a simple transposition error in or in 

transferring data to the summary book. Although we can clearly identify the reach over 

which this bust must have occurred, we are less certain which bench mark pair includes 

the bust. Profiling of subsequent (1943) leveling against the 1907 datum indicates the 

error probably occurred between bench marks -235 and -215; the alternative option puts a 

spike at -235. 

21
0 50 100 kilometers

0

1,000

2,000

-49

Beatty

3139 USGS

Death

Valley Ashford

Mill -178 N671 -215 S672

0 50 100 150 200

Distance (km)

Height, in meters

1907;USGS Summary Book A6668; 3rd order

1909;USGS Summary

Book A8101; 3rd order 3-4/1933;NGS

L-722; 1st order

0

100

-100

-200

-300

200

Height changes, in millimeters

1933/43

1933/43

1933/43

Stovepipe

Wells Riggs

42 39

1912;USGS Summary Book

A9149; 3rd order

1/1943;NGS L-10463;

1st order

1-2/1943;NGS L-10466A;

1st order

3/1943;NGS L-10466B;

1st order

4-5/1933;NGS

L-747; 1st order 2/1942-1/1943;

NGS L-10457; 1st

order

Figure 7. Profiles showing terrain and changes in height along the Beatty to Riggs line with respect to bench mark

3139 USGS, Beatty. 3/1943 comparison against datum based on 1-2/1943 leveling. Dotted line shows changes in

height had no bust been removed from 1907 datum.

1907

100

-100

-200

-300

200

0

Height changes, in millimeters

N671 S672

3/1943

1-2/1943

22
A second problem is associated with the recognition of a sharp up-to-the-south tilt 

along the southern end of the Death Valley-Ashford Mill segment of the Beatty to Riggs 

line that occurred sometime between January and March, 1943 (fig. 7). This apparent 

problem is disclosed by the sequential substitution of the two 1943 observed elevation 

values between Death Valley and Ashford Mill in the two adjacent circuits that include 

this segment (fig. 8).

Beginning with the western of the two circuits (fig. 8), which includes about 65-70 km 

of 1935 second-order leveling, as well as 40-50 km of 1933 first-order work, the earlier 

of the two indicated closures is well within first-order limits. With the substitution of the 

later leveling between N671 and S672, the misclosure is enlarged by 0.0783 m, as could 

be easily imagined with an elevation difference between N671 and S672 that increased by 

the same amount between January or February and March of 1943. A similar sequence 

of operations in the eastern circuit might be expected to produce a similar enlargement 

of the later circuit, which obviously it does not. If it is assumed that the elevation 

differences elsewhere around the earlier eastern circuit remained unchanged through 

March, uplift of S672 would lead to an increased elevation difference northwest to N671 

of -7.5243 m to -7.6027 m, and thus a diminished positive misclosure. Alternatively, the 

above limits earlier misclosure might be attributable to east to west migration of tectonic 

activity. For example, uplift of Y163 with respect to K164 during the late February to 

early March interval would produce an increased elevation at S672 and, hence, impact the 

misclosures in such a way as to simulate error in the earlier leveling between S672 and 

N671. It is for this reason, we suspect, that the reach between N671 and S672 was rerun 

and did, in fact, produce a reduced closure around the eastern loop. Nevertheless, there 

is no basis for suggesting that the quality of the earlier leveling was either better or worse 

than that of the later leveling. 

The preceding exercise again highlights the chief limitation of geodetic leveling: it is time 

consumptive, such that any movement around a circuit during the course of the leveling 

may distort the closure. We cannot say, accordingly, that the later misclosure associated 

with the eastern circuit argues for collectively more accurate leveling around this 

circuit. Regardless of which explanation one might choose, the abrupt up-to-the-southtilt disclosed by the1943 comparisons cannot, or certainly should not be dismissed as a 

measurement artifact. We shall revisit this issue in our consideration of height changes 

along the Beatty-Baker line.

Spur from Furnace Creek Ranch (Death Valley)

The short spur off the Beatty to Riggs line from Furnace Creek Ranch (fig. 9) has been 

developed from comparison of a 1942/43 first-order line (NGS line L-10457) against our 

1907 third-order baseline datum. While only 30 km long, this comparison discloses a 

surprisingly large down-to-the-southeast tilt of almost 0.29 m between bench marks -178 

(Death Valley) and 3031 developed during the 1907-1942/43 interval (fig. 9).

23
37°

116°

35°30'

117°30'

35°30'

0 10 20 30 40 50 Km

3/25/1933-4/22/1933

or

117 116° °30'

37°

+0.0525

+0.0304

+0.0829

+0.1308m

+0.0304

+0.1612

+0.1125m

-0.0788

+0.0337

+0.1908

-0.0788

+0.1120

Death Valley

Ballarat

Ashford Mill

Shoshone

K164

N671

5320

S672

Y163

1/26/1943 - 4/15/1943

1/1 - 2/08/1943

2/17/1943 - 3/02/1943

12/25/19 42 - 1/08/1943

1933

1935

1 - 2/1943 or 3/1943

Using 1-2/1943 Using 3/1943

Using 1-2/1943

Using 3/1943

Figure 8. Misclosures around adjacent circuits obtained from first- and second-order levelings in the Death Valley region

during the period 1933-1943. The 1935 survey between bench marks Y290 and 5320 is the only leveling included here that

did not meet first-order standards. The upper figure shows the rod, instrument, and temperature corrected field values

summed around the circuit; the second figure is the corresponding observed-gravity orthometric correction; the lower figure

is the resultant orthometrically corrected value.

Beatty

3139 USGS

-49

Stovepipe Wells

Death Valley

Junction

+0.0365m

+0.0343

+0.0708

Using 1943

+0.1238m

+0.0343

+0.1581

Using 1933

with no 1933

with no 1933

+0.1436m

+0.0304

+0.1740

Using 1933 with 1-2/1943

Y290

1933

24
We are markedly skeptical of the indicated signal (fig. 9), if only because it shows such 

a striking correlation with terrain. This invites the suspicion of rod error in the earlier 

work, even though the misclosure that includes the 1907 segment (-0.601 ft., fig. 2) is 

remarkably tight, especially after removing the presumed bust between Death Valley and 

Ashford Mill which drops it to –0.001 ft (see above). Moreover, the indicated correlation 

is based on comparisons between only three marks, one or more of which may have been 

disturbed. Nevertheless, because as much as two-thirds or more of the leveling around 

this loop is based on the same rod pair, and because rod error may cancel when the 

upslope height difference is balanced against the downslope difference around the same 

circuit, we are hesitant about putting too much confidence in the misclosure argument as 

an index of the absence of height-dependent error. We are finally left, in any event, with 

the possibility that the signal disclosed by the comparison along the Furnace Creek Ranch 

spur may be real, such that we have provisionally accepted it here (see below). 

Height Changes

The height changes along the Beatty to Riggs line, together with those along the Furnace 

Creek Ranch spur, are more or less consistent with what one might expect through this 

unusual regime. That is, for Death Valley to have continued to subside should not be 

viewed as especially surprising, since it is one of only two locales in North America 

Death Valley -178 3031

1907;USGS Summary Book

A6668; 3rd order

12/1942-1/1943;NGS L-10457;

1st order

0 50 100 kilometers

1000

-200

0

50 100

Distance (km)

Height, in meters

100

-100

-200

Figure 9. Profiles showing terrain and height changes along the spur

from Furnace Creek Ranch with respect to bench mark 3139 USGS, Beatty

0

Height changes,

in millimeters

1907 1942/43

25
currently below sea level. It must be admitted, however, that propagation of increasing 

subsidence southeastward from Furnace Creek Ranch (Death Valley) upslope from 

the valley floor toward the crest of the Amargosa Range, is not what one might have 

anticipated.

While Death Valley apparently subsided significantly during the1907-1942/43 period, 

that it had begun to recover very shortly thereafter is suggested by the modest early 1943 

uplift centering on Ashford Mill (fig. 7).

BEATTY TO INDIAN SPRINGS

The represented height changes along the Beatty to Indian Springs line (fig. 10) repeat 

in part those previously described by Gilmore (1992); they are included here in order to 

contrast the character of the deformation eastward from Death Valley with that in and 

around the immediate Death Valley area. None of the survey results along the Beatty to 

Indian Springs line seem to be contaminated by significant measurement error. 

The three compared surveys involve the easternmost lines included with our third-order, 

largely 1907 network (fig. 2) and two subsequent first-order levelings, the second of 

which was separated from its predecessor by about 68 years.

The baseline survey, as described earlier, forms part of a combined loop with a +0.027 ft 

(or about +0.009 m) observed misclosure (fig. 2)--or an observed gravity orthometrically 

corrected misclosure of +0.07 m (or about +0.229 ft) (Gilmore, 1992, fig. 5). In either 

case, the subsequent first-order surveys disclose significant signals when compared 

against the1907 datum, but relatively modest signals when compared against each other. 

Because there seems to be little correlation between terrain and signal among any of 

these comparisons, height- and slope-dependent error can be treated as near negligible. 

The accumulation of predicted random error in the1907-1915 signal at Indian Springs 

(referred to Beatty) is given as 66 mm and that for the 1907-1983/84 signal over the 

same reach is only slightly less. Nevertheless, because the misclosures suggest that the 

1907 datum was particularly accurate, the 66-mm figure probably exaggerates the actual 

random error. The predicted random error in the 1915-1983/84 signal at Indian Springs 

(again referred to Beatty) is given as 20 mm.

Height Changes

Although clearly subdued, the relatively large magnitude vertical displacements disclosed 

by comparison within the more immediate Death Valley area seem to have propagated 

eastward--or occurred concurrently (fig. 10). Moreover, the sharply episodic nature of 

these displacements is again indicated here, as it was along the Beatty to Olancha line. 

However, while height changes along the Death Valley axis may have been equally 

episodic, and disregarding the limited evidence disclosed by the early 1943 comparison, 

we have no direct evidence of episodicity along the Beatty to Riggs line.

26
BEATTY TO BAKER LINE

Height changes along the Beatty to Baker line (fig. 11) comprise one of two sets 

described in this report that are not compared against our early 20th-century third-order 

datum. The Beatty-Baker height changes are referred instead to a 1933 first-order 

datum between Beatty and Baker and, thus provide us with at least some evidence of 

such deformation as may have occurred along the east flank of what we characterize here 

as the Death Valley regime, well after that period during which the early 20th–century 

surveys were carried out.

Comparisons between signal and terrain (fig. 11) suggest little height- or slope-dependent 

error along the Beatty to Baker line. For example, the break in the apparent 1933-1943 

tilt near Death Valley Junction, where the continuing signal southward toward Shoshone 

is near flat, argues that neither the 1933 nor the1943 surveys were contaminated by 

0 40 Distance (km) 80 120

0

1200

Height, in meters

B86

3139 USGS

S405 N17

Indian

Springs

0

-40

-80

-120

-160

800

400

1983/84

Figure 10. Profiles showing terrain and changes in height

along the Beatty to Indian Springs line with respect to 3139

USGS, Beatty.

1915

100

0

-100

-200

200

1907

1983/84

1915

1907;USGS Summary Book A6668; 3rd order

10/1915;NGS L-73988/F; 1st order

1/1984;NGS L-24792;

1st order 4-5/1983;NGS

L-24686; 1st order

4-5/1933;NGS

L-747; 1st order 10/1915;NGS

L-73988/G; 1st order

Height changes, in millimeters

0 50 100 kilometers

27
height- or slope-dependent error. Moreover, the studies of Mark and others (1981), Stein 

(1981), and Craymer and others (1995), all indicate that even the earliest invar-rodded 

surveys (which all of these are) were generally contaminated by errors on the order of 

2-3 x 10-5 m/m. Similarly, the investigations of Castle and others (1983), Castle and 

others (1985), and especially Mark and others (1987) cast doubt on significant unequalrefraction error in first-order leveling. One could argue that the correlation between 

terrain and signal is somewhat better developed in comparing the 1982/83 leveling 

against either the 1933 or 1943 survey, appealing perhaps to staff settlement in the 

1982/83 single-run leveling. Nevertheless, such an appeal to systematic error in leveling 

of this era of as much as a third of a meter over a distance of 200 km and a height 

difference of about 700 m in the 1982/83 leveling, would be viewed as an egregious 

example of special pleading. Cumulative random error in the 1933-1943 signal between 

Beatty and Shoshone is estimated to be about 21 mm; that between Beatty and Baker, 

based on the 1933-1982/83 comparison, is estimated to be about 25 mm.

Height Changes

The height changes disclosed by the comparisons along the Beatty to Baker line (fig.11) 

are seemingly inconsistent with what we might have anticipated from our understanding 

of height changes along either the Beatty to Riggs line (fig. 7) or the Beatty to Indian 

Springs line (fig. 10). That is, the well-defined subsidence along this line (fig. 11) 

compares with that along the Death Valley axis; we might more reasonably have expected 

to see height changes along the elevated terrain identified with the Beatty to Baker line 

as matching those that characterize the uplift eastward from Beatty to Indian Springs 

(fig.10). Although we need not speculate here as to any physical explanation for this 

suggested contradiction, some attention should be given to how the displacements along 

the Beatty to Baker line may tie in with what we have seen both here and elsewhere.

We noted earlier that height changes referred to a control point that was subsiding with 

respect to an invariant datum would be biased toward the recognition of uplift. Or to 

restate the same conclusion in somewhat different terms, any such changes would be 

biased toward diminished subsidence—less than that which would have been recognized 

had our control point actually remained fixed in height . Because our selected reference 

mark subsided on the order of 0.15 m between the early 1930’s and 1943 (fig. 3), the 

actual rather than the relative 1933-1943 subsidence between Beatty and Shoshone was 

apparently underestimated with respect to the 1930’s value for 3139 USGS by about the 

same amount (fig. 11, red line representation). We can test this argument by examining 

the misclosure based on a combination of 1933 and 1943 levelings clockwise around 

the circuit -49 (Stovepipe Wells)-Beatty-Death Valley Junction-Shoshone-Ashford 

Mill-Death Valley-Stovepipe Wells ((fig. 8). The clockwise orthometrically corrected 

misclosure based on 1933 leveling out of Stovepipe Wells to Shoshone, coupled with 

1943 leveling out of Shoshone produces relative uplift of Stovepipe Wells of about onethird meter. Viewed counter-clockwise, Shoshone subsided about about one-third meter 

between 1933 and1943. Recognizing that we have violated our stipulated requirement 

28
that we view 3139 USGS as fixed in height, acceptance of the 1943 drop (and subsequent 

recovery) of 3139 USGS (fig. 3) permits a more coherent characterization of the1933-

1943 height changes east of Death Valley (fig. 11, green-line representation) than had we 

held our control point to its 1933 record elevation through at least 1943 (see below). 

A corollary conclusion emerges from the preceding observation. Nearly all of the 

height changes along the Beatty to Shoshone (and perhaps the Beatty to Baker) line had 

occurred by 1943, demonstrating once again the episodic character of the height changes 

in this region.

The 1933-1943 subsidence reaches its near maximum in the vicinity of Death Valley 

Junction (fig. 11), whichever option we choose. Had we been able to extend the Furnace 

0 50 100 Distance (km) 150 200

0

1000

2000

Height, in meters

B86

B87

Beatty

3139

USGS Shoshone

Y163

Baker

Y162

3-4/1933;NGS L-722; 1st order

2-3/1943;NGS L-10460; 1st order

10/1982-1/1983;NGS L-24717; 1st 1/1984;NGS L-24792; order

1st order

4-5/1933;NGS L-747;

1st order

3-4/1933;NGS L-722;

1st order

-300

-200

-100

0

-400

1943

1982/83/84

1943

1933

-200

-190

0 1943

Figure 11. Profiles showing terrain and changes in height along the Beatty to Baker line with respect to

bench mark 3139 USGS, Beatty. 1943 green line comparison against 1933 datum intended to accomodate

about 150 millimeters of collapse at 3139 USGS between 1933 and 1943.

Height changes, in millimeters

0 50 100 kilometers

1982/83/84

K164

Death Valley

Junction

29
Creek spur (fig. 9), off the Beatty to Riggs line, eastward toward Death Valley Junction, 

we might have seen that the subsidence along this spur continued eastward beyond our 

easternmost point of comparison. We have no way of knowing, of course, whether much, 

if any, of this subsidence occurred after 1933, but it is likely that a significant fraction did, 

and that the 1933-1943 height change at Death Valley Junction along the Beatty to Baker 

line represents an approximate expression of the possible or probable subsidence along 

the Furnace Creek spur projected eastward to Death Valley Junction.

TOWNE PASS LINE

The Towne Pass line is the only line described here (fig. 12) which is referred to a control 

point other than 3139 USGS, Beatty. We include it here simply because there is evidence 

of Holocene faulting within the pass (Jennings, 1994), coupled with fairly unambiguous 

evidence of significant height changes through the pass during the 1948-1984 interval. 

There is hardly a hint in the indicated comparison of the1984 first-order work against 

a 1948 third-order datum (fig. 12) of any height- or slope-dependent systematic error. 

Moreover, the estimated cumulative random error in the signal at bench mark 13D, with 

respect to our selected control point at 22D, is given as 22 mm. Thus it seems very 

unlikely that more than a very small fraction of the described signal can be dismissed as 

measurement artifact.

-50 0

Distance (km)

1000

2000

0

13D 22D

Height, in meters

1948;USGS Summary Book

PV30; 3rd order 1984;NGS L-24788;

1st order

0

-40

-80

-120

Height changes,

in millimeters

Figure 12. Profiles showing terrain and changes in height

along the Towne Pass line with respect to bench mark 22D,

Towne Pass.

0 25 50 kilometers

1948

1984

30
The most intriguing feature disclosed by the comparison along the Towne Pass line is 

the sharply defined break in the signal that occurs no more than about five kilometers 

east of the Panamint Valley fault zone, which is at the same time bracketed between the 

two westernmost marks in the comparison. This comparison, accordingly, is unique 

among those described in this report in that it is identified with a break that at least 

approximately coincides with a previously recognized active fault system.

 TECTONIC CONSIDERATIONS

Both abundant geologic evidence and considerable 20th-century geodetic evidence 

argue that the Death Valley region is a remarkably active tectonic regime. Attempting to 

model the deformation described here is beyond the scope of this report. Nevertheless, 

several compelling questions ultimately should be addessed. Why, for example, has the 

Death Valley region remained free of significant historic seismicity, given the compelling 

evidence of continuing or even accelerating tectonic activity during Holocene time? 

Again, can or even should one attempt to reconcile the apparently episodic and large 

magnitude vertical-displacement pattern in the Death Valley region with low elastic strain 

accumulation rates? Or is it likely that elastic strain accumulation is being continuously 

released with the concomitant absence of even moderate-magnitude earthquakes? Or, 

finally, while large-magnitude earthquakes may occur, are they so infrequent in this 

particular tectonic regime that no historic record of their occurrence survives? 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are especially indebted to Kathy Koepsell of the National Geodetic Survey for 

supplying us with machine-readable data drawn from the National Geodetic Survey’s 

Integrated Data Base and Dale Benson of the National Mapping Division of the 

Geological Survey for providing us with the summary books covering the Geological 

Survey’s early geodetic work in the Death Valley region. Finally, we thank Michael 

R. Elliott for advice and counsel in interpreting much of the Geological Survey’s early 

vertical control data, Fred K. Miller for preparation of the illustrations included with this 

report, and James P. Calzia and William Stuart for their meticulous reviews of an earlier 

version of this report.

REFERENCES CITED 

Bowie, William, and Avers, H. G., 1914, Fourth general adjustment of the precise level 

net in the United States and the resulting standard elevations: U. S. Coast and 

Geodetic Survey Special Publication 18, 328 p.

Brogan, G. E., Kellog, K. S., Slemmons, D. B., and Terhune, C. L., 1991, Late 

Quaternary faulting along the Death Valley-Furnace Creek fault system, 

California and Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1991, 23 p.

31
Bull, W. B., and McFadden, L. D., 1977, Tectonic geomorphology north and south of 

the Garlock fault, California, in Doehring, D. O., ed., Geolmorphology in arid 

regions: Binghampton, N. Y., Annual Binghampton Conference, p. 115-136.

Butler, P. R., Troxel, B. W., and Verosub, K. L., 1988, Late Cenozoic history and styles 

of deformation along the southern Death Valley fault zone, California: Geological 

Society of America Bulletin, v. 100, p. 402-410.

Castle, R. O., Brown, B. W., Jr., Gilmore, T. D., Mark, R. K., and Wilson, R. C., 1983, An 

examination of the southern California field test for the systematic accumulation 

of optical refraction error in geodetic leveling: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 

10, p. 1081-1084.

Castle, R. O., Elliott, M. R., Church, J. P., and Wood, S. H., 1984, The evolution of 

the southern California uplift, 1955 through 1976: U. S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1342, 136 p.

Castle, R. O., Estrem, J. E., and Savage, J. C.,1984, Uplift across Long Valley Caldera, 

California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 89, p. 11,507-11,516.

Castle, R. O., and Gilmore, T. D., 1992, A revised configuration of the southern 

California uplift: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 104, p. 1577-1591.

Castle, R. O., Gilmore, T. D., Mark, R. K., and Shaw, R. H., 1985, Empirical estimates 

of cumulative refraction errors associated with procedurally constrained levelings 

based on the Gaithersburg-Tucson refraction tests of the National Geodetic 

Survey: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 12, p. 239-242.

Castle, R. O., Mark, R. K., and Shaw, R. H., 1994, An empirical assessment of refraction 

error in leveling as a function of survey order and environment: U. S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin, 2114, 50 p.

Castle, R. O., and Vanicek, Petr., 1980, Interdisciplinary considerations in the formulation 

of the new North American vertical datum, in Proceedings, second international 

symposium on problems related to the redefinition of North American vertical 

geodetic networks: Canadian Institute of Surveying, Ottawa, Canada, May 1980, 

p. 285-299.

Craymer, M. R., Vanicek, Petr, and Castle, R. O., 1995, Estimation of rod scale errors in 

geodetic leveling: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 100, p. 15,129-15,146.

Denny, C. S., 1965, Alluvial fans in the Death Valley region, California and Nevada: U. 

S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 466, 62 p.

32
Federal Geodetic Control Committee, 1980, Specifications to support classification, 

standards of accuracy and general specifications of geodetic control surveys: U. S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

46 p.

Frankel, K. L., Jayko, A. S., and Glazner, A. F., 2001, Characteristics of Holocene fault 

scarp morphology, southern part of the Black mountains fault zone, Death Valley, 

in Machette, M. N., Johnson, M. L., and Slate, J. L. (eds.), Quaternary and Late 

Pliocene geology of the Death Valley region: Recent observations on tectonics, 

stratigraphy, and lake cycles (Guidebook for the 2001 Pacific Cell-Friends of the 

Pleistocene).

Gannett, S. S., and Baldwin, D. H.,1908, Spirit leveling in California, 1896 to 1909, 

inclusive: U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 342, 172 p.

Gilmore, T. D., 1986, Historic vertical displacements in the Salton Trough and some 

adjoining parts of southeastern California: U. S. Geological Survey Open-file 

Report 86-380, 44 p., 40 figures, 11 plates, 10 tables.

Gilmore, T. D., 1992, Geodetic leveling data used to define historical height changes 

between Tonopah Junction and Las Vegas, Nevada: U. S. Geological Survey 

Open-file Report 92-450, 6 p., 5 figures, 17 tables.

Goter, S. K., Oppenheimer, D. H., Mori, J. J., Savage, M. K., and Masse, R. P., 1994, 

Earthquakes in California and Nevada: U. S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 

94-647.

Hayford, J. F., 1904, Precise leveling in the United States 1900-1903 with a readjustment 

of the level net and resulting elevations: U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Report 

for 1903, app. 3, p 195-809.

Hill, M. L., and Troxel, B.W., 1966, Tectonics of the Death Valley region, California: 

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 77, p. 435-438

Hooke, R. L., 1972, Geomorphic evidence for Late-Wisconsin and Holocene tectonic 

deformation, Death Valley, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 

83, p. 2073-2098.

Hunt, C. B., and Maybe, D. R., 1966, Stratigraphy and structure, Death Valley, California: 

U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 494-A, 162 p.

Jackson, D. D., Lee, W. B., and Liu, Chi-Ching, 1980, Aseismic uplift in southern 

California: An alternative interpretation: Science, v. 210, p. 534-536.

Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California 

Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map, no. 6.

33
Klinger, R. E., 1999, Tectonic geomorphology along the Death Valley fault system—

evidence for late Quaternary activity in Death Valley Park, in Slate, J. R., (ed.) 

proceedings of conference on status of geologic research and mapping, Death 

Valley National Park: U. S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 99-153, p. 115-

116. 

Klinger, R. E., and Piety, L. A., 1966, Late Quaternary activity on the Furnace Creek 

fault, northern Death Valley, California: Geological Society of America Abstracts 

with Programs, v. 28, no. 7, p. 193.

Knott, J. R., 1999, Quaternary stratigraphy and geomorphology of Death Valley, in 

Slate, J. R., (ed.) Proceedings of conference on status of geologic research and 

mapping, Death Valley National Park: U. S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 

99-153, p. 90-96.

Knott, J. R., Sarna-Wojcicki, A. M., Klinger, R. E., Tinsley, J. C., III, and Troxel, B. W., 

1999, Late Cenozoic tephrochronology of Death Valley, California--New insights 

into stratigraphy, paleogeography, and tectonics, in Slate, J. R., (ed.) Proceedings 

of conference on status of geologic research and mapping, Death Valley National 

Park: U. S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 99-153, p. 115-116.

Knott, J. R., Tinsley, J. C., III, and Wells, S. G., 1997, Quaternary faulting across the 180-

ka abrasion platform at Morman Point, Death Valley , California--Scarps versus 

strandlines: Geological of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 29, no. 6, p. 

437.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 1907, Precise leveling-Los Angeles 

Aqueduct: unpublished report, various pages.

Machette, M. N., and Crone, A. J., 2001, Late Holocene faulting on the Old Ghost 

alluvial–fan complex, in Machette, M. N., Johnson, M. L., and Slate, J. L. (ed.), 

Quaternary and Late Pliocene geology of the Death Valley region: Recent 

observations on tectonics, stratigraphy, and lake cycles (Guidebook for the 2001 

Pacific Cell--Friends of the Pleistocene Fieldtrip): U. S. Geological Survey 

Open-file Report 01-51, p. B67-B70.

Mark, R. K., Gilmore, T. D., and Castle, R. O., 1987, Evidence of suppression of the 

unequal refraction error in geodetic leveling: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 

92, p. 2767-2790.

Mark, R. K., Tinsley, J. C., III, Newman, E. B., Gilmore, T. D., and Castle, R. O., 1981, 

An assessment of the accuracy of the geodetic measurements that define the 

southern California uplift: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 86, p. 2783-2808.

34
Noble, L. F., and Wright, L.A., 1954, Geology of the central and southern Death Valley 

region, California, in Jahns, R. H., (ed.), Geology of Southern California: 

California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 170, Chapter II, Contribution 

10, p. 59-74.

Stein, R. S., 1981, Discrimination of tectonic displacement from slope-dependent errors 

in geodetic leveling from southern California, 1953-1979, in Simpson, D. W., and 

Richards, P. G., eds., Earthquake prediction , an international review, Maurice 

Ewing Series, v. 4: Washington, D. C., American Geophysical Union, p. 441-456.

Stein, R. S., Whalen, C. T., Holdahl, S. R., Strange, W. E., and Thatcher, W. R., 1986, 

Saugus-Palmdale field test for refraction error in historical leveling surveys: 

Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, p. 9031-9044.

Strange, W. E., 1981, The impact of refraction correction on leveling interpretations in 

southern California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 86, p. 2809-2824.

Toppozada, T., Branum, D., Petersen, M., Hallstom, C., Cramer, C., and Reichle, M., 

2000, Epicenters of and areas damaged by M ≥ 5 California earthquakes, 1800-

1999: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 49.

Vanicek, Petr, Castle, R. O., and Balazs, E. I., 1980, Geodetic leveling and its 

applications: Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, v. 18, no. 2, p. 505-524.

Whalen, C. T., and Balazs, E. I., 1976, Test results of first-order class III leveling: U. S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

NOAA Technical Report NOS 68 NGS 4, 30 p.

Wright, L. A., Greene, R. C., Clemen, I., Johnson, F. C., and Prave, A. R., 1999, 

Tectonostratigraphic developent of the Miocene-Pliocene Furnace Creek Basin 

and related features, Death Valley region, California, in Wright, L. A., and 

Troxell, B. W. (eds.), Cenozoic basins of the Death Valley region: Boulder, 

Colorado, Geological Society of America Special Paper 333, p. 87-114. 

Wright, L. A., Thompson, R. A., Troxel, B.W., Pavlis, T. L., Dewitt, E. H, Otton, J. 

K., Ellis, M. A., Miller, M. G., and Serpa, L. F., 1991, Cenozoic magmatic 

and tectonic evolution of the east-central Death Valley region, California, in

Walawender, M . J., and Hanan, B. B. (eds.), Geological excursion in southern 

California and Mexico: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, 1991 

Annual Meeting Guidebook, San Diego, p. 93-127.

35