ML20030C382

Rept on Limited Appearance of DW Phifer & Alleged Geologic Features,Camp Pendleton,Ca,Jul 29,1981. Aperture Cards Are Available in PDR

ML20030C382
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	07/29/1981
From:	SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO., SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8108260048
Download: ML20030C382 (51)

Text

l l

)

as 4

cc.~ -

DOCKETNUMEEli gg,gg gM=@ L //.

.A PROD. & UTIL FAC....,..:.2 2d,-

AUG 2 41981 >

~

)

l OfE citha Secretary d

D;;L AI & ScrVic8 L t:.'.di g

Cb 4

j REPORT ON LIMITED APPEARANCE OF MR. D. W. PHIFER AND ALLEGED GEOLOGIC FEATURES, l

CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA JULY 29, 1981

)

)

l

. pl l

/hd N

$.prn s

JN Q

l 6

)

f AUG 2 519816 -

l

[ u.a.g,

}

l l

b

?

02

n l

l l

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY AND SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPINY 3

~

6 0

ot l

t l

8108260048 810729 i PDR ADOCK 050003611 g

PDR

D TABLE OF CONTENTS E!3.1

)

INTRODUCTION 1

"HORNO SUMMIT FAULT" 4

Resistant Sandstone near San Mateo Canyon 5

Rifle Range 214, Horn 7 Summit Ridge and adjacent areas 10

)

Resistant Sandstone near Las Pulgas Ammunition Dump 12 Fault east of Las Pulgas Canyon 12 Vandegrift Boulevard structure 12 San Onofre Breccia near San Mateo Creek 14 Conclusion 15

" PIEDRA DE LUMBRE FAULT" 15

)

"HORNO CANYON FAULT" 16

" SAN ONOFRE MOUNTAIN FAULT" 17

" SAN ONOFRE CREEK FAULT" 18

)

" SAN MATEO CREEK FAULT" 19 GEOPHYSICAL CONCERNS 21 CONCLUSIONS 22

)

REFERENCES CITED 24 ATTACHMENT:

Letter, Dr. P. L. Ehlig, September 18, 1979 FIGURES

)

1 - San Mateo Canyon 2 - San Onofre Creek Terrace Deposits 3 - Fault in San Onofre Creek Terrace Area 4 - Terrace Deposits, San Onofre Canyon 5 - Terrace Fill, North Bank San Onofre Canyon 3

6 - Strongly Developed Soil, San Mateo Canyon 7 - Angular Blocky Ped 8 - Horno Summit Ridge 9 - Faulting in Rifle Range 214 10 - Vandegrift Boulevard Structure 11 - Vandegrift Boulevard Structure 12 - Piedra De Lumbre

)

13 - Horno Canyon 14 - San Onofre Mountain Fault 15 - High Level Terrace Fill, San Mateo Canyon PLATE 1 - GEOLOGIC MAP OF WESTERN PARf OF 3

CAMP PENDLETON, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Pocket PLATE 2 - GEOLOGIC MAP OF EASTERN PART OF CAMP PENDLETON, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Pocket 3

Limited Appnarance - D. W. Phifer Allegad G:ologic Features July 29, 1981 INTRODUCTION A limited appearance concerning geology was granted to Mr. D.

W.

Phifer on Thursday, June 25, 1981, as a part of the

)

licensing proceedings on seismology and geology for San Onofre Units 2 & 3.

This appearance was granted as a result of his allegation that "There are three maior unreported faults on Camp Pendleton" (TR 1419:12,13).

In his limited appearance on Thursday, Mr. Phifer pre-sented what he believed to be evidence for the faults listed below:

)

1)

" San Onofre Mountain Fault" 2)

"Horno' Summit Fault" 3)

"Horno Canyon Fault" 4)

" Piedra de Lumbre Fault"

)

5)

"Vandegrift Boulsvard Faulting" and on Tuesday, June 30, 1981, he stated that, in addition to those listed above, there are the:

)

6)

" San Onofre Creek Fault" 7)

" San Mateo Creek Fault"

)

The earthquake potential of the alleged features at San Onofre were noted in Mr. Phifer's limited appearance.

As a result of Mr. Phifer's geologic interpretation, he speculates that

...we are looking at something between [M] 6.5 and 8.

And my

)

slight knowledge of seismicity tells me that's about lg at the plant..." (TR 1426:18-20).

The documentation for thic allega-tion is absent.

In his statement, Mr. Phifer made reference to gravity

)

and magnetic studies of the region by Dr. S.

Biehler.

)

Limit 2d Appearance - D. W.

Phifer e

Alleged G ologic Features July 29, 1981 Mr. Phifer has not reached any conclusicns about the data

"...but then you never know about

[ Bouguer]

gravity..."

(TR 1429:6,7).

Subsequent to Mr. Phifer's limited appearance, field examinations were conducted by the Applicants on June 27, 8

July 3, July 16, and July 17, 1981, to evaluate the geologic evidence for the alleged features.

Mr. Phifer and Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff geologist, Mr. T.

Cardone, accom-panied the Applicants in the field on June 27, and July 17, D

1981.

A discussion of the inspections and the conclusions reached are presented in the accompanying text.

The Applicants throughout the preceding decade conducted 7

numerous geolcgic studies at the site (5-mile radius) and the area beyond a 5-mile radius to determine whether any major unidentified geologic structures were present that may influ-ence the site geology.

The following is a list of some of

?

these investigations.

1)

Geologic report on the Probability of Ground Displacement on Faults in the Vicinity of the San Onofre Nuclear Power Flant Site, Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, Californla, by Converse, Davis and Associates, April 30, 1970.

2)

Report of Geologic and Fault Reconnaissance Vicinity of Oceanside, California, by Fugro, Inc., April 6,1972.

3)

Geomorphic Analysis of Terraces in San Juan and Bell

_J Canyons, - Orange

County, California, by

Fugro, Inc.,

September 16, 1975.

4)

Generalized Subsurface Geological and Geophysical Study, Capistrano Area, Orange County, California, by Jack C.

West, November, 1975.

5)

Geologic Report on the Area Adjacent to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Northwestern San Diego County, California, by P. L. Ehlig, Sept:mber 31, 1977.

6)

Late Quaternary Evolution of the Camp Pendleton-San

_?

Onofre State Beach Coastal Area, Northwestern San Diego County, California, by R. J. Shlemon 1978.,

Limited Appearance - D. W. Phifer Alleged Geologic Features 3

July 29, 1981 And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff posed several 3

questions on the geology of the region.

The response to those questions is presented below:

Response to NRC Questions, Question 361.5, November, 1977.

3 Response to NRC Questions, Question 361.6, September, 1977.

Responr.e to NRC Questions, Question 361.7, September, 1977.

Response to NRC Questions, Question 361.8, December, 1979.

O Response to NRC Questions, Question 361.9, December, 1979.

Response to NRC Questions, Question 361.10, December, 1979.

Response to NRC Questions, Question 361.13, December, 1979.

O Response to NRC Questions, Question 361.16, November, 1977.

Response to NRC Questions, Question 361.27, November, 1978.

Many reports and maps by other investigators have been O

reviewed in the course of preparing the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSARj and Responses to NRC Questions.

These are listed in the FSAR.

In his limited appearance, and Jatel comments, Mr. D. W.

O Phifer speculated that there are seven "new" faults in the region.

From these he assigned a range of magnitudes with corresponding ground motion at the site.

And he inferred that there is perhaps an alternative interpretation for the gravity O

and geomagnetic data.

These inferences are addressed in the sections that follow.

The geologic maps by W.

R.

Moyle, Jr. (1973) are used as an index (Plates 1 and 2) and a circle is drawn around the

?

locality where the fault characteristics are alleged to be i

present.

Detailed maps present geologic information for selected localities.

Photographs of particular features accompany the text and maps.

3 g

Limited Appearance - D. W. Phifer

)

Alleged Geologic Features July 29, 1981 l

"HORNO SUMMIT FAULT" b

As postulated by Mr. Phifer, the "Horno Summit fault" is a

single continuous feature trending southeastward for a

distance of 16 miles from San Mateo Creek, about 4 miles inland from the coast, across Camp Pendleton toward a series

)

of faults mapped by Moyle along Vandegrift Boulevard.

His evidence for such a throughgoing fault includes:

(1)

A fault exposed in a cut slope at the northeast

)

corner of Rifle Range 14 (2)

The juxtaposition of Cretaceous sandstone of turbi-dite origin on the east against massive Eocene sandstone on the west at Rifle Range 214, and at Horno Summit Ridge, a mile to the southeast, (3)

An apparent 200-foot vertical displacement with the east side down of a resistant sandstone bed south of San Pateo Canyon and an apparent discontinuity in the oatcrops of the same bed near Las Pulgas Ammuni-tion Dump,'

f (4)

Faulting of San Onofre Breccia against Eocene sand-

)

stone in the area between Aliso Canyon and Las

)

Pulgas Canyon, (5)

Faulting exposed on Vandegrift Boulevard and in

)

Lawrence Canyon, at Oceanside, and (6)

The presence of San Onofre Breccia material just south of San Mateo Creek about two miles from the nearest outcrops of breccia.

)

Based on the occurrence of breccia material near San Mateo Creek, Mr. Phifer interprets his "Horno Summit fault" as a right lateral fault with a

possible lateral offset of 20 miles.

)

The evidence for the hypothesized "Horno Summit fault" is discussed below by area starting at San Mateo Canyon on the northwest and proceeding southeastward to the feature exposed in the bluffs at Vendegrift Boulevard.

This is followed by a

)

discussion of the significance of the San Onofre Breccia material observed by Mr. Phifer along the south side of San )

Limited Appearance - D> W.

Phifer

)

Alleged Gaologic Features July 29, 1981 Mateo Canyon.

On the basis of the Applicants' findings, it is

)

then concluded that there is no substantive evidence for a throughgoing fault a'ong the trend of the hypothesized "Horno Summit fault."

)

Resistant Sandstone Near San Mateo Canyon The Applicants' observations relating to the apparent offset of a resistant sandstone bed southeast of San Mateo Creek are essentially in agreement with the observations by

)

Mr. Phifer.

A resistant bed of quartz sandstone with a clay matrix. forms a distinctive cap on a ridge on the northeast side of a tributary to San Mateo Canyon (Fig.1).

A similarly appearing resistant sandstone bed crops out on the opposite

)

side of the tributary, 2,000 feet to the southwest.

Geometric projections of the two beds indicate they have a vertical separation of about 300 feet with the northeast bed lowest.

If the two beds are the same, a fault probably extends between

)

them as conjectured by Moyle (1973).

If such a fault exists, it is not a ccntinuation of the Mission Viejo fault toward which it trends to the northwest because its east side would be down whereas the Mission Viejo fault is consistantly down

)

on the west.

The Applicants cannot determine whether or not the above occurrences of resistant sandstone represent a single strati-graphic horizon.

The resistant beds exposed at San Mateo

)

Canyon, and a similar bed exposed in the vicinity of the Las Pulgas Ammunition Dump, appear to have formed by prolonged weathering under seasonally humid tropical or subtropical conditions.

They are in essence an old paleosol (oxisol)

)

developed on sandstone.

Their resistance appears to result primarily from cementation by silica; locally pods of chert-like rock are present within it.

The highly resistant layer is about 2 to 4 feet thick but zu underlain by intensely

)

weathered claystone having a moderate to low resistance to erosion.

The limited outcrop distribution of the sandstone )

Limited Appearanco - D. W. Phifer Alleged G::ologic Features

)

July 29, 1981 might reflect an originally discontinuous distribution of the 3

sandstone or it might represent candstone capping terrace remnants standing above an active floodplain.

Thus, although this paleosol may have developed during a single time f.nter-val, perhaps simultaneous with the Claymont Clay Member of the 3

Silverado Formation in the Swta Ana Mountains, it need not represent an initially uniform or continuous surface.

If a northwest-trending fault does exist between the two exposures of the resistant sandstone, the time of last dis-3 placement of the fault can be estimated by the continuity and age of well-preserved fluvial terrace deposits bordering San Mateo and San Onofre Canyons (Figs. 2 and 3).

These terrace deposits are excellent stratigraphic markers that pass 3

directly over or are projected across the fault as determined by instrumental hand-levelling and helicopter altimeter sur-vey.

The terraces are regionally extensive and traceable several miles along the larger drainages in the Camp Pendleton 3

area, and thus apparently formed mainly because of Pleistocene climatic change rather than because of local tectonism.

The age of the terraces can be estimated by correlation with world-wide sea-level fluctuations and by comparison of soil 3

development.

A minimum age for possible displacement of the inferred fault is afforded by a well-preserved flight of fluvial terraces bordering the north side of San Mateo Canyon near 3

Firing Range 313 (E 1/2, sec 32, T. 8 S.,

R. 6 W).

Here some seven distinct fill terraces have been mapped at successively higher elevaticis (Fig. 1; Moyle, 1973); and helicopter recon-naissance and ground checks show the presence of at least two g

higher and older remnant surfaces.

The San Mateo Creek terraces are unde 11ain by gravel

fill, generally 20 to 25 feet thick.

Excep where cut by local sidestreams, most tarrace fills are traceable a few 3

miles upstream and downstream from the inferred fault. l 0

l

Limit d Appearance - D. W. Phifer g

Alleged Gnologic Features July 29, 1981 Although not directly overlying the inferred fault, the e

cecond, third, and fourth San Mateo Creek terrace fills are traceable to within several hundred feet of the fault.

In-strumental leveling (5-power Abney Level) shows only a normal down-gradient decrease in elevation (3-5 degrees) of terrace O

surfaces projected across the inferred fault.

Likewise, within instrumental resolution (about 10 feet),

helicopter altimeter settings on " matching" surface across the fault indicates no measurable vertical displacement.

O The age of the San Mateo Creek terraces can be ascer-tained by association with climatically-controlled sea level

change, and by comparison with dated, comparably-developed soil profiles near San Onofre.

The lowest (youngest) regional 3

terrace along San Mateo Canyon is not present in the inferred fault area.

However, where observed downstream near San Mateo Road (sec. 6, T. 9 S.,

R. 6 W.; Fig. 1), this terrace bears at best only a weakly-developed soil profile (with possible J

cambic horizon).

The terrace at this locality also projects into the subsurface, and is now buried by modern floodplain deposits of San Mateo Creek.

It is thus likely that this lowest terrace fill was laid down mainly during the last major O

" pluvial" epoch about 17,000 to 20,000 years ago and is equi-valert in age to channel deposits about 100 feet below present sea level near San Onofre (Shlemon,1979, Figure Sa).

The age of the second terrace along San Mateo Canyon is O

estimated from its older stratigraphic position and its rela-tive soil profile development.

Reconnaissance indicates that the soil is well-developed and in general comparable with that described from the San Onofre Canyon area (Figs. 4 and 5).

'O Accordingly, this terrace is estir. ".ed to be at least 35,000 to 40,000 years old.

The third highest San Mateo Creek terrace, approximately 100 feet above the flocuplain, bears a very strongly-developed

)O relict paleosol (Fig. 6).

Some five feet of the B t (argil-2 lic) and B hor.izons are still preserved in a roadcut near 3 J

Limited Appearance - D. W. Phifer

)

Alleged Gm logic Features July 29, 1981 Firing Range 313 (NE 1/4, sec. 5, T.

9 S.,

R. 6 W.).

The

)

antiquity of the soil is indicated by its dark red (2.5YR 3/4) subsoil (B3) and the moderately-thick, continuous illuvial clay films on ped faces.

From comparison with soils of simi-lar development dated elsewhere in California, this terrace

)

profile is judged to be at least 100,000 years old (isotope stage 5).

The underlying terrace fill is therefore deemed to be in the order of about 125,000 to 180,000 years old (stage 6).

)

In sum, the second, third and fourth San Mateo Creek terrace deposits can be projected across the trond of the inferred fault.

Within resolution of instrumental measure-

ment, no vertical displacement is apparent.

Judging from

)

their continuity and the correlation of these deposits with regional climatic and sea level change, and from comparison of relative soil profile development, last displacement of the inferred fault at th!.s locality took place prior to 35,000 to 3

40,000 years ago, and more likely well before about 100,000 years ago.

About 3 miles southeast of San Mateo Canyon the inferred fault would project through a flight of five distinct river

)

terraces on the north side of San Onofre Canyon

(" middle fork") (Fig. 2, secs. 14 and 15, T.

9 S.,

R.

6 W.; Moyle, 1973).

The three higher terraces are locally eroded and do not extend sufficiently " downstream" for correlation across 3

the inferred fault.

However, the lower two terraces are continuous and unbroken where crossing its inferred trend and a small fault exposed in the cottom of a deep gully (Figs. 2 and 4 ).

Inspection oi San Gnofre Canyon banks and sidestream cuts shows that all terraces are underlain by at least 15 to 20 feet of gravels and coarse sands.

The terraces are suc-cessively younger fill deposits rather than straths.

Each

)

terrace-fill was laid down by an ancestral San Onofre Creek, and later abandoned owing to regional, climatically-induced changes of sedimentation and base level. )

Limited Appearanco - D. W. Phifer 3

Allcgad Geologic Features July 29, 1981 An approximate age for the San Onofre Creek terraces can 3

be estimated by correlation with Pleistocene sea level changes and by comparison of soil development with profiles near San Onofre site dated by aosolute and relative techniques (Shle-mon, 1978, 1979).

O Deposits of the lowest San Onofre Creek terre.ce are approximately 20 feet thick where well-exposed about 3,000 feet upstream from the inferred fault.

The deposits are about 50 feet above the present floodplain, and most likely O

were laid down during a " pluvial" epoch when sea level was lower and when stream competence was increased (Fig. 3).

At a minimum, therefore, these lowest terrace deposits are dated as about 15,000 to 20,000, or 60,000 to 70,000 years old, equiva-O lent in age to stage 2 or 4,

respectively, of the marine isotope chronology (Shackleton and Opdyke.

1973, Shlemon, 1978).

A more accurate age estimate for the lowest terrace is O

afforded by the relative development of soil profiles.

As shown in Fig. 5, the lowest terrace bears a strongly-developed soil about 5 feet thick.

Particularly diagnostic of age are the dark red color (2.5YR 4/6-3/4),

coarse angular blocky O

structure, and moderately-thick, continuous illuvial clay films on ped faces (Fig. 7).

Compared with soils dated near San Onofre and elsewhere in mediterranean climatic regimes of California (Shlemon, 1978) this lowest terrace profile is

[]

judged to be at least 35,000 to 40,000 years old (stage 3).

The higher four terraces in this area of San Onofre

~

Canyan are presently used as mortar impact r ages by the U.S.

Marine Corps, and thus could not be examined in detail.

O

However, brief field checks and helicopter reconnaissance indicates that soil profiles on these surfaces are likewise strongly developed.

The underlying sediments are older and l

from stratigraphic position and development are deemed to be O

in excess of about 100,000 years old.

Accordingly, because at least the two lower (younger) terraces of San Onofre Creek are I a i

t m

Limited Appearance - D. W. Phifer j

Alleged G:ologic Features July 29, 1981 traceable across the inferred fault, last displacement must 3

have occurred before about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago, and likely more than about 100,000 years ago.

Rifle Range 214, Horno Summit Ridge and Adjacent Areas 3

At Rifle Range 214 the fault exposed in the cut at the northeast corner of the range strikes between N45W and N50W and dips 65 to 70 degrees to the southwest (Fig. 8).

The fault is marked by about an inch of gouge.

Slickensides are 3

oriented in various directions but the most prominant ones trend down dip.

Strata on the northeast side of the fault consist of interbedded sandstone and mudstone with most beds 1 to 3 feet thick.

The sandstone beds are normally graded with D

coarse sand at the base and finer sand at the top.

Exposures on the southwest side of the fault consist of coarse-grained cross-bedded Gandstone mainly composed of quartz with some feldspar grains and granitic granules and pebbles.

The D

exposed stratigraphic separation across the fault is about 30 feet (Fig. 9).

Reconnaissance in the vicinity of Rifle Range 214 indi-cates the strata exposed on either side of the fault are part D

of a single formation in which thick sequences of relatively massive sandstone and some granule-pebble conglomerate inter-finger with sequences of interbedded sandstone and mudstone.

Thus, the fault does not juxtapose strata of different forma-D tions and it need not have a displacement significantly greater than that exposed at Rifle Range 214.

l During reconnaissance along the trend of this fault between San Onofre Canyon to the northwest and Basilone Road D

to the southeast only one apparently minor fault, oriented about N40W 80SW, was found in a gully 2,500 feet coutheast of the fault at Rifle Range 214 (Fig. 8).

The only other fault observed in this area is exposed in the cut slope 200 feet D

west of the southeast corner of Range 214 (Fig. 8).

This fault is oriented about N48W 57NE and has a normal separation of about 10 feet with the east side down. O

Limited Appnaranca - D. W. Phifer

)

Alleged Geologic Features July 29, 1981 l

Along Horno Summit Ridge, southeast of Rifle Range 214,

)

Mr. Phifer indicates that massive Eocene sandstone on the southwest is faulted against Cretaceous strata on the north-east.

In contrast, the Applicants' observations indicate the contact is depositional in origin.

The strata referred to as

)

Cretaceous by Mr. Phifer are similar to strata exposed in the vicinity of Rifle Range 214 except that mudstone is more abundant and that many of the mudstone layers contain fossil rcot tubes and structures typical of bioturbation.

The rock

)

types and sedimentary structures within this formation are suggestive of deposition within a coastal floodplain with interfingering marsh, river, and estuary deposits.

Based on our observations, it is probably cerrelative with the upper 3

part of the Paleocene Silverado Formation of the Santa IMa Mountains.

The massive Eocene sandstone referred to by Mr. Phifer appears to be correlative with the Middle Eocene Santiago Formation of the Santa Ana Mountains.

Northwestward 3

from Horno Surmit Ridge, massive sandstone beds near the base of this formation form nearly continuous exposures on north-facing slopes.

Based on these exposures, the base of the Santiago Formation conforr.c with bedding and is a depositional

)

contact.

Moyle (1973) mapped it as such except that he referred to the underlying Paleocene Silverado Formation as part of the pre-Tertiary basement complex with which he grouped strata believed to be Cretaceous.

[

There is intense alteration of strata at the op of the Silverado Formation in exposures on Horno Summit Ridge.

Mr. Phifer indicates the alteration may be due to hydrothermal alteration along a fault.

The Applicants see, however, no

)

evidence of faulting at this location and suspect that the alteration is the result of prolonged weathering prior to deposition of the Santiago Formation.

Regional relationships indicate a long time interval occurred between deposition of 3

the two formations, probably as a result of eustatic lowering of sea level. 3

Mmited Appearance - D. W. Phifer 3

Alleged Geologic Features July 29, 1981 Southeast of where the contact between the Santiago and 3

Silverado Formations crosses Horno Summit Ridge, there is a bowl-shaped hollow which was most likely formed by landsliding (Fig. 8).

In expasures above the road along the western edge of this hollow bedding within the Santiago Formation is 3

locally deformed and faulting is present.

Although this deformation might be of tectonic origin, we favor a non-tectonic origin in view of its occurrence along the head,

a landslide.

D Resistant Sandstone Near Las Pulgas Ammunition Dump In the vicinity of Las Pulgas Ammunition Dump there are extensive outcrops of the resistant sandstone similar to the D

previously described sandstone (paleosol) exposed in San Mateo Canyon (Fig. 8).

Mr. Phifer's projection of his "Horno Summit fault" passes through this area.

As mapped by the Applicants, the outcrops of resistant sandstone appear to define a rela-D tively smooth geometric surface as portrayed by structure contours without evidence of fault offset.

Thus, we find no evidence for a significant fault passing through this area.

O Fault East of Las Pulgas Canyon The northwest-trenc g fault along th contact between San Onofre Breccia and Eocene sandstone east of Las Pulgas Canyon was previously mapped by Moyle (1973).

His map indi-O cates the fault is 1-1/2 miles long with a normal depositional contact between the San Onofre Breccia and Eocene sandstone beyond either end of the fault.

The geometry of the contacts, as mapped by Moyle, indicate the fault hus a vertical separa-Q tion of about 200 feet with the west side down.

Vandegrift Boulevard Structure on the field trip of June 27, 1981, Mr. Phifer pointed

?

out a feature exposed in the bluffs on the east side of Vande-l grift Boulevard which he believed was an exposure of the g i

Limited Appearanco - D. W. Phifer g

Al).cgad Geologic Features July 29, 1981 continuation of his "Horno Summit fault" (Figs. 10, 11).

3 However, the Applicants conclude it was most likely formed by landsliding in the San Onofre Breccia followed by backfilling of talus and slope wash against the steeply inclined head scarp of the landslide.

The bluffs on either side of this 3

feature consist of San Onofre Breccia which is composed of material derived from Catalina Schist and has well defined bedding inclined toward the south-southwest at an average dip of about 5 degrees.

At the top of the bluffs the breccia is O

overlain by marine and stream terrace deposits consisting of dominantly granitic sand and gravel derived frcm the interior of the Peninsular Ranges via the Santa Margarita River.

The terrace deposits are the source of the talus and slope wash 3

observed within the feature.

The Applicants conclude that this feature was most likely formed by the following sequence of events.

Subsequent to deposition of the terrace deposits, the 3

Santa Margarita River eroded its existing channel west of the present position of Vandegrift Boulevard.

At the same time, the small tributary canyon, forming the southern boundary of the feature, was deeply incised into the river bluff creating 3

a steep south-facing canyon wall as it cut downward through the San Onofre Breccia.

After the bottom of the tributary canyon eroded below the present level of Vandegrift Boulevard.

s a segment of the south-facing canyon wall failed by land-O sliding, perhaps as a result of undercutting of a weak layer within the south-dipping San Onofre Breccia.

The failure created a steeply inclined arcuate scarp at the head of the failure within the San Onofre Breccia and probably a nearly J

vertical bank within the overlying uncemented terlace deposits.

Following the failure, the terrace deposits above the ' head scarp proceeded to ravel and accumulate as talus and slope wash along the base of the landslide head scarp.

Ero-9 sion of slide debris along the bottom of the tributary canyon probably caused periodic movement in the slide mass and O

Limitcd App;arcnco - D. W.

Phifer Allcgsd Gaologic Fcaturcs g

July 29, 1981 resulted in downdropping and backward rotation of the rampart e

of talus and slope wash along the back scarp of the landslide.

As seen today, the andslide appears to have been stable for a considerable length of time and is being modified by weather-ing and erosion.

e The fault origin proposed by Mr. Phifer is inconsistant with the following observations:

1.

The sand and gravel deposits juxtaposed against the San Onofre Breccia have a structure typical of talus and

,J slope wash deposits.

Although they are composed of the same material as terrace deposit overlying the San Onofre

Breccia, their sediment gradation, distribution and internal structure is dissimilar to that observed in the terrace deposits.

Therefore, they are not a down-faulted segment of the terrace deposits.

)

2.

As seen in the bluff along Vandegrift Boulevard (FicJs. 10 and 11), the contact between the San Onofre Breccia and the sand and gravel deposits dips nearly vertically at the top of the bluff but curves toward the south as it comes down the face of the bluff and would appear to

~J approach the horizontal if projected southward to a depth of several feet below the road elevation.

This apparent flattening at shallow depth is characteristic of land-slides but not faults of tectonic origin.

3.

There is continuity in the structure of the San Onofre Breccia exposed in the bluffs along Vandegrift Boulevard o

on either side of this feature with no evidence of dis-turbance by tectonic faulting.

Therefore, the Applicants conclude that this feature is not a 3

tectonic fault.

i San Onofre Breccia Near San Mateo Creek The Applicants have examined the San Onofre Breccia material observed by Mr. Phifer in the area south of San Mateo Creek (Fig. 1) and conclude that it is quarry gravel trans-ported to the site for surfacing of roads.

The material consists of a few blocks of San Onofre Breccia, less than 2 feet long, located adjacent to roads surfaced with gravel O

Limited Appaarancs - D. W. Phifer

)

Alleg:d Gsologic Features July 29, 1981 derived from the San Onofre Breccia.

Similar blocks can be 3

found along gravel roads throughout Camp Pendleton.

The San Onofre Breccia is quarried at the mouth cf Piedra de Lumbre Canyon for use as road fill and road gravel.

A small part of the quarry material remains as blocks too large for road

)

gravel as can be seen at the Piedra de Lumbre quarry.

The blocks of this size are normally pushed to the edge of the road during grave 11ing ope. rations.

)

Conclusion Mr. Phifer's ba.is for the "Horno Summit fault" is mainly conjecture without substantive supporting evidence.

Minor faults are locally present along the hypothesized trend but

)

there is no apparent evidence for a continuous throughgoing fault.

Several features ascribed to faulting by Mr. Phifer have other origins.

These include the feature along Vande-grift Boulevard, the distribution of resistant sandstone near

)

Las Pulgas Ammunition Dump, the distribution of rock types and features along Horno Summit Ridge and the occurrence of San Onofre Breccia float south of San Mateo Creek.

Mr. Phifer's suggestion of as much as 20 miles of right lateral displace-

)

ment on the "Horno Summit fault" is speculative and contrary to the fact that bedrock formations and contacts are contin-uous across the hypothesized trend of the fault.

Therefore, in the Applicants' opinion the hypothesized "Horno Summit

)

fault" does not exist.

"PIEDRE DE LUMBRE FAULT" This inferred fault was hypothesized as a southward

)

extension of a fault mapped to the northeast of Piedra de Lumbre Canyon by Moyle (1973).

As evidence in support of his hypothesis, Mr. Phifer indicates that coastal terrace no. 2 stands at an elevation of 300 feet on the west side of the

)

Piedra de Lumbre Canyon but stands at only 200 feet on the east side along the narrow ridge between Piedra de Lumbre and )

Limited App:aranc0 - D. W. Phifer

')

Alleg d Geologic Features July 29, 1981 Las Pulgas Canyons.

From this he infers that a fault trends I

southward from the mouth of Piedra de Lumbre Canyon with the east side of the fault down 100 feet relative to the west side.

The contention that the terrace no. 2 has been displaced I

by faulting is not valid because the terraces referred to by Mr. Phifer are not of the same origin.

The terrace west of Piedra de Lumbre Canyon is of marine origin.

In the vicinity of the 300-foot contour, this terrace is an erosional surfcce lacking marine deposits; however, within one mile to the west remnants of three separate marine platforms veneered by marine gravel deposits are present between the 200 and 400 foot contours.

The ridge separating the mouths of Piedra de Lumbre D

and Las Pulgas Canyons is underlain by stream deposited sand and gravel.

The cresc of the ridge has an elevation of about 200 feet and represents a Late Pleistocene floodplain of the two adjoining canyons.

The base of the stream terrace D

deposits is exposed in a sand quarry near the seaward end of the ridge (Fig. 12).

Here, the base rests on a relatively smooth erosion surface standing at an elevation of about 100 feet.

These stream terrace deposits are similar to those D

present at the mouths of many canyons along the southern California coast.

They bear no direct age relationship with adjacent marine terraces and should not be correlated with them.

D In addition, prior geologic mapping by Moyle (1973) and Ehlig (1977) show no evidence of a fault trending down Piedra de Lumbre Canyon.

Thus the Applicants conclude the hypothe-sized fault does not exist.

D "HORNO CANYON FAULT" The presence of this fault is based upon Mr. Phifer's reinterpretation of the California Division of Mines Santa Ana D

Map Sheet (1965) by relocating an existing southwest-trending fault a few thousand feet northwest to lie along Horno Canyon. D i

l E _

Limited Appearance - D. W. Phifer

)

Alleged Gnologic Features July 29, 1981 Horizontal slickensides in San Onofre Breccia are found along

)

the canyon wall in Horno Canyon about 1 mile inland from the old El Camino Real.

Marine terraces on the west-facing flanks of San Oncfre Mounuain were interpreted to have been offset some 200 feet vertically and the faulting was thought by

)

Mr. Phifer to be young.

Prior mapping by Dr. P. Ehlig (1977;

Letter, Septem-ber 18, 1979 attached) indicatad the possible presence of a small fault along Horno Canyon based on the apparent misalign-

)

ment of a tuff bed in the San Onofre breccia exposed on opposite sides of Horno Canyon.

However, the marine terrace platform at Elevation 325 feet and the break in slope between the terrace platform and the ancient sea cliffs project across

)

the canyon without being displaced (Fig.13).

Based on asso-ciation with the marine isotope chronology (Shlemon, 1978) this platform is at least 300,000 years old.

Thus, any fault present would not be capable.

)

" SAN ONOFRE MOUNTAIN FAULT" This fault is inferred to lie along the northeast flank of the San Onofre Mountains and is the contact betwcen Miocene

)

San Onofre Breccia and Eocene strata.

Its presence is specu-lated based upon the highly resistant San Onofre Breccia supporting a northeast-facing scarp, with the Eocene strata down-dropped and exposure of a purported fault sliver of

)

Eocene sandstone within San Onofre Breccia at the fault con-tact in Horno Canyon.

Detailed mapping, however, by Dr. P. L. Ehlig in 1977 and subsequent field checks indicate the east-facing scarp is the

)

result of major landsliding occurring in the Eocene strata.

The San Onofre Breccia is very hard and resistant, resulting in a pronounced ridge line and landslide scarps (Fig. 14).

The unconformity between the San Onofre Breccia and underlying

)

Eocene sandstone is observed on a firebreak at San Onofre Mountain and trends southeast to a ridgeline northwest of

, )

Limited Appearance - D. W. Phifer

]

Allcg:d Geologic Fectures July 29, 1981 Horno Canyon and then is obscured by brush.

At Horno Canyon 3

Road, the sandstone which appears to be within the San Onofre breccia is actually immediately below the unconformity and is depositionally overlain by breccia.

In

addition, the proposed sense of movement on the

)

hypothesized fault does not agree with the stratigraphic relationship along it.

The northeast-facing scarp along the hypothesized fault is uaed as evidence of downward displace-ment.

If such a fault existed, San Onofre Breccia or younger 3

strata should occur on the down throtm side.

Instead, the oldest strata are exposed on the downhill side of the scarp.

The existing relationnip is characteristic of scarps of erosional origin but is contrary to the strat.igraphic rela-

]

tionship for normal faulting where young rock should be seen on the downdropped block.

Therefore, the inferred " San Onofre Mountain fault" is not a tectonic feature; but rather, a

collection of geomorphic and sedimentary features misidenti-3 fied as a fault.

" SAN ONOFRE CREEK FAULTd In the area directly east of the Cristianitos fault where 3

San Onofre Creek has eroded its canyon through San Onofre Mountain, Mr. Phifer hypothesizes the existence of a north-east-trending fault concealed beneath the alluvium in the bottom of San Onofre Canyon.

His evidence for this fault, as 3

understood by the Applicants, is the presence of a higher ridge crest on the southeeJt side of the canyon (elevation about 1200 feet) than on the northwest (elevation about 900 feet) and the narrow, steep-sided nature of the canyon.

3 San Onofre Canyon is narrow with steop-sided walls at this location because it passes through erosionally resistant San Onofre Breccia.

The difference in the elevation of the ridge crest on either side of San Onofre Canyon is the result 3

of differential erosion rather than faulting.

The crest is close to the projected position of the unconformity between 3

Limited Appearance - D. W. Phifer g

Alleg d G2ologic Featurcs July 29, 1981 the easily eroded Monterey Formation and the underlying ero-8 sionally resistant San Onofre Breccia.

Remnants of the basal part of the Monterey Formation are locally present neer the ridge crest on either side of the canyon, as mapped bi Ehlig

(.1977 ).

The unconformity is oriented such that it is lower aIong the ridge crest to the northwest of San Onofre canyon, where it overlaps the base of the San Onofre Breccia, than it is to the southeast where it rests entirely on San Onofre Breccia.

Based upon existing exposures, the unconformity at 3

the base of the Monterey Formation and the unconformity at the base of the San Onofre Breccia both project across San Onofre Canyon without discernable offset.

The fact that San Onofre Creek cuts across the erosion-

']

ally resistant San Onofre Breccia can be explained by normal erosional processes without resorting to a faulting hypothe-sis.

The path of the creek was probably established when the creek was eroding through soft strata of the Monterey Forma-3 tion.

When erosion reached the base of the Monterey, the creek was superimposed across the top of the San Onofre Breccia.

Continued erosion has cut the present canyon into the breccia.

D Thus, there is no basis for the hypothesized " San onofre Creek fault."

" SAN MATEO CREEK FAULT" 3

A fault has been postulated by Mr. Phifer to extend down the entire length of San Mateo Canyon from about the Cleveland National Forest to the ocean, a str61ght line distance of about 10 miles (see Plate 1 of Moyle, 1973).

It is the Appli-3 cants' understanding that this hypothesized fault would trend essentially southwest from the upper part of San Mateo Canyon following the course of the present s tre s.a, tv.rn almost due west at San Mateo Road (SWl/4, sec. 5, T.

9 S.,

R.

6 W.),

3 curve slightly to the northwest where crossing the Cristia-nitos fault, then make a final, almost 90 degree turn back to,

j

Limited Appearance - D. W. Phifer p

Allcgsd C ologic Features July 29, 1981 the southwest before " exiting" into the ocean scuth of San D

Mateo Point.

According to Mr. Phifer (oral communication, June 30, 1981), evidence for such a fault are slickensides and

" incised meanders" in pre-Tertiary rocks at the head of San Mateo Canyon (NEl/4. sec. 23, T.

8 S., R. 5 W.).

D Based upon the \\pplicants' field observation, there is no basis for hypothesiz?ng the existence of a fault along the bottom of San Mateo Canyon; the orientation and character-istics of the canyon are readily explained by normal erosional D

processes without resorting to a

fault hypothesis.

The

" incised meanders" occur in the basement terrane where gra-nitic rocks intrude the Santiago Peak Volcanics as shown on the Santa Ana Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology D

(1965).

The grain of the rocks cuts across the trend of San Mateo Canyon in this area and the sinuous bends in tha bottom of the canyon

" incised meanders" - are probably controlled by variations in the hardrers of the rocks.

Although slicken-D sides are indicative of faulting, almost no movement is needed to produce them and they commonly occur along joints which have experienced a small amount of shearing movement.

Three lines of evidence indicate San Mateo Canyon is not D

controlled by faulting in the area shown in Fig. 1 and on Plate 1 and, in part, previously described in our discussion of the hypothesized "Horno Summit fault." These include:

D 1.

A resistant sandstone bed (paleosol) exposed in the Paleocene Silverado Formation on the northwest side of the canyon appears to lie in the same geometric plane as a similar sandstone bed which caps a ridge on the south-east side of the canyon (Fig. 1).

This precludes th e existence of a significant fault trending along the D

cinyon bottem betweca the two exposures of sandstone.

2.

The bottom of San Mateo Canyon was originally as much as 1-1/2 miles further northwest in this area but has pro-gressively migrated toward the southeast through time because of a bend in the canyon which directs the stream D

against the southeast side of the canyon.

Thus, it would be fortuitous if a

fault were present beneath the D

Limited AppOaranca - D. W. Phifer

)

Alleged G::ologic Featurcs July 29, 1981 existing canyon bottom.

Evidence for this is provided by j) a flight of least seven stream terraces arranged in a curved pat ern on the northwest side of the canyon (Plate 1).

ihe terraces form broad benches stepping down to the existing canyon bottom.

On the other hand, the southeast side of the canyon has steep slopes rising to above d'

elevation of the highest terrace on the north-

'3 west side of the canyon.

The steep slopes are the result of progressive undercutting at the base of the canyon wall as San Mateo Creek migrates southeastward.

The asymmetry cannot be attributed to differences in resa s-tance to erosion because the same rock types occur en both sides of the canyon.

3.

To the northeast of the bend in San Mateo Canyon, about 1/2 mile northeast of Firing Range 313, paired terraces occur on opposite sides of the canyon about 100 feet above the present stream grade (Fig. 15).

Instrumental hand-leveling across San Mateo Canyon at this locality a

reveals no measurable difference in elevation.

These observations are also corroborated by identical heli-copter altimeter settings for terrace remnants on either side of the creek.

The unbroken San Mateo Creek terrace is the third regional fill above the floodplain (see discussion in "Horno Summit fault"); and, bcsed on down-

~-- )

tream continuity and soil development is judged to be on the order of at least 100,000 years old.

This precludes the existence of significant faulting along the bottom of San Mateo Canyon in this area during the last 1.0(,000 years and is supportive of the evidence presented in (1) above which indicates the bedrock is unfaulted in

)

this area.

GEOPHYSICAL CONCERNS Detailed analyses have been made of the Regional and Local Con.plete Bouguer Anomalies of the San Juan Capistrano area using both onshore and offshore data.

These include regional and residual separations from the Complete Bouguer Anomalies as well as integrating recently obtained data with the Dre-existing data base.

All previously mapped major O

l tectonic features (i.e.,

the Offshore Zone of Leformation, Whittier-Elsinore

Fault, Cristianitos Fault) have readily identifiable gravity signatures.

These studies do not indi-cate the existence of any new structures in the area. O

Limited Appearanco - D. W. Phifer O

Alleged G ologic Features July 29, 1981 Aeromagnetic data obtained from the Bureau of Land Man-O agement for the Santa Ana Sheet (scale 1:250,000) has been studied along with the magnetic data previously obtained by the Applicants for the onshore and offshore data in the vicinity of San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station.

These data O

support the conclusions reached in Biehler (l';75).

No new structuren have been delineated.

CONCLUSIONS O

Mr. Phifer has postulated a total of seven faults.

Two of these feat. es, the " San Onofre Mountain fault" anc the

" fault" at Vandegrift Boulevard, were found not to be faults but rather to be the result of landsliding.

The " Piedra de O

Lumbre fault" was found not to be a fault, but an expression of depositional nri gin of the non-marine river sediments rather than be of tectonic origin.

There are minor faults, but none are significant in t.b e context of 10CFR100 Appen-O dix A.

The lengths and orienthtions of these features are such that, even if capability were assumed, they would not be significant to the project design basis.

As part of the geotechnical investigation of 'ne SONGS O

site, photogeologic methods were employed to determine geolo-gic structure in the site area including a large portion of the region to the north and east of the San Onofre Mountain

h investigation, area on Camp Pendleton.

Based upon r

O including regional geophysical inve:

.ations, geologic mapping and review of pertinent geo?

lata, it was con-cluded that nothing of tectonic signif;;aat:e pertinent to San Onofre Units 2 and 3 seismic desig., exists therein.

This O

conclusion has not been changed as a result of the field investigation of Mr. Phifer's speculated features.

Finally.

based upon the above findings which establish the absence of capable faulting postulated by Mr. Phifer, it O

is concluded that a

...[M]

6.5 to 8.00..."

event with a

- ?.2 -

O

Limited Appearance - D. W. Phifer

)

Alleged Geologic Features July 29, 1981 corresponding ground acceleration value of about "...lg..." as

)

speculated by Mr. Phifer, has no factual basis and accord-ingly, has no significance relative to the seismic design of San Onofre Units 2 and 3.

)

)

3 J

)

J J

p )

~

D l

l l

D REFERENCES CITED

1965, California Division of Mines and Geology, Santa Ana Map Sheet, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Scale 1:250,000.

D

1973, Shack.eton, N. J. and N. D. Opdyke, Oxygen Isotope and Paleomagnetic Stratigraphy of Equatorial Pacific Core V28-238.

Oxygen Isotope Temperatures and Ice Volumes on a 105 and 106 Year Scale:

Quaternary Res.,

V. 3, No.

1, pp. 39-55.

1975, Biehler, S.,

Seismological Investigations of the San l

Juan Capistrano Area, Orange County, California, for Southern California Edison Company, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 & 3.

1977, Ehlig, P.

L.,

Geotechnical Studies, Northern San Diegc 3

County, Enclosure 4, a consultant's report to Southern California Ediron Company and San Diego Gas and Elec-tric Company.

1978, Shlemon, R.

J.,

Late Quaternary Evolution of the Camp Pendleton-San Onofre State Beach Coastal Area, North-g western San Diego County, California:

a consultant's report, for Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 & 3,123 pp.

1979, Shler.an, R.

J.,

Late Cenozoic Stratigraphy, Capist.rano 3

Embayment Coastal Area, Orange County, California:

a consultant's report for Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company, San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2 3,

123 pp.

3

1979, Ehlig, P. L., Letter, September 18, 1979.

D D D

u.

/

(

3 September 18, 1979 3

10:

J. L. MC NET r30M:

g.10,ConsultingGeologist SIBJECT: Rypothesized Fault 3

Displacing Mappable i

Tuff Dod at Morno Canyon i

i Rill wash by the heavy rains of the past two winters has exposed a mappable tuff' bed in two pleoes within the San Onofre brecola in areas where it was not

'O previously mapped by Chlig and Farley (1977). One location is on the east side'of Ho'rno Canyon about 500 feet nortbeest of the landward edge of the sein ooastal terrace (see attaohed asp). The other location is about 1,000 feet further southeast of the northwest flank of an unnamed oanyon. In my opinton, l

these two exposures represent the same tuff bed as was previously mapped at nine locations by Shlig and Farley (1977). The nine locations are distributed O

in a near linoar alismeent eter a distance of 2-1/2 miles in exposures just landware from W oosstal terrace. The two newly discovered orposures are in s meerly straight alignment with five exposurea previously aspped to the southeast, but are 400 feet nod.heest of a line drawn through the four i

g j

expof,ures of tuff previously mapped to the northwest of Horno Canyon.

In view of the fact that bedding within the San Onofre brecola maintains its regional O

trend soross Borno Canyon, the misalignment of the tuff bed soross Horno Canyon is most likely the result of displeoement along a fault. The stratigraphic sepLration of the tuff bed across W hypothesized fault is i

\\

about 260 feet with the northwest side uF eelative to the southeast side

\\

(based on a mean orientation of N48W 40$W for bedding and a horizontal separation of,400 feet.).

O The hypotbesizhfeult must be located in the interval of 1,100 feet between che turf exposures on opposite sides of Horno Canyon.

It.oould ooour almost anywhere within this interval and sould have almost any orientation. Alluvium oonosals bedrook ecross most of the 1,100 foot intertal. The alluvium is

\\ estims'ted to be as much as 60 feet deep and contains }arge blocks of Cetalina O

sehist that would be difficult to excavate if en attempt were made to locate the hypothesized fault by exoevation of trenohes or borings.

There is no evidenne cf offset of the Quaternary marine terraces which ooour es either side of Horno Canyon in the vicinity of the tuff outorops.

Although m tenace shorolines bend in the. area, they are not offset. m best O

esemple is the skreline angle at an altitude of 325 feet.

It is exposed about 600 feet on apposite sidae of the canyon with no apparent offset. The auste out oliff between the al' Studes of 450 to 600 feet also shows enoel'1ont continuity aeross raroo Canyote.

O v-

,.wr

,,.w--,,,,---..w-

,me__nme,-aw,--,-.---.,,.---..,,__,,n__-,.

---_.,e-_,a.,---

)

On July S.1779. Nr. J. L. McWey sad I spent the day doing reconnaissance in

)

the Worse Canyon area acerching for the hypcthesized fault. Results of our investiastice were generally me$stive. One fault was located which might acc9 met for the displacement of the tuff. It is exposed in the road cut on the east side of Borno Canyon abat 1/2 mile up canyon from the displaced tuff bed.

The fault strikes shovt NSE and is nearly vertical. Prominent slictef> aides plunge 60 to the scuth. The groove pattern on the fault surface is seasestive of left lateral shear. The inteesity of the shearing is suggestive of at least several tens of feet of displacement. The absence of mappeble beds witban t. tis part of the See Onofre breccia prohibits the establiebeent of offset along the feult in this ares. There is no evidence that t.he fault has esperienced Quaternary displacement.

Exposures are imedequate to permit the fault. to be traced hyond exposures along the road.

In oceclusion, the mappable tuff bed within tbe upper part of the San Onofre i

breccia is probekly offset by a fault in Horno Canyon. The stratagraphic separatice is about 260 feet. If such a ravit exists, most if rud. all of its I

displacement Fedstes the development of merine terraces overlying the tuff bed. The terraces are older than the coasts) terrace which is known to be h

about s25,000 years old. Nothing observed by see is suggestive of so active fault in this area or noe which is likely to constit.ute a risk to San Onofre I

Nuclear Generating Station.

I I)

D J

D G

i i

i b

O FIGURE 1 San Mateo Canyon Drawing O

O O

O O

O O

O w

0 O

• f^ ~' '.P WN', '%f M. - '>,,

r.

a ow N. u

-;~ ys-.;<~;-

sf m.

-bl

^'U. D,~

, W

{ g. ?.) h.%g j* [ ' ~ )

l.

ccl

~

i 27

.l Qt lp M ih \\ -

4 l-

[I M Q ~[~' ^& ' -lYhfg ~ LP' l

'. W l l () p; ~ f '(f A % C hv)h '&.

j

) :\\i ?

h

?

Q ;\\

.,l~

9:

.:g., -

f./ -j 4, -' ' %.ky

\\, y)Ts, (g j

jt

/. gj,

j l

'i

~

[M ! f,.'f Paired Terrace

/

O I

?

.m y *J W,5 '

c-Co(relation

+

)j \\ j<t

- V.., ;3 Fa ee ;.

F.<' e ;-

~,

, b,.y u

~

. -g=

_~y.\\

Ot h

s a)..:

'n h '.,.(

a 3 0j 4

4

.* ' g h; ;'i

. pts

- n $'\\.5 A ' ot 4

~

b',

r J,

.T-I(t N..n o i "4rw

~,-, % m,.'

O'b

~

d n

e 4

• <p k%;:.:t

) 1 s v

euc

,ilA.

3 @.. ;N 08

I q

p\\

t D, '%.,,,?

j Ot 4 "'

4 e.nu

~.

WQ[

Qt

, j.

3

~

e {,,

t S

n Qt 1

,- s f :

'r Qt 33 Ci, i

' A.%h { l '

f k Qt

'. O u,'

/

l

-s,, M J K _

E.

pTe i;

"/;

,c3

(

Qat

,s Y.f' g - Firin9 O'

Resistant Ji t

Sandstone o

'^

~

Range

.e 5 '

ed

/

s 13

- T

- ' N' '

'N

' (Paleosol) 878

) )/'

Ot J

(

'r'N %

E^^

'g 3j

'l q,A

',3^:y 4-q * (

4

/ r

.eg bre

(-

C'N D

[/

I

~

g p

s n

J

'D/

El NN h

s-

_.1.

.q k

i 1

' New.,a Of )

., Tlj jot

< r...

.,.~' '

l

\\..d

.-/

l L'] 2 N.'[f

"~2 7

A

,[

Til.

N l'

be

/

5 Ot M i i J % y LQ-h.,.} 3 f'(

?[egs m

f d.Ct

/*/ '

k y

. -- \\ 1 M, - < \\ 3,

-s J

,)..

~g P-p

- m_

.o

,, %~fij -.s.' S< ~'\\.

u 3

,e v

• L' % E > !:' -

'.b %*-

., J \\

• J

\\'

.+

San Mateo

(*

,r-4

,r: f,e+

3+ % %~ ~

)

w 1.'

e*

4, Roa

,'d f'~,.'

~^' ('%,,.'Z~,

-e n '

~r

~-

~

~

~

N l ', l - ),e ) $* -

f K',xQ '), ' ] j '.,, f;Q%_

v

\\

4,

- ?.';'y M > (1ly J'

. +, '

j r..n s

r f

~

a<'.

V, ~:

AP f q r f W,, } _'[' 'f pl:1 Wh c~f Q j

j?

% } isj 1/, J67 l

[ l b::~~45,*

-l f

'- lp {' Igg {

', $M f / ,. x ? l ).

f?'!

/

C;;~ /MM; EbP jS f ['] ((B[M QS;'

h 4

SAN MATEO CANYON 3

I;luvial terrace deposits (Qt) flanking See FSAR Figure 2.5-9 San Mateo Canyon in the vicinity of for explanation.

Mr. Phifer's conjectured fault (af ter Moyle,1973, Plate 1). Terraces m re than about 100,000 years old SCALE: 1:24000 3

project unbroken across the fault.

Terrace deposits (third level), at least 100,000 years old and about 100 feet above the floodplain, are paired on 2

either side of San Mateo Canyon precluding Indicates Paired Terrace me surable vertical displacement along Correlation

)-

San Mateo Canyon.

Figure 1

,O 4

i FIGURE 2 San Onofre Creek Terrace Deposits Drawing I

lO

~

l f

i

!O 1

io i

l

!O i

1 tO i

iO 1

l l

l

.O O

i

O gr wy - 9er www r-g-9w---y--w-w y--M--ww w--e e p e wrr-m -

M --dera ye te wye'We eer-w ewew p-

-m-p9m m--y-vv m ee s-T-'---=av-'-9"-

y 1.y-T-w----

W}

3

~,

1 Q

, f:,

( ;

r a

ip

- g73,

ll l ; %

~

Qal l

N t

~,

(

/1 -

}j

+

c!

~

pts

),:7 '*.C I

3 (L

3 s

k.,

2 f '.

y e

y y

^

Y.cl t

j,.

f o

Qal e

N; y

~

-N

,qa

)

k <._. O '

Qt Qt

-_[

~1' r ece,p=

'}D (J

pTe j

j r'u t

-Ot 12 hJr Q s.;

ll R ' @ Ot S san onotre creek

' p > j, Terrace Deposits '

)

i.,k g A

Ot Mi O

~

.I

' c. E a r s(, c se..,: c, igj i

(

Qt a

a

,r < ;

4 T..e 1

Ot 41 O Qt 73) 1-T){

O' o

a* ~ ~

Ot 6f og 3 M'/

Qal

'~'

og Qal

_) [/

og o

^

N i

~

Tlj

~

0 3

j ' %

,Sa Qt G

N_ O Ondre

,f o

c

-~I.

Qt 13 15-3- -rm g

c j-.

1 c,

, g,r,.~

(.(

~

pts c

7 n

s,

~

r.

4s 4'

~

~

' Tij O

( ='

N,y-t

_T.,

~

/

N

~

r 'f a -

"klJs

_ / Rifle Range 214 j

~

[Qt

'4ll

,Otservat on A

s

~

T c "'

r,,,

^'

Ot Ser<e As

^ w,

~

c

,y v.g a

h. -... M 4

G3' c%,Qt w

fu,',;, 22

' ~'-' '

o t-2-

\\ ~

5,o

)

.-'s_%

~ ~ -

=

0%

.Ot

\\f

'~

f g **.

qi.'

t-ork Q

'(

~(

Nk 05 * % q

..,,,A

. y. 7,,,

- ;,:( - -

• • t

' ] = g,q;,y n.

~g ogg s

x

]

f

,' -l '.

_ ( ;;; _,, 5 s /<

A

_t SAN ONOFRE CREEK TERRACE DEPOSITS S

See FSAR Figure 2.5-9 Fluvial terrace deposits (Qt) on the north side of for explanation.

San Onofre Canyon (after Moyle,1973). The terraces range in age from at least 35,000 -

40,000 years (lowest) to well over 100,000 years.

SCALE: 1:24000 Figure 2 0

)

1 FIGURE 3 Terrace Deposits, San Onofre C ayon Terrace de osits, approximatt_f 20-25 feet thick on north b nk of San Onofre Canyon (NW 1/4, 3

sec. 13, T. 9 S., R. 6 W.).

Lowest terrace, approximately 60 feet above floodplain, bears an old, strongly developed soil (red area).

This and higher (older) terraces cross' unbroken over Mr. Phifer's inferred "Horno Summit fault" approximately 0.6 miles downstream (left).

)

3 J

J J

J J

J

i e

!E

lp '

f '""

,ynne g

8

<..e

)P" bi,f>'f.

,J u

g e.a

,h.; b.- l b ' '-

I*

-w..m ca r

' ) \\~5$..

1 F,

,ey

s

l f.

ys j,

~

ip

'3 ff4;f,,

i i

, _ h' t'

di

}n 1l,.

..y,

c I

m

.bfp ',

'~

[ h

][}

?TA,.'I: '

b. $l

\\

[i 4 ^t. '

e

1. qg.}-

,p N'N

(

l l

l

?

l FIGURE 4 Fault in San Onofre Creek Terrace Area Faulting northward from Rifle Range 214 exposed in gully cut through overlying river terrace D

sediments.

Note continuous terrace surface across fault trace.

O g

D e

e D

D D

D

l* j

,l [g b

~

i p,(

ns g..:

li A oe p.w r..

, n

..D

.u.s y

1, t -

l I

7.

kl t4

.s.

)\\Ipkg

.fW(e ;ki'.@j.

v

";/* 4.+9 f

'g N$d_[}.

4g

.s 3 p' (,

v Mh.;.$ypQ Y!E

$ e. m ; _:. y i 3

.~ # u.

u-

{

?

f;am'...,.;..,4..

g. 9 y.

s v

=y..

q.. =, g.

7;%

g?

t;

. h..'.}a..

>,if v

143

..x %u.k >

,g 5..

t l

~.+ 3 j

A YkN Y i.N I 4

l2 J r.4

?

]

t

_(

.).j f

%}&

c Q:

.) y@W lw,,w&n

?qy :a;.e..

p s u%... h.w.r.

s 4c-.4,p +q#w,x.7

\\

y.

3

+w, g

lJ',.$f.g..

I e

me

.sm g

3 t g.1. f y. M 4..;

.._..p h p.3_

..g}...p.

m-w 6.p;.

4.#. - _p. g. g,;x,.u. J.y 1.,.

1 e:

..q.

3 i h !. l jJ ch #

-. t '. ;3.; n,id. p:' ;

y, p I

n

...la %.,o,..m*..-

p.....

N m.~;,:

ew

~

1. 'n.w$W,, 9

• Kig17...%n.t.7,

x y..

y p.,.

'l y;

y

.c$g....ff:.{.

l

?m

~

,,tE

,,x y Nf- # g;p e& r ;d?

,%y. h.

.?s,'y m,

. uo'k l

%y.

^

e.

s...

.k

w

%.b.$@w$;.p64%ep 5

J f*f,n R

g m

9 p,

9t.J.M

\\. -

e.-

ff _h$ f 1

i. _ =.. ~

h s guy.r~c.:

3

~

1 i

P c

-v

i 10 j

FIGURE 5 Terrace Fill, North Bank San Onofre Canyon Strongly developed, dark red (2.5YP 4/6-3/4) soil i

approximately five feet thick forming on lowest lO terrace fill, north bank San Onofre Canyon.

Soil is at least 35,000 to 40,000 years old; underlying terrace fill is older (NE 1/4, sec. 13, T. 9 S.,

R. 6 W.).

i lO i

1 8

i lO i

i,o I

'O i

i lO i

i 1

0 1

4 I

'O O

10

g

.r - (

...be

%V f W.'M.b' F J. 6 /

S

,g s

m i?

mW..

l.

M.:

w.

/N

?!.Igf.?

~

J

.: m

,.;p ;;

t/

.,. g j

'I, l

h' E

~

e L

J',9's

,g#s:-

.s k

I

?

q,

j S j.,js h4 '

& >. 9; x. p.. w a

'j.4 l;.

}x y '. \\ 4

$ h

?!y 4.?.],;Rh

j

,.('J i/1.

i,f f,l

~

I

~_

I

' V

'0BA.?W%..@IhrWpd. 4 % 3 f.;i 3 ff. $, Q g i h j 'C.

~

YYb$b $D Y

Nwh$,$4' s

l

.[,

o,

O FIGURE 6 Strongly Developed Soil, San Mateo Canyon Strongly developed soil on 15-20 ft-thick fluvial terrace fill near Range 313, northwest side of 13 ban Mateo Canyon.

This terrace, at least 100,000 years old, is unbroken where projected acrcss the trace of Mr. Phifer's inferred "Horno Summit fault."

Projections of elevations across remnants of three older (higher) terraces also i

indicates no measurable tectonic displacement.

O i

l i

O 4

1

O 9

10 l

!O

O 1

i

.O O

__.m h

==

a-

..r.---

e

"'2L C

11_ LL _ F1 7_ __ hY _

,7 _X

_ I '_ W '_ *' (

e' l'

F'

• k J1 i

I i

af,l,

R.. W i.

j'

. '.v. ~_ m.

cv i

• A' N,,

r.'

e

^

I, e-

\\

sp,

7:

d{ lf

^

(SW il l

U r,-

,6 * ;>3 i

., i

. ~., n g(

w.

yd a-n'

. i

' :p ',

e j

N

.h _t,s &

s +,.',. m

.,MfrQi,

(*,i y

(y' If'%

[;.

A

\\

• h. l yy_ t..3 hiQd*'

l};~fw.,'78,s 1

m '$.h?

2 ('jh...fjE

$,55

)'

\\

kf f y, e f \\m

.! l:Y+

9 9

y

_u.

D l

FIGURE 7 Angular-Blocky Ped strong, coarse angular-blocky ped from argillic (B2t) horizon of soil on lowest terrace crossing 3

Mr. Phife-'s inferred "Horno Summit fault," north bank San Onofre Canyon.

Approximately 70 percent of ped faces are coated by moderately thick and continuous illuvial clay (cutans) attesting to antiquity of the weathering profile.

D P

2 0

3 O

O O

<O

_~

- - - _ - ~. - -

e

,p, j

f 5

l 4..';5 1 m

_jV g

7-1

/k

.g

~

,yl y,

g 1

i

... d L.lt bA'

^

n.

\\

V D M*

f.

f l

~%

'f.;d 2

l

- c

.,a

, -[

'y

-,k 4,

\\

tv Ar k%

b'+

1 4

1 N

k n

A y

9 4

FIGURE 8 Horno Summit Ridge Drawing 9

3 3

3 3

o

.O t

IO i

l l

t i;

i

(.

'LI.',] T

/

t_-'.

f

. - x, r/ {MD..:. (( wy ;^O,y; &, ! M,-1,- /,. pnM

'N.,

J, N

.i r

3

\\c,'. *. ' -

['

)

?

,\\, \\

j}

s

. r-hi m)

- N', '

~-d-

' ' ~ '-

5 s

~

" l/ht {f f kft

/~. ',.~ ' l. '

} k-

{

t~',

.. i t.'

5:

} K U. g*/ (g. %.e@gL';..,.,;/y /[-

~~M

,/

Y t' d, )' ' ~ 'v. "

'M 4 ir

. -

• H r--- % a * ','.1 \\ '

i -

w % q' 8&

S'

^

WCC t

1. e],-

v

., '~3 g' G '

i '

' ~{ 'L

/-

~

A('

3 i' l c

h s.<

h

'.r

-I

~ ; d:.

b :.. W'f. -

['5. k (

7'.

(g ~ ' !. $,) eff.s ' $,,

,#-f

\\~-

,7 c

u. q' t..c..,

~~\\'

,'t' f*

.\\

~ "*

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(~ '-

] -':

f'~

,( 'u L.

'r

\\

j$

N ~,h {,)

.. l,, ' I f'. ' "V)1 < &_ h' 'y

-W f f

.*Y -

C; r.

t a

,. /. ' ]c - i R *

',_,M / '

p

,, ;( ~ p e

I'

. /h='** - ' ' p.1f (\\/

f1

) '

f

' ~

Y) f f f5 ;-

m

')

h '.

l e '. s-:.

.; ~,

k.

O y,,,,

,. h

!..f.' -

)

~

h 1 Ruse

]

/

. f

'o , .

a

\\

%.14Q

,I,P 'Y'y'f*w h; ' f [f l ~ %'./G..,

m f: 4

~. -

r o $r

.l=,

0I \\

'\\

i l i:

,l" f. ; c';!.

' l'

~~ ~ O T

i

/

Y fi f*

^ - ' Q f. 0

l

[

7 f T oem.:r-k9 lw }p_ ;,~s,,,

• • ? t* ' %v Q 'R3 /.

'.~.t 24 l

. } W',r)f,?3CprQ \\' 'Q' -

r~'

L

-4

.v e u

.(w-

.....C s ;.Q, L u l~

A f

A {g f / p) 5

-!!' ?

Q 3 3 rou_r- ' y p v y '-l3},cy gy'pgsgjy[.fM.

s i

g

~

g--

i. HORNO ' SUMMIT RIDGE d ( MN9 8'-

5 Gilir %

7 t y[ M ' b N' i ' @ hib/ $'S Q 'v f i

] "

ikhi::

M

+

r h

$5f kh5bhN M

h

$ 4 % p[ W p q f i n g n @ % g M g h

b L

s k%f'i'

'TD%.s/

W M @h, Q.h M 's 1?;M@N y M 6~; k 'h'g 9 Ammunition Dump h 6' m

%k

'k

'D '

NRWN g')~)'/, % 7 5-EEMM M@ - %.XhSMnO 7/;

• b N $ $ w m $ w % $ @= %,

~

me6$wE 3

.v w

m s) ry MfTQQ g 4qp[q

.ywk,;-

p v

a L

%'~

N e

h, b M-I'. -

c.

: 3.

&e m & ]h. g;..

7db25 kYIh b

,? '

'M.

k s'(4

, f-/,.

13.

-y

'Z.

',J p M /p

&y W v y9.

_L

\\'C Of/,, e.

- i EXPLAN ATION :

(7 j

t 7

e/, ~ wE eh strike and[p of bedding a$.w[wb. Jkh D dc

• b k'y~;.A.,

yn

\\

m#o c

r y

bp( ia%g'n}., 3,,._,k (g

- Qtp"M, e,0

. W

/

n'

, " >,[-

struce-and dip oLfautti /p'. MW

, /,

J' sg

st

/

p

, s 1 '.,,-.

1

./

V n r' 8 y7,

o = dowd4&own%ck; F.,s'C @

g 4

&~ i hb # " %'.

, Q M @!j k h

k+ [ hh7]Nh K(b. M y f 'i i t Gop

$ Wg' 4 Q E ' lC*W,fsN" gt W C

/

a2'Agl%p e

.od' ~ cwosog c qmtect and outo6ahdashed Whers inferr4sd5

.c m

d'

. n k W &...

~i e,.

)f

. c t $ % p/t.n:n?.

i Lind4pe) arrhys mdtcats : '

HORNO SUMMIT RIDGE 1[C

/3 ;

q i

,h J'Ur<$ctsilon,df sitovembnt.

3 Location of Rifle Range 214 and

% -- W,,.... Y L.

._g +. ;.. _,

s.. 1.R Las Pulgas Ammunition Dump k.~ N.

o# Structure dontefirs.on..' -

~resis

...'. i - $

SCALE: 1:24000 Figura 8

, p + ' 'fant landstone ' bed.y fy-Q W:'. h.-

' f.

-- i,,

.O i

l FIGURE 9 Faulting in Rifle Range 214.

4 1

PiO 4

lO l

i i

iO i

l 1

O I

~O i

O O

i O

O O

,e

,e

,n e.4 t,.

y

• 5.,

1.g ly I

e e..

i i

4 g, g-

<r'o

.... C A,*s ' i ',

f j\\

kgl 3

q,.Y, 7[5 '

4+.

1 y

v gl'V'O.,.'a g,.s:gg, t

.ex y;.

3

.K y.?

1 s. vo&

{'

.s a j.

p l;

}

k t.:

e.

E

.,%.o e' f k.I

-)(

in"

.O, n, "k f

e,

@am@h,f'$'..

9 M.i2

..u ih<k

lN

,j;-

fq 'Qi.-

~

.,y)

.n.

Y 3.. w $ Ne. S, b 4

$_5 bM$$$0?-

k q

O FIGURE 10 Vandegrift Boulevard Structure Quaternary sands and gravels in landslide contact w.ith San Onofre Breccia at Vandegrift Boulevard, Camp Pendleton.

G

D D

3 3

0 O

l O

1 O

l

l

]'

l' i

'! j Ii

h:'

h.

1 i

n j

l i

S l

3i j.m.

t f

o l[*

I I

&L s

}

w c

,s.-

i. (

~

~

O FIGURE 11 Vandegrift Boulevard Structure View looking northeast along Vandegrift Boulevard.

Steeply dipping Quaternary sand and gravel with

.O curved initial dip resting on landslide contact with San Onofre Breccia.

O O

O O

O O

i O

i O

O

g 6

)

4 y*

• 2,

, m. '>.

_._Y Z %'*g V n2m

._'*d "i'

c.

j

, -l:

c, V.. 3. ',,.'.' 4:..$. v:e..

h

.J

~ ~ ~

'.4 z.

,. e..,

.. {# pip ~:, ;Q. ~ ;

• pp.pj..(

7.,i e

.. Q.g 9 m a '.

s

' h,.. - l; '

/ Ec,f@v%l u'Z; hy l M

.l

..< v.

v..

v.a

.c

.x v e jbd g.,q [*h. {

(:.' 7 ? ;- [7..'

. N.,N';

I I

h

)[

i

- : y. % ' my,..<,n ; u - Q.;,< n ' -

- y.; - 3.,;

.L,

.n

~.-

. b [. y: 4-.x. ' - z

~

ma

. n

?

.m.

b o.. P.h k:kN h fh hi ' h.IU.[E'ch' rh ),.

N s..A. h.aythgcMjh.N,..2h G.'f9 [nQ

,y,M:

s "., 1., :, -

r..

c.

..c..,.,0. g

.M M,,.. M. p

,[%..

l Je.?.q ;; ?* 'f' '

m.<.

%< g

. m,. %.s.

. y,.. y : m<...,.,

.y s

'gf,hagh.l..

.s

.g

~

,~; @ yW

N,_ '..hls

!{., *.b 4 gy

. ' Y '.. - ~, w : q ; ; b$'...

.A '

. ~ L,, %. Y n

t

. :Qv y. '.:

.g m ::'

a.

gw. = > y", :p m. c,,

.e.

.,n

. ;b;;.c.g '

s w

. 21...: ;j

r. y

.;' p :.

& r;4 N...

S.b.hdej;.f,WY-kh;f#p32.~;g,:Y4kg.

- @. kh.f'

(]' '

p. ',g i -

3 q,.

s-l Gyrq.:;. L.yfgym g i].

f %; gg L All % p.).;. {

Q (g' f

m'*). f rww.g e,, e sww.;.3 v

-.,i r.

.w. m-'

eh..Y

• 4.* -

4' hN

-E4 M :,(.

.4

? tt

• 5 'I W T <l.

'*..d.

~

'*^I

W p. g. ^ f., -eR' Q. g., y');: @ y.d y,

. ' f. fk ' ;._ '

If d -

b

@f9@Q;g g. 8 r

g v'~

4%

dM" Mhn. g*.>N.$n'e,.e4 p%.

. ;.y$

7

..j :Q ; Y y..

T, c

w c

=ca. n v.-

.a 44 ts, ua..

a

., w'.

,cys;g?

w,.. &.,.f,,4. Q ',. o

.y; c

1

...44

,.',-h... g ! v'4,.' u..y

.. 3... b; p ',

, s.

4^

3

...s

.(:. M '.

.:w

g. -,

g

i:

,Q P

.n.t gje. t9

-t

.i

.e t

c g %.'y'L,-sh.p q.q'he7, (% ' t k - g, y7;., g. 3 1.e,--

M..

,:Q. &,.

t>-

s

. y 'y * ' :,....

y.' _ g 7.

,s.

.qg. [

w w

t

.p 7.s 4

e

QAn. g. % i.

-s '< e

.rf;hg K ". 2.g[\\ya.s.' -jMS ;.;$w, -

f@;

'-> s;s,$ c,.,c p.

. \\'~

at L

h

-W.

5 m

r 4

• a..

'.

• h.j'y. *..

h,

'p Pf...,..

• m f-j

• .~

.3,R,.a n

h

)@?@,,.g,ist f %,f

f. l K-'

n+.. g

.. ~

'b'h=. -

m

..s t

~

f*N;l

[,

4 1;.n,..

s ;,s

..c., s,.,

h

<,y :.Miy 3.{h m,:.: g.,

f f

f f

.t anvn. y.,.-(e.

.n

~

w.

gy....

6 Y

f

..'l

.. Q.j

.k-

~

% )9.g.Qp:

g *.'m ~. ' [.. M...n

.'. f g :5.;g

' Q,. '\\

d

. a :. - Y

m...

.O,.4.'

t,

31.,{rdp.r-f -

lp

.- ;.:...ets M. 4 p4.

< #.fg ':

A.

, f (W-i

'i.S

h. E.

$ g. _

._ p...

1

J FIGURE 12 Piedra de Lumbre Drawing D

D D

D D

D J

J O

J

r

's.

e-7 z

y.

.i

( t; j t

(,\\c - r... zw.av. 2.~%.. w v., r

( x_;...

.,) v.. d.

t a

[

J

h. -

k

~ /

+. %..$ 3.:g.:s ;.)y. V o 1%y

. % ' ;u j g,. s:.'_a?n'j.f _ -l'.h,; fgy.,2,q'/..e

,s

' 'w W.

se a.9

' s

..:t.., J w.:..a9 > :p =..,

+..,f t

'y.z y n......

. m.~.

,.:n i

~

.filt Q N...:-e

?;c.u n./.:54.P..:

,3

... w i

'NWO2N

'c ) T k.6 L.;.h L.;Q G:*"'t;f.; i n b h},dda%a;1..d.< Y q M.

f:.:M;:

op %

%'% ' y : ' *=/ g." 3 3 Q ~~.

W i.! &

(1_s f L(. C-Q- %

/

-ir' !.:.Y.".'y M. '(g hf@fy.. Q lt:'. $] 4 k

% :{

G. g. D

.p' # '5?~p' ' f.L-

\\

~

_ _, x.h

, ~ ~

f

• h6s" y(h4@piy&&s/['Mif W(.y.$M' % l V }&p -~g~

C= % t.' &

kN r ud MSL h,W - m ' M Mt A

&. y ='. e

,y;Wtm-xy* SQf.. glW:.A s

. ry e.

j t

j s

>f

-fn}4 e

J cf(RQ,F. ? M,...,ybl W,-u if u.

&sn\\'

l~h ~

4

\\'

},,'

!(SihNh.q:f.W,QM..hdh,b'@y:P

~&?

's XP WW?. M 1

M d

xQ.=7/sy%,:.- x,ur hhhhM,.-%.tm u,. ~1'h h['$h k

\\.

t

- } c.., \\ '1

. q./

j :s,) "% \\

2=

\\

c/

)y 3

. u

,.?

5.-<'G

.4.

.b

-.- W :-w w

.a e. &.. w t w : J'~ %.s r _) q '"a

,3

,r h h '-V-NY-M'

~

I/ (

AS " '/

' ;'YO. U ',' J 7

h.

l r

]

~% ' Ylkyx.h\\M W ' @s.V. p,;m fy}..

y,_,. /g,' ' y-yg&_c ; Z f. ;~/,'@T%~~

MM^

f

' Wh s/

O;g. '- --

a a

. -h g'. p ;

f-,,,,J ;,.,nn,.p. M.,..%$g. A~ n<,+ K :'Ly,%+,., /

.<?. q %,. }F a

n m:

i-y.e-s

v.

n,-v(if.W '.g &j M7Q.<m -

.,,, m.-

c~

' W '.

.t":.

.) 2 Jh ;

y[.)!.8

,, ~'t '

~

E g

).'l'U;%[h,?u-hpk>h. :w-#h)[%h a.~,,;j(%'-i

.,; - A yv p

~

-r h;:.p,$f..h i

O s

m.

wwg. :e e

w>.

- _sfn m.

. > + -, -

~.~s-.

4 x 3d a.

5

,s %,.

y if@ ' '?R _ R' 's,_PF'%q' g,, ), p.

WWQ>'g.p,;~g')- gb o,L Q g'~ay J,s s-s, e

t.- -

6.

. ~,

o

\\

F-em

(: (E T '

t.

="'

~

Qp s

i

'(

s l ' bm: J f: s# ' :,'e' 9. f

/. -

~~.

~.

m w~,oW -

'm

', % ' '-6,ef';W';) '

v'

, tf

'/ X x.~--.-,

t[;,

..,. ~. y[ e~x&fQ;,fj',!l3

~~~W&f

'D O J l

f,.

~ k 's _ w

-h._.r+_y,. ; j~

' ' ~ ~

i,,

3 v.' v.

-f j M.,.& 1.=

,p Q

t nJ %q \\ ~

, q~

' r,.r

~ \\,.:,j.> ~..

. q :/,,

c

~-

(

- 8,a-,

P pj f~g,: f=f,

a

.+.s ji l

'1 y

n

. a c.; t 3 7,. v -

p.Q pb4_.y %

~ __> 7 p,'-

t

.L/

-,u L

w.

q e>

<'l

/

. p.- RIVER t-e-

s

" A. %p., _l-

.t

~.

y q,},

. c.,

e m,

s,

~

i c%'

c::

n

,, s

- x..

c c-

.,.. tj

\\

w.my... n.

w.,u,.

v..~-

.,., s-r N w ::(.i,.

w,,

v

,v

/

%w.me W..j s

x c

'~

'x

,MT D..3

? f ',,~'Q'(V,q-Q'. 7

% '- A,,

r v~

. m,/ ~

') n' 4

~ ~ -. -.

1.-

\\

N~;

\\

L:

~

g'

. (. {3^l';M O

's(rf' N

\\

\\c#y %~q W =_ k () Cia < \\'"\\.,~ W

^L '

w'

--N v

c

y&

w s

s g'

wN, PIEDRA DE LUMBRE s

x x

_t. WNis

• ~ 'e 6e~

SCALE: 1:24000 Figure 12

~ 6

,, %' W V 3 W O

x x

,yy.'~i___ N rq s

rs.

s

FIGURE 13 Horno Canyon Drawing 4

(3

[O 4

l3 3

3 3

3 3

3

N1 n

Q

,'{

1 a

c

?E Y

46 47 T

36 32 1

,. ~

4l

- ~ ~ ~ ~ '

. tCtmh 34 x_-

t ao.-- '

s Ofm g n

7

-X 33 s

T

• 3 33 Otm 42 r--

Ctm CC

=- E4l

~

-r-34

)tm c

T

/

-2

• I otm

1. Q.

-(", ; [

-T

^

Tso _

32-

[ ~[','

4 2 '-

'I s

, c.

.s f

j'j

..s

~

, ~

., " " ~

/ Oki - S '. -

733

~,

, ' 4y_(y, M '

4

~ c,,

34 4'

QImw_. d'- ~

- f i m

.. 1j -

C r C ',s r

- ~ ~ _ _

T

, l ~,

G <*

,.A ofm ~f

^

43

_(

u

.x<

. ~,,

x 39 im

[ '- -

O

. ~ [ g((- [

Qtm-

~~

~T~~.

q

_J"3 d

~

• 42 bs

~

~

Y'

~~ ~~ ~

,[

~;

e

- C '- ' ',

~

.7_..

~

'/

p-O tm Ctm

~~

)

p

% ;4_.

~

~

/

t 1

-, ',/

. 'OtrN 7

27

- ~'

f" Otm

..2 y

( _

-n a

.t t

'^

r V.j'g[

\\

d..;

l \\0

-Qt m {,Teff j.*

, iTuff

g. if /

0:m 8

g

~-;== T C '

.. s.

=Y I C

?

/

/#43 r>a

__. 36.

-=' Tsc w -

/.%'T1

,/ de __ _. -- -' M

,~

= - ~ <.

/

[.

~~

~~^

~

~ ~ ' = ~

~I

'A

^^

t

'3:V 2"'

~.^i."

.L

'~. _ _. _

=.

HORN

'tODli Ocl/Otn P.L.EHL{

~

GEOLOGY MA j -

c' SAN l

l NUCLEAR GEN OCTO

/

N

=

-c u-.. p n

ip,y um

(

y'

\\., ',}

, ~sh 9."m'i '

\\.

\\/

q'/

g

,e 0

.: 7 f

s

/'

34 37 l

g t

s, Tso 5;

N f

yt.

C1m l

p

'p l

=<

y,

,u

.e.-

44 1

'N b\\...\\,

f'j

' il V

t

/

fr.

43 Nf

' Ctm-4g [

}

4

~L..T M.

34 h

-(5 4

/

. ;_g 26

~

~

/

j

.j,

.ptm i

4 f

-h

'N

/

~

.[

'~

/

,9 3 o

^

~

~~~

% - c d.-

7,P

'p-f

)

~

f ~~ ~ '

/>

A'

/

O

(

/,

~;--

3 5 j

1 e.

y

.b3 l

~ - - +? 'l

/

$M I

( -,,-

--CI*

'1:

I

~

((

.x

,y

,/

.j T

~==: l

'^

17

,/,

Ag -

,f '

/*

l 1'T //'

l

/

/

l-44

. -f f

~~.

r g -,

O1m T

\\

i (Gimi V

~'

J-~~

\\

~'

m}

g

,j

)

_ Q4-f.

,Y j

,!.Otm,/ a0

/

Qtm

/ kz

/

- f

x.,

i - (_

p s

.l

~

/

Ax 42

\\-

(',

-~ -

't ) g

~i~o, T

/

/

l x

'/

\\ -,.=;

W'l l\\-

/

%c

',,, s' j'

fuII; 1

4

,-+- \\

c 3

s

,)'

_ Q,-

1

- -1S0

)

,/

.. ? [ _ __.

(

' W. x-~~~-

." /,. y ~.-

3g 42

- ~ CES' gb i

.~

)

i al Ccl/Of n /Of m

\\%N/

/\\

3 CANYON ilED FROM C E, T. F A R LE Y

"~

P ADJ ACENT TO ONOFRE J..~

Ir SCALE IN FEET) 2

RATING STATION Z _ _.._.

_ - ~ ~ - = - - - _ _

g ER

977

~

i~ y.. T t.'

13

3 FIGURE 14 Landsliding creating scarp on horizon along Mr. Phifer's alleged " San Onofre Mountain Fault."

3

,3 3

3 3

3 3

J D

D l

.. __ =,,) L

~

l secrr e

.g h.

[

$- 1 l

\\

i a

f 4

7 4

h c

j a

n r

pg k

e:

u k

l W.

l

h. a/f..

~

. ;c....

4 y

e l

,i 3,

,J

. :!'[:

~>

,k

-l l

~

1

[

hfr4 #

N i

g::..

%1 1

{l W;.l" gg,.

FIGURE 15 High Level Terrace Fill, San Mateo Canyon High level terrace fill, approximately 15-20 feet thick, southeast side of San Mateo Canyon 9

(NE 1/4, sec. 33, T. 8N., R. 6 W.).

Surface is about 80 feet above floodplain and occurs at same elevation as more continuous paved terrace on north bank of canyon creek.

Geomorphic position, terrace elevation and continuity, and relative soil profile development attest to a minimum age of about 100,000 years for paired terraces either side of San Mateo Creek.

D

)

)

3 i

)

D l

J

6

• '++-+-%.-.

_.h_

_E

.m a m yy,-

s

-.,d.y.

3 s",m'*..*'

g 6

' g. >.,.s l

..s.~ n) r

?.R,, w. m 'y,-

~ f q.

i 3...

g U

.6

b. E h))g s.,

M)

<u

.e n.

.,j

.. M"

(

s' p' p',,eng ",

6

.ri t

q v

-)

~

-(

. n '

i,,

k, g,

, + n v.,,:.,;,,

, g :. t %.,

..- l '

y

('cg.1!';h;p.,!j](dd'.3),g.

,{ Ny

]"

...s Ne y;..,e p.,.g.

{.?. f.g,. 3J:.f5' r a

[

hIkp.

.;94 ?st % q

^

e.#e o.

r

,7 g

- y%

y ' j -. a l:,

' 53.,h

'.~'. '. i(',,R.'..'.. *. '

4, g

S

,y in

,M, w

,(

u

.3 Y. h.D,i

!. ' ' h O

t-s A. i} W.s. M,. M -,.

si-1

t m

M l 6

AG,l-o m

m lM m

M O.

_a, NO. OF PAGES N

REASON O PAGE ILLEGIBLE.

O HARD COPY RLED AT.

PDR CF OTHER O BETTER COP ( REOJESTED ON

/

/

KPAGE 100 LARGE TO RLM.

y - D c w naD ar eor @

OTHER

\\

O FILMED ON APERTURE CARD NO WYncofr-O/

OA 1

-