JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 86, NO.

B2, PAGES 921-926, FEBRUARY 10, 1981

Preseismicand CoseismicMagnetic Field MeasurementsNear the

Coyote Lake, California, Earthquakeof August6, 1979
M. J. S.-JOHNSTON, R. J. MUELLER, AND V. KELLER

U.$. GeologicalSurvey,Menlo Park, California 94025

The epicenterof the CoyoteLake earthquake(M L -- 5.9 + 0.2) of August6, 1979,is locatedwithin an
array of recordingmagnetometers which hasbeenin operationsince1974.The nearestinstrument,COY,
was within 5 km of the epicenter.It was installedin October 1978 and is locatedon sedimentaryrock,
althoughvolcanicand ultramaficrockswith magnetizations of up to I A/m outcrop2 km to the west.A
secondrecordingmagnetometerwas operatedfor 18 days,beginning4 daysafter the main event, to rec-
ord the latter stagesof the aftershockactivity. Although longer-termmagneticfield variationswere re-
cordedat stationCOY early in 1979relative to other sitesin the area, no anomalouschangeswithin the
two monthsprior to the earthquakewere observedoutsidethe presentmeasurementuncertaintyof 0.8
nT for hourlyaveragedifferences. During the late aftershockstage,no magneticfield changegreaterthan
0.25 nT occurredfor more than a day. We concludethat in contrastto the 2-nT changeobservedbefore a
previousM = 5.2 earthquakenear Hollister, California, no demonstrablepreseismic,coseismic,or post-
seismictectonomagnetic effectwas detected.A reasonableseismomagnetic model of the earthquakein-
dicatesthat stationCOY was poorly locatedto detectstress-generated magneticperturbationsfrom this
earthquake.Using a magnetizationdistributionindicatedby modelingthe aeromagneticdata over the
area, we have calculatedthat homogeneousshearstresschangesof about 5 MPa or greaterwould have
beennecessaryto produceany observableeffectat COY. This changein stressis precludedby geodetic
data from over the area. However,COY is ideally situatedfor detectionof electrokineticallygenerated
magneticanomalies.This initial null observationindicatesthat the assumptionsusedin the calculation
of electrokinetic effectshave, in this case, not been satisfied.

INTRODUCTION quakeepicenterand the locationof the instrumentCOY is

A moderate earthquake (M,• = 5.9 _+ 0.2) occurred near shownin Figure 1. The aftershocksall occurredwithin the
Coyote Lake, California, on the Calaverasfault on August 6, dashedareaapproximately21 km longand4 km wide.All the
1979, at a depth of about 10 km. The earthquake generated instruments shownoperateat 0.25-nT sensitivity,and the digi-
minor surfacerupture (-.•5mm) along about 15 km of the fault
tal data are telemeteredto Menlo Park at one sampleevery 10
trace to the southeastof Coyote Lake [Herd et al., 1979]. Af- min. The instrumentCOY was installed in September 1978.
tershocksoccurredat depthsof from 4 to 12 km along a 21- The portableinstrumentCIY was installed4 daysafter the
km fault segment,also to the southeastof the main shock [Lee main shockat a pointwherewe calculatedan expectedmaxi-
et al., 1979].The radiation pattern of the main shockindicates mum coseismicfield perturbationdue to changesin stressre-
a predominantly strike-slipfocal mechanismwith a rupture suiting from failure.
directionfrom northwestto southeast [Lee et al., 1979;Arch- The simplest method of isolating local magnetic field
uleta, 1979]. The seismicmoment, seismicstressdrop, and changes and reducingthe effectsof ionosphericand magneto-
length of the aftershockzone were about 0.5 x 10•8 N m, 1 sphericdisturbances, and,mostimportantly,the generaldiur-
MPa, and 21 km, respectively[Lee et al., 1979]. nal variation, is to differencethe magneticfield observations
The earthquake occurred within an array of continuously between adjacent stationsno more than a few tens of kilome-
recording magnetometersinstalled since 1974 as part of a ters apart. In particular, we wish to search for and isolate
searchfor earthquakeprecursorsand indicationsof activetec- changesthat might have occurredat COY, the magnetometer
tonic behavior [Johnstonet al., 1976]. For the only previous nearestto the Coyote Lake main shock.Figure 2a showsthe
earthquake of magnitude greater than 5 in this area, Smith magneticfield differencesin 10-min samplesbetweenstation
and Johnston[1976] reportedanomalousmagneticfield varia- COY and the surroundingstationsMTH, EUC, and QSB for
tions of about 2 nT within a 2-month period prior to this the period around the time of the earthquake. For com-
earthquake in November 1974. The August 6, 1979, Coyote parison, the differences excluding COY are also shown.
Lake earthquake provided an opportunity to detect similar Clearly, the local magneticfield did not changesignificantly
magneticanomaliesbefore or coincidentwith the earthquake coincidentwith or immediatelybefore the earthquake.
and to test the different modelsof magnetic field generation We have applied several methods for noise reduction to
near active faults [Stacey, 1964; Talwani and Kovach, 1974; these data to improve discriminationof signalsthat may be of
Mizutani et al., 1976;Johnston,1979;Fitterman, 1979]. tectonic origin. The simplestof these methodsis a variation
on the weighted-differencetechnique [Rikitake, 1966]. In our
OBSERVATIONS
applicationthis techniquefocusesprimarily on the short-term
The locations of recording magnetometersin the central noise in the difference data that arisesfrom incomplete can-
California areaareshown inthe/insetofFigure1.Because the cellation of the diurnal variation. By plotting the data from
instrumentseparationin the region of the Coyote earthquake other sitesagainstthosefrom COY during the daily interval
is quite large, only one instrument,COY, was recording of significantdiurnal variation, a mean-responsedifferenceor
within 10 km of the epicenter.The area around the earth- 'weight factor' was obtained by a least squaresline fit. Figure
This paperis not subjectto U.S. copyright.Publishedin 1981 by 2b showsthe result of applying this techniqueto data from
the American GeophysicalUnion. COY and MTH.

Paper number 80B1098. 921

922 JOHNSTONET AL.: MAGNETIC MEASUREMENTS•COYOTE
LAKE EARTHQUAKE

/
•11111112,.x x / • N• N • STATION
, .
•//I/A' AUG6, 197& • • )•, .• • '•MTH

• • • L • I SJ•HOLL STER

I
•/b
1X/•X•
coy
• • I

GILROY \ \ \
-37o00 '
\ '.• \
\ \

VOLCANIC
[77-/] AND\\ \ • \
ULTRAMAFIC
ROCK \\
k•9 AFTERSHOCK
ZONE • .,••SAN I
I, I, •. •, I, I • • •FEL/PE
0 5 km N •LmKE/
121•5
' 121•0
' • • • / 121•25'
i i I

Fig. 1. Map of centralCaliforniashowing

locations
of continuously
recording
magnetometers.
Thelocationof theAu-
gust6 earthquake
isshown
asanasterisk
in theexpanded
section
together
withtheaftershock
zone,generalized
geology,
andthelocations
of thepermanent
stationCOY andthetemporary
stationCIY. The profileAA' is usedin the text for
modeling the magneticstructure.

The upper plot in Figure 2b shows,for comparison,the raw than0.25nT overperiodslongerthan I day,eitherof system-
magnetic field differencesfrom Figure 2a. The standard de- atic form or coseismic
with any aftershocks
duringthe latter
viation is 0.8 nT. The middle plot showsthe weighteddiffer- stageof the aftershockactivity.
encesaccordingto the expression
DISCUSSION
b(COY) - (MTH) + c
It hasbeenarguedthatmagneticfieldchanges mightbe ex-
whereb andc, obtainedby leastsquares line fittingon 30 days pectedpreseismically,
coseismically,
or postseismically
on the
of data,are 1.038and -94.4 nT, respectively.The standardde- basis of two primary physical mechanisms.These are the
viation for thesedata is 0.65 nT. This representsa 19% im- seismomagnetic effect[Stacey,1964;$hamsiandStacey,1969;
provement in the standard deviation using weighted differ- Staceyand Johnston,1972; Talwaniand Kovach, 1972;John-
ences.The bottomplot showsa six-point(i.e., hourly) average ston,1978]and the electrokineticeffect[Mizutaniet al., 1976;
of the weighted-differencedata. The standard deviation here Dmowska,1977;Fitterman,1979].The seismomagnetic effect
is 0.44 nT. We note that the magnetic field variation at the is derivedfromthestressdependence of themagneticproper-
time of the August 6 earthquake is not significantat the 95% tiesof rocksand the electrokinetic
effectfrom streamingpo-
confidencelevel if we usea data segmentlongerthan 4 days tentialsset up by pore pressurevariationsnear active faults.
(Figure 2c). Regarding seismomagneticeffects, we can calculate the
The aftershockactivity of the Coyote Lake earthquakede- form and amplitudeof magneticchangesexpectedat COY as
creasedrapidly after the main event [Lee et al., 1979].By the a resultof finiteslipon the Calaveras fault usingmodelssimi-
time the instrument CIY was installed 4 days after the main lar to thoseof Stacey[1964],TalwaniandKovach[1972],and
event,thisactivitywaslessthan 25%of the originalrate of Johnston [1978].Thesurface anomalyat a pointontheearth's
about 150 earthquakesper day, and no earthquakesoccurred surfaceis a functionprimarilyof the fault geometry,the dis-
subsequentlywith magnitudes greater than 3.6. Figure 3 tributionof magnetization,and the changein stressstatein
shows19days'ofmagnetic
fielddifferences
between
CIY and theregion.FollowingJohnston [1978],wecalculatedan upper
COY, togetherwith the aftershockactivity. The standardde- estimateof the seismomagnetic effectat COY usinga model
viation of these differences is 0.50 nT. of a finite slip patchfrom I to 11 km deepand 21 km in ex-
Becausethese stationsare much closertogether,the mea- tent. The fault slip was estimatedas 10 cm from the seismic
surementresolutionis much higher. However, we are still un- momentof from 0.5 to 0.6 x 1018
N m reportedfor thisearth-
able to determineany significantchangesin thesedata greater quake by Lee et al. [1979].We assumedthat the magnet-
 JOHNSTONET AL.: MAGNETIC MEASUREMENTS---COYOTELAKE EARTHQUAKE 923

AUGUST 6 1979 AUGUST 6,1979

EARTHD'UAKE COY- MTH EARTHQUAKE

COY-
EUC

_ COY- QSB

COY-
QSB

MTH-EU

.Oz
•
I•1
MTH
-QSB
,MTH -QSB

EUC -QSB 1978 [ 1979

Fig. 2c. Five-point running averageon daily averagevalues of

differentialmagneticdata for the stationsaround the Coyote earth-
quake.

I I sumptionsof uniform magnetizationand geometryare cor-

I
4 5 6 7 8
AUGUST, 1979 rect. Taking the geometryof the slip patch to be from only 4
Fig. 2a. Magneticfielddifferences betweendatarecordedat COY to 11 km deep,asindicatedby the aftershockdistribution[Lee
and variousother stationswithin a 2$-km radiusof the epicenterfor 2 et al., 1979],the calculatedanomalyin Figure 4 is attenuated
daysbeforeand I dayafterthe 1979earthquake. Standarddeviations slightly and the contour pattern is extended.Increasingthe
of theplotsare 0.8, 0.8, 0.7, 0.8, 1.3,and 1.25nT, respectively.

ization was 1 A/m and that the remanent and induced com- I
ponentswerein thesamedirection. Thissolutionis illustrated
in Figure4. Clearly,if thissolutionis correct,the locationof
station COY for this earthquakewas unfortunate. On the
other hand, if further stressrelease occurred over the same
area, then C1Y would be ideally situatedto detectit if the as-
AUG. 6
EARTHQUAKE i0 15 20 25 $0
AUGUST 1979

COY-MTH
(10
MIN.)

COY-MTH
(WTD.
10
MIN) z
<[
z

COY-MTH(WTD.1HR.)

LLI

4
I
5
I I
6
I
7 8
I
4:2
"' I0 I I I I 15
I I I I I 20
I I I I I 25I J I I I ;.'50
I
AUGUST 1979
AUGUST, 1979
Fig. 3. Ten-minute (top) and daily-average(middle) magnetic
between10-min field differencesbetweenCIY and COY for the period August 10 to
Fig. 2b. Noisereductionin weighteddifferences
recordsobtained betweenCOY and MTH. The weightswere calcu- August28, 1979.The magnitudes andoccurrencetimesof aftershocks
lated from a leastsquaresfit of COY data to MTH data. The lower
duringthisperiodwhosehypocenters werewithin 10 km of COY are
plot showshourlyaveragesof weighteddifferences. plottedat the bottomof the figure.
924 JOHNSTON ET AL.: MAGNETIC MEASUREMENTS•COYOTE LAKE EARTHQUAKE

MAGNETIZATION = I A/m(UNIFORM)
L = 21.8 krn (A-A', Figure 1) is plotted in Figure 5 togetherwith a calcu-
D= Ilkrn
d -- Ikrn
lated profile at the same elevationobtainedby assumingthe
u = IOcm magnetizationdistributionof the model magneticstructureil-
\ 0 I0 km lustratedin the lower part of the figure.Although other simi-
• I ,,,,•,,,,I
\
lar distributionscould be chosen,the necessaryfeature of
\\ x•x•x
• thesedistributionsis that the dominant near-surfacemagnetic
material occurson the west side of the fault, as indicated by
the surfacegeology.

..0
\\\ +37
øIO'N The simplest approximation to this distribution for a
seismomagneticcalculation is a magnetizationof 1 A/m on
the west side of the fault and 0.1 A/m on the east side. The
i solutionfor this case,with all other parametersthe sameas in
I
/ the previouscase(Figure 4), is illustratedin Figure 6. The co-
/
seismicchangenow expectedat COY is still too small to be
detectedunambiguously.A further difficulty,that C1Y is also
COY
poorly locatedwith respectto the anomaly,is now apparent.
A better fit to the observedaeromagneticanomaly requires
the inclusionof more complexityin the magnetizationpattern
to the west of the fault. This does not seem warranted at this
GILROY
• point, sinceit is unlikely to changesignificantlythe expected
t anomaly at COY. We note that the changesin mean shear
/ \ stresson the fault necessaryto generatean observablecoseis-
I
I
\ mic anomaly greater than 1.5 nT at COY for the two cases
consideredare about 21 and 5.2 MPa, respectively.Following
Chinnery[1963],thesechangescould be producedby uniform
slip in the two casesof 150 and 37 cm, respectively.The first
value is certainly precluded by geodeticobservationsover the
area [King et al., 1979]. The secondcase is possibleif com-
parable preseismicor coseismicslip occurredand may be in-
\ I
x I dicatedperhapsby the longer-termchangeearlierin the year.
• /
Mizutani et al. [1976] suggestedthat electrokinetic effects
+
iZio40,
W
'. '"'_ •
•./ +36o50'
121o20,
w
N
may be associatedwith active faulting. Fitterman [1979] re-
FiS. 4. MaSactic anomaly •mours (in nanotcslas)for cently presentedthe mostcompleteformulationand modeling
slip on a fault •twcca I and 11 • deepby 2 of this effect.Accordingto Fitterman's[1979]model,the maxi-
ncousmaterial with a normal masnctizationof I A/re. The Ausust6 mum magneticfield perturbation should be recordedaround
ca•bquake epicmet is marked with an asterisk. the center of the rupture zone with an amplitude of up to 10
nT dependingon the electrical conductivities,streamingpo-
fault slip from 10 cm to 33 cm, as indicatedby the geodetic tential coefficients,and pore pressurechangeschosen.Thus if
data to be the total amount of slip on the fault from May to electrokineticeffectsoccur,site COY shouldbe ideally located
September1979[Kinget al., 1979],correspondingly amplifies to detectthem. However, sinceno changewasapparentlyob-
the calculatedanomalyat COY by about 5 to 0.3 nT. We con- servedin thesedata, the assumptionsusedby Fitterman [1979]
clude, therefore, that reasonablevariations in geometry and
fault slip still appearinsufficientto generatea measurableco-
seismicsignalat stationCOY. Profile
alongAA•
As regardsthe locationof COY for the presentfault geome-
try, other parametersthat might controlwhethera piezomag-
100
• .. --•,P ..... Calculated(914m)
._•
netic anomalycould be generatedare the distributionof mag-
netization or a more complex and heterogeneousstressstate
• •o
o .:.//•i
U} -- Observed
(914m)
than has been assumed.The surfaceanomaly field could be
greatly perturbedif the distributionof magnetizationwere
nonuniform. Some indication of this actual distribution in this
•

•
40

o
.,,..../eee/
' • ,
•'i'....•.
,
' ßStation
,
COYM
, , I , mI -- I.... I''-•.m
area, albeit an underestimate,can be obtained by surfacesam-
pling. Observedvaluesrangedfrom 0.1 to 0.001A/m on the !
I

east side of the fault near COY, from 0.5 to 2 A/m on the west ,,
I
sideof the fault acrossthe volcanicand ultramafic rocks(Fig-
ure 1), and from 0.1 to 0.001 A/m furtherto the west.Aero-
magneticsurveysat a heightof 914 m [U.S. GeologicalSurvey, J:0.01
Aim
"'•J-1A/m•
J=0.01A/m
J 0.]A/m•,,,/
,•

J=0.] D=lkm
A/rn D=
-

]krn
1974] indicate regional magnetic anomaliesabove the vol- J=0.] A/m
canic and ultramafic rocks of about 100 nT. A better in- D=Skrn

dicationof the regionalmagneticstructurecan be obtainedby

Fig. 5. Observedaeromagneticanomaly (solid curve) at 914 m
determiningthe simplestdistributionof magnetizationthat along the profile A-A' (Figure 1). The calculatedanomaly(dotted
generatesan anomalywhich bestfits the observedregional curve) is for the model magnetic structure shown in the lower dia-
anomaly.The observedeast-westprofilethroughstationCOY gram. ,
 JOHNSTONET AL.: MAGNETIC MEASUREMENTS•COYOTE LAKE EARTHQUAKE 925

MAGNETIZATION '- I A/m

( WEST SIDE ONLY)
L = 21.8 km
D= Ilkm
d = Ikm
u = IOcm

0 I0 km

\
$
\
x2
\
\
\

37IO'N

CO YOT•' I A t(•'

t GILROY 7ø00'N
// \
/ \
/ \
/ \
I \
\0

\ I

.0'x //
\ /
\ /
\ /

$6ø50'N
IzIø40'
w / 121ø20'W

Fig. 6. Magneticanomalycontours(in nanoteslas)for the modelin Figure 4 but for which the magnetizationon the east
side of the fault is 0.01 A/m.

have,in someway, not beensatisfiedfor thisearthquake.The annual cycle, and until severalmore years of data are ob-
least well known parametersare the sourcegeometry, the tained, a conservativeapproachto their interpretationseems
and the changesin pore pres- appropriate.
streamingpotentialcoefficients,
sure.This argumentcan be pursuedin a differentway if we CONCLUSIONS
questionwhetherthe longer-termmagneticfield changesre-
cordedearlier in 1979were generatedby electrokineticeffects. After examiningthe data from the singlerecordingmagne-
If so, the electrokineticmodels would indicate that electric tometersituatednear the August6, 1979,Coyote Lake earth-
fieldsexceeding100 mV/km shouldhave accompaniedthese quakein somedetail,we concludethat, in contrastto the No-
magneticfield changes.Unfortunately,electricfield measure- vember 1974 Hollister, California, earthquake, no anomaly
ments are not made in the area. However, about 25 km to the precedingthis earthquakecan be identifiedwith any signiti-
south,changesin electricfield greaterthan a few millivolts canceas a precursor.Although somelonger-termmagnetic
per kilometerapparentlydid not occur(T. Madden, personal field changesdid occurearlierin 1979,it is unclearwhetheror
communication, 1980). how these changesrelate to longer-term fault activity. We
It is not easyto quantify the relation,if any, betweenthe note the following implications regarding either piezomag-
longer-termmagneticfieldvariationsrecordedat COY earlier netic or electrokineticmechanismsfor tectonomagneticef-
in 1979(Figure2c) and thosearoundthe time of the August6 fects:
earthquake.By referringall data to a singledistantstation,it 1. I n termsof a piezomagnetic explanation,the absenceof
is easyto showthat theselonger-termvariationsoccuronly at any clear observationof magneticfield changecouldbe due
COY. However,the variationsdo appearto reflectpart of the to poorlocationof COY with respectto the subsequent earth-
926 JOHNSTONET AL.: MAGNETIC MEASUREMENTS•COYOTELAKE EARTHQUAKE

quakeslipplane,insufficientmagneticmaterial,or a marginal quake:Secondaryfault movement?,

EosTrans.AGU, 60, 890, 1979.
changein meanstressstate.For the presentgeometryand Johnston,M. J. S., Local magneticfield variationsand stresschanges
likely distribution of magnetization, a mean shear stress near a slip discontinuityon the San Andreasfault, J. Geomagn.
Geoelectr., 30, 511-522, 1978.
changein excessof 5 MPa probablywould be requiredto ob- Johnston,M. J. S., B. E. Smith,and R. J. Mueller, Tectonicexperi-
tain a significantobservation.The absencealso of any post- mentsand observationsin westernU.S.A., J. Geomagn.Geoelectr.,
seismic changes on a second recording magnetometer in- 28, 85-97, 1976.
stalled4 days after the main event at the point of maximum King, N. E., J. C. Savage,W. H. Prescott,and M. Lisowski,Geodetic
measurements near the epicenterof the CoyoteLake earthquakeof
expectedsignal indicatesthat postseismic stressvariation, if
August 6, 1979, Eos Trans.AGU, 60, 890, 1979.
reflected in these data, was minimal after that time. We note
Lee, W. H. K., D. G. Herd, V. Cagnetti,W. H., Bakun,and A. Rap-
that the frequency and magnitudesof aftershocksdecayed port, A preliminarystudyof the CoyoteLake earthquakeof August
more rapidly than expectedfor an earthquakeof this magni- 6, 1979,and its major aftershocks,U.S. Geol.Surv.OpenFile Rep.,
tude [Lee et aL, 1979].During the operatingperiod, no after- 79-162,43 pp., 1979.
Mizutani, H., T. Ishido, T. Yokokura, and S. Ohnishi, Electrokinetic
shockswith Mr > 2.6 occurred within 10 km of the station,
phenomenaassociatedwith earthquakes,Geophys.Res. Lett., 3,
and the daily number of aftershockswas lessthan 25% of the 365-368, 1976.
original rate. Rildtake,-T., Elimination of non-local changesfrom total intensity
2. It appearsthat the stationCOY wasideally situatedfor valuesof the geomagneticfield, Bull. EarthquakeRes.Inst. Tokyo
Univ., 44, 1041, 1966.
the detection of electrokinetic effects. The absenceof any
Shamsi,S., and F. D. Stacey,Dislocationmodelsand seismomagnefic
clear observationin thesedata indicatesthat the assumptions calculationsfor California 1906and Alaska 1964earthquakes,Bull.
used in the calculations of these effects have not been satisfied Seismol. Soc. Am., 59, 1435-1448, 1969.
for this earthquake. Smith, B. E., and M. J. S. Johnston,A tectonomagnetic effect ob-
servedbefore a magnitude 5.2 earthquakenear Hollister, Califor-
Acknowledgment. We thank D. Woodward for use of his mag- nia, J. Geophys.Res., 81, 3556-3560, 1976.
netic modelingprogram. Stacey,F. D., The seismomagnefic effect,PureAppl. Geophys.,
58, 5-
22, 1964.
REFERENCES Stacey,F. D., and M. J. S. Johnston,Theoryof the piezo-magnetic
ef-
fects in titanomagnetite-bearingrocks, Pure Appl. Geophys.,97,
Archuleta, R. J., Rupture propagationeffectsin the Coyote Lake 146-155, 1972.
earthquake(abstract),Eos Trans.AGU, 60, 890, 1979. Talwani, P., and R. L. Kovach, Geomagneticobservationsand fault
Chinnery, M. A., The stresschangesthat accompanystrike-slipfault- creepin California, Tectonophysics,
14, 245-256, 1972.
ing, Bull. Seismol.Soc.Am., 53, 921-932, 1963. U.S. Geological Survey, Aeromagneticmap of parts of San Jose,
Dmowska, R., Electromechanical phenomenaassociatedwith earth- Santa Clara and San Francisco1ø by 2ø quadrangles,Open File
quakes,Geophys. Surv.,3, 157-174,1977. Rep., 74-79, 1974.
Fitterman, D. V., Theory of electrokinetic-magneticanomaliesin a
faulted half-space,J. Geophys.Res.,84, 6031-6041, 1979.
Herd, D. G., R. J. McLaughlin, A.M. Sarna-Wojcicki,W. H. K. Lee,
R. V. Sharp, D. H. Sorg,W. D. Stuart, and P. W. Harsh, Surface (ReceivedMarch 24, 1980;
faulting accompanyingthe August 6, 1979, Coyote Lake earth- acceptedJuly 11, 1980.)