Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70023156

Seismicity of California's north coast

Abstract

At least three moment magnitude (M) 7 earthquakes occurred along California's north coast in the second half of the nineteenth century. The M 7.3 earthquake on 23 November 1873 occurred near the California-Oregon coast and likely was located on the Cascadia subduction zone or within the North American plate. The M 7.0 + earthquake on 9 May 1878 was located about 75 km offshore near the Mendocino fault. The surface-wave magnitude (M(s)) 7.0 earthquake on 16 April 1899 was located about 150 km offshore within the Gorda plate. There were at least three M 7 north-coast earthquakes in the 35 years before 1906, two M 7 earthquakes in the 20 years after 1906, no M 7 earthquakes from 1923 until 1980, and four M 7 earthquakes since 1980. The relative seismic quiescence after 1906 for M 7 earthquakes along California's north coast mimics the post-1906 seismic quiescence in the San Francisco Bay area for M 6 earthquakes. The post-1906 relative quiescence did not extend to lower magnitudes in either area. The 18 April 1906 earthquake apparently influenced the rate of occurrence of M 7 north-coast earthquakes as it apparently influenced the rate of M 6 earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay area. The relative seismic quiescence along the California north-coast region after 1906 should be taken into account when evaluating seismic hazards in northwest California.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 38.976492485539396° to 42.01665183556825° latitude; -126.35375976562499° to -122.618408203125° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W. H. Bakun. 2000. Seismicity of California's north coast. https://doi.org/10.1785/0119990138

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗