Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70044007

What can we learn from the Wells, NV earthquake sequence about seismic hazard in the intermountain west?

M.D. Petersen·K.L. Pankow·G. P. Biasi·M. Meremonte
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The February 21, 2008 Wells, NV earthquake (M 6) was felt throughout eastern Nevada, southern Idaho, and western Utah. The town of Wells sustained significant damage to unreinforced masonry buildings. The earthquake occurred in a region of low seismic hazard with little seismicity, low geodetic strain rates, and few mapped faults. The peak horizontal ground acceleration predicted by the USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps is about 0.2 g at 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, with the contributions coming mostly from the Ruby Mountain fault and background seismicity (M5-7.0). The hazard model predicts that the probability of occurrence of an M>6 event within 50 km of Wells is about 15% in 100 years. Although the earthquake was inside the USArray Transportable Array network, the nearest on-scale recordings of ground motions from the mainshock were too distant to estimate accelerations in town. The University of Nevada Reno, the University of Utah, and the U.S. Geological Survey deployed portable instruments to capture the ground motions from aftershocks of this rare normal-faulting event. Shaking from a M 4.7 aftershock recorded on portable instruments at distances less than 10 km exceeded 0.3 g, and sustained accelerations above 0.1 g lasted for about 5 seconds. For a magnitude 5 earthquake at 10 km distance the NGA equations predict median peak ground accelerations about 0.1 g. Ground motions from normal faulting earthquakes are poorly represented in the ground motion prediction equations. We compare portable and Transportable Array ground-motion recordings with prediction equations. Advanced National Seismic System stations in Utah recorded ground motions 250 km from the mainshock of about 2% g. The maximum ground motion recorded in Salt Lake City was in the center of the basin. We analyze the spatial variability of ground motions (rock vs. soil) and the influence of the Salt Lake Basin in modifying the ground motions. We then compare this data with the September 28, 2004 Parkfield aftershocks to contrast the differences between strike-slip and normal ground motions.

Explore related subjects

Conference Paper

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M.D. Petersen, K.L. Pankow, G. P. Biasi, M. Meremonte. 2008. What can we learn from the Wells, NV earthquake sequence about seismic hazard in the intermountain west?. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70044007

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Authoritative knowledge infrastructure for GeoAI: Implications for scientific spatial data providers

Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (GeoAI) increasingly relies on automated analysis of authoritative geospatial data, exposing limitations in data infrastructures originally designed for simple dissemination rather than for knowledge-driven use. From the perspective of scientific spatial data providers, the challenge is enabling GeoAI responsibly while retaining semantic clarity, provenance, reproducibility, and governance. This short paper (i) examines how GeoAI exposed limitations within existing geospatial data infrastructures, and (ii) identifies provider-side requirements for an authoritative knowledge infrastructure. Drawing on GIScience, scientific workflow, and operational AI literature, the paper outlines implications for national mapping organizations that seek to support advanced analytics without jeopardizing scientific rigor or stewardship responsibilities.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2026

Springs of the Catskill Mountains: A conduit flow system in predominantly siliciclastic strata

The Catskill Mountains of New York state are composed of thick sequences of interbedded mudstone, sandstone, and siltstone that are intercalated with thin beds of paludal limestone and calcareous mudstone. Sandstones often contain rip-up clasts of calcareous material at their bases and contain minor amounts of carbonate cement throughout their mass. This minor amount of calcareous material weathers out to produce thin zones of solutional porosity and permeability integrated within perched aquifers that feed perennial hillslope springs. Solutional features are evident within thin carbonate lenses and along fractures in sandstones, occasionally resulting in explorable cave-sized conduits. This study focuses on the behavior of bedrock springs and seeps in the headwaters of the Neversink River basin above the Neversink Reservoir. Bedrock springs are numerous throughout the Catskill Mountains and serve to provide baseflow to the headwater streams that tends to be more persistent during dry times than other baseflow sources. We observed dissolution-influenced conduits within the bedrock, and suffosional conduits within unconsolidated materials. Continuous water temperature at six springs was monitored at hourly intervals from May to October 2022 to investigate the thermal response of groundwater to daily and seasonal changes in air temperature along with event-based meteorological events. Temperature monitoring was augmented at some springs with time-lapse photography to evaluate persistence of flow. The thermal responses of springs to precipitation events were highly variable across sites, with some springs exhibiting flashy responses indicating a strong connection to the surface, while other springs showed muted or no thermal response to events. The seasonal thermal response also varied across sites having lag times of 23-48 days between peak air temperature and peak spring water temperature. The water temperatures and geochemical compositions of these bedrock springs support a conceptual model of multiple residence times, showing both event and seasonal groundwater storage within the conduit flow system that feeds the springs of the Catskill Mountains.

New York↗
USGS2026

Stability changes after weak layer collapse: Insights from an unexpected dataset

While conducting avalanche mitigation or traveling through the backcountry, avalanche professionals sometimes experience a "whumpf": a collapse-mode crack accompanied by surface cracking that does not produce an avalanche. These whumpfs are a clear warning sign of instability in the surrounding terrain. But assessing the collapsed slope itself, if it is steep enough to avalanche, carries much more uncertainty. Can slopes that whumpf and are steep enough to slide still avalanche? The answer to this question supports avalanche mitigators and ski guides in assessing whether to open such slopes. Previous research on collapsed slopes is limited to one study conducted before tests that estimate crack propagation propensity, such as the Propagation Saw Test (PST), were developed. This work showed that weak layer shear strength decreased immediately after collapsing and then increased over time. However, no research has examined crack propagation propensity after a whumpf. Studying propagation propensity is key for assessing how whumpfs immediately affect slope stability. To improve our understanding of changes in propagation propensity following weak layer collapse, we conducted PSTs on a test slope in the hours and days after an unexpected collapse occurred on a layer of surface hoar. Two PSTs at our study site three days prior to this collapse provided an estimate of weak layer propagation propensity. PST cut lengths decreased immediately following the collapse, suggesting that the collapse increased the propagation propensity. However, over the next 4-5 hours, PST cut lengths steadily increased at our site, likely due to ongoing sintering and strengthening in the collapsed weak layer. By the end of day two, we were no longer able to initiate propagation, suggesting substantial stabilization of the weak layer. Our results support prior findings and observations suggesting that slopes may remain capable of producing avalanches immediately after a collapse but likely stabilize over the next day or two. Although this research does not provide answers about precisely when a slope becomes stable after a collapse, it does highlight uncertainties in our understanding and interpretation of the stability of slopes that have whumped.

Montana↗