Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “earthquake hazards”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 271 records · Page 15Linked to original sources
USGS2011

Shear-wave velocity characterization of the USGS Hawaiian strong-motion network on the Island of Hawaii and development of an NEHRP site-class map

To assess the level and nature of ground shaking in Hawaii for the purposes of earthquake hazard mitigation and seismic design, empirical ground-motion prediction models are desired. To develop such empirical relationships, knowledge of the subsurface site conditions beneath strong-motion stations is critical. Thus, as a first step to develop ground-motion prediction models for Hawaii, spectral-analysis-of-surface-waves (SASW) profiling was performed at the 22 free-field U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) strong-motion sites on the Big Island to obtain shear-wave velocity ( V S ) data. Nineteen of these stations recorded the 2006 Kiholo Bay moment magnitude (M) 6.7 earthquake, and 17 stations recorded the triggered M 6.0 Mahukona earthquake. V S profiling was performed to reach depths of more than 100 ft. Most of the USGS stations are situated on sites underlain by basalt, based on surficial geologic maps. However, the sites have varying degrees of weathering and soil development. The remaining strong-motion stations are located on alluvium or volcanic ash. V S 30 (average V S in the top 30 m) values for the stations on basalt ranged from 906 to 1908 ft/s [National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site classes C and D], because most sites were covered with soil of variable thickness. Based on these data, an NEHRP site-class map was developed for the Big Island. These new V S data will be a significant input into an update of the USGS statewide hazard maps and to the operation of ShakeMap on the island of Hawaii.

Hawai'i↗
USGS1977

Use of a hybrid computer in engineering-seismology research

A hybrid computer is an important tool in the seismological research conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in support of the Energy Research and Development Administration nuclear explosion testing program at the Nevada Test Site and the U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. The hybrid computer system, which employs both digital and analog computational techniques, facilitates efficient seismic data processing. Standard data processing operations include: (1) preview of dubbed magnetic tapes of data; (2) correction of data for instrument response; (3) derivation of displacement and acceleration time histories from velocity recordings; (4) extraction of peak-amplitude data; (5) digitization of time histories; (6) rotation of instrumental axes; (7) derivation of response spectra; and (8) derivation of relative transfer functions between recording sites. Catalog of time histories and response spectra of ground motion from nuclear explosions and earthquakes that have been processed by the hybrid computer are used in the Earthquake Hazard Research Program to evaluate the effects of source, propagation path, and site effects on recorded ground motion; to assess seismic risk; to predict system response; and to solve system design problems.

Journal of Research of the U.S. Geological Survey↗
USGS2024

Geologic map and structure sections along the southern part of the Bartlett Springs Fault Zone and adjacent areas from Cache Creek to Lake Berryessa, northern Coast Ranges, California

Introduction Located in the Coast Ranges of northern California, the Bartlett Springs Fault Zone is the easternmost fault in the San Andreas Fault system in northern California. The fault is a right-lateral, strike-slip structure considered capable of producing an earthquake of moment magnitude 7. The purpose of this mapping is to better characterize the geology and earthquake hazards associated with the southern part of the Bartlett Springs Fault Zone and to help identify any evidence of active uplift on the faults bounding the Coast Ranges. Although the area immediately surrounding the Bartlett Springs Fault Zone is sparsely populated, its southern segment presents a potential seismic hazard to northern California communities as far away as the San Francisco Bay region and Sacramento. There are also nearby water resources, mineral resources, and public lands used for public recreation. The Coast Ranges of northern California are a series of northwest-southeast-oriented mountain ranges and valleys located north of the San Francisco Bay region, between the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Sacramento Valley to the east. The region has rugged terrain, high mountain peaks that reach more than 2,400 meters above sea level, isolated and narrow valley bottoms on which most human settlements are located, and large drainage systems that tend to follow the northwest-southeast-oriented topographic grain. The physiographic character of the region is shaped by its bedrock geology, deformational history, and active faulting. The basement rocks of the northern Coast Ranges consist of the Franciscan Complex and the Great Valley complex, the latter of which consists of two informal units, the Coast Range ophiolite and the Great Valley sequence. The Franciscan Complex and the Great Valley complex are in structural contact along the Coast Range Fault, a regional-scale structure and fundamental crustal boundary. The Franciscan Complex and the Great Valley complex are superposed by active, northwest-southeast-striking strike-slip faults that are associated with seismicity swarms. These active strike-slip faults can produce moderate to large earthquakes that have moment magnitudes of 7–8. In places, these active structures bound large ranges and valleys, suggesting that much of the modern topographic expression is the result of active deformation processes. This report contains new 1:24,000-scale geologic mapping along the southern part of the Bartlett Springs Fault Zone between Clear Lake and Lake Berryessa. The map area spans 738 square kilometers in northern Napa County, southern Lake County, and parts of Yolo and Colusa Counties. The south and east borders of the map are 90 kilometers north of San Francisco and 70 kilometers west of Sacramento, respectively. The map area is within the Knoxville mining district, which has a history of mercury and gold mining dating back to the mid-19th century. The two main towns in the region, Lower Lake and Clearlake, California, are west-northwest of the map area. Approximately 71,000 people live in the cities and rural communities located within a 40-kilometer radius of the center of the map area. The bedrock geology, cross sections, and structural data presented herein are critical for evaluating the long-term evolution of the Bartlett Springs Fault Zone. This work will supplement studies on local seismic hazards, liquefaction potential, landslide hazards, earthquake geology, natural resources, groundwater resources, engineering geology, and tectonic history by providing the background information for site-specific investigations on these subjects.

California↗
USGS2015

Seismic hazard assessment: Honing the debate, testing the models

Four workshops held in 2013–2014 at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis brought together university, government, and insurance industry scientists from countries that straddle plate boundaries and those in plate interiors. Participants were invited; the workshops’ goals involved developing tests of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and other earthquake hazard assessment strategies and seeking viable alternatives to overcome weaknesses to these strategies.

Eos, Earth and Space Science News↗
USGS2016

USGS approach to real-time estimation of earthquake-triggered ground failure - Results of 2015 workshop

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards and Landslide Hazards Programs are developing plans to add quantitative hazard assessments of earthquake-triggered landsliding and liquefaction to existing real-time earthquake products (ShakeMap, ShakeCast, PAGER) using open and readily available methodologies and products. To date, prototype global statistical models have been developed and are being refined, improved, and tested. These models are a good foundation, but much work remains to achieve robust and defensible models that meet the needs of end users. In order to establish an implementation plan and identify research priorities, the USGS convened a workshop in Golden, Colorado, in October 2015. This document summarizes current (as of early 2016) capabilities, research and operational priorities, and plans for further studies that were established at this workshop. Specific priorities established during the meeting include (1) developing a suite of alternative models; (2) making use of higher resolution and higher quality data where possible; (3) incorporating newer global and regional datasets and inventories; (4) reducing barriers to accessing inventory datasets; (5) developing methods for using inconsistent or incomplete datasets in aggregate; (6) developing standardized model testing and evaluation methods; (7) improving ShakeMap shaking estimates, particularly as relevant to ground failure, such as including topographic amplification and accounting for spatial variability; and (8) developing vulnerability functions for loss estimates.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

Assessing the long-term earthquake risk for the US National Bridge Inventory (NBI)

We estimate annualized earthquake loss associated with over 600,000 bridges located throughout the contiguous United States. Each year, the Federal Highway Administration, in partnership with State Departments of Transportation, undertake a massive exercise to update the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) by combining data from states, federal agencies, local jurisdictions, and tribal governments. The NBI captures pertinent details related to individual bridges (e.g., their usage, repairs, or retrofits). We make use of the 2018 NBI that contain the necessary engineering attributes needed to assign the appropriate Hazus bridge class for each bridge, which can then be used for engineering risk analyses. Basic structural data, component dimensions, and regional replacement cost factors are used to develop an economic exposure model. This is a significant improvement over previous replacement costs, and as a result of this study, results are now available within the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazus platform. Earthquake hazard is defined using the U.S. Geological Survey’s 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model. For each bridge location, we obtain an earthquake shaking hazard curve defined in terms of spectral acceleration at a vibration period of 1.0 sec, ensuring that it properly reflects the site-specific soil conditions. We then integrate it with the bridge-specific fragility curve to compute annual probabilities of exceeding various damage states. Next, we perform economic loss analyses using the repair costs associated with specific damage states, resulting in an estimate of mean total annual financial loss for each bridge; this long-term measure of seismic risk enables us to illustrate the distribution of overall financial risk with respect to geographical region, era of construction, or type of bridge.

contiguous United States↗
USGS2008

Report on the Aseismic Slip, Tremor, and Earthquakes Workshop

This report summarizes the discussions and information presented during the workshop on Aseismic Slip, Tremor, and Earthquakes. Workshop goals included improving coordination among those involved in conducting research related to these phenomena, assessing the implications for earthquake hazard assessment, and identifying ways to capitalize on the education and outreach opportunities presented by these phenomena. Research activities of focus included making, disseminating, and analyzing relevant measurements; the relationships among tremor, aseismic or 'slow-slip', and earthquakes; and discovering the underlying causative physical processes. More than 52 participants contributed to the workshop, held February 25-28, 2008 in Sidney, British Columbia. The workshop was sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation?s Earthscope Program and UNAVCO Consortium, and the Geological Survey of Canada. This report has five parts. In the first part, we integrate the information exchanged at the workshop as it relates to advancing our understanding of earthquake generation and hazard. In the second part, we summarize the ideas and concerns discussed in workshop working groups on Opportunities for Education and Outreach, Data and Instrumentation, User and Public Needs, and Research Coordination. The third part presents summaries of the oral presentations. The oral presentations are grouped as they were at the workshop in the categories of phenomenology, underlying physical processes, and implications for earthquake hazards. The fourth part contains the meeting program and the fifth part lists the workshop participants. References noted in parentheses refer to the authors of presentations made at the workshop, and published references are noted in square brackets and listed in the Reference section. Appendix A contains abstracts of all participant presentations and posters, which also have been posted online, along with presentations and author contact information at http://www.earthscope.org/science/cascadia.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

Phase 1 technical implementation plan for the expansion of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system to Alaska

Executive Summary The conference report accompanying the fiscal year (FY) 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 117–103) for the U.S. Department of the Interior and related agencies directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to “work with the State of Alaska to develop an implementation plan to be completed within two years in order to put ShakeAlert/Earthquake Early Warning in Alaska” (p. 29). Congress included $1 million in the FY 2022 appropriation to conduct this effort. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, along with partner organizations, has developed the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast, which currently operates in California, Oregon, and Washington. The purpose of the system and its alert delivery partners is to reduce the impact of earthquakes and save lives and property by delivering ShakeAlert-powered alerts that are transmitted to the public via mass notification technologies, and by providing more detailed data streams to institutional users and commercial service providers to trigger automated, user-specific, protective actions. ShakeAlert was designed in such a way that it could be expanded to other U.S. regions with high earthquake risk, after the build-out of seismic and geodetic networks to support ShakeAlert in a specified region is completed and the necessary funding is secured for long-term operation and maintenance. When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves radiate from the rupturing fault like waves on a pond. It is these waves that people feel as earthquake shaking and that can cause damage to structures. Using networks of ground-motion sensors and sophisticated computer algorithms, ShakeAlert can detect an earthquake seconds after it begins, calculate its location and magnitude, and estimate the resulting intensity of shaking. Early warnings of impending shaking are then sent to people and systems that may experience damaging shaking, allowing them to take appropriate protective actions. Depending on the user’s distance from the earthquake, alerts may be delivered before, during, or after the arrival of strong shaking. There will almost always be a region near the earthquake epicenter where alerts arrive after damaging shaking has begun. The ShakeAlert system updates its ground-motion estimates as an earthquake grows larger. In response to the FY 2022 congressional direction, the USGS worked with the State of Alaska to devise this implementation plan for ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). A cooperative agreement was awarded to the Alaska Earthquake Center (AEC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) for their contributions to the plan and their work coordinating with other networks in Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC) throughout the process. The USGS also held a series of Alaska stakeholder engagements. The process of developing the implementation plan was facilitated by contracted staff from Corner Alliance, which is a government consulting firm. This implementation plan describes the details and estimates the costs for a Phase 1 expansion of the ShakeAlert system to Alaska. A geographically limited Phase 1 goal was chosen that covers the highest risk and most populated areas of Alaska. The areas proposed encompass the State’s main population centers and 90 percent of the State’s population. This Phase 1 design is considered very challenging and ambitious from the viewpoint of network operators. The lessons learned if this plan is implemented could be used to consider subsequent phases to expand EEW beyond Phase 1 in Alaska in the future. ShakeAlert is built on the foundation of the sensor networks and data processing infrastructure of the USGS-led Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). This implementation plan calls for a total of 450 high-quality, real-time EEW-capable ANSS seismic stations in Alaska: 270 new stations, 160 upgraded stations, and 20 existing stations. These seismic station numbers are based on a station spacing of 10 kilometers (km) in urban areas, 20 km in seismic source areas that endanger population centers, and 40 km in other areas. The associated costs also include support for some EEW-capable global navigation satellite system (GNSS) stations, with a focus on improving warnings for large subduction zone earthquakes. For effective EEW, ShakeAlert requires low-latency, high-availability, robust telemetry links to deliver continuous, real-time data from field stations to the data centers. The Alaska data processing hardware infrastructure would follow the general design for fail-safe operation that is used for the ShakeAlert system on the West Coast. The ShakeAlert architecture uses two independent layers: the production layer for earthquake processing and the alert layer to make alerting decisions and serve alerts to users. This implementation plan includes two geographically separated data centers in Alaska, each with two fully independent production and alert layers using the same system design developed for the West Coast. As of March 2024, the ShakeAlert system is at version 3.0.1, with more advanced versions in the development and testing pipeline. ShakeAlert originally used two algorithms to determine the location and magnitude of earthquakes using seismic data. A third algorithm that can calculate very large magnitudes of very large earthquakes with geodetic data was added in March 2024. ShakeAlert publishes several data and alert products to meet the needs of different users. All messages include the location of the earthquake, either as a point or a line, and its magnitude. Ground-shaking estimates are published in two forms, as ground-motion contours and a map grid. Providing adequate warning time for strong shaking (the “target threshold”) requires sending alerts at a threshold lower than that strong shaking level (the “alert threshold”). The thresholds for public alerting in Alaska would be a joint USGS and State decision. To have the greatest benefit, ShakeAlert-powered alerts would be delivered to institutional users and individuals by all practical pathways. The USGS alert layer can support thousands of institutional users and alert redistributors, but the USGS does not have the mission nor the infrastructure and expertise to perform mass notifications to the public or implement automatic actions for end users of the alerts. To meet this need, ShakeAlert recruits private sector “technology enablers” that have the necessary expertise to develop end-user implementations using EEW alerts with the goal of stimulating an EEW industry. Earthquake early warning alerts are useless if people do not know how to respond to them. Although the alert messages include instructions about what to do (drop, cover, and hold on), alerts are more effective if people have been trained in advance. Messages about ShakeAlert’s capabilities, limitations, and benefits could be integrated with existing earthquake education programs, including State-run programs. Therefore, ShakeAlert would coordinate with both public and private partners and stakeholders through various partnerships and agreements to accomplish consistent and ongoing public earthquake hazard education. The estimated capital cost of completing the computing infrastructure and sensor networks for the Phase 1 ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska is approximately $66 million in 2024 dollars. The annual operation and maintenance cost of the completed system is estimated to be $12 million per year in 2024 dollars when fully built out.

Alaska↗
USGS2000

Strong-motion, site-effects and hazard issues in rebuilding Turkey: In light of the 17 August, 1999 earthquake and its aftershocks

The August 17, 1999 Izmit (Turkey) earthquake (Mw=7.4) will be remembered as one of the largest earthquakes of recent times that affected a large urban environment (U.S. Geological Survey, 1999). The shaking that caused the widespread damage and destruction was recorded only by a handful of accelerographs in the earthquake area operated by different networks. The characteristics of these records show that the recorded peak accelerations, even those from near field stations, are smaller than expected. On the other hand, smaller magnitude aftershocks yielded larger peak accelerations. This is attributed to the sparse networks, which possibly missed recording of larger motions during the main shock. As rebuilding of Turkey starts, strong-motion networks that yield essential data must be enlarged. In addition, attention must be paid to new developments elsewhere, such as earthquake zoning maps, earthquake hazard maps, liquefaction potentials and susceptibility. This paper aims to discuss these issues. Copyright??2000 IAHS.

International Journal for Housing Science and Its ↗
USGS2026

Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory strategic vision

This circular presents a strategic outlook for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) for the next 10 years (2026–36). The ASL is a USGS field office in the Geological Hazards Science Center that operates portions of the Advanced National Seismic System and the Global Seismographic Network and focuses on fundamental research for instrumentation testing and data quality. The strategic outlook is categorized into two types of tasks: “Foundational Tasks” and “Aspirational Tasks.” Foundational Tasks are those that maintain the laboratory’s basic operations and services, including regional and global seismic monitoring, improving data quality, and providing instrument testing and support. A suite of Aspirational Tasks is also articulated; these can be considered priority targets of ASL that could improve ASL’s seismic monitoring capabilities and mission. Such tasks include improvements to remote stations, testing capabilities of nonseismic geophysical instruments, detection threshold monitoring, rapid aftershock deployments, and expanding seismic monitoring networks. This report was written with input from the USGS Geological Hazards Science Center, the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP), and colleagues with an interest in the work done by the ASL. Although the details of these tasks may change, this document can provide guidance on the overarching tasks at the ASL from 2026 to 2036 and an overview of the various components of the ASL and how they fit into the EHP and the Global Seismographic Network Program.

Circular↗
USGS1982

Introduction: seismology and earthquake engineering in Mexico and Central and South America.

The results from seismological studies that are used by the engineering community are just one of the benefits obtained from research aimed at mitigating the earthquake hazard. In this issue of Earthquake Information Bulletin current programs in seismology and earthquake engineering, seismic networks, future plans and some of the cooperative programs with different internation organizations are described by Latin-American seismologists. The article describes the development of seismology in Latin America and the seismological interest of the OAS. -P.N.Chroston

Earthquake Information Bulletin (USGS)↗
USGS2008

The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 2 (UCERF 2)

California?s 35 million people live among some of the most active earthquake faults in the United States. Public safety demands credible assessments of the earthquake hazard to maintain appropriate building codes for safe construction and earthquake insurance for loss protection. Seismic hazard analysis begins with an earthquake rupture forecast?a model of probabilities that earthquakes of specified magnitudes, locations, and faulting types will occur during a specified time interval. This report describes a new earthquake rupture forecast for California developed by the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP 2007).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Proceedings of the 25th Himalaya-Karakoram-Tibet Workshop

For a quarter of a century the Himalayan-Karakoram-Tibet (HKT) Workshop has provided scientists studying the India-Asia collision system a wonderful opportunity for workshop-style discussion with colleagues working in this region. In 2010, HKT returns to North America for the first time since 1996. The 25th international workshop is held from June 7 to10 at San Francisco State University, California. The international community was invited to contribute scientific papers to the workshop, on all aspects of geoscience research in the geographic area of the Tibetan Plateau and its bounding ranges and basins, from basic mapping to geochemical and isotopic analyses to large-scale geophysical imaging experiments. In recognition of the involvement of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists in a wide range of these activities, the USGS agreed to publish the extended abstracts of the numerous components of HKT-25 as an online Open-File Report, thereby ensuring the wide availability and distribution of these abstracts, particularly in the HKT countries from which many active workers are precluded by cost from attending international meetings. In addition to the workshop characterized by contributed presentations, participants were invited to attend a pre-meeting field trip from the Coast Ranges to the Sierra Nevada, to allow the international group to consider how the tectonic elements of the Pacific margin compare to those of the Himalayan belt. Following the workshop, the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored a workshop on the 'Future directions for NSF-sponsored geoscience research in the Himalaya/Tibet' intended to provide NSF Program Directors with a clear statement and vision of community goals for the future, including the scientific progress we can expect if NSF continues its support of projects in this geographic region, and to identify which key geoscience problems and processes are best addressed in the Himalaya and Tibet, what key datasets are needed, and how NSF can best support the evolving need for interdisciplinary investigations. This workshop also has clear societal relevance. Recent earthquakes have brought international attention to active tectonics and earthquake hazards in the HKT region. Prominent examples include the Mw 7.8 Kokoxili (Qinghai, China) earthquake of 2001, the Mw 7.6 Kashmir (Pakistan) earthquake of 2005, the Mw 7.9 Wenchuan (Sichuan, China) earthquake of 2008, and this year the Mw 6.9 Yushu (Qinghai, China) earthquake. Geological and geophysical field work conducted both before these earthquakes, as well as in response to them, has helped to define the active faults and regional tectonics in the HKT region. The research presented at this workshop provides the framework necessary for improved seismic hazard assessments in this region. The organizers gratefully acknowledge the support of NSF's Continental Dynamics Program and its Office of International Science and Engineering, through award EAR-0965796. We thank San Francisco State University's Sheldon Axler, Dean of the College of Science and Engineering, and Toby Garfield, Director of the Romberg Tiburon Center, for use of their conference facilities; and the Department of Geosciences, particularly Deb Shulman and Miriam Knof, for administrative support. The California Academy of Sciences generously hosted a reception for visiting delegates, and Brad Ritts (Chevron Exploration Technology Company), Todd Greene (California State University, Chico) and John Shervais (Utah State University) together co-led the pre-conference field trip. Technical editing of this volume was led by Roxanne Renedo (U.S. Geological Survey) with assistance from Margaret Milia (Stanford University). We are grateful to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program and the USGS Menlo Park (California) Publishing Service Center for making this online report possible.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1975

Reconnaissance engineering geology of the Ketchikan area, Alaska, with emphasis on evaluation of earthquake and other geologic hazards

The Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964, dramatically emphasized the need for engineering geologic studies of urban areas in seismically active regions. A reconnaissance study of the Ketchikan area in southeastern Alaska is part of a program to evaluate earthquake and other geologic hazards in most of the larger Alaska coastal communities. These evaluations in the Ketchikan area should provide broad guidelines useful in city and land-use planning. Ketchikan, which had a population of approximately 7,000 in 1970, is built on the southwestern end of Revillagigedo Island along the northeastern coastline of Tongass Narrows. Altitudes reach 1,000 feet (305 m) within half a mile (0.8 km) of the coast and near-vertical cliffs characterize the terrain in places. The climate is predominantly marine. Average precipitation is approximately 152 inches (386 cm). The Ketchikan area was covered by glacier ice at least once and probably several times during the Pleistocene Epoch. The present topography, characterized by elongate lakes, U-shaped valleys, fiords, inlets, and passages, clearly reflects the effects of glaciation. The presence of emergent marine deposits, at least 300 feet (91 m) above sea level, shows that the land has been uplifted relative to sea level since the last deglaciation of the region. Bedrock is exposed or is near the surface throughout most of the mapped area. The bedrock consists chiefly of metamorphic rocks. In a few places these rocks have been intruded by igneous rocks. Exposed metamorphic rocks are mostly thinly foliated schists and phyllites, metamorphosed to greenschist facies. Foliation generally strikes northwest with moderate to steep dips to the northeast. Most of the rock is fairly competent and near-vertical cuts tend to be stable. The more indurated metamorphic rock can be used for riprap, but more durable blocks generally can be obtained from the igneous rock. The surficial deposits have been divided into the following map units on the basis of their time of deposition, mode of origin, and grain size: (1) undifferentiated drift (Qd), (2) elevated marine deposits (Qm), (3) stream alluvium (Qa), (4) fan-delta deposits (Qf), and (5) modern beach deposits (Qb). Manmade fill (f) also is mapped as a separate unit. Muskeg, colluvium, and offshore deposits are not included as map units but are discussed in the report under the heading "Surficial deposits (not shown on map)." The undifferentiated drift deposits consist mostly of till or other diamictons, generally less than 25 feet (7.6 m) thick. Exposed elevated marine deposits (Qm) generally consist of sand and gravel less than 5 feet (1.5 m) thick. Stream alluvium (Qa) is chiefly sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders probably everywhere less than 15 feet (4.6 m) thick. Fan-delta deposits (Qf) consist mostly of loose sand, gravel, and boulders as much as 50 feet (15 m) thick. Modern beach deposits (Qb) are mostly loose sand and gravel generally less than 10 feet (3 m) thick. Two basically different types of manmade fill are present: (1) large fills along the waterfront, commonly 5 to 15 feet (1.5-4.6 m) thick, consisting of silt, sand, gravel, rock, and diverse other materials, and (2) fills, generally less than 10 feet (3 m) thick and consisting of sand, gravel, or crushed rock, placed inland from the waterfront and used as pads for buildings and parking areas. Fairly thick deposits of muskeg may be present in the southeastern part of the mapped area but have not been examined in the field. Colluvial deposits, locally 5 to 8 feet (1.5-2.4 m) thick, consist mostly of decomposing bedrock fragments. Offshore deposits are poorly known; near-shore loose sand and gravel rest on a sloping bedrock surface. Southeastern Alaska lies within the circum-Pacific seismic belt that rims the northern Pacific Basin and has been tectonically active since at least early Paleozoic time. Large-scale faulting has been common. The two most prominent fault systems in southeastern Alaska and surrounding regions are (1) the Denali fault system, and (2) the Fairweather-Queen Charlotte Islands fault system. Of the two, the Fairweather-Queen Charlotte Islands fault system is the more active and of most significance in relation to the Ketchikan area. Ketchikan lies within the northwest trend of the Gravina-Nutzotin belt of fault thrusting. The trends of at least some of the linear fiords near the mapped area are controlled by faults. However, it is not known whether a major fault extends up Tongass Narrows offshore from Ketchikan. Between 1899 and 1970, five earthquakes having magnitudes of 8 or greater occurred in or near southeastern Alaska or in adjacent offshore areas; three have occurred having magnitudes of between 7 and 8, at least eight with magnitudes of between 6 and 7, 15 with magnitudes of between 5 and 6, and about 140 have been recorded with magnitudes of less than 5 or of unassigned magnitudes. All of the earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 8, and a large proportion of the others, appear to be related to the Fair-weather-Queen Charlotte Islands fault system or to the connecting Chugach-St. Elias fault to the northwest. Within a 50-mile (80-km) radius of Ketchikan, epicenters of three earthquakes with magnitudes of 5 or less have been recorded. Within a radius of 100 miles (160 km), 10 epicenters have been recorded, two with magnitudes between 6 and 7 and eight with magnitudes of 5 or less. Although no instrumentally recorded earthquakes had epicenters in the mapped area, at least 32 earthquakes that had epicenters elsewhere were felt or possibly felt in Ketchikan. Most of these earthquakes probably had epicenters along the Queen Charlotte Islands fault. Ketchikan is tentatively assigned by me to seismic zone 2. This is a zone in which magnitudes of the largest expectable earthquake would range from 4.5 to 6.0 and where moderate damage could be expected. Large earthquakes of magnitude 8 or greater, however, can be expected to occur from time to time along the Queen Charlotte Islands fault. Ground motion from these earthquakes, although attenuated with distance, may still be sufficiently strong at Ketchikan to cause substantial damage. Possible future earthquake effects include: (1) land-level changes caused by local faulting or by large-scale regional deformation, (2) ground shaking, (3) compaction, (4) liquefaction, (5) subaerial and submarine sliding, (6) water-sediment ejection and ground fracturing, (7) reaction of sensitive and quick clays, and (8) effects of tsunamis, seiches, and other abnormal water waves. Although land-level changes due to local faulting are unlikely, large-scale regional deformation may cause uplift or subsidence in Ketchikan. Adverse effects would be confined mainly to the waterfront area. This area also would be most heavily damaged if Ketchikan were strongly shaken by an earthquake. Nonengineered, loose, manmade fills and fan-delta deposits in this area probably would be subject to the strongest shaking. These deposits probably also are most subject to compaction, liquefaction, sliding, and water-sediment ejection. Earthquake effects expectably would be considerably fewer and less severe for the part of Ketchikan upslope from the harbor area because bedrock is at or near the surface in large parts of the area. No sensitive clays have been identified but, if present, they probably are confined to the till and other diamicton deposits in the northeastern part of the mapped area. Tsunami waves are not expected to have a local generation source. Those arriving from a distant source, although potentially highly destructive, probably would be greatly attenuated before arriving at Ketchikan. Seiche waves may develop on lakes near the mapped area and possibly cause failure of earth-fill dams. Destructive waves generated by earthquake-induced local submarine sliding appear to be unlikely in the Ketchikan area. Geologic hazards in the area that are not caused by earthquakes are believed to be relatively minor. They include: (1) landsliding and subaqueous sliding, and (2) flooding. Only minor landsliding has occurred in the mapped area, but the potential for sliding may increase as the city expands and heavily timbered areas are cleared, with attendant accelerated erosion and mass wasting. The greatest potential for subaqueous sliding is along the shoreline, where fairly thick fan-delta deposits rest on a sloping bedrock surface. Periodic flooding has occurred on some creeks in the mapped area and can be expected to occur from time to time in the future. In order that more accurate evaluations of geologic hazards can be made in the future, several recommendations are made for additional studies.

Alaska↗
USGS2025

Seismic intensities, ground motions and basin amplification from the 2022 Mw 6.4 Ferndale, California intraslab earthquake

On December 20, 2022, a Mw 6.4 earthquake occurred at a depth of 18 km within the subducting Gorda plate in the Mendocino Triple Junction (MTJ), one of the most seismically active regions of the contiguous United States, causing widespread damage to local communities. Here we document the seismic intensities, ground motions, and basin amplification effects recorded by this earthquake across Humboldt County as part of an ongoing scientific effort to understand subduction zone earthquake hazards. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) values from our post-earthquake field survey report shaking intensities as high as VIII (Severe). Strong ground motion data from 54 seismic stations were processed to calculate amplitude and frequency content parameters across Northern California. The maximum calculated geometric mean PGA and PGV are 1053 cm/s 2 and 52 cm/s (respectively), both recorded within the 3 km deep Eel River sedimentary basin. Comparisons with four published Ground Motion Prediction Equations indicate that PGA and PGV measurements align with expected attenuation-distance patterns for intraslab earthquakes of this nature. Within the Eel River Basin, ground motions for frequencies above 1 Hz are amplified, with respect to reference stations, by factors greater than 2. Our findings suggest that peak ground motions were mainly caused by sedimentary basin site-effects within the Eel River basin, although rupture directivity may have also increased ground motion amplitudes locally. While the Ferndale area is primarily impacted by shallow intraslab earthquakes, our results also raise questions about site-response and basin amplification hazards from a potential megathrust earthquake. The high seismicity rates of the southernmost Cascades call for stronger regional preparedness and improved strategies to mitigate the effects of such a large-scale disaster.

California↗
USGS2014

Earthquake catalog for estimation of maximum earthquake magnitude, Central and Eastern United States: Part A, Prehistoric earthquakes

Computation of probabilistic earthquake hazard requires an estimate of Mmax, the maximum earthquake magnitude thought to be possible within a specified geographic region. This report is Part A of an Open-File Report that describes the construction of a global catalog of moderate to large earthquakes, from which one can estimate Mmax for most of the Central and Eastern United States and adjacent Canada. The catalog and Mmax estimates derived from it were used in the 2014 edition of the U.S. Geological Survey national seismic-hazard maps. This Part A discusses prehistoric earthquakes that occurred in eastern North America, northwestern Europe, and Australia, whereas a separate Part B deals with historical events.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

Geometric controls on megathrust earthquakes

The role of subduction zone geometry in the nucleation and propagation of great-sized earthquake ruptures is an important topic for earthquake hazard, since knowing how big an earthquake can be on a given fault is fundamentally important. Past studies have shown subducting bathymetric features (e.g. ridges, fracture zones, seamount chains) may arrest a propagating rupture. Other studies have correlated the occurrence of great-sized earthquakes with flat megathrusts and homogenous stresses over large distances. It remains unclear, however, how subduction zone geometry and the potential for great-sized earthquakes ( M 8+) are quantifiably linked—or indeed whether they can be. Here, we examine the potential role of subduction zone geometry in limiting earthquake rupture by mapping the planarity of seismogenic zones in the Slab2 subduction zone geometry database. We build from the observation that historical great-sized earthquakes have preferentially occurred where the surrounding megathrust is broadly planar, and we use this relationship to search for geometrically similar features elsewhere in subduction zones worldwide. Assuming geometry exerts a primary control on earthquake propagation and termination, we estimate the potential size distribution of large ( M 7+) earthquakes and the maximum earthquake magnitude along global subduction faults based on geometrical features alone. Our results suggest that most subduction zones are capable of hosting great-sized earthquakes over much of their area. Many bathymetric features previously identified as barriers are indistinguishable from the surrounding megathrust from the perspective of slab curvature, meaning that they either do not play an important role in arresting earthquake rupture or that their influence on slab geometry at depth is not resolvable at the spatial scale of our subduction zone geometry models.

Geophysical Journal International↗