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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 289 records · Page 16Linked to original sources

USGS1972

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

The Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964, brought into sharp focus the need for engineering geologic studies in urban areas. Study of the Haines area constitutes an integral part of an overall program to evaluate earthquake and other geologic hazards in most of the larger Alaska coastal communities. The evaluations of geologic hazards that follow, although based only upon reconnaissance studies and, therefore, subject to revision, will provide broad guidelines useful in city and land-use planning. It is hoped that the knowledge gained will result in new facilities being built in the best possible geologic environments and being designed so as to minimize future loss of life and property damage. Haines, which is in the northern part of southeastern Alaska approximately 75 miles northwest of Juneau, had a population, of about 700 people in 1970. It is built at the northern end of the Chilkat Peninsula and lies within the Coast Mountains of the Pacific Mountain system. The climate is predominantly marine and is characterized by mild winters and cool summers. The mapped area described in this report comprises about 17 square miles of land; deep fiords constitute most of the remaining mapped area that is evaluated in this study. The Haines area was covered by glacier ice at least once and probably several times during the Pleistocene Epoch. The presence of emergent marine deposits, several hundred feet above sea level, demonstrates that the land has been uplifted relative to sea level since the last major deglaciation of the region about 10,000 years ago. The rate of relative uplift of the land at Haines during the past 39 years is 2.26 cm per year. Most or all of this uplift appears to be due to rebound as a result of deglaciation. Both bedrock and surficial deposits are present in the area. Metamorphic and igneous rocks constitute the exposed bedrock. The metamorphic rocks consist of metabasalt of Mesozoic age and pyroxenite of probable early middle Cretaceous age. The igneous rocks consist of diorite and quartz diorite (tonalite) of Cretaceous age. Sedimentary rocks of Tertiary age may be present in the mapped area but are not exposed. The surficial deposits of Quaternary age,-have been divided into the following map units on the basis of time Of deposition, mode of origin, and grain size: (1) undifferentiated drift deposits, (2) outwash and Ice-contact deposits; (3) elevated fine-grained marine deposits, (4) elevated shore and delta deposits, (5) alluvial fan deposits, (6) colluvial deposits, (7) modern beach deposits, (8) Chilkat River flood-plain and delta deposits, and (9) manmade fill. Offshore deposits are described but are not mapped. Southeastern Alaska lies within the tectonically active belt that rims the northern Pacific Basin and has been active since at least early Paleozoic time. The outcrop pattern is the result of late Mesozoic and Tertiary deformational, metamorphic, and intrusive events. Large-scale faulting has been common. The two most prominent inferred fault systems in southeastern Alaska and surrounding regions are: (1) The Denali fault system and (2) the Fairweather-Queen Charlotte Islands fault system. In the general area of Haines, rocks of Mesozoic age northeast of Chilkat River have a simple monoclinal structure. Paleozoic-Mesozoic rocks southwest of Chilkat River are gently to rather complexly folded. Several major and numerous minor faults probably transect the general area of Haines but their exact location and character can only be inferred because their traces are coincident to the long axes of fiords and river valleys, where they are concealed by water or by valley-floor deposits. Inferred faults in or near the Haines mapped area are: (1) Chilkat River fault, (2) Chilkoot fault, (3) Takhin fault, and (4) faults in the saddle area at Haines. Southeastern Alaska lies in one of the two most seismically active zones in Alaska, a State where 6 percent of the world's shallow earthqua

Open-File Report↗

USGS2014

Using the USGS Seismic Risk Web Application to estimate aftershock damage

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Engineering Risk Assessment Project has developed the Seismic Risk Web Application to combine earthquake hazard and structural fragility information in order to calculate the risk of earthquake damage to structures. Enabling users to incorporate their own hazard and fragility information into the calculations will make it possible to quantify (in near real-time) the risk of additional damage to structures caused by aftershocks following significant earthquakes. Results can quickly be shared with stakeholders to illustrate the impact of elevated ground motion hazard and earthquake-compromised structural integrity on the risk of damage during a short-term, post-earthquake time horizon.

Conference Paper↗

USGS1981

Two examples of seismic zonation in the San Francisco Bay region

The science of earthquakes in complex, requiring data and research in seismology, geology, soil mechanics, geophysics, hydrology, and engineering. Nevertheless, if earthquake hazards are to be reduced, earth science information must be translated from scientific and technical language into a form that can be effectively used by planners and decisionmakers. Out of the need to use earth science information in local and regional planning and decisionmaking came an experimental program-the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study. the study, begun in 1970, was jointly supported by the U.S Geological Survey and the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Association of Bay Area Governments and the planning firm of William Spangle and Associates, Inc., participated in the study and provided a liaison and communication link with other regional agencies and with local governments. Since 1975, the composition of the core group within the U.S Geological Survey concerned with seismic zonation has evolved to include seismoloists and engineers concerned with probabilistic approaches to earthquake damage and a planner to assist in the information transfer from scientists and engineers to city, county, and regional planning staffs. Three events have encouraged communities to attempt seismic zonation: passage of the Alquist Priolo Act by the California Legislature requiring special studies in zones encompassing potentially and recently active faults, preparation and adoption of seismic safety plan elements by cities and counties as required by California statute, and further development of a seismic zonation method. The method has four steps: postulating an earthquake of a given size and location; grouping geological materials with similar physical properties; predicting effects of the postulated earthquakes for each geologic unit by type of hazard of failure, namely surface rupture, ground shaking, flooding, liquefaction potential, and landsliding; and combining geologic effects by zones on the map (fig. 1). Examples of seismic zonation at various scales by cities and counties in the San Francisco Bay region show that scientific information can be used effectively in avoiding earthquake hazards and mitigating damage. Six examples were presented at the Second International Conference on Microzonation in 1978 and reprinted in a Survey Circular on the progress on seismic zonation. The method has been used in California by the cities of Mountain View, Novator, and San Francisco and the counties of Marin, Santa Clara, and San Mateo to develop zones which were used as a basis for their general plans, seismic safety plans, development policies or odrinances. Two of these examples, a city and a county, are described here.

California↗

USGS2015

Quantifying 10 years of improved earthquake-monitoring performance in the Caribbean region

Over 75 tsunamis have been documented in the Caribbean and adjacent regions during the past 500 years. Since 1500, at least 4484 people are reported to have perished in these killer waves. Hundreds of thousands are currently threatened along the Caribbean coastlines. Were a great tsunamigenic earthquake to occur in the Caribbean region today, the effects would potentially be catastrophic due to an increasingly vulnerable region that has seen significant population increases in the past 40–50 years and currently hosts an estimated 500,000 daily beach visitors from North America and Europe, a majority of whom are not likely aware of tsunami and earthquake hazards. Following the magnitude 9.1 Sumatra–Andaman Islands earthquake of 26 December 2004, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Intergovernmental Coordination Group (ICG) for the Tsunami and other Coastal Hazards Early Warning System for the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions (CARIBE‐EWS) was established and developed minimum performance standards for the detection and analysis of earthquakes. In this study, we model earthquake‐magnitude detection threshold and P‐wave detection time and demonstrate that the requirements established by the UNESCO ICG CARIBE‐EWS are met with 100% of the network operating. We demonstrate that earthquake‐monitoring performance in the Caribbean Sea region has improved significantly in the past decade as the number of real‐time seismic stations available to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tsunami warning centers have increased. We also identify weaknesses in the current international network and provide guidance for selecting the optimal distribution of seismic stations contributed from existing real‐time broadband national networks in the region.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2022

Education initiatives to support earthquake early warning: A retrospective and a roadmap

As of May 2021, public alerting is now operational for the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system for the West Coast of the United States in California, Oregon, and Washington. Successful early warning systems require the scientific and technical implementation to be coupled with social and humanitarian considerations, including education and outreach campaigns. Community engagement with the over 50 million people who live in ShakeAlert states is important to increase public safety, security, and awareness of local earthquake hazards, how to prepare, and how ShakeAlert earthquake early warning can help. Here, we describe the efforts of the ShakeAlert Educational Resources Working Group around the rollout of public alerting in the Pacific Northwest for Oregon in March 2021 and Washington in May 2021, respectively. Our initial approach was to engage in formative dialogue with community members in each ShakeAlert state, develop educational activities and animations based on the collective feedback, and then to disseminate our resources in both formal (K‐16) and informal (free choice) learning environments through workshops and outreach events. The rollout of public alerting in the Pacific Northwest provided an opportunity to directly engage with various publics around a specific event, and to collaborate with local news and social media, communications and social science professionals, educators, emergency managers, and scientific and technical experts on the ShakeAlert system. Following the rollouts, we developed a strategic plan for the next five years of ShakeAlert to promote earthquake early warning, as the importance of earthquake preparedness competes with the stressors of everyday life. Because earthquake early warning systems are rapidly expanding worldwide, our education and outreach efforts provide a roadmap for building successful education and outreach campaigns, leading up to public alerting and maintaining earthquake preparedness in the public consciousness following rollout.

Oregon↗

USGS2008

The USGS Earthquake Notification Service (ENS): Customizable notifications of earthquakes around the globe

At the beginning of 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) introduced a new automated Earthquake Notification Service (ENS) to take the place of the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) "Bigquake" system and the various other individual EHP e-mail list-servers for separate regions in the United States. These included northern California, southern California, and the central and eastern United States. ENS is a "one-stop shopping" system that allows Internet users to subscribe to flexible and customizable notifications for earthquakes anywhere in the world. The customization capability allows users to define the what (magnitude threshold), the when (day and night thresholds), and the where (specific regions) for their notifications. Customization is achieved by employing a per-user based request profile, allowing the notifications to be tailored for each individual's requirements. Such earthquake-parameter-specific custom delivery was not possible with simple e-mail list-servers. Now that event and user profiles are in a structured query language (SQL) database, additional flexibility is possible. At the time of this writing, ENS had more than 114,000 subscribers, with more than 200,000 separate user profiles. On a typical day, more than 188,000 messages get sent to a variety of widely distributed users for a wide range of earthquake locations and magnitudes. The purpose of this article is to describe how ENS works, highlight the features it offers, and summarize plans for future developments.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2008

Digital data for volcano hazards in the Crater Lake Region, Oregon

Crater Lake lies in a basin, or caldera, formed by collapse of the Cascade volcano known as Mount Mazama during a violent, climactic eruption about 7,700 years ago. This event dramatically changed the character of the volcano so that many potential types of future events have no precedent there. This potentially active volcanic center is contained within Crater Lake National Park, visited by 500,000 people per year, and is adjacent to the main transportation corridor east of the Cascade Range. Because a lake is now present within the most likely site of future volcanic activity, many of the hazards at Crater Lake are different from those at most other Cascade volcanoes. Also significant are many faults near Crater Lake that clearly have been active in the recent past. These faults, and historic seismicity, indicate that damaging earthquakes can occur there in the future. The USGS Open-File Report 97-487 (Bacon and others, 1997) describes the various types of volcano and earthquake hazards in the Crater Lake area, estimates of the likelihood of future events, recommendations for mitigation, and a map of hazard zones. The geographic information system (GIS) volcano hazard data layers used to produce the Crater Lake earthquake and volcano hazard map in USGS Open-File Report 97-487 are included in this data set. USGS scientists created one GIS data layer, c_faults, that delineates these faults and one layer, cballs, that depicts the downthrown side of the faults. Additional GIS layers chazline, chaz, and chazpoly were created to show 1) the extent of pumiceous pyroclastic-flow deposits of the caldera forming Mount Mazama eruption, 2) silicic and mafic vents in the Crater Lake region, and 3)the proximal hazard zone around the caldera rim, respectively.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1994

Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification)

Recent borehole-geotechnical data and strong-motion measurements constitute a new empirical basis to account for local geological conditions in earthquake-resistant design and site-dependent, building-code provisions. They provide new unambiguous definitions of site classes and rigorous empirical estimates of site-dependent amplification factors in terms of mean shear-wave velocity. A simple four-step methodology for estimating site-dependent response spectra is specified herein. Alternative techniques and commentary are presented for each step to facilitate application of the methodology for different purposes. Justification for the methodology is provided in terms of definitions for the new site classes and derivations of simple empirical equations for amplification as a function of mean shear-wave velocity and input ground-motion level. These new results provide a rigorous framework for improving estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design, site-dependent building-code provisions, and predictive maps of strong ground shaking for purposes of earthquake hazard mitigation.

California↗

USGS2019

National earthquake information center strategic plan, 2019–23

Executive Summary Damaging earthquakes occur regularly around the world; since the turn of the 20th century, hundreds of earthquakes have caused significant loss of life and (or) millions of dollars or more in economic losses. While most of these did not directly affect the United States and its Territories, by studying worldwide seismicity we can better understand how to mitigate the effects of earthquakes when they do occur within U.S. borders. Within the U.S. Government, this mandate falls on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), which has the statutory responsibility for monitoring and reporting on earthquakes domestically and globally. The NEIC has been operating since 1966, and throughout its history has been recognized as a world leader for earthquake information. For much of this time, NEIC has been cooperating with a number of regional seismic networks (RSNs) which operate in areas of heightened seismicity in the United States. In 2000, the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) was founded as a cooperative umbrella for earthquake-related data collection, analysis, and dissemination in the United States, thereby promoting advanced interoperability between the NEIC and RSN partners. The NEIC also cooperates and coordinates with dozens of global seismic networks. At present (2019), NEIC acquires real-time waveform data from more than 2,000 seismic stations worldwide, contributed from more than 130 seismic networks. Since 2006, the NEIC has operated on a 24-hour, 7-days per week (24/7) basis, and reports on about 30,000 earthquakes per year. Soon after the occurrence of a significant global earthquake, notifications are issued to government representatives, aid agencies, the press, and members of the general public by the Earthquake Notification Service (ENS), electronic feeds, and through the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) website. Event-specific web pages provide detailed source parameter information outlining the location and magnitude of the earthquake, including more detailed source characteristics like moment magnitude and focal mechanisms and finite fault solutions. Further, NEIC produces a suite of real-time situational awareness products, including ShakeMap, ShakeCast, Did-You-Feel-It? (DYFI?), and Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER), to characterize the shaking resulting from the earthquake and the impact it is likely to have on nearby populations and infrastructure. All of these products are ultimately archived in the ANSS Comprehensive Catalog (ComCat), hosted and served by the NEIC. The NEIC also pursues an active research program to improve its ability to characterize earthquakes and understand their hazards. These efforts are all aimed at mitigating the risks of earthquakes to humankind. To maintain its prominent position in earthquake monitoring, the NEIC must continue to evolve, concurrently improving its operations and 24/7 robustness, streamlining services and infrastructure, and keeping pace with research and innovation in the field of seismology. This document outlines how the NEIC might best achieve such goals, by describing specific avenues and opportunities for development in the next five years (2019–23). Several key areas of operational and research focus are identified in this plan as being of the highest importance. First, NEIC must finalize improvements to its regional monitoring capabilities, including the implementation of a variety of improved earthquake detection and association algorithms. One of the most exciting avenues of recent research expansion in earthquake monitoring has involved the use of machine learning; NEIC must explore the benefits of machine learning for improved earthquake detection and source characterization. NEIC also needs to address issues related to the timeliness of earthquake information, exploring the benefits of distributing information as it becomes available, rather than when certain quality criteria are met. To that end, the incorporation of real-time Global Positioning System (GPS) data into the NEIC operational workflow will help improve the speed and accuracy of information for moderate-to-large earthquakes. Finally, NEIC should explore how to further expand and improve the quality and content of the products served during earthquake response efforts, including the generation of new earthquake sequence-specific products, adding an evolutionary component to earthquake information, and continued improvements to earthquake impact products.

Circular↗

USGS2011

88 hours: The U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center response to the March 11, 2011 Mw 9.0 Tohoku earthquake

The M 9.0 11 March 2011 Tohoku, Japan, earthquake and associated tsunami near the east coast of the island of Honshu caused tens of thousands of deaths and potentially over one trillion dollars in damage, resulting in one of the worst natural disasters ever recorded. The U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center (USGS NEIC), through its responsibility to respond to all significant global earthquakes as part of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, quickly produced and distributed a suite of earthquake information products to inform emergency responders, the public, the media, and the academic community of the earthquake's potential impact and to provide scientific background for the interpretation of the event's tectonic context and potential for future hazard. Here we present a timeline of the NEIC response to this devastating earthquake in the context of rapidly evolving information emanating from the global earthquake-response community. The timeline includes both internal and publicly distributed products, the relative timing of which highlights the inherent tradeoffs between the requirement to provide timely alerts and the necessity for accurate, authoritative information. The timeline also documents the iterative and evolutionary nature of the standard products produced by the NEIC and includes a behind-the-scenes look at the decisions, data, and analysis tools that drive our rapid product distribution.

Tohoku↗

USGS2012

Reducing Vulnerability of Ports and Harbors to Earthquake and Tsunami Hazards

Recent scientific research suggests the Pacific Northwest could experience catastrophic earthquakes in the near future, both from distant and local sources, posing a significant threat to coastal communities. Damage could result from numerous earthquake-related hazards, such as severe ground shaking, soil liquefaction, landslides, land subsidence/uplift, and tsunami inundation. Because of their geographic location, ports and harbors are especially vulnerable to these hazards. Ports and harbors, however, are important components of many coastal communities, supporting numerous activities critical to the local and regional economy and possibly serving as vital post-event, response-recovery transportation links. A collaborative, multi-year initiative is underway to increase the resiliency of Pacific Northwest ports and harbors to earthquake and tsunami hazards, involving Oregon Sea Grant (OSG), Washington Sea Grant (WSG), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center (CSC), and the U.S. Geological Survey Center for Science Policy (CSP). Specific products of this research, planning, and outreach initiative include a regional stakeholder issues and needs assessment, a community-based mitigation planning process, a Geographic Information System (GIS) — based vulnerability assessment methodology, an educational web-site and a regional data archive. This paper summarizes these efforts, including results of two pilot port-harbor community projects, one in Yaquina Bay, Oregon and the other in Sinclair Inlet, Washington. Finally, plans are outlined for outreach to other port and harbor communities in the Pacific Northwest and beyond, using "getting started" workshops and a web-based tutorial.

Oregon, Washington↗

USGS2017

Volcanic unrest and hazard communication in Long Valley Volcanic Region, California

The onset of volcanic unrest in Long Valley Caldera, California, in 1980 and the subsequent fluctuations in unrest levels through May 2016 illustrate: (1) the evolving relations between scientists monitoring the unrest and studying the underlying tectonic/magmatic processes and their implications for geologic hazards, and (2) the challenges in communicating the significance of the hazards to the public and civil authorities in a mountain resort setting. Circumstances special to this case include (1) the sensitivity of an isolated resort area to media hype of potential high-impact volcanic and earthquake hazards and its impact on potential recreational visitors and the local economy, (2) a small permanent population (~8000), which facilitates face-to-face communication between scientists monitoring the hazard, civil authorities, and the public, and (3) the relatively frequent turnover of people in positions of civil authority, which requires a continuing education effort on the nature of caldera unrest and related hazards. Because of delays associated with communication protocols between the State and Federal governments during the onset of unrest, local civil authorities and the public first learned that the U.S. Geological Survey was about to release a notice of potential volcanic hazards associated with earthquake activity and 25-cm uplift of the resurgent dome in the center of the caldera through an article in the Los Angeles Times published in May 1982. The immediate reaction was outrage and denial. Gradual acceptance that the hazard was real required over a decade of frequent meetings between scientists and civil authorities together with public presentations underscored by frequently felt earthquakes and the onset of magmatic CO 2 emissions in 1990 following a 11-month long earthquake swarm beneath Mammoth Mountain on the southwest rim of the caldera. Four fatalities, one on 24 May 1998 and three on 6 April 2006, underscored the hazard posed by the CO 2 emissions. Initial response plans developed by county and state agencies in response to the volcanic unrest began with “The Mono County Volcano Contingency Plan” and “Plan Caldera” by the California Office of Emergency Services in 1982–84. They subsequently became integrated in the regularly updated County Emergency Operation Plan. The alert level system employed by the USGS also evolved from the three-level “Notice-Watch-Warning” system of the early 1980s through a five level color-code to the current “Normal-Advisory-Watch-Warning” ground-based system in conjunction with the international 4-level aviation color-code for volcanic ash hazards. Field trips led by the scientists proved to be a particularly effective means of acquainting local residents and officials with the geologically active environment in which they reside. Relative caldera quiescence from 2000 through 2011 required continued efforts to remind an evolving population that the hazards posed by the 1980–2000 unrest persisted. Renewed uplift of the resurgent dome from 2011 to 2014 was accompanied by an increase in low-level earthquake activity in the caldera and beneath Mammoth Mountain and continues through May 2016. As unrest levels continue to wax and wane, so will the communication challenges.

Book chapter↗

USGS2014

Estimating earthquake magnitudes from reported intensities in the central and eastern United States

A new macroseismic intensity prediction equation is derived for the central and eastern United States and is used to estimate the magnitudes of the 1811–1812 New Madrid, Missouri, and 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquakes. This work improves upon previous derivations of intensity prediction equations by including additional intensity data, correcting magnitudes in the intensity datasets to moment magnitude, and accounting for the spatial and temporal population distributions. The new relation leads to moment magnitude estimates for the New Madrid earthquakes that are toward the lower range of previous studies. Depending on the intensity dataset to which the new macroseismic intensity prediction equation is applied, mean estimates for the 16 December 1811, 23 January 1812, and 7 February 1812 mainshocks, and 16 December 1811 dawn aftershock range from 6.9 to 7.1, 6.8 to 7.1, 7.3 to 7.6, and 6.3 to 6.5, respectively. One‐sigma uncertainties on any given estimate could be as high as 0.3–0.4 magnitude units. We also estimate a magnitude of 6.9±0.3 for the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake. We find a greater range of magnitude estimates when also accounting for multiple macroseismic intensity prediction equations. The inability to accurately and precisely ascertain magnitude from intensities increases the uncertainty of the central United States earthquake hazard by nearly a factor of two. Relative to the 2008 national seismic hazard maps, our range of possible 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquake magnitudes increases the coefficient of variation of seismic hazard estimates for Memphis, Tennessee, by 35%–42% for ground motions expected to be exceeded with a 2% probability in 50 years and by 27%–35% for ground motions expected to be exceeded with a 10% probability in 50 years.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2014

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

Computation of probabilistic earthquake hazard requires an estimate of Mmax: the moment magnitude of the largest earthquake that is thought to be possible within a specified geographic region. The region specified in this report is the Central and Eastern United States and adjacent Canada. Parts A and B of this report describe the construction of a global catalog of moderate to large earthquakes that occurred worldwide in tectonic analogs of the Central and Eastern United States. Examination of histograms of the magnitudes of these earthquakes allows estimation of Central and Eastern United States Mmax. The catalog and Mmax estimates derived from it are used in the 2014 edition of the U.S. Geological Survey national seismic-hazard maps. Part A deals with prehistoric earthquakes, and this part deals with historical events.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1998

Reduction of earthquake risk in the United States: Bridging the gap between research and practice

Continuing efforts under the auspices of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program are under way to improve earthquake risk assessment and risk management in earthquake-prone regions of Alaska, California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, the New Madrid and Wabash Valley seismic zones in the central United States, the southeastern and northeastern United States, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and Hawaii. Geologists, geophysicists, seismologists, architects, engineers, urban planners, emergency managers, health care specialists, and policymakers are having to work at the margins of their disciplines to bridge the gap between research and practice and to provide a social, technical, administrative, political, legal, and economic basis for changing public policies and professional practices in communities where the earthquake risk is unacceptable.

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management↗

USGS2003

An empirical model for earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region, California, 2002-2031

The moment magnitude M 7.8 earthquake in 1906 profoundly changed the rate of seismic activity over much of northern California. The low rate of seismic activity in the San Francisco Bay region (SFBR) since 1906, relative to that of the preceding 55 yr, is often explained as a stress-shadow effect of the 1906 earthquake. However, existing elastic and visco-elastic models of stress change fail to fully account for the duration of the lowered rate of earthquake activity. We use variations in the rate of earthquakes as a basis for a simple empirical model for estimating the probability of M ≥6.7 earthquakes in the SFBR. The model preserves the relative magnitude distribution of sources predicted by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities' ( WGCEP, 1999 ; WGCEP, 2002 ) model of characterized ruptures on SFBR faults and is consistent with the occurrence of the four M ≥6.7 earthquakes in the region since 1838. When the empirical model is extrapolated 30 yr forward from 2002, it gives a probability of 0.42 for one or more M ≥6.7 in the SFBR. This result is lower than the probability of 0.5 estimated by WGCEP ( 1988 ), lower than the 30-yr Poisson probability of 0.60 obtained by WGCEP ( 1999 ) and WGCEP ( 2002 ), and lower than the 30-yr time-dependent probabilities of 0.67, 0.70, and 0.63 obtained by WGCEP ( 1990 ), WGCEP ( 1999 ), and WGCEP ( 2002 ), respectively, for the occurrence of one or more large earthquakes. This lower probability is consistent with the lack of adequate accounting for the 1906 stress-shadow in these earlier reports. The empirical model represents one possible approach toward accounting for the stress-shadow effect of the 1906 earthquake. However, the discrepancy between our result and those obtained with other modeling methods underscores the fact that the physics controlling the timing of earthquakes is not well understood. Hence, we advise against using the empirical model alone (or any other single probability model) for estimating the earthquake hazard and endorse the use of all credible earthquake probability models for the region, including the empirical model, with appropriate weighting, as was done in WGCEP ( 2002 ).

California↗

USGS2004

Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading in Oceano, California, during the 2003 San Simeon Earthquake

The December 22, 2003, San Simeon, California, (M6.5) earthquake caused damage to houses, road surfaces, and underground utilities in Oceano, California. The community of Oceano is approximately 50 miles (80 km) from the earthquake epicenter. Damage at this distance from a M6.5 earthquake is unusual. To understand the causes of this damage, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted extensive subsurface exploration and monitoring of aftershocks in the months after the earthquake. The investigation included 37 seismic cone penetration tests, 5 soil borings, and aftershock monitoring from January 28 to March 7, 2004. The USGS investigation identified two earthquake hazards in Oceano that explain the San Simeon earthquake damage?site amplification and liquefaction. Site amplification is a phenomenon observed in many earthquakes where the strength of the shaking increases abnormally in areas where the seismic-wave velocity of shallow geologic layers is low. As a result, earthquake shaking is felt more strongly than in surrounding areas without similar geologic conditions. Site amplification in Oceano is indicated by the physical properties of the geologic layers beneath Oceano and was confirmed by monitoring aftershocks. Liquefaction, which is also commonly observed during earthquakes, is a phenomenon where saturated sands lose their strength during an earthquake and become fluid-like and mobile. As a result, the ground may undergo large permanent displacements that can damage underground utilities and well-built surface structures. The type of displacement of major concern associated with liquefaction is lateral spreading because it involves displacement of large blocks of ground down gentle slopes or towards stream channels. The USGS investigation indicates that the shallow geologic units beneath Oceano are very susceptible to liquefaction. They include young sand dunes and clean sandy artificial fill that was used to bury and convert marshes into developable lots. Most of the 2003 damage was caused by lateral spreading in two separate areas, one near Norswing Drive and the other near Juanita Avenue. The areas coincided with areas with the highest liquefaction potential found in Oceano. Areas with site amplification conditions similar to those in Oceano are particularly vulnerable to earthquakes. Site amplification may cause shaking from distant earthquakes, which normally would not cause damage, to increase locally to damaging levels. The vulnerability in Oceano is compounded by the widespread distribution of highly liquefiable soils that will reliquefy when ground shaking is amplified as it was during the San Simeon earthquake. The experience in Oceano can be expected to repeat because the region has many active faults capable of generating large earthquakes. In addition, liquefaction and lateral spreading will be more extensive for moderate-size earthquakes that are closer to Oceano than was the 2003 San Simeon earthquake. Site amplification and liquefaction can be mitigated. Shaking is typically mitigated in California by adopting and enforcing up-to-date building codes. Although not a guarantee of safety, application of these codes ensures that the best practice is used in construction. Building codes, however, do not always require the upgrading of older structures to new code requirements. Consequently, many older structures may not be as resistant to earthquake shaking as new ones. For older structures, retrofitting is required to bring them up to code. Seismic provisions in codes also generally do not apply to nonstructural elements such as drywall, heating systems, and shelving. Frequently, nonstructural damage dominates the earthquake loss. Mitigation of potential liquefaction in Oceano presently is voluntary for existing buildings, but required by San Luis Obispo County for new construction. Multiple mitigation procedures are available to individual property owners. These procedures typically involve either

Open-File Report↗

USGS2007

Technical-information products for a National Volcano Early Warning System

Technical outreach — distinct from general-interest and K-12 educational outreach — for volcanic hazards is aimed at providing usable scientific information about potential or ongoing volcanic activity to public officials, businesses, and individuals in support of their response, preparedness, and mitigation efforts. Within the context of a National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS) (Ewert et al., 2005), technical outreach is a critical process, transferring the benefits of enhanced monitoring and hazards research to key constituents who have to initiate actions or make policy decisions to lessen the hazardous impact of volcanic activity. This report discusses recommendations of the Technical-Information Products Working Group convened in 2006 as part of the NVEWS planning process. The basic charge to the Working Group was to identify a web-based, volcanological "product line" for NVEWS to meet the specific hazard-information needs of technical users. Members of the Working Group were: Marianne Guffanti (Chair), USGS, Reston VA Steve Brantley, USGS, Hawaiian Volcano Observatory HI Peter Cervelli, USGS, Alaska Volcano Observatory, Anchorage AK Chris Nye, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys and Alaska Volcano Observatory, Fairbanks AK George Serafino, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Camp Springs MD Lee Siebert, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC Dina Venezky, USGS, Volcano Hazards Team, Menlo Park CA Lisa Wald, USGS, Earthquake Hazards Program, Golden CO

Open-File Report↗