2016 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes

Abstract

For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment-visit http://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1-888-ASK-USGS (1-888-275-8747).For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.Suggested citation: Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Moschetti, M.P., Hoover, S.M., Llenos, A.L., Ellsworth, W.L., Michael, A.J., Rubinstein, J.L., McGarr, A.F., and Rukstales, K.S., 2016, 2016 One-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and Eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes (ver. 1.1, June 2016): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1035, 52 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161035. ISSN 2331ISSN -1258 Cover: Map showing chance of damage from an earthquake in the Central and Eastern United States during 2016. Percent chances are represented as follows: pale yellow, less than 1 percent; dark yellow, 1 to 2 percent; orange, 2 to 5 percent; red, 5 to 10 percent; dark red, 10 to 12 percent.iii AcknowledgmentsWe wish to thank the November 2014 Induced Seismicity workshop participants, over 100 individuals who made valuable suggestions for revising the 2014 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Modeling Project maps and models to incorporate induced seismicity. We thank State geological survey representatives and experts on induced seismicity from Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas for their guidance in delineating and discussing potential induced seismicity zones. AbstractThe U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has produced a 1-year seismic hazard forecast for 2016 for the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) that includes contributions from both induced and natural earthquakes. The model assumes that earthquake rates calculated from several different time windows will remain relatively stationary and can be used to forecast earthquake hazard and damage intensity for the year 2016. This assessment is the first step in developing an operational earthquake forecast for the CEUS, and the analysis could be revised with updated seismicity and model parameters. Consensus input models consider alternative earthquake catalog durations, smoothing parameters, maximum magnitudes, and ground motion estimates, and represent uncertainties in earthquake occurrence and diversity of opinion in the science community. Ground shaking seismic hazard for 1-percent probability of exceedance in 1 year reaches 0.6 g (as a fraction of standard gravity [g]) in northern Oklahoma and southern Kansas, and about 0.2 g in the Raton Basin of Colorado and New Mexico, in...

High school students’ evaluations, plausibility (re) appraisals, and knowledge about topics in Earth science

“…Scientists have also recently associated this increased fossil fuel production with an increased occurrence of moderate‐magnitude earthquakes in the midwest. Although some scientists agree that this represents a causal connection with fracking activities (Petersen et al., ), others have attributed increases in midwestern earthquakes to natural adjustments of a plate boundary (Oskin, ). Therefore, we aligned the two models for the fracking MEL with these two alternative explanations.…”

Narrow Spatial Aftershock Zones for Induced Earthquake Sequences in Oklahoma

“…Although the earthquake rate has been declining since 2016 in Oklahoma due to both market‐driven reductions in new production wells in central Oklahoma and mandated regional wastewater injection rate reductions (Baker, ), it remains well above pre‐2009 levels. Given these conditions, various researchers have attempted to forecast future seismic hazard for the state (Goebel et al, ; Langenbruch et al, ; Langenbruch & Zoback, ; Norbeck & Rubinstein, ; Petersen et al, ).…”

Evidence for a transient hydromechanical and frictional faulting response during the 2011 Mw 5.6 Prague, Oklahoma earthquake sequence

“…It has been recognized that gaining an improved understanding of the interactions between faulting processes and fluid flow along faults will have important implications for analyzing hazard related to injection‐induced seismicity [ Ellsworth , ; McGarr , ; McGarr et al , ]. For the first time, injection‐induced earthquakes have been included in an official 1 year seismic hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States [ Petersen et al , ]. However, the seismic hazard model did not relate any injection well operational parameters, such as injection pressure or injection rate, to changes in seismicity.…”