Earthquake Catalogs for the USGS National
Seismic Hazard Maps
by Charles S. Mueller
ABSTRACT
We describe a methodology that has been developed at the U.S.
Geological Survey for making earthquake catalogs for seismic
hazard analysis and review the status of the catalogs for the
conterminous United States. A new catalog is assembled from
several pre-existing catalogs. Uniform moment magnitudes and
related parameters for estimating unbiased seismicity rates are
calculated. Duplicates, explosions, mining-related earthquakes,
and induced earthquakes are flagged, and the catalog is declus-
tered. Distinct catalogs are made for the central and eastern
United States and the western United States.
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard
Models (NSHMs) consider two kinds of earthquake sources.
Specific faults are modeled when possible, with geometry and
recurrence determined from geologic, seismologic, or geodetic
data. When faults cannot be identified or characterized, alter-
native sources, sometimes called background sources, can be
developed from seismicity catalogs.
We make a uniform earthquake catalog for a region by
reformatting and merging several pre-existing catalogs.
Seismicity statistics and catalog completeness are analyzed to
develop a recurrence model, usually based on a standard
exponential magnitude–frequency distribution and b-value.
Historical earthquakes are counted on a map grid, and the re-
currence model is applied to estimate the rates of future earth-
quakes in each grid cell. Finally, the gridded rates are spatially
smoothed and combined with maximum-magnitude models
and ground-motion models to compute seismic hazard. The
USGS methodology was developed in the 1990s, and it was
first applied to the 1996 hazard maps for the conterminous
United States (Frankel, 1995; Frankel et al., 1996, 2000). Dis-
tinct catalogs and hazard models were developed for the central
and eastern United States (CEUS) and the western United
States (WUS).
The NSHM for the conterminous United States were
updated in 2014 (Petersen et al., 2014; hereafter, 2014 update
or 2014 maps). Catalogs for the 2014 maps extended through
2012. They have been updated several times since then, pri-
marily to keep up with induced seismicity in the CEUS. We
describe the development and current status of these catalogs.
doi: 10.1785/0220170108 Seismological Research Letters
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/90/1/251/4602968/srl-2017108.1.pdf
by University of Liverpool user
The approach has also been adapted for USGS hazard studies
in other regions.
GENERAL CATALOG METHODOLOGY
To avoid repetition, general procedures are presented here, with
region-specific details to follow in the CEUS Catalogs and
WUS Catalogs sections. First, moment magnitudes are esti-
mated, input catalogs are combined, and duplicate entries are
deleted. This involves ranking and choosing among alternative
size measures and overlapping input catalogs, similar in some
aspects to the approach of Grünthal and Wahlström (2003),
who developed catalogs for Europe. Then, in a series of process-
ing steps, nontectonic seismic events are identified and flagged,
and declustering is applied to flag aftershocks and foreshocks.
Flagged records might or might not be used, depending on
the objectives of the analysis. Catalogs extend beyond U.S. bor-
ders to include hazards from offshore sources and sources in
Canada and Mexico. It is useful to define 1930 as a simplified
boundary between preinstrumental and instrumental eras.
Uniform Magnitudes
In seismic hazard analysis, we count earthquakes above speci-
fied magnitude thresholds to estimate seismicity rates. A diffi-
culty is that various input catalogs list disparate magnitude and
intensity types and values, so we try to develop a uniform treat-
ment. Moment magnitude is adopted as the target magnitude
for both the CEUS and WUS. Input catalogs do not list
moment magnitude for most earthquakes, so consistent rules
are applied to estimate it from other size measures. Hanks and
Kanamori (1979) discuss several relationships between magni-
tude and seismic moment. With original and converted mag-
nitudes from many diverse sources, we do not try to reconcile
the difference between M w and M. Instead, we simply use the
symbol M w for (nonspecific) moment magnitude.
In addition, computed seismicity rates may be biased if
magnitudes (1) follow an exponential frequency distribution
and (2) are measured or estimated with uncertainty (Tinti and
Mulargia, 1985; Felzer, 2007; Electric Power Research Insti-
tute/Department of Energy/Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[EPRI/DOE/NRC], 2012; Musson, 2012; Arabasz et al.,
2016). To address this problem, we start with a four-part clas-
sification for M w : (1) For some well-recorded earthquakes, M w
is derived from analysis of seismic waveforms (e.g., Herrmann
Volume 90, Number 1 January/February 2019 251
 et al., 2011). Sometimes called observed M w , it is termed M wo in which β is defined for equation (1). To illustrate the range of
in this article. (2) For many earthquakes in the CEUS, M w is numbers, for b  1:0, N
varies from 1.03 for σ m  0:1, to
derived by converting instrumental magnitude, felt area (FA), 1.27 for σ m  0:3, and to 1.94 for σ m  0:5. In hazard prac-
or maximum intensity (I 0 ). EPRI/DOE/NRC (2012) devel- tice, the modern, smaller-σ m parts of catalogs tend to domi-
oped empirical conversion relations using M wo data and least- nate, so overall rate adjustments are typically smaller than
squares regression methods (also Arabasz et al., 2016). The about 15%–20%. For M wu, Musson (2012) cautions that a bias
conversion result is the expected value of M w , termed M we . adjustment may be erroneous if the magnitude history is
(3) For many earthquakes in the WUS, M w is set equal to an uncertain or complex. In this small number of cases, we simply
instrumental magnitude such as mb or M L. Considered quasi- set M we  M wu and N
 1:0. We currently do not consider
equivalent to M wo for computing rates (see discussions in rounding uncertainties due to limited magnitude resolution
Felzer, 2007; Arabasz et al., 2016), it is termed M wq . (4) A (Felzer, 2007; EPRI/DOE/NRC, 2012).
small number of remaining earthquakes generally fall into three
groups: (a) magnitude type is unknown; (b) magnitude history
is uncertain or complex; or (c) M w cannot be classified as M wo , Step 1: Reformat and Merge Input Catalogs; Get M w
M we , or M wq. In these cases, M w is simply set equal to the listed and Rate Parameters
magnitude and termed M wu . As an example of (c), Musson Pre-existing catalogs, found online or in the literature, are
(2012) noted a study by Bakun and Wentworth (1997) in collected and combined. A catalog that we maintain is also
which M w was estimated from macroseismic data using a included, which has two main functions: (1) add information
methodology more complex than simple regression. from special studies and (2) override known false events or
EPRI/DOE/NRC (2012) developed a procedure for cal- mistakes in other catalogs. Each entry is reformatted to a stan-
culating unbiased seismicity rates. We adopt their approach dard record that lists basic information (M w , hypocenter, ori-
and choose M we as a uniform rate-consistent magnitude. M wo , gin time); σ m , M we , and N
for computing rates; and a
M wq , and M wu are adjusted to M we . (Strictly speaking, comment field. The M w is the most natural or widely accepted
adjusted M we is a magnitude that is calculated to be equivalent value in our judgment, which may be M wo , M we , M wq , or M wu.
to true M we for rates. Having noted this distinction, we will If M w is based on another size measure, the original measure is
simply call them both M we .) For each earthquake, a counting listed in the comment field. If a catalog lists more than one size
factor is also computed, N
, that is a function of the magnitude measure for an earthquake, a hierarchy based on our judgment
uncertainty and the b-value in the recurrence distribution. is used to select a favorite. Directly observed magnitudes are
When earthquakes with M we greater than or equal to some generally preferred over conversions, and the procedure recog-
threshold mc are counted by N
(instead of unity), one gets nizes that certain size measures are considered authoritative
the unbiased rate of mc  earthquakes (see EPRI/DOE/NRC, within specific eras, regions, or magnitude ranges (e.g., mbLg
2012, for details). in the instrumental era in the CEUS). An alternative approach
Magnitude uncertainty is specified by σ m, the standard might try to use all available size measures with uncertainty-
deviation of the magnitude error, taken from published sources based weights for each earthquake (Electric Power Research
or estimated based on the magnitude type and the era of the Institute/Department of Energy/Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
earthquake (Felzer, 2007; EPRI/DOE/NRC, 2012; Arabasz sion [EPRI/DOI/NRC], 2012). Our current scheme is similar
et al., 2016). M wo and M wq are adjusted to M we using the to that of Grünthal and Wahlström (2003); it is simpler for
following equation (this is equation 3.3.1-5 in EPRI/DOE/ catalogs that are frequently updated, and it has the advantage
NRC, 2012): that the provenance of M w is clear in the comment field.

Records for three CEUS earthquakes illustrate the format:

4:63 −78:000 45:000 0 1871 05 21 01 30 0: 0:333 4:63 1:342 NCEjfa;12:6
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;;40;226 4:55 −65:630 49:440 15 1967 09 30 22 39 48: 0:240 4:55 1:165 NCEjmn;4:7
5:65 −77:930 37:940 6 2011 08 23 17 51 05: 0:100 5:63 1:027 SLUjwo;5:65

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;df1;40;155 M we  M wo ; M wq  − β × σ 2m ; 1 Field 1 lists M w , fields 2 and 3 list longitude (°E) and lat-
itude (°N), and field 4 lists depth (km). Fields 5–10 list origin
in which β  b × ln10, and b is the b-value. N
is defined in time (year, month, day, hour, minute, second; UTC). Fields
the following equation (this is equation 3.3.1-12 in EPRI/ 11–13 list σ m , M we , and N
. The comment field begins in
DOE/NRC, 2012): column 66. For the 1871 earthquake, the natural logarithm of
FA in km2 (“fa,12.6”) is converted to M w  M we  4:63. For
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;df2;40;94 N
 expβ2 × σ 2m =2; 2 the 1967 earthquake, M N (“mn,4.7”) is converted to

252 Seismological Research Letters Volume 90, Number 1 January/February 2019

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/90/1/251/4602968/srl-2017108.1.pdf

by University of Liverpool user
 M w  M we  4:55. For the 2011 (Mineral, Virginia) earth-
quake, M wo  5:65 is estimated from analysis of waveforms,
and adjusted (equation 1) to M we  5:63. Two characters after
“j” in the comment field denote the treatment of the original
size measure. (Most of these should be clear from their context;
“jdu” or “jwu” denotes the treatment when the magnitude his-
tory is uncertain or complex; “jmg” is shorthand for mbLg ;
“jmi” denotes probable M L ). Region-specific details are pro-
vided below.
Some input catalogs list explosions and other nontectonic
seismic events. Those caused by mining or underground fluid
injection/extraction are called mining-related or induced earth-
quakes in this article. They generally require special hazard treat-
ment, and we will be challenged to try to distinguish them from
natural earthquakes in subsequent processing steps.
The catalog from step 1 lists all records from all sources,
including duplicates, with a common format. All natural earth-
quakes and nontectonic events are included. Because it
contains duplicates, this catalog is not very useful for applica-
tions. We also note that certain characters listed in some com-
ment fields are used in the next processing step and then
discarded. Examples include “−” (nontectonic or false event)
or “*” (explosion) in column 66, and “MwO,” “MwE,” or
“MwU” codes.
Step 2: Delete Duplicates, Explosions, and Mining-
Related Seismicity
Duplicate entries are identified within simple time and dis-
tance windows that we have developed by trial and error. The
windows reflect the era dependence of catalog accuracy and
completeness, but they are not meant to fix errors. For exam-
ple, errors caused by mistranscribing UTC and local time or
mistranscribing a.m. and p.m. occur for some old earthquakes,
but time windows large enough to catch these also catch non-
duplicates by mistake. The current time windows are 10 s for
1990–present, 20 s before 1990, 60 s before 1960, 10 min
before 1930, and 30 min before 1880. The time window (re-
gardless of era) expands if part of the origin time is unknown.
For example, if minute and second are both listed as blank or 0
in the input catalog, we assume that the minute is unknown
and add 60 min to the time window (nearest-hour resolution).
The current distance windows (radii) are 20 km 1990–present,
50 km before 1990, 100 km before 1960, 250 km before 1930,
and 500 km before 1880. These windows seem satisfactory for
the NSHM, where magnitude thresholds are fairly high, but
they might be too coarse for other applications. A hierarchy,
based on our judgment of input-catalog preference, is used to
select one favorite from among duplicate entries. For example,
a catalog from a special study might be considered authorita-
tive, or an original, single-institution catalog might be preferred
over a compilation. Catalogs that list M w directly generally get
higher priority.
Explosions and mining-related earthquakes large enough
to cause shaking damage are rare and often transitory, and
they do not fit standard recurrence models. These are usually
deleted from catalogs for hazard analysis. Some online
Seismological Research Letters
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/90/1/251/4602968/srl-2017108.1.pdf
by University of Liverpool user
catalogs offer event-by-type search options, and some events
are described in the literature, but resources are limited,
and we acknowledge that the results of this analysis are
incomplete.
The catalog from step 2 lists natural earthquakes and
induced earthquakes, without duplicates.
Step 3: Flag Aftershocks and Foreshocks
A declustering algorithm is applied to flag aftershocks and fore-
shocks. Declustering is a topic of ongoing research and debate
—both the rationale and the methodology (e.g., EPRI/DOE/
NRC, 2012), but many hazard codes (including the NSHM
codes) assume that input catalogs are free of statistically
dependent events. We currently use the distance- and time-
windowing scheme of Gardner and Knopoff (1974), which
is based on an analysis of California data. This algorithm (here-
after, GK74) has the advantage of simplicity, and a comparison
with other declustering methods has shown good performance
in the EPRI/DOE/NRC (2012) seismic hazard study.
In our implementation, each earthquake is considered a
potential mainshock, and GK74 searches for other records
within a specified distance from its epicenter and time after its
origin. The windows depend on magnitude; they are specified
at half-magnitude values and interpolated in between, ranging,
for example, from 19.5 km and 6 days for magnitude 2.5, to
40 km and 155 days for magnitude 5.0, and to 94 km and 985
days for magnitude 8.0. A smaller earthquake found within a
window is an aftershock. If a larger earthquake is found, the
first earthquake is a foreshock of the larger one. The algorithm
finds aftershocks of aftershocks, so the tested catalog set can
grow beyond the initial windows for a large earthquake. (Or
custom windows can be developed.)
The catalog from step 3 is declustered, listing natural
earthquakes and induced earthquakes with M w greater than
or equal to 2.5.
Step 4: Flag Suspected Induced Earthquakes
Seismicity in parts of the CEUS has increased sharply since
about 2008; in many cases, times and locations suggest links to
underground fluid injection (Ellsworth, 2013; Andrews and
Holland, 2015; Weingarten et al., 2015). Some induced earth-
quakes were identified in previous versions of the NSHM
(Petersen et al., 2008). Then we justified deleting them because
their causative process was defunct or because they were tran-
sitory or not considered large enough to be a concern for haz-
ard. Treatment of the newer seismicity is more complicated;
there are many more earthquakes, some are large, and some
sequences are very intense.
The primary NSHM underpin long-term engineering and
public-policy guidelines such as building codes. For these ap-
plications, it is undesirable for the hazard to be conditional on
human activity that can start or stop abruptly for commercial
or policy reasons, so we continue to delete induced events. Sep-
arate catalogs are developed for special studies and alternative
maps (e.g., Petersen et al., 2017). It is beyond our scope to
discuss the geophysics of induced earthquakes and the details
Volume 90, Number 1 January/February 2019 253
 Table 1
Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) Input Catalogs
Catalog Rank Magnitude Type Code Time Note*
NSHM + nontectonic catalogs 1 Mixed SHM 1700–present 1
St. Louis University 2a M wo SLU 1962–present 2
Global CMT Project 2b M wo CMT 1978–present 3
Johnston (1996) 2c M wo J96 1925–1994 4
Johnston (1994) 2d M wo J94 1925–1990 5
CEUS-SSC 2e M wo SSC 1925–2008 6
CEUS-SSC 3 M we SSC 1938–2002 7
Bakun and Hopper (2004a) 4a M wu BHa 1811–1886 8
Bakun et al. (2003) 4b M wu BJH 1755–1895 9
Bakun and Hopper (2004b) 4c M wu BHb 1811–1952 10
Johnston (1996) 5a M wu J96 1980–1986 11
Johnston (1994) 5b M wu J94 1700–1988 12
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research 6 Mixed NCE 1700–1985 13
Stover and Coffman 7 Mixed USH 1700–1989 14
Stover, Reagor, and Algermissen 8 Mixed SRA 1700–1986 15
USGS PDEa 9 Mixed PDE 1973–2012 16
USGS PDEb 10 Mixed PDE 2013–present 17
Geological Survey of Canada 11 Mixed GSC 1985–present 18
Oklahoma Geological Survey 12 Mixed OGS 2005–present 19
CEUS-SSC 13 M we SSC 1700–2008 20
*1, file maintained by National Seismic Hazard Modeling (NSHM) project (see the Step 1: Reformat and Merge Input Catalogs;
Get Mw and Rate Parameters section), + nontectonic catalog from Electric Power Research Institute/Department of Energy/
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (EPRI/DOE/NRC, 2012; see Data and Resources), + nontectonic catalog from U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS, see Data and Resources), + nontectonic catalog from Geological Survey of Canada (GSC, see Data and
Resources); 2, St. Louis University (SLU, see Data and Resources; Herrmann et al., 2011); 3, Global Centroid Moment Tensor
(CMT, see Data and Resources; Dziewonski et al., 1981; Ekström et al., 2012); 4, J96 (Johnston, 1996, tables B1 and B2); 5,
J94 (Johnston, 1994, table 3–3 [volume 1] and table C–1 [appendix C]); 6, CEUS Seismic Source Characterization (CEUS-SSC)
Project (see Data and Resources; EPRI/DOE/NRC, 2012, table B–2); 7, SSC (see Data and Resources; EPRI/DOE/NRC, 2012,
table B–3); 8, BHa (Bakun and Hopper, 2004a, table 1); 9, BJH (Bakun et al., 2003, table 2); 10, BHb (Bakun and Hopper,
2004b, tables 1 and 2); 11, J96 (Johnston, 1996, table 2); 12, J94 (Johnston, 1994, table 3–3 [volume 1] and table C–1
[appendix C]); 13, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCE, see Data and Resources; Seeber and
Armbruster, 1991); 14, USH (see Data and Resources; Stover and Coffman, 1993); 15, Stover, Reagor, and Algermissen (SRA,
see Data and Resources; Stover et al., 1984); 16 and 17, USGS Preliminary Determination of Epicenters (PDE, see Data and
Resources); 18, GSC (see Data and Resources); 19, Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS, see Data and Resources); 20, SSC
(see Data and Resources; EPRI/DOE/NRC, 2012, their table B–1).

of individual sequences. We identify them using information
from the literature and local expertise, and we estimate their
extents by looking for suspicious activity within local subcata-
logs. Sequences are parameterized by simple time windows and
spatial (map) polygons.
In step 4, the CEUS catalogs from steps 2 and 3 are each
divided into two parts: (1) a catalog of suspected induced earth-
quakes and (2) a complementary catalog of natural earthquakes.
the hierarchy for choosing from among duplicates. Catalogs
from tables B–3 and B–1 in EPRI/DOE/NRC (2012) list
M we directly (ranks 3 and 13). The other catalogs list M wo
(rank 2), M wu (ranks 4 and 5), or mixed size measures. “Code”
is listed in the comment field of each record to identify the data
source. A b-value of 1.0 from Petersen et al. (2014) is used in
the CEUS calculations.

M w and Rate Parameters

CEUS CATALOGS Original M wo and M wu are adjusted to M we , as described in the
General Catalog Methodology section. For most CEUS earth-
The input catalogs that are reformatted and combined to make quakes, a preferred instrumental magnitude, FA, or I 0 is con-
up the current CEUS catalogs are listed in Table 1. “Rank” lists verted to M we using equations from EPRI/DOE/NRC (2012).

254 Seismological Research Letters Volume 90, Number 1 January/February 2019

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/90/1/251/4602968/srl-2017108.1.pdf

by University of Liverpool user
 Table 2
CEUS Magnitude Conversions (This Is Table 3.3-1 in EPRI/DOE/NRC, 2012)
Original Size Measure
Body-wave magnitude (m b , m bLg , M N )
M L from GSC
MS
M L , M D , M c in northeast (non-GSC)
M L , M D , M C in midcontinent, east of −100°
M L , M D , M c in midcontinent west of −100°
Felt area (FA, km2 )
I 0 (maximum intensity)
*Magnitude uncertainty from the data analysis.
†
The northeast zone boundary is mapped in Figure 1.
The datasets and regression analyses are described there in sec-
tion 3.3.2 and table 3.3-1; the table is reproduced here as Table 2.
Magnitude uncertainty is taken from one of four sources:
(1) σ m listed in an input catalog, if available; (2) era-based σ m
for M w from section 3.3.2.2 in EPRI/DOE/NRC (2012);
(3) σ m for converted instrumental magnitude, FA, or I 0 from
EPRI/DOE/NRC (2012; Table 2); or (4) estimated era-based
σ m . To illustrate the range of numbers, σ m varies from 0.1 to
0.3 for M w and from 0.2 to 0.5 for conversions. N
is calcu-
lated using equation (2).
CEUS Catalog Summary
The catalog assembled in step 1, called emm.c1, lists about
95,000 records through 2016. About 19,000 explosions and
mining-related earthquakes are contributed from the nontec-
tonic catalogs. A few hundred more are identified within zones
of known mining activity in Utah and Colorado (Wong et al.,
1989; see also Arabasz et al., 2016). These records and about
23,000 duplicates are deleted from emm.c1 to make emm.c2
(step 2), and emm.c2 is then declustered to make emm.c3
(step 3). To enable consistent summaries and comparisons,
emm.c2 and emm.c3 are trimmed to 1700–2016, M we  2:5,
and the NSHM CEUS catalog region shown in Figure 1.
Trimmed emm.c2 lists about 23,010 records. For 1700–
1929, there are about 1650 records: 36% and 30% are M we con-
verted from I 0 and FA, respectively, 25% are M we from the rank
13 catalog, and 8% are various M wu . For 1930–2016, there are
about 21,360 records: 4% are M wo from the rank 2 catalogs, 2%
are M we from the rank 3 catalog, 7% are M we from the rank 13
catalog, and 0.4% are various M wu . For the rest of the 21,360,
M we is converted from another size measure.
The initial declustered catalog listed many earthquakes in
and near South Carolina after the 1886 Charleston mainshock;
Marrone and Tavakoli (2013) also noticed these. We assume
most are aftershocks, poorly located, and therefore missed by
GK74 (which was developed using modern data). Tests with
Seismological Research Letters
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/90/1/251/4602968/srl-2017108.1.pdf
by University of Liverpool user
Conversion Equation σm *
M we  m b − 0:316 − 0:118Z NE − 0:192Z 1997GSC  0:280Z 1982NE , in 0.24
which Z NE  1 for earthquakes in the northeast†, and 0 otherwise;
Z 1997GSC  1 for earthquakes after 1997 recorded by GSC, and 0
otherwise; Z 1982NE  1 for earthquakes in the northeast† before
1982 recorded by other than GSC, and 0 otherwise
Compute m b  M L − 0:21, and use m b conversion 0.42
M we  2:654  0:334M s  0:040M 2s 0.20
M we  0:633  0:806M L ; M D ; M c  0.27
M we  0:869  0:762M L ; M D ; M c  0.25
Use m b conversion 0.24
M we  1:41  0:218 × lnFA  0:00087 × FA0:5 0.22
M we  0:017  0:666 × I 0 0.50
the early part of the CEUS catalog suggested that roughly dou-
bling the GK74 distance windows helped solve the South
Carolina problem without deleting too many earthquakes
elsewhere. We apply this modified version everywhere in the
CEUS before 1900 and the original GK74 algorithm
after 1900.
Trimmed emm.c3 lists about 7770 records. For 1700–
1929, there are about 1250 records: 39% and 30% are M we
converted from I 0 and FA, respectively; 22% are M we from
the rank 13 catalog; and 8% are various M wu . For 1930–
2016, there are about 6520 records: 5% are M wo from the
rank 2 catalogs, 5% are M we from the rank 3 catalog, 18%
are M we from the rank 13 catalog, and 1% are various M wu .
For the rest of the 6520, M we is converted from another size
measure.
Suspected induced earthquakes in the CEUS are identified
using case studies from the literature, local expertise, and
assessments of subcatalogs. Map polygons and time windows
are used to divide emm.c2 and emm.c3 into natural parts
(emm_pn.c2 and emm_pn.c3) and induced parts (emm_pi.c2
and emm_pi.c3). Petersen et al. (2017) identified 21 induced se-
quences and developed models to compute the hazard from both
natural and induced earthquakes. Sequences and parameters are
evolving, and any details presented here might quickly become
obsolete. We refer readers to Petersen et al. (2017) and the
NSHM website (see Data and Resources). The natural and in-
duced parts of trimmed emm.c3 are mapped in Figures 1 and 2.
In trimmed emm.c2, 1930–2016, 70% of the 21,360
earthquakes are induced, with 93% of these occurring in north-
central Oklahoma or southern Kansas since 2009. For 92% of
the Oklahoma and Kansas earthquakes, M we is converted from
M L . In trimmed emm.c3, 1930–2016, only 18% of the 6520
earthquakes are induced, indicating strong declustering of these
events. The other 82% of the 6520 are natural earthquakes;
93% of these lie east of longitude −105°, and their breakdown
by input catalog and magnitude type is presented in Table 3.
Volume 90, Number 1 January/February 2019 255
 emm_pn.c3 (Mwe = 2.5+,1700–2016, declustered)

50°

40°°

M=3

M=4
30° M=5

M=6

Induced zone
Mining zone

–110° –100° –90° –80° –70° –60°

▴ Figure 1. Natural earthquakes in catalog emm.c3 (1700–2016, M we  2:5). Explosions and mining-related events are deleted, the
catalog is declustered, and suspected induced earthquakes are deleted in 21 zones (solid lines). The dashed line shows the boundary of
the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) central and eastern United States catalog region. The dotted line shows the boundary of the
northeast zone from Table 2.

Trimmed emm.c3, 1930–2016, west of −105° is dominated by
M L and M D .
WUS CATALOGS
Two distinct WUS catalogs are developed in steps 1 and 2,
before making one merged catalog. The purpose of the two
catalogs is to facilitate integrating California seismicity with
the rest of the WUS. The input catalogs that are reformatted
and combined are listed in Tables 4 and 5. For the 2014 up-
date, the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Fore-
cast (UCERF3) project developed a catalog for a region
extending about 100 km beyond the California border (Felzer,
2013; Field et al., 2013; Powers and Field, 2013), covering
1769–2012. Catalog A (Table 4) is constructed for the whole
WUS with the intention of using only its part inside the
UCERF3 zone in the final catalog, so it gives high rank to
the UCERF3 catalog. Catalog B (Table 5) is constructed
for the whole WUS with the intention of using only its part
outside the UCERF3 zone in the final catalog, so it does not
include the UCERF3 catalog. Explosions, mining-related
events, and duplicates are deleted from each catalog in step 2.
After step 2, earthquakes outside the UCERF3 zone are deleted
from A, earthquakes inside the UCERF3 zone are deleted from
B, and the two catalogs are merged. Columns in Tables 4 and 5
are defined as for Table 1. A b-value of 0.8 from Frankel et al.
(1996) is used in the WUS calculations.
M w and Rate Parameters
Original M wo and M wu are adjusted to M we , as described in the
General Catalog Methodology section. For a few earthquakes,
I 0 and FA are converted to M wu following Toppozada (1975).
For most WUS earthquakes, an instrumental magnitude is set
equal to M wq , which is adjusted to M we . Moment magnitude
was originally defined to be consistent with magnitudes such as
M L or mb for crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions
(Hanks and Kanamori, 1979). Relationships between various
instrumental magnitudes and M w are discussed by Utsu (2002)

256 Seismological Research Letters Volume 90, Number 1 January/February 2019

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/90/1/251/4602968/srl-2017108.1.pdf

by University of Liverpool user
 emm_pi.c3 (Mwe = 2.5+,1700–2016, declustered)

Ashtabula

Perry
Youngstown
Greeley
Rangely
40°

Rky Mtn Arsenal

Paradox

Raton Sun City

OK-KS
NCArkansas

El Dorado
Cogdell
Dagger Draw
Irving
NTexas
Venus
Brewton
Timpson

30°
Fashing
M=3
M=4
Alice Induced zone M=5

–110° –100° –90° –80°

▴ Figure 2. Suspected induced earthquakes in catalog emm.c3 (1700–2016, M we  2:5).

and Sipkin (2003). The WUS catalog is dominated by M L, mb , match M L (Stover and Coffman, 1993; Pechmann et al.,
duration magnitude M D , and coda magnitude M c . Regional 2007). For the largest earthquakes, we make simple, first-order
M D and M c were developed as convenient magnitude scales adjustments for magnitude saturation. For example, M wq is set
for smaller earthquakes, and they are usually calibrated to equal to mb for mb ≤ 5:26 and equal to 1:46 × mb − 2:42, for

Table 3
Contributions (%) to Trimmed emm_pn.c3, 1930–2016, East of Longitude −105°
M wo M we mb m bLg MN ML Mc MD I0 FA
SHM
Rank 2 3.9
SSC rank 3 6.6
SSC rank 13 23.0
NCE 5.6 3.9 3.2 5.5 0.5 1.6 4.7
USH 0.1
SRA 0.1 2.1 1.3 2.7
PDE 0.1 1.3 9.8 1.4 16.9
GSC 3.7 0.1
OGS 0.4 0.3
Total 4.0 29.6 7.1 13.7 9.0 8.7 0.5 19.9 1.6 4.7
Empty cell indicates contribution smaller than 0.1%; various M wu contribute about 1%, not tabulated.

Seismological Research Letters Volume 90, Number 1 January/February 2019 257

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/90/1/251/4602968/srl-2017108.1.pdf

by University of Liverpool user
 Table 4
Input Catalogs for Western United States (WUS) Catalog A
Catalog Rank Magnitude Type Code Time Note*
NSHM + nontectonic catalogs 1 Mixed SHM 1882–present 1
Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 2 Mixed UC3 1769–2012 2
St. Louis University 3a M wo SLU 1962–present 3
Global CMT Project 3b M wo CMT 1976–present 4
CEUS-SSC Project 3c M wo SSC 1967–2008 5
Stover and Coffman 4 Mixed USH 1769–1989 6
Stover, Reagor, and Algermissen 5 Mixed SRA 1857–1986 7
USGS PDEa 6 Mixed PDE 1960–2006 8
USGS PDEb 7 Mixed PDE 2007–present 9
Centennial catalog 8 Mixed EVC 1900–2002 10
*1, file maintained by NSHM project (see the Step 1: Reformat and Merge Input Catalogs; Get Mw and Rate Parameters section), +
nontectonic catalog from USGS (see Data and Resources), + nontectonic catalog from GSC (see Data and Resources); 2, UC3 (see
Data and Resources; Felzer, 2013; Field et al., 2013); 3, SLU (see Data and Resources; Herrmann et al., 2011); 4, CMT (see Data and
Resources; Dziewonski et al., 1981; Ekström et al., 2012); 5, SSC (see Data and Resources; EPRI/DOE/NRC, 2012, table B–2); 6, USH
(see Data and Resources; Stover and Coffman, 1993); 7, SRA (see Data and Resources; Stover et al., 1984); 8 and 9, PDE (see Data
and Resources); 10, EVC (see Data and Resources; Engdahl and Villaseñor, 2002).

Table 5
Input Catalogs for WUS Catalog B
Catalog Rank Magnitude Type Code Time Note*
NSHM + nontectonic catalogs 1 Mixed SHM 1882–present 1
St. Louis University 2a M wo SLU 1962–present 2
Global CMT Project 2b M wo CMT 1976–present 3
CEUS-SSC Project 2c M wo SSC 1967–2008 4
Stover and Coffman 3 Mixed USH 1769–1989 5
Stover, Reagor, and Algermissen 4 Mixed SRA 1857–1986 6
USGS PDEa 5 Mixed PDE 1960–2006 7
USGS PDEb 6 Mixed PDE 2013–present 8
GSC 7 Mixed GSC 1985–present 9
Centennial catalog 8 Mixed EVC 1900–2002 10
Basin and Range catalog 9 M wu PCH 1855–1999 11
California Geological Survey 10 Mixed CGS 1872–2006 12
*1, file maintained by NSHM project (see the Step 1: Reformat and Merge Input Catalogs; Get Mw and Rate Parameters section), +
nontectonic catalog from USGS (see Data and Resources), + nontectonic catalog from GSC (see Data and Resources); 2, St. Louis
University (SLU, see Data and Resources; Herrmann et al., 2011); 3, CMT (see Data and Resources; Dziewonski et al., 1981; Ekström
et al., 2012); 4, SSC (see Data and Resources; EPRI/DOE/NRC, 2012, table B–2); 5, USH (see Data and Resources; Stover and
Coffman, 1993); 6, SRA (see Data and Resources; Stover et al., 1984); 7 and 8, PDE (see Data and Resources); 9, GSC (see Data and
Resources); 10, EVC (see Data and Resources; Engdahl and Villaseñor, 2002); 11, PCH (see Data and Resources; Pancha et al.,
2006); 12, California Geological Survey (CGS, see Data and Resources; Felzer and Cao, 2007).

mb > 5:26 (Sipkin, 2003). Adjustments are made for M L and
M S based on relationships plotted in Utsu (2002). M D and M c
are assumed to be unsaturated.
Magnitude uncertainty is taken from one of two sources:
(1) σ m listed in an input catalog, if available or (2) estimated
era-based σ m . N
is calculated using equation (2).
WUS Catalog Summary
Catalog A from step 1, wmm_wg.c1, lists about 148,000
records through 2016. About 2200 explosions (including Ne-
vada Test Site) and mining-related earthquakes are contributed
from the nontectonic catalogs, and a few hundred more are
identified within mining zones. These records and about

258 Seismological Research Letters Volume 90, Number 1 January/February 2019

Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/90/1/251/4602968/srl-2017108.1.pdf

by University of Liverpool user
 wmm.c3 (Mwe3.5+,1850–2016)
50°
40°
30°
M=4
M=5
M=6
M=7
Mining zone
–120° –110°
▴ Figure 3. Catalog wmm.c3 (1850–2016, M we  3:5). Explo-
sions and mining-related events are deleted, and the catalog
is declustered. The dashed line shows the boundary of the NSHM
western United States catalog region. The dotted line shows the
boundary of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast
catalog zone.
49,000 duplicates are deleted in step 2. Catalog B from step 1,
wmm_rw.c1, lists about 96,000 records. About 4000 explosions
and mining-related earthquakes and 27,000 duplicates are de-
leted in step 2. After step 2, the catalogs are trimmed inside (A)
and outside (B) the UCERF boundary and merged to make
wmm.c2. Then wmm.c2 is declustered to make wmm.c3 using
GK74 as published. To enable consistent summaries and com-
parisons, wmm.c2 and wmm.c3 are trimmed to 1850–2016,
M we  3:5, and the NSHM WUS catalog region shown
in Figure 3.
Trimmed wmm.c2 inside the UCERF zone lists about
11,510 records. For 1850–1929, there are about 340 records,
mostly M wu. For 1930–2016, there are about 11,170 records:
1% are M wo from the rank 3 catalogs in Table 4, 8% are other
M wo , and 7% are various M wu . For the rest, about 84% of the
11,170, M wq is converted from another size measure: 75% M L ,
1% mb , 5% M D , and 3% M c .
Trimmed wmm.c2 outside the UCERF zone lists about
5300 records. For 1850–1929, there are about 130 records:
25% and 14% are M wq converted from I 0 and FA, respectively;
6% are various M wo ; 50% are various M wu ; and 5% other. For
Seismological Research Letters
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/90/1/251/4602968/srl-2017108.1.pdf
by University of Liverpool user
1930–2016, there are about 5170 records: 6% are M wo from
the rank 2 catalogs in Table 5, 3% are other M wo, 3% are vari-
ous M wu , and 0.3% other. For the rest, about 88% of the 5170,
M wq is converted from another size measure: 50% M L , 10%
probable (but uncertain) M L , 21% mb , 4% M D , 1% M S , 1%
converted I 0 or FA, and 1% other.
Trimmed wmm.c3 inside the UCERF zone lists about
4030 records, 250 for 1850–1929 and 3780 for 1930–2016.
Trimmed wmm.c3 outside the UCERF zone lists about 2530
records, 100 for 1850–1929 and 2430 for 1930–2016. Relative
contributions by input catalog and magnitude type are similar
to wmm.c2. Trimmed wmm.c3 is mapped in Figure 3.
DISCUSSION
We provide a snapshot of the earthquake catalogs for the
USGS NSHM. The methodology has been developed with
updates in mind, and it is adaptable for other hazard studies.
The development process is ongoing, and here we discuss some
known issues, continuing needs, and improvements that are
being considered.
In any catalog-building effort, there is a natural tendency
to try to include smaller earthquakes. Considering the CEUS,
we estimate M w with conversions developed from empirical
analysis of magnitude and intensity data (EPRI/DOE/NRC,
–100°
2012). M w is not generally available for small earthquakes, and
it is unclear if the current relationships are suitable for them.
On a national scale, it is debatable whether small earthquakes
are needed to define patterns and rates for hazard analysis. If
thresholds are lowered in the future, better M w treatments will
be required. Even with the current thresholds, improved M w
estimates based on new research would be welcome for any
region.
Working at a national scale, some simplifications in the
methodology are justified, but when the data support it, more
complexity could be introduced. For example, updated proce-
dures for computing M w or for identifying duplicates might
use more refined classifications of the input data by era, region,
magnitude range, or source catalog. Innovations might include
new treatments for old earthquakes, for earthquakes in the
CEUS east and west of longitude −105°, for induced earth-
quakes, or for data from specific seismic networks. If other
methods for estimating M w are introduced (e.g., orthogonal
regression), the M w classification should be updated
accordingly.
In recent updates, the USGS Preliminary Determination
of Epicenters (PDE) catalogs (see Data and Resources) have
made increasingly larger contributions. PDE is authoritative
for modern coverage, and it also continues to incorporate older
earthquakes. It might come to replace some of our legacy cata-
logs, potentially simplifying the update process. PDE now also
lists some USGS-determined M w values, and we will consider
including these with high rank.
Declustering has been mentioned as a controversial topic.
Research into earthquake clustering behavior might lead to
better methods. Within the established windowing approach,
Volume 90, Number 1 January/February 2019 259
 improvements might come from better parameterizations
based on modern data, especially for induced seismicity in
the CEUS.
A known weakness of the current analysis is the identifi-
cation of nontectonic earthquakes. Although most mining-
related earthquakes in the U.S. Intermountain West fall below
our magnitude thresholds, we nevertheless hope to improve
this part of the catalog. We are also working to stay abreast of
developments in induced seismicity in the CEUS, and we want
to extend these efforts to the WUS.
DATA AND RESOURCES
The earthquake catalogs compiled in this analysis are available at
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ScienceBase (Mueller, 2018;
doi: 10.5066/F7P26X4R). Central and eastern United States
(CEUS) catalogs emm.c1, emm*.c2, and emm*.c3 are described
in the CEUS Catalog Summary section. An individual input
catalog (reformatted) can be extracted from emm.c1 by search-
ing for its three-character code; see Table 1. WUS catalogs
wmm*.c1, wmm.c2, and wmm.c3 are described in the WUS
Catalog Summary section. An individual input catalog (refor-
matted) can be extracted from wmm*.c1 by searching for its
three-character code; see Tables 4 and 5. Some input catalogs
were accessed from the following websites: USGS Preliminary
Determination of Epicenters (PDE, tectonic and non-tectonic,
earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search, last accessed February
2017); Geological Survey of Canada (GSC, tectonic and non-
tectonic, www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca, last accessed Feb-
ruary 2017); CEUS Seismic Source Characterization (SSC,
tectonic and non-tectonic, www.ceus-ssc.com/Report/Downloads
.html, last accessed February 2013); St. Louis University (SLU,
www.eas.slu.edu/eqc/eqc_mt/MECH.NA/MECHFIG, file slunacata-
log.csv, last accessed February 2017); Global Centroid Moment
Tensor (CMT, www.globalcmt.org , last accessed August 2016);
Centennial (EVC, ciei.colorado.edu/pub/user/engdahl/Tarr, last
accessed November 2003, currently at earthquake.usgs.gov/
data/centennial); National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research (NCE, folkworm.ceri.memphis.edu/catalogs/html/cat
_nceer.html, last accessed March 2006); Oklahoma Geological
Survey (OGS, wichita.ogs.ou.edu/eq/catalog , last accessed Janu-
ary 2017). The remaining input catalogs were accessed at: Stover
and Coffmann (1993) and Stover et al. (1984) (USH and SRA,
files on USGS computer, last accessed 1995); Felzer (2013)
(UC3, computer file from K. Felzer, last accessed April 2013);
Felzer and Cao (2007, California Geological Survey [CGS],
computer file from K. Felzer, last accessed March 2007); Pancha
et al. (2006) (PCH, computer file from Y. Zeng, last accessed
May 2006). The website for the National Seismic Hazard Mod-
eling (NSHM) Project is earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards (last ac-
cessed December 2017).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The methodology was developed and refined over many years
and several National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) updates.
260 Seismological Research Letters Volume 90, Number 1
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/90/1/251/4602968/srl-2017108.1.pdf
by University of Liverpool user
The author is grateful for help and encouragement from U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) colleagues, including Art Frankel,
Susan Hoover, Allison Shumway, Karen Felzer, Morgan Mo-
schetti, Oliver Boyd, Mark Petersen, Harley Benz, Paul Earle,
Jim Dewey, Margaret Hopper, and Rus Wheeler. The author
was fortunate to attend some of the central eastern United
States–Seismic Source Characterization (CEUS-SSC) work-
shops, where he learned about catalogs from Bob Youngs,
Gabriel Toro, and Walter Arabasz. Input along the way from
Bob Herrmann, Stephen Halchuk, Martin Chapman, Jon Ake,
Vince Matthews, and Chris Cramer is appreciated. Walter Ara-
basz and Martin Chapman reviewed an early draft and made
many valuable suggestions. Later versions were reviewed by
Morgan Moschetti, Jill McCarthy, Janet Slate, and two anony-
mous reviewers at SRL. Ken Rukstales developed the Science-
Base structure and integrated the files; this material was
reviewed by Greg Smoczyk and Susan Hoover.
REFERENCES
Andrews, R. D., and A. Holland (2015). Statement on Oklahoma seis-
micity, April 21, 2015: Oklahoma Geological Survey, 2 pp., available
at wichita.ogs.ou.edu/documents/OGS_Statement‑Earthquakes‑4‑21‑15
.pdf (last accessed May 2016).
Arabasz, W. J., J. C. Pechmann, and R. Burlacu (2016). A uniform mo-
ment magnitude earthquake catalog and background seismicity rates
for the Wasatch Front and surrounding Utah region, Appendix E in
Earthquake Probabilities for the Wasatch Front Region in Utah,
Idaho, and Wyoming, Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Pub-
lication 16-3, E1–E126.
Bakun, W. H., and M. G. Hopper (2004a). Magnitudes and locations of
the 1811–1812 New Madrid, Missouri, and the 1886 Charleston,
South Carolina, earthquakes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94, 64–75.
Bakun, W. H., and M. G. Hopper (2004b). Catalog of significant his-
torical earthquakes in the central United States, U.S. Geol. Surv.
Open-File Rept. 2004-1086, 57 pp.
Bakun, W. H., and C. M. Wentworth (1997). Estimating earthquake lo-
cation and magnitude from seismic intensity data, Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 87, 1502–1521.
Bakun, W. H., A. C. Johnston, and M. G. Hopper (2003). Estimating
locations and magnitudes of earthquakes in eastern North America
from modified Mercalli intensities, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 190–
202.
Dziewonski, A. M., T.-A. Chou, and J. H. Woodhouse (1981). Deter-
mination of earthquake source parameters from waveform data
for studies of global and regional seismicity, J. Geophys. Res. 86,
2825–2852.
Ekström, G., M. Nettles, and A. M. Dziewonski (2012). The global CMT
project 2004–2010: Centroid-moment tensors for 13,017
earthquakes, Phys. Earth Planet. In. 200/201, 1–9.
Electric Power Research Institute/Department of Energy/Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (EPRI/DOE/NRC) (2012). Central
and eastern United States seismic source characterization for nuclear
facilities, Final Report, EPRI, USDOE, and USNRC, Palo Alto,
California, available at www.ceus‑ssc.com (last accessed May 2016).
Ellsworth, W. L. (2013). Injection-induced earthquakes, Science 341,
142–149.
Engdahl, E. R., and A. Villaseñor (2002). Global seismicity: 1900–1999,
in International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismol-
ogy, IASPEI, 665–690.
Felzer, K. R. (2007). Appendix I: Calculating California seismicity rates,
U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 2007-1437I, 41 pp.
January/February 2019
 Felzer, K. R. (2013). Appendix K: The UCERF3 earthquake catalog, U.S.
Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 2013-1165, 1–5.
Felzer, K. R., and T. Cao (2007). Appendix H: WGCEP historical
California earthquake catalog, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept.
2007-1437H, 127 pp.
Field, E. H., G. P. Biasi, P. Bird, T. E. Dawson, K. R. Felzer, D. D. Jackson,
K. M. Johnson, T. H. Jordan, C. Madden, A. J. Michael, et al.
(2013). Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version
3 (UCERF3)—The time-independent model, U.S. Geol. Surv.
Open-File Rept. 2013-1165, 97 pp.
Frankel, A. (1995). Mapping seismic hazard in the central and eastern
United States, Seismol. Res. Lett. 66, 8–21.
Frankel, A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E. V. Leyendecker, N.
Dickman, S. Hanson, and M. Hopper (1996). 1996 National Seis-
mic Hazard Maps—Documentation June 1996, U.S. Geol. Surv.
Open-File Rept. 96-532, 110 pp.
Frankel, A. D., C. S. Mueller, T. P. Barnhard, E. V. Leyendecker, R. L.
Wesson, S. C. Harmsen, F. W. Klein, D. M. Perkins, N. C. Dick-
man, S. L. Hanson, et al. (2000). USGS National Seismic Hazard
Maps, Earthq. Spectra 16, 1–19.
Gardner, J. K., and L. Knopoff (1974). Is the sequence of earthquakes in
southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian?, Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 64, 1363–1367.
Grünthal, G., and R. Wahlström (2003). An M w based earthquake cata-
logue for central, northern and northwestern Europe using a hier-
archy of magnitude conversions, J. Seismol. 7, 507–531.
Hanks, T. C., and H. Kanamori (1979). A moment magnitude scale, J.
Geophys. Res. 84, 2348–2350.
Herrmann, R. B., H. Benz, and C. J. Ammon (2011). Monitoring the
earthquake source process in North America, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
101, 2609–2625.
Johnston, A. C. (1994). Seismotectonic interpretations and conclusions
from the stable continental region seismicity database, in The Earth-
quakes of Stable Continental Regions, A. C. Johnston, K. J. Copper-
smith, L. R. Kanter, and C. A. Cornell (Editors), Vol. 1, Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, 4-1–4-103.
Johnston, A. C. (1996). Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes in
stable continental regions—I. Instrumental seismicity, Geophys. J.
Int. 124, 381–414.
Marrone, J., and B. Tavakoli (2013). Curious increase in the occurrence
rate of mainshock seismicity in southeastern US following the 1886
Charleston earthquake, Seismol. Res. Lett. 84, 391, Abstract.
Mueller, C. S. (2018). Earthquake catalogs compiled for the USGS
National Seismic Hazard Models, U.S. Geological Survey Data
Release, doi: 10.5066/F7P26X4R.
Musson, R. M. W. (2012). The effect of magnitude uncertainty on earth-
quake activity rates, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 102, 2771–2775.
Pancha, A., J. G. Anderson, and C. Kreemer (2006). Comparison of seis-
mic and geodetic scalar moment rates across the Basin and Range
Province, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, 11–32.
Pechmann, J. C., S. J. Nava, F. M. Terra, and J. C. Bernier (2007). Local
magnitude determinations for intermountain seismic belt earth-
quakes from broadband digital data, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97,
557–574.
Seismological Research Letters
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/90/1/251/4602968/srl-2017108.1.pdf
by University of Liverpool user
Petersen, M. D., A. D. Frankel, S. C. Harmsen, C. S. Mueller, K. M.
Haller, R. L. Wheeler, R. L. Wesson, Y. Zeng, O. S. Boyd, D.
M. Perkins, et al. (2008). Documentation for the 2008 update
of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, U.S. Geol.
Surv. Open-File Rept. 2008-1128, 61 pp.
Petersen, M. D., M. P. Moschetti, P. M. Powers, C. S. Mueller, K. M.
Haller, A. D. Frankel, Y. Zeng, S. Rezaeian, S. C. Harmsen, O.
S. Boyd, et al. (2014). Documentation for the 2014 update of
the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, U.S. Geol. Surv.
Open-File Rept. 2014-1091, 243 pp.
Petersen, M. D., C. S. Mueller, M. P. Moschetti, S. M. Hoover, A. M.
Shumway, D. E. McNamara, R. A. Williams, A. L. Llenos, W. L.
Ellsworth, A. J. Michael, et al. (2017). 2017 one-year seismic-hazard
forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and
natural earthquakes, Seismol. Res. Lett. 88, no. 3, 772–783, doi:
10.1785/0220170005.
Powers, P. M., and E. H. Field (2013). Appendix O: Gridded seismicity
sources, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 2013-1165, 1–6.
Seeber, L., and J. G. Armbruster (1991). The NCEER-91 earthquake catalog:
Improved magnitudes and recurrence relations for U.S. earthquakes
east of New Madrid, Technical Report NCEER-91-0021, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, New York.
Sipkin, S. A. (2003). A correction to body-wave magnitude mb based on
moment magnitude M w , Seismol. Res. Lett. 74, 739–742.
Stover, C. W., and J. L. Coffman (1993). Seismicity of the United States,
1568–1989 (revised), U.S. Geol. Surv. Profess. Pap. 1527, 418 pp.
Stover, C. W., G. Reagor, and S. T. Algermissen (1984). United States
earthquake data file, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 84-225, 123 pp.
Tinti, S., and F. Mulargia (1985). Effects of magnitude uncertainties on
estimating the parameters in the Gutenberg–Richter frequency–
magnitude law, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 75, 1681–1697.
Toppozada, T. R. (1975). Earthquake magnitude as a function of inten-
sity data in California and western Nevada, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
65, 1223–1238.
Utsu, T. (2002). Relationships between magnitude scales, in International
Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, IASPEI, 733–
746.
Weingarten, M., S. Ge, J. Godt, B. Bekins, and J. Rubinstein (2015).
High-rate injection is associated with the increase in U.S. mid-con-
tinent seismicity, Science 348, 1336–1340.
Wong, I. G., J. R. Humphrey, J. A. Adams, and W. J. Silva (1989). Ob-
servations of mine seismicity in the eastern Wasatch plateau, Utah,
USA: A possible case of implosional failure, Pure Appl. Geophys.
129, 369–405.
Charles S. Mueller
U.S. Geological Survey
Box 25046, MS 966
Denver, Colorado 80225 U.S.A.
cmueller@usgs.gov
Published Online 24 October 2018
Volume 90, Number 1 January/February 2019 261