MOBILE

PENSACOLA

BIRMINGHAM

FLORENCE

HUNTSVILLE

MEMPHIS

LITTLE ROCK

LAFAYETTE

MONROE

BATON ROUGE

NEW ORLEANS

GULF OF MEXICO

MISSISSIPPI

LOUISIANA

ARKANSAS

ALABAMA

TENNESSEE

MISSOURI KENTUCKY

TUSCALOOSA

MONTGOMERY

SHREVEPORT JACKSON

PINE BLUFF

SPRINGFIELD

MITH

EAST GULF COASTAL PLAIN

 OZARK PLATEAUS 

(SPRINGFIELD-SALEM)

 OZARK PLATEAUS 

(BOSTON "MOUNTAINS")

OUACHITA MOUNTAINS

MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL PLAIN

PIEDMONT 

 UPLAND

 TENNESSEE 

VALLEY AND RIDGE

CUMBERLAND 

 PLATEAU

NASHVILLE 

 BASIN

INTERIOR LOW PLATEAUS

 HIGHLAND RIM

WEST GULF 

COASTAL PLAIN

ARKANSAS VALLEY

86°

86°

88°

88°

90°

90°

92°

92°

36° 36°

34° 34°

32° 32°

30° 30°

1976

1878

2

Arkansas

Tennessee

Mississippi

1880

1924

1976

1843

1865 1955

1883

1918

1947

1941 1927

1976

1955

1930

1975

1996

1978

1977

1989, 5 events

1983

2000

1981

2000

1978

2002

1977

1931

1999

2008

1978

1983 1984

1996

1923

1883

1843

1980

2008

2002

1983

1986

1988

1988 1991

2002

1973

1973

1967, 2 events

1992

Newport

Bradford

Augusta

Bald Knob

Judsonia

Kensett

Searcy

Quitman

Heber Springs

Cabot

Jacksonville

McAlmont Lonoke

Carlisle

Hazen

De Valls Bluff

Brinkley

Forrest City

Marianna

Wynne

Clarendon

England

Stuttgart

De Witt

Saint Charles

Marvell

Rosedale

Gunnison

Arkansas City

McGehee

Warren Monticello

Rison Star City

Dumas

Gould

Gillett

Grady

Altheimer

Pine Bluff

Crossett

Hamburg

Lake Village

Greenville

Leland

Hollandale

Eudora

Lake Providence

Tallulah

Monroe

Oak Ridge

Bastrop

Mer Rouge

Oak Grove

Delhi

Rayville

Winnsboro

Columbia

Clarks

Jonesville

Ferriday

Natchez

St. Joseph

Marksville

Memphis

Collierville

Capleville

Olive Branch

Hernando

Tunica

Coldwater

Millington

Bartlett

West Memphis

Parkin Earle

Rosemark

Somerville

Harrisburg Covington

Osceola

West Helena

Helena

Vicksburg

Yazoo City

Edwards

Clinton

Raymond

Crystal Springs

Watersville

Magnolia

McComb

Summit

Brookhaven

Kentwood

Arnite City

Hammond

Springfield

Denham Springs

Zachary

Clinton

Centerville

Gloster

Simmesport

Port Barre

Opelousas

Melville New Roads

Bunkie

Church Point Arnaudville

Carencro

Breaux Bridge

Lafayette

New Iberia

St. Martinville

Plaquemine

White Castle

Lutcher

Edgard

Reserve

Port Allen

Baton

Rouge

Bay St. Louis Long Beach

Picayune

Wiggins

Lucedale Lumberton

Purvis

Columbia

Hattesburg

Petal Richton

Leakesville

Pascagoula

Biloxi Ocean Springs

Slidell

Covington

Bogalusa

Mobile

Bayou la Batre

Fairhope

Citronelle

Saraland

Ellisville

New Orleans

Jackson

Waynesvoro Laurel

Collins

Magee

Bay Springs

Quitman

Thomasville

Linden

Demopolis

Eutaw

York

Aliceville

Brooksville

Shuqualak

Louisville

Ackerman

Kosciusko

Durant

Pelahatchie

Morton Forest

Newton

Meridian

Philadelphia

Union

Canton

Lexington

Corinth

Ripley

Boonville

Luka

Florence

Sheffield

Littleville

Russellville

Bruce

Hamilton

Guin

Winfield

Fayette

Reform

Haleyville

Amory

Okolona

New Houlka

Bruce

Water Valley

Oxford

Sardis

Como

Batesville

Grenada

Europa

West Point

Aberdeen

Columbus

Starkville

Bolivar

Brownsville

Jackson

Henderson

Lexington Parsons

Hohenwald

Linden

Clifton

Savannah

Pontotoc

Tupelo

Jackson

Dermott

Tchula

Belzoni

Greenwood

Moorhead Itta Bena

Indianola

Mound Bayou

Shelby

Drew

Tylertown

Grove Hill

Gulfport 1853

1986

1984

1982

2001

1927

1941

1982

1843 1923

2004

1982

Gulf Margin Normal Fault Area

Wiggins Uplift Area

Louisiana

Alabama

1889

1911

2 events

1938

1983

1923

2008

1978

1996

MOBILE

LEE

WHITE

DREW

HINDS

LEE

YAZOO

CLARKE

ASHLEY

DESHA

AMITE

JONES

BALDWIN

JACKSON

WAYNE

SUMTER

PICKENS

SHELBY

BOLIVAR

PERRY

RANKIN

WAYNE

COPIAH

SMITH JASPER

KEMPER

PIKE

ARKANSAS

LONOKE

LEAKE

CROSS

HARRISON

GREENE

HOLMES

ATTALA

SCOTT

MARION

PRAIRIE

CLARKE

CHOCTAW

CHICOT

PHILLIPS

MONROE

LAMAR

GREENE

JEFFERSON

PANOLA

TENSAS

ST TAMMANY

FAYETTE

TATE

ST LANDRY

CLAY

POINSETT

WASHINGTON

MADISON

AVOYELLES

NOXUBEE

ST BERNARD

HARDIN

MARENGO

WARREN

LEFLORE

LAMAR

IBERVILLE

CARROLL

STONE

MADISON

ADAMS

MARION

SIMPSON

IBERIA

LINCOLN

MARSHALL

PEARL

RIVER

NEWTON

FRANKLIN

WINSTON

TIPPAH

LINCOLN

FRANKLIN

MOREHOUSE

FAYETTE

HALE

COLBERT

LA SALLE

UNION

TUNICA

WILKINSON

TANGIPAHOA

LAFAYETTE

NESHOBA

TIPTON

CONCORDIA

MCNAIRY

GEORGE

BRADLEY

CALHOUN

SUNFLOWER

CATAHOULA

CLEBURNE

HARDEMAN

LIVINGSTON

JACKSON

FRANKLIN

DE SOTO

ST FRANCIS

WASHINGTON

ST MARTIN

LAUDERDALE

COAHOMA

RICHLAND

HANCOCK

FORREST

LOWNDES

WOODRUFF

CRITTENDEN

ITAWAMBA

JEFFERSON

BENTON

WASHINGTON

ALCORN

SHARKEY

WEBSTER

CALDWELL

OUACHITA

GRENADA

PULASKI

PRENTISS

UNION

CLAIBORNE

MADISON

PONTOTOC

TALLAHATCHIE

HAYWOOD

QUITMAN

CHICKASAW

YALOBUSHA

OKTIBBEHA

LAWRENCE

CHOCTAW

ISSAQUENA

PERRY

ORLEANS

WALTHALL

ST HELENA

POINTE

COUPEE

LAUDERDALE

CLEVELAND

COVINGTON

LEWIS

EAST FELICIANA

ST JAMES

ASCENSION

WEST FELICIANA

INDEPENDENCE

VERMILION

LAFAYETTE

JEFFERSON

DAVIS

DECATUR

HENDERSON

ST CHARLES

UNION

ASSUMPTION

MONROE

TUSCALOOSA

HUMPHREYS

TISHOMINGO

MISSISSIPPI

CHESTER

EAST

CARROLL

MONTGOMERY

WEST

CARROLL

EAST BATON

ROUGE

JEFFERSON

RAPIDES

ACADIA

ST JOHN

THE BAPTIST

LAWRENCE

ST BERNARD

LAUDERDALE

WINSTON

STONE

EVANGELINE

WEST BATON

ROUGE

GRANT

CRAIGHEAD

ST MARY ST MARTIN

TIPTON

GRANT

HICKMAN

MADISON

PLAQUEMINES

WEST FELICIANA

SALINE

88°

88°

89°

89°

90°

90°

91°

91°

92°

92°

35°

35°

34°

34°

33°

33°

32°

32°

31°

31°

30°

30°

0 25 50 75 100 125

KILOMETERS

0 25 50 75 100 125

MILES

EXPLANATION

%g (2%/50yrs)

160–200

120–159

80–119

60–79

50–59

40–49

30–39

20–29

18–19

16–17

14–15

12–13

10–11

8–9

6–7

4–5

2–3

0–1

Physiographic Province

Urbanized Area

NEW MADRID

SEISMIC ZONE

NEW MADRID

SEISMIC ZONE

EXPLANATION

Magnitude

< 3.0

3.0–3.9

4.0–4.9

5.0–5.9

6.0–6.9

> 6.9 

LEE County Name

Urbanized Area

Earthquake Locations

COLUMBIA

Seismic hazard is expressed as 

peak ground acceleration (PGA) 

on firm rock, in percent g, expected 

to be exceeded in a 50-year period 

with a probability of 2 percent.

Data from Petersen and others, 2008

Base from National Hydrologic Database 

and Digital Chart of the World (ESRI, 1993)

Physiographic regions are divisions 

of the land surface based on terrain 

texture, rock type, and geologic 

structure and history as defined by 

Fenneman and Johnson (1946). 

Differences in near-surface geologic 

conditions affect how seismic energy 

propagates through the ground and 

how it is amplified at the ground 

surface.

New Madrid Seismic Zone

 and Liquefaction Area

Saline River

 Fault Zone

EL DORADO

Compiled by Richard L. Dart1 and Michael B. E. Bograd2

2011

Prepared in cooperation with 

the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality

Earthquakes in Mississippi and Vicinity 1811–2010

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Regional Seismic Hazard

SCALE 1:4 000 000

Geographic Projection NAD83

OPEN-FILE REPORT 2011–1117

AREAS OF KNOWN OR SUSPECTED DEFORMATION AND FAULTING

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Quaternary Faults Database (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/

qfaults) documents several areas of known and inferred recent deformation and faulting in the vicinity of

Mississippi. The word recent refers to events that are of Quaternary age (younger than 2.588 million

years). These areas of deformation and faulting may have an influence on future seismic events in

Mississippi. These areas are shown on the earthquake location map (center right) and described below.

Gulf-Margin Normal Fault Area

This is an area of mostly seaward facing normal faults bordering the northern Gulf of Mexico from

western Florida to eastern and southern Texas (Ewing and Lopez, 1991). The Gulf Margin Area formed as

a result of rapid deposition of a thick sequence of marine sediments over time onto the southern margin of

North America (DuBar and others, 1991; Salvador, 1991a; Salvador, 1991b). Normal faulting was

initiated when the massive sediment load began to collapse and spread seaward. This pattern of sediment

accumulation is ongoing. As a result, the thick, normal faulted stratigraphic sequence of the Gulf margin

may be mechanically decoupled from the underlying crust (Zoback and Zoback, 1991). The presence of

the normal faults throughout the sediment sequence (Ewing and Lopez, 1991) demonstrates that the

sequence is sliding and extending seaward. The stress field and seismogenic potential of the underlying

crust are unknown; therefore, the ability of the area to generate significant seismic ruptures that could

cause damaging ground motion is unclear. This discussion of the Gulf-Margin Normal Fault Area was

derived, in part, from a compilation by Wheeler and Heinrich, 1998.

Monroe Uplift Area

This is an area of possible Quaternary uplift in northeastern Louisiana as evidenced by the geomorphology

of rivers and streams that cross the area and by repeat geodetic surveys (Burnett and Schumm, 1983).

Subsurface data show the Monroe uplift to be a buried structural dome (Johnson, 1958) associated with

Late Cretaceous igneous activity that blends into the surrounding regional structure. Other than two areas

of earthquake-induced sand blows of late Holocene age (Cox, 2008), the uplift lacks conspicuous

geomorphic expression and is located in an area of minimal historical seismic activity. This discussion of

the Monroe Uplift Area was derived, in part, from a compilation by Crone, 1998a.

New Madrid Seismic Zone and Liquefaction Area

This is the most seismically active area in central and eastern North America. In the winter of 1811–1812,

at least three major earthquakes occurred in the New Madrid seismic zone. They were among the largest

historical earthquakes to occur in North America. These earthquakes produced widespread liquefaction

(sand blows and sand-filled fissures) throughout the seismic zone and surface deformation at several

locations. Evidence of Quaternary faulting in the New Madrid region is based on the occurrence of the

major 1811–1812 earthquakes, the abundant ongoing seismic activity, and surface deformation associated

with the Reelfoot scarp. Other than the fault associated with the Reelfoot scarp, individual seismogenic faults

in the New Madrid seismic zone are not expressed at the ground surface. Their general subsurface

locations are inferred to be associated with areas of abundant recorded microseismicity.

The modern seismicity in the New Madrid seismic zone is associated with the Reelfoot rift (Ervin and

McGinnis, 1975), a northeasterly-trending, 70-km-wide, deeply buried graben (Hildenbrand and others,

1982; Hildenbrand, 1985). The seismicity and current deformation in the region is controlled by a regional

stress field in which the maximum compressive stress is oriented approximately northeast-southwest.

Within this stress field, ancient faults, most of which originally formed as extensional features during

rifting, have been reactivated mainly as strike-slip faults. The modern seismicity is concentrated into three

major trends that form a northeasterly-trending, zigzag pattern.

The most widespread expression of recent strong earthquakes in the New Madrid region is the abundance

of liquefaction features, concentrated in a 40- to 60-km-wide belt from near Charleston, Missouri on the

northeast to south of Marked Tree, Arkansas (Obermeier, 1988). Most of these features formed during the

major earthquakes of 1811–1812. This discussion of the New Madrid Seismic Zone and Liquefaction Area

was derived, in part, from a compilation by Crone and Schweig, 1994.

This map summarizes nearly 200 years of Mississippi earthquake history. It is one in a series of four

similar State earthquake history maps. All four maps were collaborative efforts between the U.S.

Geological Survey and respective State agencies. Work on the Mississippi map was done in collaboration

with the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. The three previous maps, for Virginia (Tarr

and Wheeler, 2006), Ohio (Dart and Hansen, 2008), and South Carolina (Dart and others, 2010), are

accessible at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1017/, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1221/, and http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/2010/1059/.

As with the three previous maps, the history of Mississippi earthquakes was derived from letters, journals,

diaries, newspaper accounts, academic journal articles, and beginning in the early 20th century,

instrumental recordings (seismograms). All historical (pre-instrumental) earthquakes that were large

enough to be felt have been located based on felt reports. Some of these events caused damage to

buildings and their contents. The more recent widespread use of seismograph recordings has allowed

many smaller earthquakes, previously undetected, to be located. The earthquake location map (center

right) shows historically located and instrumentally recorded earthquakes in and near Mississippi.

EARTHQUAKES

Earthquakes occur as a result of slip on faults, typically many kilometers underground, and most

earthquakes occur along the boundaries of moving crustal plates. Mississippi is within the North American

plate. The nearest plate boundary is approximately 1,700 kilometers south of Mississippi near the coast of

Honduras, where the North American and Caribbean plates join, and is not related to the earthquakes in

this region. Usually, it is not possible to determine exactly which faults cause earthquakes. Accordingly,

the most direct indicators of earthquake hazards are the earthquakes themselves, not the faults on which

they occur, or the motions of crustal plates. No known seismogenic faults have been mapped at the ground

surface within Mississippi.

Before earthquakes were instrumentally recorded, their locations at the ground surface (epicenters) were

estimated, typically within a few tens of kilometers of their actual locations. Even with modern

instrumentation, earthquake locations within the Earth (hypocenters) are only approximations, usually

within several kilometers of their actual sub-surface locations. However, in areas where seismic networks

of closely spaced recording instruments exist earthquakes are more accurately located. Earthquake

epicenter locations for Mississippi and vicinity are plotted on the map (center right). The earthquake

location symbols used represent the best estimates of location and magnitude for both pre-instrumental

and instrumental earthquakes. These data were compiled from several earthquake sources (see list, lower

right).

An earthquake's magnitude (M) and intensity are measurements of its size and the severity of ground

shaking, respectively. Although earthquake magnitude is characterized by a single number,

intensity is expressed as a range of values based on varying levels of ground shaking over the affected

(felt) area. Typically, ground shaking will decrease from a maximum near the earthquake's epicenter to its

lowest levels near the edge of the felt area. Intensity values are determined from the Modified Mercalli

Intensity Scale (lower right) based on written accounts (letters, journals, and diaries) and published

records (newspapers and official reports) of the ground shaking effects on people, buildings, and the

landscape. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale consists of a range of values from I, barely felt or

not felt, to XII, total destruction.

Isoseismal maps show the distribution of intensity values and the general pattern of decreasing intensity

away from an earthquake’s epicenter. Isoseismal maps also illustrate how different ground conditions can

affect ground shaking resulting in intensity patterns that may be more irregular than expected. The

isoseismal map (far right) illustrates the extent and intensity of ground shaking for the December 16, 1811

northeast Arkansas intensity XI earthquake.

An earthquake's size reflects the total energy released and is measured in logarithmic units of magnitude.

This means that the amount of energy released during an earthquake will be 30 times greater for a

magnitude 5 earthquake than for a magnitude 4 earthquake (Bolt, 1978). There are several methods of

calculating magnitude; all are based on seismic wave variables as recorded on earthquake seismograms.

The different measuring methods can give slightly different magnitude values for the same earthquake. As

a result, differences of several tenths of a magnitude may be reported. A more complete discussion of

magnitude and the U.S. Geological Survey policy on reporting magnitude can be found at

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/docs/020204mag_policy.php. For pre-instrumental earthquakes,

magnitudes are estimated from intensity values that were recorded at the time of the earthquake or shortly

after.

EASTERN U.S. EARTHQUAKES

Earthquakes are less common east of the Rocky Mountains than in Pacific coast states, such as California.

However, because of differences in geologic properties, an earthquake in the central United States (U.S.)

of the same magnitude as a West Coast earthquake can affect a much larger area, by about ten times. A

magnitude 4 central U.S. earthquake typically can be felt 100 km (60 mi) from where it occurred, and can

cause damage near its source. A magnitude 5.5 central U.S. earthquake usually can be felt 500 km (300

mi) from where it occurred, and sometimes causes damage as far away as 40 km (25 mi).

EARTHQUAKES IN MISSISSIPPI AND VICINITY

In terms of its tectonic setting, Mississippi is part of a much larger province known as the Stable

Continental Region (Wheeler, 2003) which includes all of eastern North America. Exclusive of several

selected areas, like the New Madrid Seismic Zone, the Stable Continental Region undergoes infrequent

earthquakes. When earthquakes do occur, they can happen almost anywhere and at irregular intervals. As

stated previously, earthquakes are generated as the result of movement on faults in bedrock often

thousands of feet below the ground surface. Although there are many known faults within the Stable

Continental Region of North America, few of the earthquakes that occur here are associated with known

faults.

During the last 200 years Mississippi has not undergone large magnitude earthquakes, and current

seismological data suggests that Mississippi is not an area where large earthquakes are likely to occur. The

earthquake location map (center right) shows only sparse, low-magnitude seismicity within the State.

Strong ground shaking is possible, however, and would likely result from a large earthquake located in the

New Madrid Seismic Zone. Regardless, damage from smaller magnitude earthquakes has occurred in the

recent past. Stover and Coffman (1993) report that the 1931 magnitude 4.7 earthquake in north-central

Mississippi caused damage to buildings in and near the town of Charleston in Tallahatchie County. Minor

damage in the town of Greenville in Washington County resulted from the 1967 magnitude 4.3

earthquake in the western part of the State.

Saline River Fault Zone Area

Quaternary deformation in this area is inferred and is thought to be associated with a trend of

earthquake epicenters that follows the Saline River in central and southeastern Arkansas along the

northeastern margin of the Monroe uplift (Cox and VanArsdale, 1997). Cox and VanArsdale

describe several small-displacement faults of various orientations exposed in road cuts and in an

exploratory trench dug in the area. From shallow seismic reflection- data collected, Cox and Van

Arsdale have interpreted buried faults. The relationship of the exposed features to the deeper

structures and to the regional seismicity is not well determined. Because there is no significant

geomorphic expression of any known or suspected faults, active deformation is questionable. This

discussion of the Saline River Fault Zone Area was derived from a compilation by Crone, 1998b.

Wiggins Uplift Area

The Wiggins uplift, a feature centered in southern Mississippi, is defined on the basis of subsurface

data and is associated with an absence of a portion of the overlying stratigraphic section (Cagle and

Kahn, 1983; Ewing, 1991). Possible contemporary tectonic uplift in the area has been inferred from

fluvial geomorphic evidence (Burnett and Schumm, 1983; Schumm, 1986). The suspected uplift,

however, is not related to known faults and there is no conspicuous expression at the ground surface.

This discussion of the Wiggins Uplift Area was derived from a compilation by Crone, 1998c.

EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS

Various institutions and agencies compile earthquake data. The earthquake data plotted on the map

(above) are from several sources. Below are these sources and the time periods of their data

listings.

• MDEQ (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality), 1853–2002

• AGS (Arkansas Geological Survey, Ausbrooks, personal commun., 2010), 1699–2010

• NMSN/CERI (New Madrid Seismic Network/Center for Earthquake Research and Information),

1974–2010

• NCEER (National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research), 1627–1985

• PDE (Preliminary Determination of Epicenters), 1973–2010

The earthquake location symbols shown on the map are sized and colored according to magnitude

(see map explanation, above). The map is intended as a general information tool only, and not for

hazard assessment or engineering design purposes.

SEISMIC HAZARD

Seismic hazard maps, like the one shown at right, are tools for determining acceptable risk. As such, they are

critical in helping to save lives and preserve property by providing information essential to the creation and

updating of the seismic design provisions of local building codes. Additional applications of the information

derived from seismic hazard maps include setting insurance rates, determining related ground-failure

hazards, engaging in disaster response planning, and promoting earthquake education.

Some level of seismic hazard from earthquake ground shaking exists in every part of the United States. The

severity of the ground shaking, however, can vary greatly from place to place. Regional seismic hazard maps

illustrate this variation. The hazard shown on seismic hazard maps is based on a variety of factors, such as

earthquake rate of occurrence, magnitude, extent of affected area, strength and pattern of ground shaking,

and geologic setting.

Because many buildings and other structures in the central United States are not built to withstand severe

ground shaking, damage could be catastrophic in the event of a powerful earthquake. The generalized

seismic hazard map (right) illustrates this hazard. It is a computer generated contour map (Petersen and

others, 2008) portraying seismic hazard calculated by the USGS as bands of color (cooler for lesser hazard,

warmer for greater hazard). Shaking level is expressed as percentage of the acceleration of gravity (%g), and

seismic hazard values are computed for particular time intervals (here, 50 years) and probability of

exceedance (here, 2 percent). For example, the hazard value in Monroe, La., is between 6–8%g. That means

structures built on firm rock have a 1 in 50 chance (2-percent probability) of undergoing ground shaking of

6%–8%g or higher in the next 50 years. In terms of shaking, the acceleration a person or object experiences

is proportional to the force applied to it by the passing seismic wave. The value 50 is a random amount and

has no inherent significance.

Seismic hazard maps are estimates of how the ground in a particular area is likely to respond to local and

regional earthquakes. They differ from isoseismal maps in that they are probability maps, illustrating likely

shaking levels. Sediment and soil properties near the ground surface are important in hazard map design.

During an earthquake seismic energy radiates in all directions as waves. As the seismic waves move upward

they are amplified or de-amplified as they travel through sediment and soil layers, thus, greatly affecting the

level of ground shaking that might occur.

For additional information on seismic hazard mapping, consult these internet web links:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/ceus//urban_map/index.php

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/

INTERNET EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION RESOURCES

Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS): http://www.ncedc.org/anss/catalog-search.html. Last accessed on April 27, 2010. Information on U.S. earthquakes.

Center for Earthquake Research and Information (CERI):http://www.ceri.memphis.edu/seismic/catalogs/cat_nm.html. Last accessed on April 27, 2010.

Information on New Madrid region earthquakes.

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI): http://www.eeri.org/site/. Last accessed on March 11, 2010. Technical information on earthquakes.

National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER):http://folkworm.ceri.memphis.edu/catalogs/html/cat_nceer.html. Last accessed on April 27.

Information on Central U.S. earthquakes.

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): http://www.nehrp.gov/ and the National Seismic Hazards Maps Program

(NSHM): http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2008/catalogs/. Last accessed on Mary 15, 2010. Information on hazards risk reduction

in the United States and information on U.S. probabilistic maps and data..

National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC/DNAG/NOAA):http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/earthqk.shtml. Last accessed on March 11, 2010. Information

on geophysical data products and services.

National Hazards Center, a resource for information concerning science and policy aspects of disasters: http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/. Last accessed on

March 11, 2010. Information on natural hazards.

U.S. Geological Survey National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), Preliminary Determination of Epicenters (PDE), Significant U.S. Earthquakes (Stover

and Coffman, 1993), Significant Earthquakes in the U.S. catalog (USHIS), and Eastern, Central and Mountain States of the

U.S. (SRA): http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/epic/ ; and Earthquake Hazard Program: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/, call toll-free

1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). Last accessed on May 15, 2010. Information on global earthquakes.

Southeastern U.S. Seismic Network (SEUSSN) of the Virginia Tech Seismological

Observatory: http://www.geol.vt.edu/outreach/vtso/anonftp/catalog/susn2006cat.txt . Last accessed on May 15, 2010.

Earthquakes labeled by date 

are listed in the tables (right).

MISSISSIPPI EARTHQUAKES

Labeled on map, left)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Yr Mo Day Lat(°N.) Long(°W.) Mag/Int Source

 (UTC)

1853 09 11 30.40 -88.87 III? MDEQ (Bograd)

1923 03 27 34.60 -89.70 3.7 NCEER

1927 11 13 32.30 -90.20 3.4 NCEER

1931 12 17 34.10 -89.80 4.7 NCEER

1941 06 28 32.30 -90.80 3.0 NCEER

1955 02 01 30.40 -89.10 4.1 NCEER

1967 06 04 33.55 -90.84 4.3 NCEER

1967 06 29 33.55 -90.84 3.4 MDEQ (Bograd)

1973 01 08 33.80 -90.60 3.5 NCEER

1973 05 25 33.90 -90.80 3.4 NCEER

1975 09 09 30.70 -89.30 3.0 NCEER

1976 10 23 32.00 -88.98 3.1 NCEER

1977 05 03 32.01 -88.48 3.6 MDEQ (Bograd)

1977 11 04 34.01 -89.22 3.4 CERI (TEIC)

1978 01 08 32.80 -88.39 3.0 MDEQ (Bograd)

1978 05 19 34.86 -88.60 2.4 CERI (TEIC)

1978 06 09 32.09 -88.58 3.3 PDE

1978 12 11 31.91 -88.47 3.5 NCEER

1980 10 12 34.26 -89.13 2.6 CERI (TEIC)

1981 02 15 32.16 -88.65 2.4 MDEQ (Bograd)

1983 01 29 34.70 -88.38 2.4 CERI (TEIC)

1983 02 05 34.70 -88.39 2.9 CERI (TEIC)

1983 04 25 34.67 -90.30 1.6 CERI (TEIC)

1983 05 30 32.08 -88.88 2.4 CERI (TEIC)

1984 03 23 34.72 -88.14 2.0 MDEQ (Bograd)

1984 09 25 34.06 -89.82 2.5 CERI (TEIC)

1986 05 11 34.80 -90.23 1.6 CERI (TEIC)

1988 08 01 34.19 -90.35 2.1 CERI (TEIC)

1988 09 24 34.73 -90.54 1.5 CERI (TEIC)

1989 08 23 32.03 -88.87 III? MDEQ (Bograd)

 5 events felt

1991 02 11 34.11 -90.60 2.7 CERI (TEIC)

1992 12 11 33.20 -90.57 2.4 MDEQ (Bograd)

1996 03 25 32.13 -88.67 3.5 PDE

1996 05 13 34.96 -88.25 2.7 MDEQ (Bograd)

1996 08 11 33.58 -90.87 3.5 PDE

1999 02 25 34.10 -89.87 2.9 CERI

2000 01 28 31.87 -88.72 2.7 MDEQ (Bograd)

2000 10 10 32.53 -88.82 2.3 MDEQ (Bograd)

2002 01 06 33.21 -88.52 2.2 MDEQ (Bograd)

2002 08 11 34.34 -90.17 2.8 CERI

2002 10 26 34.07 -90.80 3.1 CERI

2008 01 20 33.92 -89.88 1.7 CERI

2008 05 10 34.35 -88.83 3.1 CERI

2008 06 02 34.65 -89.93 2.2 MDEQ (Bograd)

REGIONAL EARTHQUAKES, MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR GREATER

Labeled on map, left)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Yr Mo Day Lat(°N.) Long(°W.) Mag Source

 (UTC)

1843 01 04 35.50 -89.50 6.2 AGS (Stover)

1843 02 17 35.50 -90.50 4.2 AGS (Stover)

1865 08 17 35.54 -90.40 5.3 AGS (Bakun)

1880 07 14 35.30 -90.30 4.1 CERI

1878 11 19 35.65 -90.25 5.0 AGS (BAKUN)

1883 06 11 35.10 -90.00 4.0 NCEER

1883 12 05 35.70 -91.20 4.0 NCEER

1889 07 20 35.20 -90.00 4.0 NCEER

1911 03 31 33.80 -92.20 4.7 CERI

1911 03 31 33.80 -92.20 4.0 CERI

1918 10 04 35.00 -91.10 4.0 NCEER

1923 11 26 35.5 -90.40 4.1 AGS (Stover)

1923 11 28 35.54 -90.40 5.3 AGS (Stover)

1924 01 01 35.40 -90.30 4.6 AGS (NUTTLI)

1927 05 07 35.65 -90.25 5.3 CERI

1930 10 19 30.10 -91.00 4.2 NCEER

1938 09 18 35.41 -90.25 4.3 NCEER

1941 11 30 35.50 -89.70 3.5 NCEER

1947 12 16 35.60 -90.10 4.2 AGS (Stover)

1955 01 25 35.60 -90.30 4.7 AGS (Jackson)

1976 03 25 35.59 -90.48 5.0 AGS (TECI)

1976 03 25 35.61 -90.48 4.3 NCEER

1982 01 21 35.18 -92.22 4.5 CERI

1982 01 24 35.20 -92.22 4.1 CERI

1982 03 01 35.20 -92.11 4.1 CERI

2001 05 04 35.20 -92.22 4.3 CERI

2004 11 07 32.92 -87.92 4.3 CERI

1U.S. Geological Survey, Box 25046, MS 966, Denver, CO 80225 USA 2 Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Geology,

P.O. Box 2279, Jackson, Miss. 39225, USA

Base from U.S. Geological Survey National Elevation Dataset

(http://nationalmap.gov/viewers.html).

National Hydrologic Database, and Digital Chart of the World (ESRI, 1993) 

Albers equal-area conic projection, standard parallels 30°30’00”

and 35°00’00”, central meridian 81°00’00”, latitude of origin 00°00’00”

Suggested citation:

Dart, R.L., and Bograod, M.B.E., 2011, Earthquakes in Mississippi and

vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1117, 1 sheet.

EXTENT OF DATA COVERAGE

ARKANSAS

MISSISSIPPI

LOUISIANA

TENNESSEE

ALABAMA

87°

90° 87°

93°

93°

33° 33°

30° 30°

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

National Elevation Dataset, National 

Hydrologic Database, and Digital 

Chart of the World (ESRI, 1993)

Albers equal-area conic projection, 

standard parallels 29°30’00” and 

39°30’00”, central meridian -90°

00’00”, latitude of origin 0°00’00”

SCALE 1:5 000 000

0 30 60 90 120 KILOMETERS

0 30 60 90 120 MILES

ISOSEISMAL MAPS

Isoseismal maps show the estimated level of ground shaking (intensity)

experienced during an earthquake. Contemporary newspaper accounts

from cities and towns in the affected region are the primary source of

this information. Intensity values are derived from these observations.

Each intensity observation is assigned a Modified Mercalli Intensity

(MMI) value from one to twelve using Roman numerals (table lower

right). The isoseismal map (right) shows interpolated and contoured

intensity data for the December 16, 1811, intensity XI northeast

Arkansas earthquake. The locations of intensity observations and their

assigned values are shown as solid colored circles. The December 16,

1811 earthquake, at 2:15 am local time (08:15 UTC), was the first event

in the New Madrid sequence. Intensity data for this event came from

Hough and others (2000), Hough and Martin (2002), Bakun and others

(2002), Street (1982), and Nuttli (1973). The data were interpolated using an

inverse distance weighted algorithm. The extent of interpolation was

defined by the locations of the intensity observations used.

Author's Note:

The information presented was derived from existing

sources and earlier publications. Specifically, the general

earthquake and seismic hazard discussions were modified

from Tarr and Wheeler, 2006.

SCALE OF MODIFIED MERCALLI 

INTENSITY (MMI) VALUES

Expressed as Roman numerals, earthquake intensities are not 

instrumentally derived values; they are assigned values based on 

descriptive reports of felt shaking and damage.

I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. 

II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of 

buildings. 

III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper 

floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an 

earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations 

similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.

IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, 

some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make 

cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. 

Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. 

V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, 

windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks 

may stop. 

VI. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few 

instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. 

VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; 

slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable 

damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some 

chimneys broken. 

VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable 

damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. 

Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, 

factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture 

overturned. 

IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; 

well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage 

great in substantial buildings with partial collapse. Buildings 

shifted off foundations. 

X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and 

frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. 

XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. 

Rails bent greatly. 

XII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects 

thrown into the air.

Distribution of intensity for the December 16, 1811, northeast 

Arkansas, maximum intensity XI, magnitude 8.1 earthquake

REFERENCES

Bakun, 

,

W.H., Johnston, A.C., and Hopper, M.G., 2002, Modified Mercalli Intensities (MMI) for Large Earthquakes Near

,

New Madrid, Missouri, in 1811–1812 and Near Charleston, South Carolina, in 1886: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 02–184, 31 p.

Bograd, M.B.E., 2003, Earthquake Epicenters in Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Of

,

fice of

Geology, 1 sheet, scale 1:500,000.

Bolt, B.A., 1978, Earthquakes—Primer: San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company, 241 p.

Burnett, 

,

A.W., and Schumm, S.A., 1983, Alluvial-river response to neotectonic deformation in Louisiana and Mississippi:

Science, v. 222, p. 49–50.

,

Cagle, J.W., and Kahn, M.A., 1983, Smackover-Norphlet stratigraphy, south Wiggins arch, Mississippi and Alabama:

Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, v. 33, p. 23–29.

Cox, R.T ,

., 2008, Investigation of seismically-induced liquefaction in northeast Louisiana: Final Technical Report to U.S.

Geological Survey, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Award Number 08HQGR0008, 16 p.

,

Cox, R.T., and VanArsdale, R.B., 1997, Investigation of surface faulting in the southern Mississippi embayment: Technical

report to U.S. Geological Survey, under contract 1434–HQ–97–GR2–3014, 30 p.

Crone, 

,

A.J., compiler, 1998a, Fault number 1025, Monroe uplift, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States:

U.S. Geological Survey accessed on March 10, 2010 at http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults.

Crone, 

,

A.J., compiler, 1998b, Fault number 1026, Saline River fault zone,in Quaternary fault and fold database of the

United States: U.S. Geological Survey accessed on March 10, 2010 at http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults.

Crone, A.J., compiler, 1998c, Fault number 2660, Wiggins uplift, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States:

,

U.S. Geological Survey accessed on March 10, 2010 at http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults.

Crone, 

,

A.J., and Schweig, E.S., compilers, 1994, Fault number 1023, Reelfoot scarp and New Madrid seismic zone, in

,

Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey accessed on March 10, 2010

at http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults.

Dart, R.L., and Hansen, M.C., 2008, Earthquakes in Ohio and vicinity 1776–2007: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File ,

Report 2008–1221. [Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1221/].

Dart, R.L., 

,

Talwani, Pradeep, and Stevenson, Donald, 2009, Earthquakes in South Carolina and Vicinity 1898–2008: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1059. [Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1059/].

,

DuBar, J.R., Ewing, T.E., Lundelius, E.L., Jr., Otvos, E.G., and Winker, C.D., 1991, Quaternary geology of the Gulf of

,

Mexico Coastal Plain, in Morrison, R.B., ed., Quaternary nonglacial geology-Conterminous U.S.: Geological Society of

America, The Geology of North America, v. K–2, p. 583–610.

Ervin, C.P ,

., and McGinnis, L.D., 1975, Reelfoot rift—Reactivated precursor to the Mississippi embayment: Geological

Society of America Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1287–1295.

ESRI, 1993, Digital Chart of the 

,

World for use with ARC/INFO, data dictionary: Environmental Systems Research

Institute (ESRI), Redlands, California available at http://www.esri.com/.

Ewing, 

,

T.E., 1991, Structural framework,in Salvador, Amos, ed., The Gulf of Mexico basin: Geological Society of

America, The Geology of North America, v. J, p. 31–52.

Ewing, 

,

T.E., and Lopez, R.F., compilers, 1991, Principal structural features, Gulf of Mexico basin,in Salvador, Amos, ed.,

The Gulf of Mexico basin: Geological Society of America, the Geology of North America, v. J, pl. 2.

,

Fenneman, N.M., and Johnson, D.W., 1946, Physical divisions of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey, scale

1:7,000,000, 1 sheet.

Hildenbrand, 

,

T.G., 1985, Rift structure of the northern Mississippi embayment from the analysis of gravity and magnetic

data: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 90, no. B14, p. 12607–12622.

Hildenbrand, 

,

T.G., Kane, M.F., and Hendricks, J.D., 1982, Magnetic basement in the upper Mississippi embayment

,

region—A preliminary report, in McKeown, F.A., and Pakiser, L.C., eds., Investigations of the New Madrid, Missouri,

,

earthquake region: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1236, p. 39–53.

[Available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ ].

,

Johnson, O.H., Jr., 1958, The Monroe uplift: Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, v. 8, p.

24–32.

Obermeier

,

, S.F., 1988, Liquefaction potential in the central Mississippi Valley: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1832, p.

21. [Available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ ].

,

Petersen, M.D., Frankel, A.D., Harmsen, S.C., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Wesson, R.L., Zeng, Yuehua,

,

Boyd, O.S., Perkins, D.M., Luco, Nicolas, Field, E.H., Wills, C.J., and Rukstales, K.S., 2008, Documentation for the

,

2008 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1128,

61 p. [Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1128/ ].

Salvador

,

, Amos, compiler, 1991a, Cross sections of the Gulf of Mexico basin,in Salvador, A., ed., The Gulf of

Mexico basin: Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v. J, pl. 6.

Salvador

,

, Amos, compiler, 1991b, Structure at the base and subcrop below Mesozoic marine section, Gulf of Mexico

,

basin, in Salvador, A., ed., The Gulf of Mexico basin: Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America,

v. J, pl. 3, scale 1:2,500,000.

Schumm, S.A., 1986, 

,

Alluvial river response to active tectonics, in Active tectonics: Washington, D.C., National Academy

Press, p. 80–94.

Stover

,

, C.W., and Coffman, J.L., 1993, Seismicity of the United States earthquakes, 1568–1989 (revised.): U.S. Geologcal

Survey Professional Paper 1527, p. 327–331. [Available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ ].

T,

arr, A.C., and Wheeler, R.L., 2006, Earthquakes in Virginia and vicinity 1774–2004: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 2006–1017 [Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1017/].

Wheeler

,

, R.L., 2003, Tectonic summaries for web-served earthquake responses, southeastern North America: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 03–343, 27 p. [Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr-03-343 ].

Wheeler

,

, R.L., and Heinrich, P.V., compilers, 1998, Fault number 1022, Gulf-margin normal faults, Louisiana and

,

Arkansas, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey accessed on March 10,

2010 at http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults .

Zoback, M.D., and Zoback, M.L., 1991, 

,

Tectonic stress field of North America and relative plate motions, in Slemmons,

,

D.B., Engdahl, E.R., Zoback, M.D., and Blackwell, D.D., eds., Neotectonics of North America: Geological Society of

America, The Decade of North American Geology map v. 1, p. 339–366.

EXPLANATION

Epicenter

MMI Observations

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

Urban Areas

Generalized MMI

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

SCALE 1:1 100 000

Albers Conic Equal-Area Projection

0 12.5 25 50 75 100 125

KILOMETERS

0 12.5 25 50 75 100 125

MILES

Monroe Uplift Area

CONVERSION FACTORS

Multiply By To obtain

3.281 feet (ft)

0.6214 miles (mi)

meters (m)

kilometers (km)

Any use of trade, product or firm 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 contains copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to 

reproduce copyrighted items for other than personal use must be secured 

from the copyright owner.

Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system 

at the U.S. Geological Survey, no warranty expressed or implied is made 

regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system, or for general 

or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such 

warranty. The U.S. Geological Survey shall not be held liable for improper or 

incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein.

The suggestions and illustrations included in this document are intended to 

improve earthquake awareness and preparedness; however, they do not 

guarantee the safety of an individual or structure. The contributors and 

sponsors of this publication do not assume any liability for any injury, death, 

property damage, or other effects of an earthquake.

This and other USGS information products are available at:

http://store.usgs.gov/. 

U.S. Geological Survey

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

To learn about the USGS and its information products visit:

http://www.usgs.gov/. 

1-888-ASK-USGS

This report is available at:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1117

Publishing support provided by: 

Denver Science Publishing Network

Manuscript approved for publication on May 3, 2011.

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Center Director, USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center

Box 25046, Mail Stop 966

Denver, CO 80225

(303) 273–8679

Or visit the Geologic Hazards Science Center Website at:

http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/.